Guild Wars 2

Their have been a few topics about roles, varying professions and the game play around then. These discussions mainly seems focused around PvE and high end PvE at that. Two topic I’ve participated in are listed:

• Not-full-Holy-Trinity-but-vary-proffs
• Balanced-PvE-Making-all-playstyles-viable

What I would like to look at and discuss is GW2 combat game play overall. Combat styles & mechanics not focusing on single professions or single elements but seeing how each element interacts in the overall combat and the non combat elements in GW2.
Looking at:

• Is it fun & rewarding (Overall)?
• Is it fun & rewarding compared to other elements?
• Can improvements be made or are desired?

To start off with I find GW2 combat experience very engaging & enjoyable. I play and enjoy all three game modes PvE, sPVP & WvW. And as such I find I can play any game play style and feel like high level game play is available for these styles in GW2.

It’s when I start to look at GW2’s game modes as individual and independent game modes that I start to feel some game play styles are excluded from high end game play and it’s mainly the PvE game mode.

This is because of the nature of PvE encounters. PvE encounters can be learned and mastered with optimal roles/builds/skills/gear & items being found for each encounter (if there are no changes in the base encounter).

Offensive / Defensive
Next when I talk game play styles there are two overall favours that I think about. Offensive (OF) & Defensive (DF). Damage, Control & Support can all be associated with a OF or DF favour. On a whole it’s Control that has the most difficulty in labelling as OF or DF as it mainly depends on skill use.

A simple example is the launch effect, general I would label defensive as it relocates target away from you, meaning they have re-engage but it can be used to knock targets off cliffs (only works for PvP encounters) killing them due to fall damage. Using the launch effect in this way I would consider OF. So it could be said that control is not really OF or DF but falls into one of these to favours depending on the controls use & end effect.

As it’s the overall game play I’m looking at, it’s these overall OF & DF game play favours in regards to GW2 combat I’m interested in. I want to look at all of the elements, (roles/builds/skills/gear & items) and then look at their effect on overall combat and non combat game play. Again:

• Is it fun & rewarding (Overall)?
• Is it fun & rewarding compared to other elements?
• Can improvements be made or are desired?

And it’s here that I feel GW2 combat has some issues.

Passive / Active
To start with there are two types of game play passive & active:

• Passive play requires little input after initial set up from the player to achieve maximum effectiveness.
• Active play requires constant input from the player to achieve maximum effectiveness.

Between passive play & active play I believe it’s active play that most players find the most engaging and enjoyable. Having a high skill ceiling and generally performing better in encounters at higher skill levels.

So for engaging & enjoyable high end game play for me it should required as extremely strong focus on active game play to perform at this level. And it’s at this point that I find issues with GW2 OF & DF favours, mainly the interaction of passive stats and their association with items & gear.

Please note when talking about OF & DF game play I’m looking at a heavy focus into each of these favours which includes all elements, role/build/skills/gear & items.

GW2 has both amazing active OF & DF game play, but due to some designs there seems to be an imbalance between how the passive OF & DF stats effect their corresponding active game play elements. I find no problem with OF game play and the interaction of OF passive stats and the OF active game play. But when compared to OF game play DF game play feeling less rewarding and after awhile less fun once you reach a certain skill level due to the interaction of passive DF stats and DF active game play.

This feeling of imbalance comes about because active defence is independent of passive defensive stats. If this is right or wrong I leave it up for others to decided but in effect what this means is a OF focused player receives the exact same full effect from their active defend as a DF focused player. The difference is a DF focused player receives a massively reduced effect of their active offence when compared to a OF focused player.

What this amounts to is:
For Defensive focused roles/builds/skills/gear & items to be wanted or desired at high end game play an encounter must excess the available active defence of Offensive focused roles/builds/skills/gear & items, until this is achieved Defensive focused roles/builds/skills/gear & items will be undesired and unwanted at high level play.

Rewards in PvE
Also of note rewards start to feel less rewarding and next to worthless once a certain skill level is reached. After level 80 and Ascended stat level is reached rewards become purely cosmetic, but there is still a difference in receiving this new reward as passive stats are tried to items & gear.

Get it with offensive stats and WOW this is the greatest, but get it with DFstats and there’s this bitter-sweet after taste. As yes you got the new skin but Oo look you need to spend Transmutation charges as DF stats are undesired… YAY.

So not having DF items & gear wanted or desired effects how rewarding rewards feel and the economy, as defensive items & gear are lessed valued or worst case items only sold to vendors.

To finish I agree there is OF & DF game play at high end game play but due this independence of active defence from passive DF stats, the inability to improve active defence’s effect (bar up time & availability) and differentiate active defence between OF focused & DF focused builds. Purely DF focused game play will be undesired at this level of game play.

This really only amounts to the use of DF gear & items, the depth one goes into DF trait lines and only really seems to effects mainly PvE due to the nature of the encounters.

So some questions to start off:

• Do players want defensive gear & items valued at high end game play?
• If not should rewards have defensive stats on them or be statless cosmetics?
• If not should DF items & gear be worth anything in trade?

• Should there be a difference between OF focused & DF focused build’s active defence capabilities?

• Should encounters be designed with 1 or 2 DF focused builds in mind?
• Should some or all encounters require 1 or 2 DF focused builds at the hardest level of game play?
• Should encounters only require 5 OF builds for completion at the hardest level of game play?
• Should 5 OF focus build be the most efficient and optimal way to play?

I definitely think defensive stats should play a larger role.

What we maybe need is for enemies to have a “filler” attack, much like we do. So that they’re always swinging at us, constantly. This puts a steady if small income of damage on the players, nearly unavoidable due to it’s sheer volume.

Now, for most players, this won’t change a thing. But if you run full glass, you suddenly need to be very good at your glass, or you’ll genuinely be downed before you know it if 4-5 enemies aggro. CC and down one by one if you run a train of glass players.

Or you mix in defensive stats.

I would also cut off the edges slightly (full-glass slightly less damage but slightly more tankiness, and vice versa). Then lower PvE health slightly~significantly depending on target.

That basically covers it, Carighan.

The PVE issue is not so much the professions or the gear, as it is the mobs.

They are walking DPS sinks that once a second makes an attack, and every third or so attack will overwhelm most defensive stats if not fully avoided. End result is that defensive stats are pretty much sidelined in favor of dodge, evade frames, aegis, and a host of other triggered effects.

And the shorter the fight lasts, the less of a chance is there that the player slips up and gets hits by one of these spike attacks. Ergo, you want as much DPS as you can muster to make the fight as short as possible.

In all honesty, a mass of “trash” is more threatening than a single large enemy unless you pack a pile of spamable AOE. This because trying to avoid the spike from multiple enemies are much harder than trying to avoid it from one.

Thanks Carighan & digiowl and I agree in PvE AI & mobs are a large problem if not the largest. Combat is fluid and responsive but mobs on a whole seen to let down the combat system in PvE. So encounter design is very important as it’s here that game play roles are embedded. If encounter completion isn’t designed with these roles in mind or not required, then these roles will be undesired or excluded.

Part of the of the problem is that mob encounters in PvE are almost always 1 on 1 or can be approached in a 1 on 1 fashion.

Open world is a great example, rarely do you encounter groups of or roaming mobs and if groups are encountered you can almost always separate the group. This is because engagement ranges seem too small most of the times, allowing players to much control over encounter (Little to no risk running start through areas with heavy mob population).

Next is that it seems too easy for players to find these engagement limits of mobs.

When engagement ranges are reached these groups don’t pull back as one but can be separate with only some falling back while others wait at the limit. Now this allows for some interesting guerilla game play but I believe there should be differing group reactions.

• Some groups that pull back as if one
• Other will allow separation
• Some pull back and return to there initial locations (not responding to player jumping in and out of the engagement limit

What would be interesting is adding different mechanics

• Chasing Mobs – What if there was a limit to number of mobs or groups of mobs that could chase a player or group of players. So once another mob or group of mobs was added the furthest mob / group in the chase from their initial location would stop chasing. Returning to there area.
• Guard Mobs – There could also be mobs that are given the role of guard duty (very small engagement limits). Place them in areas with cover from ranged attacks so if a player is outside this guard limit these mobs would look for cover.
• Reinforcement Mobs – These mobs / groups are tied to other mobs or groups in a way that if the reinforced mobs are attack after some engagement time these mobs would move to reinforce and engage the player(s). This could be one way only or bi-directional.
• Roaming Mobs – These exist but it would be nice to see more of them. Roaming routes with weaknesses in them which can allow players to slip through. For added play include aimless roaming mobs that have next to no pattern.
• Hunter Mobs – Now these could be interesting. Mobs that will never give up. Once engaged these will chase you across the whole map. For some control and cool RP moments give mobs safe region(s) in the maps (one or multiply). So even if the player is chased mobs & creatures from other (unsafe) regions could and will attack these alien mobs. So in truth these mobs are unable to chase you across the whole map. For stealth add as search function so to truly loss these mobs by stealth you need say 12-18 sec of stealth.

But groups & roaming mobs create problems for solo play making areas and sections of the world inaccessible to solo players. But on a whole I have no problem with this as with megaservers I see this as less a problem, as with grouping but not partying with surrounding players is quite easy in GW2.

Another problem with larger engagement rangers is suddenly empty areas & locations. As one player could run through an area having all the mobs chasing them which makes these areas empty.

Also with 1v1 encounters and solo play there is very little need for support or defensive play in general. As it’s about you taking down this sol enemy. These focused play styles, roles & builds are general for more group orientated play. So one way I can see to improve the desire of supportive (support & control) & defensive focused game play is to increasing these 1vX encounters.

Lastly I’m very curious about:

• Should there be a different between OF focused, DF focused & Supportive focused builds support, control, offence & defence?

As at the moment OF focus seems to get the better deal. As other then up time (duration) OF focused builds receive the same full effect of their supportive & defensive skills, boons & conditions. Were Supportive or DF focused builds have vastly reduced offensive capabilities compared to OF focused builds.

Edit: spelling, sentence wording and reformatting post

Bezagron.7352:

Lastly I’m very curious about:

• Should there be a different between OF focused, DF focused & Supportive focused builds support, control, offence & defence?

As at the moment OF focus seems to get the better deal. As other then up time (duration) OF focused builds receive the same full effect of their supportive & defensive skills, boons & conditions. Were Supportive or DF focused builds have vastly reduced offensive capabilities compared to OF focused builds.

Ding!

Right now stacking might in zerker and stacking it in cleric produce the exact same outcome. Same with protection, vigor and every other boon bar regeneration.

But go cleric and your DPS takes a nose dive…

If ANet really wanted support to be a thing, they would have replaced healing power with support power and tied the effectiveness of various boons to it.

Instead we get zerkers that “roid” up before a fight and then blitz the boss.

I’ve been thinking on my question:

Bezagron.7352:

• Should there be a different between OF focused, DF focused & Supportive focused builds support, control, offence & defence?

And a comment I’ve also made in another thread.

Bezagron.7352:

At the moment I believe traits were meant to fulfill this difference between these focuses, but I believe this is were they’re lacking. Master tier is quite easy to access and Grand Master’s doesn’t seen deep enough to provide this locking. Now I don’t want to take away from the exist options but one way to improve this focus locking could be through expansion of existing options.

Expanding Traits, Trait Tiers; Could this Help
In away I could seen expansion of trait points up to 16 or keeping the 14 and also adding another tier pass Grand Master could help. Expanding traits tiers and adding more traits could help by allowing strong supportive & defensive skill improvements, buffs, changes deeper into the trait lines. Also adds more offensive options.

• Going 8 into a trait line would feel deeper and more costly.
• 2 higher major trait spot allow for further focus options (Maybe a way to add sub-professions but using exist trait system and not adding another system all together).
• More progression both vertical and horizontal.
• Further grow of the roles, builds, combat system.

At a whole I really enjoy GW2 current core combat but feel alittle disappointed when fully focusing (traits/skills/gear) on defensive & supportive game play. Now there is supportive and defensive active & passive game play which is engaging and enjoyable.

But.. And it’s this but that has created the little disappointment and is at the heart for me.

Gear and passive stats

• Passive stats are tied to gear.
• Defence, support & control’s full effects on a whole are independent of passive stats.
• Non offensive gear feels too passive not seeming to improve abilities and active game play to the same level as offensive gear.
• You would think if looking to fully focus into any play style you would also use the gear that seems associated with that play style (Use of associated passive stats).
• Offensive gear has the same availability of defence, support & control as non offensive gear as availability is decided by profession mechanic, weapons skills, utilities and traits.

Defence, Support & Control Abilities
At the core they feels the same no matter build favour or focus. Bar some quite interesting traits the core support, defence, conditions, control & boons almost have the same effect. For players looking to fully focus into one play style it feels like there is no difference between these core abilities. Level of trait customisation on these core abilities seem very limited, with traits really seeming to improve availability more then modifying or improving.

Somehow there needs to be a way to improve one’s focus and make that focus feel different. The core is there but there seems to be an unbalance between each focus and their ability to improving the corresponding associated core focus elements.

And it through trait expansion, improved AI/mobs and encounter design that I can see improvements to GW2 game play on a whole and the desirability of non offensive focused play styles.

@bezagon

will you believe this game will be better if you exchange self defenses with offensive defense?

examples,

ageis vs blind.

protection vs block

invul vs knockback.

No, defensive gear should never be valued at the high end.

The whole point of high end gameplay is that you drive to be as efficient as possible and give up as many “training wheels” (defensive gear) as possible. You shouldn’t have to be forced to keep these wheels on just because the game locks you in to it.

ANet made it fully clear that this game would have a new trinity of damage, support and control, and each class would be capable of doing each – therefore people need to get in to the mindset that they should be contributing their share of that, not that they should only be contributing one certain thing (e.g. giving up all damage in favour of “support”, or giving up all “support” in favour of control, etc.).

But of course two years down the line people are still thinking from narrow unholy trinity viewpoints and want to basically throw that in to GW2.

No thank you, I appreciate the freedom this game gives me – you can play exactly how you want. You can literally use the most moronic, stupidest build going and clear content. I can run the most offensive build going and clear content. Anyone can do anything – and that freedom is what makes this game great. If you’re upset you can’t take your “support” build in to high level groups, well just accept that you’re not able to play at a high level in this game until you can get over that.

Welcome to the discussion loseridoit and maha it’s always good to have others point of view and challenge one’s own thoughts & ideas.

To start I’m not to happy with the last post as I was having problems putting my thoughts in words that would fit in one post. I’m not looking at self defence vs offensive defence, but defence on a whole. Active, passive, self, group, offensive defence, defensive defence & supportive defence and taking this same analysis to all of the other elements of encounters.

Gear
Ok on the note of defensive gear or what I’m calling non offensive gear and being valued at high end play, are we as players happy that this will means less rewarding rewards at this level of play. As if your at this level of skill non offensive gear is worthless. Also Oo look a new cosmetic skin drop but hmm non offensive stats. Doesn’t this just leave a bitter sweet after taste.

Why should non offensive gear only be relegated to “training wheels” only.

Really the only reason I feel non offensive gear is considered “training wheels” is because they really only effect and improve passive game play. If somehow these could now effect and improve active game play I believe this would change.

Also on the note of gear if your a supportive, defensive or control orientated player why is the best perform option for your play style requires offensive gear. Just like offensive players getting new skins but with non offensive stats leaves a bitter after taste. Being forced to use offensive gears leaves a bitter after taste for these other play styles.

Content
Regarding content why should all content be completable with incorrect builds or lower player skill level. Shouldn’t the game teach players how to create builds and also improve their skill level as they level. Where’s the hard & challenging content, content that will be failed if unskilled or not build right to fulfill the encounters designed roles.

I’m not looking at taking or forcing support or defence into high level groups but having this skill level of play desiring other play styles not offensive focused. Really what it comes down to is how can encounters be improved. How can GW2 existing combat, professions, encounter mechanics, build options be improved.

As not all players like offensive focused play styles. And at the moment using a phase Arenanet seems to love using for the Guardian, Offensive focused play styles are in a good place in PvE. But Defensive, Supportive & Control when compared to offensive feel like their missing something & less rewarding as a play style (not physical loot rewards).

Encounters
This discussion around roles, skills, traits & gear are only a 3th of the equation mob AI and encounter design are the two other parts and for non offensive focused play styles to be wanted all three areas need work. On a whole I would say mob AI and encounter design are were the majority of the work to improve combat and encounters needs to focus but I would also like some work on differentiating play style focuses. So support from a support focused player feels improved over a offensive players support. Defence from a defensive focused player feels improved over a offensive focused players defence.

I feel it’s almost there I can almost taste it but.. it just needs alittle more. Favour wise what I was looking at is not major mechanic changes but the ability to improve defensive & supportive skills. The best quick example would be my look at aegis & blind from another post.

Carighan.6758:

I definitely think defensive stats should play a larger role.

What we maybe need is for enemies to have a “filler” attack, much like we do. So that they’re always swinging at us, constantly. This puts a steady if small income of damage on the players, nearly unavoidable due to it’s sheer volume.

Now, for most players, this won’t change a thing. But if you run full glass, you suddenly need to be very good at your glass, or you’ll genuinely be downed before you know it if 4-5 enemies aggro. CC and down one by one if you run a train of glass players.

Or you mix in defensive stats.

I would also cut off the edges slightly (full-glass slightly less damage but slightly more tankiness, and vice versa). Then lower PvE health slightly~significantly depending on target.

What is your opinion about recently fixed scaling of Mai Trin? Surviving as a glass (especially as a thief or an ele) is now much harder and requires much more effort than it is with defensively traited/geared characters.

It really depends,

• What completion skill level are you aiming for?
• What is the encounters designed level of difficult?
• What are the designed encounter roles and role skill level required for completion?
• Is it a solo or group encounter?
• Do party members need each other to survive?
• Should different play style focuses/roles be require in the group?
• Should a single play style focused group be able to complete this encounter?

For me I believe there should be a mix of high skill encounters that require differing group combinations and group play style focuses. Have some were a single play style focused group works and is the best option and others were this type of group will fail.
On full glass I believe it should be harder to play requiring more effort to survive as you’ve sacrifice all of your survivability (defences) for massive offence. But with the right players in a group can perform to it’s fullest.

In a way we need more peeling skills other then stealth. Skills that redirect target(s)’s focus (aggro management).

• A skill for PvE that won’t work else where could be a taunt. A short duration but medium to long cooldown skill that can taunt targets to refocus on the taunting player. This would be a tool I would look at adding to defensive & supportive focused players.
• Another way would be improved mob AI and making retaliation matter in PvE. Make some mobs attack faster small hits but can wear players down. Then add a check, where if a player has retaliation on these mobs will re-target to another player. For some of them add that the retal dmg needs to be above a certain level before re-targeting. In a way mobs need to react to boons conditions & control effects the same way players do.
• Another peel could be a position swap relocating the focused player to your location. Again mob check does it try to re-engage or re-target to you.

Group Content
Now talking group encounters full glass should need to rely on other party members to help them survive. In away I feel GW2 group encounters are too forgiving on group skill or interaction. The core game works and is great what it needs is to add more content for players that have now reached the upper skill level in GW2 but it would be nice if this upper skill level had room for other play styles.

Bezagron.7352:

Now talking group encounters full glass should need to rely on other party members to help them survive. In away I feel GW2 group encounters are too forgiving on group skill or interaction. The core game works and is great what it needs is to add more content for players that have now reached the upper skill level in GW2 but it would be nice if this upper skill level had room for other play styles.

How would you like TF2-style class integration?
Meaning each class has some elements which are fully dependent on the other classes to a certain degree.

For example (I brought this up in the other thread) I’d make Warriors unable to close a gap on their own. They’d need other players to hold their targets in place, in return a Warrior would have very good access to stability (and this’d be the element they give to the party in return, too), high damage and good defence. So long as someone CCs or otherwise binds their target, they’d be really powerful, but they’d need someone for it.

Likewise for example Guardians I’d make dependent on the damage of other people. Solo they win by outlasting, but this’d not be an efficient way to play. And their weapon skills all centre around direct or indirect fire support somehow, instead of raw damage output. Even their damage scaling is translated into some form of absorption or healing which scales with what damage another class would have dealt given the stats.
In return for requiring the other players to do damage, Guardians would supply healing.

Not sure. In away it adds further group game play dynamics but forces professions into locked specific roles. Which causes problems with being able to bring any profession or combination of profession. I guess this is the heart and difficult of group play and GW2’s all profession having equal access.

• How do you made it so each profession performs equally at each required designed encounter role?
• What level of group dependency is required in an encounter? (if 1 out 5 dies does the whole group fail)

I feel GW2 group play involved boons, condition & control but I don’t think it provides the depth players are looking for in group interaction. The short range on most group boon skills make then ineffective at the range. Conditions have the condition cap problem and control says hello Defiance, Unshakable & Unstoppable.

The question comes about how do you provide this deep group interaction but then not have forced roles. Would I like non offensive play styles in high level PvE play yes. We find the in sPvP & WvW but not in PvE but at this stage I’m not sure how.

I feel GW2 group play involved boons, condition & control but I don’t think it provides the depth players are looking for in group interaction.

Let’s not even use the word depth because people misuse it to try and add credibility to their own arguments, and it’s overused to the point that it has no meaning, it’s on par with “epic”, “toxic” and “elitist” they’re buzz words that mean nothing.

Here’s the reality – people against the GW2 combat system normally want players to have to be interdependent.

There is enough depth in the GW2 combat, and we can’t even get a combo field priority system because ANet think it would confuse people – so more “depth” is not an option when people can’t even comprehend the current system.

The short range on most group boon skills make then ineffective at the range.

And this encourages you to work together and stick close. This is not a problem, this is promoting teamwork.

Conditions have the condition cap problem

The problem with conditions is they don’t scale with vulnerability or damage modifiers and can’t be bursted at the start of a fight.

control says hello Defiance, Unshakable & Unstoppable.

The question comes about how do you provide this deep group interaction but then not have forced roles. Would I like non offensive play styles in high level PvE play yes. We find the in sPvP & WvW but not in PvE but at this stage I’m not sure how

Well you’re not getting defensive play styles being optimal in high-end PvE, the whole point of high-end, like I literally just said is that you sacrifice any excess defense. In GW2 this means all, in Dragon Age: Origins it means stacking squishy mages and dumping everything with fireballs and storm of the century.

Bezagron.7352:

Group Content
Now talking group encounters full glass should need to rely on other party members to help them survive. In away I feel GW2 group encounters are too forgiving on group skill or interaction. The core game works and is great what it needs is to add more content for players that have now reached the upper skill level in GW2 but it would be nice if this upper skill level had room for other play styles.

Would full glass party, where players support each other, work in that ideal world?

Okay maybe what I’m looking at is not changing the existing defensive, supportive & control gamplay but extending & expanding it.
So some more game play ideas but forgetting balance at the moment.

New Passives
Add some more passive stats into the game to enhance active support, defence and control’s effects (eg. the intensity of the effects not just duration). Yes this would be a massive game play change to passive stats, should it be done or not, not sure but it’s an idea.
First existing passive stats:

• Power – Increases physical damage (intensity stacking)
• Precision – Increases critical hit change (intensity stacking)
• Condition Damage – Increases conditions damage (intensity stacking)
• Ferocity – Increases critical damage (intensity stacking)
• Toughness – Increases armour value (intensity stacking)
• Vitality – Increases maximum health (intensity stacking)
• Healing Power – Increases healing (intensity stacking)
• Condition Duration – Increases duration of applied conditions (duration stacking)
• Boon Duration – - Increases duration of applied boons (duration stacking)

Looking at damage & passive stat interaction intensity stacking and duration can both be increased through passive stats independent of the effects application. But for boons, condition (other effects not damage) & control duration can be increase through passive stats but not the effects intensity. For boons, condition (other effects not damage) & control intensity stacking is handled by application and the stacking cap limit (which is a problem in group play).
New passive stats

• Condition Power – Increase the intensity of conditions non damage effects.
• Boon Power – Increase the intensity of boons.
• Control Power – Increase the intensity of control effects. (This ones a big maybe which I most like wouldn’t want as I don’t see any benefits this has for the control mechanics in GW2)
  This adds another intensity increasing mechanic separate from boon, conditions & control application allow for improvement of effects that is independent of availability & effect application for non damaging effects. Now this does not remove or fix the problems in group play and stack cap limits.

With a note to gear passive stat allocation would need to be looked at and maybe to base number of stats on gear will need to be higher then just 3 stats. Any this is just a look into how non damage effects can be improved through passive stats.

Critical support & defence
Another area could be the addition of critical game play to support, defence & control game play. Making use of Precision and Ferocity for support defence & control. This would expand and add more game play options to gear with these stats. This won’t help the problem existing in gear and what I’ve been referring to as non offensive gear. In away this would change it to active & passive gear.

Doing both of these could enhance supportive , defensive & control game play without taking too much away from the offensive game play. With the added benefit of improving how rewarding rewards feel for higher skilled players.

I’d go one step further and actually add the class-specific stats to gear. Though they are transparent, so what is Guile for a Mesmer is Intelligence for an Elementalist, etc etc.

If five offensively built players is calculated to be higher DPS than four offensive and one guy stacking boon power, we’ll still use five offensive builds.

What then?

maha.7902:

If five offensively built players is calculated to be higher DPS than four offensive and one guy stacking boon power, we’ll still use five offensive builds.

What then?

Realistically, there’s nothing wrong with that. What we’d need is PvE AI which actively punishes glass cannon play, so that if you want to play it you need to be kitten good at it, and understand that your death might put the group in danger. And you die easily.

maha Why must there be players be against or for a system. Can’t we enjoy a system but look at it to see if it could be improved. Is any system perfect?

O boy don’t get me started on the combo system. If anything from my first thought of the system when Arenanet first talked about it to actual experiencing it in game was one of the largeset disappointments I had. Before GW2 was release when I thought of complex (deep) group interaction it was the combo system plus boons, conditions & controls play I thought of. After release even though useful combos are a disappointment. It really need a priority system before any thought of expanding.

maha.7902:

And this encourages you to work together and stick close. This is not a problem, this is promoting teamwork.

Sticking close and teamwork are not always associated. What about mixed range group game play. Bar that it’s the close that’s the deciding factor. On a whole I feel 600 is a better range.

Defiance can work but on a whole I feel it’s a poor solution to the problem of shutting down or locking down bosses.

Okay confused isn’t there already some defensive play at high-end PvE. It’s the defensive focused player or support (other then offensive support) focused player which would be nice for them to have spot at this level of play. At the moment it feels like be offensive or be excluded. How is this any different to the holy trinity in PvE, have at tank and healer or go home.

Defensive focused game play can be just as skillful and engaging, and it does exist already at high end game play but can’t there be a difference between offensive focus players active defence and a defensive focused players active defence in away that doesn’t force a holy trinity play style but players feel happy with then at this level of play in PvE. Again there is no problem with these play styles in WvW & sPvP but if a highly skilled player like these style they should be forced to change just to play PvE. This I don’t agree with.

Edit: spelling & sentence wording

haviz.1340:

Would full glass party, where players support each other, work in that ideal world?

On this haviz & maha I agree with Carighan response

maha.7902:

maha.7902:

If five offensively built players is calculated to be higher DPS than four offensive and one guy stacking boon power, we’ll still use five offensive builds.

What then?

Realistically, there’s nothing wrong with that. What we’d need is PvE AI which actively punishes glass cannon play, so that if you want to play it you need to be kitten good at it, and understand that your death might put the group in danger. And you die easily.

If your really that skilled then yes, but this needs to be such a high skill level that the standard most efficient and optimal group composition is not full glass. Because if it’s all glass then you exclude all the player base that don’t enjoy glass. But again if you can it would be great to receive some rewards because you can, eg. a title or even a cosmetic skin that requires this group composition.

This all goes hand in hand, for any extreme build or role requirements as either you excluded every other play style or can’t attempt and be successful without the required roles (Tank / Healer) in the party. For me both aren’t healthy for a MMO saying bring any profession.

Edit: sentence wording

Carighan.6758:

I’d go one step further and actually add the class-specific stats to gear. Though they are transparent, so what is Guile for a Mesmer is Intelligence for an Elementalist, etc etc.

Thanks Carighan forgot about that one and yes I believe is should also be another option on gear which would work for all play styles.

Could you stop giving ideas that make swapping builds an expensive chore, especially after retraiting was made easier? Our non-perfect system can be improved by tying different playstyles to something that is easy to change, like traits. Not gear.

But build swapping is already a time consuming chore, weapons, utility skills, traits, sigils, runes, infusions, armour & trinkets. Now I love build experimention but adding some more passive stats won’t change the chore of build swapping. The only real way to fix this is with build templates as there are so many components to builds already.

Regarding passive stats on gear the only real solution I see which would be extremely helpful are build templates and giving armour & trinkets the legendary item level with the passive stat swapping ability. This is one function I would love, but this would have major implications on item values and the TP.

On that note about gear and passive stats, collecting them until you have all available stat combinations could be an interesting addition to leveling. So at level 80 build swapping is easier and content requiring different builds / roles are not such a problem in regard to gear.

Half the problems I see is that passive stats are association and tied to gear, but if you remove passive stats off gear what is the point of armour or trinkets.

The combo thing is weird. I don’t get why spammable or low-CD fields or finishers exist. There’s no sense to that.

These effects should have 60s+ CDs, with most sensible fields being elite skills.

In return, Combo skills should be really strong. That’s the point, foster group play.

A bit off topic but one last problem on passive stats and gear. If players can collect all passive stat combinations what happens to the trade of armour and trinkets?

Once a player has collected all the passive stats they would no longer need to buy any armour (expect for cosmetics) or trinkets. You would also only need one armour and trinket set so less space needed. This would have a large impact on item values and the TP.

But as a build experimenter and a bit of a collector this is a change I could really get behind. Have it something like the existing trait system, create differing tiers that associate with item level stats (eg. green stat, exotic stats) players then go around collecting each level. You could tried this into Precursor crafting as a way to create a legendary item. Ascended crafting could also be tied into it as an option step to unlock the ascended stat level.

Carighan.6758:

maha.7902:

If five offensively built players is calculated to be higher DPS than four offensive and one guy stacking boon power, we’ll still use five offensive builds.

What then?

Realistically, there’s nothing wrong with that. What we’d need is PvE AI which actively punishes glass cannon play, so that if you want to play it you need to be kitten good at it, and understand that your death might put the group in danger. And you die easily.

And what will that accomplish?
Does making encounters harder count for making them better? Does it improve anything?

You could rework CoF P1 so that it’s a gaming challenge to complete but will it be worth players’ time to do it?

Do you really think increasing difficulty on content that has been out for 2 years is going to magically make it fresh and new again?

Do you think people will go “gosh I sure love the way AC works now, it takes me 40 minutes in tanky gear to do a path and we wipe a lot too but I feel that this is much better”.

Some might – there are people who enjoy this kind of thing in any game but the majority will simply hate the fact that they won’t get their gold anymore since in case you haven’t noticed the only reason 90% of the community touches dungeons is for the gold rewards at the end.

Dungeons were dead before they introduced the new rewards. There was no reason to do them except for CoF p1 which of course you did for farming since it was the best one to farm.

The beauty about the system now is that it can keep everyone happy.

Full glass cannons can power through and get the rewards they want fast and easy.

Players who prefer a more tanky approach can do the content in any gear they want and at the pace of their choosing.

You want to change it to where most players are forced to play the tanky way ( the way you like more) because reasons.

Bezagron.7352:

Okay confused isn’t there already some defensive play at high-end PvE. It’s the defensive focused player or support (other then offensive support) focused player which would be nice for them to have spot at this level of play. At the moment it feels like be offensive or be excluded. How is this any different to the holy trinity in PvE, have at tank and healer or go home.

Defensive focused game play can be just as skillful and engaging, and it does exist already at high end game play but can’t there be a difference between offensive focus players active defence and a defensive focused players active defence in away that doesn’t force a holy trinity play style but players feel happy with then at this level of play in PvE. Again there is no problem with these play styles in WvW & sPvP but if a highly skilled player like these style they should be forced to change just to play PvE. This I don’t agree with.

Edit: spelling & sentence wording

They don’t have to change just to play PVE – they can play however they want with people who want to play just like them.

They don’t have to be in the speedclear groups and they don’t have to adhere to the meta.
They can do whatever they want.

Just like a non WvW player and non sPVP player doesn’t have to run a viable build in sPVP or WvW.
Nobody is forcing them into good builds. They can play full glass if they want but they won’t do as well as a person not playing full glass.

If your logic is make PVE more like sPVP or WvW why can’t the reverse be true? Why not make those other two reward glass cannons more?!

“be offensive or be excluded” has nothing to do with sets or gear – it has everything to do with player mentality. I’ve explained this before.

In a trinity game exclusion is based on classes – and it’s much worse since if you’re lacking certain classes you can’t complete content. No healer – no go. No tank- no go.

In GW2 as it is now you can go full offense or full defense and still complete the content.

It’s not “go offensive or go home” at all. You can play how you want and get things done as fast as you care about getting them done.

If you think the “go offensive or go home” is the right line to sum things up in our current meta you are wrong. The meta is “go fast or go home” because people want fast rewards.

You could be full zerker but if you aggro more mobs than we absolutely need to kill or generally waste time in the dungeon you’re still not part of the meta. You’ve got the right gear but not the right mind set and that’s why players are excluded.

Zerker gear is a part of the meta mindset but the meta does not end with zerker gear. The meta is speed and it will always be that.

The meta means : kill fast if you have to kill, skip what you don’t have to kill, use the fastest and least risky method to traverse the content and get those rewards. rinse and repeat until the appropriate amount of rewards for the next item you wanted has been reached.

Bezagron.7352:

haviz.1340:

Would full glass party, where players support each other, work in that ideal world?

On this haviz & maha I agree with Carighan response

maha.7902:

maha.7902:

If five offensively built players is calculated to be higher DPS than four offensive and one guy stacking boon power, we’ll still use five offensive builds.

What then?

Realistically, there’s nothing wrong with that. What we’d need is PvE AI which actively punishes glass cannon play, so that if you want to play it you need to be kitten good at it, and understand that your death might put the group in danger. And you die easily.

If your really that skilled then yes, but this needs to be such a high skill level that the standard most efficient and optimal group composition is not full glass. Because if it’s all glass then you exclude all the player base that don’t enjoy glass. But again if you can it would be great to receive some rewards because you can, eg. a title or even a cosmetic skin that requires this group composition.

This all goes hand in hand, for any extreme build or role requirements as either you excluded every other play style or can’t attempt and be successful without the required roles (Tank / Healer) in the party. For me both aren’t healthy for a MMO saying bring any profession.

Edit: sentence wording

Reading through your post a crazy thought popped to mind.

Seeing how Guild Wars 2 caters to the " glass super DPS " player archetype have you ever considered that the players who enjoy this kind of play are the majority of players in guild wars 2?

For 2 years the game has been in its current state. I think it’s fair to assume that most players who “don’t enjoy glass” have either changed their minds or left. And I think that those who are still around and still cling to their “don’t enjoy glass” mentality are a minority.

If that’s true ( again- making an assumption – don’t have numbers) would it be smart to change the meta to something that caters to this minority instead of maintaining the meta that makes most players happy?

The way I see it is Anet is trying to make this game work – and I think that if the people you’re talking about – the “glkitteners” were the majority the game would have been changed more to suit them by now.

And no – the critical damage changes were not what you and all other “people who don’t enjoy glass” think they were. They weren’t a zerker nerf but a damage nerf for EVERYONE. Even the non-glass people. The difference between zerk and non-zerk remained the same.

Okay I talk about differenticating the different focuses making defensive focus and supportive focus different for offensive focused. Part of the problem I feel is that boons, condition (non damaging effects) & control feel the same across play style focuses. If you get the same intensity effect from might as a offensive focused player why would you take a supportive focused player, if aegis is the same from a offensive focused player again why take a defensive focused player. At heart this is looking at adding a effect range to these effects that is effected by play style focus which differenticates defensive, offensive & supportive play styles more. The goal is that you still want these effects from a offensive focused player but that you really want the from either a supportive and/or a defensive focused player.

Boons
As existing in game:

• Aegis – Block the next incoming attack (1 attack); stacks duration.
• Fury – Critical Chance increased by 20%; stacks duration.
• Might – Increased outgoing damage (increase both power & condi dmg, lvl 80 35 points each stack); stacks intensity.
• Protection – Incoming damage decreased (-33% incoming damage); stacks duration.
• Regeneration – Gain health every second; stacks duration.
• Retaliation – Reflect incoming damage back to its source; stacks duration.
• Stability – Cannot be knocked down, pushed back, launched, stunned, dazed, floated, sunk, or feared.
• Swiftness – Movement speed increased by 33%; stacks duration.
• Vigor – Endurance regeneration increased by 100%; stacks duration.

New boon effects

• Aegis – Block the next incoming attacks
  Either a increase number of attacks or all attacks for a small window after blocking the first attack, turns aegis from a single block into burst defence; This could then stack intensity or stacks duration on reapplication depending on effect chosen above.
• Fury – Critical Chance increased.
  Chance this from a flat 20% increase to now scaling with boon power so at a base with no boon power you get a 10% increase but with maximum boon power you get 20% increase. The other option is change it from a flat % to actual increasing Precision similar to Might; This could then stack duration or stacks intensity on reapplication allowing players to increase the % effect through either applying more stacks or boon power.
• Might – Increased outgoing physical damage
  When I think of might I think of being powerful, strong as such I always found it strange that might also effected condition damage. So this will be a big hit for might as a single boon. First remove condition damage from might and then add boon power into the might equation with the gaol of halfing the overall might increase when used without boon power. This would still give players a range of between 17 to 35 power per stack depending ; reapplication stacks intensity, up to 25 stacks but each stacks power value depends on the source of application.
• Malice – Increased outgoing condition damage. (NEW)
  A new boon for increasing condition with it’s removal from might. Chosen malice as boons name as it exist in game but I find it odd that only condition damage is referred to as malice in the trait line but as condition damage on items. Regarding the actual boon effect it would be the exact same as might above but applied to conditions.
• Protection – Incoming damage decreased
  Like Fury I would look at adding a % range or changing it’s effect to increase Toughness which is effected by boon power. For the % I would look at a base of 25 % with no boon power up to 33% with maximum boon power. But if increasing Toughness boon would work similar to Might ; stacks duration.
• Regeneration – Gain health every second; stacks duration.
  No change needed to effect as Healing power works, only chance might be using boon power if it replaces healing power as a passive stat.
• Retaliation – Reflect incoming damage back to its source; stacks duration.
  No change I would leave this effected by Power or if traited on a Guardian Condition Damage.
• Stability – Cannot be knocked down, pushed back, launched, stunned, dazed, floated, sunk, or feared.
  No change, this is one boon I’m not sure on but which I would most like leave as is.
• Swiftness – Movement speed increased
  With no boon power you receive a base movement increase of 25% and with maximum boon power the 33% movement increase; stacks duration.
• Vigor – Endurance regeneration increased
  Another % range but not sure on exact s to make it still wanted without boon power as this effects dodging. I was thinking along the lines of a base 50 increase up to 100% with maximum boon power but 50% might not be enough as a base; stacks duration.
• Quickness – Increases attack and action speeds (NEW)
  At the moment Quickness feels odd as it provides an effect I would associate with boons but is not a boon. I would make quickness a boon and effected by boon power. I would look at a base of 50% attack & action speeds increase and with boon power increase this back up to 100% attack & action speeds increase.

Now numbers might need to change for balance but what I was looking for is adding a difference between boons on different focuses other then availability of boons.

Thanks Harper some very interest through making me think.

Harper.4173:

Dungeons were dead before they introduced the new rewards. There was no reason to do them except for CoF p1 which of course you did for farming since it was the best one to farm.

I agree the problem with dungeons are that they are old and players have now mastered then. In this regard dungeons need work, add a speed mode, vanquishing mode, add gambits – bosses & mobs have different skill set which are unknown until engaged but are still within the favour of the boss or mob, randomise path, boss encounters, mob placement, etc..

Harper.4173:

If your logic is make PVE more like sPVP or WvW why can’t the reverse be true? Why not make those other two reward glass cannons more?!

…

It’s not “go offensive or go home” at all. You can play how you want and get things done as fast as you care about getting them done.

If you think the “go offensive or go home” is the right line to sum things up in our current meta you are wrong. The meta is “go fast or go home” because people want fast rewards.

I agree with what your saying here but what I was try to communicate was why a highly skilled player in excluded or forced to change play styles in PvE at this level of play. It’s like you want to be skilled in GW2, WvW & sPvP allow different play styles but PvE your only option is offensive focused.

Regarding making sPvP & WvW more like PvE’s offensive focus then GW2 on a whole has a problem excluding all other play styles other then offensive focused from high end game play. For a MMO that says play how you want, I would consider that a problem. It’s becomes play how you want but Oo want to be skilled and have access to high end game play, play offensive only.

Harper.4173:

Seeing how Guild Wars 2 caters to the " glass super DPS " player archetype have you ever considered that the players who enjoy this kind of play are the majority of players in guild wars 2?

This could be true maybe Gw2 is only about “glass super DPS” and if this is what the players want, then there is no point to improving defensive, supportive & control game play. I would then look at removing or reducing these defensive, supportive & control elements that don’t improve offence from GW2. This would have a big impact on the rewarding feeling of rewards and game play for these players.

But I don’t truly think this is the case. I think many of these highly skilled players have moved to WvW & sPvP as it’s here they can play their preferred play style at the skill level they enjoy.

You right GW2 PvE has become all about speed which is standard in most games once you’ve done the content the hundredth time and have the skill. But in GW2 PvE it’s;

• Play how you want leveling up and your first play through.
• Enjoy the different available play styles

But once you reach end game status in GW2 and are very skilled. In PvE it’s play offensive or don’t play at all. For a casual MMO with 3 different game modes this feels strange that one seems to exclude other play style so much more then the other 2.

Edit: Spelling, sentence wording & format

Just as an aside;
A Combo Priority system wouldn’t be improving depth.
Depth is about making choices while building your character (→ rpg) or during combat (→ action games). There’s nothing deep about a system that makes it easier to wander into combat knowing exactly what you’re going to be doing with the blast finisher you were going to equip anyway.

Back on point;
I definitely think trying to categorize along defensive/offensive lines is certainly a practical way to think about our character building options. But from a role perspective; I don’t think defense would be very good as a goal all by itself. Because creating a group dependency by defending others seems to run contrary to the game’s deeply entrenched notions of minding your own survival.

I think they might be better served by using them as part of something else. Like how offensive support is not something done exclusively for it’s own sake, but part of what rounds-out the gameplay of an otherwise bare-bones realization of the glass cannon concept. (that’s not to say the character building should be tragically shallow, but during combat you should leverage defensive things with some other reason in mind).

Ex: A superior ranking mob amongst lower ranking mobs allows them to coordinate tactically as a collective and abandon typical aggro behaviors. So, somebody’s job is to interfere with the communication between commander and subordinates, and it’s somebody else’s job to handle the subordinates and what tactics do get mounted. And you interfere by messing with an abstract of the superior ranking mob’s concentration with things like control skills to keep them segregated and stunned or using a bodily distraction tactic on something built to mow down a glass cannon. In this example, having defensive options is just part of the overall goal of addling the chain of command, and not something done for it’s own sake.

Harper.4173:

And what will that accomplish?
Does making encounters harder count for making them better? Does it improve anything?

It does.

It pushes the average towards “average” gear.

Meaning that a non-knowledgeable player will probably assume that they should equip a healthy mix of stats, right? This is the kind of loadout you could use as the balancing point of “easiest”. Or rather, “smoothest”.

Now, any deviation would offer benefits. Run full glass, you kill much faster. But, enemies react and actively gank you if you’re squishy, leading to this being a very risky kind of play. If you can pull it off, you play at increased difficulty but run faster. Likewise if you run tanky, you are virtually indestructible but stacking effects on enemies make it difficult to kill them before they manage to reach some powered-up state. If you can pull it off, you enjoy being nearly unkillable, but you need to be careful about pulling because you lack the offence.

Essentially, I’d make any specialized form of gear slightly more difficult but slightly more efficient. This is different from what we have right now, where one setup is vastly more efficient but not really that much more difficult.

And what we’d need for this is enemies reacting to the loadout of the players.

As a Ranger who largely plays in PvP WvW I have to say I have enjoyed reading this. I have a very control focused play/build style that revolves around setting up and maneuvering an enemy. This is what I enjoy and largely why I play classes like the ranger in many games.

One of the biggest issues with PvE I have is how not only is control as a whole completely worthless. But due to that fact im actually told NOT TO EVEN PLAY THE GAME THAT WAY. Im sure those gathered here know but there is pretty much ONE ranger build and ONE play style thats…even TOLERATED in the vast majority of the groups in the game.

At first I thought this was just for rangers. So I made three other characters and lvld then to 80 in the hopes that maybe my play style would…atleast not be seen with absolute disgust in the PvE environment. Only to find that control builds on EVERY class are considered an actual detriment to a team. As in many groups would prefer to be running with four people than even have you inside it….Thats….disgusting.

And the worst part is I cant even blame the players themselves. Its not there fault. The PvE Group content of this game simply doesn’t need two aspects of its new “trinity” (Damage/Control/support) for the DAMAGE builds provide all three with such ease that anyone that doesn’t run them are in the eyes of the ones that do HARMFUL to the grp.

Thats just my 2 cents though. If the encounters and content of the game could be changed to actually make running a control or a support build desirable or even remotely worthwhile Id be all over the dungeons/events. But as it is know I only leave the mists for the sake of the living story.

Shadelang.3012:

As a Ranger who largely plays in PvP WvW I have to say I have enjoyed reading this. I have a very control focused play/build style that revolves around setting up and maneuvering an enemy. This is what I enjoy and largely why I play classes like the ranger in many games.

One of the biggest issues with PvE I have is how not only is control as a whole completely worthless. But due to that fact im actually told NOT TO EVEN PLAY THE GAME THAT WAY. Im sure those gathered here know but there is pretty much ONE ranger build and ONE play style thats…even TOLERATED in the vast majority of the groups in the game.

At first I thought this was just for rangers. So I made three other characters and lvld then to 80 in the hopes that maybe my play style would…atleast not be seen with absolute disgust in the PvE environment. Only to find that control builds on EVERY class are considered an actual detriment to a team. As in many groups would prefer to be running with four people than even have you inside it….Thats….disgusting.

And the worst part is I cant even blame the players themselves. Its not there fault. The PvE Group content of this game simply doesn’t need two aspects of its new “trinity” (Damage/Control/support) for the DAMAGE builds provide all three with such ease that anyone that doesn’t run them are in the eyes of the ones that do HARMFUL to the grp.

Thats just my 2 cents though. If the encounters and content of the game could be changed to actually make running a control or a support build desirable or even remotely worthwhile Id be all over the dungeons/events. But as it is know I only leave the mists for the sake of the living story.

Dude, You feel how I do. Thieves at least get some control from S/P, but we generally get our hands slapped if we aren’t using signet passives in combat.
We can’t even look at our SA traitline without being sneered at.

Interesting Vox Hollow thanks for the reply. I like the idea that of defence, control and support as what’s rounds out combat. And in a way GW2 combat already achieves this fairly well. What I would like is to enhance the defensive, supportive & control favours a bit more as I feel they’re overshadowed by the offensive favour in PvE.

In truth if mob AI was improved to a level close to a players skill (if possible) , I might not be focusing so much on the favours of focuses in PvE as I find little problems with these in sPvP and WvW.

Welcome Shadelang & Dual this has become my feeling as well as I find myself spending more & more time in sPvP & WvW as I can enjoy other play style not welcome in PvE. And this is what I’m looking at with improving differing build favours. But a lot of the issues come back to mob AI, encounter designs, mob placement & movement. If mobs had a similar skill level and used & responded to condition, boons & control similar to a player we would most like see other play styles welcomed.

Carighan.6758:

Harper.4173:

And what will that accomplish?
Does making encounters harder count for making them better? Does it improve anything?

It does.

It pushes the average towards “average” gear.

Meaning that a non-knowledgeable player will probably assume that they should equip a healthy mix of stats, right? This is the kind of loadout you could use as the balancing point of “easiest”. Or rather, “smoothest”.

Now, any deviation would offer benefits. Run full glass, you kill much faster. But, enemies react and actively gank you if you’re squishy, leading to this being a very risky kind of play. If you can pull it off, you play at increased difficulty but run faster. Likewise if you run tanky, you are virtually indestructible but stacking effects on enemies make it difficult to kill them before they manage to reach some powered-up state. If you can pull it off, you enjoy being nearly unkillable, but you need to be careful about pulling because you lack the offence.

Essentially, I’d make any specialized form of gear slightly more difficult but slightly more efficient. This is different from what we have right now, where one setup is vastly more efficient but not really that much more difficult.

And what we’d need for this is enemies reacting to the loadout of the players.

And how is this improving the game?
Pushing players into a form of gear doesn’t make AC less boring. Doesn’t make the encounter I’ve done 100 times more interesting or rewarding. It only makes it longer and more tedious.

Do you honestly believe that just because you force people to change gear and traits you’re going to make 2 years old content fresh and new again?

You won’t – you’ll simply annoy people with the change.

No matter what you do to it ( short of a full revamp with completely different areas and encounters but keeping the same theme) an old dungeon will never be “new” or “interesting” once you’ve done it hundreds of times.

Also the “virtually indestructible” state you mention is something they’ve tried to avoid since day one.
Because they want you to play the active part of combat – with dodging, blinding and blocking to stay alive not just facetank everything.

If you think a party of full glass players doesn’t have it harder than a party of let’s say full PVT you’re wrong.

In full glass if you make mistakes you will wipe. In full PVT you have to be incredibly bad and stack one bad idea on top of another to be able to lose a fight.

“Enemies reacting to player loadout” – sure it sounds cool but i fear we’re slowly treading into the realm of SF.
These things aren’t doable – they’re HUGE gambits that might work or might not work that require an absurd investment in time and resources.

Time and resources that could be better used elsewhere. Instead of trying to make old content feel new again by tweaking with gear and encounters they could instead make NEW CONTENT that’s correctly made from the start and that will be interesting and fresh to play because of its novelty.

Bezagron.7352:

But build swapping is already a time consuming chore, weapons, utility skills, traits, sigils, runes, infusions, armour & trinkets. Now I love build experimention but adding some more passive stats won’t change the chore of build swapping. The only real way to fix this is with build templates as there are so many components to builds already.

Regarding passive stats on gear the only real solution I see which would be extremely helpful are build templates and giving armour & trinkets the legendary item level with the passive stat swapping ability. This is one function I would love, but this would have major implications on item values and the TP.

Let’s assume I have wretched berserker gear with full dps build. If my team needs more sustain I can simply change traits, utility skills and weapons. Only aspects I’m worst at than fully built defensive character are lower survivability and worse healing efficiency. However, my boons are as strong as fully supportive character’s are. If I want to get more CC I do the same thing and I’m also as strong in this role as someone who use more defensive gear.

Changing weapons, utilities and traits are not time consuming, getting completely new gear is. Not only it’s time consuming, it’s also expensive.

As a warrior you can use hammer which makes only sense if you want to utilize more CC that has proper sigil (like paralyzation). I can swap signet of fury for fear me and signet of rage for warbanner. But I do not want to swap my armour (+runes) because it is kittening expensive.

Gw1 builds were not tied to the armour (only runes) because armour had virtually no stats except defense. Everything was tied to your skill bar and attribute points (here traits). It was much better system that allowed for quick and easy change.

What I would like is to enhance the defensive, supportive & control favours a bit more as I feel they’re overshadowed by the offensive favour in PvE.

Apologies for my lack of clarity.
I’m trying to make a case for using defense as a means and not an ends.
But I’m not trying to do it by inventing yet another job ultimately about killing a mob, implying defense should be used to supplement offensive character building options. I’m providing a hypothetical of a job about distracting a mob, trying to illustrate a situation where defense would be used to supplement control character building options.

The best defense in this game is pure offense, crits heal, crits steal health, crits proc vigor and damage effects…

besides all the talents and skills, we only have three sigils that don’t require a crit ;(

healing scales so poorly, what’s the point of it?

….

…..but mostly, this is how I see it:

Bunker dodges, dodges, and hits back for 700 damage
Zerker dodges, dodges, and hits back for 3000 damage

Bunker gets hit 5 times and dies
Zerker gets hit 3 times and dies

If a zerker can kill something before getting hit three times they win, and they almost always can.

A bunker would have hit their enemy four times to equal one attack from a zerker, therefore they have to survive four times as long, but they can only take two extra hits.

If it takes you four times as long to kill something, but you can only live twice as long, you’ve given up too much.

Ezeriel.9574:

The best defense in this game is pure offense, crits heal, crits steal health, crits proc vigor and damage effects…

besides all the talents and skills, we only have three sigils that don’t require a crit ;(

healing scales so poorly, what’s the point of it?

….

…..but mostly, this is how I see it:

Bunker dodges, dodges, and hits back for 700 damage
Zerker dodges, dodges, and hits back for 3000 damage

Bunker gets hit 5 times and dies
Zerker gets hit 3 times and dies

If a zerker can kill something before getting hit three times they win, and they almost always can.

A bunker would have hit their enemy four times to equal one attack from a zerker, therefore they have to survive four times as long, but they can only take two extra hits.

If it takes you four times as long to kill something, but you can only live twice as long, you’ve given up too much.

Bunkers have much better sustain than glass cannons. As a bunker you don’t just have more hp/defense.

Harper.4173:

And how is this improving the game?
Pushing players into a form of gear doesn’t make AC less boring. Doesn’t make the encounter I’ve done 100 times more interesting or rewarding. It only makes it longer and more tedious.

Do you honestly believe that just because you force people to change gear and traits you’re going to make 2 years old content fresh and new again?

Eh… the first post of me you commented on was about making encounters less boring and less easily handled. As a way to encourage more varied gear and playstyle, and/or tighter play.

How is reworking enemy AI and loadouts not exactly what you’d want (apparently)?

Because increasing difficulty in familiar content doesn’t make it new. or fun. or refreshing. or anything.

The way content works for a long time builds up player expectations regarding that specific content.
People go in CoF P1 and expect it to be easy. They’re used to it being easy. They want it to be easy so they can farm it. At least most players do.

If you take content that players have already created expectations about and already have a good feeling for and you change it and make it more difficult what you’ll accomplish is just to anger those players.

Yes a few people like you will be thrilled. Most players however will just say " A-net is nerfing our farm again" and they’d be right.

Once something is in the game for a long time it becomes part of the state of the game. And if that state changes players who were used to it and liked it become displeased.

Also – no amount of mob rework will make the content new and interesting again.

Also – the content is difficult for players who are new/ undergeared/ not level 80. Change and and what happens to them? They get stomped in every dungeon and have to do them only after they’re 80 and geared?

You could easily believe that players want really difficult and challenging content – with “more varied gear and playstyle” and “tighter play” but you’d be wrong.

Look at the new TA path – how many people do that compared to CoF P1, AC 1 and 3, SE1 ?
How many people do level 30+ fractals compared with the above dungeons?

Yes – a few people like the challenge – I did too – I did the Aetherblade path about 3 times to get the achievements. You know when I’m going to touch it next? never again.
Been there done that. Got the achievements – it’s not worth going back so I won’t. And that’s exactly how the majority of players feel about that dungeon path too.

The way you worded that seems a bit open-ended.
If you have a stance that holds things sacrosanct on the basis of inertia, aren’t you basically painting any kind of iteration as a negative practice?