Guild Wars 2

Chris I believe mentioned Final Fantasy Tactics as an example of horizontal progression that he liked. You would have to get a certain combination of jobs (think GW2 professions) to a certain level to unlock a new job. A level 10 cleric and a level 10 fighter would make Mage an available job. Once this class job became available, you could create a new character with that job. You could also switch an existing character to that job. Each job had skills that you would have to level up. Once you learned a skill in a particular job, you could in some limited way equip some of the skills that character learned form the Mage job, while you character was a cleric.

Building on that train of thought, there is a direction I’d like to explore as it pertains to the two extremes of players GW2 has. The player that spreads out his play time over many characters and the player that focuses on one character. The player with many characters has already progressed horizontally. The player with one character is in need of growing vertically. The players that tend to spread out amongst many alts are likely veterans of the original Guild Wars, while generally speaking the player with one character as a main is likely conditioned by previous MMOs that you pick one due to vertical progression. There are expectations that each end of the spectrum has. The horizontal people expect all of their characters to feel like heroes so bristle at the though of trying to gear each with the ascended tier. The players with one character are fine with it.

We need to get the other MMO vets to think horizontal as well as the vertical they are used to. You wanted to make a horizontal game without being “grindy”. You built the game, what you didn’t do was give the MMO crowd you brought in a reason to think horizontally. They aren’t used to that. They needed an incentive that wasn’t really there. They are used to focusing on the vertical.

The details of this aren’t important, just a sense of the framework that ties back to Final Fantasy Tactics jobs. What if each unique race, profession, and order combination could learn an ability or two from their Order mentor. For example, a Charr warrior in The Order of Whispers. By the time Claw Island comes around, this character has learned “Arms Training” with is an ability that grants +5% critical damage. If that Charr Warrior had joined the vigil, he would instead learn “Strength Training” +5% damage. The abilities would be learned from your mentor, but would not reach full power until the character hit level 80. In addition to this, if you finish the personal story in Arah, you would receive your Pact Token, and would receive some form of non-combat ability. Something like 10% reduced WP costs, 10% merchant discount, 10% better salvage rate, etc… You’d get to pick one.

These abilities would become account bound. Once learned, maybe two of these account abilities could be equipped on any other character in your account. The training your warrior received was passed on to your elementalist. If you wanted a character to have both 5% damage gain and 5% crit damage gain, you need to level two characters to learn both. But then could equip both on one character.

I think this would encourage players to play races and professions and join Orders they have not played. It leverages the existing content, and it is vertical progression for your other characters as well as being horizontal. The gist of the idea is horizontal progression that rewards vertical progression for other characters.

You could apply this to crafting as well. Norn weapon crafters might give weapons they craft +5% chance to chill. If they were and Armor crafter -10% chill duration.
The crafting profession themselves could give bonuses to other crafters. For example, there might be 3 schools of armor design. Fashion, functional and efficient. Once a character reaches 500 in crafting they pick one and it becomes account bound so that other crafters can gain the benefits. In this example, fashion design might be the ability to hold more than one skin. Functional might let you add insignias for stat swapping, and efficient might lower the required materials to craft.

The end goal, reward vertical progression for horizontal progression.

More characters played means more opportunity for boosters, level 20 scrolls,
character slots, storage and skins to be sold from the gem store. Players that want vertical progression get it by spreading out. If someone likes only warrior that is fine, there are 15 variations of race and order for a warrior.

This would also get players back out in the world. You can’t keep moving the goal posts on gear. You can’t keep adding new zones every month or two. What you can do is rub peoples faces in all of the content you’ve already created and let them vertically progress for doing it.

Making with the Sharp Knives

And now a word about sub-classes. They’ve been trotted out a few times with people often saying “Wow, that would add so much diversity!”

No, it won’t.

It annihilates diversity.

Most sub-class lust is really just the hope that a theme you’re familiar with will be awarded with extra power. Kneel before the temples of conformity and receive their blessings. Bleh. But lets assume the reins of blatant power creep are being held firmly and we’re really looking at a nice little set of new & balanced right tray goodies and maybe a fresh left tray weapon bundled together. Staff-wielding Rangers with a spread of new nature magic-themed utilities has come up a few times all under the catchy moniker “druid”.

Lets pause and look at how good we actually have it right now.

The trait system allows for around 220 combinations if you are spending your points in ten-point blocks. More than double that for the classes that have desirable combinations of 5, 15, and 25 point minor traits. Factor in actually filling your 7ish major trait slots and the combinations jump to over 100,000… but lets realistically weed out the ones that aren’t internally self consistent like collecting 20% cooldown traits for more types of utility skills than you can actually have. My rough eyeball says you’re left with something in the vicinity of 2,000 plausible trait/skill set-ups.

That’s per class.

And out of over 2000 workable combinations of traits, we’re going to exalt THREE over all others? Ditch all of that genetic potential to lavish these new skills upon just over one one-thousandth the viable builds because someone came up with a catchy name?

It’s not actually hard to make the case that dropping an asteroid on the Earth and triggering mass extinction does less damage to the species diversity than introducing a handful of named sub-classes with closed benefit sets. It’s THAT BAD.

The three Warrior subclasses suggested sound cool at all, but where’s “the archer”? How can you have a list of thief subclasses and not have a “swashbuckler”? Hey, I’d really like to advance my dual-pistol engineer as more of a “gunslinger”… Wouldn’t a necromancer “master of bones” be cool? It never stops. Even if you’re really excited about the ideas they inspire, you’ll never keep up with the actual richness and range of literary, fictional, and historical archetypes that resonate within your playerbase. Right now I can make an “archer” that’s on even footing with anybody’s warrior AND I can mix and match utilities without locking myself out of the weapon I want to use because I’m moving outside of a pre-determined theme. I can pick traits to emphasize gunplay on my Engineer. New skills fitting those themes would be even better, but exclusive new skills? Why? Why do that? What’s more, as things stand I can easily come to the boards and share my vision – to work from equal footing with anyone because at the moment the Devs don’t play favorites that way. They don’t claim namespace and fixed concepts for their own. The don’t highlight any sort of ‘one true way’. Why throw that away?

These sorts of Archetypes are fantastic inspiration, but use them to inspire individual components and then allow the players to combine those freely within the frameworks already in place. If a new “druid” build is going to arise, let it arise because a player took the new tools and did something compelling with them – often with a small, unpredictable twist that’s a better solution than would have been hard-wired into the system by artificial constrains. Allow for evolution. It would be tragedy to release some sort of tightly inter-laced staff-&-Nature Magic build when you could have with the exact same work introduced a new weapon: staff and a new cluster of utilities: Druid Magic. Instead of rendering a few thousand other themes second class citizens unworthy of using a staff, you actually increase build diversity by around 150 new combinations as players tinker with mixing the staff with every existing utility-set they like or they stick with their beloved greatsword/sword + torch and rotate in some of this new Druid Magic to see how it feels.

New options build diversity. New options bound together in arbitrary clusters murder it.

One of the best thing this game did was firmly de-couple race from class. Don’t undo the gains of that philosophy by binding weapons to utilities. Even in the service of an awesome theme.

Nike.2631:

One of the best thing this game did was firmly de-couple race from class. Don’t undo the gains of that philosophy by binding weapons to utilities. Even in the service of an awesome theme.

Snipped for space, but I’m in total agreement with everything you just said.

I just had to bring up this particular line, even though I know it’s unintentional, it does rather highlight some of my issues with engineer diversity, in particular.

Nike.2631:

Out of left field question:

How many people know that when you want to level a skill from 400 to 500 it costs between a fifth to a third less to do so on Thursdays?

(I ask because I keep seeing what I consider insanely high numbers thrown around for how much it costs. I just leveled my leatherworker to 500 with mats lying around in my bank. …But as a dedicated crafter I also know (nearly) every dirty trick in the book…)

I am aware of the benefits but given the previous discussion on time gating do you think ‘you should only craft on Thursday and make sure you are not in overflow’ is something people would like to hear?

I had to make 21 exotics for both armorsmith and leatherworker to go from 400 to 500(didn’t bother with tailor since with the gating that is pointless, there is no reason to care about it for at least another 3 to 4 months). That means 42 × 5 × 30silver for the t6 and 42 × 5 × 30silver for the ectos assuming you used buy orders. It can go a bit lower if you want to wait longer but waiting means letting those timegates pass by. I expect tailoring to cost me around the same so that will be a total of 189g and that doesn’t even include the cost of the threads or the gossamer or the leather or ori.

I did have those around as well so I didn’t have to buy anything aside from the spools for thread. They were around partly because I knew this was coming and their gold value can’t just be ignored simply because I didn’t sell them. As others have mentioned it eats into the things used for legendaries as well(the other reason I have these things around).

Khisanth.2948:

I am aware of the benefits but given the previous discussion on time gating do you think ‘you should only craft on Thursday and make sure you are not in overflow’ is something people would like to hear?

My concern is almost the complete opposite: the current rules of “the Quest for BiS” are thrusting people into crafting with little or no preparation. The system is a lot deeper than it looks, and if someone is only there to grab a pink shiney they’re gonna drown in it.

Basically, I’m not saying “Ha ha, you’re doing wrong!”

It’s more like “Wow, that looked painful. If we’re gonna push 90% of the player base through here somebody should put up some ‘slippery when wet’ signs or something…”

Nike.2631:

Making with the Sharp Knives
-snip-

You’re making a lot of assumptions of what the implementation would be like, based on other games you’ve already played.

They can be done well, and they can promote diversity. In GW2’s case, I’d look at them as altering the way a class plays, while still having multiple viable builds. Each subclass would be a sidegrade to the core class – each upside comes with a new downside, each new skill/trait replaces an old one, etc.

So, if for example, there existed an elementalist subclass called the “Purist”. The Purist gains Weapon Swap and the class trait line reduces skill cooldowns for weapon skills, bringing them in line with other professions. However, the Purist loses the ability to change attunements in combat.

This subclass instantly has 4 builds (Fire, Water, Air, Earth) which would be variants of builds we already see on a regular basis. The purist’s builds would not be strictly better than regular elementalist builds – it loses the flexibility of multiple attunements and the beneficial attunement swap traits in exchange for a greater focus in a single role. In some cases it will be better, and in some cases it will be worse.

On the other side of the spectrum, perhaps the other Elementalist subclass would be the “Arcanist”. The Arcanist gets a 5th attunement (Arcane) focusing on combo finishers, and more fields on dagger, scepter and focus, but loses the Arcane utility skills and has a longer attunement recharge base. There would still be multiple ways to build it, but the increased time between returning to an attunement may cause some players to take preference to the core Elementalist, while others would embrace the potential versatility of better combo field and finisher access.

Of course, one of the versions of the elementalist may be superior at a certain build type, but an optimal build always exists even within the core classes we have right now; there’s no reason to claim that a new subclass being optimal at a certain role is a problem, as one build will always be optimal for that role regardless.

I believe the core of implementing a subclass system in GW2 would have to be ensuring that every trait line retains a sense of purpose in every subclass, and that each subclass should be capable of multiple roles in the same way each core class is now. In essence, subclasses should present the same roles we have available, each with a new playstyle to it.

Nike.2631:

Making with the Sharp Knives

And now a word about sub-classes. They’ve been trotted out a few times with people often saying “Wow, that would add so much diversity!”

No, it won’t.

It annihilates diversity.

I was meaning to address the point of subclasses, but i see you did it far better already.

I dislike the cost of ascended armor, because it prevents me from changing builds and tries to lock me to on option. But at least ascended armor can be changed, even if getting a second set would cost me an arm and a leg. Subclassing on the other hand would be far more limiting (unless it could be easily changed, but then why would it even exist?). There’s absolutely nothing positive subclassing could do to the game that adding new weapons, traits, skills and aestethics (by way of new armor designs) couldn’t do better.

Dingle.2743:

They can be done well, and they can promote diversity. In GW2’s case, I’d look at them as altering the way a class plays, while still having multiple viable builds. Each subclass would be a sidegrade to the core class – each upside comes with a new downside, each new skill/trait replaces an old one, etc.

I’ll point out every time you rely on a unique downside to offset a benefit you invite ruthless min/maxing that may end up completely bypassing the negatives, but that’s a minor quibble. Carry on.

So, if for example, there existed an elementalist subclass called the “Purist”. The Purist gains Weapon Swap and the class trait line reduces skill cooldowns for weapon skills, bringing them in line with other professions. However, the Purist loses the ability to change attunements in combat.

The first thing I’d have to ask is what are the advantages to installing a whole new subsystem to support this over an Arcane adept level (10-points) trait that reads…

Purist: You may place terrestrial and aquatic weapons in a second set of slots and gain the weapon swap button. You may not change attunement in combat.

Not grandmaster tier, adept. If the exchanges are basically equitable, then you can position the Traits accessing them very low in the line.

On the other side of the spectrum, perhaps the other Elementalist subclass would be the “Arcanist”. The Arcanist gets a 5th attunement (Arcane) focusing on combo finishers, and more fields on dagger, scepter and focus, but loses the Arcane utility skills and has a longer attunement recharge base.

And this would be an example of the exact issue I noted above. Why does a player wanting more fields have to pay with losing Arcane utility skills? The connection is either purely arbitrary or based on a theme that may have no relevance to that player.

What’s more its the perfect sort of downside to side-step – If I was driven to take Arcane Utilities by personal preference its crippling and if I don’t use those anyway it has zero value as a drawback/downside to offset the advantages being gained. It directly multiplies the power of some builds without any penalty when those build are (hopefully) already operating at a balance efficiency without it. There’s no question it’ll unleash a wave of over-performers.

I believe the core of implementing a subclass system in GW2 would have to be ensuring that every trait line retains a sense of purpose in every subclass, and that each subclass should be capable of multiple roles in the same way each core class is now. In essence, subclasses should present the same roles we have available, each with a new playstyle to it.

Or you could present those options through the existing windows of opportunity with established and well-understood opportunity costs and not live it mortal terror something’s going to explode. Well, less terror – Players are very efficient at rooting out weaknesses in design .

What I would like to see is more weapon per profession (and maybe race) available.
First of all – 1 specific weapon for each class which only that class can use.
Second – 1 specific weapon for each race which only that race can use.
Third – allow all other weapons be used for all classes – If Id like to have axe/dagger guardian or hammer thief – let me do that. It may be not so efficient but at least it will be RPG fun.

Following that I would like to have traits reset possible when out of combat. The approach gw1 had. And also from gw1 – possibility to save/restore templates for skill/traits combo.

And last, but not least armor switching under 1 key – like weapon.

Szamsziel.5627:

First of all – 1 specific weapon for each class which only that class can use.
Second – 1 specific weapon for each race which only that race can use.
Third – allow all other weapons be used for all classes – If Id like to have axe/dagger

1. Just no.
2. Never, there are problem with armors, no more of that please.
3. For sure, it will be great for horizontal progression.

Ok, brief pause to discuss something about the nature of ‘designing through drawbacks’.

“Adding + 20 to one stat at the cost of – 20 to another” LOOKS like an equitable exchange. It’s Not. Its NEVER a zero-sum alteration in a complex environment. Because when you hand a player 20 points, they’ll wrap other options around that edge that multiply its value. And when you bill them 20 points, they’ll bend their other options to rely on that stat the least amount possible.

What usually happens is you’ve effectively give the character a chance at a + 25 for a mere – 10 and hoped they aren’t clever enough to know it. And if you go back and factor in the reality of co-efficients in the larger space, you have to offer a deal that on paper reads more like “You can take a + 16 here at the cost of a – 40 there.” The skilled min/maxer looks at that and either sees a good deal because he’s even more clever than you accounted for or he skips over it looking for weaker links to break. The casual player just looks at that and thinks the designer is a complete idiot. Either way it ends up being a lot of wasted effort introducing an option that while exquisitely balanced, is almost universally ignored.

Or you acknowledge that the symmetrical exchange has significant value and bill them for the exchange along a different axis (like, say, a major trait…).

Now apply that to the idea of sub-classes .

For the love of god listen to Nike.

Sub-classes will be the death of this game. They’re un-needed and should be the last thing Arenanet looks toward.

This isn’t Guild Wars 1, it’s not going to work out all sunshine and rainbows as it did there. I’m sure Guild Wars 1 wasn’t easy to balance either, in fact I know it wasn’t because they’ve stated it was a nightmare at times.

Even adding a single new skill to each class can have a significant influence on the balance of the game. I don’t want to see the train wreck that sub-classes would lead to.

I understand what you guys are saying about power imbalance- certainly when it comes to the idea of adding additional points or just mixing the skills.
Because we already have the min/maxers which is why we have “preferred” weapon sets, “preferred” gear set-ups etc.

What if our traits stay as they are- we already have many combinations as Nike pointed out- those are not always utilized but that is because players min/max.

what if, when you unlock a specialization class at level 80- it adds only utilities along the lines of what we currently have as racial trait-for flavor, still usable but in no way OP. IN addition maybe a class elite like the current racial ones as well.

People will then be able to create a different look and feel for their base class without the pressure to pick xyz but with the option to do so.

ATM I know we can do that to some extent- but it is largely a matter of roleplay not really a feeling of character progression like you have in almost all rpg’s that allow you to do this.

Saying that people can come up with too many cool sounding things is not really a reason to me- There is a reason why people like the idea of sub-classes- the thing is in GW2 the base professions cover such a broad base of archetypes that it doesn’t really allow for new professions.

The only way we will ever get to play something new would be to add to those professions in some way.

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t for the life of me wrap my head around Nike’s rant against sub-jobs/classes was. What was the problem again?

I think it all depends on how you do it.

First we should note that we do need new skills/traits/weapons. What we have really isn’t all the much. However, we should also be very cognisant of the fact that Arenanet really want to avoid over complicating the system and blow out the balance, as they did in GW1. Too many skills is not a good thing evidently.

Sub-jobs could be a good way of keeping a very tight rein on the balance, while still offering players a great deal more content to work with.

-
Say a Memser has two Sub-jobs, Dualist and Illusionist.
(unlocked as say lvl 60)
Each have all the exactly same skills/traits/weapons etc, of the base profession, +additional stuff of their own. And like traits, you can respec and switch between sub-jobs.

The Dualist gains a main hand Pistol, and a Rifle, and new traits and utilities that specialize more in interruption and damage.

The Illusionist on the otherhand gains a main hand Dagger, and a Shortbow, with new traits and utilities centered around deception, like a couple more stealth skills.

-
Each have their own specialization, and the total amount of new skills/traits/weapons the profession has access to has increased overall, but with less of the potential over complication. If that makes any sense.

While this wouldn’t give as much raw diversity as just flatly adding in new skills/traits/weapons etc, it would allow Arenanet to leverage the riskes and maintain balance.

Adding more and more skills will inevitably lead to balance disaster — unless all old skills are obsoleted by power creep. But no one wants power creep.

So copy Magic: the Gathering’s Type II/Standard play: have a regular schedule where old skills expire and new skills are introduced to replace them. The number of skills available to each player is always constant, and thus easier to balance.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Adding more and more skills will inevitably lead to balance disaster — unless all old skills are obsoleted by power creep. But no one wants power creep.

So copy Magic: the Gathering’s Type II/Standard play: have a regular schedule where old skills expire and new skills are introduced to replace them. The number of skills available to each player is always constant, and thus easier to balance.

no thank you- I have seen you suggest Magic the Gathering system before but that is a card game this is an MMO- two vastly different things.

I would never want my skills to just be rotated out on a schedule- If i want to play Magic the Gathering I do.
and yes I keep all my old decks.

I’m genuinely gonna try to keep this short because I’ve written too many words that seem to have been utterly ignored first.

“Know your audience”

You advertised a game with very little to no vertical progression, and all horizontal progression. That’s what I wanted. That’s what I bought into. I don’t know if other people want more or less grind, I’m looking for as close to “none” as physically possible, which is what was advertised and, in fact, was what the game was for almost a year.

Then you dumped Ascended crap on us, and everything changed.

I’d be fine with ascended if it was, as you advertised, horizontal progression – Same stats, but with agony resistance for those who want fractals, and maybe additional utility to justify their grind (say, for example, being able to change stats freely out of combat). If it was like that, then I wouldn’t even mind all the time-gated content-inflation bullkitten… It would be a matter of optional convenience. As it is it’s statistically superior, which for someone who enjoys WvW, makes it practically mandatory.

Some people like that. I don’t. I don’t think the people you originally advertised to fall within that category, but whatever. Just know who you’re making your game for.

Personally, I want ascended’s stat advantage to be gone, completely. Then give me a wardrobe system, where I don’t need to pay gems (requiring real money or a megaton of in-game gold by now) and burn my old look in order to use a different look. That’ll get me happy and spending money on all those gem-store skins and items again. Right now I want to buy that Phalanx armour, but why? I can’t use it. I don’t want to burn the look of either of my heavy armour users, and I don’t have space for more armour sets. I also refuse to spend money in this game with the current ascended stats issue.

That’s me. If you want me and people like me spending money in the game, that’s what you have to do. If you don’t, nice knowing you. Wish you all the luck.

Edit: And no, sub-classes are a terrible idea. It’s a built-in limitation on builds and gameplay styles.

Something that hasn’t been addressed yet:

Progression for new players

There are a few things in the game that aren’t really explained in-game, and really require the use of the wiki to figure out. I don’t think that’s okay. I don’t think the wiki should be required for anything. This mostly relates to crafting.

For new players, I think the whole agony system could be explained better. Figuring out how to infuse all your equipment, and upgrade it all, requires a lot of searching on the wiki. Something so important to your vertical progression, should have a proper tutorial. That also goes for a lot of the more obscure crafting recipes. I realize that the intent is to have players figure these out through experimentation. But I’m stuck at level 477 now, with no clue what to discover next. I’m basically required to look it up on the internet.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Something that hasn’t been addressed yet:

Progression for new players

There are a few things in the game that aren’t really explained in-game, and really require the use of the wiki to figure out. I don’t think that’s okay. I don’t think the wiki should be required for anything. This mostly relates to crafting.

For new players, I think the whole agony system could be explained better. Figuring out how to infuse all your equipment, and upgrade it all, requires a lot of searching on the wiki. Something so important to your vertical progression, should have a proper tutorial. That also goes for a lot of the more obscure crafting recipes. I realize that the intent is to have players figure these out through experimentation. But I’m stuck at level 477 now, with no clue what to discover next. I’m basically required to look it up on the internet.

I think there’s a fine balance between ‘pointing in the right direction’ and ‘hand-holding through everything’. Not to mention how things like this could help with community building (Asking people vs going on the net).

For example, maybe when you reach L10 Fractals, the game will tell you to talk to whatserface in the Fractals, who’ll walk you through the basics of Infusions. However, it won’t tell you how to make them, with regards to specifics.

Same with crafting. Personally, I loved levelling cooking. It was like a giant puzzle, mixing and matching things until they fit. Maybe they could give you a basic Sigil / Rune that you could craft (much like the gear at level 1) to give a rough idea as to what you need, without actually telling you how to craft all of them.

It is especially a problem with upgrading your Fractal Backpack, which has to be done through the mystic forge for some reason, and there’s nowhere in the game where you are told that:

• You can upgrade the fractal backpack at all
• You have to do it in the Mystic Forge
• What the recipe is

I don’t think that’s a case of hand holding. It’s a clear case of a missing tutorial.

Just real quick here…

Subclasses are a horrible idea. Absolutely horrible. The moment you begin to add too much specialization is the moment people start demanding that specialization for things that never required it in the first place. Someone will sit down somewhere with a calculator and convince themselves that the numbers indicate that with these certain professions and these certain subclasses you can clear a dungeon eighteen seconds faster, therefore no one else is acceptable.

Horrible, horrible idea for the long term health of the game.

VOLKON.1290:

Just real quick here…

Subclasses are a horrible idea. Absolutely horrible. The moment you begin to add too much specialization is the moment people start demanding that specialization for things that never required it in the first place. Someone will sit down somewhere with a calculator and convince themselves that the numbers indicate that with these certain professions and these certain subclasses you can clear a dungeon eighteen seconds faster, therefore no one else is acceptable.

Horrible, horrible idea for the long term health of the game.

This^^^ 100 times this. 1000 times this!

Unless captured in original design, subclasses and specialization classes add too much complexity to what was already a fully functional, well-established, and accurate system (the current profession system). Guild Wars 2 has done the absolute unthinkable of most MMOs, by removing race and/or world faction from the equation of class choice, and it has shown its strength in the variety of characters we’ve seen in LA or created for ourselves.

Also, VOLKON’s point about wanting to add “specialization” to everything rings true. For players who have no idea how design process works, they’ll see specialization in one system and then beg and plead for it to just be “slapped on” to other systems, with no clue of the time, cost, technical or engine limits, and actual effect it would have on the game.

Don’t change the system that’s been proven to work fantastically. Instead, build on the current system and improve its depth. I’ve said it before – new utility skills, new traits, new skill mechanics (Charge Skills, Toggle Skills), and ultimately, revamped weapon skills utilizing said new mechanics.

I can go into further detail sometime later, but for the love of the six gods, do not add [insert crazy subclass name here] to either the existing profession system or the trait system.

stone cold.8609:

I stopped playing the game about 3 months ago. I haven’t posted to the forums since, but wanted to log in to contribute to this remarkable thread. My comments are only meant to reflect my observations/opinions.

I really think the game has great potential and gets many things very right (especially all things Asuran), which is why I haven’t completely given up on it yet. I was probably considered a “serious casual” player. I had 1300+ hours spread over 3 fully geared BIS level 80 characters, map completion, dungeon master title, and around 4400 AP. I didn’t have a main and was content to hang out in Rata Sum or Metrica helping guildies or newbies with quests, running dungeons, or soloing champs in Orr. As a former long time Diablo 2 player, I was planning on spending many years doing this and never felt that I needed vertical progression to keep me with the game. In short, I was very satisfied with the state of the game then.

I only started to play GW2 because of the initial marketing messages of no grind, no vertical progression, BIS exotics should be easy to get (and let’s be honest, that is how the game was marketed). I didn’t want the typical MMO experience. When the game changed focus abruptly and added the unnecessary, overly grindy and expensive ascended tier (in my opinion) and the overabundance of time gates, it went from the best gaming experience I had to one of the worst (again, in my opinion). I now no longer had BIS. I had an evergrowing list of tasks that I had to do each day or fall behind with no chance to catch up. And to top it all off, I had to craft (which is something I don’t care for in any game) to get ascended. I really tried to get with the new game direction because I really liked the Asuran immersion, but it was really no fun anymore for me so I just stopped playing.

The point of my post is to say that there have been a lot of great suggestions brought up in this thread (and I’ve read all 39 pages) which has lead to the proposal that Chris said he will discuss internally. If some of these ideas are actually implemented in game in a way that will lessen the impact of ascended gear and time gating, I’ll happily get my Asura out of storage and come back to Tyria.

I’ll be checking back every now and then to see if something substantive comes out of these efforts. I do commend the Chris and the ANET team for reaching out to us like this and am hopeful for the best.

To everyone still playing, I wish you all good game!

I think many people feel the same as you. I know I do. Ive taken breaks and come back…trying not to get caught up in any of the grind, but its everywhere no matter what you do.

So, heres to hoping the CDI has some real tangible results in game within the next few months or Im going to feel burnout in GW2 again, where I used to have fun.

My disagreement with subclasses is hereby written as well, for the following reasons:

As been previously mentioned by a great many of people, literally all so called subclasses can already be implemented with the current systems available WITHOUT actually putting a sub-class choice in it. The thing you actually want by trying to promote subclasses is already possible with next to little change.

I really don’t want to talk down on those who promote subclasses, I really do not, please take what I say for face value and not for “he just wants to flame me.”
BUT.

Some people have the tendency to grab the most enjoyable aspects of games they liked and try to push it into their new current favourite title. In this case it looks like suggested subclasses smell like GW1 players trying to get back their secondary classes, among other games.
Please bear in mind, that in GW1 your character consisted almost entirely of skills to create your build, and next to little else. Weapon choice was negligible on classes who didn’t utilize weapon-based skills, and more often than not the gear specialization was negligible as well. 95% of the time you just went with extra energy and a varying set of attribute runes and that was it. Attribute choice usually was tied to the skills you were using, 12/12/3 was common to work well across the board, but basically attributes have been pretty straightforward. Push the skills you want to improve, nothing more.

Here, in GW2, the pie-chart for the character build is a lot more balanced. Weapon choice matters an awful lot, attributes are of higher value because they can be tailored better to suit your needs, traits & support skills are the meat’n’potatoes of your build and last but not least, Runes sometimes provide exactly that extra special feature you searched for. Creating a build in GW2 requires a lot more than just overlooking hundreds and hundreds of skills. Don’t get me wrong, I had a really great time in tinkering with builds in GW1, and I wasted hours to come up with the craziest things. But I don’t miss that. I love it in GW2 as well, it is simply different and I don’t want to be a scrub, so I sink my teeth into new mechanics and wrap my gumption around them.

Back to the point of subclasses:
Everything anyone talked in this topic about subclasses is fully possible with:

1. Larger selection of traits
2. Perhaps even one or two new trait-lines (horizontal progression – see what I did there? instead of increasing level cap, we get more traits to spend points to. Keeping gear on the same level but improving power through combination and diversification of traits.)
3. Larger selection of support skills (( some builds are either completely based around support skills or heavily complemented by them. Spirit-ranger or Trapper, here you go )).
4. More weapons unlocked for professions (( which causes more skill variety ))
5. New weapons in general (( Crossbow, Two-handed Axe, Polearms, etc ))
6. A second row of alternate weapon skills which can be toggled out of combat like support skills. (( so you basically doubling it, many skills offering either an inversion of what the original skill did, or changing the utility of it. Making a 2hand sword having 10 skills but you choose which individual 5 you run to battle with. Nothing more fancy to keep weapons simple and meaningful. Inverting the skill theme is almost always possible, easy to balance and keeps the association with the weapon intact)).
7. More Elite skills (( this was edited in, sorry, how could I possibly forget that? ))

The bonuses suggested by people do nothing but promote the type of profession they want to play or showcase a deficit of said profession. Yes, granted, some professions are not good at certain things. Yes, granted, some buffs and tweaks could be made to increase their utility in said fields.
But does this warrant an entirely new subclass system?
Look at the list I posted. The answer is; no. Absolutely not. We have the systems in place to build upon for increased variety. It just needs to be a bit more populated. There is zero incentive to create another unnecessary layer of character-building.

Yoh.8469:

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t for the life of me wrap my head around Nike’s rant against sub-jobs/classes was. What was the problem again?

I think it all depends on how you do it.

First we should note that we do need new skills/traits/weapons. What we have really isn’t all the much. However, we should also be very cognisant of the fact that Arenanet really want to avoid over complicating the system and blow out the balance, as they did in GW1. Too many skills is not a good thing evidently.

Sub-jobs could be a good way of keeping a very tight rein on the balance, while still offering players a great deal more content to work with.

-
Say a Memser has two Sub-jobs, Dualist and Illusionist.
(unlocked as say lvl 60)
Each have all the exactly same skills/traits/weapons etc, of the base profession, +additional stuff of their own. And like traits, you can respec and switch between sub-jobs.

The Dualist gains a main hand Pistol, and a Rifle, and new traits and utilities that specialize more in interruption and damage.

The Illusionist on the otherhand gains a main hand Dagger, and a Shortbow, with new traits and utilities centered around deception, like a couple more stealth skills.

-
Each have their own specialization, and the total amount of new skills/traits/weapons the profession has access to has increased overall, but with less of the potential over complication. If that makes any sense.

While this wouldn’t give as much raw diversity as just flatly adding in new skills/traits/weapons etc, it would allow Arenanet to leverage the riskes and maintain balance.

I thought about this sub-class idea and I think it can work pretty well.

I would point few things thou:

• Sub classes should be switchable so if mesmer picks up duelist, he can progress being a duelist but he can switch to illusionist and progress in that specialization, then come back to duelist and progress some more in this.
• We would need preset trait lines for each subclass. (side note: WvW should have different traits combos also).
• Progression in sub class should be on the level 80 and should not count levels. You can add some points on each level and those points could progress your skill/traits levels in your specializations. I should not use skill points for it, but rather system similar to WXP (progression without use of xp and skill points).
• Specialization should change some of your traits or grant another tier of traits (preferred, maybe 3 basic traits and 2 trait threes for specialization?)
• I would also look to make a difference between basic class and specialization class: Let use use only some of basic class weapons (limit some, duelist can’t use stafs and focuses) and on the other hand add 1 or 2 new weapons that only that subclass can use. It would make interesting new combos (duelist can use 2 pistols, ranger specialization that can use shotguns, etc).

I would see it like this:
Personally this could work if it goes as horizontal progression, without level cup. You will became a good mesmer, ranger, guardian… while leveling and when you are good you will try new options for yourself to become even better.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Adding more and more skills will inevitably lead to balance disaster — unless all old skills are obsoleted by power creep. But no one wants power creep.

So copy Magic: the Gathering’s Type II/Standard play: have a regular schedule where old skills expire and new skills are introduced to replace them. The number of skills available to each player is always constant, and thus easier to balance.

Interesting idea.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Something that hasn’t been addressed yet:

Progression for new players

There are a few things in the game that aren’t really explained in-game, and really require the use of the wiki to figure out. I don’t think that’s okay. I don’t think the wiki should be required for anything. This mostly relates to crafting.

For new players, I think the whole agony system could be explained better. Figuring out how to infuse all your equipment, and upgrade it all, requires a lot of searching on the wiki. Something so important to your vertical progression, should have a proper tutorial. That also goes for a lot of the more obscure crafting recipes. I realize that the intent is to have players figure these out through experimentation. But I’m stuck at level 47 now, with no clue what to discover next. I’m basically required to look it up on the internet.

While you are right, and there could be done more in that matter, we kinda talk about
progression after level 80. That is why I would say that progression up to level 80 should stay as it is. After level 80 there should be new ways, sub classes and all that we can think of to kinda let us progress on the “master” level based more on skills, specializations, and new ways of playing instead grinding for new equipment.

WvW Player needs more chance to achieve the same the PvE Players can achieve

Baels.3469:

For the love of god listen to Nike.

Sub-classes will be the death of this game. They’re un-needed and should be the last thing Arenanet looks toward.

This isn’t Guild Wars 1, it’s not going to work out all sunshine and rainbows as it did there. I’m sure Guild Wars 1 wasn’t easy to balance either, in fact I know it wasn’t because they’ve stated it was a nightmare at times.

Even adding a single new skill to each class can have a significant influence on the balance of the game. I don’t want to see the train wreck that sub-classes would lead to.

we can negotiate all day about the various ideas, but there are some things that irk me every time I see it in a post by a game developer or certain players that happens to be in your post. you’re right, nothing is ever going to be “all sunshine and rainbows”, but a huge chunk of people/players/customers like and want options/choices/flexibility. most people don’t want to hear stuff like “wasn’t/isn’t/not gonna be easy to balance and was/is/will be a nightmare at times”. their job is to make the best game possible so players stick around and spend money. this job is not about doing things easy and churning out suboptimal content and systems, it is about doing what needs to be done as efficiently as possible. yes, anet has worked hard, but they mentioned wanting to change their philosophy and make the best game possible and these things will never be achieved with the current mentality and reinvestment level. the “good enough” development philosophy needs to be changed asap, so I’m hoping that this cdi is real step to fundamental change and not just more pr fluff and empty conversations.

Hello.
I have a LOT of complain about that part of the game
Let me first say that, there is a lot of good things in GW2, that’s why i spend some time to come post here and hope for a improovement.

I loved GW1 since day one, i played it until somes month after GWEN.
But there is a HUGE problem in GW2 : the GEAR !

You made GW2 to be played a bit like GW1 : Easy to “change” your build and the way you play your character ( and its good )

BUT !

—The gear is to long to get, too expensive, there is soo much gear piece ( not couting weapons ) you have 12 armor pieces ! that’s a LOT
— The build is WAY to much dependant on the Gear.
As exemple, with the exacts sames traits and skills, but just changing the gear, my engineer will have a different “build”

• You want play a different build ? farm 1-2weeks ( and way more with ascended – ascended jewels ) to have others stats
• You want change your build only with the runes ? farm 1-2weeks ( and way more with ascended – ascended jewels ) because you are not going to pay each time 10gold and more depending on the runes each time you want change your build
• You want do somes test ? waste many gold and times farming gear
• Same thing apply to weapons and somes sigils that can be expensive
• You can end up with sooo many armors pieces everywhere

i’am sorry, but it turn that game totaly insane with gear / stats / runes / sigils and all that stuff just to play differents builds, make test, make hibrid.. etc You spend more time running after the gear than playing the game . And it really ( really really ) ruin my gaming experience.

Simple solution :

• Make us buy or craft a armor for the skin ( same price, time to get.. etc ) and make basic exotic / ascended “skin” easy and cheap to get ( like for GW1 )
• Make stat ( rabid / knight / berserker.. etc ) as external armor upgrade. Of course ! dont ask us to have to spend 2 weeks of insane farming and crafting to have thoses “stats” upgrade. Make thoses stats cheap and easy to get.
• Allow us to store as many stats as we want into the armor, and let us change the stats like we can change traits. ( and please, without having to pay Irl money for that, without having to craft a special very expensive item for that )
• Same things for the runes.
• Same things for the weapons Sigils.

It will allow everyone to easyly change his builds like we made in GW1 and enjoy the pleasure of making many test and often REALLY changing build

The actual system, stuck a class into one build because its, long, expensive, not interesting to hunt gear durings weeks just to have ONE set. ( and again i prefer play the game instead of wait a month of item farming to finaly be able to play it )
So only one way to play the game = boring game. ( unlike GW1 )
At leastn thoses who like “hunting” gear will do it, for the skin ( like in GW1 )

About Fractal.

I really like the fractal system.
BUT
Agony… its like the gear problem. It ask MANY times – money – farm to have agony protection, and worse, you can apply that to ONLY ONE ascended jewels stats.
It mean, if you want change your build ( or play another character ) you have to start ALL over from 0..
its insane !

And worse, the angony system, have nothing to do with gameplay, its just a gear check.
And bit like when you have to pay for a night club entrance… ( you dont pay, you dont farm, you cant play it, even if you are smart enough to manage higher difficulty )
Its only revealing the time and money that the player have spend into that, instead of his talent to manage higher difficulty level…

Agony resistance should be account bounded. ( at see how its awfull to grind that.. )

I could expose way more problem, but if you consider to at least solve thoses issues, the game would be clearly better and more interesting to play, because it would have a way to quit the gear farming.
GW2 actualy fall deep down into hardcore grindfest mmo.. instead of following the GW1 excelent base which was offering interesting gameplay without grind !

Thanks.
From a player sick of the grindfest system.

I would also like to point out that all of the statements I put forward regarding sub-classes were just brainstorming.

At no point did I present my information in the format of “This is exactly how it should be implemented”.

People are even criticizing the actual ideas for sub-classes: “Where’s the archer option?”

I don’t think at any point any of us were trying to say, that these are the subclasses that will or should be implemented. The only reason they were brought up were for the sake of example.

There’s also a lot of people posting their opinions on the matter where the tone in the literature conveys, “This is how it is, it isn’t opinion” — While it may sound contradictory; I’m sorry, but this simply isn’t the case — we’re talking about what people find fun and engaging :P. That being said, there has also been a lot of evidence and support provided, but I don’t particularly think people react well in a collaborative environment when opinions (even those with good reasons behind them) are conveyed as absolute fact.

At any rate, some very good counter arguments for sub-classes were brought up, and I don’t necessarily disagree with them. I guess the reason I like the idea is because I really like the feeling of being ‘niche’. With the current PvE meta, I feel like this is virtually non-existent and I wouldn’t disagree that this can be done without sub-classes — I’ve just always sort of liked the idea. I feel like in the case of the PvE meta, DPS rules everything, which is so unfathomably boring.

Defiant makes “control” or CC builds virtually worthless in so many encounters. Support builds have much more of a place, but usually, if you bring more than one, you’re killing stuff too slow. Hell, even the Tequatle encounter was literally just a 15 minute DPS check with a few other mechanics sprinkled in. You can even find successful full zerker groups in higher level fractals.

Maybe ultimately I don’t necessarily feel like the game needs Horizontal progress more-so, I take issue with the current state of the meta and I personally think Horizontal progress (Possibly in the form of sub-classes) is just one way of shaking that up. That being said, unless current mechanics change or new ones are implemented, I don’t necessarily see this happening.

So this is sort of where I’m coming from — my angle. I’m sure there are people that will disagree with me that there’s more to the meta than DPS and maybe some support every once in a while, but that’s just sort my opinion on the matter.

Here’s my take on how vertical progression (Ascended gear) and horizontal progression (skins) conflict in the current environment, likely hurting Anet’s bottom line:

People are simply not going to grind a second piece of Ascended gear just to get have an alternate look — which means they’re often not going to buy a second skin. So every player who grinds out a piece of Ascended gear is potentially money lost for Anet.

The best part: this can be verified (or disproven) by (carefully) looking at your metrics.

(I, for example will probably never put a skin on my Ascended dagger while I have two exotic daggers with identical stats rotting in my inventory: one with a destroyer skin, the other with a sclerite skin.)

Subclasses could also be used as an interesting form of vertical progression. Look at Ragnarok Online.

This could allow Anet to add more “levels” to the game without increasing the current level cap. How? Have it so that, at level 80, and after doing several high-end tasks, you are given the option to upgrade your class and re-start at level 1. Leveling isn’t hard in this game, anyways, and there are players who enjoy that. Of course, it should come with some account-bound benefits, so that players are not forced to repeat it for every alt.

Class tiers would be an interesting system to gate gear tiers, trait tiers, and even some skills or – gasp – skill slots or more complex core profession mechanics that increase the much-needed skill ceiling of most professions.

As an horizontal progression system, subclasses could bring an interesting new build-crafting system. To be honest, I don’t enjoy much the skill and the trait systems. The first is very restrictive. The second is very passive. I would personaly enjoy a fusion of both systems into something else. An universal system for both skills and traits, perhaps tied to each subclass, that would have less “passive spam” and more skill freedom. Perhaps something like FFVII’s materia, where the “passive traits”, the “active skills” and the “runes/ sigils” fought for the same number of slots and, even more so than that, there existed “combo effects” that gave new functionalities to already existing skills.

We already know the skill system in this game must be restricting to a certain extent for the sake of balance. In my opinion, one of mistakes done by Anet was to sacrifice a “fun” character progression system (like GW1 had) for the sake of a balance that has never been acchieved. We’re left with a game that doesn’t have a customisation system as fun as what the top industry can offer (be it compared to the old GW1, or to single player RPGs with excellent cusomisation systems like FFT, FFVII, among others), while seriously struggling for balance anyways. We as players aren’t happy, and I’m not sure if Anet is happy with this either.

I believe it was Colin that has said that, if GW2 had to become GW3 someday, it would. Not sure if I have misread, but I enjoy that quote, despite being too ambitious. Even WoW revamped its talent trees several times, hasn’kitten The beauty of a MMO, is that it is ever-changing – it doesn’t needs to be stuck to the systems at launch.

I would certainly want something funnier – much funnier – than simply unlocking three utilities and traiting 14 passive effects. Don’t we all? this the price we had to “pay” for a balance that has never existed, so yes, i would certainly want something “more” than what we have.

In this way, a subclass system could be an opportunity to revamp the system to something more lasting and easier to expand, both horizontal and vertical, while still offering enough restriction to not come at the cost of balance.

In the end, it’s not that the subclasses can add anything new that the trait system doesn’t yet, because they probably wouldn’t. What makes subclasses so appealing to me, however, is that they can be a great opportunity, a great starting point, for a future revamp of the current skill system, because its an exciting concept that has plenty of potential.

FeveredDreamer.2693:

I don’t agree with that being the “definition” of an MMO, I play an MMO to (among other reasons) have an ongoing online environment to explore and enjoy with friends (and enemies). Endless vertical progression plays 0 role in my definition of an MMO and maybe it is worth considering that (even though everyone hates those old dev comments being brought up) the idea of not having endless vertical progression (particularly tied to gear) is actually interesting to some of the player base.

1. Who said anything about a definition? It’s certainly not a definition of a MMO game. But it sure is a part of what Gw2 is trying to be. Arena Net is updating its game every two weeks and because of that the game is growing. Whether you like it or not.
2. There is no such thing as endless vertical progression(or endless gear treadmill). Vertical progression is extended only if the game itself is extended at the same time. So VP persists only as long as the game is supported.
3. VP and HP is not so different as being “endless” or the time you spend with the game progressing. There are many problems with both progression types. And we need both in the game.

Check my previous posts in this thread if you want to discuss some more with me!

Well i think keyword here is purpose.
What purpuse does each model serve?

They way i look at it, vertical progression serves several crucial goals:

• familiarazing player with the world, his character, and game systems
• progressing the story (you get stronger, get allias than face Zhaithan)
• giving him the feeling of permanant, sure reward for his effort
• providing him with greater challenges that will hone his skill and force him to be at his best

Horizontal progression imho serves the following goals:

• uniqueness. Be it of build, of looks, of personal story, nobody likes being a clone in mmo. Walking your own path is a huge thing for a player.

• fairness. If someone is “pro” cause of his +11 sword, while someone with +2 is a nib then that’s broken design right there. If someone is a “noob” because he’s not on a zerker warrior (hi dungeons), then that too is broken design.

• exploration – with everything being on roughly equal ground, you have whole world to explore, and not just 2-4 end game weapons, endgame maps and endgame bosses.

• player growth. Skill based combat is around growth of player himself and less of his character ingame.

It doesn’t take a lot IQs to figure out that the virtues of horizontal progression usually are the cures for misguided vertical progression’s sins in many a game.

So the simple question to ask here is – what good from vertical progression are we missing, is there any bad from it creeping in here, and is horizontal progressions as good as it should be?

DiogoSilva.7089:

To be honest, I don’t enjoy much the skill and the trait systems. The first is very restrictive. The second is very passive. I would personaly enjoy a fusion of both systems into something else. An universal system for both skills and traits, perhaps tied to each subclass, that would have less “passive spam” and more skill freedom. Perhaps something like FFVII’s materia, where the “passive traits”, the “active skills” and the “runes/ sigils” fought for the same number of slots and, even more so than that, there existed “combo effects” that gave new functionalities to already existing skills.

I very much agree with your sentiments regarding traits and skills, it just sort of feels underwhelming in my opinion.

I like your ideas.

The current system has several flaws (too many passive effects, hard to expand traits without ruining balance by adding way too many combinations or even more unneeded passive effects, vertical progression that ends way too early in the game, unexciting premise) that can probably be fixed with a subclass system.

• If anet wants to expand the professions and their skill sets without coming at the risk of existing way too many skills available to be comboed with each other like in GW1? Just add new subclasses.
• If anet wants more vertical progression and gated content through means other than ascended gear? Expand the subclasses.
• If Anet wants a greater feeling of progression while new players are still leveling? Add subclass tiers on top of what already exists, or whatever else.
• If Anet wants to excite the playerbase with those changes? “omg look they’re adding a guardian paladin and a ranger druid! I so want to be a paladin and a druid.”

Yes, the later one can be done with traits, but traits are – again – too passive, the weapon skills would remain unchanged (sure, a ranger druid could simply get a new weapon type!), and are overall a bit too abstract. No player in this game looks at the trait system and says: “Wow, I can be a paladin!” No, they look at the trait system and say, “let me stack as many +damage traits as I can for pve” or “moar projectile reflection! moar blocking!”

So even though the traits can be customised to fill in a certain flavor, they are too abstract at that, and chances are, those kind of builds would end up becoming unoptimized and gimmicky. Traiting is not about flavor – it’s about efficiency. This is true to all skill systems when it comes to giving player’s control, so it’s up to the developers to give to those systems a “flavorful restriction”, so that flavor doesn’t comes at the cost of efficiency.

Subclasses are perfect for that. Developers set up the flavor through rules and restrictions, and the playerbase worries about their efficiency within the bounds of said rules and restrictions.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Adding more and more skills will inevitably lead to balance disaster — unless all old skills are obsoleted by power creep. But no one wants power creep.

So copy Magic: the Gathering’s Type II/Standard play: have a regular schedule where old skills expire and new skills are introduced to replace them. The number of skills available to each player is always constant, and thus easier to balance.

I think if you’re gonna borrow from the best in their field, you need to look at their model completely – and one of the things that makes Type II work is that it’s only one mode of play out of many.

If Guildwars 2 added a category of PvP that introduced special rules (similar to Mistlock Instabilities) or build-limitations (strangely reminiscent of some sub-class proposals…) that periodically rotated (say, every two months) like Type II’s blocks I think you’d be on to a great new toy. Something eternally fresh for the competitive crowd to wrestle with. New pressures with every cycle, and its changing pressures that drive evolution.

But I would be very hesitant about making anything like that the default framework of the game, rippling out into all modes.

Nike.2631:

Lord Kuru.3685:

Adding more and more skills will inevitably lead to balance disaster — unless all old skills are obsoleted by power creep. But no one wants power creep.

So copy Magic: the Gathering’s Type II/Standard play: have a regular schedule where old skills expire and new skills are introduced to replace them. The number of skills available to each player is always constant, and thus easier to balance.

I think if you’re gonna borrow from the best in their field, you need to look at their model completely – and one of the things that makes Type II work is that it’s only one mode of play out of many.

If Guildwars 2 added a category of PvP that introduced special rules (similar to Mistlock Instabilities) or build-limitations (strangely reminiscent of some sub-class proposals…) that periodically rotated (say, every two months) like Type II’s blocks I think you’d be on to a great new toy. Something eternally fresh for the competitive crowd to wrestle with. New pressures with every cycle, and its changing pressures that drive evolution.

But I would be very hesitant about making anything like that the default framework of the game, rippling out into all modes.

This seems reminiscent of GW1 Codex Arena. General principles anyway.

DiogoSilva.7089:

The current system has several flaws (…. vertical progression that ends way too early in the game, unexciting premise)

I guess it depends a lot on how they implement a lengthening of vertical progression. But my warrior has been stuck below level 40 for about half a year now. I really want to have her grandmaster traits unlocked, but I am tired of progressing again.

DiogoSilva.7089:

• If anet wants to expand the professions and their skill sets without coming at the risk of existing way too many skills available to be comboed with each other like in GW1? Just add new subclasses.

Comboing skills with one another was my favourite part of GW1. Sure it takes a lot of balancing, but it is so worth it if it works out. Besides, balancing out the subclasses against one another would have it’s own balance problems. Without subclasses, at least players can try to find their own solutions to that. (Although I may have a different vision of subclasses as you have)

DiogoSilva.7089:

• If anet wants more vertical progression and gated content through means other than ascended gear? Expand the subclasses.

How do you imagine this happening? As in making subclasses stronger if you invest more heavily in them? And would it take time to do this? Would this make changing builds and strategies more difficult as we go along? Would it make current content easier? Would it make the road to end-game play longer? And wouldn’t that make it harder for new people to start playing with their friends?… a lot of questions.

DiogoSilva.7089:

• If Anet wants a greater feeling of progression while new players are still leveling? Add subclass tiers on top of what already exists, or whatever else.

Would they grow into these new subclasses? And if so, would they get tunnelvisioned into these subclasses, never to step outside of them again? Or would it feel more free than that? That we can be a priest one hour and a bodyguard the next? And if so, would it still feel like a subclass? Or is it more like the current traitsystem, in which we pick our master and grandmaster traits? And if so… is it worth the effort of making a new system over balancing the current one to more closely match that idea?

Now don’t get me wrong. I find the idea of subclasses very inspiring. But as others have pointed out: it feels scary in a way too. And I think that you underestimate the potential of our traitsystem. It is true that many of them are uninteresting passive boosts. But a bunch of them have a great impact on our playstyle and make it possible for us to create our own ‘subclass’ in a way. Perhaps the effect that you are looking for can be achieved through this existing system. By making them more impactful. And perhaps grandmaster traits could even have a clear visual effect!

One thing that would be missing in this system could be the lack of a grind. It wouldn’t give players ‘more’ content, just improve on the existing content. (Well, in a way there would be more content, if some builds become available that are currently not worth it or even impossible)

Edit: Oh, I should’ve reread the thread before I posted. You’ve already answered some questions by now.

This only shows how split the community is. I know next to no player in my GW2 circle who finds the trait system lacking and boring, and almost all of them have been playing GW1.

The thing is though, this approach can be turned against itself. If you say players view the trait system as “how much can I improve my desired build” – which is in my opinion the desired intention – then why would the same players view the subclasses differently? Chances are, it will be turned into another chase for efficiency.

Being effective at what you do isn’t a bad thing. Trying to improve said efficiency through traits is thus desired. The problem therein lies in some traits being useless and some weapons are simply performing better than others, and thus your choices are limited to trait from the start. So the problem isn’t that the trait system is boring or passive, but it hasn’t as much meaningful variety AND proper, fair balance.

So to me – and that is just me, because I can’t speak for any of the other players I hang out with because I haven’t asked them – subclasses are just the same as traits. Just a different flavour of specialization, which automatically leads to restriction as well.
Restriction is not a bad thing, but this is again something I am scratching my head and asking “why re-inventing the wheel if the current one already works and just needs more polish?”

If subclasses have rules and restrictions and players deal with that, how is that different from what we already have? Forgive me, I might completely miss the point, but I see absolutely no difference, and please rest assured; I really want to…

There is another problem I am seeing with subclasses; too much themed specialization automatically leads to diversity shortages because you have to make subclasses for 8 existing ones, and we already have deficits on variance with the current system, I don’t see subclasses improving on them… AND they would also impact the possibility of adding new professions entirely. They would have to design subclasses in a way so niches and themes are intentionally left open for future additions, and then said new professions need to be tailored around that as well.

I am not wanting to be a partykiller here, because I really want to see someone coming up with an idea of subclasses that I totally dig – no matter how often I turn and dissect it, I cannot find an advantage to them which cannot already be done with current systems.

It looks like we will be talking about two kinds of horizontal progression in this thread or the next if it gets split out. First I see Profession centric horizontal progression (subclasses, cosmetics, new skills and weapons, etc) and character centric horizontal progression (order missions, cosmetics, housing, etc) thoughts?

Bullet points of my thoughts on subclasses

• I prefer decks with cosmetic unlocks to subclasses
• The 6-10 Skills and Traits (especially grandmaster) should have more of a mechanical impact on classes
• New weapons, skills, and traits can fill the same role as subclasses
• Subclasses unnecessarily narrow a character’s breadth and can be borderline vertical progression
• Some professions already have robust “subclasses”

Before reading Nike’s post about subclasses I was staunchly in the subclass camp. I now see that there are already many fully functional “subclasses” in the game. My necromancer can be an epidemic/BiP “Putrifier”; a team support/dps Well based “Corruptor”; a” minion master”; a deathshroud based “Reaper” using power and/or fear duration. A job system is a cool idea that harkens back to GW1 secondary classes but I like the idea of adding traits that change things even more. Many Minion Master Necros have expressed a desire for more control of their minions. Anet could create a MM subclass or they could add a grandmaster trait in death that gives MMs and F2 and F3 skill that is attack/recall. This gives MMs the interesting choice to have more control of their minions vs the fantastic death nova. If spirit or bundle skills ARE added to the necromancer they essentially gain the subclass of ritualist. Perhaps a Grand master trait gets added that changes how death shroud works to support your spirits or have them follow you. Traits are an extremely powerful tool for the devs which I believe is currently underutilized.

Beyond traits additional weapon availability/types would add significant levels of horizontal progression. Swapping weapon sets in game is already akin to changing your class. For example I can run scepter dagger with minions. This build would focus on my character stacking bleeds while using the minions as extra damage and to kite. I can go dagger warhorn and wade into melee timing my daze to counter big hits and using my flesh golem to strip defiance. More weapons mean more subclass like options. It will not take a level 80 characters long to unlock a new weapon but figuring out good builds and learning how to better play the new weapon will take time and open up more options for your character.

With the limited number of skills available to each profession and much of the focus being on weapons it is easy for players to create various builds though traits can be somewhat obtuse. Rather than adding subclasses I recommend borrowing from the secret world and adding in decks that are made of skills, weapons and traits. Completing a deck could reward players with profession specific outfits. This would guide new players towards builds and encourage long time players to try out builds they had not looked at before. As more skills are added to the game more decks could be created and tied to thematic cosmetics. A Mesmer who unlocks the chronomancer deck will have built into abilities that speed up their allies while slowing their foes and unlock hourglass weapons and chronomancer armor. This is not a perfect option with how easy it is to unlock skills. Perhaps you could be required to complete a series of challenges with the build to unlock the cosmetics.

Tear this apart as you see fit!

Shongaqu

Not sure if said before.
Let us trade in fractal rings for asc gear and weapons. 5 rings for a piece of armor 10 for a weapon.
After making 8 asc weapons I’m 100% burned out on crafting ever again. Plus, this gives me a reason to go back into fractals and get lvl 50 again. Yet, another thing I’m burned out on.
You might have to adjust laurels and guild comms in some way, but this would be a great change in my eyes. Two bank tabbs of asc rings…

Restriction is not a bad thing, but this is again something I am scratching my head and asking “why re-inventing the wheel if the current one already works and just needs more polish?”

Question: how would you polish the current trait system? Outside of balancing issues, the trait system is pretty much doing what it can.

It’s not as flavorful as subclasses, because it simply can’t be.
Add too many new traits, and it creates the risk of creating a balancing nightmare.
It has too many passive effects, but the entire trait system revolves around passive stuff, so there’s not much that can be done about this either.

I’d say that the trait system, outside of balancing, is already “polished” as a mechanic. Buffs to underwhelming traits can make it better at what it does, but it’ll still be what it is.

Yes, revamping it might come at the risk of “reinventing the wheel”, but I’d say that a subclass system has more potencial for progression, a lot more flavor behind it, and it wouldn’t need to be tied to so many passive effects.

But it’s a very complex issue. There are certainly many flaws in it, many questions to make, and it entirely depends on how it is executed.

Comboing skills with one another was my favourite part of GW1. Sure it takes a lot of balancing, but it is so worth it if it works out. Besides, balancing out the subclasses against one another would have it’s own balance problems.

Let’s say that each subclass is its own entity, much like how each skill is. Each profession has a lot of skills, but they would only have a “tiny” amount of subclasses (between a modest 3 to a more diverse 8-12). Anet could treat it so that each subclass = each build, and only taking into account the most optimal build for each subclass. If a subclass is weaker than all others? Just buff some of its skills enough, without worrying about breaking some complex skill combos from elsewhere. And each subclass would only need to have enough skills to have one strong build in pve, one in pvp and one in wvw. Don’t like that build? Change your subclass. All the while, anet could consistently add more and more subclasses to the game, each with their own niche playstyle, so that things don’t become too restricting.

Ultimately, subclasses would be more flavorful, possibly easier to balance, and certainly easier to expand, than the current skill/ trait system, while still mimicking it at everything else.

For example, Ride the Lightning for elementalists was a good skill for glass cannons that was nerfed because it was too strong in defensive builds. Unfair, right? And this kind of stuff happened even more often in GW1. Now think of a Battlemage subclass with the old Ride the Lighning, and a more defensive subclass without it at all. Easier to balance, because it would be… very easy to categorize skills in the place where they should be, and make them effective at where they belong without the risk of making them too strong elsewhere.

Player customisation is at risk here, but as long as each subclass has its own customisation tools, and there are plenty of subclasses to choose from, it would be alright.

Mixchimmer.7230:

I would also like to point out that all of the statements I put forward regarding sub-classes were just brainstorming.

I get that, and I welcome people digging in and having a crack at it because it is WONDERFUL when somebody comes up with something I’ve missed or never seen before.

Its also painfully easy to create a mission statement that is unachievable. When working with game balance the devil is absolutely in the details. Just saying “see this will be fair and reasonable” doesn’t mean it actually is.

Subclasses as closed clusters is essentially toxic to an already more robust system of open exchanges we have.

Subclasses as equitable exchanges is almost inevitably based on “I’ve found an idea for a downside you can’t exploit, mitigate, or nullify to pay for this upside.” Those schemes usually break under testing in minutes, much less weeks when put in front of a million-plus gamers. Those downsides that are draconian enough to justify calling your up-side a balanced, horizontal exchange generally scare the crap out of the casual players that make up the greater portion of your audience.

Essentially you must design to withstand the ruthless analysis of the top 1% of the top 1% of build-crafters while also putting out something that’s human-readable and easily understood by 90% of your users.

It can be done. And when it is done, other developers have the courtesy to call it “genius”.

People are even criticizing the actual ideas for sub-classes: “Where’s the archer option?”

Ok, my example was too specific. The problem isn’t “where’s the archer”, the problem is the sheer hubris in thinking in just three archetypes you capture the majority of player ideaspace. 10 per class would be lowballing it and I think in any good room full of 5 people, you could hold a jam session and come up with 30 examples of “dudes I’d want to play as” worth considering in less than an hour. Then its starts becoming obvious that naming them and doing up all these fiddly bits for each them, with every fiddly bit primed to explode in your face is better tackled by the system already in place, doing a passable job of stringing together masses of free-floating mechanical elements of that magnitude.

I mean does anyone think that a looooong discussion of “sub-classes” isn’t what lead to what we have now? Look a the names on some of those trait lines!

I don’t think at any point any of us were trying to say, that these are the subclasses that will or should be implemented. The only reason they were brought up were for the sake of example.

Absolutely. But sometimes they are brought up with the exact casualness of the unachievable mission statement.

As much as I may quietly agree with something like “Final Fantasy had an amazing character progression scheme” (and it does. The word ‘genius’ LEAPS to mind) the moment you say “and Guildwars 2 should be like that” the practical considerations take precedence. Namely that A ) Guildwars 2 is a live game that must take care not to rock the boat so hard or fast you throw people over the sides and B ) Genius systems look so kitten pretty when they are done, but they take YEARS to craft from concept to polished state and I think the CDIs have already taken enough fire for not representing instantaneous gratification .

There’s also a lot of people posting their opinions on the matter where the tone in the literature conveys, “This is how it is, it isn’t opinion” — While it may sound contradictory; I’m sorry, but this simply isn’t the case — we’re talking about what people find fun and engaging :P. That being said, there has also been a lot of evidence and support provided, but I don’t particularly think people react well in a collaborative environment when opinions (even those with good reasons behind them) are conveyed as absolute fact.

I’ll grant you I’ve been very… strident.

Mostly I wanted to get a strong, up-front counter argument in because sub-classes are a really appealing notion that had seen literally a dozen favorable posts without hint of opposition.

I will try to restrain myself. …Even if I am RIGHT ;p.

At any rate, some very good counter arguments for sub-classes were brought up…

…I’ve just always sort of liked the idea.

Game design for entertainment is as much mass psychology as it is game theory. Please believe m that I DO NOT DISCOUNT the importance of a player saying “I’ve just always sort of liked the idea.” That is a very powerful argument in favor of something.

I feel like in the case of the PvE meta…

…So this is sort of where I’m coming from — my angle.

(sniped for message length – my apologies)

You and I are so on the same wavelength that I hope you’ll forgive my momentary outburst earlier.

Here’s a clearer and simpler example of why a subclass system could work better than the trait system:

Current System

• With traits, you choose which passive effects you want to specialize.
• You might end up creating an imaginary subclass inside your head, but flavor often come at a cost for efficiency;
• More traits increase the risk of unbalanced combos, and unfair nerfs to all builds because of a single other build.

Subclass System

• With subclasses, you choose which active and passive effects you want to specialize.
• The flavor is already set, so you only need to worry about efficiency, and thus get both.
• Subclassing is never imaginary, but a real, tangible feature present in the game.
• Adding more subclasses with isolated skills/ effects won’t thus create the risk of breaking combos from coming.

Things to take note in favor of subclassing:
1. Active effects (or a combination of active + passive) are usually more exciting than passive-only effects.
2. Getting both flavor and efficiency at the same time is more satisfying than sacrificing flavor for those “+10% damage” effects.
3. Players like to see their game’s systems expanded more frequently.

Part 1:

Nike & Co. have all absosutely no clues about what they are talking.
all I see here from them is just making unconstructive rants based full of personal fears and experiences made from much older bad designed games that they played before GW1/GW2.
Assumptions which were stuffed full with one childish not by facts based theories after another. This is not constructively discussing things, its just destructive badmouthing ideas based on personal fears of the posters.

The current Trait System is junk, it limitates us in everything we do and it can’t by far offer us everything in the same way, what Sub Classes could offer to the game together with a splitted up new Trait System that is based on Traits, Abilities and Talents. But an other reason why the System limitaes us alot is mainly, because the Character Stats are bonded to the Trait Lines. Thats also something that has to change, if this game ever wants to see more freedom of character builds with alot more diversity within the character builds.
——

Sub Classes don’t annihilate diversity, they create diversity. People like Nike are only to blinded by own made bad experiences from other games, that they can’t see the advantages of them, because all what they see in their mind is only

“oh noes, game X has already failed hard at this, I didn’t like it, Anet will naturally cough… fail too and that naturally alot harder”

Thats the kind of superficial thinking alot of people come up here instantly with, once we talk about topics that they personally don’t like, only because some other crap games weren’t successfuly with their ways of how the mechanics worked in the other games, that they are so superficial to the point, that they don’t want to give ANet even a slightest chance to prove, that they actually really can come up with something much better designed and working mechanics, than in those x other older games all those people made bad experiences with…

Sub Classes aren’t made just for only power creep like Nike says.
Sub Classes are a hybrid mechanism based on mixes of horizontal and vertical progression. But its in absolutely Naets clear decision, of of much of what they want to put into Sub Classes.

Sub Classes become only then first vertical progression, onmce Anet would combine Sub Classes with decisions like that Sub Classes should raise the maximum Health of a Character, should raise their Stats or should allow them to equip a new tier of more powerful weapons/equipment, that would be more powerful than Ascencent and would lead to the point, that legendary stuff has to be tweaked up again to be same as powerful.
Thats vertical progression Looking at some postings here in this thread, it clearly looks like, as if alot of people still don’t know whats exactly the clear difference between horizontal and vertical progression

I should have expected it, that peopel will start with battlign each other about possible Sub Classes with the typical “Where is/ and Why not-Issue” that naturally comes up, whenyou limitate Sub Classes to a a small number to make the suggestion in overall make look OVERVIEABLE and REALISTICAL to implement.
Its already more than enough to make 3 Sub Classes per Basic Class.
Thats an overviewable and realistical goal to work on.
If we would come up directly with a system, that provides like 10 sub classes per class, only so that really everybody will find their personal dream class to be playable in this game, then the idea becomes UNOVERVIEWABLE and completely UNREALISTICAL, because the effort to implemment such a mammoth system would quickly become way too much and it would simply take too much time to implement the system at all, if anet would exaggerate it with Sub Classes only so that everybody is total happy with having their personal dream class playable in the game.

As the discussion here revolves for the most part around Subclasses i wanted to introduce a few different ideas on what else could be done to expand the possibilities of customizing your Charakter/build diversity and to give you a feeling of reward/progression.
If those ideas came up before please excuse me, i honestly didn’t found the time and resolve to read trough all forty pages.

A Mechanik that lets you add different functionality to skills
, giving you the possibility to add effects or slightly changing what they do but still keeping the essence of the skill intact. Examples for such a system could be the runes in Diabolo3 or the glyphs in World of Warcraft.
As an example lets take the “Cleansing Flame” of the Guardians torch. In the Weapon Skills section of your hero panel you could choose to upgrade this skill, adding different effects to it.
For example the skill could: -Cleanse conditions on you as well
-Remove boons from the ennemy
-Convert the cleansed conditions to boons
-Do more damage/always crit/set the ennemy on fire
-…
This could greatly augment build deversity while not beeing too big of a change and would give players who enjoy the buildiung process give even more finetuning. You could really look at your build, ask yourselves “What do i want to do with this Build? What do i lack/need more?” and then finetune your skills to fit the role you want to take even better.
Depending on how you get the components for this skill-upgrade it could even work as vertical progression, giving you something to work forwards to. One of the things that motivates me most for leveling/grinding in a game is “This trait/skill/build is awesome! I wanna get that and every level i grind brings me closer to that awesome skill.”

A System for vertical progression past level 80 without raising the levelcap, just like the World Ranks in WvW. What exactly this “levels” give you still has to be determined but it could give you motivation and progression without devaluing what you got. The idea of subclasses may represent this idea but there are also other possibilities.

Gated content and a gear threadmill that have no impact on the game
This may seem a bit contradictory at first but i hope i can explain it so that its understandable.
A gear threadmill gives you prgogression, something to work towards to and motivate you. The problem is that if you are not interested in the content that needs the new gear (like with the fractals and the ascended gear for infusions) you are still impacted. If you dont go into the Fractals you dont need ascended gear. The problem is that players without ascended gear feel as they are not as effective as they could be even in regular dungeons and fear to be left out. If you fight someone in WvW who has ascended gear and you dont you will always have the feeling that you lost because of that difference in gear.
The solution here is to make the advantage exclusive to the content you need it for.
For example lets say they introduce a new “dungeon” to the game called Underworld, divided into different tiers. In Tier1 you can gather stuff to make new equipment without wich you wont have a chance in Tier2. The clue is that this equipment is identically as good as the best available armor in the game but has a +x% stat bonus exclusively in the Underworld.
This was tried with the torment mechanik and infusions in the fractals but i feel the idea was very good but not as well done as it could be as the ascended gear still gives you an advantage other than beeing able to use infusions.
Like this players who enjoy item progression could do it in Guild Wars 2 and players who dont are nbot in the least affected. This fits the theme of the game that there is something to do he enjoys for everyone without forcing players who dont like this kind of content to play it.

Hi Nike,

I’ve been reading your posts and you certainly know your stuff – subclasses worked in GW1 for a variety of reasons, and for all of those reasons it would fail in GW2.

TL;DR
Designing new builds/traits/weapons before addressing fundamental PvE design flaws is a waste of time.
______________________________
My thoughts on subclasses, or any changes to the existing trait/skill system is that no matter what they decide to do, hypothetically or otherwise, it can’t come before addressing the viability of any build outside of raw damage in PvE.

We all know frontloading damage via berserker gear is king, and at this point, with current game mechanics, no matter what was introduced, it won’t be as efficient as doing so. Certainly there are groups that play whatever builds they want ( I main Necromancer so I know how far the spectrum stretches), but to put any effort into designing new builds that simply won’t be efficient is a waste.

My problem is that they are pushing diversity and territory of player role to the point where the content is so trivial, that every build is essentially the same – do damage, dodge 1 shot boss mechanics. Designing all classes to have an impact on content is fantastic and I think it should be promoted to no end; however, reskinning the same content ad nauseum should not be.

Build diversity is the largest misconception that GW2 has to offer.

DiogoSilva.7089:

For example, Ride the Lightning for elementalists was a good skill for glass cannons that was nerfed because it was too strong in defensive builds. Unfair, right? And this kind of stuff happened even more often in GW1. Now think of a Battlemage subclass with the old Ride the Lighning, and a more defensive subclass without it at all. Easier to balance, because it would be… very easy to categorize skills in the place where they should be, and make them effective at where they belong without the risk of making them too strong elsewhere.

I think this highlights an important issue — that a lot of skills try to fit too many uses causing difficulties with balance in all situations (ex: the ride the lighting example above) — and then there’s the opposite problem of skills that fit a purpose that’s too specific that it can become completely invalidated by certain builds.

My example for this is Death Blossom on D/D for Thief. If you’re running a Backstab build (Which I’m sure most know consists of Power Prec, and Crit damage) this skill gets almost completely invalidated — at least I know I almost never touch it in a Backstab build and why should I? It does barely any raw damage and the damage it does do is derived from Condi Damage. If I need the AoE I can just use Short Bow. I’m not saying it needs to be another raw damage ability — but I need the option of at least SOMETHING in that slot that doesn’t do damage for which I’m not spec’ed — it adds nothing to combat.

With these types of issues it makes me feel like something needs to happen to add to diversity of slot-able weapon skills. I personally really do like the idea of sub-classes, and I know some don’t, either way, I’d really like to see more slot-able weapon skills.