What would a player skill bar look like in GW2 if creativity and intuition were the fulcrum of PvP encounters?

[Swagg.9236]

This game could have easily gotten away with 4 skills on the weapon bar; and every weapon bar could have been actually good instead of just relegating 70% of the options to a burning trash pile.

 

You could have given all weapons generic, slower, low-power autoattacks (incentivizes game design toward more high-impact, low-CD active skills and generating unique ways to provide damage support instead of falling back on automated spam to finish PvP encounters or carry DPS between burst intervals).  With less weight on weapon choice as the means of "forging a playstyle" (which, in GW2, is akin to just pressing the buttons off cooldown), roles and playstyles could come from an expanded utility bar.  It's easy to adjust damage values, and GW2 design isn't much more complicated than a numbers-game; so even if you removed a bunch of pure-damage skills from the game (or relocated some of them to the utility bar pool), it'd be easy to make up for the loss by adding appropriate impact to whatever skills were deemed valuable enough to stay by means of lower CDs, more damage, and stronger on-field effects.

 

The main way to balance a refocus of impact into fewer, more focused skill sets would be to remove any sort of risk-insulation which saturates the current GW2 metagame:  evasion or block periods that are tied to attacks or allow users to take free actions during their durations, protracted damage negation (i.e. Block attacks for X seconds), teleports tied to attacks, ranged attacks without projectiles or appropriate delays, and no attacks which flow from damage negation into instant, auto-targeted retaliation (i.e. Illusionary Counter, Riposte, etc).  If you're going to attack, your attack is going to put you at risk; however, if it connects, it's going to definitely impact the overall game-state.  This shifts the current GW2 metagame of stacking risk-insulation effects so one can just act with impunity during protracted periods of time toward one of legitimately reading opponents and timing strikes.

 

On top of all of this, and in order to prevent certain weapons from just being consistently sub-optimal in certain regards, it'd be more than possible to make sure that each weapon set featured at least two of the few features that most players seek in a "good" GW2 weapon:  CC/area control, mobility, support (healing, condition removal, damage negation) and/or a high-damage/big threat attack.  Under this formula, it'd be possible to design weapon sets which not only establish distinct roles, but at least allow the weapon-swap mechanic to allow a player to cover certain sets' weaknesses (i.e. "equip a high damage set with no mobility but have a mobility skill on tap with the other weapon set").  The game would also benefit from mobility options being generally very powerful rather than hindered by long cooldowns; without being necessarily tied to game-ending attacks or free damage negation, mobility skills in GW2 could be free to be consistently super strong utility options and a potential source of combo generation (i.e. imagine multiple classes getting low-CD Ride the Lightning or Infiltrator Arrow variants with unique support gimmicks; or even more interesting movement mechanics entirely like those seen on the raptor, springer, jackal or griffin mounts).

 

On top of this, it's more than possible to re-balance elite skills into effects which don't necessarily have to completely warp any active game-states with the press of a button (i.e. a comprehensive "elite skill" design paradigm that mimics the Mirage's [Jaunt]; it's not like the world is cripplingly dependent on "whenever you activate an elite skill" procs anyway) such that elites could be folded into the utility skill pool rather than remain as their own specific skill bar slot.

 

In effect, if you wanted a GW2 weapon bar that is conducive to a PvP experience based on player intuition, creativity, reads and timing:

Slot 1:  [Generic, low-impact autoattack based on main-hand weapon; no combo effects allowed; no conditions allowed]

Slot 2:  [High-damage, low-CD, multi-ammo wind-up attack] - based on main-hand weapon

Slot 3:  Choose one:  [Mobility / Support / Damage Negation / Lethal Damage] - Thief Dual Wield gimmick generates skills based on weapon set

Slot 4:  Choose one:  [Mobility / Support / Damage Negation / Lethal Damage / Area Control / Hard, Free-Aim CC] - based on off-hand weapon

Slot 5:  [Healing Skill]

Slots 6 - 10:  [Utility Skills]

 

More creativity for build-making in general, but more importantly, the way skills are used determine how the game resolves more so than the current metagame (which is far more about which builds show up to the field rather the potential finesse behind how any individual player necessarily operates one).

[Stand The Wall.6987]

if the weapon skill bar and utility skills were like gw1 this game would probably still be a lot of fun for vets and people wouldn't burn out as much or as fast. i know i sound like a crusty gw1 player, cuz i am. would be nice if there were some actual choices tho. the 10 skills only approach only works if there are a ton of skills imo so the meta things can have counters, and the devs aren't pressured into creating power crept skills that have 5 effects.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

Here's my thing, because largely I agree with the sentiment, that a fundamental shift in the game's design philosophy is required to see any meaningfully positive change to the balance of the game. 

 

However, beyond just stating why  making these kinds of changes would be meaningful, I think it's equally important to understand exactly why these kinds of changes actually give us benefit over other design philosophies. Understanding exactly why, would at least give us a consistent blueprint or a framework where all the ideas co-align rather than contradict one another.

 

You mention this line here in particular, and I'm going to use it as a basis for the following discussion:

"On top of all of this, and in order to prevent certain weapons from just being consistently sub-optimal in certain regards, it'd be more than possible to make sure that each weapon set featured at least two of the few features that most players seek in a "good" GW2 weapon"

 

So...what exactly is a "good" weapon. Good here is something vague that needs to be clearly defined in order to layout a consistent framework. Now I think there's many ways someone can define "good" but my perspective is to analyze it through how scientific fields would consider something as being "good."

 

In scientific fields like evolution and biology...a common trait that almost every animal on Earth shares is that they have eyes, and that they can move, and that they have brains. Notice that this aligns with your idea for what a good weapon would have: Some thing that allows you to do something useful...and here, this definition of "being useful" is formalized in these fields: Things that are "good" are selected for in biological evolution, because those things can achieve a goal of some kind. This idea of being able to achieve a goal, is scalable...in that a trait like having eyes can help you see where you are going...but a higher level goal for having eyes, is that it can allow you to see predators or prey...and beyond that a higher level goal which is to achieve survival (being able to avoid enough predators, and eat enough prey long enough to reproduce). So having eyes, is a sub-goal of a larger overarching goal.

 

In other words: A skill that is useful, is a skill that can achieve a goal. How useful it is, depends on how often it is able to achieve that goal, and the more often it achieves that goal the more it is selected for.

 

The Meta naturally comes about in a race where players try to achieve a simple over-arching goal: To win PVP Matches...and that overarching goal has many sub-goals that are preliminary to it... "This skill that Pulls, allows me to land my damage, which allows me to score kills, which allows me to win games."

 

So looking at biology, you can get a feel for exactly the size in which things can achieve the same goals. Many creatures have more than 2 legs...many creatures have no eye's...many creatures are really vastly different from other creatures, and the ones that are alive today, have been selected for in that the traits they have has so far been useful to achieving their goals...some of these traits are not very obvious like...why do female praying mantis's eat their male partners after mating? It's cause that's how they ensure their continued survival. A skill that doesn't seem at it's onset useful, but actually be useful in a specific build setup where it is useful.

 

The above is why the general existing layout of the game, is not so bad...Skills do a variety of different things. The question is then...can those things...actually achieve a goal in the first place. The question of goal achieving is what is really at the heart of whether things are selected for...and whether those things will see use in builds.

 

Another thing to mention that's part of this topic, is the capacity for builds to be different in the first place. I think i can make a fair comparison here; You want weapons to have 4 skills, that are roughly homogenous in design, in a RPS like fashion. It's a fine design philosophy to have...but let's compare this in terms of build creativity...Looking at DNA, it's very much similar...DNA consists of 4 molecules (GATC). These molecules in isolation are very...VERY rigid...in that G can only connect to A and T can only connect to C. If you were to envision these molecules as being skills on a skill bar...that's not exactly creative right...so what exactly is the reason why DNA has a humongous space for diversity.

 

It's because DNA doesn't consist of just 4 molecules...DNA is a strand of millions of molecules in a specific order.  The specific order of the molecules is what allows different cells to read it like it was a set of instructions to market specific behaviors, and this vast space of different arrangements of the molecules is what gives life it's incredible diversity space.

 

Looking back at the comparison...what exactly than is the analog of the above? I think it's rather easy to see now... that it's not just the skills themselves in their isolation that will increase diversity...it's the possible combinations of these skills that can be arranged with other skills, and can be read in such ways by different people that brings about the diversity of the game...and we pretty much observe this already...players choose skills that are useful and place them into different configurations.

 

TLDR : So, i know this has so far been a huge wall of text, but i think that your post is basically touching on the right solution for the game's design, but i think it needs a more consistent framework...which hopefully I was able to explain the additional components you'd have to think about in terms of introducing creativity into the game.

 

Personal view... The game should lose the concept of roles completelyy..and become entirely free-form just like guild wars 1. I didn't talk about this but risk and trade-offs are also essential in the framework but that's an entire wall of text that I think you probably already understand very well since we've discussed it before.

[Genesis.5169]

Wow

Guild wars has been pruning stuff for 8 years.

And you guys want more?

 

Hold up seriously.

Analyze the past when has the removal of all the stuff in pvp made anything better.

Is the population in massive decline?

How many people you think left because of the indirect skill pruning via the damage nerf?

For all the mesmer nerfs removing almost every mesmer main out of pvp we have less mesmers and the same amount of mesmer hate.

 

Can you please so do some rudimentary critical thinking before you spout MORE THINGS TO REMOVE.

 

WHY OH WHY DO YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO DRUM ON WITH MORE REMOVALS IT HAS DONE NOTHING BUT REMOVE PLAYERS OUT OF PVP.

 

CHRIST STOP THIS.

YOU PEOPLE NEED YOUR KEYBOARDS TAKEN AWAY TILL YOU LEARN REMOVALS AREN'T THE ANSWER THEY JUST ALIENATE THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE TIME TO LEARN MAKING THEM QUIT.

GOD kitten
 

Your suggestion is a sure fire way to make sure the last 100 guys in pvp leave and never return, balancing for scrubs who never play pvp is just gonna make the people who play pvp leave and the scubs who never play pvp will continue to never play pvp.

 

This is what has happened for 8 years its about complexity it about losing and thinking you can balance the game around scrubs to make them lose less thing is you can't, what is going on is people die and assume its the game no its you.

Stop this please stop this gw2 can't take anymore of this pvp is basically dead.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Genesis.5169
God kitten typo's, also DISREGARD ANY POST ASKING FOR MORE PRUNING HOLY kitten

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

Just now, Genesis.5169 said:

Wow

Guild wars has been pruning stuff for 8 years.

And you guys want more?

 

Hold up seriously.

Analyze the past when has the removal of all the stuff in pvp made anything better.

Is the population in massive decline?

How many people you think left because of the indirect skill pruning via the damage nerf?

For all the mesmer nerfs removing almost every mesmer main out of pvp we have less mesmers and the same amount of mesmer hate.

 

Can you please so do some rudimentary critical thinking before you spout MORE THINGS TO REMOVE.

 

WHY OH WHY DO YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO DRUM ON WITH MORE REMOVALS IT HAS DONE NOTHING BUT REMOVE PLAYERS OUT OF PVP.

 

CHRIST STOP THIS.

YOU PEOPLE NEED YOU KEYBOARDS TAKEN AWAY TILL.

GOD kitten
 

Your suggestion is a sure fire way to make sure the last 100 guys in pvp leave and never return, balancing for scrubs who never play pvp is just gonna make the people who play pvp leave and the scubs who never play pvp will continue to never play pvp.

 

This is what has happened for 8 years its about complexity it about losing and thinking you can balance the game around scrubs to make them lose less thing is you can't, what is going on is people die and assume its the game no its you.

Stop this please stop this gw2 can't take anymore of this pvp is basically dead.

what

[Genesis.5169]

11 minutes ago, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

what

 

If you have troubles understanding that post you either haven't been playing long enough or lack intelligence of critical thought in which case ill simplify.

 

Removal of any content in pvp is going to lead to more of the same.

Which is people leaving pvp.

Because people have been leaving pvp in droves for 8 years and pvp has been removing things in droves for 8 years, this is not a coincidence this is a direct corollary response to the devs removing content that people paid for or learned to use.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Genesis.5169

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 minute ago, Genesis.5169 said:

 

If you have troubles understanding this post you either haven't been playing long enough or lack intelligence of critical thought in which case ill simplify.

 

Removal of any content in pvp is going to lead to more of the same.

Which is people leaving pvp.

Because people have been leaving pvp in droves for 8 years and pvp has been removing things in droves for 8 years, this is not a coincidence this is a direct corollary response to the devs removing content that people paid for or learned to use.

the Op’s post isn’t pruning or asking for removals? His idea is that a weapon should have 4 skills, which leaves the 5th skill as a heal, so that 6,7,8,9 and 10 are utilities.

 

If anything it’s the opposite of pruning because you get to slot more utility and elites can then also be a utility which would open up a lot more build possibilities.

 

my post was targeting some of the inconsistencies in the framework he had made to at least give it a structure he can follow because there are self-contradictory elements to it.

 

if anything this post by swagg is one of the more intelligent posts I’ve ever seen on the forum in 2ish year, a lot better application of game design than any of the nerf threads constantly spewed here.
 

 

[Genesis.5169]

17 hours ago, Swagg.9236 said:

 

 

The main way to balance a refocus of impact into fewer, more focused skill sets would be to remove any sort of risk-insulation which saturates the current GW2 metagame:  evasion or block periods that are tied to attacks or allow users to take free actions during their durations, protracted damage negation (i.e. Block attacks for X seconds), teleports tied to attacks, ranged attacks without projectiles or appropriate delays, and no attacks which flow from damage negation into instant, auto-targeted retaliation (i.e. Illusionary Counter, Riposte, etc).  If you're going to attack, your attack is going to put you at risk; however, if it connects, it's going to definitely impact the overall game-state.  This shifts the current GW2 metagame of stacking risk-insulation effects so one can just act with impunity during protracted periods of time toward one of legitimately reading opponents and timing strikes.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a long winded way of asking for pruning and simplification.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Genesis.5169

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

22 minutes ago, Genesis.5169 said:

 

This is a long winded way of asking for pruning and simplification.

 

Okay I see what you are saying. Ya, there are elements in the post that allude to simplification which I address above in my wall of text response.

 

I wouldn't go so far to call it "removals" but like you said, simplifying certain aspects of the game (like weapons) in order to homogenize them as one would a Rock/Paper/Scissors game which in theory is supposed to make the game easier to balance. This is what I focused on in my response.

 

One thing I'll say is that this class of thread, is at a step above other classeses of thread "Nerf X because Y is OP" and threads like the OP's should be encouraged, not rejected. If anything, be part of the discussion for the exchange of new ideas and new approaches to problems...so that we don't fall back to the same old problems of "Nerf Y Because Z is OP"

Edited August 12, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

Just now, Genesis.5169 said:

Wow

Guild wars has been pruning stuff for 8 years.

And you guys want more?

Elite specs?

Just now, Genesis.5169 said:

Hold up seriously.

Analyze the past when has the removal of all the stuff in pvp made anything better.

Is the population in massive decline?

How many people you think left because of the indirect skill pruning via the damage nerf?

How did this prune anything. It just messed up the balance between damage and sustain.

Just now, Genesis.5169 said:

For all the mesmer nerfs removing almost every mesmer main out of pvp we have less mesmers and the same amount of mesmer hate.

What? Its this just more salt about the mirage endurance nerf?

Just now, Genesis.5169 said:

 

Can you please so do some rudimentary critical thinking before you spout MORE THINGS TO REMOVE.

 

WHY OH WHY DO YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO DRUM ON WITH MORE REMOVALS IT HAS DONE NOTHING BUT REMOVE PLAYERS OUT OF PVP.

 

CHRIST STOP THIS.

YOU PEOPLE NEED YOUR KEYBOARDS TAKEN AWAY TILL YOU LEARN REMOVALS AREN'T THE ANSWER THEY JUST ALIENATE THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE TIME TO LEARN MAKING THEM QUIT.

GOD kitten
 

Lol?

Just now, Genesis.5169 said:

Your suggestion is a sure fire way to make sure the last 100 guys in pvp leave and never return, balancing for scrubs who never play pvp is just gonna make the people who play pvp leave and the scubs who never play pvp will continue to never play pvp.

 

This is what has happened for 8 years its about complexity it about losing and thinking you can balance the game around scrubs to make them lose less thing is you can't, what is going on is people die and assume its the game no its you.

Stop this please stop this gw2 can't take anymore of this pvp is basically dead.

You are just making a bunch of claims about the state of the game without any proof to back it up.

[Swagg.9236]

19 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

So...what exactly is a "good" weapon. Good here is something vague that needs to be clearly defined in order to layout a consistent framework. Now I think there's many ways someone can define "good" but my perspective is to analyze it through how scientific fields would consider something as being "good."

Not that I didn't read the rest of your post, but I think this is sort of the crux of everything, and it's a very good question.  My answer for it would be something that allows a player to be creative about how they affect the field and negotiate hazards on the field; specifically with regards to GW2:  high mobility with a lot of freedom in direction (i.e. mount movement) and single-hit, free-aim attacks on low cooldowns with legible wind-ups and no built-in damage-negation (i.e. lots of attacks like Mighty Blow, Savage Leap, Swoop (no evasion), Phase Smash (no evasion), Arcing Shot (if it had a 1s cast and a minimum range of 200 units), basically all of the Elementalist staff one-hit skills, etc).

 

Basically, following a paradigm evident in games like Dark Souls:  lots of hard-hitting attacks that players can technically spam, however taking actions will naturally put any player at a risk by committing them to a fixed cast animation and possible travel time.  In this paradigm, counterattacks aren't instantaneous, zero-input garbage like Illusionary Counter but rather just timing an opportunistic attack during an opponent's actions or miscalculation; risk-calculation, reads and prediction become a big aspect of combat rather than just how much of one's build insulates the user from damage while firing off attacks.  Add a lot of individual movement into this, and you have a strong foundation for baseline combat that can be further enhanced by unique effects and methods of control.

 

The only real item left hanging with this sort of combat paradigm shift is the fact that GW2 combat terrain was designed like we're playing Diablo lmao.  Combat in GW2, no matter how much you think verticality matters, really does play out almost like an isometric design.  Just because teleports can blink people through terrain or the bottoms of bridges doesn't mean that the game truly allows freedom of movement (or that baseline movement matters that much); if anything, GW2's crippling dependence on scripted movement (leaps, slides, and especially teleports) only demonstrates how limited WASD's impact is on this game's combat.  That said, if one were to redesign GW2 to be a fast, read-heavy game with a high freedom and creativity of movement, it'd almost need to entirely change how levels would be designed (particularly in PvP because they're so horribly flat and cramped in most cases).

 

Also, I agree with your wishes to return to GW1.  Complete freedom to make individual builds that amounted to trash or a monstrosity was what defined that game not only on a creative level but also on the scale of full teams of various sizes.  In fact, that limited choice and strict design philosophy filled with various drawbacks and pitfalls was what made team coordination and build synergy so vital in that game.  GW2 abandoned all of that to just make everyone run basically the same playstyle:  mash buttons during fixed periods of low risk to the user.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, Swagg.9236 said:

Not that I didn't read the rest of your post, but I think this is sort of the crux of everything, and it's a very good question.  My answer for it would be something that allows a player to be creative about how they affect the field and negotiate hazards on the field; specifically with regards to GW2:  high mobility with a lot of freedom in direction (i.e. mount movement) and single-hit, free-aim attacks on low cooldowns with legible wind-ups and no built-in damage-negation (i.e. lots of attacks like Mighty Blow, Savage Leap, Swoop (no evasion), Phase Smash (no evasion), Arcing Shot (if it had a 1s cast and a minimum range of 200 units), basically all of the Elementalist staff one-hit skills, etc).

 

Basically, following a paradigm evident in games like Dark Souls:  lots of hard-hitting attacks that players can technically spam, however taking actions will naturally put any player at a risk by committing them to a fixed cast animation and possible travel time.  In this paradigm, counterattacks aren't instantaneous, zero-input garbage like Illusionary Counter but rather just timing an opportunistic attack during an opponent's actions or miscalculation; risk-calculation, reads and prediction become a big aspect of combat rather than just how much of one's build insulates the user from damage while firing off attacks.  Add a lot of individual movement into this, and you have a strong foundation for baseline combat that can be further enhanced by unique effects and methods of control.

 

The only real item left hanging with this sort of combat paradigm shift is the fact that GW2 combat terrain was designed like we're playing Diablo lmao.  Combat in GW2, no matter how much you think verticality matters, really does play out almost like an isometric design.  Just because teleports can blink people through terrain or the bottoms of bridges doesn't mean that the game truly allows freedom of movement (or that baseline movement matters that much); if anything, GW2's crippling dependence on scripted movement (leaps, slides, and especially teleports) only demonstrates how limited WASD's impact is on this game's combat.  That said, if one were to redesign GW2 to be a fast, read-heavy game with a high freedom and creativity of movement, it'd almost need to entirely change how levels would be designed (particularly in PvP because they're so horribly flat and cramped in most cases).

 

Also, I agree with your wishes to return to GW1.  Complete freedom to make individual builds that amounted to trash or a monstrosity was what defined that game not only on a creative level but also on the scale of full teams of various sizes.  In fact, that limited choice and strict design philosophy filled with various drawbacks and pitfalls was what made team coordination and build synergy so vital in that game.  GW2 abandoned all of that to just make everyone run basically the same playstyle:  mash buttons during fixed periods of low risk to the user.

 

Ya. It's hard to discuss this without thinking for a while on the topic because you already touch on a lot of interesting points in really good detail. In my view, The movement of the game is difficult to analyze because personally I like the movement in the game, which has to do more maybe with my personal affinity toward the fluidity of combat...kinda like John Woo Gun-Fu and kung-fu fighting, where the fluidity of combat is what makes gw2 feels like actions are happening in a way that feels good, rather than say, a turn based RPG.

 

However, the problem that happens with the gun-fu kung-fu fluid combat in my view which you point out...is the insulation of risk that comes from just mashing buttons. I think trade-offs in the game are missing, and that's the big disconnect between the fun-ness of the fluid combat, and the actual consequences of actions that are taken. I think it's totally plausible to instate intellectual trade-offs (Trade-offs in the effects of skills), while keeping the combat fluid (without instating locked or highly choreographed animations.)

 

I don't know if you agree or disagree but I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Also let me know if i misinterpreted or misrepresented anything you said, just wanna make sure im also understanding your points and not missing them

Edited August 13, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[RedAvenged.5217]

Are you really gonna make a post with such an interesting topic as the title and use it to complain about set weapons skills and say the reality is there is no innovation?

[Swagg.9236]

On 8/12/2021 at 8:35 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Ya. It's hard to discuss this without thinking for a while on the topic because you already touch on a lot of interesting points in really good detail. In my view, The movement of the game is difficult to analyze because personally I like the movement in the game, which has to do more maybe with my personal affinity toward the fluidity of combat...kinda like John Woo Gun-Fu and kung-fu fighting, where the fluidity of combat is what makes gw2 feels like actions are happening in a way that feels good, rather than say, a turn based RPG.

 

However, the problem that happens with the gun-fu kung-fu fluid combat in my view which you point out...is the insulation of risk that comes from just mashing buttons. I think trade-offs in the game are missing, and that's the big disconnect between the fun-ness of the fluid combat, and the actual consequences of actions that are taken. I think it's totally plausible to instate intellectual trade-offs (Trade-offs in the effects of skills), while keeping the combat fluid (without instating locked or highly choreographed animations.)

 

I don't know if you agree or disagree but I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Also let me know if i misinterpreted or misrepresented anything you said, just wanna make sure im also understanding your points and not missing them

No, I think I agree with you, and I think we're touching on the same vein.  The concept of a "fun or good game" is sort of embedded in a fine balance between how much a player feels like they have control over their avatar and how much their individual inputs return satisfaction.  It's kind of like... the differences and compromises in player freedom between two ends of a spectrum that goes from INHUMAN APM on one end with GODLY READS AND MIXUPS / "HE JUST GOES IN AND FLICKS EVERYONE" on the opposite side.

 

If I had to give examples, I'd say to pick your poison:  Smash Bros. Melee / Gunz: The Duel or Dark Souls / Team Fortress 2.  On one end, we have a blinding flurry of inputs for the sake of intense, one-with-the-player avatar movement; and although there is not a lot satisfaction to be found within individual inputs, because the volume of actions is so dense, it's possible to translate real-time thoughts into gameplay (the sacrifice is that people who play these games just get literal carpal tunnel syndrome).  At the other end, we have games designed around a slower rhythm of action with the most consistent big rewards only coming from actions which are inherently risky via action  impact generally only yielding high impact when within the range of an enemy attack. (the sacrifice in this game design is generally movement is clunkier or more restrictive in order to infuse risk, committal and logical follow-throughs for each action taken).

 

If you were to ask me, GW2 had a legitimate chance at being something very similar to Dark Souls (I don't keep using this as a rabid fan of the series, but rather because I see distinct similarities between Soulsbourne games and GW1's baseline gameplay along with what might have been a logical progression of the franchise).  In GW1, players were often locked in place during combat; the game was SUPER CLUNKY, but by forcing all players to remain stationary while taking actions, it made people consider the timing of certain skills (or influenced the design of skills altogether i.e. Bull's Strike, Melandru's Shot, etc), range footsies, and team coordination/positioning.  If GW2 kept GW1's emphasis on stationary action, it would have also naturally created another modifier state for combat (i.e. "Skill does [bonus] if striking a target in motion/standing still."), but as it stands, people in GW2 just kind of run around in circles while spamming whatever they want and most skills that root players often provide passive damage-negation.

 

Personally, I wish GW2 would have a stronger dichotomy between in-combat and out-of-combat movement:  OOC movement would be fast and flashy with lots of easy-input movement that provided a lot of unique freedoms in height access, jump arcs, and mid-air movement; however IC movement would be a lot more restrictive and paced around heavy-hitting skills with legible wind-ups.  The (maybe impossible) cherry on top would be a tie-in between the two like an engine overhaul which would allow a certain conservation of momentum which might boost certain skill damage based on current travel speed.  Add in the ability to use most skills in mid-air, and you would have a super cool way to initiate most combat:  boost speed with crazy movement chains/combos and then flow into a big-hitter skill that would get boosted damage because the user is moving at 200 sanics/second through the air.  It would add to the skill ceiling without being entirely overpowered because the attack skill would still have a fair wind-up (but it would be a consistent tactic in PvE).

Edited August 16, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[Swagg.9236]

16 hours ago, RedAvenged.5217 said:

Are you really gonna make a post with such an interesting topic as the title and use it to complain about set weapons skills and say the reality is there is no innovation?

Unless anet is willing to entirely rip up their garbage systems (effectively admitting that they've designed a bland, shallow game), you aren't going to get anything but more of the same layered on top of this base layer of boring.  For instance, everything that the Virtuoso does already exists in the game; just because anet decided to copy-paste already-existing skills onto a player weapon bar, change some values, and then add a lot of purple particle effects to it doesn't mean that you aren't straight-up getting recycled content marketed as "new features."

 

Remember that the "taunt" mechanic existed in an asura starter zone as a kitten joke since 2012; but the devs sounded so proud when they were showing that off when spoiling the Revenant.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

It would look exactly as it always has, but when you hover over skills like [Prime Light Beam] (That's the big lazor holo elite skill) it wouldn't say "Damage: 3"

 

????

[Swagg.9236]

30 minutes ago, Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

It would look exactly as it always has, but when you hover over skills like [Prime Light Beam] (That's the big lazor holo elite skill) it wouldn't say "Damage: 3"

 

????

And if it didn't say "Damage: 3," it also wouldn't CC, wouldn't need to inflict conditions, and just leave a pulsing, linear AoE on the ground (and also probably have a 5s CD with 3 ammo count which recharges individually every 10s); and then that would be basically the main source of all outgoing damage on that player's bar.

 

Yeah, sure.  That actually works decently.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

5 minutes ago, Swagg.9236 said:

And if it didn't say "Damage: 3," it also wouldn't CC, wouldn't need to inflict conditions, and just leave a pulsing, linear AoE on the ground (and also probably have a 5s CD with 3 ammo count which recharges individually every 10s); and then that would be basically the main source of all outgoing damage on that player's bar.

 

Yeah, sure.  That actually works decently.

S'not a question about how it should work. It is ruining my immersion.

 

When it does 3 damage.... sure; points for creativity. I definitely did NOT expect that.

But that also takes a lot of points off the intuition score, because when a giant beam of solid light tickles.... Hrm 🤔

[Swagg.9236]

4 minutes ago, Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

S'not a question about how it should work. It is ruining my immersion.

 

When it does 3 damage.... sure; points for creativity. I definitely did NOT expect that.

But that also takes a lot of points off the intuition score, because when a giant beam of solid light tickles.... Hrm 🤔

Flavor is not function.  Flavor, therefore, should not govern function.  Immersion is something that comes after the gameplay is actually good.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

21 minutes ago, Swagg.9236 said:

Immersion is something that comes after the gameplay is actually good.

Well there goes my hopes and dreams of an immersive GW2 PvP experience. 😩

 

[Swagg.9236]

On 8/12/2021 at 9:33 AM, Genesis.5169 said:

 

This is a long winded way of asking for pruning and simplification.

GW2 is currently so bloated and homogenous that its excess of skills is what prevents players from developing any sort of innate complexity in the base gameplay.  If you remove all of the skills that are basically already copies of each other, you are opening GW2's windpipe to let it breathe for once.  Putting risk back into the game is what would instantly develop a significant skill ceiling for PvP interactions.  As it stands, GW2 PvP is super reactive, passive and operates on fixed, internal timers rather than on-the-fly intuition and creativity.

[Genesis.5169]

41 minutes ago, Swagg.9236 said:

GW2 is currently so bloated and homogenous that its excess of skills is what prevents players from developing any sort of innate complexity in the base gameplay.  If you remove all of the skills that are basically already copies of each other, you are opening GW2's windpipe to let it breathe for once.  Putting risk back into the game is what would instantly develop a significant skill ceiling for PvP interactions.  As it stands, GW2 PvP is super reactive, passive and operates on fixed, internal timers rather than on-the-fly intuition and creativity.

 

So wait your telling me.

Less is more?

Wait so.

Hold up...

Wait a minute.

 

If i have 10 skills instead of 20 skills it's less complicated because i have only good options?

You heard it folks.

Checkers is harder then chess.

Holy wow i bet you think your on to something here.

 

No.

Holy kitten no.

 

If you didn't catch it he said put more risk in the game by reducing risk by reducing options, the rest are just buzzwords.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Genesis.5169

[Leonidrex.5649]

1 hour ago, Genesis.5169 said:

 

So wait your telling me.

Less is more?

Wait so.

Hold up...

Wait a minute.

 

If i have 10 skills instead of 20 skills it's less complicated because i have only good options?

You heard it folks.

Checkers is harder then chess.

Holy wow i bet you think your on to something here.

 

No.

Holy kitten no.

 

If you didn't catch it he said put more risk in the game by reducing risk by reducing options, the rest are just buzzwords.

the guy thinks he is einstein, he really is not
if yall wanna make the game better, we should buff, YES BUFF unused, bad skills, this will even bridge the gap between elite and core specs. there isnt much choice because most things are no-brainer auto-include 
when you look at a meta spec and the only things you can really change is 1-2 traits AT BEST and maybe amulet you know there is a problem.
buff the useless kitten and make it even SOMEWHAT viable, stop will removing things.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

Alright so let's clear the air here, because right now, what's being talked about are topics that can't be treated this casually.

 

Complexity, simplicity, diversity and homogeneity. These are all definitions that are explicitly defined in scientific fields, in particular, the field of Complex System Theory, and when used too casually, there is going to be confusion about how these 4 things are interrelated to one another, and how they are applied to the game. 

 

Complexity and Simplicity: They are one in the same

Now I've studied Complex Systems Theory, for a very very long time, and so allow me to deeply explain this to give the current argument some boundaries and some clarity.

 

The first thing to note here, is that the number of elements...which is whether it's 10 skills, 20 skills, 30 skills...n skills, is not enough information to define the complexity of a system. a game of 100 skills, might be less complex, than a system of 5 skills. In order to talk about the complexity of a system, you need both the number of elements, and the relationship between these elements.

Commonly, you can think of a relationship, as you would the "dimensionality" of the system. The more elements have relationships with other elements, the higher the dimensionality of that system, which means the more relationships there are between elements.

 

Generally speaking, the more elements there are in a system, the number of relationships between the elements also increases exponentially with the number of elements. In other words, a system with many things, will typically be more complex. You can also view this in terms of dimensionality. Increasing the dimension of a square, increases the number of sides linearly (4 sides, 6 sides, 8 sides...etc)...but the number of vertices increases exponentially (4 vertices, 8 vertices, 16 vertices etc...) also again same concept for how a 2 dimensional square is defined by it's area (a^2), where as a 3 dimensional cube is defined by it's volume (a^3) and a 4 dimensional hypercube is defined by a 4 dimensional volume a^4) and so on.

 

So as the number of elements in a system increases, the complexity will also increase exponentially. The key difference is that, you can only increase the number of elements linearly, while the relationships between these elements have no bound and can grow exponentially with any amount of dimensionality. This is why a game with 5 skills and a dimensionality of 100 (5¹⁰⁰), is going to be way more complex than a game with 100 skills with a dimensionality of 1. (100¹).

 

Traditionally, all complex systems are broken down into their most fundamental components using Network graphs. This way, you can model a game with 5 skills, with large dimensionality, as a graph with 5¹⁰⁰ nodes and each line (called an edge) connects one node to only one other node. Likewise, a game with 100 skills with a low dimensionality, would be modeled in the same way.

 

How Homogeneity and Diversity are related to Game Complexity

At this point, we can start talking about homogeneity, and heterogeneity (diversity) and how these two things are related to complex systems.

 

Homogeneity is defined as uniformity, where heterogeneity is defined as differentiation. The only thing you need to know is that the two things, which at first glance appear as different concepts, are actually the same exact mechanism, that can only be truly described as system evolution. I'm not gonna go too deep into why, because it involves knowing a bit about thermodynamics and chaos theory...but essentially, all systems are moving from homogenous->heterogenous->homogenous at a larger scale (known as equilibrium). For Guild Wars 2, because we start out with all of our elements available to us, the game starts out maximally heterogenous, and moves towards homogeneity at a larger scale (equilibrium).

 

This notion of differentiation is tied inextricably to the complexity of the system in question. You can imagine why in the following example:

 

You have a simple game where you have two coins that have 2 faces: Heads and Tails. The maximum possible configurations these coins can take is HH, TT, HT TH. In this scenario, there are two homogenous states (HH,TT) and two heterogenous states (HT, TH)

 

Now, we up the complexity of this game, with a system of three coins, that have 3 faces, Heads, Tails and Snouts. The system can take now, a maximum possible configurations is 27 possible states: 3 homogenous states (HHH,TTT,SSS) 18 heterogenous states, 6 of which are unique (HHT, HHS, TTH, TTS, SSH, SST) and 6 equilibrium states, only 1 of which is unique (HTS).

 

As the complexity of the system goes up, the number of possible heterogenous states the game could be in at any given time goes up. Why? It's because diversity is tied directly to the total number of possible configurations the game can ever be in.

 

So, looking at the two more complicated games from the earlier example, the game with 5 skills with 5¹⁰⁰ complexity space, is going to have more heterogenous states, than a game with 100 skills with a 100¹ complexity space.

 

The last thing to note, is that we mentioned above, that systems (in particular the game) moves from heterogenous -> homogenous at a higher scale (equilibrium), because the mechanism at play is dynamic...it changes with time. So a diverse system, will eventually collapse to a homogenous system at a higher scale (equilibrium). If you notice, "homogenous at a higher scale" means that a system at equilibrium, is equivalent to the state of a homogenous system, just at a different scale...where the system is uniformly H, T and S, rather than uniformly all H's, all T's or all S's.

 

 

@Genesis.5169

So, is checkers harder than chess?

The answer is no it's not (which means you are right about that)...the reason it's not is because of what is explained above. You can actually go to this wiki article and look at the game complexity of chess, and you can take a loot at this link to find the game complexity of  Checkers. Checkers has a game complexity space of 10^53 (possible configurations) and is in Pspace complexity class. Chess has a complexity space of 10^120 (possible configurations) and is in the complexity class of Exptime. Pspace is basically the same as thing exptime, exptime being slightly more complex, because of it's higher dimensionality, and the larger number reflects that difference in complexity.

 

@Swagg.9236 

Now is Swagg wrong about this idea of simplification of the game?

The answer is no, he's not wrong here either. Simplifying the game, can lead to greater complexity so long as that simplification co-aligns with the above principles laid out in complex systems theory. Having fewer skills, with a higher dimensionality, can still give you a complex and rich game, than a game with many low dimensionality skills. However, this is why I think making this post is important, because the above is absolutely necessary information to understand exactly what changes one would have to make in order to get the outcome he desires.

 

Conclusion:

So I placed in this post a number of links that people can check out, not only for additional research, but to also show everyone that I'm not blowing smoke or anything like that. Additionally, for those interested in how, in a general sense, Complexity arises from Simplicity, and visa versa, I would also suggest taking a look into the work of computer scientists like Stephan Wolfram, who are really bridging the gap between computational complexity, and general systems evolution, which are right now being considered as being possible theories of everything, which I pretty firmly agree with, given the amount of time I've spent studying this stuff myself.

 

Also sorry for the long post...hope this was somehow helpful in keeping the conversation level.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Swagg.9236]

21 hours ago, Genesis.5169 said:

 

So wait your telling me.

Less is more?

Wait so.

Hold up...

Wait a minute.

 

If i have 10 skills instead of 20 skills it's less complicated because i have only good options?

You heard it folks.

Checkers is harder then chess.

Holy wow i bet you think your on to something here.

 

No.

Holy kitten no.

 

If you didn't catch it he said put more risk in the game by reducing risk by reducing options, the rest are just buzzwords.

To be brief since I kind of wanted to read some of the new stuff in this thread, yes, less is more, but it can't be left out in a vacuum; "less is more" is true within the context of interacting systems present in GW2.  GW2 doesn't feature a lot of unique or role-defining mechanics, therefore, each class has A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF OVERLAP when it comes to what any single one of them can contribute to a party.  This is why we have such rabid competition and number crunching when it comes to questions like "What is the best DPS, Support, etc in raids":  all the classes kind of do the same thing, so people get extra feisty about their preferences because they are mostly grounded in flavor rather than function or playstyle.  It means that people's intentions, efforts and opinions are easily invalidated by cold, unfeeling calculations based entirely on patch note releases.  There is no room for creativity or expression in GW2 because it's smothered by incongruent bloat.

 

GW2 IS TOO SHALLOW to support 9 classes with 20-30 buttons per bar.  Eighty percent of this game's skills all roughly do the same thing.  There is no justifiable reason for this game to feature so many active (and especially passive) options.  If anything, you would see an emergence of true roles, draw-backs and playstyles if you just culled the game down to 3 classes, each with a flexible skill bar of maybe 8-10 slots total.  However, I refrained from throwing down that statement from the outset because I absolutely knew it would probably garner a knee-jerk reaction regarding the act of  "removing/cutting content."  A lot of the GW2 playerbase at this point has been conditioned to think in a certain way, and it's very difficult to break away from the habit of "more is better" after one has known nothing but life inside of a shiny, flavor-gilded sarcophagus entombed in a pyramid of bloat.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Swagg.9236