Guild Wars 2

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Devata.6589:

However I would rather involve them in getting a recipe or unique items. So you ask “what sort of doll would you like” and she gives you a paper.. “one yellow eye, one green, very long legs….” there is your recipe.

Hm, maybe. But more to the idea was similar to how Tixx worked on his toys. Like the charr want toy weapons or “training aids” as they could put it. Or you could make them a Mini Rox. (Whereupon they will now explode from those eyes made even cuter.)

(And humans will go “not another Queen Jennah”, because they are sick of the players having forced them off on them to get rid of the tons which were made.)

Of course, that would be basic stuff. If you wanted rarer things, turning out to be things from the parents for cheering up their children, give them rarer toys or specially created things. Maybe you could during Wintersday even impress Tixx with your ability (“for a bookah”).

As thank you there could indeed be the drawing you talk about. Rather then a way to get karma or a loot bags.

That’s referencing the infamous Thank you drawing from Flame and Frost.

Well as long as it would be like a one-time thing. But I would not like it to become a rng element where people keep giving toys to that kid hoping something drops. Then I rather kill 100 mobs from a type of mob that drops it then reducing the RP value of that NPC. It would take the ‘kid’ element out of the NPC and make it more like a tool. If you know what I mean.

I don’t know why that letter is infamous but I do like an element like that in a game. (I kept it until they changed the boosters for karma). The fact that it then is just a karma item reduces it’s value for me. I rather would have it was just a gray item or indeed an item you can hang in your house. I like those sort of elements in an RPG game. It gives it much more immersion.

There where also letters you could collect in the MF dungeon I think it was. I did really like them. Collecting them. I though they would send me on some epic quest. But they also where just something that gave you some karma. Big downer.

If this doesn’t fit to the horizontal progression I would ask to ignore ths post or rather move it into the right CDI thread.

I would like to see a new (actually old) form of questing. The player goes to a NPC, activates a quest, fulfills all requirements and visits the NPC again to complete the quest.
However this should not be used to replace the current questsystem. The devs should rather use this type of questing to implement map overlapping quests.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

Here is the proposal I believe we are making, please discuss and let me know if anything should be added or removed. Note many of us have read the thread internally and thus there has already been valuable impact.

Our Horizontal Progression Proposal

The Reward and Associated Journey

— Sociopolitical Diversification: Player housing (Customizable from rewards gained in the open world), Guild Halls (Customizable from mass play rewards) and Map Wide Meta events unlocked through Faction progression (Leading to both individual and group rewards such as titles and skins)

— Role Diversification: ‘Grail Quest’ (Personal rights of passage) style adventures through the open world (testing the player in combat, discovery, and puzzle solving) which others can engage in once the activities are activated which could reward the Hero with New skills/traits, new weapons, access to inaccessible existing weapons, and infusions.

— Hero Recognition (Reward) is a by product of the above two types of Horizontal Progression leading to Unique Skins, Titles, Rewards, followers and NPC reactions/opportunities based on the players individual feats in the world of Tyria regardless of how he/she chooses to play the game.

Global Rule Proposal governing the above:

- Where possible use the above design paradigm to reinforce and evolve the existing world.
- Players should be able to have multiple methods of achieving ‘Grail Quests’, rather than a section of the journey being based on Jumping Puzzles and that alone for example.
-A reworked (cleaner) version of Signet of Capture would work very well for Role Diversification.
- Sub-classes will be discussed again in a CDI once Arena finishes its current balance work in regard to roles.
- QOL features such as a wardrobe should support this global design.

Once we have discussed the proposal and the thread reaches conclusion we will sticky it and move onto CDI Process Evolution Phase 2.

Thank you all so much for your hard work and your passion toward making GW2 awesome. This has been a really good CDI and I want to thank you on behalf of Arena for caring so much about the world we love.

Chris

I would add the more RP elements. As being discussed also on this moment.

Make collecting mini’s more of a play element (so put them really in the game behind bosses, dungeons, drops from group of people) add in other items in a similar way (fun items, recipe’s even dyes and if we ever get them mounts).

Make collecting ranger pets more a play element by making it more dynamic, puting also rare pets in the game.

Fun crafts.. see the man suggestions on the last 2 pages. Where you also really have to go into the world to get your stuff (not from a gold or other currency grind). Fun crafts should also be fun from level 1 to max if they even work with levels.

Lastly, make exploring the world a journey / a quest where you also meed and learn NPC’s. Not a list of locations to cross of your list.

I think that are some important RP-elements for horizontal progression that also many casual players will love.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

If this doesn’t fit to the horizontal progression I would ask to ignore ths post or rather move it into the right CDI thread.

I would like to see a new (actually old) form of questing. The player goes to a NPC, activates a quest, fulfills all requirements and visits the NPC again to complete the quest.
However this should not be used to replace the current questsystem. The devs should rather use this type of questing to implement map overlapping quests.

Yeah that did came up a few times. I think it fits in horizontal progression because exploration is a form of horizontal progression and if the quest are made to help you explore they do fit in.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Nike.2631:

snip

I want us to get the role balance paradigm just right providing a solid foundation to interact with before turning up the heat in terms of AI behavior. I believe and know this to be a prerequisite.

I can’t really go into much more detail than this.

Chris

I think I’d almost prefer the opposite to happen. Turning up the AI, and then using that to discover deficiencies in support and control capabilities would be the direction I’d want to take first. Particularly with Defiant, seeing how a more impressive AI reacted to stun locks and launches like many elites have to suffer might show that replacing Defiant with stun breaks and stability could be a sufficient answer, or better who the direction it needs to take. Maybe this could all be accomplished in internal testing though, who knows.

Current AI uses large, slow attacks that all have a significant global cooldown. If you’ve ever run this Norn personal story , that’s exactly how current mobs fight. The attacks are slow, so they need to be powerful in order to actually be a thread (or you’d need 50 of them in a kamikaze wave). Each skill used also runs on a global cooldown, so they’re slower, which means they need to be more powerful to still have some sort of threat. If the GC was curtailed a bit, and mobs attacked more frequently, but did smaller packets of damage, the could keep that threat level (the mob’s personal DPS), but they could help develop smarter play. In PvE, you care about putting as much damage as you can on a target in as small an amount of time as feasible. This means that mobs require more health to stay alive longer to use their slower attacks to keep that threat level. In PvP or WvW, its not quite as much the case. People attack more frequently, but in much smaller packets. They may also drop much faster than many PvE mobs. They can, however, keep up a much larger amount of threat even if they had the aggro mechanics of your average yellow moa because their damage is as a whole, less avoidable by simple, one-time avoidance (aegis, blind, to an extent dodges) mechanics. We already can see an improved form of AI in the Heart of the Mists with the “mobs who try to represent people so you can test your builds against them” trainers. PvE enemies that more closely resembled these enemies would help the challenge while avoiding the current PvE style of "dodge the Zeus Grenade

There have been some good points on enemy AI though. The Toxic Alliance definitely improved on this front, with more interesting, and potentially problematic, synergies, more varied skills, and a downed state to worry about for the Nightmare Court. The Aetherblade Pirates were the first I saw the improvements from. They felt like they represented common builds/themes of the time (Grenade Engineers, Scepter Air Elementalists, Mace/Shield Guardians with Renewed Focus, etc) and so people got to slightly see how their builds might fare against some certain others, and what to do when you’re caught in a minefield of stuns, or if someone popped their Renewed Focus, etc.). I’m a proponent of trying to make PvE more closely resemble PvP, which helps bridge the gap between the two styles of play. The AI may never be perfect (and it shouldn’t necessarily. Your average Yellow Moa isn’t going to have the tactical knack of nigh any humanoid enemy), but the closer they are the easier balance should be, and the closer you bring the game modes together. Its no longer PvE vs PvP vs WvW, its just Combat.

(Only the first paragraph was in direct response to Chris or the other quoted bits. The rest were merely commentary)

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Nike.2631:

BlizzShark.5410:

My opinion on Sub-class system is:

• The system works very well. Why? Can make professions a little more exclusive. Ex: Thief vs thief and both have different sub classes we can see 2 different play styles.

It makes me wonder where the game has gone wrong that people don’t realize WE ALREADY HAVE THIS. My Super Unicorn in all Settlers gear is an effective WvW Thief spec that doesn’t even go into stealth. A mantra healing Mesmer is completely unlike a Shatter-duelist spec.

• Sub-Classes could also be the way to add new weapons.

Or we could, just, you know… add them to the game and allow players to mix and match as their tastes and imagination prefer.

• Trait Templates – You could save a build to quick change if you are on wvw or pve and change if you are Out Of Combat.

So now I can set up my ‘groups of trash mobs smashing build’ and my ‘boss-killing build’, and sweep through dungeons even faster than before toggling the two because now I don’t have to make any strategic decisions at all… It doesn’t get much more vertical than that.

Horizontal progression design is hard, because you have to add cool to the game without appealing to the lust for naked POWER. Its hard, but its also worth it.

Excellent post Nike.

Your question here:

‘It makes me wonder where the game has gone wrong that people don’t realize WE ALREADY HAVE THIS. My Super Unicorn in all Settlers gear is an effective WvW Thief spec that doesn’t even go into stealth. A mantra healing Mesmer is completely unlike a Shatter-duelist spec.’

We don’t teach it well enough and therefore it is obfuscated to the point that players have already invested heavily in a particular role making experimentation in diversification less appealing (for a multitude of reasons).

Recently however we have been working kitten balance and situational role parity and bit by bit in game you can see player’s experimenting much more. This is a very good sign and will afford us a stronger foundation to build our content on moving forward.

Thus the timing around this topic is actually excellent.

Chris

I think the disconnect is the massive difference in base HP that professions have, and to some extent toughness from armor type also. An elementalist and thief are going to have to, by default, take more Vitality. There is much less of a choice when it comes to gear. In ratio terms:

A warrior can go glass cannon without stacking any vitality and have full freedom of gear and traitline choices and still have a margin to survive.

A thief can go glass cannon, but will not have the margin to survive that the warrior has, nor the freedom of gear and trait choice, simply because of base HP.

Would you guys ever consider bringing base HP and armor type values closer together?

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

Here is the proposal I believe we are making, please discuss and let me know if anything should be added or removed. Note many of us have read the thread internally and thus there has already been valuable impact.

Our Horizontal Progression Proposal

The Reward and Associated Journey

— Sociopolitical Diversification: Player housing (Customizable from rewards gained in the open world), Guild Halls (Customizable from mass play rewards) and Map Wide Meta events unlocked through Faction progression (Leading to both individual and group rewards such as titles and skins)

— Role Diversification: ‘Grail Quest’ (Personal rights of passage) style adventures through the open world (testing the player in combat, discovery, and puzzle solving) which others can engage in once the activities are activated which could reward the Hero with New skills/traits, new weapons, access to inaccessible existing weapons, and infusions.

— Hero Recognition (Reward) is a by product of the above two types of Horizontal Progression leading to Unique Skins, Titles, Rewards, followers and NPC reactions/opportunities based on the players individual feats in the world of Tyria regardless of how he/she chooses to play the game.

Global Rule Proposal governing the above:

- Where possible use the above design paradigm to reinforce and evolve the existing world.
- Players should be able to have multiple methods of achieving ‘Grail Quests’, rather than a section of the journey being based on Jumping Puzzles and that alone for example.
-A reworked (cleaner) version of Signet of Capture would work very well for Role Diversification.
- Sub-classes will be discussed again in a CDI once Arena finishes its current balance work in regard to roles.
- QOL features such as a wardrobe should support this global design.

Once we have discussed the proposal and the thread reaches conclusion we will sticky it and move onto CDI Process Evolution Phase 2.

Thank you all so much for your hard work and your passion toward making GW2 awesome. This has been a really good CDI and I want to thank you on behalf of Arena for caring so much about the world we love.

Chris

I’m good with all that!

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Aeonblade.8709:

Swagger.1459:

I hope that if a “grand journey” to horizontal progression is introduced, the paths are equally offered to wvw, pvers and dungeon/fractal players or you’ll run into the same issues that we currently have with ascended vertical progression.

This, remember, WvW centric players aren’t going to be pleased if they have to farm PvE for their progression, be it horizontal or vertical

I certainly respect your points.

Chris

thanks sir, you are awesome! i can’t wait for all of my respectable points to be implemented!

sincerely,
your humble respectable points person

I am disappointed that the proposal does not include unlockable runes and sigils. It will work the same way the dye system does.

Guild Wars 2 lacks depth. If I replay a content, I should get a different experience each time. The best way to do that is unlockable runes and sigils. Instead of buying runes for the build I want, I can instead build for the rune I want to play with. I will be able to play my warrior a hundred ways and that is only with a greatsword.

As far as the Sociopolitical Diversification goes, are we talking about revamping the current personal instance, or a whole new player housing? I really like where this is going as far as horizontal progression. (would love to unlock hammer on my Mesmer)

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

It’s very important if many people complete it fast; if on average more people get through content you took time to work on than expected you’ve got a lot of people waiting on the next bit of content. Then there’s pressure to produce more before they get fed up and leave.

which is exactly why you have to decide to create(in the absence of data) a cut off point where the balance is acceptable rather than making the broad statement “It’ll be chewed through quickly” & label adding more content an unattainable goal.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Strangely from this list, it looks like the LS is “better” than DEs and thus DEs should just be chucked out the window rather than reinforced. Especially if it’s not being wanted by the players.

Hmm.. im losing you here… The list shows how Anet arbitrarily added far more features & time into making the LS fleshed out Rather then spending the time to make the world DEs flesh out. It’s like asking me if a metal bridge or a wicker bridge is more sturdy. I then build a massive wicker bridge over a year that can hold the weight of a car then use 5 ft of aluminum foil to build a bridge in 1 hr. If I say “look, everyone is using the wicker bridge!” That doesn’t make wicker a good choice, it just means that the effort I put into the 2 is totally uneven.

The reason the DEs “failed” was the implementation. If They added tons of new DE metas in each zone with unique rewards & titles, story chunks that might relate to your character, faction or zone progression, 100s of new, challenging DE based achievements.. that would be a comparable effort. That’s why the only remotely fair comparison is between the Flame & Frost part 1 (where all you did was make signs.) & the DE addition.

They were variable and new, in they aren’t always up and in the same place.

If that’s what we call variable then we’re in worse shape than I thought. When I say variable I mean: There are 4 different outcomes to a fight with one of these guys: 2 win 2 lose. branching various outcomes where you chase the defeated foe, fight back-up, take him to a cell while attacked etc etc.. I shouldn’t know how it will end when I win or lose.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I loved Lost Shores. It was a lot of fun. Half my guild liked it too when we tried it. We were the lucky ones. For every person who enjoyed it and participated, I’d say four more got stuck in “Overflow City” where events were out of sync, where lag was atrocious, and disconnections were common.

yeah but equating how they should design game fun & progression based on tech is… ehhh… i dunno..

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

The people who don’t want Ascended gear.

Nope, the people who don’t want Ascended gear want something different not less rewards overall. I didn’t want Ascended gear. but I certainly didn’t throw my hands up & say “well, I don’t love every single reward in the game, therefore I think we should not have new tangible rewards.”

Falkor.7932:

As far as the Sociopolitical Diversification goes, are we talking about revamping the current personal instance, or a whole new player housing? I really like where this is going as far as horizontal progression. (would love to unlock hammer on my Mesmer)

The discussion about personal housing has been centered around an entirely new instance, not just revamping the personal instance from the personal story. It would theoretically include the ability to customize the house with furnishings obtainable in the open world (crafting, dungeons, rare drops, etc.) and the ability to upgrade our homes into more impressive iterations as time goes on, granting us various horizontal bonuses and rewards in the process.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

Here is the proposal I believe we are making, please discuss and let me know if anything should be added or removed…

Chris

Hi Chris,

I’m sure you can execute on this proposal, given enough time, and am very excited for it… but it’s not happening any time soon. What’s the plan for keeping Horizontal Progression going in the next few months while ANet codes and designs elaborate new systems, as described in this proposal?

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

Here is the proposal I believe we are making, please discuss and let me know if anything should be added or removed…

Chris

Hi Chris,

I’m sure you can execute on this proposal, given enough time, and am very excited for it… but it’s not happening any time soon. What’s the plan for keeping Horizontal Progression going in the next few months while ANet codes and designs elaborate new systems, as described in this proposal?

Needs more buzzwords.

Gingelyr.3648:

Hi Chris,

I’m sure you can execute on this proposal, given enough time, and am very excited for it… but it’s not happening any time soon. What’s the plan for keeping Horizontal Progression going in the next few months while ANet codes and designs elaborate new systems, as described in this proposal?

That would be precisely NOT the topic of these threads.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Rules

2: We will not be disclosing information pertaining to what is currently in development.

Until then, we’ll have to rely on what they already had in the works (which I’m 99.8% won’t be elaborated on here, stealing the thunder from whatever presentation/media blitz is already planned around those offerings). Past CDIs have shown turn-around time of less than three months where philosophy can readily influence work in progress…

LostInSmoke.2590:

Needs more buzzwords.

I thought it was a given that this proposal will leverage agile deployment & networking with full stake-holder buy-in maximizing the real-worth gains in a paradigm of customer facing value and confidence bulding. All to be carried out under the highest standards of Quality Assurance and best practices for both fiscal responsibility and public safety.

Naturally.

The new proposal sounds awesome.

I’d love to see mounts someday, though, and more functionality for minis.

Devata.6589:

Morrigan.2809:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

timmyf.1490:

I’ve felt this for awhile, though I still don’t quite know how to phrase it. Wondering if others might have an opinion.

As convenient as I find the waypoints all over the place, I feel like it trivializes much of the exploration we would be having without them.

I’ve suggested zones without waypoints as a way around this. Does anybody else feel the same way? Or am I romanticizing the runs from towns to far-flung locations in GW1?

Edit: should have said this originally, but all the credit to Sir Arthur for expressing my feelings better than I’ve been able to. This post was meant as a huge +1 to his.

Hi TimmyF,

I agree:

‘As convenient as I find the waypoints all over the place, I feel like it trivializes much of the exploration we would be having without them.’

Chris

Mmm I love exploring but I also have limited time- so when I am in the mood, sure I ignore way points and explore- that happens more than you would think.

I do sometimes want to maximize my time and make use of the way points I have unlocked to hit events in far flung locations though.

What I Absulotely do not want to do, is to spend my 1 hour play time running to where I want to be- I want to get there and play.

thing is I have a choice now you see?

It’s not so much a choice because walking is not a viable option. It just takes way to long. Now with mounts it would indeed be more of an option. Just reducing the number of way-points and adding mounts would also be an option. Then there really are options.

First of all it is an option because if you think it takes too long -take a way point.

I don’t understand how you can complain about taking too long and then in the same breath in another post say, that we do not have time to check the scenery- or that there are no interesting places to explore.

I have been poking my head in holes, caves and falling down cliffs for over a year and I got to all those places on foot because I wanted to see what is there.

but let us take a look at mounts-
first- the terrain in GW2 is the best I have ever seen- it is also not very conducive to mounts since the terrain apart from being uneven, are often a mechanic in the game. Jumping puzzles are just the most obvious example

Second?- Have you ever considered that there are no mounts in the world?
No one uses them- and there is no mention of them anywhere that I have seen.

Take a look at the races for example- the Norn, Charr and Asura.
Both the Norn and the Charr would see it as an insult to ride a mount because it implies they are to weak to use their legs, the Asura would see it as an insult to their intelligence because they made gates after all.

I just cannot imagine a Sylvari riding anything tbh.

The only race who would make remotely sense is humans- but nowhere in thier lore is there such a thing.

So I get that you like mounts- but to imply the system is broken is not only untrue but taking something away to add some other questionable thing (mounts) is not a good idea.

Morrigan.2809:

Devata.6589:

Morrigan.2809:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

timmyf.1490:

I’ve felt this for awhile, though I still don’t quite know how to phrase it. Wondering if others might have an opinion.

As convenient as I find the waypoints all over the place, I feel like it trivializes much of the exploration we would be having without them.

I’ve suggested zones without waypoints as a way around this. Does anybody else feel the same way? Or am I romanticizing the runs from towns to far-flung locations in GW1?

Edit: should have said this originally, but all the credit to Sir Arthur for expressing my feelings better than I’ve been able to. This post was meant as a huge +1 to his.

Hi TimmyF,

I agree:

‘As convenient as I find the waypoints all over the place, I feel like it trivializes much of the exploration we would be having without them.’

Chris

Mmm I love exploring but I also have limited time- so when I am in the mood, sure I ignore way points and explore- that happens more than you would think.

I do sometimes want to maximize my time and make use of the way points I have unlocked to hit events in far flung locations though.

What I Absulotely do not want to do, is to spend my 1 hour play time running to where I want to be- I want to get there and play.

thing is I have a choice now you see?

It’s not so much a choice because walking is not a viable option. It just takes way to long. Now with mounts it would indeed be more of an option. Just reducing the number of way-points and adding mounts would also be an option. Then there really are options.

First of all it is an option because if you think it takes too long -take a way point.

I don’t understand how you can complain about taking too long and then in the same breath in another post say, that we do not have time to check the scenery- or that there are no interesting places to explore.

I have been poking my head in holes, caves and falling down cliffs for over a year and I got to all those places on foot because I wanted to see what is there.

but let us take a look at mounts-
first- the terrain in GW2 is the best I have ever seen- it is also not very conducive to mounts since the terrain apart from being uneven, are often a mechanic in the game. Jumping puzzles are just the most obvious example

Second?- Have you ever considered that there are no mounts in the world?
No one uses them- and there is no mention of them anywhere that I have seen.

Take a look at the races for example- the Norn, Charr and Asura.
Both the Norn and the Charr would see it as an insult to ride a mount because it implies they are to weak to use their legs, the Asura would see it as an insult to their intelligence because they made gates after all.

I just cannot imagine a Sylvari riding anything tbh.

The only race who would make remotely sense is humans- but nowhere in thier lore is there such a thing.

So I get that you like mounts- but to imply the system is broken is not only untrue but taking something away to add some other questionable thing (mounts) is not a good idea.

There have been mounts in gw1, and games have had uneven terrain in gw2. I could definitely see Asura with tron-like bike things, Sylvari with plant steeds (they have hounds, they’re based on the sidhe…), no idea about Charr, but Norn do ride dolyaks (and so do humans and dwarves), etc. Humans do use horses, though they have been off-camera.

We got that broom and the game didn’t collapse. Make them poof on JPs and maybe in towns (or limit the areas in towns), so there’s no issues with, say, mount spam in Orgrimmar blocking vendors.

Morrigan.2809:

I just cannot imagine a Sylvari riding anything tbh.

Sylvari ‘air-surf’ on big leaves. Or hang-glide if you want to be boring and practical and safe.

(Firstborn used to ride around by clinging to giant dandelions, but that’s so passé with this younger generation of sprouts and their crazy extreme sports…)

DarksunG.9537:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

They were variable and new, in they aren’t always up and in the same place.

If that’s what we call variable then we’re in worse shape than I thought. When I say variable I mean: There are 4 different outcomes to a fight with one of these guys: 2 win 2 lose. branching various outcomes where you chase the defeated foe, fight back-up, take him to a cell while attacked etc etc.. I shouldn’t know how it will end when I win or lose.

Well it is variable, just not the same way you meant it. Should have tacked “outcome” after it, and I’d have known what you meant.

Variable outcome events are an interesting proposal, and it might work to freshen things up. I’d also like the ending outcome to check whether players were even present for the event so something different happens if nobody contested it at all versus just not managing to beat it.

But i’ll save this whole conversation for if they do a CDI on events. I think it’ll be better received there and I’ll get a chance to get my wits and notes together. (Because, frankly, my mind isn’t on the events right now, but on the rewards/progression associated with them. Something which also needs brushing up but . . . as AB says, “That’s another show”)

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I loved Lost Shores. It was a lot of fun. Half my guild liked it too when we tried it. We were the lucky ones. For every person who enjoyed it and participated, I’d say four more got stuck in “Overflow City” where events were out of sync, where lag was atrocious, and disconnections were common.

yeah but equating how they should design game fun & progression based on tech is… ehhh… i dunno..

I think it’s very simple. If people can’t play in an event or something because of technical issues, it is not fun. Bluntly, Lost Shores wound up being a stress test of live servers and they probably got a lot of good information on what those systems could handle that weekend.

I would kind of like to see what it would have been if it had been designed as a Living Story chapter in scope (that is, over two weeks and with the big events as instanced things you could enter) as opposed to “one time only event open to everyone who can cram into Lion’s Arch”.

Probably would have gone over better.

Also, and to a lesser extent, if the tech/software isn’t able to produce progression as desired, it needs to be known why and if it can be fixed. If it can’t be fixed then one or the other needs to get changed so it works. That is an engineering decision only the people who are actually looking at the whole of the data can make, not us the end users.

In any case, I agree mostly with your point. Much similar, I’d like to see more DEs, and I’d like to see more diversity in them, and while I’m at it I’d like to see a catapult which fires asura. (I’ll settle for two out of three here.)

(Disclaimer: The last may not be an opinion you hold, or dare say publicly but don’t worry about it.)

Morrigan.2809:

Both the Norn and the Charr would see it as an insult to ride a mount because it implies they are to weak to use their legs…

Norn have a mount already. It takes up their elite skill slot and its called ‘Become Snow Leopard’.

Which actually suggest a workable trade-off for mounts that doesn’t completely short-change people who are already built for sustained speed buffs. Go look up the Superior Rune of the Traveler on the Trading Post – people are willing to pay big gold and a hefty opportunity cost for what “mounts” would typically provide…

If mounts were Elite skills that worked like signets that gave an out-of-combat-ONLY passive speed buff (likely no greater than the +33% we know the system can handle now…), you might be able to build a reasonable argument for their inclusion being horizontal. Trade-off is if you get into a fight with a mount slotted, you’re not running an Elite for the duration of that fracas. You could collect/earn mounts and then slot them when you want to use them.

Nike.2631:

Gingelyr.3648:

Hi Chris,

I’m sure you can execute on this proposal, given enough time, and am very excited for it… but it’s not happening any time soon. What’s the plan for keeping Horizontal Progression going in the next few months while ANet codes and designs elaborate new systems, as described in this proposal?

That would be precisely NOT the topic of these threads.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Rules

2: We will not be disclosing information pertaining to what is currently in development.

Until then, we’ll have to rely on what they already had in the works (which I’m 99.8% won’t be elaborated on here, stealing the thunder from whatever presentation/media blitz is already planned around those offerings). Past CDIs have shown turn-around time of less than three months where philosophy can readily influence work in progress…

Perhaps I should be more clear. This proposal is extremely ambitious, and reads more like the feature list of a MMO in progress than something that can start appearing in ~3 months.

It’ll probably take at least 9 months to execute the core of this proposal. As you note, past CDIs have had results on content only 3 months later. So, are there any useful takeaways from this CDI that don’t require a huge programming project and instead can just inform future approaches to the kind of content addition that’s already going on?

Not sure if I posted this in this particular thread but here

Taken from my thread located here for easier to read and or lazy people

Retroactive Account-Wide Rewards Locker

Alright, I know all of you have been begging for a locker of sorts to store those skins that are from past events etc. Some of you just trashed them because of the other skins and rewards that come out and you just cannot store them on a mule account because, let’s face it…Eventually we get bored and want to play that mule and most of us don’t want to spend gems for another character slot. The “create a new guild storage” objective gets old really fast with the other things we try to store just so we can store the skins on the toon and the junk from that toon in the guild stash.

So, looking at what we’ve been requesting since, I do believe the early release days, We’ve demanded Wardrobe Lockers for our Town clothes, The Back Item skins we get(IE: Sclerite Shell Backpiece Skin). A similar to the sPvP locker would probably not be as easy as you think however, what if we had requested, nicely mind you, account wide achievement rewards such as the Hellfire and Radiant sets if we had unlocked them already. We can take out any time we please if we unlocked the achievement in order to get, say, the full META achievement from the dragon festival in order to unlock the Shattered Holographic Wings. As long as you did get this meta achievement completed to the fullest, you would unlock the back skin for your entire account and withdraw it as much as you like much like the said Hellfire & Radiant armor skins as well as the Zennith Skins.

The Armor Skins, Miniatures, Birthdays Celebrated Minis would be the only things that would count. Jetpack skins or Super Adventure Box weapons would not. Only Specific Meta Rewards.

Meta Events That Would Count:

The Nightmare Is Over:
Antitoxin Injector Skin

Blood And Madness:
Mini Candy-Corn Elemental Miniature

Twilight Assault:
Slickpack Skin

Boss Week:
Wings of The Sunless

Queen Jennah’s Jubilee:
Miniature Watchknight

Dragon Bash:
Holographic Shattered Dragon Wings Cover
Dragon Helmets

Shadow of The Mad King
Mad Memories Back Cover

Super Adventure Box:
All Back Covers

The Nightmare Within:
Gas Mask Skin
Miniature Toxic Nimross

The Above Were Examples——

Progression in this could make it less frustrating in making bank space…and it indeed will be, a step in the right direction.

For another purpose in the progression we can’t just talk about characters and leveling but also guilds progression horizontally. The guilds that actually have members can get through rough times. Sure new guilds can get the Guild Bounty Training to catch up, but what happened to Alliance systems…why does representation exist and only benefit just 1 guild when we have 5 slots. Eventually it will stress one player into choosing one guild ultimately making his other 4 slots in a guild gather dust. It makes no sense. Guild Progression needs to be addressed

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

Here is the proposal I believe we are making, please discuss and let me know if anything should be added or removed. Note many of us have read the thread internally and thus there has already been valuable impact.

Our Horizontal Progression Proposal

The Reward and Associated Journey

— Sociopolitical Diversification: Player housing (Customizable from rewards gained in the open world), Guild Halls (Customizable from mass play rewards) and Map Wide Meta events unlocked through Faction progression (Leading to both individual and group rewards such as titles and skins)

— Role Diversification: ‘Grail Quest’ (Personal rights of passage) style adventures through the open world (testing the player in combat, discovery, and puzzle solving) which others can engage in once the activities are activated which could reward the Hero with New skills/traits, new weapons, access to inaccessible existing weapons, and infusions.

— Hero Recognition (Reward) is a by product of the above two types of Horizontal Progression leading to Unique Skins, Titles, Rewards, followers and NPC reactions/opportunities based on the players individual feats in the world of Tyria regardless of how he/she chooses to play the game.

Global Rule Proposal governing the above:

- Where possible use the above design paradigm to reinforce and evolve the existing world.
- Players should be able to have multiple methods of achieving ‘Grail Quests’, rather than a section of the journey being based on Jumping Puzzles and that alone for example.
-A reworked (cleaner) version of Signet of Capture would work very well for Role Diversification.
- Sub-classes will be discussed again in a CDI once Arena finishes its current balance work in regard to roles.
- QOL features such as a wardrobe should support this global design.

Once we have discussed the proposal and the thread reaches conclusion we will sticky it and move onto CDI Process Evolution Phase 2.

Note this is the formulation of a collaborative proposal for discussion. Once the proposal is finalized it will be discussed internally. However there will be no promise of associated actions or schedule.

Thank you all so much for your hard work and your passion toward making GW2 awesome. This has been a really good CDI and I want to thank you on behalf of Arena for caring so much about the world we love.

Chris

Bump. The following reminder added:

Note this is the formulation of a collaborative proposal for discussion. Once the proposal is finalized it will be discussed internally. However there will be no promise of associated actions or schedule.

Chris

great proposal thank you.
Signed off

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

In any case, I agree mostly with your point. Much similar, I’d like to see more DEs, and I’d like to see more diversity in them, and while I’m at it I’d like to see a catapult which fires asura. (I’ll settle for two out of three here.)

(Disclaimer: The last may not be an opinion you hold, or dare say publicly but don’t worry about it.)

Dude… I’d lay odds over a third of all Asura would like to see a catapult which fires Asura… and then its about a 50/50 split whether they’d like to be fired themselves or just want to launch their Krew Leader…

Chris Whiteside.6102:

….snip….

Cool!!!!! Can’t wait for the next thread to open up!

(And if anyone still doesn’t ‘get the point’ when it comes to subclasses, or role diversification(which was the point), I will be there if/when a CDI based on sub-classes (or role diversification in general) gets opened to show you how it could work!)

Gingelyr.3648:

Perhaps I should be more clear. This proposal is extremely ambitious, and reads more like the feature list of a MMO in progress than something that can start appearing in ~3 months.

It’ll probably take at least 9 months to execute the core of this proposal. As you note, past CDIs have had results on content only 3 months later. So, are there any useful takeaways from this CDI that don’t require a huge programming project and instead can just inform future approaches to the kind of content addition that’s already going on?

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Note this is the formulation of a collaborative proposal for discussion. Once the proposal is finalized it will be discussed internally. However there will be no promise of associated actions or schedule.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Note many of us have read the thread internally and thus there has already been valuable impact.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Recently however we have been working [diligently on] balance and situational role parity and bit by bit in game you can see player’s experimenting much more. This is a very good sign and will afford us a stronger foundation to build our content on moving forward.
Thus the timing around this topic is actually excellent.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I will be meeting with Izzy to discuss this proposal in detail. He will respond once we have had a chance to do so.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Some very astute points in this post Mikuchan. You will no doubt be interested to know that we have been working to solve some of the issues you raise recently, and it is worth noting that when a CDI topic is running in parallel with work that is either about to be or already going on in the studio then the particular CDI is even more useful.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

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.

Specific timetables were specifically stated as not something to look for in CDIs, but unless Chris is a pathological liar, I think we can assume they’re actively working on this stuff now. Plus most of last week, earlier today, and likely all day tomorrow…

Every person who has posted here deserves a pat on the back for helping to hit this milestone in the CDI. We have seen a lot of good assessment and creativity in this thread, and it has stayed (mostly) positive and fun.

Good work, and keep it moving forward everyone! I can’t wait to see what we come up with in the next phase!

Nike.2631:

Specific timetables were specifically stated as not something to look for in CDIs, but unless Chris is a pathological liar, I think we can assume they’re actively working on this stuff now. Plus most of last week, earlier today, and likely all day tomorrow…

Yes, I know. But what are the takeaways?

It’s not “when are we going to see results” that I’m asking about, it’s “what in this discussion did you find particularly important”.

Specifically, we know what long-term plans Chris finds particularly interesting: they’re what he put in the proposal, and is now soliciting further feedback on.

But, haven’t any of the suggestions in this thread that aren’t large programming projects piqued enough interest that they can be included in the proposal?

Nike.2631:

BlizzShark.5410:

Trait Templates – You could save a build to quick change if you are on wvw or pve and change if you are Out Of Combat.

So now I can set up my ‘groups of trash mobs smashing build’ and my ‘boss-killing build’, and sweep through dungeons even faster than before toggling the two because now I don’t have to make any strategic decisions at all… It doesn’t get much more vertical than that.

Horizontal progression design is hard, because you have to add cool to the game without appealing to the lust for naked POWER. Its hard, but its also worth it.

I can easily agree that the proposed template thing is not a good choice, Nike said that really well. BUT I also think that an option to save builds would be really handy, because it is annoying to change builds for WvW to PvE etc all time. So I would propose that the guys in Lions Arch etc who reset your skill points gets the option to also save your trait-template. This way the annoying spending of points every time you want to change goes away (which really is silly since I now have a paper where I noted builds for different playstyles and just click through the traits), but it would still be going to a city and no change of builds during dungeon runs etc.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

— Role Diversification: ‘Grail Quest’ (Personal rights of passage) style adventures through the open world (testing the player in combat, discovery, and puzzle solving) …

This also can provide an avenue for you to release new skills/diversification at a later date if you design it correctly. Don’t forget Faerun’s fantastic idea that allows you to draw players into dead maps.

At some point it will become stale and we should possibly do another CDI to determine a new system (which makes me think, maybe we should do CDIs annually?).

Chris Whiteside.6102:

- Players should be able to have multiple methods of achieving ‘Grail Quests’, rather than a section of the journey being based on Jumping Puzzles and that alone for example.

I really like this one. One possible implementation could be “skillful vs. grindful.” We could either kill 65,340,285 boars or do a jumping puzzle – in your specific case scenario. In fact, forgetting HP I really like multiple completion paths as a core concept you could carry forwards, especially in the LS – had you given me another way to light the Flame Effigies I would have much rather have done it another way (a champion flame effigy that we have to solo or something?).

Quote from the future:

Grileenor.1497:

It might even get some retired players back, if offered content for smaller sized guilds.

I really hope we don’t see content which blocks out a good amount of players by being restricted to very large guilds: but I don’t think that will be the case – the word “Factions” was used. If you didn’t play GW1; Factions were like a super-guild (a guild comprised of many guilds). I am part of a 3-man guild; but wouldn’t have a problem if we got faction content because I already have a few guilds in mind that we would ally with. I agree with you, please not another guild missions. Factions yes, guilds no.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

— Sociopolitical Diversification: Player housing (Customizable from rewards gained in the open world), Guild Halls (Customizable from mass play rewards) and Map Wide Meta events unlocked through Faction progression (Leading to both individual and group rewards such as titles and skins)

Mass Play rewards. Note, that many guilds are down to sizes, not able to mass actions anymore but they are very comfortable in their group. It would be good, if guild functions would not be limited to 50+ people guilds but offer content even to 5-10 people guilds as well. Lots’n’Lots of guild are of that size now. It might even get some retired players back, if offered content for smaller sized guilds.
If not, make player housing accessable for other people as well, so members of smaller guilds could choose to decorate the house of one player as their guild home.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

— Role Diversification: ‘Grail Quest’ (Personal rights of passage) style adventures through the open world (testing the player in combat, discovery, and puzzle solving) which others can engage in once the activities are activated which could reward the Hero with New skills/traits, new weapons, access to inaccessible existing weapons, and infusions.

Perhaps offer ‘Grail Quests’ for groups to. Could add to the fun and content of fixed groups or small guilds too. And… anything of adding real ‘quests’ to the game will be welcomed

Good proposal though. If anything of this proposal ever goes live, will we see first results in 2014 or 2015? Do you have any estimates yet?

Moon.7310:

I can easily agree that the proposed template thing is not a good choice, Nike said that really well. BUT I also think that an option to save builds would be really handy, because it is annoying to change builds for WvW to PvE etc all time. So I would propose that the guys in Lions Arch etc who reset your skill points gets the option to also save your trait-template.

I 100% support the added convenience of being able to apply saved builds at the Class Trainer of each city.

The amount of extra functionality I want to see from the trainers is SUBSTANTIAL, from player-saved builds, to Trainer-suggested sample builds (named specs inspiring players to explore other trustworthy specs/roles), to all-out animated class mechanic tutorials, to acting as guide-posts/checklists for starting grail quests…

Chris Whiteside.6102:

-A reworked (cleaner) version of Signet of Capture would work very well for Role Diversification.
- Guild Halls (Customizable from mass play rewards)

YES please

All the other ones are great proposals as well!

Nike.2631:

Morrigan.2809:

Both the Norn and the Charr would see it as an insult to ride a mount because it implies they are to weak to use their legs…

Norn have a mount already. It takes up their elite skill slot and its called ‘Become Snow Leopard’.

Which actually suggest a workable trade-off for mounts that doesn’t completely short-change people who are already built for sustained speed buffs. Go look up the Superior Rune of the Traveler on the Trading Post – people are willing to pay big gold and a hefty opportunity cost for what “mounts” would typically provide…

If mounts were Elite skills that worked like signets that gave an out-of-combat-ONLY passive speed buff (likely no greater than the +33% we know the system can handle now…), you might be able to build a reasonable argument for their inclusion being horizontal. Trade-off is if you get into a fight with a mount slotted, you’re not running an Elite for the duration of that fracas. You could collect/earn mounts and then slot them when you want to use them.

If you don’t want to work out combat animations for mounted combat, just have it despawn after a set amount of damage is done, like most games do. (One hit imo is excessive when running past a ranged mob, unless it’s like a stun or a cc or whatever.) Minimal speed boost (or none, the broom doesn’t need one; maybe something like 10 or 15% which is lower than any player skill or rune. Or make them go as fast as Travelers/Speed, 25%, which I personally use.

That would also help resolve the out of combat mobility that some classes struggle with without needing to resort to runes or adding speed boosts to said classes.

Also, they wouldn’t remove the need or desire for speed buffs, imo, as there are always going to be situations where mounts are not feasible— jumping puzzles, dungeons, combat, etc. I’d still pay for travelers’ runes even if I had a mount that ran at the same speed.

Regarding saved builds: if the issue is gold sinks, then let US save builds in the same way that GW1 did so, but simply charge a fee for each use. Many folks have no issue buying a salvage-o-matic and it costing them coppers per use. I understand that there is a gemstore item that does this, but in this one case, I think that is a design mistake and is contributing to some of the current meta issues; it’s just not convenient to be able to respec for different situations.

Nike.2631:

Nike.2631:

The issue of unsatisfying role balance is something to be laid at the feet of the AI design as much or more than any inequity on the player skill choices side.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I want us to get the role balance paradigm just right providing a solid foundation to interact with before turning up the heat in terms of AI behavior. I believe and know this to be a prerequisite.

I must (politely ) call this in to question.

To invert this line of comment to something positive, the AI changes (or at least, mix of abilities not typically found in PvE enemies, which amounts to the same thing) introduced for the Toxic Alliance made them a lot more interesting to fight — not just the more controversial need for stomps, but the increased use of boons, conditions, dodges, and reflects. Reworking existing enemies with similar capabilities might increase the usefulness of counters for those abilities in PvE.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Gaebriel.3754:

This got me thinking more on the following, some of which I already briefly mentioned in an earlier post:

Journey Challenge:
A mission directs you to an NPC scout (located at the zone’s entrance or one of the camps) to activate this mode. You remain in the open world, but this mode deactivates all waypoints in the zone and gives you several enemies to defeat and/or places to reach for clues, puzzles and the like. If you die, you will respawn at the scout’s location. That would inject some good old fashioned fear of dying into traveling. This Journey Challenge could be linked to a mission to unlock archetypes.

Additionally, this could be available for every zone as a zone completion challenge mode. You will have to discover the entire zone (again ..!), including the waypoint locations (though they are deactivated) to unlock your zone reward: a themed armour set as well as a page with the lore of the zone, added to your personal ingame Tyria encyclopaedia tab (as mentioned in my earlier post).

Players are rewarded with a title when they complete the Journey Challenges for a group of zones: all Kryta maps, all Ascalon maps, etc. A further title could be rewarded for completing all the zone challenges in the world.

So in short, Journey Challenges:

• Get players into the world and encourage them to traverse the various gorgeous environments of Tyria.
• Instil a sense of progression easily tracked by the already existing map completion meter, and offer a tangible reward for completing it.
• Expand on the Guild Wars 2 core gameplay elements with minimal alterations. The challenges are comprised of elements already in the game, with the exception of UI elements, rewards and deactivation of waypoints on a character basis.
• Could be challenging and potentially time-consuming depending on player skill, but very doable.
• Are fairly long term and give players something substantial to do (unless you’re super hardcore of course).
• Are entirely optional, but give access to titles, fashion and lore.

Hi Gaebriel,

I love how you start with a game play example and then list the mechanics of your design. This is a really good best working practice.

As a player I also really like the design and see it almost like a ‘Grail Quest’ in its most traditional and beloved sense. Something that Chrispy also alluded this design idea to, calling it a Pilgrimage to Enlightenment!

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/page/48#post3470419

It gets me really excited in terms of a thematic device for horizontal progression that could house a lot of ideas that have been put forward regarding utilization of existing and new content within zones.

I would add including LW into this wrapper however assuming we were able to solve the accessibility problem.

Good stuff!

Chris

Thanks! I tried to be as clear as I could – good to know that the format was helpful, I’ll try to do my future CDI posts in that style as well. ;-)

And as someone who’s really into chivalrikittenerature and all that, I love it that you picked up on my suggestion’s similarities to a grail quest and used that in your final summary.^^

I

I really don’t like the word “follower”, it stinks to me with GW1 hero system, which totally ruined the game, because there was no need to play with other people at all.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

Here is the proposal I believe we are making, please discuss and let me know if anything should be added or removed. Note many of us have read the thread internally and thus there has already been valuable impact.

Our Horizontal Progression Proposal

The Reward and Associated Journey

— Sociopolitical Diversification: Player housing (Customizable from rewards gained in the open world), Guild Halls (Customizable from mass play rewards) and Map Wide Meta events unlocked through Faction progression (Leading to both individual and group rewards such as titles and skins)

— Role Diversification: ‘Grail Quest’ (Personal rights of passage) style adventures through the open world (testing the player in combat, discovery, and puzzle solving) which others can engage in once the activities are activated which could reward the Hero with New skills/traits, new weapons, access to inaccessible existing weapons, and infusions.

— Hero Recognition (Reward) is a by product of the above two types of Horizontal Progression leading to Unique Skins, Titles, Rewards, followers and NPC reactions/opportunities based on the players individual feats in the world of Tyria regardless of how he/she chooses to play the game.

Global Rule Proposal governing the above:

- Where possible use the above design paradigm to reinforce and evolve the existing world.
- Players should be able to have multiple methods of achieving ‘Grail Quests’, rather than a section of the journey being based on Jumping Puzzles and that alone for example.
-A reworked (cleaner) version of Signet of Capture would work very well for Role Diversification.
- Sub-classes will be discussed again in a CDI once Arena finishes its current balance work in regard to roles.
- QOL features such as a wardrobe should support this global design.

Once we have discussed the proposal and the thread reaches conclusion we will sticky it and move onto CDI Process Evolution Phase 2.

Note this is the formulation of a collaborative proposal for discussion. Once the proposal is finalized it will be discussed internally. However there will be no promise of associated actions or schedule.

Thank you all so much for your hard work and your passion toward making GW2 awesome. This has been a really good CDI and I want to thank you on behalf of Arena for caring so much about the world we love.

Chris

Bump. The following reminder added:

Note this is the formulation of a collaborative proposal for discussion. Once the proposal is finalized it will be discussed internally. However there will be no promise of associated actions or schedule.

Chris

That’s a nice CDI proposal for sure!^^ I think it’s been a very interesting read, showing that there’s an amazing font of combined creativity to be tapped from, here. It’s really nice to see that you’re taking the players’ ideas into consideration in order to improve on an already awesome game. I’m glad I was able to participate in it. :-)

Shakkara.2641:

And just a reminder, Guild Wars 2 was advertised as having “everything you like about GW1”.

So let’s sum up everything I liked in GW1…
1) Getting max level in a few hours
2) Getting best in slot equipment in a few hours
3) 100s of skills to freely choose from
4) Dual-classing
5) Party-based content with heroes and henchmen
6) Being able to customize heroes with gear and skills
7) Title-based progression
8) Almost all monsters playing the game in an identical way the player would, using skills available to players and having similar HP pool as players
9) Much instance-based content so I can choose who I want to play with (or alone)
10) Repeatable storyline missions with secondary objectives
11) Awesome believable villains (eg Shiro being corrupted over time)
12) Hardcore story (Rurik gets banished by his father and almost everyone dies!)
13) Player-owned towns (factions) – could use improvement but idea is nice
14) Guild Halls
15) Hardcore skill-based PVP with deep tactics due to 3 and 4
16) Being able to burn through the gates and unlock everything very quickly, due to 1 – I finished Nightfall and EOTN in less than 2 days each, upon release, and was then free to access all the content in the regions to capture skills and farm and play dungeons and purchase armor etc. I hate content gates, levels and gearchecks in particular!

And how much of that list does GW2 ultimately have? None with the exception of 2, as promised by Colin, which was then burned down as well with the introduction of ascended.

Which is a shame, as you only need to look at GW1 to see a lot of very clever mechanics that actually can be integrated into GW2 to make the game infinitely more fun. In particular, points 3, 4, 10, 13, 14 and 15.

Don’t forget dyeable weapons

There are so many things in GW1 that I wish were in GW2 :-(

Things like:

- Dyeable Weapons
- Being able to save/load/swap build templates at ease
- Hero party system (for those who would rather do things by themselves rather than in group scenarios)
- Signet of Capture/Skill hunting (for those epic skills. In particular, the Ray of Judgment elite)
- Vanquishing (nice rewards, and it was fun gathering bonus points for killing certain creatures)
- Capes (they went with my ritualist outfit amazingly well)
- Zaishan bounties
- The armor and weapons. Chaos gloves… Tormented Shield… Paragon armor… there were so many great outfits you could make in GW1 :-(

Zaoda.1653:

Shakkara.2641:

And just a reminder, Guild Wars 2 was advertised as having “everything you like about GW1”.

So let’s sum up everything I liked in GW1…
1) Getting max level in a few hours
2) Getting best in slot equipment in a few hours
3) 100s of skills to freely choose from
4) Dual-classing
5) Party-based content with heroes and henchmen
6) Being able to customize heroes with gear and skills
7) Title-based progression
8) Almost all monsters playing the game in an identical way the player would, using skills available to players and having similar HP pool as players
9) Much instance-based content so I can choose who I want to play with (or alone)
10) Repeatable storyline missions with secondary objectives
11) Awesome believable villains (eg Shiro being corrupted over time)
12) Hardcore story (Rurik gets banished by his father and almost everyone dies!)
13) Player-owned towns (factions) – could use improvement but idea is nice
14) Guild Halls
15) Hardcore skill-based PVP with deep tactics due to 3 and 4
16) Being able to burn through the gates and unlock everything very quickly, due to 1 – I finished Nightfall and EOTN in less than 2 days each, upon release, and was then free to access all the content in the regions to capture skills and farm and play dungeons and purchase armor etc. I hate content gates, levels and gearchecks in particular!

And how much of that list does GW2 ultimately have? None with the exception of 2, as promised by Colin, which was then burned down as well with the introduction of ascended.

Which is a shame, as you only need to look at GW1 to see a lot of very clever mechanics that actually can be integrated into GW2 to make the game infinitely more fun. In particular, points 3, 4, 10, 13, 14 and 15.

Don’t forget dyeable weapons

There are so many things in GW1 that I wish were in GW2 :-(

Things like:

- Dyeable Weapons
- Being able to save/load/swap build templates at ease
- Hero party system (for those who would rather do things by themselves rather than in group scenarios)
- Signet of Capture/Skill hunting (for those epic skills. In particular, the Ray of Judgment elite)
- Vanquishing (nice rewards, and it was fun gathering bonus points for killing certain creatures)
- Capes (they went with my ritualist outfit amazingly well)
- Zaishan bounties
- The armor and weapons. Chaos gloves… Tormented Shield… Paragon armor… there were so many great outfits you could make in GW1 :-(

+tengu
+kodan
+new areas that we could explore in GW1 but we can’t in GW2 and we get to them through lots of events and after that they change over time
+cosmetic changes to the existing capital cities: add a few more non-instanced mini-zones to them, make them feel that a year or two has(ve) passed
+cosmetic changes to existing zones that have human/dwarven/mursaat/jotun ruins(make the Priory do something to them or the Order of Whispers if it’s the case)

zamalek.2154:

Sirendor.1394:

Subclasses are bound to fail if they don’t fix their unholy trinity of Dps, Control, Mitigate and add a bigger need for Support, Utility and Tank.

This arises because of the fact that you can “kill or be killed.” You don’t need Support, Utility and Tanks in the group if the group can rush in and kill the boss in 6 seconds – before the boss can put out any meaningful damage.

The original intent (as far as I have read) was to avoid damage in the first place; instead of soaking it up (Tank) or undoing it (Healer). I agree with ANet as far as this goes – Healer/Tank/DPS leads to braindead gameplay that is more like The Typing of the Dead than a challenging fight.

Unfortunately the current design leads to the braindead stacking behavior we see (as well as zerker) and this means that the design needs to be tweaked. Players will always find the path of least resistance.

So while I agree with you about the current problem; I also agree with ANet because they were trying to fix another problem. Here is an idea that is within the parameters of what ANet were originally trying to do by eliminating the [brain dead] trinity:

Drop a whole bunch of new boons, support conditions and statuses; that are very useful and are exclusive to the support/utility classes (when built in a support/utility way). E.g. Apply a shield to nearby allies – the can absorb Healing Power * 3 hit points and explodes for Toughness * 3 damage when destroyed.

Edit: Completely off topic: another thing you could do to encourage diverse builds is to introduce a panic mechanic – similar to enraged; but instead it activates if the boss loses HP too fast. A super-reflective shield for 1-2s (100% reflected back to the source, no cast time)? Another panic attack could be one that deals more damage the closer you are to the other players. Maybe have a pool of 15 or so that every boss has access to?

You are right of course, but judging from what we’ve seen so far from Anet, I doubt a complete overhaul of the combat and the PvE is going to happen. The trinity wasn’t perfect, but at least it held roles. This doesn’t hold any roles at the moment.

To me, what they should have done is made every class a distinct role and make it so each class has a set of abilities, instead of simple combat options. For example in a dungeon there’s a door you can’t seem to pass? Your engineer mate can create a bomb at his own cost (it shouldn’t be easy, but challenging) and the team mates have to gather the items he needs for the bomb throughout the dungeon.

The thing we need to get rid of first is the stacking. It should never be easy to complete a dungeon, but challenging. It shouldn’t require: stack in this corner and tap all your skills. I agree that combat has to be active, hence the active damage mitigation, but it should leave space for support classes. And support should be necessary in a dungeon in order to survive.

Right now the best defense is offense. It shouldn’t be like that.

I haven’t been able to keep up with this massive thread, so I really don’t know what’s been said, and what hasn’t.

But, I sure hope that Guild Hall acquisition or upgrades don’t rely on massive or even somewhat large Guild populations, as Guild missions can. Some of us prefer our small Guilds of friends and/or family, but would love to be able to obtain and ‘bling’ out our Guild Halls.

— Sociopolitical Diversification: Player housing (Customizable from rewards gained in the open world), Guild Halls (Customizable from mass play rewards) and Map Wide Meta events unlocked through Faction progression (Leading to both individual and group rewards such as titles and skins)

I’m not sure what ‘mass play’ means.

Oh, and I’ve seen this a few times, but I don’t understand what ‘follower’ means.
Thanks for all your hard work, Chris and everyone. =)

Please let player housing have upgrades for doing well on pvp ladders and maybe guildhalls with tournaments too!

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

Here is the proposal I believe we are making, please discuss and let me know if anything should be added or removed. Note many of us have read the thread internally and thus there has already been valuable impact.

Our Horizontal Progression Proposal

The Reward and Associated Journey

— Sociopolitical Diversification: Player housing (Customizable from rewards gained in the open world), Guild Halls (Customizable from mass play rewards) and Map Wide Meta events unlocked through Faction progression (Leading to both individual and group rewards such as titles and skins)

— Role Diversification: ‘Grail Quest’ (Personal rights of passage) style adventures through the open world (testing the player in combat, discovery, and puzzle solving) which others can engage in once the activities are activated which could reward the Hero with New skills/traits, new weapons, access to inaccessible existing weapons, and infusions.

— Hero Recognition (Reward) is a by product of the above two types of Horizontal Progression leading to Unique Skins, Titles, Rewards, followers and NPC reactions/opportunities based on the players individual feats in the world of Tyria regardless of how he/she chooses to play the game.

Global Rule Proposal governing the above:

- Where possible use the above design paradigm to reinforce and evolve the existing world.
- Players should be able to have multiple methods of achieving ‘Grail Quests’, rather than a section of the journey being based on Jumping Puzzles and that alone for example.
-A reworked (cleaner) version of Signet of Capture would work very well for Role Diversification.
- Sub-classes will be discussed again in a CDI once Arena finishes its current balance work in regard to roles.
- QOL features such as a wardrobe should support this global design.

Once we have discussed the proposal and the thread reaches conclusion we will sticky it and move onto CDI Process Evolution Phase 2.

Note this is the formulation of a collaborative proposal for discussion. Once the proposal is finalized it will be discussed internally. However there will be no promise of associated actions or schedule.

Thank you all so much for your hard work and your passion toward making GW2 awesome. This has been a really good CDI and I want to thank you on behalf of Arena for caring so much about the world we love.

Chris

Bump. The following reminder added:

Note this is the formulation of a collaborative proposal for discussion. Once the proposal is finalized it will be discussed internally. However there will be no promise of associated actions or schedule.

Chris

Hi! i think that there a lots of good stuff here and i love the idea of the journey to get skills from monster or doing some quests! but for what is related to the balance work i want to point out a fact: the problem is that berserker can do a lot of stuff very quicly due to high damage, and earn a lot of achievement, gold and reward fast, when other builds do it in much more time. so i think that the first goal is to create a system that modifies the time need to kill an enemy for builds different from berserker. for example a guardian with supporter build have to fight with a monster for 1 minute instead of a berserker that can defeat it in ten seconds. if a supporter can kill the mob in 13-15 sec i think that more players will make a supporter. so different build would help doing damage but in different way depending on stats….. healing power can be added to power everytime a healing occurs for example, the basical damage for critical hit can be raised so that the proportional difference between one build with no critical damage but a lot of precision can also be very interesting…ecc i have some ideas if you will create a topic for something about that!

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hi All,

Here is the proposal I believe we are making, please discuss and let me know if anything should be added or removed. Note many of us have read the thread internally and thus there has already been valuable impact.

Our Horizontal Progression Proposal

The Reward and Associated Journey

— Sociopolitical Diversification: Player housing (Customizable from rewards gained in the open world), Guild Halls (Customizable from mass play rewards) and Map Wide Meta events unlocked through Faction progression (Leading to both individual and group rewards such as titles and skins)

— Role Diversification: ‘Grail Quest’ (Personal rights of passage) style adventures through the open world (testing the player in combat, discovery, and puzzle solving) which others can engage in once the activities are activated which could reward the Hero with New skills/traits, new weapons, access to inaccessible existing weapons, and infusions.

— Hero Recognition (Reward) is a by product of the above two types of Horizontal Progression leading to Unique Skins, Titles, Rewards, followers and NPC reactions/opportunities based on the players individual feats in the world of Tyria regardless of how he/she chooses to play the game.

Global Rule Proposal governing the above:

- Where possible use the above design paradigm to reinforce and evolve the existing world.
- Players should be able to have multiple methods of achieving ‘Grail Quests’, rather than a section of the journey being based on Jumping Puzzles and that alone for example.
-A reworked (cleaner) version of Signet of Capture would work very well for Role Diversification.
- Sub-classes will be discussed again in a CDI once Arena finishes its current balance work in regard to roles.
- QOL features such as a wardrobe should support this global design.

Once we have discussed the proposal and the thread reaches conclusion we will sticky it and move onto CDI Process Evolution Phase 2.

Note this is the formulation of a collaborative proposal for discussion. Once the proposal is finalized it will be discussed internally. However there will be no promise of associated actions or schedule.

Thank you all so much for your hard work and your passion toward making GW2 awesome. This has been a really good CDI and I want to thank you on behalf of Arena for caring so much about the world we love.

Chris

AMEN! That`s all i got to say~

I would like to add one thing to this proposal that has been well-received earlier on in the thread.

(This could be just a QOL feature, but in my opinion an important one)

• More customisation options regarding our armor and weapons. (Things that came up in this regard were: pattern dyes, texture options (other types of wood and different metal polishes), customizeable features like long sleeves vs short sleeves, emblem design, that sort of stuff.

This falls under hero-recognition, but is a bit different than just adding new skins.

Regarding the AI first or class balance first discussion:

Let’s say we change the AI and the encounters to require more healing. Currently not all classes are equally able to heal. So this might lead to ‘forced’ group compositions, something GW2 seems to be very keen on avoiding.

They would have to change class balance with the upcoming AI-change in mind. But releasing the new AI before setting the balance right… could lead to a few months of frustration as the devs are trying to get the balance right.

On the other hand, without new AI to test on… how can you set the balance right?

The best would be a simultaneous effort, but with such a big game… it may be impossible to set aside enough resources to work on these simultaneously without rushing other content.

I guess they will need to do some guesswork with class balance keeping AI changes in mind, and be prepared to update it shortly after AI improvements come through.