Guild Wars 2

I’m just going to say that I’m done debating you. At the end of the day almost all your suggestions are the definition of impractical. As it has been said by others you’ve pretty much redesigned the ENTIRE combat system and every change is very complex. I offer a lot of suggestions but most of the time it’s just cool down or damage changes or transferring already present mechanics onto something else.

Small suggestions are almost always the ones that get implemented. Almost every Warrior buff came from some sort of thread from CI, Zerker Stance, being able to move during Staggering Blow, whatever. They were all simple but effective, something that can be done in a reasonable amount of time. All right, I’m finished.

Well done on the magnetic aura on signet of earth, and might on signet of fire is also a good idea.
One more explanation: Signet of air granting swiftness on swapping to Air is just not the best possible change. It is the exact same effect as that of Elemental Attunement (the Air part ofc). It is just not interesting, and when running (which is what signet of Air is for, particularly in WvW), the effect is the same (maybe a little less speed), only now you have to swap in and out of air all the time; a little more inconvenience, the same effect. Also, again, with fire’s embrace, you get swiftness when you activate signet of air. The passive could be many things, but swiftness on swapping to air already exists. You can only have infinite swiftness once. just keep the passive the same or change it to the old One With Air, giving more speed the longer you are in Air. (5% initially to 25%-30% after some time.

Generally, I like the spirit of the proposed changes. As is, many of the passive signet effects are boring and don’t encourage any clever play. I like that these changes would not just be static stat boosts but rather synergize with gameplay that is encouraged by various traits. Guardian’s Sig of Wrath change would work great with a burning build.

BurrTheKing.8571:

I’m just going to say that I’m done debating you. At the end of the day almost all your suggestions are the definition of impractical. As it has been said by others you’ve pretty much redesigned the ENTIRE combat system and every change is very complex.

Every mechanic that I utilize is already implemented in the game in some way. Heaven forbid that there exist levels of conscious decision-making in GW2 combat—because there really aren’t right now.

BurrTheKing.8571:

I offer a lot of suggestions but most of the time it’s just cool down or damage changes or transferring already present mechanics onto something else.

Tweaking cool-downs/damage/durations on skills that are “Press button; receive boon” in many cases isn’t going to change anything in the long run, no matter how many times you do it.

BurrTheKing.8571:

Small suggestions are almost always the ones that get implemented. Almost every Warrior buff came from some sort of thread from CI, Zerker Stance, being able to move during Staggering Blow, whatever.

I won’t say that small QoL changes to certain skills aren’t out of the question, but there are a lot of skills in this game that are either overpowered or underpowered by virtue of their simplicity and passive nature. It’s possible to fix this and make GW2 combat much more legible and engaging for everyone.

Updates

• Most Warrior signets
• Most Necromancer signets
• Guardian [Signet of Wrath] (passive)
• Elementalist [Signet of Earth] (passive)

I’ll be working on Ranger signets next.

Sarrs.4831:

Again, you’re approaching the problem in the wrong way. You’ve got an unclear goal from the outset, your solution to this unclear problem is creating very real problems, and those very real problems are causing you to bend over backwards to try to fix them. Go back to the start and accurately identify the problem with signets as it stands.

The problem has always been very clear: passive game-play is not fun nor fair. “Bend over backwards” is a funny way of saying that I need to nerf a few things. I’ve gone back and removed/reduced quite a few aspects of the more overpowered signet passives. I completely changed [Signet of the Locust], but only back to what I had in mind for its original change.

“Bend over backwards” might be a way to describe what I’m doing here with the changes on the whole, but even then the goal is very clear (replace flat passive bonuses with bonuses triggered by active skill use/situational conditions). Moreover, not only do the suggested changes use nothing but already-implemented core game mechanics, but the changes require nothing more than a little creativity. This isn’t difficult and its goal is to make GW2’s combat more legible and rewarding.

Sarrs.4831:

Few points here;
1. It’s kitten point spend. 10 in Spite, 15 in Curses, 30 in Soul Reaping.
2. It’s not really a “single weapon set” that benefits from it. You can use pretty much every weapon combination with it. Every necro has Death Shroud, every necro can use the boons that the trait spread gives, and every necro can use the boons that the signets would give.

While it’s true that every Necromancer gets DS, it is effectively a weapon-swap.

Sarrs.4831:

3. That’s not quite the decision making process that you’d make. From the outset of the build, you’d be saying “do I want to murder people in the face with Life Blast” or “do I want to get a bunch of effects for turning on DS”.

Fair enough. That’s why I nerfed a few of the suggestions. Even so, given that you already admitted to the fact that already committing to a 10-15-0-0-30 trait spread is a bad idea, we’re walking on thin ice with the argument that it’s going to be a broken set-up. Furthermore a reduction to Furious Demise (Curses – 15 point minor) from 5 seconds to 3 seconds of fury would also help reduce the window of powerful bonuses for “turning on DS.”

In any case, let’s take a look at some of the effects that we get for turning on DS:
[Signet of Vampirism]

• Party members siphon life with their next attack. Low damage. Emphasis on healing. Critical damage of (37 (0.1)) x 5 won’t hit for much more than 1000 damage even if all party members are at +3k power with 47% critical damage. Primarily party support.

[Plague Signet]

• Pulls up to 1 condition from nearby allies to you. Party support.
• Cure 1 condition when leaving DS. Self sustain.

[Signet of Spite]

• Gain 5% LF for disabling a foe. Only good while in DS. Can be activated while outside of DS. Long cool-down. Self-sustain.

[Signet of the Locust]

• Perma/nearly perma-swiftness. Mobility/Self-sustain.

[Signet of Undeath]

• Gain 5% LF when entering DS. Only good while in DS. Self-sustain.

In the end, when we’re looking at these bonuses, most of them amount to nothing more than party support or self-sustain. There’s no damage boosters here. The game-changing effects come from the actives rather than the passives in this case. Besides, we can probably agree that the Necromancer needs more party-support/self-sustain options. I might add a cool-down to [Signet of Undeath]’s passive, though.

Sarrs.4831:

Basing suggestions on suggestions is, to put it gently, a little silly.

Hardly. If we’re talking about solutions in-game issues, it’s best to take everything holistically.

Sarrs.4831:

There is nothing inherently wrong with a passive effect. This is an RPG; you have stats which have passive effects, but that doesn’t mean that there are no decisions going into those passive effects. When you take a signet- even if you’re planning on leaving it completely unused- you are making a conscious decision.

Yes, but signets are a conscious decision before combat. Once combat starts, nobody can do anything about a player’s signet and sometimes not even the player will do anything with that signet. It’s boring. It’s a -1 to the net skill total

Sarrs.4831:

Signets already have decisions going into them with their use. Sure, some are less impactful than others (180 power on Signet of Spite- Who cares?)

You’re making a joke if you think that a flat +180 power is nothing.

Sarrs.4831:

but when you activate a signet, you are losing out on something.

And in your last sentence you just asked “Who cares?” with regards to a specific signet’s passive. There’s clearly an issue here.

Sarrs.4831:

If you leave your signets unused just to keep their passive effects, you’re losing out on something.

Common knowledge dictates that (with regards to PvP) the only signet active that a player should never use is [Healing Signet]—and maybe [Signet of Restoration] (especially because that’s going to be buffed now—how awful). Most other signets that players take have active abilities that far outweigh whatever the passive could bring to a battle (even if that passive might be incredibly powerful on its own).

The end of all this is that the decision to not use a signet active or to use a signet active for any given signet is made the second that the player slots it in. It’s an already-made decision. It’s not skillful or even conscious game-play. That’s what I’m trying to change.

Swagg.9236:

The problem has always been very clear: passive game-play is not fun nor fair. “Bend over backwards” is a funny way of saying that I need to nerf a few things. I’ve gone back and removed/reduced quite a few aspects of the more overpowered signet passives. I completely changed [Signet of the Locust], but only back to what I had in mind for its original change.

“Passive gameplay is not fun or fair” is not clear at all.

1. Define Passive
2. Define Fun
3. What are you comparing “fair” to?
4. Scope

Swagg.9236:

“Bend over backwards” might be a way to describe what I’m doing here with the changes on the whole, but even then the goal is very clear (replace flat passive bonuses with bonuses triggered by active skill use/situational conditions). Moreover, not only do the suggested changes use nothing but already-implemented core game mechanics, but the changes require nothing more than a little creativity. This isn’t difficult and its goal is to make GW2’s combat more legible and rewarding.

When I say that you’re bending over backwards to try to implement your changes, I mean that you’ve made your suggestions- And then the fallout of those changes requires you to change random traits and utilities all over the place.

Swagg.9236:

While it’s true that every Necromancer gets DS, it is effectively a weapon-swap.

That doesn’t change that comparing Death Shroud traits to weapon traits isn’t a reasonable comparison.

Sarrs.4831:

Fair enough. That’s why I nerfed a few of the suggestions. Even so, given that you already admitted to the fact that already committing to a 10-15-0-0-30 trait spread is a bad idea, we’re walking on thin ice with the argument that it’s going to be a broken set-up. Furthermore a reduction to Furious Demise (Curses – 15 point minor) from 5 seconds to 3 seconds of fury would also help reduce the window of powerful bonuses for “turning on DS.”

This is what I mean by “bending over backwards”.

Secondly, I’m not sure whether I said it was a bad idea to play DS boonflip. Even if I did, that shouldn’t be taken as gospel. I’m not an uber leet espawts star.

Swagg.9236:

In the end, when we’re looking at these bonuses, most of them amount to nothing more than party support or self-sustain. There’s no damage boosters here. The game-changing effects come from the actives rather than the passives in this case. Besides, we can probably agree that the Necromancer needs more party-support/self-sustain options. I might add a cool-down to [Signet of Undeath]’s passive, though.

Whether the necromancer needs more party-support/self-sustain is irrelevant. You still haven’t clearly addressed identified the problem, and I doubt you’ve actually even done that internally.

You ‘sneakily’ changing Signet of Spite is exactly the problem I’m talking about. You say that the problem is that “passive play is not fair or fun”. Signet of Spite’s active is just that, a very active ability. Changing it flies in the face of your suggestion that passive play is a, or the, problem.

Swagg.9236:

Hardly. If we’re talking about solutions in-game issues, it’s best to take everything holistically.

I agree. Therefore it’s best to make small changes at a time, which don’t fundamentally alter a class’s dynamics, otherwise you’ll trip over something that you didn’t consider.

Swagg.9236:

Yes, but signets are a conscious decision before combat. Once combat starts, nobody can do anything about a player’s signet and sometimes not even the player will do anything with that signet. It’s boring. It’s a -1 to the net skill total

p sure that’s what i just said

Swagg.9236:

You’re making a joke if you think that a flat +180 power is nothing.

And in your last sentence you just asked “Who cares?” with regards to a specific signet’s passive. There’s clearly an issue here.

My apologies. I meant ‘who cares’ in the context of the active signet. When you use Signet of Spite you’re not thinking ‘well i’m going to lose this 180 power, this is a very difficult decision’.

So yeah, you’re right. There is a problem here; Signet of Spite is powerful enough that you don’t care that you’re losing 180 power. I don’t think that deserves 9 pages worth of signet changes.

Swagg.9236:

Common knowledge dictates that (with regards to PvP) the only signet active that a player should never use is [Healing Signet]—and maybe [Signet of Restoration] (especially because that’s going to be buffed now—how awful). Most other signets that players take have active abilities that far outweigh whatever the passive could bring to a battle (even if that passive might be incredibly powerful on its own).

You’ve sticky-taped two problems together here.
1. That some signets should not be used.
2. That some signets’ active abilities should not be used.

You are addressing the second statement, but the first is implicit. This is a problem. Address one problem at a time.

Swagg.9236:

The end of all this is that the decision to not use a signet active or to use a signet active for any given signet is made the second that the player slots it in. It’s an already-made decision. It’s not skillful or even conscious game-play. That’s what I’m trying to change.

You are not succeeding. The new boss is the same as the old boss.

Swagg.9236:

The end of all this is that the decision to not use a signet active or to use a signet active for any given signet is made the second that the player slots it in. It’s an already-made decision. It’s not skillful or even conscious game-play. That’s what I’m trying to change.

In the past, a dev commented on that. He said that they want both simple and complex builds in the game, for those that enjoy it. A player that doesn’t want to make extensive combinations would go for builds like signets, turrets or minions. With the devs following that concept, I think it’ll be unlikely for this to change. Some builds just are simpler than others.

“[Signet of Spite]

Gain 5% LF for disabling a foe. Only good while in DS. Can be activated while outside of DS. Long cool-down. Self-sustain."

Should I say that you got no utility skill while in DS? Meaning that signet passive doesn’t work while in DS.

Overall, I’m still feeling that you overcharge Locust. Necro have already tons of direct heals for support. Do you really feel signets need an option to do that to?

You shouldn’t buff ele active effect because there will be forever the wonderfull “writen in stone” trait to support signet. There are already builds that use perfectly this trait with signet and even if they are not part of this meta you hate so much, they are viable. Your changes on ele signet would totally overbuff these build. Not that i won’t be happy to see this coming but this would be imbalanced.

Guards, Signet of wrath and Warrs, Signet of Might : How can you even think of overpowered active effect like theses?

Signet on Ranger are meant to buff your pet.
“Signet of renewal” have absolutely no benefit for your pet, plus, what the point of the grand master trait “signet of the beastmaster” here?
“Signet of stone” : 2 seconds of prot with a 20 seconds CD IF you are disable? Is there something for pet? Oh sorry active enhance vit of pets. Absolutely worst way to try and enhance pets survivability because, It only make pets harder to heal effectively (here you are only doing the same mistake as A-net).
“Signet of the wild” : You are destroying even more pets survivability. Change on active could actually be pretty interesting because shorter CD on signet mean more might stack uptime… but wait I’ve got tons of way to gain might other then that.
Here again you’re focusing to much on a meta zerk build that allow ranger to actually do spike damage or survive a bit more in large scale fight at the cost of 30 point in marksmanship.

Updates

• All Ranger signets
• Warrior Signet of Might (passive)

Dadnir.5038:

“[Signet of Spite]

Gain 5% LF for disabling a foe. Only good while in DS. Can be activated while outside of DS. Long cool-down. Self-sustain."

Should I say that you got no utility skill while in DS? Meaning that signet passive doesn’t work while in DS.

That doesn’t mean that you can’t CC foes outside of DS. What I meant by “only good in DS” is that you’re gaining Life Force with that proc. You can’t use that proc’s bonus in any place other than in DS. Given DS’s nature as a second hp-bar, it is classified as self-sustain.

Dadnir.5038:

Overall, I’m still feeling that you overcharge Locust. Necro have already tons of direct heals for support. Do you really feel signets need an option to do that to?

Necromancer party-based healing is very limited to the Transfusion or Deathly Invigoration traits. The addition of an actual skill that can contribute to this could provide the Necromancer with a clutch response to pressure. Moreover, it’s a short AoE CC skill that allows the party to make snap repositioning maneuvers in the middle of a fight.

Dadnir.5038:

You shouldn’t buff ele active effect because there will be forever the wonderfull “writen in stone” trait to support signet. There are already builds that use perfectly this trait with signet and even if they are not part of this meta you hate so much, they are viable. Your changes on ele signet would totally overbuff these build. Not that i won’t be happy to see this coming but this would be imbalanced.

First of all, you mean passive effect. In any case, I’ve kept that trait in mind. It would be best to just throw it out. It’s not something that promotes skillful play (traits really don’t do a good job at promoting skillful play in the first place). Getting along without it is better off for signets in general. I’m also aware that there are other signet-based traits that would need changes/removal in order to support the new, more active signets.

Dadnir.5038:

Guards, Signet of wrath and Warrs, Signet of Might : How can you even think of overpowered active effect like theses?

Giving Guardians a taunt skill?

• This is something for PvE and for teamfights in PvP. It adds a short burst of a dangerous mechanic to which enemy players must react in PvP. In PvE, it provides the Guardian a means to draw attention away from allies in emergency situations.

Giving Warriors a fire field outside of longbow?

• This is to promote more build diversity. I’ve made sure to adjust the damage so that it’s not too terribly strong. It’s 180 radius also ensures that it isn’t blanketing an entire area in damage.
  
  [quote=3878751;Dadnir.5038:]
  Signet on Ranger are meant to buff your pet. [/quote]
  Says who? The guys that are working on this game? Their track record is awful, man. We can’t trust them to make it any better. The Signet of the Beastmaster trait is on the same level as the Grenadier trait. Traits shouldn’t exist to “complete” a play-style. They should work to amplify it or change how it works, but selling a player a play-style that is only fully functional when equipped with certain traits is just bad design.

signet of spite
Well, it’s exactly what i said, you can’t have proc from signet in DS because signet are part of utility skills that are removed when you are in DS. so even if you disable a foe while in DS you won’t have this proc of life force. You would have to change a lot of things about DS and of course tons of balanced to do if utility skills like signet were to be of some use while in DS.

locust signet
Wells, traits and staff 2 are already a lot of skills that actually heal your group. Necromancers are on par with other classes when it come to healing utilities. That’s what I meant. I also think that necromancers actually lack support buff (party protection uptime, vigor, Egide, swiftness… Well I know we got some blind but that’s something a guard do better) more then healing support but that’s another issue.

Elementalist signet
I’m not only talking about passive effect here. More then that when you got writen in stone you tend to use yours signet a lot for aura most the time which give you tons of boons. I know the active effects feel pretty bad in their actual state but in fact they are pretty well balanced around the fact that you can have “writen in stone”. It’s not a matter of “they are awfull, nobody wil want these” but a matter of “will i invest 30 point in earth magic and have very usefull signet or not”. And that’s pretty much why I tend to say that you are only looking at the actual meta when you propose your changes. For exemple I’ve been playing a D/F signet build in spvp and most of my mele oponent where struggling against me and even fearing me. But this build can’t make it to the meta because it’s pretty weak against ranged attacker. That’s all. I think, that your proposed changed would make this kind of build overpowered and that’s on this assumption that I’m saying this.

guards and warriors signet
I’m playing a tanky guard in donjon, I’ve got no problem holding aggro except perhaps when I’ve got a fancy zerk that want to show of a bit. Anyway, classes are meant to be able to do all the possible jobs in a fight (support, tank or dps) if you give a taunt to guard, you’ll have to give taunt to all other classes.
As for warrior, I’m affraid when you say that you don’t feel it’s strong. Damage, blast, burn, range and fire field with a short CD. It’s almost like your first version of “locust signet”, this give way to many things. If you really want it for build diversity, you’ll have to remove blast and damage part. Like this it would be just slightly better then an elementalist dagger or focus fire field (I’m saying better because these skills on elementalist don’t have a passive effect on top of what they do).

ranger’s signet
Right now, without “signet of the beastmaster”, the main purpose of the signet on ranger (active) are :

- Signet of the hunt and Signet of the wild : boost pet damage
- Signet of stone : boost pet suvivability
- Signet of renewal : allow party support to your pet by pulling condition to himself

I know it may be unbelievable but not all ranger play with signet AND “signet of the beastmaster”. I’m one of these few rangers and i’m doing pretty well since december 2012. I know it’s not the meta but, I don’t care.

Now, after looking at your new proposed change, her is what i say :

- Signet of renewal : Passive still overpowered anyway, there is no skill in this game that’s allowed to touch more then 5 target because party group are made of 5 players. Active may be ok, though, you’d have to mak the active only cure your pet (“Signet of the beastmaster” is here to make the effect apply to the player when you use it). Actually, the passive effect is stronger then the active.
- Signet of stone : 20 second cool down on the passive effect? not worth it. I understand pretty much where you wanna go with the active but it’s unrealistic. And with this effect you are contradicting yourself by promoting a passive stun proc effect. Lack a duration on the unique buff. (Should I say that there is no material for our grand master trait “signet of the beastmaster” here?)
- Signet of the hunt : You change the active part to be the passive part. You add something totally awfull on the active. Sorry but here again… no material for our grandmaster trait.
- Signet of the wild : I see our mobility as been swapped on the passive here. Sadly, it seem that you prefer necromancers, only a half swiftness uptime for rangers. Active give 10 might for five secondes and stun five foes. No interest for grandmaster trait “signet of the beastmaster”.

Well, how do I say that… Here, you are killing build diversity, pet’s survivability, pets damage and a grandmaster trait… I’m speechless.