Guild Wars 2

Wow. I’m really not sure whether to be extremely happy or depressed about this but I really think all the classes should just get a total rework. Adding 4 more extra trait points after all these years is seriously over whelming. Not 2 but FOUR! I’m happy I’ll finally be able to go 6/6/6 on my thief but I’m seriously worried that the build won’t last long as the number to whiners will rise. Other than that I guess we’ll obviously get build diversity.

I assume that this will be more acceptable, possibly even work better for some people, than what was before because the lines are no longer connected to a boost in stats as well.

Had the 4 extra points come with 40% extra in whatever stat then I could see some massive issues of being unbalanced to give ammunition to whiners.

As for me, I’m looking forward to having my Sylvari Elementalist spec into Fire/Water/Arcane and my human Elementalist to become the new elite spec. I’ve often wanted more than one grandmaster trait in my builds, but vary rarely even went with one because I favored spreading them out more. Now this gives me three, yeah I lose the spread out points but those were always more for the boost to stats than the traits generally and those boosts will be given to my base stats and the armor I choose now.

Nephrite.6954:

Wow. I’m really not sure whether to be extremely happy or depressed about this but I really think all the classes should just get a total rework.

They are reworking the entire trait system. It’s not a simple “here’s 4 more points, enjoy”.

It’s potentially more than that even, since we are getting 20 traits less in total, and we know that some will become part of the base skills (like ground-targeted wells for Necros), which effectively means all Necros get that trait for free, on top of the 4 bonus points.

You also have to balance off the fact that every other class will also be maxed on three trait lines and those traits are not coupled to there stats

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

your fear of the nerf, doesnt consider that power is relative, and every other build will also have more power.

I can understand the OP’s worries. While I am excited about the upcoming changes, they also have the possibility of opening pandora’s box when it comes to balance issues, and then, of course, the nerf bat.

Hopefully that will not happen. All depends one how it is implemented, and tweaked. I think it will require the playerbase to be very patient.

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Quantity is only one component of diversity. And you choose to unnecessarily dumb the system down to make a point.

You will now get more out of your traits, some traits become base components of your skills, you get more active traits overall, and your choices affects your build in a more meaningful matter.

Saying you could choose between 18 million builds before is absolutely meaningless. The game was not released yesterday, you should know by now how well those 18 mil builds worked out.

Yes, we lose quantity, but quality has a much, much bigger impact in build diversity.

RabbitUp.8294:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Quantity is only one component of diversity. And you choose to unnecessarily dumb the system down to make a point.

You will now get more out of your traits, some traits become base components of your skills, you get more active traits overall, and your choices affects your build in a more meaningful matter.

Saying you could choose between 18 million builds before is absolutely meaningless. The game was not released yesterday, you should know by now how well those 18 mil builds worked out.

Yes, we lose quantity, but quality has a much, much bigger impact in build diversity.

there is no reason to believe the quality will be much greater.
nothing about the trait cuts inherently increases quality of traits. The theory is they will be better able to create true variability with less options, but they said that before, it was untrue.
the real truth is, its actually unlikely to have more options by taking away options. its not like a bad trait would lower the quality of a good trait by existing.

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

When the 3/3/3/3/2 Ele build, 2/5/2/2/3 Warrior build, 5/5/1/1/2 necro, 2/3/3/6/0 engineer works, then I would agree with you.

runeblade.7514:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

When the 3/3/3/3/2 Ele build, 2/5/2/2/3 Warrior build, 5/5/1/1/2 necro, 2/3/3/6/0 engineer works, then I would agree with you.

there are tons of highly viable builds that go into 4 trait lines
and there would have probably been even more, had stats not been linked to traits.

and many builds that didnt use a master in a master slot or a grandmaster in the grandmaster slot.

some of them were in fact top end builds.

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

It may increase the number of competitive builds. Maybe.

It will NEVER improve diversity. Because the word actually has a meaning.

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

that is not possible, you will never get more diversity by taking out options.

Nike.2631:

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

It may increase the number of competitive builds. Maybe.

It will NEVER improve diversity. Because the word actually has a meaning.

taking out traits will not increase competitive builds, if competitive builds increase, it will be because they make better traits, not because of the amount of traits.

their idea is that they will make better traits, but they are tying that to the amount of traits, when it doesnt really have to do with that.

If you think that’s bad just wait till you see what will happen with warriors and thieves. Hell, even guardians.

phys.7689:

taking out traits will not increase competitive builds, if competitive builds increase, it will be because they make better traits, not because of the amount of traits.

Understood. They are making both types of changes at the same time. The outcome of one (the annihilation of diversity) is a given. There NO OTHER OUTCOME for what they’re doing.

But the changes to traits happening at the same time may or may not create the groundwork for more competitive builds. I am skeptical, but the possibility at least exists.

I’m still working on a few small requests tweaks that might fit into the new paradigm. Hopefully I’ll be able to ask about them in tomorrow’s show.

phys.7689:

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

that is not possible, you will never get more diversity by taking out options.

Depends on what you define as diversity. If it’s # of possible build, then yes, quantity is one of the factors that directly affect it.

If you only count the # of viable builds, though, then quantity can decrease that.

It’s illusion of choice vs real choice.

Diversity is a function of the number of meaningful choices. If you go from 1000 possible choices with only 10 viable ones to 100 choices with 20 viable ones the diversity has increased.

RabbitUp.8294:

phys.7689:

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

that is not possible, you will never get more diversity by taking out options.

Depends on what you define as diversity. If it’s # of possible build, then yes, quantity is one of the factors that directly affect it.

If you only count the # of viable builds, though, then quantity can decrease that.

no it can not, this isnt theory its math.

if the traits dont change, getting rid of bad traits does not increase the amount of viable builds.

changing the traits themselves can increase the amount of viable builds, but you can always do that, it has nothing to do with the total amounts of traits.

Coldtart.4785:

Diversity is a function of the number of meaningful choices. If you go from 1000 possible choices with only 10 viable ones to 100 choices with 20 viable ones the diversity has increased.

you cannot increase viable choices by cutting out choices, you can only increase viable choices by having better choices.

example

https://www.google.com/search?q=pretty+woman&rlz=1C1CHYD_enUS577US577&espv=2&biw=1225&bih=669&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MP05VbvGHYrnsATUvYGYBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=faces

how many of these faces are attractive?
if i remove 20 unattractive faces, are there more attractive faces?
the answer is no.

phys.7689:

RabbitUp.8294:

phys.7689:

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

that is not possible, you will never get more diversity by taking out options.

Depends on what you define as diversity. If it’s # of possible build, then yes, quantity is one of the factors that directly affect it.

If you only count the # of viable builds, though, then quantity can decrease that.

no it can not, this isnt theory its math.

if the traits dont change, getting rid of bad traits does not increase the amount of viable builds.

changing the traits themselves can increase the amount of viable builds, but you can always do that, it has nothing to do with the total amounts of traits.

It’s not theory. Take Champions Online for example. There are no classes, only power trees, and you can mix and match.

Instead of making diverse builds possible, the system led to cookie cutter builds, that all used the same core of staple skills, and only left room for a handful of skills that offered some variety.

A different example, the card games Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic the Gathering. MtG seperates cards in 5 colors and indirectly forces you to limit yourself to a small number of them. YGO, on the other hand, has a ton of generic cards you can use in every deck. In practice, it only means that the best of those cards became staples and are used in pretty much every competitive deck.

So, while in the above scenarios you are still free to deviate, you are willingly gimping yourself by doing something that is not viable or less optimal.

The more free you are to min max, the more identical the builds start to look, because not all choices are made equally attractive.

RabbitUp.8294:

If you only count the # of viable builds, though, then quantity can decrease that.

It’s illusion of choice vs real choice.

It hurts my soul the way people throw around the word “viable” where the term that would have meaning is “competitive”. It gets (deliberately) misused because viable is a binary term (alive/dead) used to create a false dichotomy based on a floating, arbitrary cut off when the reality is builds populate a spectrum of performance. Viable gets used in the same way as saying “every child that won’t be in the Olympics will just fall down dead at the age of 5 because they just aren’t viable.” It’s not necessary for all builds to by hyper-competitive to add value to the system as a whole. And its even more important to have some flexibility in a game that has multiple modes with very different demands.

phys.7689:

you cannot increase viable choices by cutting out choices, you can only increase viable choices by having better choices.

How do you know you won’t have better choices in the new system? They’ve explicitely stated that they have overhauled the whole trait system, changing and merging traits all over the place. We will have to adjust all our builds to that, and there’s no telling as of now how viable the different combinations of new (as yet unkown) traits and traitlines will really be.

Nike.2631:

RabbitUp.8294:

If you only count the # of viable builds, though, then quantity can decrease that.

It’s illusion of choice vs real choice.

It hurts my soul the way people throw around the word “viable” where the term that would have meaning is “competitive”. It gets (deliberately) misused because viable is a binary term (alive/dead) used to create a false dichotomy based on a floating, arbitrary cut off when the reality is builds populate a spectrum of performance. Viable gets used in the same way as saying “every child that won’t be in the Olympics will just fall down dead at the age of 5 because they just aren’t viable.” It’s not necessary for all builds to by hyper-competitive to add value to the system as a whole. And its even more important to have some flexibility in a game that has multiple modes with very different demands.

I use viable for builds that serve a purpose, whether that’s suiting your playstyle or a certain strategy. It’s not a binary term, as you can still play the game with any choice of traits. However, playing 3/3/3/3/2 is not about being meta or not, competitive or not, it’s making a build that willing gimps yourself.

Similarly, the gear system allows you to go naked, or not wear certain pieces of armor. Does this offer choice? Is there a purpose in willingly choosing to do otherwise of bragging rights?

RabbitUp.8294:

phys.7689:

RabbitUp.8294:

phys.7689:

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

that is not possible, you will never get more diversity by taking out options.

Depends on what you define as diversity. If it’s # of possible build, then yes, quantity is one of the factors that directly affect it.

If you only count the # of viable builds, though, then quantity can decrease that.

no it can not, this isnt theory its math.

if the traits dont change, getting rid of bad traits does not increase the amount of viable builds.

changing the traits themselves can increase the amount of viable builds, but you can always do that, it has nothing to do with the total amounts of traits.

It’s not theory. Take Champions Online for example. There are no classes, only power trees, and you can mix and max.

Instead of making diverse builds possible, the system led to cookie cutter builds, that all used the same core of staple skills, and only left room for a handful of skills that offered some variety.

A different example, the card games Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic the Gathering. MtG seperates cards in 5 colors and indirectly forces you to limit yourself to a small number of them. YGO, on the other hand, has a ton of generic cards you can use in every deck. In practice, it only means that the best of those cards became staples and are used in pretty much every competitive deck.

So, while in the above scenarios you are still free to deviate, you are willingly gimping yourself by doing something that is not viable or less optimal.

The more free you are to min max, the more identical the builds start to look, because not all choices are made equally attractive.

last sentece is the key

“not all choices are made equally attractive”
this is what limits viability, but it is mistake to link that to your number of choices. Your number of choices has nothing to do with how many are equally attractive.

if you have 10 good options out of 20 versus 10 good options out of 40, you still have 10 good options.
the difference between 20 and 40, is that people are variable and not all people have the same goals, with more options you increase the chances people will find some options appealing.

case in point, i hate all grandmasters in the tools line, i would rather have invigorating speed. Those grandmasters may be great for some people, but i dont want em.

RabbitUp.8294:

I use viable for builds that work. Playing 3/3/3/3/2 is not about being meta or not, competitive or not, it’s making a build that willing gimps yourself, a build that doesn’t work.

Good builds hide in strange places. I had probably the first character in Champions Online that abused the snot out of Recovery as a main stat to the point I could fire fully charged Force Cascades from a standing start with no energy builder. It became a meta build later, but first it had to be found.

This system is designed to eliminate those corners before they can even be explored. Which makes it simpler to manage, and less prone to leading people into the bushes, but is also going to be fully explored and codified very, very fast.

Similarly, the gear system allows you to go naked, or not wear certain pieces of armor. Does this offer choice? Is there a purpose in willingly choosing to do otherwise of bragging rights?

On the gear front, the thing that seems obvious that no one has mentioned yet is if more points are assigned to gear and Exotic/Ascended maintain the 100%/105% relationship they have now, the absolute numerical divide between the two is going to grow. Time to finish ‘pinking out’ my gear .

RabbitUp.8294:

Nike.2631:

RabbitUp.8294:

If you only count the # of viable builds, though, then quantity can decrease that.

It’s illusion of choice vs real choice.

It hurts my soul the way people throw around the word “viable” where the term that would have meaning is “competitive”. It gets (deliberately) misused because viable is a binary term (alive/dead) used to create a false dichotomy based on a floating, arbitrary cut off when the reality is builds populate a spectrum of performance. Viable gets used in the same way as saying “every child that won’t be in the Olympics will just fall down dead at the age of 5 because they just aren’t viable.” It’s not necessary for all builds to by hyper-competitive to add value to the system as a whole. And its even more important to have some flexibility in a game that has multiple modes with very different demands.

I use viable for builds that serve a purpose, whether that’s suiting your playstyle or a certain strategy. It’s not a binary term, as you can still play the game with any choice of traits. However, playing 3/3/3/3/2 is not about being meta or not, competitive or not, it’s making a build that willing gimps yourself.

Similarly, the gear system allows you to go naked, or not wear certain pieces of armor. Does this offer choice? Is there a purpose in willingly choosing to do otherwise of bragging rights?

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?fZAQBoCaCZvH8VzvwaFovjA

this is not a useless build, it provides a lot of different useful effects
more endurance for dodges
synergizes with stealth and stealing
the biggest flaw is not getting a lot of any base stat.
but they removed stats so, that build would be fine for some players.

Actually you can make more viable options by reducing the total number of options. The more customisation you have the less likely it is that any given combination is actually useful. The card game Yomi has 20 fixed 55 card decks that are all tournament viable. If instead you could make your own 55 card deck using any of the cards in the game there would be 3.77×10^93 combinations and almost certainly only 1 best deck that you should always use if you’re serious about winning.

Coldtart.4785:

Actually you can make more viable options by reducing the total number of options. The more customisation you have the less likely it is that any given combination is actually useful. The card game Yomi has 20 fixed 55 card decks that are all tournament viable. If instead you could make your own 55 card deck using any of the cards in the game there would be 3.77×10^93 combinations and almost certainly only 1 best deck that you should always use if you’re serious about winning.

there is two facets to the current change
1) one is the elimination of options. in your example that would be deleting cards, not not allowing some people to use some cards
2) the other facet is eliminating old combinations. that is some what similar, but we were far from a point where this was causing over powered builds. People claim most 4/5 traitline builds were sub optimal, so eliminating them is not going to eliminate overpowered builds, and it is infact easier to eliminate overpowered builds by changing single cards, not the basic game rules.

phys.7689:

last sentece is the key

“not all choices are made equally attractive”
this is what limits viability, but it is mistake to link that to your number of choices. Your number of choices has nothing to do with how many are equally attractive.

if you have 10 good options out of 20 versus 10 good options out of 40, you still have 10 good options.
the difference between 20 and 40, is that people are variable and not all people have the same goals, with more options you increase the chances people will find some options appealing.

case in point, i hate all grandmasters in the tools line, i would rather have invigorating speed. Those grandmasters may be great for some people, but i dont want em.

I will ignore the last part, because you operate under the assumption that grandmaster traits will remain equally useless as some of the current ones. We know that 20 traits per profession are getting removed. That means some are merged and the rest become part of the base skills they’re tied to.

It’s not safe to assume that the new traits will all be appealing, either, be there’s no point in discussing an imaginary system that operates under the new restrictions but uses the old traits. The old traits will be balanced around the new system, and the new system is what made elite specs possible, which will continue to increase variety in the future.[/i]

As for the rest of your post, it sounds like a pipe dream. It’s impossible to balance such a large number of builds and make them all appealing. It’s not only what the build itself does, but also what the content I’m playing wants from me. Some builds will just work better for certain content than others. It’s unavoidable.

So, your number of options does affect your number of viable options simply because, a) it’s easier to balance builds under the new system, and b)more choice leads to jack-of-all trades, master of all builds, and those overshadow the rest. People gave you specific examples above.

phys.7689:

there is two facets to the current change
1) one is the elimination of options. in your example that would be deleting cards, not not allowing some people to use some cards

False. The cards are still available, what’s restricted is that you are now forced to put them in specific decks. Some cards are mutually exclusive, but you still have potential access to all.

In gw2, it means that you need to pick between 3 trait lines instead of spreading between 4+, not that a trait simply gets deleted without compensations. Those 20 less traits will either get merged with others, so you can pick the new end product, or you get that trait by default without spending points, like Necro Wells.

phys.7689:

2) the other facet is eliminating old combinations. that is some what similar, but we were far from a point where this was causing over powered builds. People claim most 4/5 traitline builds were sub optimal, so eliminating them is not going to eliminate overpowered builds, and it is infact easier to eliminate overpowered builds by changing single cards, not the basic game rules.

If that was the case, the meta wouldn’t gravitate between a half handful of builds for each profession. It’s not about the builds themselves, but also the content you use them for that unevenly promotes certain strategies. Stacking dps in a team is more effective than stacking support and cc, for example, given the current available content.

RabbitUp.8294:

If that was the case, the meta wouldn’t gravitate between a half handful of builds for each profession. It’s not about the builds themselves, but also the content you use them for that unevenly promotes certain strategies. Stacking dps in a team is more effective than stacking support and cc, for example, given the current available content.

Current builds focus on damage from stats, and CC from skills. If there were a stat that improved CC effectiveness I’ll bet it would see use.

phys.7689:

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

that is not possible, you will never get more diversity by taking out options.

Well I say yes. If before you have 100 options but only 10 are viable and after you have 50 option and 35 are viable well in my book it’s diversity increase….

You have to understand that this new system WILL raise MORE viable option even if the overall possible combination are less.

Remember that stat points may be quite a bit weaker across the board (after reallocation to gear) and that additional trait points may have to compensate for it.

Gaaroth.2567:

phys.7689:

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

that is not possible, you will never get more diversity by taking out options.

Well I say yes. If before you have 100 options but only 10 are viable and after you have 50 option and 35 are viable well in my book it’s diversity increase….

You have to understand that this new system WILL raise MORE viable option even if the overall possible combination are less.

nothing about the system itself increases trait viability.
if more traits are viable it will be because they changed traits, not because they cut them.
they could have done the same thing without reducing traits, but the goal is not about viability.
the goal is to make a simpler system that leads you to meta builds more easily. Reduce options so its more likely people will get a good build by accident.

eliminate how many good trait ideas you have to come up with.

This is of course a premature discussion. We don’t know how many traits we’ll get for each tier. What we do know is that more are planned for the future:

“This new system provides a solid foundation for our plans to expand the number of available traits and skills in the future. "

You also get the new Elite Specs on top. It is possible that you end up with less traits at the start of HoT, but if that creates a better framework for useful traits in the future, then you should at least consider giving them the benefit of the doubt.

phys.7689:

RabbitUp.8294:

Nike.2631:

RabbitUp.8294:

If you only count the # of viable builds, though, then quantity can decrease that.

It’s illusion of choice vs real choice.

It hurts my soul the way people throw around the word “viable” where the term that would have meaning is “competitive”. It gets (deliberately) misused because viable is a binary term (alive/dead) used to create a false dichotomy based on a floating, arbitrary cut off when the reality is builds populate a spectrum of performance. Viable gets used in the same way as saying “every child that won’t be in the Olympics will just fall down dead at the age of 5 because they just aren’t viable.” It’s not necessary for all builds to by hyper-competitive to add value to the system as a whole. And its even more important to have some flexibility in a game that has multiple modes with very different demands.

I use viable for builds that serve a purpose, whether that’s suiting your playstyle or a certain strategy. It’s not a binary term, as you can still play the game with any choice of traits. However, playing 3/3/3/3/2 is not about being meta or not, competitive or not, it’s making a build that willing gimps yourself.

Similarly, the gear system allows you to go naked, or not wear certain pieces of armor. Does this offer choice? Is there a purpose in willingly choosing to do otherwise of bragging rights?

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?fZAQBoCaCZvH8VzvwaFovjA

this is not a useless build, it provides a lot of different useful effects
more endurance for dodges
synergizes with stealth and stealing
the biggest flaw is not getting a lot of any base stat.
but they removed stats so, that build would be fine for some players.

Okay, show me a PvP video that works.

If you don’t have fraps or video capturing software, you can submit it to metabattle.com to have it peer-reviewed.

Nike.2631:

Strill.2591:

Nike.2631:

We get to the total POLAR OPPOSITE of “diversity” – there are only 10 combination of 3 trait lines and everyone in a profession will be one of those 10. The. End. (the specialization with be another mix of 10 clusters of 3 lines).

Each of those lines will only 27 ways of traiting, down from 418.

We get simplicity. We get hammered towards the middle in terms of performance. We do NOT get diversity.

Now if you take the current system and toss out all the useless crap, then do your calculations again, you’ll find that this change is actually improving diversity.

It may increase the number of competitive builds. Maybe.

It will NEVER improve add useless diversity. Because the word actually has a meaning.

I don’t see how it is a bad thing.