Guild Wars 2

I remember that what I truly enjoyed about Gw1, aside from the skill hunts… was Sub-classes.

For those not familiar, after you hit level cap with your character, you could do a quest for each of the other classes, to open them up…as a subclass. it would allow players to have access to the subclass skills, abilities…etc… although NOT as efffective as One whose class was their main…it allowed for more options…

Imagine you have 8 main classes, then 7 possible sub-classes… that is 56 different class combinations.

I think that this might allow players to play through most of the content, and still have new experiences without the devs having to add " new content."

For me… half the fun after level cap, was experimenting…" mesmer/monk… assassin/dervish…. Ritualist/necromancer…

It’s one thing I miss from gw2. No sub-classes.

What do you guys think?

Pretty sure they specifically didn’t go that route due to even more complex balancing issues than they have now.

I think your mistaking sub class with secondary profession.

Most will probably perceive subclass as a class of another class (umm… Like Aion Mage → Sorcerer)

Also you could have a secondary profession way before level 20

tehbare.1396:

Pretty sure they specifically didn’t go that route due to even more complex balancing issues than they have now.

I do remember that most of the player base back then had no issues about the game’s complexity. We never had people saying " dumb this game down". Is today’s game market in real need of simplicity to the point where A valued function in gw1 is forever off the table?

@Nerelith: I didn’t say it was about “dumbing” the game.

LumAnth.5124:

I think your mistaking sub class with secondary profession.

Most will probably perceive subclass as a class of another class (umm… Like Aion Mage -> Sorcerer)

Also you could have a secondary profession way before level 20

You are right, secondary profession. But for those Not knowing, I gave a good description of what I meant. But your responce doesn’t address whether it might be a good idea. Since the moment you introduce secondary professions, instread of a level 80 mesmer, you might want to play a level 80 mesmer/thief.

Maybe they can set it up so you can decide to split up the levels… 60 into mesmer/20 into thief? Just feels that in gw1… the gameplay Post cap was hunting down elites, buying new skills…experimenting with secondary class builds…. etc…

I Just don’t see why the game needs to be simple. It seems Like an insult to the playerbase…." they don’t have the capacity to understand secondary professions, so let’s forget them."

Nerelith, the balance stuff is on the developer side. One of the major things that motivated Anet to move on from GW1 and create GW2 was the massive number of skills and the even more massive number of skill combinations. And secondary professions was a major issue for balancing problems in GW1. I recall hearing back in 2009 that ArenaNet had considered secondaries for GW2 as well, but decided not to go that route for the primary reason of avoiding the GW1 issue of skill balancing being so hard to do. This is also why there are so few skills, and weapon-restricted skills on all professions.

From the players’ side, the only issue was that certain set ups were more powerful than many (if not all) others. They never demanded “dumbing down” but “better balance” – and ArenaNet decided the best way to avoid having balance issues would be to not have so many variables needed to be balanced. GW2 is presently nowhere close to the problems of GW1, and wouldn’t be even with secondary professions, but a few years down the line after several skills and traits get added? Definitely will.

Edit: Since they had considered and disregarded secondary professions, I doubt they’d consider sub-professions (which sounds like they would function rather similarly) for similar, if not the same, reasons. Which is in the end: variables in balancing the professions.

tehbare.1396:

@Nerelith: I didn’t say it was about “dumbing” the game.

My Mistake, I misunderstood. So seems the issue isn’t " dumbing the game down" for the player base…but…making the game easier for the developers to balance? I Just feel that if the developers need to choose between.." more fun for the players…. even if it’s harder for us…" and " less fun for the players….easier for us." they are the ones getting paid…. we are the ones paying.

Know what I mean?

A change like this would ruin the game completely. Cloaked warriors, LB wielding eles, a complete mess. If you want to play a different class go create a new toon.

Developers have already said they are never going to make this mistake again, it was one of the largest contributors to GW1’s impossible to balance, zero diversity, flavor of the month cheese build system. It was okay for PvE, but mainly because of the hero system. This game is more focused on PvP, and we don’t have a hero system.

That said, they have stated they like the idea of a subclass system in which you choose from a group of sub-classes unique to your existing class.

Exocet.7306:

A change like this would ruin the game completely. Cloaked warriors, LB wielding eles, a complete mess. If you want to play a different class go create a new toon.

The Point of secondarty professions is Not a new toon. As you explained. A warrior/thief is not equal to playing a warrior for a couple Hours, then logging off, and then logging On a thief. it’s playing a stealthed warrior.

Secondly, so what if it makes Play more complex and Interesting? Isn’t that what we crave from games? Complexity?

Chess is amazing because of complexity, when is the last time you heard about who won the world’s tic-tac-toe championship?

I understand.

I also know that after speaking with several former and current Guild Wars players, along with the suspects on the Internets… at least half the skills in the original game were novel amusements until you got the “real” skills. We already have posts accusing of this already with our rather small list available.

Example: I have Profession X and Profession Y. We invent this “subclass” A. When combined with X everything is acceptable. However, when we combine it with Y then it’s deemed to be over/under powered. Correcting this takes much much more work.

Currently I think it would be more solid to introduce a new weapon with attached sets for a class to give it a new feel, especially if you add in two or three new utility skills to round out the style.

Nerelith.7360:

Secondly, so what if it makes Play more complex and Interesting? Isn’t that what we crave from games? Complexity?

Not really “complexity” so much as “depthful game possibilities” IMO. You don’t want complex gameplay – it makes it hard to get into. Hardcore players who know what they’re doing, or have the time to learn, will want complexity, but not your average gamer. Your average gamer wants “possibilities” more than “complexity” and they are different. This video explains it better than I can.

Nerelith.7360:

Exocet.7306:

A change like this would ruin the game completely. Cloaked warriors, LB wielding eles, a complete mess. If you want to play a different class go create a new toon.

The Point of secondarty professions is Not a new toon. As you explained. A warrior/thief is not equal to playing a warrior for a couple Hours, then logging off, and then logging On a thief. it’s playing a stealthed warrior.

Secondly, so what if it makes Play more complex and Interesting? Isn’t that what we crave from games? Complexity?

Chess is amazing because of complexity, when is the last time you heard about who won the world’s tic-tac-toe championship?

No, it isn’t. First thing they teach you in game design, complexity is not a goal, it is a cost. It is never the end purpose of design, and is only worth what you get out of the system beside it. Chess can afford the high complexity cost, because each game starts out with two near perfectly equal sides, and play and counterplay are rigidly enforced by a turn based system.

A multi-player multi-class live action MMO does not not have any of those advantages. Players start out somewhat inequal by their class choice, are made more inequal by their build choice, and then that is all compounded as you group players together. And then as you play imperceptible and incalculable choices (because you are only one person with one viewpoint, no godmode view of the field like in chess) compound that imbalance as the match continues. You cannot afford all the complication of chess in such a play environment. The only way you could attain the level of complication of chess and keep any semblance of balance would be by expanding each classes playability but homogenizing the differences between the classes, at which time a sub-class system would be redundant anyway.

Nerelith.7360:

Exocet.7306:

A change like this would ruin the game completely. Cloaked warriors, LB wielding eles, a complete mess. If you want to play a different class go create a new toon.

The Point of secondarty professions is Not a new toon. As you explained. A warrior/thief is not equal to playing a warrior for a couple Hours, then logging off, and then logging On a thief. it’s playing a stealthed warrior.

Secondly, so what if it makes Play more complex and Interesting? Isn’t that what we crave from games? Complexity?

Chess is amazing because of complexity, when is the last time you heard about who won the world’s tic-tac-toe championship?

I get your point and good intentions to bring new life to the game but think about balancing. It would be epic to balance so many weapons, traits, skills combinations. Imagine the tsunami of complaints. They hardly can implement a wardrobe system that works. I believe they have not intentions nor human resources to implement a change like this one. They couldn’t even fix the Ranger class where you are forced to play as a melee class imagine multi-classes. Chess is amazing true, but pawns move forward only right? Now imagine a chess game where any piece can move anywhere.

PS: As Conncept said, complexity is a cost. As a senior software developer I can assure you that.

Ok.. let’s try this another way. Now that I know the difference between Depth and complexity. And realize that Complexity is a cost, Not a benefit.

Substitute the word Depth for complexity.

“Secondly, so what if it makes Play deeper and Interesting? Isn’t that what we crave from games? Depth?
Chess is amazing because of Depth, when is the last time you heard about who won the world’s tic-tac-toe championship?”

Now, an answer would be appreciated to the actual question. Isn’t a deeper game, a better game?

Nerelith.7360:

Ok.. let’s try this another way. Now that I know the difference between Depth and complexity. And realize that Complexity is a cost, Not a benefit.

Substitute the word Depth for complexity.

“Secondly, so what if it makes Play deeper and Interesting? Isn’t that what we crave from games? Depth?
Chess is amazing because of Depth, when is the last time you heard about who won the world’s tic-tac-toe championship?”

Now, an answer would be appreciated to the actual question. Isn’t a deeper game, a better game?

Yes, of course it is. But there is more than one way to make the game deeper, and it is easy to argue that GW1’s multiclassing is such a system that would have the heaviest consequences towards the play environment.

Adding a system which gives more depth by allowing each class to bleed in to every other will have much greater repercussions on the play environment than a system which gives more depth while keeping each class separate.

Nerelith.7360:

Now, an answer would be appreciated to the actual question. Isn’t a deeper game, a better game?

It is.

However, the game is currently short on depth, and this isn’t because of a lack of sub-classing or whatever.

Depth is brought out in games through the tools you give to players, and designing content that gets players to consider these tools. This is even more important in a game where horizontal progression in the form of new skills and traits is introduced.

In my opinion, for ever tool a player has, there should be a mechanic that, when that tool is used, will make the fight go much more smoothly. For example, players have access to Immobilise, so there should be a mechanic somewhere in the game where bringing Immobilise – using it correctly – will help the fight go smoother.

Content should get the player to think ‘how am I going to approach this fight?’

Before the game should even think about introduce dual-classing, it needs content that gets players to ask this question. Otherwise it’s simply adding meaningless depth.

On the issue of balance:

• Think how effective some cross-profession skills (Shouts, Signets ect) could be. An Elementalist with Written In Stone (passive effects stay when using a signet), or a Guardian with Perfect Inscriptions (increases effectiveness by 20%) and Healing Signet. A Warrior with Shadowstep, Stealth and Basilisk Venom.

• At the same time, it would also add a lot of pointlessness, especially regarding profession-specific skills (Banners, Consecrations ect) and profession mechanics. A lot of the Ranger skills utilise a pet, while a lot of Mesmer skills utilise clones for example.

TheDaiBish.9735:

Nerelith.7360:

Now, an answer would be appreciated to the actual question. Isn’t a deeper game, a better game?

It is.

However, the game is currently short on depth, and this isn’t because of a lack of sub-classing or whatever.

Depth is brought out in games through the tools you give to players, and designing content that gets players to consider these tools. This is even more important in a game where horizontal progression in the form of new skills and traits is introduced.

In my opinion, for ever tool a player has, there should be a mechanic that, when that tool is used, will make the fight go much more smoothly. For example, players have access to Immobilise, so there should be a mechanic somewhere in the game where bringing Immobilise – using it correctly – will help the fight go smoother.

Content should get the player to think ‘how am I going to approach this fight?’

Before the game should even think about introduce dual-classing, it needs content that gets players to ask this question. Otherwise it’s simply adding meaningless depth.

On the issue of balance:

• Think how effective some cross-profession skills (Shouts, Signets ect) could be. An Elementalist with Written In Stone (passive effects stay when using a signet), or a Guardian with Perfect Inscriptions (increases effectiveness by 20%) and Healing Signet. A Warrior with Shadowstep, Stealth and Basilisk Venom.

• At the same time, it would also add a lot of pointlessness, especially regarding profession-specific skills (Banners, Consecrations ect) and profession mechanics. A lot of the Ranger skills utilise a pet, while a lot of Mesmer skills utilise clones for example.

If you played gw1 you will realize that while one trait was specific to a class, the other 4 were usable as a sub-class. But… I can see your Point. it just feels that… some boss mechanics make Control unimportant. Some Fights are easilly dodged, that toughness, and Vitality lack importance. I Guess i expected a different game than what it’s become. I also think that gw1, with all it’s balance issues, was more fun to play. I Guess the whole " this makes things harder for the devs" is Just a bit..letting them off the hook. They are the ones making dough off the game, what it takes to earn it… should be as fun a game as Possible. I guess " it’s hard" is not really something I accept as an excuse with the Money that people pay for this game through Boxes, and cahs shop, gems,..etc…

If there were secondary classes.

I would make a Thief/Warrior.

So no one could catch me. Ever.

Nerelith.7360:

Chess is amazing because of complexity, when is the last time you heard about who won the world’s tic-tac-toe championship?

So is Go but when is the last time you heard about who won the world’s Go championship?

More on topic, something akin to Prestige Classes might fit more, it could be an option to add levels to one or more trait lines, with nice sounding names like Gladiator, Shadowdancer, etc …

Nerelith.7360:

If you played gw1 you will realize that while one trait was specific to a class, the other 4 were usable as a sub-class.

I did indeed play GW.

So what you’re suggesting is that the player has access to the 4 trait lines that aren’t tied to the profession-specific recharge?

That leads to problems all on itself, since a lot of these trait-lines also have Minor traits tied into their profession mechanic, making putting points into these lines pointless.

It’s not like you can also simply give players extra trait-points as:

• Power-creep: Players stats would be boosted even more. This could be remedied by not attaching stats to the secondary professions trait lines.
• Effectiveness: Players would more than likely simply put the extra points into their own trait-lines, outside of a few examples. Imagine a Condition Bunker putting 30 points into Earth Magic, getting access to Earth’s Embrace, Serrated Stones, Strength of Stone and Diamond Skin. Again, this could be remedied by only allowing players to access the Adept Traits of these lines.

Nerelith.7360:

But… I can see your Point. it just feels that… some boss mechanics make Control unimportant. Some Fights are easilly dodged, that toughness, and Vitality lack importance. I Guess i expected a different game than what it’s become. I also think that gw1, with all it’s balance issues, was more fun to play.

You got to ask yourself why the game isn’t fun, and why GW1, for the whole, was fun. Would GW1 still have been fun without secondary professions? Easy way to know is play a bit of GW only using your primary professions attributes and skills.

If it’s for the reasons you’ve just given – the fights are easy and don’t require much – then how would secondary professions solve that? Answer: It wouldn’t. Secondary professions would add short term amusement, but every fight would still be the same since it’s the encounter mechanics that bring out the depth of the character customization mechanics, and not the other way around.

Nerelith.7360:

I Guess the whole " this makes things harder for the devs" is Just a bit..letting them off the hook. They are the ones making dough off the game, what it takes to earn it… should be as fun a game as Possible. I guess " it’s hard" is not really something I accept as an excuse with the Money that people pay for this game through Boxes, and cahs shop, gems,..etc…

Time and manpower are resources. Why spend time on something that ultimately a) won’t really add anything to the game because of the reasons I give above and b) will just have players up in arms (at least on the forums) because an OP profession has just gotten more OP?

They’re better off using that time and manpower into improving the current system.

Nerelith.7360:

Chess is amazing because of complexity, when is the last time you heard about who won the world’s tic-tac-toe championship?

And why don’t we have multi-classes in Chess ? Oh .. i want a King / Knight .. or a Rook / Bishop (what would be a Queen).
When have they changed the classes the last time in chess, because more complexity makes it more fun, and always the same old is boring ?

Nerelith.7360:

Now, an answer would be appreciated to the actual question. Isn’t a deeper game, a better game?

Depends on your purpose.

Have you ever played chess against someone who really knows chess? At some point it’s not enough to know the rules and be smart. At a certain level you have to have seriously studied chess in order to compete.

Which is great, if you want to engage that deeply with a game. But isn’t it appropriate to have games that don’t require a lifetime to master? Some games should have low skill ceilings so that people can play them without making them a full-time hobby. Whether you think this should apply to MMOs or not and how high the skill ceiling should be can be argued, but in a purely hypothetical way, I’d answer that, “No, more depth is not necessarily better.”

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Nerelith, the balance stuff is on the developer side. One of the major things that motivated Anet to move on from GW1 and create GW2 was the massive number of skills and the even more massive number of skill combinations. And secondary professions was a major issue for balancing problems in GW1. I recall hearing back in 2009 that ArenaNet had considered secondaries for GW2 as well, but decided not to go that route for the primary reason of avoiding the GW1 issue of skill balancing being so hard to do. This is also why there are so few skills, and weapon-restricted skills on all professions.

From the players’ side, the only issue was that certain set ups were more powerful than many (if not all) others. They never demanded “dumbing down” but “better balance” – and ArenaNet decided the best way to avoid having balance issues would be to not have so many variables needed to be balanced. GW2 is presently nowhere close to the problems of GW1, and wouldn’t be even with secondary professions, but a few years down the line after several skills and traits get added? Definitely will.

Edit: Since they had considered and disregarded secondary professions, I doubt they’d consider sub-professions (which sounds like they would function rather similarly) for similar, if not the same, reasons. Which is in the end: variables in balancing the professions.

All they did in GW2 was move ‘Enchantment’ type skills into traits …

e.g.

Dark Bond

Now in GW2, these types of ‘skills’ are just a % chance to happen when you do something (which to me is super boring).

Replacing skills with traits really did not make it any easier to balance anything …

People complain about how certain skills in GW1 were totally useless …

How many traits in GW2 are totally useless ??

I would take a GW1 system where you had to actively use these types of things over a cough WoW cough system anyday.

I’m going to be a Virginia.

There was talk about added in a sub class like system but more on the lines of expatiating the current class you play the example given was making a ranger become a druid.

Thats my suggestion that I have personally brought up already in the character progresssion CDI in the past up to the point, that its discussion around it found partwise more attention, than the CDI itself and Chris Whiteside self stating by his own opinion, that he self likes the idea (see my signature for the original quote) and he self proposing in the past at the end of the progression CDI, that we will see somewhen later in the future an own CDI for Sub Classes.

Oh yeah and for the love of god, please don’t ever do again mistake Sub Classes with the ridiculous dumb system of GW1’s Dual Class System, which was the most horrible class system ever, total uncontrollable, absolute unbalanceable at all and just full of junk that you received most of the time where certain combinations with specific classes as secondary were with it even far more powerful, than the primary class with the same skills at use, where you really start to ask yourself, why on hells earth do you play that crap as primary, when something different with your class as secondary can do YOUR ROLE 10 times better !!!!

Its far better for GW2’s classic single class system in regard of character progression for the future of the game to stick to classic Sub CLasses, that allow the player to further specialize our characters into certain directions to make them that way more unique over other characters from different players, that have chosen other paths to follow with their characters to become that way more unique and individual, what is one of the most important things in MMORPG’s

All of the Classes could have easily 3 to 4 Sub Classes to give us players more individuality, to allow us that way to obtain for our characters new old existing as like also complete new weapons like whips, halberds, quarterstaffs, claws, chakrams or great axes and to obtain that way also alot of new special sub class based utility skills/elite skills/healing skills as like also new sub class based Trait Lines maybe also with additional Trait Points and a new Max Level auf say 90 perhaps…

Sub Classes give Anet a much better detailed area in which they can keep the class balance healthy and clear, because everything they add through such a system to a class, still stays to just that one class cause of the general single class system of the game.
There you don’t have to fear about any stupid instant running out of control chain reactions from mixing two complete different classes together to profit from their combined synergies that these classes might have together, like what people abused to a massive amount as much as possible in GW1 always, as long Anet did not something to nerf these out of control OP chain reactions of the dumb dual class system instantly to death.

I like it a lot. It’s extremely complex to implement, maybe impossible, but it adds an immense amount of depth (as it did in GW1). It would be fantastic.

Orpheal.8263:

Oh yeah and for the love of god, please don’t ever do again mistake Sub Classes with the ridiculous dumb system of GW1’s Dual Class System

Do you mean something like EQ2s subclass system, that they trashed after some years ?

One of the greatest things there was when you started as a warrior and progressed to become a monk or bruiser, you suddenly weren’t able anymore to wield the sword that you used until 2 minutes before.

Oh .. and if i look at the new way of the trait “progression” ANet may make it so that you can progress to the next sublass theoretically at lvl 20, but you need to kill Claw of Jormag for that, or complete Arah or whatever.

In the end subclasses made the first levels only more boring if you play the generic class thief all the first level no matter if you want to become a Ranger, Assassin, Swashbuckler, Brigant or whatever.

There are tons of smaller, cheaper, easier things GW2 could include to improve its depth. The forum is full of ideas and suggestions. The general feeling is there is none at the other end listening. I simply don’t understand why NCSoft would opt to lose tons of money just to defend a group of the most stubborn game designers I have ever seen in a MMO. They still want Rangers to use torches and great swords. Unbelievable. Wardrobe main windows points to… nothing and you need to confirm the use of free, reversible at any time, cost free dyes you already unlocked. All the time and money wasted to release 2 weeks content that you won’t be able to play aver again if you took vacations.

They have everything to succeed. A beautiful game, smooth, with a good player base, “lag free”, a collaborative community and here we are discussing if sub-classes can bring the game back to life, really? Why not open world GvG, guild halls, introduce politics and territory domination, housing, new armor and weapons, worthy rewards, improved AI, nooooope, they want you to grind for a year to craft a pink bow that shoot flowers and hits the same as any other 1% cost bow. Answer: don’t craft it. Complaint: but its supposed to be the ultimate, coolest weapon in its class, you are killing the game with these things!

Sadly one day you see a big banner “GW2 50% OFF!” in the front page.

I want this game to succeed, I couldn’t tell how much I do.

Fully-On-topic: sub-classes are not the way, too many things to address first, balance, lore, role playing.

As Orpheal pointed out, we discussed subclasses in depth during the Horizontal Progression CDI. However, it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t replace all the traits or skills, but still changes the overall feel of a profession.

I stand by my desire to have subs replace or change only the thematic primary mechanic and its related skills/traits, leaving the rest intact. Wait…actually, let’s have exactly three versions of each profession: one for each armor weight. Lightweight guardian themed after monks? Sure. Medium necro as ritualist? Why not. Heavy elementalist as a combo field-generating bunker? Go for it.