Guild Wars 2

Devata.6589:

I think the traditional quest are exactly what you need. The only way they really don’t fit in to the design-idea is that it has to be different but then maybe change that idea.

The fact that quests aren’t repeatable also makes them give you more the feeling of having some small form of impact. A dynamic event that keeps repeating feels sort of useless to do.
When you done all the quest you are indeed out of content but they can add quest and there are the dynamic events that still keep on going.

I think the combination of the two would work great. It are both nice systems but not substitutes for each other while the dynamic events are now supposed to be substitutes for the traditional quests. Thats part of the problem.
Mix the two and you have the pro’s of the dynamic events and the journey and story feeling from the normal quest.

Well designing a quest would take ressources of dynamic events, which would be bad imho because

• if you add new events, the world becomes more alive, old events spawn less frequently and there’s always something going on.
• if you add new quests the world loses content for each quest you do. Since there are no new events (because ressources go to quests) you’ll always see the same events.

So it’s clear for me that the answer can only be: more dynamic events, but more interesting ones (writing!!).

DevilLordLaser.8619:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Sytherek.7689:

DevilLordLaser.8619:

~

~

~

This is why I can’t leave this sort of thread alone for a second Q_Q

That is actually exactly my point, Chris/Sytherek. I know very well that game developers have limited resources, oftentimes very limited resources, and that those resources can only stretch so far. it’s why, whenever I make a suggestion in a game forum for any game anywhere, I try my best to incorporate it into the game’s existing systems as much as possible, provide as many notions for how to anchor it into work that’s already been done as I can.

By “twitchy”, I don’t mean I get bothered by/don’t believe developers claiming they don’t have the resources. I can see where the wording of my previous post could suggest that, but it’s honestly not what I meant. By “twitchy”, I mean that I know full well that ninety to ninety-seven percent of things that people will want to do in games like this will Never Get Done, and thus we need to be very, very careful about what we actually decide we want to try and lobby ArenaNet for. I twitch when I see people just casually demand things they have no idea how to implement, or which would be prohibitively resource-intensive to do (Minecraft-level modularity within ArenaNet’s existing art style and engine, as some have suggested? NOT. HAPPENING).

I’ll be completely honest with you: I think player housing is a terrible idea. Making it, as you said, ‘meaningful, flexible and useful’ would eat a lot of resources, which would then be resources unable to be allocated to anything else. We would certainly lose out on many/most other forms of horizontal progression given that the housing system would require the same level of effort as entire new zones, as well as brand new coding and engine work in order to add the modularity and customization options people want. We’d also stand a very good chance of never seeing guild housing, a’la guild halls, because a system for doing such (albeit VERY poorly) would already technically be in place and ArenaNet wouldn’t really be able to justify allocating additional resources to guild halls when those resources could be doing something New and Different instead.

Player housing is an extremely resource-hungry project I cannot see being worth the benefits it brings. That’s my concern, and why I was hoping to raise the subject of guild halls as an alternative instead. No, I wouldn’t pay twenty-five bucks for a meaningful, flexible and useful player house (provided it could actually be all three, which I honestly have my doubts over), but ye know? I freely admit to being a F2P whale, and I would probably not lose much sleep over plunking fifty down on picking up whatever gem shop license lets my guild set up their own hall.

Argument to Finance isn’t really a good way to solve this, though. We could keep seeing and raising like this was a poker game, but really…all I want is for people to realize that pushing player housing is going to cost us a LOT of other things, and to think really, really hard about what we’ll lose before they decide to shoot for this as their preferred proposal.

A system for housing en a system for guild halls is so similar, when you have the one you pretty much also have the other.

About minecraft. It’s not so detailed as you think. If you want the level of detail to be able to place items in your house on the place where you want them then you are already close to minecraft. It’s a grid where you can place items and a block (to build your house) would fit into that grid.

Not saying it would not be a lot of work but making a housing system in general will be a lot of work if you want to put in any form of customization. We are not talking about the level of detail you would see in for example EQN.

The other option would be much of a system like we already have now. An instance and once you unlock something it’s gets added to your house. No real options to customize it yourself.

Problem is that many people will not be very interested in that I think.

So a good housing systems in general will cost a lot of time to build but like I said before it would also be a huge selling point for an expansion.

I am simply not able to keep up with this thread, but I do come in and read it as much as I’m able, and I see some things that are suggested as if they are brand new ideas when in reality they are already in the game:

“Hey, I know, we could have long DE’s that culminate in being able to buy a special reward from an NPC!” … Temple of Balthazar anyone?

“Oh yeah, a DE chain that ends in special dungeon content that you can’t enter unless you do the DE first!” … CoF? CoE? Arah?

We already have those things and I do sometimes enjoy them. But, sometimes I just want to hop into a dungeon as quickly as possible and play. If I have set up a time with guildies to do one of the longer paths of Arah, I don’t really want to have to do the DE Chain before I can get in.

Being able to repair my HoM and earn new things in this game to go into it would rock for me. That’s the kind of player housing that I’d like to see.

Bezagron.7352:

HP summary page 47 to 52 Part 1
Ok next summary update. Took a bit longer then I though, tying to catch up is burning me out a bit but very happy to finally feel like I’m getting there. Thanks Chris and everyone for all the encouragement. For anyone looking for up-to-date topic information and a complete index of all summaries over the Character Progression CDI The Lost Witch has created CDI – Character Progression – Summaries. Again if I’ve missed anything let me know.

You missed page 46. You where planning to do 46 to 52 now.

what could work imho:

• use the expedition system I explained in an earlier post to directly go to specific events. Now it wouldn’t be a problem to have to wait for an event to spawn, since expeditions only take you to event-chains with a guaranteed start when you arrive.

• Order NPCs don’t use local expeditions to take you to event-chains in the region (e.g. Kryta) but these NPCs have special expeditions: their portals go to Order-specific event-chains all around Tyria.

Now you’d experience how it’s like in an Order: the kind of life members of that Order have. Vigil events would be more battle/defense oriented while Whispers events are quite the contrary. Without the expedition system you would have a hard time finding Order-specific events. Even if you knew where to look, they might be on cooldown.

It still wouldn’t feel like a journey yet, there’s a narrative missing.

in terms of narrative I’m thinking:

would it be possible to melt existing activities with a strong storyline? Do that jumping puzzle not because of the chest at the end, but to find a npc from your story, some kind of hermit who hates people and hides from other people. (yeah, it’s easy for static activities like jumping puzzles, events would be the hard part)

Faerun.3091:

Crazy idea about how to do specialization
What if wearing Berserker armor changes some of your weapon skills, but only if you want it to? Maybe we can do specialization of classes this way? Honestly I have no idea what rings, backpiece, etc would do in this implementation, maybe they can stay as they are.

Something similar just came up in another thread that would produce much the same effect – giving each class some new Utility Skills that had stat-prerquisites. You could only take “Godawful Smash!” if you had over 1200 power for example. Or “Greater Temple of Light” as a heal skill if you had at least 1200 healing power.

Basically you would have to dedicate a fair amount of gear towards hitting that threshold.

More and more I’m starting to think our gear IS our sub-class. A Thief built around All-Settlers’ gear vs. a Thief wearing All-Valkyrie are clearly playing the game quite differently from each other. Berserker has just become our most popular sub-class for most professions because the content we have is very friendly towards it.

timmyf.1490:

Devata.6589:

Chris saying it’s a well made point when on a reactions that says “For example, I would pay $25 (2000 gems) for player housing that is meaningful and flexible and useful. Would enough players pay that much to justify development by Anet?” is basically agreeing that micro-transaction and the living story model reduces the quality you can deliver.

It’s nice to see a developer say something about that, but then maybe it’s an idea to rethink that model.

As a company you do not only want to make money but also deviler a good product I would think.

I disagree with this. If anything, having a consistent cash-flow helps reduce the risk of developing the game. Expansions can sell poorly, so there’s an inherent risk of losing money and business pressure to constrain the overall effort required. By having a cash shop, ArenaNet should be seeing a consistent revenue stream.

They know their funding model, they know how many resources that buys them, and they know (to some extent) that they’ll keep getting that money in the near future.

That isn’t to say that 1) expansions are a bad idea or 2) ArenaNet isn’t secretly working on an expansion without telling us, of course.

You are correct, though: the developers DO want to deliver a quality product. For most of them, not only do they play the game, they work with it 40, 50, 60 hours/week. This game means more to them than I’d venture it does to us.

I believe they made the decision to go without subscriptions or (frequent) paid expansions because they truly believe it’s the best way to deliver their game, both from a quality and from a profit standpoint.

What do you see as a consistent cash-flow. If they get money every min, every day every month or maybe every year. It’s all consistent just with different intervals so expansions can also been seen as consisten cash-flow. Yes a expansions can have bad sales but gem-sales can drop as well.

The thing is that with something like a housing system is does require an big investment in time. When you then release with there current model it might get some people back that might spend some cash. That also means they will need to put many items related to it in the cash-shop or behind a gold-grind trying to earn back the money invested. That however would undermine the quality of the content.

If you would put it in an expansion it would be a huge selling point for that expansion meaning reducing the change of bad sales and there would be no need to monetize it by putting items in a gem-store or behind a gold-grind. So also no need to undermine the quality.

Just one idea: put the legend and lore behind the legendaries in the form of something like personal story which unveils all the darks

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

Devata.6589:

I think the traditional quest are exactly what you need. The only way they really don’t fit in to the design-idea is that it has to be different but then maybe change that idea.

The fact that quests aren’t repeatable also makes them give you more the feeling of having some small form of impact. A dynamic event that keeps repeating feels sort of useless to do.
When you done all the quest you are indeed out of content but they can add quest and there are the dynamic events that still keep on going.

I think the combination of the two would work great. It are both nice systems but not substitutes for each other while the dynamic events are now supposed to be substitutes for the traditional quests. Thats part of the problem.
Mix the two and you have the pro’s of the dynamic events and the journey and story feeling from the normal quest.

Well designing a quest would take ressources of dynamic events, which would be bad imho because

• if you add new events, the world becomes more alive, old events spawn less frequently and there’s always something going on.
• if you add new quests the world loses content for each quest you do. Since there are no new events (because ressources go to quests) you’ll always see the same events.

So it’s clear for me that the answer can only be: more dynamic events, but more interesting ones (writing!!).

But the new dynamic events will have the same problem as the old ones. I would say, split the resources up 50 / 50.

Dynamic events also don’t send you all over the world like traditional quest do. Traditional quest also give you more information about npc’s giving you more of a bound with the world.

Like I said, a dynamic events just isn’t a substitute for a traditional quest. Thats not saying it’s a bad. I like the dynamic events but I also do miss the journey that traditional quest give and dynamic events don’t.

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

in terms of narrative I’m thinking:

would it be possible to melt existing activities with a strong storyline? Do that jumping puzzle not because of the chest at the end, but to find a npc from your story, some kind of hermit who hates people and hides from other people. (yeah, it’s easy for static activities like jumping puzzles, events would be the hard part)

I can see having its own storyline, but as a gate on a main/required storyline you’re courting disaster. There are people who just CANNOT do jump puzzles.

I think this is a reminder we need more branches or at least side tracks. Second Chances. If you hit a point in the narrative where you could go to person X or Y to achieve a favorable outcome, Ms. X could be at the end of a jump puzzle, and if you get frustrated you can always stop and just head over to see Mr. Y who may be at the end of a long narrow corridor filled with critters with lots of teeth. Or even have a low-road/High-road situation where there are Jump-puzzle style shortcuts that let you skip 70% of the critters on your way somewhere.

Other puzzles or non-combat challenges could similarly allow you to side-step a portion of the combat on the way to a goal. You could also have short-cuts based on having a certain amount of crafting skill. “Hold-up guys. We don’t need to fight those. I have enough tailoring to negotiate safe passage with the spiders. Just give me a sec to click something….” or “Stop! I can use that cauldron over there to bribe the Ogres with some home cooking. We can skip this whole fight.”

Devata.6589:

What do you see as a consistent cash-flow. If they get money every min, every day every month or maybe every year. It’s all consistent just with different intervals so expansions can also been seen as consisten cash-flow. Yes a expansions can have bad sales but gem-sales can drop as well.

In the business world, typically you’re looking at quarterly cash flow. For public companies, they must report results every quarter, so that’s usually where all the effort goes. Meet your numbers every quarter.

For ArenaNet, I assume they look at each Living World release: how many people are playing the content? For how long? Do gem store sales spike? Which items get bought the most?

In the end, though, the goal is to even out the quarter-to-quarter revenue. (Most likely. I don’t work there. This is just my experience from corporate America.)

hm, about the journey-part

What if you think about it this way: if it’s a problem to bring the player to the event (because the event might not be active at the time), why not bring the event to the player?

The event finds the player who has the requirements (like a high enough rank).

• it can’t start when other standard events are active in the area around the player
• everyone can participate in the players story, but only the player gets specific dialogues out of the npcs which drive the story forward

• if certain locals are important for the event, utilize the runner-npcs who come to you when you are “close” (this could also mean half a map away). Now these npcs will escort you to your player-triggered (through proximity) story-event. The escort could be an event in itself where everyone can participate.

Aye.8392:

I am simply not able to keep up with this thread, but I do come in and read it as much as I’m able, and I see some things that are suggested as if they are brand new ideas when in reality they are already in the game:

“Hey, I know, we could have long DE’s that culminate in being able to buy a special reward from an NPC!” … Temple of Balthazar anyone?

“Oh yeah, a DE chain that ends in special dungeon content that you can’t enter unless you do the DE first!” … CoF? CoE? Arah?

We already have those things and I do sometimes enjoy them. But, sometimes I just want to hop into a dungeon as quickly as possible and play. If I have set up a time with guildies to do one of the longer paths of Arah, I don’t really want to have to do the DE Chain before I can get in.

Being able to repair my HoM and earn new things in this game to go into it would rock for me. That’s the kind of player housing that I’d like to see.

I think the DE’s rewards somebody was talking about was more mend to be in the way you have that in traditional quest. You do an event and then get some unique reward for it. The temple example is more like unlocking a vendor. However, because events keep repeating one unique reward would not work so good for it, so when trying to make that you soon end up with something like we already have.

Thats another example of where the one is not a substitute for the other.

Nike.2631:

“Hold-up guys. We don’t need to fight those. I have enough tailoring to negotiate safe passage with the spiders. Just give me a sec to click something….” or “Stop! I can use that cauldron over there to bribe the Ogres with some home cooking. We can skip this whole fight.”

I like those ideas. I’m thinking of a jumping puzzle with a backdoor. People who can do it, find the hermit through their jumping technique (and experience how awesome jumping puzzles are) while others got a note from their story-npc which tells you that the ogres who guard the backdoor might be bribed with a neat dolyak-steak (craft one yourself or steal it from a troll).

This system could work as a tool to introduce non-linear storytelling as well as a tool for teasing specific activities (jumping puzzles, crafting) so that people would be motivated to try new things.

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

Nike.2631:

“Hold-up guys. We don’t need to fight those. I have enough tailoring to negotiate safe passage with the spiders. Just give me a sec to click something….” or “Stop! I can use that cauldron over there to bribe the Ogres with some home cooking. We can skip this whole fight.”

I like those ideas. I’m thinking of a jumping puzzle with a backdoor. People who can do it, find the hermit through their jumping technique (and experience how awesome jumping puzzles are) while others got a note from their story-npc which tells you that the ogres who guard the backdoor might be bribed with a neat dolyak-steak (craft one yourself or steal it from a troll).

This system could work as a tool to introduce non-linear storytelling as well as a tool for teasing specific activities (jumping puzzles, crafting) so that people would be motivated to try new things.

In some ways its just a matter if looking at all the numbers on your character sheet and all the ways your character can interact with the world and using those to create new gates. Imagine people’ surprise when someone realizes a Warrior Knight guard along a dungeon path will simply bow and stand aside (change to a green nameplate) if the first person to approach him has a WvW level of 100 or higher.

“GLF2M, characters with 100+ WvW and/or Jewelry 300+ desired for shortcuts.”

Speed running would take on a whole new dimension .

Nike.2631:

In some ways its just a matter if looking at all the numbers on your character sheet and all the ways your character can interact with the world and using those to create new gates. Imagine people’ surprise when someone realizes a Warrior Knight guard along a dungeon path will simply bow and stand aside (change to a green nameplate) if the first person to approach him has a WvW level of 100 or higher.

Interesting idea, but could lead to problems

“GLF2M, characters with 100+ WvW and/or Jewelry 300+ desired for shortcuts.”

Like this one right here.

I really like the idea of there being options to roleplay your way through things, or use backdoors or secrets if X or Y. I don’t so much like the idea of them being useful enough to where they’re a required thing by groups and filter people they’ll take along.

ColinJohanson.2394:

cesmode.4257:

ColinJohanson.2394:

A lot of the ideas boiled down into variations of one of these two options, and really both have a lot of cool concepts and ideas. Can folks think of anything else that’s a bit more outside the box for something bigger?

I had suggested several times about Global Dominance system. Similar to WvW…we as players and as a server, complete events across the entire map of Tyria and receive passive bonuses based on the % of the map that we control as players. So if we leave entire zones(say the lesser traveled zones) to be completely occupied by centaurs, for example, we won’t be receiving maximum benefits. And you can use most of the existing dynamic events to accomplish this. There are many DEs that take over way points and camps that we as players can complete and push enemy NPCs back…thus acquiring a larger portion of the world.

This encourages players to play in more than one zone, get sthem out in the world, etc.

On top of this, put in a reward system for completing unique(different) dynamic events in a month. I.E. Complete 90 unique dynamic events in January and receive a Cesmode mini(just kidding). But you get the picture.

Is that big enough and outside the box?

The global dominance is a really interesting concept, and something we played with a bit back in Gw1 with the luxons/kurzicks but never really pushed far enough to make into a compelling system. Some questions and challenges that immediately come to mind with this would include: How would players playing in an overflow map make a difference, or feel like their time is being well spent? How would this work if we pursued underflow servers? How would this work for worlds that have relatively medium/low populations, or for players who play at off hours (say Australians). ? How would new players understand, and be motivated by this system, and should they be? And most importantly: How would this result in unlocking an advanced profession or advanced horizontal progression for your character? [I get how a system like this could be used for more world bonus specific rewards which is really cool, but I don’t fully see the character specific journey which was my original question]

The event idea is an interesting one, but it doesn’t feel like a “grand journey” so to speak. Do you feel like if we asked you to do 90 different events in a month, and that allowed your ranger to say become a Druid, you’d feel like that was a cool system?

I love this idea. Giving a character an Ascended form to get into is a great idea. I’m picturing the character hits 80 (this means you can’t up the level, though) and can choose a path to follow. So let’s go with Ranger to start:

Path 1. Druid – focuses on natural magic and spirits, gains a staff. I’m thinking some interaction with Oakhearts, healing the natural world, etc.
Path 2. Warden – focuses on beasts and their benefits, can use animals in the area to his advantage

This discussion brings up something I think should be a rule: your character decisions and build should not determine your ability to progress or the paths you choose through (non Personal Story) content.

timmyf.1490:

This discussion brings up something I think should be a rule: your character decisions and build should not determine your ability to progress or the paths you choose through (non Personal Story) content.

On the contrary I think it should — otherwise your build decisions are essentially meaningless and have no impact (other than the cool factor of various skill effects or “look mom I’m using a long bow!”).

If you go with a glass cannon build, you should feel the impact of that decision (i.e. some encounters are hard if not impossible due to the lack of survivability).

The skill system in GW2 was designed to eliminate “bad builds” (originally put forth by ANet during development). That doesn’t mean it prevents “inappropriate” builds for specific situations. It is a lot harder to make a junk build than in GW1, so they succeeded imho.

On the flip side, I don’t feel like I have as many build options available to me as in GW1. I had a whole page of builds saved on my Monk alone. So many that I had to get detailed in my naming convention or I’d forget what the builds were a couple months down the road.

timmyf.1490:

This discussion brings up something I think should be a rule: your character decisions and build should not determine your ability to progress or the paths you choose through (non Personal Story) content.

I respectfully disagree.

If someone decides to build to where they can take damage all day long and has their output of damage severely mitigated, I would expect them to have severe problems trying to take a path where it’s expected they have four more people with them.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

timmyf.1490:

This discussion brings up something I think should be a rule: your character decisions and build should not determine your ability to progress or the paths you choose through (non Personal Story) content.

I respectfully disagree.

If someone decides to build to where they can take damage all day long and has their output of damage severely mitigated, I would expect them to have severe problems trying to take a path where it’s expected they have four more people with them.

I wonder how you would implement any of this without almost unding the whole current system.

Everybody already has a lvl 80. Image that now suddenly people need to start ‘leveling’ it again.. Build leveling then.

It would be nice if it was in the game at release but adding it in now will make many people very unhappy I am afraid.

I was maybe not clear: if your build means you die a lot, that’s fine.

But you should not have access to SECRET ROOM A because you chose Rabid gear or Jewelcrafting.

Your build should affect your performance and play style, not your options.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Yoh.8469:

MRA.4758:

I still think that the “no trinity” approach of GW2 is one of the greatest improvements that the game has brought to the genre. And we are still not completely there: Way over a year after launch some specs still gravely outperform other specs of the same class, thereby already kind of forcing a fixed role on a particular class. And you should know how hard the balance team is working to solve this problem. My fear is that subclassing would just further escalate the situation: Would it really be possible to balance for viable damage, support, and control builds for each and every class/subclass combination? In my opinion, subclassing fits more to a classical trinity based game system, and not to GW2.

Right, so the DPS only system they have now is just so wonderful, and is chock full of build diversity. Oh wait….
And I think you missed the point, what Arenanet were trying to do wasn’t so much to get rid of the Trinity, but replace it with their own version of one that was more diverse and less crippling then the original holy trinity. DPS-Control-Support.

They however failed to do this, and created a system where you effectively are only a DPS, and everything else is a side dish. In fact in most modes of play, it’s Zerkers or go home.

While you can play with different builds, the game punishes you for it pretty much. You always going to be less effective then your pure DPS counterparts.
Not to mention it’s a very isolating and solo experience by design, which clashes head on with their more collaborative multiplayer events and scaling.

-
I do give them credit for doing well with just one type of play, but you can’t ignore the great whopping problems that come along with it.
Not to say that a sub-class system would fix that, thou I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand based on assumptions. But it possible to begin addressing some of the issues, depending on how it is executed.

Which is the main problem with your argument, you just declare ‘sub-classes’ won’t work, without defining this incredibly loose term that means different things to different people.

You might want to define your terms.

As a point to add to this discussion. We have, and are still working on getting the support balance right in regard to the global role balance meta. And it is due to agreement with points made by yourself (and those of others) that we have been working on this.

Chris

First of all: Thank you for your time and effort devoted to this thread. ANet’s continued dedication to the community keeps me energized and optimistic about the game.

To get support accepted as a viable role in PvE dungeons, it will probably take a good number of various changes, but I think that two changes in particular would make the biggest difference:

1) Damage should be more frequent in smaller amounts. This would keep players from being able to survive so much with dodges as their only defense. One of the main reasons that pure berserker groups are viable is because experienced players can simply avoid the vast majority of damage and don’t need much healing or defense from party members.

2) Trash mobs shouldn’t leash. Preventing groups from avoiding trash not only keeps players from burning through dungeons so quickly, but it also means that CC and other effects can play more of a role and that player performance can be measured by more than just how quickly a player can burn down a single big target.

There will need to be plenty of profession adjustments, of course, since many professions can bring maximum DPS without sacrificing much of any support (looking at you, Guardians). However, I think that adjustments to the Environment side of PvE will likely have the biggest effect on how viable the support role is.

timmyf.1490:

I was maybe not clear: if your build means you die a lot, that’s fine.

But you should not have access to SECRET ROOM A because you chose Rabid gear or Jewelcrafting.

Your build should affect your performance and play style, not your options.

I’m not aware of any situation in GW2 where your access is prevented based upon build decisions. Can you provide a specific example? Otherwise you are ranting about nothing.

Devata.6589:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

timmyf.1490:

This discussion brings up something I think should be a rule: your character decisions and build should not determine your ability to progress or the paths you choose through (non Personal Story) content.

I respectfully disagree.

If someone decides to build to where they can take damage all day long and has their output of damage severely mitigated, I would expect them to have severe problems trying to take a path where it’s expected they have four more people with them.

I wonder how you would implement any of this without almost unding the whole current system.

Everybody already has a lvl 80. Image that now suddenly people need to start ‘leveling’ it again.. Build leveling then.

It would be nice if it was in the game at release but adding it in now will make many people very unhappy I am afraid.

I really don’t know where you got that from my post, but it’s not in relation to what I said or suggested. Though I’ll note -

A portion of people will still complain they’re being forced into horizontal progression no matter what we do. Even if it’s an NPC you go to and get it handed out, it’s going to get complaints. That’s just how it is.

It’s just an unfortunate truth. There isn’t step forward on any of these matters which won’t send a bunch of people to the forums or elsewhere decrying the changes.

timmyf.1490:

I was maybe not clear: if your build means you die a lot, that’s fine.

But you should not have access to SECRET ROOM A because you chose Rabid gear or Jewelcrafting.

Your build should affect your performance and play style, not your options.

Sure, you should be able to access a “secret room” from choices or various things. What it should not do is grant you an advantage over those who haven’t got those things or made different choices.

juno.1840:

timmyf.1490:

I was maybe not clear: if your build means you die a lot, that’s fine.

But you should not have access to SECRET ROOM A because you chose Rabid gear or Jewelcrafting.

Your build should affect your performance and play style, not your options.

I’m not aware of any situation in GW2 where your access is prevented based upon build decisions. Can you provide a specific example? Otherwise you are ranting about nothing.

He’s not ranting about nothing, he’s replying to some ideas about “maybe there can be side paths which open up or let people through if you have X criteria not based on combat”.

Progression Idea: Expanding the Orders

Giving the Orders a purpose and a sense of progression will help players feel more connected to their choices. The Vigil – become a Crusader, The Priory – become a Loremaster, become a Spymaster

Using both open world and instanced events, the player could go on crusades for the Vigil: protect people and property, root out heretics, recruit NPCs to join and support the Vigil, expand upon the player’s home base. For the priory, the players could research artifacts and lore – explore new zones and get bonuses for doing so. They could research new abilities and consumables unique to their faction. For the Whispers, they could build a network of spies, infiltrate cults and pirates.

The progression here would take place in improving the player’s standing in the guild, getting more rewarding missions, and unlocking powers and items. I envision the player getting a base of some kind and building upon that.

Bezagron.7352:

As they should, they should perform better at certain roles and jobs then existing, if not what is the point to adding them. In this way a build is just the same as sub-classes a specialisation, something we create to achieve a specific role we just call them builds.

Yes, this, so much of this! I thought those were exactly ANet’s plans since the beginning. Not only each weapon is “specialised” but also how some weapon specific traits are allocated on each trait line. I love that and it’s not because we are having this open discussion now that I believe ANet should change it. There is nothing wrong with how it is today, on the contrary.

More weapons? Yes
Change current weapon’s plans? No

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

juno.1840:

timmyf.1490:

I was maybe not clear: if your build means you die a lot, that’s fine.

But you should not have access to SECRET ROOM A because you chose Rabid gear or Jewelcrafting.

Your build should affect your performance and play style, not your options.

I’m not aware of any situation in GW2 where your access is prevented based upon build decisions. Can you provide a specific example? Otherwise you are ranting about nothing.

He’s not ranting about nothing, he’s replying to some ideas about “maybe there can be side paths which open up or let people through if you have X criteria not based on combat”.

Thanks because I was horribly confused.

Rash.6514:

Bezagron.7352:

As they should, they should perform better at certain roles and jobs then existing, if not what is the point to adding them. In this way a build is just the same as sub-classes a specialisation, something we create to achieve a specific role we just call them builds.

Yes, this, so much of this! I thought those were exactly ANet’s plans since the beginning. Not only each weapon is “specialised” but also how some weapon specific traits are allocated on each trait line. I love that and it’s not because we are having this open discussion now that I believe ANet should change it. There is nothing wrong with how it is today, on the contrary.

More weapons? Yes
Change current weapon’s plans? No

That’s what I read into the whole “subclass” bit having been posted by red names. Not “you’re a Druid-Ranger so you can’t do X”, but “you do X primarily, so you can now access Druid abilities if you like”.

Sorry for confusing you, Juno. I usually try not to quote huge blocks of text because it contributes to page bloat (and sometimes because I’m on my iPad and editing the quote can be time-consuming), but I see now that it makes it really hard for people to follow the conversation. I’ll be more careful in the future.

Nike.2631:

“GLF2M, characters with 100+ WvW and/or Jewelry 300+ desired for shortcuts.”

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Like this one right here.

I really like the idea of there being options to roleplay your way through things, or use backdoors or secrets if X or Y. I don’t so much like the idea of them being useful enough to where they’re a required thing by groups and filter people they’ll take along.

There are people who feel 2 seconds faster in a 12 minute activity is enough to bend over backwards for. I try not to let them cripple my creativity in creating new activities .

Characters can have 2 crafts. In a party of 5 you can have all crafts represented with redundancy. As long as you put 2-4 small opportunities to speed things up it could be interesting. But if you’re taking longer to build a perfect group for shortcuts than the shortcuts reduce the run length, that kind of… precision, yeah, precision doesn’t sound as pejorative as the word that first popped into my mind… is largely self-defeating.

We were asked about things we liked in other games. When it comes to introducing new and story-driven content, I think one of the best things I’ve seen was in LotRO the introduction of quest steps that required emotes. Go to this vista and ‘e/ look’ out towards the west. This character needs cheering up, so ‘/e dance’ for them. This powerful entity demands you show them the respect that is their due, ‘/e bow’ to them to advance the quest.

The more ways we can interact with the world, the more ways the world can respond to or require our involvement. Crafting ranks are just one of a huge box of un-used/under-used ways the world could be made more engaging. It can’t be a hard gate because we can’t expect every individual or group to have a particular craft but it can add to the experience with side paths be they shortcuts or limited bonus rewards.

Nike.2631:

Nike.2631:

“GLF2M, characters with 100+ WvW and/or Jewelry 300+ desired for shortcuts.”

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Like this one right here.

I really like the idea of there being options to roleplay your way through things, or use backdoors or secrets if X or Y. I don’t so much like the idea of them being useful enough to where they’re a required thing by groups and filter people they’ll take along.

There are people who feel 2 seconds faster in a 12 minute activity is enough to bend over backwards for. I try not to let them cripple my creativity in creating new activities .

I’m not talking about that minor a difference, I’m talking about, to take a page from GW1 “if we bring a necro with Traversal we can skip half the mission” as an option. And then finding out that’s all people want to do.

It’s just a concern I start thinking of when it comes to balancing things. Adding something for a flavorful and unusual addition should be included with “now how are players going to use this” as the next step.

Characters can have 2 crafts. In a party of 5 you can have all crafts represented with redundancy. As long as you put 2-4 small opportunities to speed things up it could be interesting. But if you’re taking longer to build a perfect group for shortcuts than the shortcuts reduce the run length, that kind of… precision, yeah, precision doesn’t sound as pejorative as the word the first popped into my mind… is largely self-defeating.

And yet sometimes groups are willing to wait for an hour for the last perfect member when they could have just run it already with a “sub-par member”. I don’t try to fix someone’s social decisions, I just remain aware of them.

We were asked about things we liked in other games. When it comes to introducing new and story-driven content, I think one of the best things I’ve seen was in LotRO the introduction of quest steps that required emotes. Go to this vista and ‘e/ look’ out towards the west. This character needs cheering up, so ‘/e dance’ for them. This powerful entity demands you show them the respect that is their due, ‘/e bow’ to them to advance the quest.

Two words about something from GW1: “Mime Battle”.

The more ways we can interact with the world, the more ways the world can respond to or require our involvement. Crafting ranks are just one of a huge box of un-used/under-used ways the world could be made more engaging. It can’t be a hard gate because we can’t expect every individual or group to have a particular craft but it can add to the experience with side pats be they shortcuts or limited bonus rewards.

I’d rather work with “Personality” first – it’s something in the game which hasn’t been touched on for very much use at all.

Nike.2631:

The more ways we can interact with the world, the more ways the world can respond to or require our involvement. Crafting ranks are just one of a huge box of un-used/under-used ways the world could be made more engaging. It can’t be a hard gate because we can’t expect every individual or group to have a particular craft but it can add to the experience with side paths be they shortcuts or limited bonus rewards.

I have a lot of mixed feelings and concerns about this, mostly centered around these points:

1) Crafting is expensive and a lot of people don’t like it, so even if you’re not “forcing” people to learn crafting, it may feel like a requirement to many.
2) You can only have two crafts active at a time. I’ve spent the money to learn all the crafting disciplines, but I have it split across 5 toons. I do all my dungeons with my Guardian. I wouldn’t want to have to relearn the discipline on a second toon to have that ability in a dungeon.

But, these problems seem relatively easy to fix. We can potentially break them into two categories:

Prestige Options – alternate dialogue or other horizontal progression options based on an account-based title. For example, a player who has earned The Sunbringer might be greeted by hylek with a bow and a voice-response, “Hail, defeater of Tequatl!” Something like that.

Non-combat Skills – much in the same way that you can earn WvW ranks, what if you could become better at certain activities by investing skill points into non-combat skills? For example, a “hacking” skill could allow your party to hack the COE terminals slightly faster.

My concern with the second option is that, as we’ve discussed here, that will increase dungeon elitism. There are perhaps other interesting options that might not mean better/faster/stronger that I’ve not considered.

timmyf.1490:

Sorry for confusing you, Juno. I usually try not to quote huge blocks of text because it contributes to page bloat (and sometimes because I’m on my iPad and editing the quote can be time-consuming), but I see now that it makes it really hard for people to follow the conversation. I’ll be more careful in the future.

I’m the one who should apologize as I didn’t read the previous posts diligently enough. Sorry about the hard time on your response — I agree that there should not be build gating of any kind other than skill based gating (example: can’t beat an encounter because a build didn’t bring condition removal).

Nike.2631:

There are people who feel 2 seconds faster in a 12 minute activity is enough to bend over backwards for. I try not to let them cripple my creativity in creating new activities .

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I’m not talking about that minor a difference, I’m talking about, to take a page from GW1 “if we bring a necro with Traversal we can skip half the mission” as an option. And then finding out that’s all people want to do.

It’s just a concern I start thinking of when it comes to balancing things. Adding something for a flavorful and unusual addition should be included with “now how are players going to use this” as the next step.

Well I certainly agree it needs to be considered, as much as making sure all other choices in the set (other crafts in this case) receive similar attention at some point. You don’t want “Artificing is the best Dungeoning craft” to be an objectively true statement even if someone will undoubtedly crow that to the high heavens because of there preference for the dungeons where it is a factor .

But if you’re taking longer to build a perfect group for shortcuts than the shortcuts reduce the run length, that kind of… precision, yeah, precision doesn’t sound as pejorative as the word the first popped into my mind… is largely self-defeating.

And yet sometimes groups are willing to wait for an hour for the last perfect member when they could have just run it already with a “sub-par member”. I don’t try to fix someone’s social decisions, I just remain aware of them.

I just laugh when fussiness during prep makes you take longer to do something than just getting on with it. On the other hand if we had leaderboards for speed clearing dungeon paths (something I think would be very enjoyable for bragging rights) then there being more depth to setting up the perfect team is actually a plus for people who enjoy such… precision.

Two words about something from GW1: “Mime Battle”.

Sounds terrifying .

I’d rather work with “Personality” first – it’s something in the game which hasn’t been touched on for very much use at all.

Sure. With the same caveat that all personality types in the set (13 choices I believe?)need to provide advantage at some point. Still, it would be funny to see~

“GLF2M. Have Barbaric. Need Militant or Scoundrel.”

Again its an untapped part of the charactersheet, and one fully isolated from choices like profession. It might also be nice to have sidetracks/shortcuts that respect Race. A bit of CoE you can speed up by being an Asura (maybe a console, maybe a disguise) is flavorful in the extreme.

I have to say one of the FUNNIEST bits in this game is the security console for the Inquest Energy Cannon east of Mount Maelstrom – the comment that the panel requires turning two keys simultaneously and they are cleverly placed more than arm’s length apart… Arms length for an Asura… Other races just grab both keys and turn them with no big deal .

juno.1840:

timmyf.1490:

Sorry for confusing you, Juno. I usually try not to quote huge blocks of text because it contributes to page bloat (and sometimes because I’m on my iPad and editing the quote can be time-consuming), but I see now that it makes it really hard for people to follow the conversation. I’ll be more careful in the future.

I’m the one who should apologize as I didn’t read the previous posts diligently enough. Sorry about the hard time on your response — I agree that there should not be build gating of any kind other than skill based gating (example: can’t beat an encounter because a build didn’t bring condition removal).

I remember the first mission of Prophecies where it was impossible to win HM unless you had either really tanky sacrificial lambs or enough sustained speed boost to make it through the run.

I also commented once elsewhere or here about how Urgoz’s Warren required some sort of transport skill to flip levers in . . . room 4 I think it was. This is outside of other instances I can think of where you were required to replace a skill on your bar with another during the mission to finish.

That could get annoying quickly.

Nike.2631:

Well I certainly agree it needs to be considered, as much as making sure all other choices in the set (other crafts in this case) receive similar attention at some point. You don’t want “Artificing is the best Dungeoning craft” to be an objectively true statement even is someone will undoubtedly crow that to the high heavens because of there preference for the dungeons where it is a factor .

New Crafted Item: Temporary Waypoint, Artificer (500).

. . . though I’m of mixed minds about that off-the-cuff extremely sarcastic example. Could be interesting.

Two words about something from GW1: “Mime Battle”.

Sounds terrifying .
[/quote]

It was part of what I considered the most fun mission, of all time

Sure. With the same caveat that all personality types in the set (13 choices I believe?)need to provide advantage at some point. Still, it would be funny to see~

“GLF2M. Have Barbaric. Need Militant or Scoundrel.”

. . . and yet I can see someone standing in front with their human engineer who looks exactly like Han Solo . . . it could be so much fun to mess around with.

Again its an untapped part of the charactersheet, and one fully isolated from choices like profession. It might also be nice to have sidetracks/shortcuts that respect Race. A bit of CoE you can speed up by being an Asura (maybe a console, maybe a disguise) is flavorful in the extreme.

Living Story repeatable dungeon content might be able to be done that way. Consider the finale of “The Nightmare Ends” and your choice to either puzzle through or power through. This is a taste of what I’d like to see as “choices having an impact” and “dungeons with multiple approaches”.

Not just “Twilight Arbor, up up only because we need tokens fast.”

I have to say one of the FUNNIEST bits in this game is the security console for the Inquest Energy Cannon east of Mount Maelstrom – the comment that the panel requires turning two keys simultaneously and they are cleverly placed more than arm’s length apart… Arms length for an Asura… Other races just grab both keys and turn them with no big deal .

I’m a fan of some things in Metrica Province where you can fix golems, other races get things suggestive of “pull this thing” “tap that thing” “spin the glowy blue bits” when the asura get technobabble solutions which make just as much sense but are flavorfully different.

I’d just like to add,
Why shouldn’t the choices you made have an impact? , A choice is not a choice if it doesn’t have a consequence.
So you did’nt get 500 Jewelcrafting?/Choose Priory/Charm then you don’t get the special/room/bypass whatever. There will be parts where your roles come into play.

On the “lf1m charming 100wvw thief” , yes you’ll get one or two groups that operate like that but that does not mean we shouldn’t do it anyway. There will always be min maxers and that should not stop the addition of content.
(Dungeons and dragons games are prime examples of where this has been added and works.)

@Timmy I realize every post you make is about minimizing exclusion or consequence but I feel this is an element needed for true progression to occur.
Everything is not for everyone, and everyone should not get everything.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

That’s what I read into the whole “subclass” bit having been posted by red names. Not “you’re a Druid-Ranger so you can’t do X”, but “you do X primarily, so you can now access Druid abilities if you like”.

Right, but do players really feel this system is broken? What exactly is wrong with it? I mean, I am totally up to having more skills per weapon (in addition to having more weapons), but as long as they fit into the weapon’s purpose. Why does the community feel that having a very well labeled sub-class (e.g, you are a druid, period) is important?

Conski Deshan.2057:

I’d just like to add,
Why shouldn’t the choices you made have an impact? , A choice is not a choice if it doesn’t have a consequence.

Okay, this may be opening a can of worms, but here goes:

Video games have been about offering “false choices” for a long . . . long time. Places where you are given options A, B, or C and all of them letting you progress, but choice A starts a fight, choice B is the “perfect solution”, and choice C just skips you through. Bonus points for “good/evil” choices which don’t actually impact anything in the game other than scripted lines or appearances.

(Or the color filter of the ending – okay no not going there today.)

And it’s not restricted to video games too, it’s tabletop RPGs also. GMs saying there’s an intersection in the hallways, go left or right, but no matter which way you go you’ll end up at the same end point.

There’s a very good reason for this sort of thing: the people who come up with this stuff to be concrete need to nail down what they want and how to get from A to Z. And players will very often try to find some way to scale walls in the way, blow them up, or go around and try the villain’s secret backdoor escape hatch they know is there.

Tabletop games handle this easily because another person is running the show. Video games . . . not . . . so much. So there’s a need to keep things boxed in and limit possibilities before you wind up spending 100 employee hours on a path a fraction of your user base will ever see.

Conski Deshan.2057:

I’d just like to add,
Why shouldn’t the choices you made have an impact? , A choice is not a choice if it doesn’t have a consequence. So you didn’t get 500 Jewelcrafting?/Choose Priory/Charm then you don’t get the special/room/bypass whatever. There will be parts where your roles come into play.

((Cheering sounds))

So long as other choices also have their moment in the sun. Everyone likes having a moment where they shine .

On the “lf1m charming 100wvw thief” , yes you’ll get one or two groups that operate like that but that does not mean we shouldn’t do it anyway. There will always be min maxers and that should not stop the addition of content.

To me seeing LFM messages like that is a huge plus – It’d be nice for min/max optimizers to have more to think about than “Are you zerk/max DPS?” Make speed running multi-dimensional and the most dedicated and focused (a nicer way of describing Elitist) ‘group organizers’ will find joy in rising to the challenge.

If they are such a common part of the player base that we all know of them, its not a bad thing to give them content they can sink their teeth into, especially when doing so through smaller perks that appeal to role-players, crafters, and other player mentalities.

Rash.6514:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

That’s what I read into the whole “subclass” bit having been posted by red names. Not “you’re a Druid-Ranger so you can’t do X”, but “you do X primarily, so you can now access Druid abilities if you like”.

Right, but do players really feel this system is broken? What exactly is wrong with it? I mean, I am totally up to having more skills per weapon (in addition to having more weapons), but as long as they fit into the weapon’s purpose. Why does the community feel that having a very well labeled sub-class (e.g, you are a druid, period) is important?

Players feel the system is broken because they want to have a choice to broaden their options instead of limiting them. Someone (and I’m not sure who right now) related it to “playing the class as the developers want it played” versus playing the class as they want.

I can only speak for myself but the “subclass” thing being labeled or even called out as “This is the Infiltrator Thief Path” isn’t as required as actually having it out there where players can work on it.

Conski Deshan.2057:

@Timmy I realize every post you make is about minimizing exclusion or consequence but I feel this is an element needed for true progression to occur.
Everything is not for everyone, and everyone should not get everything.

I totally respect this. At the same time, I think a lot of players are upset that choices they make are permanent and gate them from things they want.

Take the example of Order weapons and armor: there is a very clear reason why you cannot join Vigil and wear Whispers armor…. but how many players are upset about this? How many come here and make posts about how they didn’t know, and if they did know, they’d have done something differently?

How often do we see posts about “I wish I could change my Order/Race/Class/Personal Story choices?”

Right now, there is only a VERY small amount of content and skins that are locked to a choice you make. But nearly every one of those is a constant complaint from the player-base. Do you think increasing that is a good choice?

I can’t pretend to speak for the player-base, of course. I’m just saying this based on the discussion that I see.

I might present a challenge: can you take all these systems which might require some sort of decision-gate and rework them in a way that doesn’t require it? So… Order skills won’t work because they are based on your unchangeable choice of Order. What about Pact skills? Maybe the Pact has different specializations and, once you join the Pact, you can proceed to learn new skills in a particular specialization? Once you learn a skill, you can always keep it, even if you change your specialization to start learning something else.

Just my two cents.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Tabletop games handle this easily because another person is running the show. Video games . . . not . . . so much. So there’s a need to keep things boxed in and limit possibilities before you wind up spending 100 employee hours on a path a fraction of your user base will ever see.

And yet having those little flourishes is often the measure of a setting’s richness.

I hadn’t realize the golem repairs messages in Metric province had different dialogue for Asuran characters, but just hearing about it elevates my esteem for the game. Likewise I doubt most people know that Rytlock’s aide has a whole conversational branch that only Rangers can access where she talks shop with you about pet selection.

These thing are somewhat costly, but they’re also what separates a game from lowest common denominator gruel. Players enjoy seeing the signs that a developer put in effort. That their world is benefiting from craftsmanship and not just lowest bid contractor work. People know – consciously or instinctively when they are looking at a cheap fix. Limiting your new content to those things that every single character will see (and beat) is a cheap fix.

You see it in faction-based MMOs all the time – after launch the Devs refuse to add any faction-specific content and instead turn out a bunch of generic drivel so that they only have to build it once to push players of all factions through it.

Valid points Tobias but I wasn’t talking about story. I meant more along the lines of choices like “You choose priory you gain access to priory armor and weapons, you will not ever be given access to Vigil or whispers equivalents” and the shortcut idea which don’t effect story. I’m not talking about branching choices , I mean simple clear Irreversible choices.

I heartily approve of the thought of adding such RP touches and minor benefits depending on what personality choices you made. To me, it’s the flavourful little things like those, that make good games just that little bit more enjoyable.

Expanding on the use for the different personality traits that a character can have, is indeed a nice little horizontal progression element. It doesn’t need to effect anything to do with stats, but it adds just that bit of atmosphere and character that makes RPG’s awesome.^^

Also as an example of another one of those nice touches which is actually in the game: I found an locked Norn (I believe) lodge somewhere on my Vigil oriented main character. When I interacted with the door, it said it was locked and had some scratches in the wood. I thought nothing of it and moved on. Much later, I stumbled into the same lodge with a character who is with the Order of Whispers. “Oh wait, it’s that locked one.” is what I thought. Though somehow I clicked on the door anyway. Great was my surprise, when the Whispers character actually identified the scratch marks as some sort of code and did something to open the door. Inside the lodge was (if I remember correctly) a torch that activated a hidden door, and some books or case logs. Nothing special, but it was Awesome to discover that!

Nike.2631:

And yet having those little flourishes is often the measure of a setting’s richness.

I hadn’t realize the golem repairs messages in Metric province had different dialogue for Asuran characters, but just hearing about it elevates my esteem for the game. Likewise I doubt most people know that Rytlock’s aide has a whole conversational branch that only Rangers can access where she talks shop with you about pet selection.

There’s more, but it’s mostly clustered in the “early game” areas. Probably because those are the parts with the longest completion time and multiple BWE times to tweak things just a little. How about the norn spirit shrines you can see in places and get responses from sometimes if you’re a norn? How about a minor DE where you talk down charr from different legions in a bar from starting a brawl and if you’re talking as a Blood Legion member you can just go “I’m with Blood Legion” to diffuse those people?

I’m convinced I remember some dialogue differences in Kryta to a charr visiting Queen Jennah too. There are things in there, small and a bit inconsequential to the game, which are slightly overlooked.

These thing are somewhat costly, but they’re also what separates a game from lowest common denominator gruel. Players enjoy seeing the signs that a developer put in effort.

The thing is, just to add a different text-only NPC dialogue isn’t all that much work. It’s things which get more complex than that (say, Ascalonians /threaten at charr who walk by, or get a voiced dialogue called out at them) where the expense starts to ratchet up.

Gaebriel.3754:

Also as an example of another one of those nice touches which is actually in the game: I found an locked Norn (I believe) lodge somewhere on my Vigil oriented main character. When I interacted with the door, it said it was locked and had some scratches in the wood. I thought nothing of it and moved on. Much later, I stumbled into the same lodge with a character who is with the Order of Whispers. “Oh wait, it’s that locked one.” is what I thought. Though somehow I clicked on the door anyway. Great was my surprise, when the Whispers character actually identified the scratch marks as some sort of code and did something to open the door. Inside the lodge was (if I remember correctly) a torch that activated a hidden door, and some books or case logs. Nothing special, but it was Awesome to discover that!

How about all the Whispers agents you can identify with the codephrase? There’s more than you think.