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

[Swagg.9236]

13 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

I've never seen anybody adopt this sort of mindset before with regards to GW2's holistic design philosophy (if one even really exists anymore), and I think it boils down to that key word:  emergence.  GW2 doesn't really feature any sort of emergent gameplay whatsoever; all of the potential is trapped within the sum of the game's parts.  There are so many dead-end mechanics that either have no synergy with each other, or stash all of their synergy with other isolated, incongruent gimmicks like a single trait.  Combat in GW2 constantly comes down to a simple numbers game--patch release to patch release--to determine the metagame's top dogs rather than somebody accidentally discovering some engine quirk or a handful of people just pushing an singular system element to an extreme that nobody thought viable.

 

Incongruency is probably the biggest sin of GW2's design.  It's the reason why the game has so much bloat, and it's the reason why elite specializations were probably the final nail in this game's coffin when it comes to innovative design and player-participation in emergent gameplay.  Elite Specs DO NOT build off of any sort of universal skill floor.  Everyone is so excited about new ones coming out, but the question should be:  "How do my skills as a Guardian transfer into playing Willbender?"  The answer is that they DO NOT in any form whatsoever.  GW2's metagame (particularly in PvP) is a constant demonstration of the Galapagos Effect:  everything is so incongruent with other elements of gameplay, that it's like every build is just trapped on its own little archipelago.  This is why new Elite Spec drops tend to either be completely worthless or entirely overbearing on the current gameplay ecosystem.  Due to the innate isolation of all gameplay elements in GW2, any new additions are going to compete with them in a binary "It's better or it's worse" paradigm.  There is no natural development or emergent identity to come from any sort of interaction between new and old content.

 

To sum up my thoughts of GW2 after playing it for so long, I've developed a few truths about this game:

- It never needed more than 3 classes (and that's a shame because I enjoyed playing nearly all of them consistently in GW1).

- It always needed drastically less skills per build; refocus roles by culling the homogenous versatility featured in every single "good" GW2 build (even removing the weapon swap is on the table for this if you ask me).

- Traits were a mistake (they just cloud combat legibility with passive effects; makes combat an esoteric experience that has to be parsed by new players via JUST READING mountains of tool tips or third-party sites rather than just playing the game).

- GW2 has always desperately needed a way for players to create or modify content (particularly for PvP).  If this playerbase had access to a map editor and some assets, there probably would have been dozens of different decent maps by now, a good handful of fun meme maps, and potentially even some outright new modes which could have seen more success that 3-point conquest.

- GW2 definitely needed to find a way to make WASD matter in combat; relying on movement scripts (often tied to attacks) was one of the fastest ways to kill emergent gameplay.

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

  

1 hour ago, Swagg.9236 said:

I've never seen anybody adopt this sort of mindset before with regards to GW2's holistic design philosophy (if one even really exists anymore), and I think it boils down to that key word:  emergence.  GW2 doesn't really feature any sort of emergent gameplay whatsoever; all of the potential is trapped within the sum of the game's parts.  There are so many dead-end mechanics that either have no synergy with each other, or stash all of their synergy with other isolated, incongruent gimmicks like a single trait.  Combat in GW2 constantly comes down to a simple numbers game--patch release to patch release--to determine the metagame's top dogs rather than somebody accidentally discovering some engine quirk or a handful of people just pushing an singular system element to an extreme that nobody thought viable.

 

Incongruency is probably the biggest sin of GW2's design.  It's the reason why the game has so much bloat, and it's the reason why elite specializations were probably the final nail in this game's coffin when it comes to innovative design and player-participation in emergent gameplay.  Elite Specs DO NOT build off of any sort of universal skill floor.  Everyone is so excited about new ones coming out, but the question should be:  "How do my skills as a Guardian transfer into playing Willbender?"  The answer is that they DO NOT in any form whatsoever.  GW2's metagame (particularly in PvP) is a constant demonstration of the Galapagos Effect:  everything is so incongruent with other elements of gameplay, that it's like every build is just trapped on its own little archipelago.  This is why new Elite Spec drops tend to either be completely worthless or entirely overbearing on the current gameplay ecosystem.  Due to the innate isolation of all gameplay elements in GW2, any new additions are going to compete with them in a binary "It's better or it's worse" paradigm.  There is no natural development or emergent identity to come from any sort of interaction between new and old content.

 

 

Ya well said. This is exactly how i view the problems of the game as well. This is why I liked your original post and wanted to provide some additional input because by and large, there is a "better or worse" paradigm that the community is stuck in as well (buff this/nerf that), and  it's rare to see people like yourself, stepping out of that paradigm and thinking out of the box.

 

My only concern, is that most people are simply not ready...and not equipped to even understand what the problem of the game is (It's complexity)...and that it might be impossible to escape this paradigm because of the general lack of trying to analyze the problem past "buff this nerf that."

 

Another concern I have is, how outside the box can we go without completely changing the game in a way where we can't recognize it as Guild Wars 2 anymore? Are the problems so deep that the game is fundamentally flawed on a primordial level? Is it worth it to trade the current identity of the game for a better game? What if, the future is uncertain, and what we get isn't a better game? What if they don't do the changes correctly and completely miss the mark on understanding those philosophies as they should be followed?

 

Quote

- GW2 has always desperately needed a way for players to create or modify content (particularly for PvP).  If this playerbase had access to a map editor and some assets, there probably would have been dozens of different decent maps by now, a good handful of fun meme maps, and potentially even some outright new modes which could have seen more success that 3-point conquest.

 

This I largely agree with as well. Mod's are a huge reason why other games have the longevity that they do. It's the same principle for why there are millions of YouTube videos, hundreds of thousands of songs, and thousands of movies. The creative capacity of the human mind is like...the biggest contributor towards the complexity of any game. (GTA/Garry'sMod/SFM/Warcraft3) to name a few creator driven communities)

 

I feel like The Server System was a prototype for the idea of player created, modifiable PVP content, and we saw this reflected in the existence of the dueling/hotjoin community...but the system was abandoned a long time ago and it has flaws that prevent it from flourishing into the system it could have potentially been.

Edited August 15, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Swagg.9236]

3 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

  

 

Ya well said. This is exactly how i view the problems of the game as well. This is why I liked your original post and wanted to provide some additional input because by and large, there is a "better or worse" paradigm that the community is stuck in as well (buff this/nerf that), and  it's rare to see people like yourself, stepping out of that paradigm and thinking out of the box.

 

My only concern, is that most people are simply not ready...and not equipped to even understand what the problem of the game is (It's complexity)...and that it might be impossible to escape this paradigm because of the general lack of trying to analyze the problem past "buff this nerf that."

 

Another concern I have is, how outside the box can we go without completely changing the game in a way where we can't recognize it as Guild Wars 2 anymore? Are the problems so deep that the game is fundamentally flawed on a primordial level? Is it worth it to trade the current identity of the game for a better game? What if, the future is uncertain, and what we get isn't a better game? What if they don't do the changes correctly and completely miss the mark on understanding those philosophies as they should be followed?

 

 

This I largely agree with as well. Mod's are a huge reason why other games have the longevity that they do. It's the same principle for why there are millions of YouTube videos, hundreds of thousands of songs, and thousands of movies. The creative capacity of the human mind is like...the biggest contributor towards the complexity of any game. (GTA/Garry'sMod/SFM/Warcraft3) to name a few creator driven communities)

 

I feel like The Server System was a prototype for the idea of player created, modifiable PVP content, and we saw this reflected in the existence of the dueling/hotjoin community...but the system was abandoned a long time ago and it has flaws that prevent it from flourishing into the system it could have potentially been.

Yes, I think the biggest hurdle isn't even actually implementing any sort of ideas anymore but rather whether or not anybody would support a change that would up-end the excessive simplicity of GW2 from beneath the playerbase that now ardently expects it.  GW2, clearly even during its early developmental era, was certainly more on a path of flavor and style over substance.  The Thief is still probably one of the biggest pieces of evidence:  a class that doesn't fit in with any others in the game, operating on an entirely different combat paradigm compared to everything else; consistently either extremely overpowered or impotent depending on the state of the metagame; probably developed more as a showcase for a marketable gimmick (stealth) than with a purpose within a holistic array of roles (particularly because of how easily it is replaced by other classes/builds that basically just do what it does nowadays).  This isn't to criticize Thief on its own respective design (initiative still allows for probably the most creativity in playstyles for the game), but it demonstrates how Anet probably just drafted up a bunch of professions willy-nilly and grab-bagged the final product rather than truly using any sort of foresight to craft an emergent system from disparate elements.

 

The released product was fundamentally flawed.  Even in its early stages, it was fraught with bloat (I'm sure people probably still remember the staff ele PvE DPS meta).  Yet, at the same time, the fact that the early game's clear trend toward auto-attack metas in PvE (like, straight up, the Warrior DPS rotation was auto-attacking with axe mainhand) was kind of the point at which the game could have been saved from mediocrity.  If you ask me, had anet leaned into movement, positioning and timing as the thing to build player skill in the game (more fights like the Molten Duo for instance) rather than buffing/nerfing already existing skills, we might have seen the opportunity for more emergent gameplay to form.  However, the condition update and HoT effectively killed any sort of hope for that reality.  If you ask me, GW2 is doomed to a claustrophobic skill ceiling for the rest of its lifespan.  Nobody expects complexity, and in fact, they will aggressively argue against its implementation.  You'll never see people band together and say something like "You know, what, yeah, just make a single, compressed weapon set out of Elementalist scepter/dagger MH/dagger OH/sword" (because not only could anybody do this, but it'd be a super fun weapon set with a lot of crazy abilities).  Instead, the GW2 playerbase will argue to the death that Warrior mace OH deserves to exist despite it contributing absolutely nothing to any gameplay interactions; also that, instead of compressing and culling, [Tremor] should just deal 11k if it hits so that it can finally be "good" (or something silly along those lines).

 

Edit:  I also understand that I'm getting pretty vitriolic by this point, but it's just the way things get with this playerbase.  I don't think the people who take this game seriously at any level truly grasp how little they understand about this game's design and fundamental problems when they constantly screech about "balance" this and "balance" that.  This game is beyond balance.  It needs to be FIXED, however, considering the sort of work that this game needs in order to develop a complex PvE/PvP paradigm, it'd almost certainly be easier to just make an entirely different game.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[Genesis.5169]

The amount of pretentious nonsense is in this thread is far beyond the norm.

I'll TL'DR this for regular people.

 

More simplification and pruning will save the game because people have to many skills and because they have so many skills they don't know what to do with them so they suck at the game, And because of this they leave pvp. The rest is irrelevant to the arguments that are being made.

 

Thing is you don't have to theorycraft this is what happened already, the ICD changes were to completely remove entire traits and traitlines out of pvp, there are entire weapon sets that have been completely destroyed by design, and entire secondary offensive bar (underwater combat) was removed.

 

Christ i know its a video game but can you at least apply your logic to the reality of the situation instead of just spouting lofty pretentious what ifs when we actually have the game in front of us with a long patch history of pruning and simplification. Which lead us to a long history of people leaving pvp.

 

What the does fundamentally flawed mean such drivel christ, not all long winded and detailed posts are equal people.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Genesis.5169

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

9 hours ago, Genesis.5169 said:

The amount of pretentious nonsense is in this thread is far beyond the norm.

I'll TL'DR this for regular people.

 

More simplification and pruning will save the game because people have to many skills and because they have so many skills they don't know what to do with them so they suck at the game, And because of this they leave pvp. The rest is irrelevant to the arguments that are being made.

 

Thing is you don't have to theorycraft this is what happened already, the ICD changes were to completely remove entire traits and traitlines out of pvp, there are entire weapon sets that have been completely destroyed by design, and entire secondary offensive bar (underwater combat) was removed.

 

Christ i know its a video game but can you at least apply your logic to the reality of the situation instead of just spouting lofty pretentious what ifs when we actually have the game in front of us with a long patch history of pruning and simplification. Which lead us to a long history of people leaving pvp.

 

What the does fundamentally flawed mean such drivel christ, not all long winded and detailed posts are equal people.

 

When we are talking about removals, it’s obvious based on the math, that removing things without any compensation, leads to less configuration space and less diversity. This is just a hardcore fact about complex systems. 
 

Here is the thing, I don’t think Swagg is asking for removals. He’s saying that more than 66% or more of the games skills contributes nothing to the complexity space of the game, and thus the game is overly complicated. That there are only a handful of skills that have a high dimensionality, but a large majority have incredibly low dimensionality, or in other cases, are essentially copies of other skills and thus they don’t contribute to the overall complexity of the game and can effectively be removed with little change in how the game is currently played.

 

In other words…removing everything from the game except for say, “kick” doesn’t mean it will be useful and see usage. It has low dimensionality . Many skills are designed like “kick” so if you kept those other skills like kick in the game, means none of the copies of it are contributing to the games complexity…just over complicating it, with more low dimensionality elements.

 

So talking about simplicity there’s really two kinds we can make distinctions between. 1 element with low dimensionality is technically “simple” while 1 element with a high dimensionality is also colloquially “simple.”

 

However 1 element with high dimensionality isn’t actually simple. It’s complex. I think this is really what Swagg is getting at when he is talking about simplification. He wants less elements with higher dimensionality. In accordance with Complex Systems Theory, That higher dimensionality is compensatory to a game of many elements with low dimensionality.

 

like mentioned before, a game with 5 skills with ^100 dimensionality is gonna be more complex than a game with 10000 skills with ^2 dimensionality. You can go to an exponent calculator and do the math on that it’s not that hard to do.

 

This is also what is meant by his quote about Willbender…is Willbender actually contributing additional game complexity or are the traits so homogenous and incongruent with other specs that it’s basically just adding 1 new build to the game rather than 1000 possible new builds.
 

I share the same fear about the expansion…are the skills bringing anything new to the table? Or are they just numbers to be crunched in a spreadsheet and made to be played only one or two ways. It’s a game complexity problem

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Swagg.9236]

On 8/16/2021 at 5:09 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

When we are talking about removals, it’s obvious based on the math, that removing things without any compensation, leads to less configuration space and less diversity. This is just a hardcore fact about complex systems. 
 

Here is the thing, I don’t think Swagg is asking for removals. He’s saying that more than 66% or more of the games skills contributes nothing to the complexity space of the game, and thus the game is overly complicated. That there are only a handful of skills that have a high dimensionality, but a large majority have incredibly low dimensionality, or in other cases, are essentially copies of other skills and thus they don’t contribute to the overall complexity of the game and can effectively be removed with little change in how the game is currently played.

 

In other words…removing everything from the game except for say, “kick” doesn’t mean it will be useful and see usage. It has low dimensionality . Many skills are designed like “kick” so if you kept those other skills like kick in the game, means none of the copies of it are contributing to the games complexity…just over complicating it, with more low dimensionality elements.

 

So talking about simplicity there’s really two kinds we can make distinctions between. 1 element with low dimensionality is technically “simple” while 1 element with a high dimensionality is also colloquially “simple.”

 

However 1 element with high dimensionality isn’t actually simple. It’s complex. I think this is really what Swagg is getting at when he is talking about simplification. He wants less elements with higher dimensionality. In accordance with Complex Systems Theory, That higher dimensionality is compensatory to a game of many elements with low dimensionality.

 

like mentioned before, a game with 5 skills with ^100 dimensionality is gonna be more complex than a game with 10000 skills with ^2 dimensionality. You can go to an exponent calculator and do the math on that it’s not that hard to do.

 

This is also what is meant by his quote about Willbender…is Willbender actually contributing additional game complexity or are the traits so homogenous and incongruent with other specs that it’s basically just adding 1 new build to the game rather than 1000 possible new builds.
 

I share the same fear about the expansion…are the skills bringing anything new to the table? Or are they just numbers to be crunched in a spreadsheet and made to be played only one or two ways. It’s a game complexity problem

 

Had to step out for a week on work, but I wanted to continue this conversation a bit.  I did have a chance to play the beta specs for a bit on Tuesday and shortly on Friday, and it was kind of just as I had assumed/feared on both a gameplay and a community response level.  A few of the biggest glaring issues:

- The builds I ended up formulating for "effective" use of the new specs generally never considered the new weapons.

- The three new specs are extremely similar:  crash into a target with a stream of skills hoping to down it before they get focused (which, honestly, could define the rest of GW2 PvP).  They really bring no new mechanics or perspectives to the table; only a different color of the same flavor.

- The seams are beginning to show and split amid conversation in the PvP lobby.  As anecdotal as it is, I think it's interesting to note how a number of people are outright dismissing the specs; and, by the end of the week, ranked PvP had effectively voided itself of all new spec presence (with a number of cases in which players using the old builds telling people with beta specs to change class).  It really demonstrates the one-dimensionality of GW2 as a PvP medium.  There's no point to change anything or try anything new if it's not going to be just a clear, direct upgrade.

- Made a healer build for the Willbender (which ended up being just the typical "healer" weapons and traits for regular guardian specs except with the Willbender line for extra movement).  One of the hilarious aspects was that the Willbender adept traits are SO BAD for healing, that I legit just went into PvP foregoing those three options entirely, and the build still accomplished what I intended.  Then, after explaining it to someone, I had somebody else tell me I was playing the game wrong despite achieving my goal.

 

So, the above is all very anecdotal, but it seems to show Anet as willing to continue the trend that they've (perhaps justifiably) built for themselves.  I want to say this as non-judgmentally as possible because I don't intend to insult anybody with a comment but rather just get across a point about the kind of game that GW2 has apparently always been (or at least the one which it has become):  GW2 (especially its PvP) is a very low-energy, low-population scene because most people who play video games are too good for GW2 (and therefore, don't play it), and the people who keep playing consistently (i.e. they take GW2 seriously at its face value) are satisfied with (or fooled by) low-effort (yet artificially protracted) interactions masquerading as complex systems.  Anet has built their altar to mediocrity, and it certainly has its cult; which is why I don't think anything will ever change:  it's not just a matter of how the developer is pumping out the same product ad nauseum, but there's now also the playerbase dimension of this product line which actively encourages and consumes it.

 

Beyond just the playerbase's mentality however, there's also the case of how most of the original dev staff has basically scrubbed their resumes of this game when they jumped ship (or were fired) early on in the game's lifespan (probably best push-pinned to around 2011-2013).  After all, there's probably a good reason why it took Anet N I N E  Y E A R S to bring GW2 up from D I R E C T X 9 (9) (NINE)  to JUST DIRECTX11 (something not even slated until later this year apparently); most likely the case is that they have no staff left who can untangle the bird's nest of code without breaking things (evidenced in things like the Deadeye hitbox glitch when that class got introduced or the current instance of the weaver barrier bug).  It's not only pathetic, but it also shows that nobody within the developer staff either knows how to overhaul the engine or is willing to put in the work to do so.  That, more than anything else, really stagnates this game into the forumla that it has relied on since 2014.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[Grand Marshal.4098]

Since I read some of the initial comments let me give my 2 cents as a player. 

 

Good weapon = Quick multi-target auto attack

1 high cleave multi-target/AoE big dmg skill

1 movement skill 

1 Multi-target CC skill

1 block flip to evade skill

[Genesis.5169]

4 hours ago, Swagg.9236 said:

Had to step out for a week on work, but I wanted to continue this conversation a bit.  I did have a chance to play the beta specs for a bit on Tuesday and shortly on Friday, and it was kind of just as I had assumed/feared on both a gameplay and a community response level.  A few of the biggest glaring issues:

- The builds I ended up formulating for "effective" use of the new specs generally never considered the new weapons.

- The three new specs are extremely similar:  crash into a target with a stream of skills hoping to down it before they get focused (which, honestly, could define the rest of GW2 PvP).  They really bring no new mechanics or perspectives to the table; only a different color of the same flavor.

- The seams are beginning to show and split amid conversation in the PvP lobby.  As anecdotal as it is, I think it's interesting to note how a number of people are outright dismissing the specs; and, by the end of the week, ranked PvP had effectively voided itself of all new spec presence (with a number of cases in which players using the old builds telling people with beta specs to change class).  It really demonstrates the one-dimensionality of GW2 as a PvP medium.  There's no point to change anything or try anything new if it's not going to be just a clear, direct upgrade.

- Made a healer build for the Willbender (which ended up being just the typical "healer" weapons and traits for regular guardian specs except with the Willbender line for extra movement).  One of the hilarious aspects was that the Willbender adept traits are SO BAD for healing, that I legit just went into PvP foregoing those three options entirely, and the build still accomplished what I intended.  Then, after explaining it to someone, I had somebody else tell me I was playing the game wrong despite achieving my goal.

 

So, the above is all very anecdotal, but it seems to show Anet as willing to continue the trend that they've (perhaps justifiably) built for themselves.  I want to say this as non-judgmentally as possible because I don't intend to insult anybody with a comment but rather just get across a point about the kind of game that GW2 has apparently always been (or at least the one which it has become):  GW2 (especially its PvP) is a very low-energy, low-population scene because most people who play video games are too good for GW2 (and therefore, don't play it), and the people who keep playing consistently (i.e. they take GW2 seriously at its face value) are satisfied with (or fooled by) low-effort (yet artificially protracted) interactions masquerading as complex systems.  Anet has built their altar to mediocrity, and it certainly has its cult; which is why I don't think anything will ever change:  it's not just a matter of how the developer is pumping out the same product ad nauseum, but there's now also the playerbase dimension of this product line which actively encourages and consumes it.

 

Beyond just the playerbase's mentality however, there's also the case of how most of the original dev staff has basically scrubbed their resumes of this game when they jumped ship (or were fired) early on in the game's lifespan (probably best push-pinned to around 2011-2013).  After all, there's probably a good reason why it took Anet N I N E  Y E A R S to bring GW2 up from D I R E C T X 9 (9) (NINE)  to JUST DIRECTX11 (something not even slated until later this year apparently); most likely the case is that they have no staff left who can untangle the bird's nest of code without breaking things (evidenced in things like the Deadeye hitbox glitch when that class got introduced or the current instance of the weaver barrier bug).  It's not only pathetic, but it also shows that nobody within the developer staff either knows how to overhaul the engine or is willing to put in the work to do so.  That, more than anything else, really stagnates this game into the forumla that it has relied on since 2014.

 

So hold up.

Your assumption that pvps refusal to use the new classes is because people are afraid of change?

What the living kitten?

 

And you just gonna toss out the idea that the builds suck just like that?

Wow.

 

So when all the PoF specs like Scourge Mirage and Spellbreaker came out no one moved over?

Or how about when mirage got nerfed to the ground those mirage players continued to play mirage?

How about when when FB was nerfed and DH was buffed did all those symbolbrands stay in FB?

What about the changes to condition did all the condition classes we had before the nerf they changed nothing?

Or the countless meta changing events over 9 god kitten years.

 

My Dude.

You just spouted complete and absolute nonsense.

 

Your mad you ran a healing willbender which sucked and people wont follow you, ...are you serious?

You want people to play off meta build not succeed and continue to play them?

 

HOLY kittenING kitten.

GET OUT OF HERE LMAO, there's a pvp game mode for that its called WvW join the blob have fun individual builds don't matter because there are so much people, or even better you can just do OW PvE and succeed in any build you want.

 

I'm sure every single one of those people complaining about wanting to be able to use older builds like chrono and tempest are just liars.

 

God what an awful thread this went from crap to utter garbage in a single post.

Kittens are cool btw.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

10 hours ago, Genesis.5169 said:

So hold up.

Your assumption that pvps refusal to use the new classes is because people are afraid of change?

 

I mean basically. It's the Allegory of the Cave.

 

Everyone is a prisoner, staring at a wall of shadows. The shadows is all they know and so their idea of "change" is through the context of only the shadows. Something is UP? Buff it. Something is OP? Nerf it.

 

Your post is a shining example of the player-bases general aversion to real change, and a reflection of the allegory. You can not see, that there is a system in place...and that system is setup for you to think in such a way, where you believe that the only change that is possible is the above two operations...when in reality, there is an entire world (of possibilities) outside of the cave.

 

You can think of it this way as well. Look at Anet's current PVE content implementation. Every couple months they pump out a living world episode. The developers create maps, quests, meta events...there's really a lot of honest work that goes into each living world episode and yet...Players consume this content in a matter of a couple hours, the novelty disappears, and by the next release, the old episodes are now ghost towns. In the gaming industry, this is what they call "Theme park content." You build a new roller coaster ride... Players ride the roller coaster, and the content has become consumed. Developers who do this, usually provide a justification for it, by saying things like "it's got so much content it will take you a month or so to finish the roller coaster!" This content that "takes months" are usually "achievements" which are the equivalent of earning karma on reddit...they are fake points that are just created and incentivized to give the illusion that you've actually achieved something...when in reality that's "part of the plan."

 

Contrast this current paradigm of content implementation in PVE, with SPVP or WvW. These two game modes have had basically nothing changed about them since the games inception, and to this day is still played, even when most players are aggravated with it. The reason why is because the game-mode itself has persistent novelty. 

 

Ask now a PVE player, what they would say to a change in the current PVE implementation...they would probably tell you that they should "add more achievements" or "make the maps look cooler" or "make the meta events last longer" because again, these players are stuck in Plato's Cave. They can not fathom that it is the system in place that is keeping them from realizing that the problem has to do with game design...not how many achievements there should be or how many new masteries they should add. 

 

It's actually this mentality that is responsible for taking resources AWAY from developing game design, that is persistently novel which over time, would have been a larger return on investment, requiring rather minimal effort in comparison to implementing map after map after map after map, each time requiring more and more dev resources because of how much crap they add to them to keep the player base occupied enough for them to do the next piece of content.

 

I would suggest, taking a good look at the conversation here. You can even see, that Swagg and I midly predicted the same outcome for the beta...The beta was uninspired, a recycling of balance philosophies that don't work, and the player base reacted as you would expect them too....Just like looking at another ride on the roller coaster.

Edited August 22, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Swagg.9236]

2 hours ago, Genesis.5169 said:

 

So hold up.

Your assumption that pvps refusal to use the new classes is because people are afraid of change?

What the living kitten?

 

And you just gonna toss out the idea that the builds suck just like that?

Wow.

 

So when all the PoF specs like Scourge Mirage and Spellbreaker came out no one moved over?

Or how about when mirage got nerfed to the ground those mirage players continued to play mirage?

How about when when FB was nerfed and DH was buffed did all those symbolbrands stay in FB?

What about the changes to condition did all the condition classes we had before the nerf they changed nothing?

Or the countless meta changing events over 9 god kitten years.

 

My Dude.

You just spouted complete and absolute nonsense.

 

Your mad you ran a healing willbender which sucked and people wont follow you, ...are you serious?

You want people to play off meta build not succeed and continue to play them?

 

HOLY kittenING kitten.

GET OUT OF HERE LMAO, there's a pvp game mode for that its called WvW join the blob have fun individual builds don't matter because there are so much people, or even better you can just do OW PvE and succeed in any build you want.

 

I'm sure every single one of those people complaining about wanting to be able to use older builds like chrono and tempest are just liars.

 

God what an awful thread this went from crap to utter garbage in a single post.

Kittens are cool btw.

 

"How about when when FB was nerfed and DH was buffed did all those symbolbrands stay in FB?"

This line right here is your biggest fault.  You say "stay in FB" as if the spec itself is what primarily governs player effectiveness in PvP; therefore you, by doing so, help make MY OWN ARGUMENT about how using an out-of-combat menu is the principle measuring stick of "player skill" within the active elements of GW2 PvP.  If your game's combat paradigms are so brutally wrenched left and right by mere patch notes, how can you argue that this game really provides any space for player agency?  What room is there for creativity if you yourself are going to so blatantly hold up patch notes as the reason why people abandoned an entire spec (or at the very least, a supposed major aspect of an entire spec)?  And what does that say about the players themselves--the people who establish and propagate the GW2 PvP metagame?  If they're so willing to just go along with the patch notes and shift into some other set of passive bonuses to achieve the same, prior goals, maybe they are afraid of change?  Maybe they're satisfied with being told how to play by some faceless developer?  Maybe they don't want to imagine what it would be like if they had the power to use aggression and creativity in order to surprise somebody with a different way to use the same skill that they had just used a brief moment ago?

 

I was starting to write a novel to reply.  If that other guy replies again, maybe I'll let him read it, but suffice to say, you don't need time to see what GW2 gameplay is at its core.  Moreover, there is a fundamental issue with the "You have to play X for Y hours in order to truly understand/appreciate/have fun with Z" argument.  You're going to lose players; and the ones you retain have probably already been there for a long time because they don't feel like moving on or exploring different frontiers.  The people who have played GW2 for ages rely on a façade:  the game's own esoteric obfuscation of combat with instant abilities and passive triggers that make it seem like combat is more than players following a rotation.

[Swagg.9236]

On 8/21/2021 at 11:01 AM, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

Since I read some of the initial comments let me give my 2 cents as a player. 

 

Good weapon = Quick multi-target auto attack

1 high cleave multi-target/AoE big dmg skill

1 movement skill 

1 Multi-target CC skill

1 block flip to evade skill

If you ask me, it be WAY better if all the weapons shared the same, basic, low-impact auto-attack across all weapon types (i.e. every staff basically either had a single, generic melee attack or a Fireball-esque ranged attack).  Auto-attacks are filler; they shouldn't consistently determine how combat resolves.  If somebody found a way to stack up effects onto a single auto-attack instance for a huge hit, then that's a bit difference (since it involves investment and a bit of risk), but ultimately, there's no reason why this game even needs to have auto-attacks at all.  You could easily just give every weapon a couple of good attacks with high cast-times, short-cooldowns and maybe some resource mechanic to balance them.  Auto-attacks, as they are now, are far too oppressive to warrant their spammability; and honestly, if you neuter them, it's questionable why they would even exist at all that point.  There's basically no middle ground.  It'd be better if they just didn't exist (or at the very least, didn't take up a skill-bar slot).

 

I wouldn't mind the rest of your hypothetical weapon bar, though.

[Gwaihir.1745]

GW2: Status Quo Boogaloo

[Leonidrex.5649]

1 hour ago, Swagg.9236 said:

If you ask me, it be WAY better if all the weapons shared the same, basic, low-impact auto-attack across all weapon types (i.e. every staff basically either had a single, generic melee attack or a Fireball-esque ranged attack).  Auto-attacks are filler; they shouldn't consistently determine how combat resolves.  If somebody found a way to stack up effects onto a single auto-attack instance for a huge hit, then that's a bit difference (since it involves investment and a bit of risk), but ultimately, there's no reason why this game even needs to have auto-attacks at all.  You could easily just give every weapon a couple of good attacks with high cast-times, short-cooldowns and maybe some resource mechanic to balance them.  Auto-attacks, as they are now, are far too oppressive to warrant their spammability; and honestly, if you neuter them, it's questionable why they would even exist at all that point.  There's basically no middle ground.  It'd be better if they just didn't exist (or at the very least, didn't take up a skill-bar slot).

 

I wouldn't mind the rest of your hypothetical weapon bar, though.

or maybe, make weapons with strong auto-attacks and average skills, and then make weapons with weak auto-attacks but good skills. basic attacks dont dictate anything, and there is maybe like 3-4 of them that are actually worth a kitten.
1 lb auto ( due to absurd range ) and it sucks up close so it has its weakness
2 nades auto, too high damage, range, aoe, vuln, up-front damage
3 lich auto ( but thats a kittening elite, so it shouldnt even count as auto in the topic )
and the rest of them is seriously forgetable,
warrior axe auto chain has sick damage, but you will hardly ever land it, rev sword can be a massive damage but with utility skill turned on, ranger gs can have good dps, but you need quickness and vuln etc etc.

[Genesis.5169]

7 hours ago, Swagg.9236 said:

 

"How about when when FB was nerfed and DH was buffed did all those symbolbrands stay in FB?"

This line right here is your biggest fault.  You say "stay in FB" as if the spec itself is what primarily governs player effectiveness in PvP; therefore you, by doing so, help make MY OWN ARGUMENT about how using an out-of-combat menu is the principle measuring stick of "player skill" within the active elements of GW2 PvP.  If your game's combat paradigms are so brutally wrenched left and right by mere patch notes, how can you argue that this game really provides any space for player agency?  What room is there for creativity if you yourself are going to so blatantly hold up patch notes as the reason why people abandoned an entire spec (or at the very least, a supposed major aspect of an entire spec)?  And what does that say about the players themselves--the people who establish and propagate the GW2 PvP metagame?  If they're so willing to just go along with the patch notes and shift into some other set of passive bonuses to achieve the same, prior goals, maybe they are afraid of change?  Maybe they're satisfied with being told how to play by some faceless developer?  Maybe they don't want to imagine what it would be like if they had the power to use aggression and creativity in order to surprise somebody with a different way to use the same skill that they had just used a brief moment ago?

 

I was starting to write a novel to reply.  If that other guy replies again, maybe I'll let him read it, but suffice to say, you don't need time to see what GW2 gameplay is at its core.  Moreover, there is a fundamental issue with the "You have to play X for Y hours in order to truly understand/appreciate/have fun with Z" argument.  You're going to lose players; and the ones you retain have probably already been there for a long time because they don't feel like moving on or exploring different frontiers.  The people who have played GW2 for ages rely on a façade:  the game's own esoteric obfuscation of combat with instant abilities and passive triggers that make it seem like combat is more than players following a rotation.

 

So saying patches shouldn't affect the players skill.

Legit stop posting, if i tied both your arms behind you back and sent you off to fight your supposed to win, no matter how small patch notes are going to affect your performance.

 

Legit i'm exiting this thread never returning at all i cannot believe the crap your typing.

Everything wrong with the pvp community is encapsulated in this post it just breathes stupidity and a call for homogenization.

 

Such foolishness.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Genesis.5169

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

6 hours ago, Genesis.5169 said:

 

So saying patches shouldn't affect the players skill.

Legit stop posting, if i tied both your arms behind you back and sent you off to fight your supposed to win, no matter how small patch notes are going to affect your performance.

 

Legit i'm exiting this thread never returning at all i cannot believe the crap your typing.

Everything wrong with the pvp community is encapsulated in this post it just breathes stupidity and a call for homogenization.

 

Such foolishness.

although I agree with you that homogenization is the wrong way to go about how to approach the problem of gw2, I think you are still being unreasonable.

 

I already stated my peace about homogenization and why it doesn’t work in a mathematical sense for gw2 on older threads. Homogenization only works when the game is actually truly homogeneous…like Fortnite, Chess or Checkers. Any small deviation from that homogeneity will automatically create imbalance…and it wouldn’t be a small imbalance like one would expect, it would be massively imbalanced. Imagining an RPS game where Scissors has even the slightest advantage, and wins 35% of the time while rock and paper win only 32.5% of the time, means that clearly all players will play scissors.
 

Looking in the opposite direction at heterogeneity, skills that are more and more different from each other makes it harder to compare skills and break them down into forms that one can evaluate in an equation. This is really the true sauce for why heterogeneity works in the first place, and the entire things comes down to the complexity of the skill…how long does it take to compare and break down skills to evaluate them. The less complex the faster it takes, the more obvious it is to see which one is objectively better than the other…whereas a more complicated (highly dimensional) skill will take a much longer time (which is a good thing).

 

So in essence there are two camps of though on how to solve the problem, where Swagg would be on that Homogeneity camp I suppose. Clearly a homogenous game can still work (think of Fortnite) but that homogeneity has to actually be homogenous and not approximate, which is why I think it would fail for gw2 and it’s why I talked about the inconsistencies with the OPs solution to the problem in my first posting here on the thread.

 

Now I said you are being unreasonable and I’ll explain that now…You are dismissing everything he is saying about the problem of the game, which are true statements because you simply disagree with his solution to the problem. It’s fair to disagree with that solution but your using that to forge a total bias towards everything else he’s saying…which is unreasonable because mostly everything he’s said are facts.

[Swagg.9236]

14 hours ago, Leonidrex.5649 said:

or maybe, make weapons with strong auto-attacks and average skills, and then make weapons with weak auto-attacks but good skills. basic attacks dont dictate anything, and there is maybe like 3-4 of them that are actually worth a kitten.
1 lb auto ( due to absurd range ) and it sucks up close so it has its weakness
2 nades auto, too high damage, range, aoe, vuln, up-front damage
3 lich auto ( but thats a kittening elite, so it shouldnt even count as auto in the topic )
and the rest of them is seriously forgetable,
warrior axe auto chain has sick damage, but you will hardly ever land it, rev sword can be a massive damage but with utility skill turned on, ranger gs can have good dps, but you need quickness and vuln etc etc.

I actually wish that all damage in this game scaled based on range to target; in all cases, it would be better if up-close damage hit a maximum value while long-range damage fell off toward a minimum value.  At least that way, you would have the opportunity to apply long-range pressure, but burst would always need to occur within melee range; it incentivizes activity at risky ranges, which in turn drives interactions rather than encouraging off-screen sneak-attacks.  Then again, teleports unfortunately exist and they already circumvent the risk of approaching or escaping a target, so even something like that might not be a good way to fix anything without considering a holistic redesign of how combat resolves.

[Swagg.9236]

8 hours ago, Genesis.5169 said:

 

So saying patches shouldn't affect the players skill.

Legit stop posting, if i tied both your arms behind you back and sent you off to fight your supposed to win, no matter how small patch notes are going to affect your performance.

 

Legit i'm exiting this thread never returning at all i cannot believe the crap your typing.

Everything wrong with the pvp community is encapsulated in this post it just breathes stupidity and a call for homogenization.

 

Such foolishness.

Drawbacks create playstyles.  All GW2 releases are direct-upgrades and clones, so all its PvP scene ends up producing is bloat by the end of the day.

[Swagg.9236]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

although I agree with you that homogenization is the wrong way to go about how to approach the problem of gw2, I think you are still being unreasonable.

 

I already stated my peace about homogenization and why it doesn’t work in a mathematical sense for gw2 on older threads. Homogenization only works when the game is actually truly homogeneous…like Fortnite, Chess or Checkers. Any small deviation from that homogeneity will automatically create imbalance…and it wouldn’t be a small imbalance like one would expect, it would be massively imbalanced. Imagining an RPS game where Scissors has even the slightest advantage, and wins 35% of the time while rock and paper win only 32.5% of the time, means that clearly all players will play scissors.
 

Looking in the opposite direction at heterogeneity, skills that are more and more different from each other makes it harder to compare skills and break them down into forms that one can evaluate in an equation. This is really the true sauce for why heterogeneity works in the first place, and the entire things comes down to the complexity of the skill…how long does it take to compare and break down skills to evaluate them. The less complex the faster it takes, the more obvious it is to see which one is objectively better than the other…whereas a more complicated (highly dimensional) skill will take a much longer time (which is a good thing).

 

So in essence there are two camps of though on how to solve the problem, where Swagg would be on that Homogeneity camp I suppose. Clearly a homogenous game can still work (think of Fortnite) but that homogeneity has to actually be homogenous and not approximate, which is why I think it would fail for gw2 and it’s why I talked about the inconsistencies with the OPs solution to the problem in my first posting here on the thread.

 

Now I said you are being unreasonable and I’ll explain that now…You are dismissing everything he is saying about the problem of the game, which are true statements because you simply disagree with his solution to the problem. It’s fair to disagree with that solution but your using that to forge a total bias towards everything else he’s saying…which is unreasonable because mostly everything he’s said are facts.

I'm actually far more for heterogeneity than the opposite.  I just think that, if you need to have filler in between your role-defining abilities, said filler might as well have as little impact on the outcome of fights as possible in order to keep the emphasis on decisions made with unique role-based capabilities (or be rolled into the unique playstyle of a class).  For instance, I think that the Mesmer should have probably had Portal strapped to the F-bar rather than isolated as a utility because it's such a unique ability which (at one point) completely defined the class (particularly in PvP).  Shatters and clones never really felt like they established any particular playstyle options (aside from just generic DPS), and spatial or temporal manipulation would have been a much better direction to take the baseline of that class, allowing damage skills to be made in support of that unique mechanic rather than just having a bunch of similar skills all forcibly jammed into a flat box that barely ever had room for Portal at all.

 

I'd prefer role paradigms like those exhibited in Team Fortress 2, Risk of Rain 2, or even Dark Souls 3 (the latter being an interesting way to allow for customization toward generalist builds, mix-up builds or even support builds if one is trying to work as a coordinated team).  Risk of Rain 2 is more a case of auto-attacks being filler that can be modified into lethal force over time while the other two do a good job of throwing out auto-attacks entirely; relying more on resources (ammo/reload/weapon swap times in TF2 vs Endurance in Dark Souls) to balance the array of attacks that any player has access to at any given time.  After that, it just comes down to making sure that each role (or class) is well-defined by its unique capabilities (either via movement options, resilience to damage, support, raw damage, range, or a combination of various aspects).  I've had people argue against these sorts of comparisons with "No, those are different genres, and therefore those ideas can't be applicable to GW2," but I'd argue that the Thief's flexibility in attack choice does enough to prove otherwise.

 

GW2 relies too heavily on scripted movement and attacks; it tries to straddle a line that is probably best left as a dividing line:  tab-target vs free-form aim.  In doing so, it kind of dooms itself to a conflict of identity, and it really has trouble excelling at anything while failing to provide room for roles to naturally grow out of fundamental design principles.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

51 minutes ago, Swagg.9236 said:

I'm actually far more for heterogeneity than the opposite. 

Ya. You’ve also mentioned this in earlier posts on the thread pointing to the discontent with the homogeneity of the games play-style. So I don’t fully understand where genesis is concluding that you want homogeneity.

 

In the same token this is why I think having a consistent framework for your philosophy is important because there are a few posts above that point to homogenizing auto attacks as part of your philosophy. This contradiction is probably why genesis is saying what he’s saying, and his bias is strictly formed from this statement alone rather than taking all of what you said in the thread into context.

 

it’s frustrating that people simply take things out of context but I think it’s best to sort through that contradiction with a more consistent framework to help others better understand exactly why for example, homogenizing certain skills will make the game more heterogenous.
 

Personally the only way to show true consistency is to show how it works mathematically, scientifically or logically, since math, science and logic is consistent. If the philosophy you have disagrees or contradicts the math, science, or logic, then whatever philosophy you’ve built has to be changed.

 

The way I’m putting consistency behind your framework is assuming that these homogenized skills have greater complexity depth (higher dimensionality), as that’s the only way to make it consistent in increasing heterogeneity. 

[Swagg.9236]

3 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Ya. You’ve also mentioned this in earlier posts on the thread pointing to the discontent with the homogeneity of the games play-style. So I don’t fully understand where genesis is concluding that you want homogeneity.

 

In the same token this is why I think having a consistent framework for your philosophy is important because there are a few posts above that point to homogenizing auto attacks as part of your philosophy. This contradiction is probably why genesis is saying what he’s saying, and his bias is strictly formed from this statement alone rather than taking all of what you said in the thread into context.

 

it’s frustrating that people simply take things out of context but I think it’s best to sort through that contradiction with a more consistent framework to help others better understand exactly why for example, homogenizing certain skills will make the game more heterogenous.
 

Personally the only way to show true consistency is to show how it works mathematically, scientifically or logically, since math, science and logic is consistent. If the philosophy you have disagrees or contradicts the math, science, or logic, then whatever philosophy you’ve built has to be changed.

 

The way I’m putting consistency behind your framework is assuming that these homogenized skills have greater complexity depth (higher dimensionality), as that’s the only way to make it consistent in increasing heterogeneity. 

Honestly, this has been one of the most fruitful discussions about my feelings on GW2 that I've ever had.  The particular vocabulary and theoretical examples that you've put forward in this thread are exactly the kind of verbiage that I'd been lacking.  Up until now, it had just been examples and comparisons, but to know that there is a specific field of thought which deals specifically in the sort of problem that I feel plagues GW2 is very interesting.

 

As for the single biggest detractor in the thread, I think the issue with confusing "removal of elements" with "homogenization" stems from the belief that one needs to physically see and read the exact outcome of certain inputs in order for there to be understanding of interactions.  Accepting or defending the idea that patch notes (particularly those in GW2--which often amount to little more than numerical value changes) have a direct impact on gameplay "skill," is to utterly abandon player agency in favor of... I'm not even really sure what to call it--"analysis of individual elements"??  Maybe that's the big issue with the PvP philosophy of GW2's salient playerbase voices:  they often equate the ability to discern individual elements' respective effectiveness within a simple system as the sign of skill rather than considering the idea that less elements with higher interactivity and depth could provide more outlets for player expression and overall agency. 

 

Again, it's probably more of a game design problem than necessarily a people problem:  it's hard to deny that GW2, if played seriously and at long enough length, effectively teaches its players to think only about the effectiveness of individual elements with similar, key effects; discarding most everything else to irrelevancy.  For instance, there's no real sense in considering how fun it might be to control space with [Throw Mine] when you'd never impact the field as much as just having passive stability, near-perma superspeed, quick-recharge and lethal AoE spam, or protracted invulnerability.  Again, I'll just reiterate what I said earlier about why I think GW2 has never seen a lot of growth or high population retention over the years; it's not because the game was intentionally designed to be "drop in, drop out," but rather that the average video game consumer is... legitimately just... too good for GW2.  It doesn't challenge people.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, Swagg.9236 said:

Honestly, this has been one of the most fruitful discussions about my feelings on GW2 that I've ever had.  The particular vocabulary and theoretical examples that you've put forward in this thread are exactly the kind of verbiage that I'd been lacking.  Up until now, it had just been examples and comparisons, but to know that there is a specific field of thought which deals specifically in the sort of problem that I feel plagues GW2 is very interesting.

 

As for the single biggest detractor in the thread, I think the issue with confusing "removal of elements" with "homogenization" stems from the belief that one needs to physically see and read the exact outcome of certain inputs in order for there to be understanding of interactions.  Accepting or defending the idea that patch notes (particularly those in GW2--which often amount to little more than numerical value changes) have a direct impact on gameplay "skill," is to utterly abandon player agency in favor of... I'm not even really sure what to call it--"analysis of individual elements"??  Maybe that's the big issue with the PvP philosophy of GW2's salient playerbase voices:  they often equate the ability to discern individual elements' respective effectiveness within a simple system as the sign of skill rather than considering the idea that less elements with higher interactivity and depth could provide more outlets for player expression and overall agency.

 

Yep that is exactly it, and you hit the nail on the head where 99.99% of people fail to. 

 

I wanna recommend some resources you should look into (of course I think everyone should look into them) but you have an affinity for logical thought (I'm being modest here...I truly think you are smart, much smarter than the average forum goer), and I think it would benefit you and help solidify anything you might have had doubts on or reinforce the things you already seem to know.

 

This guy here is a game developer, his name is Will Wright. He spends this lecture, bridging the gap between video game design, and the complicated sciences that are involved in it. This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of how deep the material goes. But if you want further reading on the materials he talks about, learn it in the following order:

 

Chaos Theory (Non-linear dynamic systems)

Thermodynamics (Entropy)

Biology / Evolution 

Complex Systems

Computational Complexity (Game Complexity)

 

In the lecture, you'll hear all of those sciences brought up.

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Swagg.9236]

On 8/23/2021 at 8:19 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Yep that is exactly it, and you hit the nail on the head where 99.99% of people fail to. 

 

I wanna recommend some resources you should look into (of course I think everyone should look into them) but you have an affinity for logical thought (I'm being modest here...I truly think you are smart, much smarter than the average forum goer), and I think it would benefit you and help solidify anything you might have had doubts on or reinforce the things you already seem to know.

 

This guy here is a game developer, his name is Will Wright. He spends this lecture, bridging the gap between video game design, and the complicated sciences that are involved in it. This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of how deep the material goes. But if you want further reading on the materials he talks about, learn it in the following order:

 

Chaos Theory (Non-linear dynamic systems)

Thermodynamics (Entropy)

Biology / Evolution 

Complex Systems

Computational Complexity (Game Complexity)

 

In the lecture, you'll hear all of those sciences brought up.

 

As much as I enjoy learning and growing through conversations like these, the thought of how GW2 will probably never change is still probably going to sour in the back of my mind lol.  It's not like my current path in life will ever have a high probability of intersecting with "game design" anyway, so it's best I just get over it.   That said, thank you very much for this thread, and I'll definitely look into those concepts and the video.