Guild Wars 2

I think subclasses are wrong for this game. Those who support subclasses seem to want a lot of things, none of which actually require a subclass system. I’d far prefer a redesign of the trait system to be more flexible, but even that is questionable because of balance concerns.

Adding subclasses opens up ZERO additional fun content or customization options.

Want more armor? You can have it without subclasses.
Want more skills? You can have them without subclasses.
Want more traits? You can have them without subclasses.
Want more weapons? You can have them without subclasses.
Want profession-specific weapons? You can have them without subclasses.
Want cosmetic options tied to specific roles? You can have them without subclasses.
Want control and support builds viable? You can have that without subclasses.

Development of systems like subclasses costs tremendous amounts of resources, resources that would be much better spent on other systems. (Order Missions or another idea I don’t love but recognize is popular: housing.)

timmyf.1490:

I think subclasses are wrong for this game. Those who support subclasses seem to want a lot of things, none of which actually require a subclass system. I’d far prefer a redesign of the trait system to be more flexible, but even that is questionable because of balance concerns.

Adding subclasses opens up ZERO additional fun content or customization options.

Want more armor? You can have it without subclasses.
Want more skills? You can have them without subclasses.
Want more traits? You can have them without subclasses.
Want more weapons? You can have them without subclasses.
Want profession-specific weapons? You can have them without subclasses.
Want cosmetic options tied to specific roles? You can have them without subclasses.
Want control and support builds viable? You can have that without subclasses.

Development of systems like subclasses costs tremendous amounts of resources, resources that would be much better spent on other systems. (Order Missions or another idea I don’t love but recognize is popular: housing.)

You your self even said it dose give you more skills so it dose add customization options and some ppl find that as fun.

Now your right about it being a “questionable because of balance concerns” maybe a system where you only get chose for utility skills?

…..yeah, I’ll admit that Subclasses isn’t really Horizontal Progression (you can’t really say its Vertical progression either). But, it should probably be saved for a new CDI thread for later, maybe one that only focuses on that aspect of the game (Things like Traits, more skill options, Subclasses, weapons, etc.)

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating anyone else’s point.

I think the general problem with subclasses is that they’re redundant in the Guild Wars system, specifically, they don’t contribute much in a game with limited skillbar. The purpose with subclasses, in the games that have them, is to limit the number of skills that a player can use together. But we already have this; and what subclasses would do is that they’d only limit the number of viable builds. Now this could have the side-effect of making the game easier to balance, but only when the number of skills vastly grows; I don’t think we’re anywhere near this point.

So my suggestion in this regard is to simply keep adding skills, at least while we’re still short of 100-200/class. At that point, additional build limiting mechanisms may become important, but one could also instead discuss additional balancing mechanisms in general (such as additional resource management).

UrsVieru.8504:

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating anyone else’s point.

I think the general problem with subclasses is that they’re redundant in the Guild Wars system, specifically, they don’t contribute much in a game with limited skillbar. The purpose with subclasses, in the games that have them, is to limit the number of skills that a player can use together. But we already have this; and what subclasses would do is that they’d only limit the number of viable builds. Now this could have the side-effect of making the game easier to balance, but only when the number of skills vastly grows; I don’t think we’re anywhere near this point.

So my suggestion in this regard is to simply keep adding skills, at least while we’re still short of 100-200/class. At that point, additional build limiting mechanisms may become important, but one could also instead discuss additional balancing mechanisms in general (such as additional resource management).

That’s only if you focus on Subclasses solely for the purpose of adding new skills. If you make subclases in a way that doesn’t lock players out of anything specific while still offering a greater level of specialization, it could work very well in the current system.

Shakkara.2641:

Hey Chris, all this discussion brings up one big question from me: how feasible is all of this? Cause players (and me too) are putting forward some pretty ambitious and detailed featurerequests. Features that currently do not exist in GW2 at all and kinda move away from the game design as it stands (For example, with the housing I see a lot of requests for sandbox features, while the game is technically a themepark MMO).

I’m currently a game designer in the real world and have designed some pretty big MMOs in the past. Even though I give lectures on crowdsourcing game design and involving the player communities in this process, as a game designer I’d be VERY unhappy if the community gets to make decissions like this: I personally see myself in charge of the game’s overall vision and when I was lead designer on an active MMO (sadly the plug got pulled out of that one due to IP licence being terminated), I had a multi-year plan in place for new features and content to add. I’d poll the community for popularity on each of the features which I had already for 90%+ finalized the design of, so I could prioritize and shuffle the order in which they would appear, so the community input might influence that last 10% which I’d still be unsure about and was still open to discussion.

But in the end it was I, and the rest of the design team, that held the vision for the game. Not the players.

So I kinda wonder how this works with Arenanet? Why are you asking us all this stuff? Is there no multi-year plan in place with features that you’re going to add next? Are you looking how to prioritize upcoming features? Do you have unfinished ideas for features but are you turning to us to fill in the details and get some fresh inspiration? Or did you have a vision but did it fail (Living Story? Manifesto up in flames? Dwindeling playerbase?), and are you now establishing a new vision and turning the players to help you with this?

So what is the role of this CDI and how far will you take it? How realistic is it for players to expect to see any of this stuff being added to the game? And why do you need us in the fist place, why don’t you have a game designer or creative director in charge that tells the team what to do next?

Not to bash this initiative, but I must say I personally prefer a dictatorship regarding game design over a democracy by the unwashed masses. A dictatorship led by CAPABLE people with a vision, talent and great attention to detail.

I feel this is mostly an information exercise, and that internally Anet will develop the best option within constraints. We’ve probably seen this with the LA council voting. We used tickets to place our votes for ideas (which were predetermined), and then the development teams were able to build the entire Thaumanova Reactor fractal (and release as a whole) within that time frame we were given.

So for the CDIs, I think Anet really wants pure playerbase input, which they’ll refine to concepts with they can then send to LS teams as their workload opens up to start implementing.

Chrispy.5641:

That’s only if you focus on Subclasses solely for the purpose of adding new skills. If you make subclases in a way that doesn’t lock players out of anything specific while still offering a greater level of specialization, it could work very well in the current system.

Well, if you don’t lock players out of anything, this means no new skills, weapons or traits for the subclasses. This leaves only passive bonuses. I’ve actually found and read your proposal, and this seems to be your idea, as well.

I see several problems with that, too:

First, traits already provide passive bonuses – so why not add new traits instead? I’m not sure that added complexity of subclasses gains anything.

Second, this promotes passive gameplay – something that in my opinion goes against the spirit of the GW combat system; where you’re supposed to tactically ‘do something’ in combat to get a benefit.

Third, and this is more general issue, I think more specialization is the wrong way to go when providing progression (both horizontal of vertical). There is only so much you can specialize before stuffing characters into very tiny boxes; once you hit that ceiling, you’re out of that particular means of progression -and- you’ve risked damaging the game by introducing super-powerful combination of stats bonuses (for example, what happens when signet bonus trait, gear and subclass interact? Nobody tested signet spam builds, and it’s too late when you have to un-add things that looked like a good idea in a small scale test…)

Anyway, this is probably the wrong thread to discuss the point #3 – maybe we -should- have a general combat system and balancing CDI; because I don’t think we’ve ever discussed the design options for specialization vs generality, resource management vs cooldown, and options for power growth without reintroducing the trinity.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

There has been a huge amount of discussion around sub classes. I would love to see you guys close out this particular area by either putting a sub class proposal together (Sentence detailing how it would work) or deciding as a group that it isn’t relevant at this point.

Personally I like the idea behind sub classes and see quite a few of the counter arguments based upon assumptions around balancing etc. Where possible we should try not to make decisions around feasibility of ideas through assumptions.

In short I would like to see if the CDI group thinks it is a relevant part of Horizontal Progression at this stage of GW2’s life?

Chris

My opinion about sub-classes

- I see the sub-class as an affiliation of the character with a specific House similar with joining the Orders

- they are only a “name” and a “subcategory” of skills and NOT as a “specialization”. In this way we don’t limit players’ options regarding builds

- to visually differentiate the sub-classes there should be a “House specific look” similar to the Orders (Vigil, Priory, Whisperer) but with less constraints meaning that you can always change your sub-class (aka your House affiliation) if you like the other look.

- Affiliation to a House will imply to do various tasks having the final reward the new set skills from that specific House.

A House set of skills will include
-1 House specific skill which will give the name of your sub-class
-2 Profession specific skills
and 3 universal skills

So, a character can learn all the universal skills from all Houses, and all profession skills plus the House specific skills only from compatible Houses

To make a calculation

3 Houses / profession X 8 professions = 24 Houses

3 universal skills / house X 24 houses = 72 Universal skills usable by all professions

2 profession specific skills / house X 3 houses/ profession = 6 profession specific skills / character (usable only by a specific profession)

1 house specific skill / house =3 house specific skills / profession = Sub-class name (equipping one and only one of these skills will change your sub-c;lass name)

I hope i made it clear so you guys can understand what I meant

No subclasses please!

Right now we already have that certain classes perform far better than others, class balance isn’t really that great.

I don’t see subclasses working for that same reason: Some will always be better (read: do more DPS) than others and as a result a lot of content is going to be unused.

I want more skills and more traits and more mods on gear, but I want that be available to ALL the characters. I agree with Shakkara that it would be better to remove the existing professions altogether so people can create-a-class from components instead of being forced into a predefined subclass with very limited customization. I want an unique character with lots of deep strategic decissions to make, not a predefined specialization.

GW1 was much better than what we have now, because all the skills were technically available to all the characters with only the primary attribute line, class runes and armor category being exclusive to a class.

Bringing back dual-classing or doing away with classes (allowing players to pick attributes) would be preferable than adding subclasses.

UrsVieru.8504:

Chrispy.5641:

That’s only if you focus on Subclasses solely for the purpose of adding new skills. If you make subclases in a way that doesn’t lock players out of anything specific while still offering a greater level of specialization, it could work very well in the current system.

Well, if you don’t lock players out of anything, this means no new skills, weapons or traits for the subclasses. This leaves only passive bonuses. I’ve actually found and read your proposal, and this seems to be your idea, as well.

I see several problems with that, too:

First, traits already provide passive bonuses – so why not add new traits instead? I’m not sure that added complexity of subclasses gains anything.

Second, this promotes passive gameplay – something that in my opinion goes against the spirit of the GW combat system; where you’re supposed to tactically ‘do something’ in combat to get a benefit.

Third, and this is more general issue, I think more specialization is the wrong way to go when providing progression (both horizontal of vertical). There is only so much you can specialize before stuffing characters into very tiny boxes; once you hit that ceiling, you’re out of that particular means of progression -and- you’ve risked damaging the game by introducing super-powerful combination of stats bonuses (for example, what happens when signet bonus trait, gear and subclass interact? Nobody tested signet spam builds, and it’s too late when you have to un-add things that looked like a good idea in a small scale test…)

Anyway, this is probably the wrong thread to discuss the point #3 – maybe we -should- have a general combat system and balancing CDI; because I don’t think we’ve ever discussed the design options for specialization vs generality, resource management vs cooldown, and options for power growth without reintroducing the trinity.

Sub-classes should probably be a part of a separate CDI. There have been many worthwhile ways of adding them, but I don’t know how well it otherwise fits with the other things that have been gaining traction in this CDI. In addition, I wonder if moving sub-classes to its own CDI would create a power vacuum for the #2 spot, which would likely be filled with more housing and pretty much seal this CDI up.

Hopefully, we can have a "Character Development CDI focusing on classes, balance, and such things, and turn this into “Housing and Zone Progression” discussion as equal, simultaneous ideas. Those seemed to have gained the most traction outside of sub-classes, but I’d hate to have one bury the other.

I’m not really for or against Sub-Classes, so long as I can make viable and versatile builds that suit my playstyle and I’m able to mold my character to a theme of my preference, I’ll be happy.

At the end of the day though, a Sub-Class system is not much different from the trait system, and if you add a sub-class system as well as the trait system it will only really add extra flavour. I also feel that if you add sub-classes you run the risk of making the game more complicated for new players and players with a more casual playstyle. Unless you removed the traits system in the process. (which I’m not keen on)

Personally I think the current system is robust enough as it is and only needs fine tuning of skills and traits. But hey, if Anet can make a Sub-Class system that is simple to use and get to grips with, allows you to create versatile builds for all Sub-Classes and doesn’t through balancing into chaos I’m all for it.

I haven’t made a top 3 wishlist before, but if I had to pick the one thing I want from the wishes mentioned before by others, it’d be MORE SKILLS.

Not just 1-2 skills per year per profession, but really a return to GW1’s collectible card game skill system: Thousands of skills to choose freely from. Mechanics in place to capture and collect skills. Maybe team-based instances with computer-controlled henchmen that you can equip with skills you unlocked. Much better synergy between skills, skill categories like hexes and enchantments and other skills, traits and gear looking at that and synergizing with it to recharge skills of that type faster or triggering effects each time a skill of that type is used, etc.

Order skills sound like a neat idea. Along skills to go along with the Personal Story item that is useless (cycle for Sylvari, Norn totems, etc).

However, I think that “sub classes” would need to be a choice of say, 3 sub-classes specific to the main class.
Why specific to the “parent class”?
- Because the traits of the “parent class” affect those skills in such a dramatic way. Therefore, the traits should be affecting the sub-class of the “parent.”
- Balancing the effect of the other class skills along with the main-class skills could be an utter pain.
- If you just let current classes have a sub-class of a universal pool of professions, then certain professions will be better at certain sub-classes (like Ranger/Rit was a really good combo, Warrior/Monks well… we all know them, and there were some plain awful combos), which will become contrary to the point of sub-classes in terms of adding whatever personalization you like. With a smaller pool of class-specific sub-classes, this problem doesn’t occur and you get to personalize your profession in comparison to others.

I’m…. really really hesitant about a universal pool of sub-classes. It… didn’t work out that well, IMO in GW1 and I am not sure it would work out better in GW2. I partly like GW2 because it doesn’t have secondary professions. But a class-specific sub-class could be really cool! Or at least an order- or race-specific (I know we kinda do, but I mean like the choice we made at the beginning of the game that doesn’t really apply to much of anything like Sylvari cycles) one. Still, traits might be an issue, but maybe you could have race- or order specific traits.

timmyf.1490:

I think subclasses are wrong for this game. Those who support subclasses seem to want a lot of things, none of which actually require a subclass system. I’d far prefer a redesign of the trait system to be more flexible, but even that is questionable because of balance concerns.

Adding subclasses opens up ZERO additional fun content or customization options.

Want more armor? You can have it without subclasses.
Want more skills? You can have them without subclasses.
Want more traits? You can have them without subclasses.
Want more weapons? You can have them without subclasses.
Want profession-specific weapons? You can have them without subclasses.
Want cosmetic options tied to specific roles? You can have them without subclasses.
Want control and support builds viable? You can have that without subclasses.

+1, very well said.

Having subclasses puts a lot of restrictions on those features.

“Here are 100 more skills to play with! But wait, your character can only use 3 of them because you’re this particular profession and subclass!”
“Here are 25 more weapons! But wait, you can only use one of them, the one associated with your subclass!”

It’d be crazy!

Let’s be clear here: direct damage is king in this game (PvE specific) because of these reasons…

1) Most encounters are fast enough that sustain is not important.
2) Condition caps
3) No condition damage against structures
4) Defiant :-(
5) Dodge for damage avoidance
6) Poor scaling of healing and toughness

Adding subclasses doesn’t fix any of those issues. It just means that everybody has to figure out which subclass works best with their existing DPS build.

Don’t add subclasses. FIX CONDITION BUILDS IN PVE. I soooo badly wanted to play a Confusion Mesmer, but it’s terrible. I’m so much better now that I have a Zerk phantasm build with Sword/Pistol+Focus…

Speaking of wanting more armor… I wish anet would bring back GW1 armor as potential rewards for different currencies in GW2, like badges of honor, fractal relics, karma etc.

I’d love to see my ritualist’s armor from GW1 (pic below) in GW2 one day – and yes it took me a very long time in GW1 to obtain the full obsidian/fissure of woe armor, but that’s in the past, and I honestly don’t care how easy/medium/hard it would be to gain in GW2. I just want it so badly :-P

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

There has been a huge amount of discussion around sub classes. I would love to see you guys close out this particular area by either putting a sub class proposal together (Sentence detailing how it would work) or deciding as a group that it isn’t relevant at this point.

Personally I like the idea behind sub classes and see quite a few of the counter arguments based upon assumptions around balancing etc. Where possible we should try not to make decisions around feasibility of ideas through assumptions.

In short I would like to see if the CDI group thinks it is a relevant part of Horizontal Progression at this stage of GW2’s life?

Chris

Sub classes provide exactly what Horizontal needs- expansion combined with limitation. AKA, the ability to specialize. It also provides a venue for progression post-80, perhaps with all those skill points we are piling up.

Example. Lets take a Necro, and have him spec into the ‘Berserker’ subclass. He gains access to new utility skills with a emphasis on direct damage. He gains access to new weapons, or new skills for existing weapons, again emphasizing damage. In exchange, he loses access to a lot of defensive abilities. He has progressed – vertically- in the area of direct damage. But he will have necessarily regressed – also vertically- in the area of sustainability. The net result is horizontal, since the overall power of the character remains roughly the same.

This way, you have a very powerful incentive for people to shoot for- more power in their preferred specialization. For balance, you have a very powerful downside- less power in all other areas. I can’t say this enough, but don’t be afraid of big changes- you will not get balance perfect. You’ll have to make adjustments as you go. We know this. That’s why we spend so much time on the forums giving suggestions.

As for specific mechanics of a sub class system- thats easy to breakdown into key areas, and then make decisions for each area.

1. Class specific or class wide. Generic subclasses (Berserker, Controller, Healer, etc and so forth) that specialize in gameplay roles, or class specific ones that are tailored to each class (A ‘Master of Blood’ necro specializing in health leech and transfering that health to allies, for example). Obviously, they need to be tailored to each classes skill set either way, but there’s a big difference between designing a whole shift in an entire class versus tweaking what exists.

My vote is for generic, class wide. It’s easier to balance along generic themes then new mechanics, and easier for other players to understand at a glance. “Controller Well Necro LFG” for example. One or two specs based on the class mechanic would be good though. Plus there’s always the option of releasing more specialized content over time, which would be awesome.

2. Method of Advancement. Almost certainly it should be post-80, but how to track progress? The best option, imo, is with skill points. It already exists, everyone is already familiar with it, it has no other significant purpose at present, and most importantly it allows for any area of gameplay to be used. Everything gives skill points- farming, events, dungeons, crafting, pvp, wvw, the works. Karma is another possibility- perhaps buy training manuals with karma. DO NOT USE GOLD. There are enough uses for that already.

3. Results of Advancement. New skills? Changes to old skills? New weapons? New traits? So on and so forth. I really, REALLY want the ability to change 1-5 skills. Other then that, I’ll leave this alone and let others discuss it in depth because all the options are good. Only rule is that it has to be significant. And not involve the gem store. If it involves the gem store, I’m uninstalling.

UrsVieru.8504:

Chrispy.5641:

That’s only if you focus on Subclasses solely for the purpose of adding new skills. If you make subclases in a way that doesn’t lock players out of anything specific while still offering a greater level of specialization, it could work very well in the current system.

Well, if you don’t lock players out of anything, this means no new skills, weapons or traits for the subclasses. This leaves only passive bonuses. I’ve actually found and read your proposal, and this seems to be your idea, as well.

I see several problems with that, too:

First, traits already provide passive bonuses – so why not add new traits instead? I’m not sure that added complexity of subclasses gains anything.

Second, this promotes passive gameplay – something that in my opinion goes against the spirit of the GW combat system; where you’re supposed to tactically ‘do something’ in combat to get a benefit.

Third, and this is more general issue, I think more specialization is the wrong way to go when providing progression (both horizontal of vertical). There is only so much you can specialize before stuffing characters into very tiny boxes; once you hit that ceiling, you’re out of that particular means of progression -and- you’ve risked damaging the game by introducing super-powerful combination of stats bonuses (for example, what happens when signet bonus trait, gear and subclass interact? Nobody tested signet spam builds, and it’s too late when you have to un-add things that looked like a good idea in a small scale test…)

Anyway, this is probably the wrong thread to discuss the point #3 – maybe we -should- have a general combat system and balancing CDI; because I don’t think we’ve ever discussed the design options for specialization vs generality, resource management vs cooldown, and options for power growth without reintroducing the trinity.

Yeah….it seemed like you didn’t get my point very well and you should also read an earlier post I made about how Anet is forcing us into DPS only…..

as for the other post, I just posted an example, not an end solution. It obviously needs to be worked on.

Adding more benefits through traits is not going to work though because you only get three traits in any trait line to specialize in. And Anet should explore the possibility of letting us specialize into a specific type of gameplay past Traits, Weapons, Armor, and Skills. Why? It increases Build Diversity, which is something this game desperately needs. DPS only is getting old (very old) outside of PvP, and it does not make Guild Wars 2 a better game for it.

EDIT – And I will say again, this topic should be saved for another time, because Horizontal progression isn’t really a factor in it.

timmyf.1490:

Let’s be clear here: direct damage is king in this game (PvE specific) because of these reasons…

1) Most encounters are fast enough that sustain is not important.
2) Condition caps
3) No condition damage against structures
4) Defiant :-(
5) Dodge for damage avoidance
6) Poor scaling of healing and toughness

Adding subclasses doesn’t fix any of those issues. It just means that everybody has to figure out which subclass works best with their existing DPS build.

Don’t add subclasses. FIX CONDITION BUILDS IN PVE. I soooo badly wanted to play a Confusion Mesmer, but it’s terrible. I’m so much better now that I have a Zerk phantasm build with Sword/Pistol+Focus…

This is 100% true, but it doesn’t have anything to do with horizontal progression. It’s more of a prerequisite, otherwise all progression will be funneled into the Zerker mindset as you mentioned.

Even with all this discussion of Horizontal this and that, Anet, dont’ forget that you have to fix the problems with the existing systems first or it will all be meaningless.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

In short I would like to see if the CDI group thinks it is a relevant part of Horizontal Progression at this stage of GW2’s life?

Chris

I don’t think this stage of GW2’s life is the best time to start sub-classes.

Currently the basic skill and traitsystem as we know it is not used to it’s full potential. Many of them are pointless to bring in PvE and entire build-ideas are irrelevant. Let’s fix that first.

The option is there to run a tanky build, or a healing build, or an interrupt build, or a control build… but they are usually just worse than the DPS plan.

Now I’m sure the designers at arenanet can come up with a bunch of intriguing subclasses, but as it is, the game does not support that type of variety.

And I’m using the word variety here because that is what subclasses should be: diverse. After all, what is the use of having different subclasses if they are all going to be doing basically the same thing?

Now if PvE encounters are getting more diverse, that will allow for different types of builds to shine. Then all the subclasses will have merit at some point. Perhaps it will be useful to bring a more healing oriented subclass, or a more defensive one.

Wether subclasses can bring more to this game than our basic traits & skills system… I guess they might? But it will be a lot of work. And without PvE encounters being revamped, they will add only flavor.

On the other hand, if PvE encounters do get revamped, the current system will have great potential. So then we may find out that subclasses aren’t even required to make buildcrafting more interesting.

But if, after a while, we have figured out the skills and trait system as it is… then perhaps it is time for subclasses.

Some other (slightly less important) notes:

• Subclasses can bring some flavor, but they also limit our imagination. At the moment we can shape our character to our ideas. Little bits here and there. While I’m playing my character I may dream up a highborn pirate engineer, and then gather all the accessories to make her exactly that. The lack of subclasses gives me the desire to imagine my own. If there are just a few road given… I would probably just step into one, or try really hard to force myself out of the subclasses restrictions if I do feel creative.

• If we are going to have subclass based armor design… that’ll take away a lot of resources. Apparently making skins is already very costly. If they are going to make 8 (professions) x 3 (subclasses) =24 (new skins), that means that it is very unlikely that all of those will fit charr’s, asura, norn, humans and sylvari alike. Your idea of a battlemage armor could be wildly different from the idea of an arenanet designer. But if they come up with designs per subclass… it could take a long time before a new skin comes out that does fit your idea. And without armor designs… will subclasses give enough flavor?

• If subclasses are going to be stronger, the previous content will become even easier to accomplish than it already is. Which would be boring. On the other hand, if subclasses are not going to be stronger, what is the reason to specialize? Or will the difference be minimal? Like all the other minimal differences so far? (They do start to add up…) It is a thin line. But with seriously good balancing, I bet it can be done. Just… after PvE encounters have been spiced up please, or the balancing may all be for naught.

In short: Maybe, but not any time soon.

And a link to a long list of encounters designed to make better use of our skills & trait system: 17 encounters

Here is my thought on sub classes. I think the same thing could be accomplished through more focused, borderline OP traits, as defined below.

Add another tier to existing trait trees without adding additional trait points. That way, players can choose to specialize by placing 40 points into a single trait tree (but would never have enough points to put 40 into two trait trees).

Then you assign highly specialized traits to the last box that “define” the role the player wants to play. As an example, the engineer alchemy trait line could be the “medic line,” with traits like the following to choose from at the “specialist” level: “Turret Network: When healing turret is used, all turrets in a 1200 radius mirror the heal used.”; “Infused bandages: all bandages dropped by the engineer heal for 300% more;” ; “Sympathic Elixers: Using an elixer grants the effect to all party members within a 600 radius.”

The inventions trait line would be the “control” line, with traits like “Forceful Blasts: all knockbacks apply an additional 1 second daze affect and remove 3 stacks of defiant,”; “Sticky Elixers: Thrown elixers apply cripple and remove 4 stacks of defiant,” ; “Polarized Turrets: when more than one turret is dropped within 1200 radius of one another, they create a periodic static wall (or field if 3 are dropped) that has a chance to daze targets and remove 2 stacks of defiant.”

This would allow people to specialize in a role while still keeping existing builds viable (eg, the balanced build), which would effectively be the same thing as sub classes.

Osyden.4893:

timmyf.1490:

I think subclasses are wrong for this game. Those who support subclasses seem to want a lot of things, none of which actually require a subclass system. I’d far prefer a redesign of the trait system to be more flexible, but even that is questionable because of balance concerns.

Adding subclasses opens up ZERO additional fun content or customization options.

Want more armor? You can have it without subclasses.
Want more skills? You can have them without subclasses.
Want more traits? You can have them without subclasses.
Want more weapons? You can have them without subclasses.
Want profession-specific weapons? You can have them without subclasses.
Want cosmetic options tied to specific roles? You can have them without subclasses.
Want control and support builds viable? You can have that without subclasses.

+1, very well said.

Having subclasses puts a lot of restrictions on those features.

“Here are 100 more skills to play with! But wait, your character can only use 3 of them because you’re this particular profession and subclass!”
“Here are 25 more weapons! But wait, you can only use one of them, the one associated with your subclass!”

It’d be crazy!

There seems to be a notion that a sub-class system can’t be within all of those bounds. Sure, we could just add new skills and traits and call it a day, or we could add them with some more flavor added, and new ways of accessing them. If we wanted to attach them to the orders, then we could have a Vigil theme for all professions, giving you vigil related bonuses and effects to your current skills, or granting brand new ones.

Not to mention, we’re already limited in our options from game mechanics. we can only ever have 2 weapons at a given time, and we can only use 10 skills at a given time. Sub-classes wouldn’t necessarily affect that, even if they weren’t flexible. You’d still only have 2 weapons you could use at a given time, despite having more options, or 10 skills despite having 100 to choose from. Guardians still can’t use Necromancer skills. Lets assume sub-classes are flexible, and you can change your sub-class (or portions for certain proposals) basically at-will. You’d have as many open slots to add additional skills, traits, or perhaps weapons as you’d ever have, but your options have grown. You can become more specialized in any given role (than you were before) because of those options.

Now, I agree. PvE is heavily direct damage focused. PvP is in a decent spot in regards to stat spreads since you may need to focus on damage, survivability, or such (CC is only partially stat dependent). However, in PvP classes are generally shoe-horned into the more effective builds, which means that there’s still some build concepts that are lacking in some form. There may need to be some significant re-working of combat mechanics to allow for some builds to find their place (in addition, NPCs can’t be launched off ledges, while players can), but with some effort in both of these respects, we can see a lot more diversity in characters through builds.

Subclasses sound a lot like skill trees to me. Do the developers really want to add skill trees to a game that is supposed to be casual and have a “play your way” vibe?

@Ghotistyx I don’t beleive his point is that you can’t have subclasses, it’s that they do not add value for money(or development hours). As he pointed out all the functionality suggested are doable through existing means.

Maybe a long way down the road subclasses could work but right now should not be a priority they do not add enough. As pointed out the basic classes are severely unbalanced and should be worked on first.

Subclass Placement:

Defensive Combat Options:
(1) Walking out of red circles, which is at 100% availability and sometimes stretched to the limit. No need for a subclass
(2) Dodge rolling, which is available once every 5s, allowing for monsters to make player reaction check for rolling. No subclass required as well. So far, all classes are equal.
(3) Utility Skill based damage avoidance/mitigation. Always attached to high recharge, game can make very seldom reaction tests against those skills. Problem of skillful play and skill activation being somewhat connected by merit of the words themself. Due to high recharge, players are trained by the game to make running and dodging work so often, until there is no longer a need for a defensive skill activation, which takes away from the game in my opinion. Sub-Classes combined with lower recharge times can raise availability of defensive skill activations, thereby allow the monster AI to make reaction checks for players more often. Most notably in the utility skill category. Added upside of classes retaining flavor, while players being able to broaden personal options by mixing flavors. Absolute defensive skills such as mist form should be avoided. In PvP, this allows for players to counter a defensive move with an offensive counter of their own, while in PvE, players can still resort to types of counters a monster cannot come back from. This also raises the thread of special bosses, who seemingly have an answer to everything. (Without red circle galore)

Offensive Option:
Offense is mainly tied to choice of weapon. Giving each weapon skill to every class was counterbalanced by primary attribute in GW1. Without a similar counter-weight a subclass should not mean access to full weapon configurations. Switching out one skill here and there might still be not that bad. At the same time, of the weapons you can use, the ability to switch freely at all times is desirable. Nothing worse than knowing you should continue a fight with another weaponset, but having to wait, or to wipe to adjust. (e.g. Ele) No gameplay flow there.

Traiting:
Use this the way GW1 handled attribute. One trait line is the primary trait, only your prime class has access to. This can handle class specific mechanics and provide class specific flavors to everything. Non-primary traits are available to all sub-classes. Traits usually affect groups of utility skills, which are suggested to be available to sub-class anyway. Or they affect main hand weapons, in which case they might stack, might not stack. Or they provide utility in which case sub-classes ight add to each other. Traits and additional points therein (read, additional progression) are certainly the most interesting, but also probably requiring a complete disassembly, reassembly of what gets placed where and which limits are put in place and how.

Armor:
Primary class armor, nothing else.

Controls handling:
In terms of skillbar, the player will configure skills 6-10 twice. Once for his primary class, once for his secondary class. He then attunes between primary focus and sub-class focus on the fly during battle at low recharge. If skills 1-5 are subject to change, they shift accordingly.

Further down the road, you could even allow for more than one subclass, making on the fly decisions and changes to your character setup even more of a focus of coordinated play.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

In short I would like to see if the CDI group thinks it [sub class] is a relevant part of Horizontal Progression at this stage of GW2’s life?

Chris

I am going to say it is.

1. It will get our character ready for new future content. As said it is the means of getting us to the end goal (whatever that may be). If it is going to be the means, I would certainly like to have it before I finish anything else you give me.

2. It will give the both of us time to know what to expect. When new challenges arrive I think it will be better to already have an idea of what the players can do beforehand and not afterwards. For us, I think it will give us time to become acquainted with what options we have and play around with what works for us.

3. It will give you time to start balancing. It will be a complicated mess I am sure, even when you think it is ready and release it, the players will find a way. Might as well get the content out now so you can evaluate how it progresses with the characters.

4. I know many people who left GW2 just because of the lack of character depth. They did not even want to see the end content, I partially share the perspective.

5. I personally would like to see more fighting variety. I want to see my warrior fight in a more Japanese style if I so choose, or a more Viking style if I so choose, etc. I think these sub classes might help with that as well.

6. Sub classes will bring more focus to the different roles. This will help break away from the subtle feeling of the trinity, and it will bring more focus to help with crit-builds. That is, you would be able to make crit-builds more than just a mere attachment for damage dealers to do more damage.

Anyways these are just my thoughts, maybe they are off a bit but at least everyone can evaluate them and discern for themselves.

Conski is correct. My point is that subclasses represent AT BEST a wasted opportunity to develop something better. They add nothing which cannot be added within the existing structures. At worst, they force players to grind out a subclass which they are more-or-less required to use because it is “ideal.”

I see it far more likely to reduce, rather than expand, build diversity.

I wonder if Chris would be willing to post a report showing the percentage use of each trait. For example, 25% of Engineers use Grenadier. 35% use Speedy Kits. That sort of data.

I bet you’d find there are a couple very popular builds in each profession and probably 1/2 to 2/3 of traits are under 1% usage.

If you want new builds and better roles, fix the problems with control, support, and conditions and overhaul traits to allow additional build options. Don’t tack on some new random subclass structure because some other game has it and you liked it there.

Instead of subclasses, what if you could unlock Postures. Postures would have options like Aggressive, Elegant, Brutish, Stealthy, etc. Postures would update your characters’ animations, dialogue, emotes, etc.

Once you unlock a posture, it can be enabled anytime out of combat, but you can only have one active at a time. Not all postures would be available on all professions. Elegant, for example, might only be available on Thief, Ranger, Mesmer, and Elementalist.

This would allow horizontal character progression without any vertical component whatsoever.

timmyf.1490:

Instead of subclasses, what if you could unlock Postures. Postures would have options like Aggressive, Elegant, Brutish, Stealthy, etc. Postures would update your characters’ animations, dialogue, emotes, etc.

Once you unlock a posture, it can be enabled anytime out of combat, but you can only have one active at a time. Not all postures would be available on all professions. Elegant, for example, might only be available on Thief, Ranger, Mesmer, and Elementalist.

This would allow horizontal character progression without any vertical component whatsoever.

That sounds like something that should be linked to the personality system.

timmyf.1490:

Conski is correct. My point is that subclasses represent AT BEST a wasted opportunity to develop something better. They add nothing which cannot be added within the existing structures. At worst, they force players to grind out a subclass which they are more-or-less required to use because it is “ideal.”

I see it far more likely to reduce, rather than expand, build diversity.

I wonder if Chris would be willing to post a report showing the percentage use of each trait. For example, 25% of Engineers use Grenadier. 35% use Speedy Kits. That sort of data.

I bet you’d find there are a couple very popular builds in each profession and probably 1/2 to 2/3 of traits are under 1% usage.

If you want new builds and better roles, fix the problems with control, support, and conditions and overhaul traits to allow additional build options. Don’t tack on some new random subclass structure because some other game has it and you liked it there.

I think my point, is to do exactly what you’re suggesting, which is to allocate resources to developing traits and skills, etc. What I’m suggestion is to actually go ahead and improve these aspects, using sub-classes as the flavor for development. It seems like the entire idea of sub-classes is only defined one way to the opposition, without consideration to many different and viable ways that have been put forth.

Like I’ve said though, if we move sub-class discussion to its own CDI, or discard it entirely, we have like, 75% housing 25% zone progression and that’s almost it. Do we have anything else that needs its time in the spotlight? or can we move to the next portion of CDI?

This Summary Is From Page 17-22

Okay, in conferring with Bezagron, we’ve decided to start up our summary where people are discussing their top 3 areas of interest, as per this post by Chris. I will try to stick with Bezagron’s delightful tone and flow of summarizing!

But First:
Malchior talks about the focus on character progression in our votes here and it really resonates.

Conski Deshan brings up what I feel is a crucial point in this post about horizontal progression.

• Things tied to horizontal progression, almost by necessity, must be largely (if not exclusively) account bound.
  p. In my opinion, this provides incentive to participate in the variety of horizontal systems we’re discussing and a sense of accomplishment/advancement in reaching an account bound reward.

• And, as Conski Deshan points out, it can be used to mitigate some of the disparity with RNG without causing an upset to the markets via flooding- additionally, there will be pride associated with having earned and not purchased the rewards.

• Johasthan also discusses this rather extensively.

A common complaint is that, given the 26 pages of this thread, narrowing the field to three ideas is painful, and it’s often hard to extricate ourselves from our own ideas. However, it does make for more concise (and therefore more easily summarized!) posts, at least in theory. With that said, many ideas listed under a single idea are actually multiple topics which have some synergy. I had to make some judgement calls on how to categorize the responses. Please forgive me if I have misrepresented your ideas in any way; that is not my intention. I also realize that not all votes supported all the ideas in any given grouping.

I also did not tally ideas that were not in any way horizontal character progression. Enough people mentioned new zones that I did include it in a loose grouping, but I think new zones are not necessarily topical, so I included it in the grouping about exploration.

What the People Want:

Our clear winner is Cosmetic customization tools, with 62 mentions.

• In this, I have included any talk about a skin locker or wardrobe functionality, but also ways to save looks, new ways to customize skins, options to visually customize skills, dyeable weapons, making dyes account bound, and new dyes/types of dyes.

Tied for second with 53 mentions each, skills, traits, and weapons as well as quests, challenge missions and order progression.

• I included all discussion about introducing new skills and traits. Additionally, subclasses, skill and mechanics improvements, methods of acquiring skills, and new weapon types.

Next comes housing, guild halls and customization of the home instance, with 44 votes.

Another tie with 21 mentions each: More new skins, and expansion of the personality system

• I included capes, town clothes and how armor fits.

Close behind with 18 votes is build diversity.

• I included things like requests for build templates, stat swapping on gear and the expense of the rune/sigil system in its present form.

14 mentions of zone progression.

• This includes things like requests for a more intricate exploration system, new or repeatable hearts, a call to make the open world more engaging, permanent content and new zones.

There are 11 votes for more titles.

• A lot of people (more than half, I’d say) specified racial titles, and several mentioned prestigious titles.

With 9 mentions each, hard mode and a general call for more character customization are next in line.

Lore as a reward and the call for the game world to actively respond to the choices we make garnered 8 mentions each.

Next, with 5 votes each, secondary crafting skills (fishing, tinkering, etc) and the ability to craft town clothes and RP items and visible rewards for completing heroic feats.

4 mentions of these 4 ideas: A total guild system overhaul, an expansion of the emote and verbal call-out system, an improvement or overhaul of the personal story, and improvements to the interface for minis

3 requests for mounts and mounted combat.

2 votes each for the following: skins that show progress via cosmetics (like the fractal capacitor), more arena-style combat, more activities (polymock in particular).

And a handful of other ideas with only one mention.

Watch this space- reserved for summarizing.

UPDATE: Well, I’ve somehow lost all my summary work. So… I’ll work on highlights later.

I don’t know if I should quote my statements above subclasses here again. Mainly I see subclasses in our current system already. Trait in the beastmaster traitline and take pet-specific traits and skills makes you a beastmaster. We already have subclasses.

The thing that’s missing imho is a visual representation of that. So each trait of each group of traits would have a certain cosmetic-point-value. If you’ve traited/specced 50 points in favour of beastmastery/pets, you’d unlock various cosmetic traits to make your beastmaster look like a beastmaster (bigger axes, bigger pets, new soundfiles,…)

Ghotistyx.6942:

Like I’ve said though, if we move sub-class discussion to its own CDI, or discard it entirely, we have like, 75% housing 25% zone progression and that’s almost it. Do we have anything else that needs its time in the spotlight? or can we move to the next portion of CDI?

If you throw out the talking about New Skills/Weapons/Weapon Skills/Etc. in general and lump that together with Sub-classes (which we probably should, and give all of that its own CDI and leave this thread for cosmetic stuff only), then yea, those numbers seem about right….but thats only if….

…you forget there was also alot of talk about Order Quests and Faction Progression in General earlier on in the thread, and there was a little bit talking about Lore and a Hard Mode way back at the begining as well. You can’t count those out just because they aren’t being talked about currently.

If ANet decided to do subclasses, couldn’t each subclass just receive a bonus to certain stats as opposed to being locked out of certain skills and traits? That might be a way to make existing skills and traits more relevant to the various classes.

I would really love an option to “Holster or Sheathe” the offhand weapon to unlock an additional #3, 4 and 5 weapon skill from the one-handed main hand weapon (while still retaining the attribute bonuses of the offhand).

This would be like a mini-weapon swap giving access to 8 weapon skills per weapon set, 5 weapon skills for the main hand when the offhand is holstered or sheathed and two or three additional weapon skills (Three for thief) granted from the offhand when it is drawn.

It would be really nice have an option to not dual wield all the time.

Chrispy.5641:

Ghotistyx.6942:

Like I’ve said though, if we move sub-class discussion to its own CDI, or discard it entirely, we have like, 75% housing 25% zone progression and that’s almost it. Do we have anything else that needs its time in the spotlight? or can we move to the next portion of CDI?

If you throw out the talking about New Skills/Weapons/Weapon Skills/Etc. in general and lump that together with Sub-classes (which we probably should, and give all of that its own CDI and leave this thread for cosmetic stuff only), then yea, those numbers seem about right….but thats only if….

…you forget there was also alot of talk about Order Quests and Faction Progression in General earlier on in the thread, and there was a little bit talking about Lore and a Hard Mode way back at the begining as well. You can’t count those out just because they aren’t being talked about currently.

I think I mentally lumped those together with zone progression, though I can see about how those were misrepresented. I myself talked a bit about the merits of Hard Mode, and I’d like to see all of these ideas (class, zone, house, faction, visual progression) implemented. I’d also probably rank them in the order as I did in the parenthesis.

I’m also a bit against counting the mentioning of individual terms, as their context varies greatly. While reacting to the term which gets mentioned the most might seem the most democratic, the resulting desired quality might not be found by simply going that route. You can put in a thing with the right name and yet attach all the wrong things to it.

Take the elite skills. Once they were part of a horizontal progression which had you track down specific bosses in specific corners to unlock. This not only made them a progression of your power, but also part of a journey of character progression which only exists in your head. The game had no narrative for that process, the player provided it. Once they were the defining characteristic of your build. As it stands, we do have elite skills in the game, but their role has now been give to weaponsets, which currently are the center of build attention. Minus the dimension of having to go explore for an unlock of said weapons. But by simply looking at elite skills and weapon sets, GW2 implemented the right things, but left out the narrative gaps for the player to fill out.

In a similar way, we can look at the core combat loop of GW2 being "observe → decide → implement reaction. As I said earlier, when playing defense, the implementation of the “right” reaction can be very one sided and downright monotonous. Basically, you are never wrong dodging and hardly ever wrong stepping aside from red areas on the ground.

This being my main grief with core combat loop, I naturally see sub-classes as a new mode of complexity adding depth to the types of choices the game is forcing me to implement during combat. From attacks that cannot we walked out of (rather many), to attacks that cannot be dodges (rather few) to attacks that forcibly require skill activations (currently, rather none)

A classic trope of boss fights, is the boss shifting modes. In its most basic implementation of a Japanese action game, you either dodge or you attack. You do one, until the boss shifts mode and you can do the other. GW2 has plenty of gameplay reasoning why you can attack all the time pushing skills. GW2 has few to none gameplay reasons why you can push buttons to keep alive. Sub Classes are a new way to provide more. Gameplay deepens because instead of exploring 30s attack chains, you can now look into 30s of defense play with button presses other than wasd + roll.

Just reacting to the term sub-classes because it seems popular and populate the attack options with even more attack option is implementing the popular thing for the wrong reasons. Other terms, similarly often mentioned also carry quite different intentions.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Certainly in my mind I am imagining the journey being centered around existing core journey mechanics or evolved mechanics and systems like Marcus’s map progression idea or by many ‘journey’ ideas yourself and others have made.

With each of my suggestions I also imagine the theme of each type of character progression have a huge impact on the ‘flavor’ of the journey that pertains to each. Also note that in two of my examples they are not considered progression ‘end’ points. Instead they are bridges leading to more journeys.

Indeed – while task and reward are not intrinsically connected, having that thematic tie – that ‘sense of rightness’ – is essential in the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Any of these horizontal advances could be accessed through spending gold, but for only some of them does that feel right.

But just as recently as the release of Ascended Armor, there’s strong evidence that multiple pathways should be considered to support the same ends. If new flourishes become available for your home neighborhood perhaps some should be purchased through karma and some crafted… …And there should be some items that can be acquired both ways to create a system inclusive to multiple playstyles .

I think it’s been good to trust that playstyle can be matched to each of these horizontal systems. I’m just mulling out loud that where possible, multiple journeys should be matched to each destination so long as they both/all are richly thematic.

The recent Antitoxin #6 skill is a perfect example – it can be bought with skill points OR it can be bought with mats + coin.

I guess I’m just reminding myself how important that OR can be. Something I can use to improve my proposals in the future.

Therefore in short I think a journey CDI would be awesome and whilst it is awesome to read these ideas in this CDI, i do not believe that Journey is the primary discussion in this topic, however important it may be.

Fair enough. I agree it is a separate topic. I was more thinking that meditating on the activities we have in game already might inspire horizontal progress ideas not yet uncovered. Following the bridge the other way .

I really enjoyed the ‘torch races’ in Divinity’s Reach during the jubilee. That was fun to me. So I was thinking rather than “here’s something I want: what’s the best way to get it?” I was hoping asking “Here’s something I enjoy doing: what’s an interesting new reward for mastering it?” would spark the imagination. Maybe if you accomplish a set of 6 really tough footraces in a zone all the waypoints in that zone are discounted 10%? Horizontal progression ! And it’s building on existing systems because we know from the Captain’s Council election that waypoint costs can be modified. Perhaps only universally (for now) but there’s potential there…

Don’t mind me. I’m off in the underbrush turning over stones. Just sharing how I think sometimes. I’ll come back to the main trail momentarily .

I would personally like to see more diversity in wvw and here’s what I mean.
It came to me one day that all the guards and keep lords are all the same npcs and it just bothers me because it’s always the same charr or human. I would like to see some more diverse races as tower guards or keep lords. For example a sylvari guard or charr wizards etc.

Also it wouldn’t hurt to see these npcs (the guards and keep lords) using different weapons instead of the same weapon, for example some keep lords use a rifle, the veteran at supply camps use hammers. Why is it like this? I feel like changing up some npcs in wvw might make wvw a bit more alive.

Some other wvw related things I would like to suggest is about siege skins, recall there are those skeletal undead trebs, blood legion have their own type of siege, I believe the pirates have a different looking siege and etc. I think it would be a neat idea if we could purchase these siege skins via the gem store or sold like normal at the TP in which you can acquire these siege from a mercenary camp vendor or capturing a specific supply camp. There are many ways you can play with this idea you can make more or change the current mercenary camps and put undead in one to get their siege skins or blood legion in one supply camp once captured you can get their siege. But its not only the siege that I want to discuss there is also supply caravans that should be considered, for example the blood legion have their own hovering supply carrier which would be interesting to see in wvw as a skin or from one specific supply camp. I would also like to suggest adding a new supply carrier, specifically a moa these animals would be great to getting supply to towers and keeps. But there must be a catch to make things fair so lets further discuss this idea. The supply carrying moa would move much faster than a yak but it carries less supply than a yak would and you can only get this via a supply camp upgrade it can spawn after the dolyak delivers and comes back and essentially take turns.

Well that’s about it for me thanks for reading.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

In short I would like to see if the CDI group thinks subclasses are a relevant part of Horizontal Progression at this stage of GW2’s life?

Chris

I’m for sub-classes if they can be used to balance PvE, but I would rather have new skills than unlockable sub-classes because they’re more fun.
That said… I think we should wait to discuss sub-classes until the PvE Balance CDI. Better yet, give them their own topic because sub-classes affect players of all game-modes, including those who aren’t participating in the current discussion.

I think what subclasses can especially offer, that traitlines can not, is more flavor and more visual distinction.

Flavor
1. Traits are both too restricting (only 5 trait lines with a geometric stat spreading) and too broad (each line tries to be as general as possible).
For example, an elementalist that invests in the earth tree is going to get earth-flavored effects, but not specific subclass-flavored effects. The #5 earth trait that offers more defense is great for battlemages. But it contributes nothing to condition-mentalists. The #25 for extra damage while endurance is full is great for sneaky burst roles. But won’t do anything to tankier roles that need to dodge before dealing full damage.
2. Traits put flavor and efficiency competing against each other. And efficiency will always win.
For example, you can mix specific trait combos for the sake of flavor, but chances are, that won’t be the most optimal combo you can do. Even when each trait is strong by itself, so it has nothing to do with balance, but by accident.

The great thing about subclasses, is that flavor is already set up before customization. That gives you the freedom to be as efficient as possible without sacrifing a flavor. That might be a bad thing, too, however, as it might restrict the playerbase within set templates. For that reason, I think subclasses should exist in great quantity and should have its own, satisfying level of customisation. Maybe they could even be combined with each other.

SUBCLASS SYSTEM PROPOSAL

• Each trait line = each subclass
• Collecting subclasses unlocks new trait lines

I might expand on it someday, when I have more time. But here’s some more ideas:

• Trait lines with flavored branches (Trait Trees).
• The further you go into a line, the more branches you will be able to get access to each one more and more specialized.
• EXAMPLE
  Elementalist:
  1st traitline: Elemental Mastery → branches into Fire, Water, Earth and Air Mastery;
  2nd traitline: Natural Talent → branches into Elemental Dancing, Arcanist, etc;
  3rd traitline: Battlemage → branches into Conjurer, “Elemental Assassin”, etc.

To avoid jumble ups, and long stuff I’ll just say I’m in favor the whole " Role Diversification: New skills/traits, new weapons, access to inaccessible existing weapons, infusions and hybrid professions" Chris mentioned earlier. I love the Sociopolitical stuff and think it should be included also, but I’d rather it come second.

I think Role diversity would just have a much bigger more positive impact on game play, and re-playability for all types of players. The try-hards can work toward perfecting complex builds, mastering nontraditional combat with new weapons and skills ect. ect.; while casual players have a bunch of new stuff to tinker around with resulting in hours more of game play. As for approaching this with sub-classes I think it’s a great Idea. It would just be blast and would free up many players from being feeling pigeonholed into certain builds. I would just take the fundamentals from the dual class system from -guild war factions- and edit it accordingly.(easier said than done of course) Only thing I would say is this relies heavily on the balance team, and they would have quite a bit of work for set for themselves. but that’s that.

TheDaiBish.9735:

How does restricting what people can wear by subclass give more ways for people to look different?
Forgive me for not seeing the logic in what you’re saying.

Look!

Think about 1 Million Players… Each one of them wanting to be with their characters as unique as possible. Ask yourself, how do you reach this goal to satisfy everyones wishes/taste to truly make unique characters?

The simple answer is: You give them options! The more, so better.

With the current way how the game works, everybody who plays the same class, can exactly work and look the same. Its all just a matter of a few clicks of resetting your traits, changing your weapon and utilities/healing skill and et voila, you can copy someone else without any problem.
But Sub Class Skills can’t be just so easily copied, if your character isn’t of the same sub class. Its just a little option more to diversify characters.
Here in the point, mostly about characters that are of the same main profession.

I want to be as unique as possible, but that also among my Class that I play.
Traits aren’t enough for me, because they can simply be changed in a blink of an eye and all palyers of the same option have the same access to them and lead to the point, that an other player with the same class playing as you works exactly the same way, once he/she just copies only your weapon, utilities and your traits.

There needs to be simply more diversification options, that are gameplay relative, to individualize our characters to a greater detail of depth, especially among the same class playing.

I don’t want Sub Classes to be non changeable. I have said it several times – I want them to be changeable, just like Crafting Professions.
So nothing of their unique content is inaccessible forever, once you’ve chosen to become something different.
If you want to use some of the specific Sub Class traits, you can, whenever you want. All you would have to do is change the Sub Class at a NPC and pay a fee for it, like you had to pay a fee for changign your dual class in GW1.
if you wanted to use some special skilsl from an other class in GW1, you also had to change always your dual class first to becoem able to use the skills of that other class.

So we are talking here about a mechanic, that is fully well known for everybody, who played GW1. So I don#t see, wheres now the problem with it for so many people out of a sudden to get a little bit restricted on which kind of skilsl you can use, and which not.

Restricting people in their choices makes you more unique , simply out of the fact, because restrictions disable it or at least make it harder for other players to copy you.
They make decisions of character development more impactful, especially when an otion to revert your decision comes together with a fee that has to be payed first to become able to change your chosen sub class. A system that worked already perfectly fine in GW1, where absolutely nobody had any problems with it.
Just to mention.

I absolutely support the idea of adding subclasses or class specializations.

However, I do feel it’s a larger topic that deserves it’s own discussion. Also, it’s a system that requires the game as we know it now to be better balanced for all varieties of gameplay. Right now, the game is too dependent on DPS and thus any further specialization of classes or expansion of roles would be a near useless venture. We’d just end up where we are now with DPS Build X being the choice nearly everyone makes, except with sub class Y being the obvious selection alongside a set of berserker gear..

Some have pointed out that many aspects of subclasses could be replicated by just making better use of the systems that are already in place. I don’t entirely disagree with that viewpoint either.

In short, yes for better expansion of class roles and abilities, be that through subclasses or not, but no for doing it without addressing the core problems that exist in the combat system as we know it.

Orpheal, you are making an assumption I think is clearly false given what we know about this game so far. You are assuming that all three (or however many) subclasses will be equally attractive, so instead of everybody playing Zerker Greatsword Warrior, there are now three different types of Warriors. Look, uniqueness!

Wrong.

Instead, there will be an ideal subclass, based on DPS, and everybody will “choose” that. Players who do not pick that subclass will be marginalized the same way non-Zerker builds are marginalized now.

More skills. More weapons. More traits. More armor. No needless restrictions on who can use them.

(Side note: it’s very unfair to say that GW1 dual-classing and sub-classing are the same thing. Choosing a second class in GW1 did not remove options from your main class, it only added additional options.)

I’m going to weigh in on sub-classes… again.

I see the primary arguments against it being either it’s unnecessary as you could just add the new skills/weapons/traits directly to the profession and call it a day; or that it would become too restrictive, how adding new content equals restrictive I don’t know.

So I’ll primarily contest the first point.

-

True, if all sub-classes were was new skills, weapons and traits, even specialized to some degree and mutually exclusive to each sub-class, then why not just add it straight? Occam’s Razor and all.

But what I see as the true potential of a sub-class isn’t just new stuff, or just specialization and flavor, but fundamental alterations to the professions core mechanics.

For example:

• Mesmer’s could have two sub-classed, the Illusionist and the Duelist.
• The Illusionist gains a maximum of 2 more clones, for a max of 5. Including new skills and abilities that specialize in support via deception and trickery.
• The Duelist on the other hand gains new version of Shatter skills, specializing in control via interruption and CC.

Something like this cannot be done by adding content directly, as it would change the profession fundamentally, where as this way it is an optional specialization, allowing you to further deviate from what other players do and become more unique in your own playstyle.

However, I wouldn’t go so far as to have sub-classes have unique armor and skins, it’s just a dumb idea that would take too many resources away from other things.

But looking at sub-classes this way opens up a whole lot of possible ideas.
Such as:

• Rangers could a one sub-class that allows them to have out multiple pets at the same time, where another maybe allows them to use some pets as mounts?
• Thieves could have one the improves and changes the Stealing mechanic, while another could get 3 dodges worth of endurance instead of just 2.
• Guardians could have one that alters how Healing Power effects it’s boons and healing, greatly increasing out going support/healing.

etc etc

Because that’s kind of the problem with the current system, you can’t actually change core mechanics of a profession without throwing out the balance, where here you can and play around with very different incarnations of these professions while maintaining balance.

And I think that would give us some very interesting build options as well.
I only hope that such a system could bring up support and control, or non-DPS options as valid playstyles.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

There has been a huge amount of discussion around sub classes. I would love to see you guys close out this particular area by either putting a sub class proposal together (Sentence detailing how it would work) or deciding as a group that it isn’t relevant at this point.

Personally I like the idea behind sub classes and see quite a few of the counter arguments based upon assumptions around balancing etc. Where possible we should try not to make decisions around feasibility of ideas through assumptions.

In short I would like to see if the CDI group thinks it is a relevant part of Horizontal Progression at this stage of GW2’s life?

Chris

I think that sub-classes could help to create a more unique character, opening more paths to customize him, paths that not everybody could take.

Right now I can’t spot much differences between two character from the same profession, the great majority equip the same weapons and use the same traits and skills. Probably it is related to the DPS being the king of builds and the inflexible action bar we have… However, designing a sub-class system should be tied to fixing this issues about combat and balance we already have, I believe that both things could be done together.

My personal opinion is that sub-classes don’t restrict customization, they just orient your character to a more specific role (in combat and in roleplay), and gives him a sense of growth. I think that it should came out, soon or later. BTW here is a post I made long ago about a system of “sub-classes an dual-profession” https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/5#post3409894

Nike.2631:

But just as recently as the release of Ascended Armor, there’s strong evidence that multiple pathways should be considered to support the same ends. If new flourishes become available for your home neighborhood perhaps some should be purchased through karma and some crafted… …And there should be some items that can be acquired both ways to create a system inclusive to multiple playstyles .

The recent Antitoxin #6 skill is a perfect example – it can be bought with skill points OR it can be bought with mats + coin.

Only being able to obtain certain things one way is good for allowing people to stand out though. Hard challenges providing unique rewards is a staple of gameplay.

If they want to make sure that stuff is obtainable in more than one way then they have to make sure all the ways are either skill gates or purchase gates not a mix of both because one side will always end up feeling robbed. Maintaining the prestige of the item.
For instance, Gold,Glory,Wvw tokens,Karma,laurals,SP,AP are all purchase gates , you can be a complete failure at the game and still get them.
Skill gate tokens can be Dungeon tokens, Pristine fractal relics(not the normal ones),or the SAB coins for tribulation mode,specific achievements. Mixing the two tends to cause problems,

Your own example of the Antitoxin, anyone who paid money for it feels they got an awful deal due to the ease at which SP’s are gained.
One major one I see coming up is the Pvp dungeon armor outside of Pvp, I would not be a happy person if I’d earned a full set of Arah by running the dungeon only to see someone who could theoretically have lost 100 pvp matches and got enough glory wearing it.

Staples should be obtainable multiple ways I’ll concede that , so several ways to get ascended although none significantly easier than the other. But prestiges should be kept to a single location, otherwise players will second guess how you got it.

Orpheal.8263:

Look!

Think about 1 Million Players… Each one of them wanting to be with their characters as unique as possible. Ask yourself, how do you reach this goal to satisfy everyones wishes/taste to truly make unique characters?

The simple answer is: You give them options! The more, so better.

I want to be as unique as possible, but that also among my Class that I play.

There needs to be simply more diversification options, that are gameplay relative, to individualize our characters to a greater detail of depth, especially among the same class playing.

So we are talking here about a mechanic, that is fully well known for everybody, who played GW1. So I don#t see, wheres now the problem with it for so many people out of a sudden to get a little bit restricted on which kind of skilsl you can use, and which not.

Restricting people in their choices makes you more unique , simply out of the fact, because restrictions disable it or at least make it harder for other players to copy you.
They make decisions of character development more impactful, especially when an otion to revert your decision comes together with a fee that has to be payed first to become able to change your chosen sub class. A system that worked already perfectly fine in GW1, where absolutely nobody had any problems with it.
Just to mention.

Ok you seem to have a similar goal to mine (getting people to stand out more) but are going about it in a very different manner. Have you considered Skill gates and Harder challenges as a means to differentiate characters? Like putting unique armors and weapons behind extremely hard content and making that the only way to get it?
That way if you’re good enough it stops people copying you because they are physically unable to complete the challenge.
More time limited metas are also a good way to introduce unique items that can’t be copied.

They are going about things in a different manner to guild-wars one so I don’t think they can just shoehorn in mechanics from it.

First of great summary Guhracie that was a fantastic read. Thanks so much with the help summarising. I’m looking to have the next summary up later tonight here.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

There has been a huge amount of discussion around sub classes. I would love to see you guys close out this particular area by either putting a sub class proposal together (Sentence detailing how it would work) or deciding as a group that it isn’t relevant at this point.

Snip..

Chris

Again referring to build content (weapons, weapons skills, skills, traits, stat items, rune, sigils & infusions), I see many ideas for expanding the existing build content system. What I believe many are investigating with the presented build content ideas & sub-classes is just not the expansion of build content but ideas of systems to add flavour, variety, reason & a leveling / unlock progression system. In this way I believe sub-classes or any build content system is exactly like the skin locker, supporting functionality for collection of the build content components.

With this in mine as much as I believe sub-classes could add to HP (they could be a large component of any HP), I now see sub-classes as a supporting functionality. With this in mind I believe we should continue with the other amazing core ideas and finish up with sub-classes. A future CDI on build content supporting functionalities could be another great topic.

Also Chris I’ll look at creating a sub-class summary to capture the sub-class discussion. Regarding the sub-class discussions thanks so much to both sides, it has been very enjoyable.