Guild Wars 2

I’m a firm believer that Anet intended all build traits to be equally useful. Of course balancing is quite difficult and so there is bound to be certain builds that are better than others. This is why we have meta builds as we know them. However, I think Anet and the community at large should still push to make all traits as equally viable to use as possible.

Now I’m not anti-“elitism”. Builds, rotations, mechanics, etc. are complex and should require a decent amount of skill to pull off. That said I think all builds should be useful while requiring the same level of skill.

So I propose a partial solution that should help all builds become more equal while maintaining a high level of skill. This potential solution is to move weapon traits out of builds, make them their own additional thing, and replace them with new balanced traits.

Instead of restricting your weapon use to your build, each class should be able to “master” the use of all weapons available to them. So I propose that all weapon traits be turned into their own trait tree trainable by using the weapon in question. How would this look? Let’s look at the greatsword for Warrior as an example.

Forceful Greatsword would get replaced by a balanced trait that is useful no matter what weapon you use. As you use the greatsword as a warrior one can spend hero points on a greatsword trait tree. Each class will get additional trait trees for all weapons available to them. The traits are only used if you have the associated weapon equipped. In the case of the greatsword traits like skills recharging faster, might bring applied on crit, and additional trait options are added to the warrior greatsword trait tree.

What would this do? It should free up the regular trait trees as you won’t need to waste a trait on a weapon trait. It will give more options to the weapons you use and give more purpose to why you use them. This should make meta builds less required, give players more power to play how they want, while maintaining a high level of skill.

Thoughts? Am I wrong about the meta? Am I wrong about this implementation working as intended? Am I on the right track?

I love the idea of removing weapon restrictions from traits as there are various weapons I prefer to use depending on what is in front of me and trying to swap trees to maximize it constantly just is such a pain I usually just equip from my bag and just deal with the crappy efficiency.

However, you will never get the skill level requirement to be the same. Being support and doing well is more challenging than just straight up DPS that only worries about themselves. Melee will always require a higher skill level than range, especially with the many bosses and abilities that heavily favor ranged play. Actively tanking something also requires higher skill.

That said, I believe they use the weapon traits to refine what the weapons were designed for. For example, warrior ax is designed for charging your adrenaline fast and for a focus on critical hits, the sword is designed for steady damage, and the mace is slower and designed more for spiked damage. The traits specifically for them enhance this, with the ax for example the specific traits increase critical chance/damage.
Now this could be continued in a weapon specific trait line but then you would need new traits in the current lines to keep weapon flavor or whatever they are going for.

The fact of the matter is that some of those less useful traits are used in niche situations. No one, to my knowledge, slots a fall damage reduction trait for general purposes in raids, but they might if they’re doing a JP. Meta builds in PvE instanced content are different — by and large — from those used in WvW or PvP.

Sure, there are traits that are less useful now. What makes you think that ANet will suddenly be able to not only flatten the effectiveness of existing traits while adding yet more and then balancing the new ones against the existing ones for mainstream purposes? If they’ve not done so with the existing traits to your satisfaction, how would adding more options improve that situation.

Meta builds are those believed to work best. Meta considerations will always emphasize one build (per profession and/or role). That’s what a meta is. The only way to make more builds meta is to have them do the same things the meta builds do. That’s homogeneity, not diversity.

I think the idea is lovely, but you should remember Anet is trying to REDUCE factors that affect balance. If you create a complete new tree of traits for weapons, that could be combined with the normal traits… well, the possible builds multiply exponentially (which is great), but the balance issues multiply in the same proportion (which is a nightmare).

Runiir.6425:

I love the idea of removing weapon restrictions from traits as there are various weapons I prefer to use depending on what is in front of me and trying to swap trees to maximize it constantly just is such a pain I usually just equip from my bag and just deal with the crappy efficiency.

However, you will never get the skill level requirement to be the same. Being support and doing well is more challenging than just straight up DPS that only worries about themselves. Melee will always require a higher skill level than range, especially with the many bosses and abilities that heavily favor ranged play. Actively tanking something also requires higher skill.

That said, I believe they use the weapon traits to refine what the weapons were designed for. For example, warrior ax is designed for charging your adrenaline fast and for a focus on critical hits, the sword is designed for steady damage, and the mace is slower and designed more for spiked damage. The traits specifically for them enhance this, with the ax for example the specific traits increase critical chance/damage.
Now this could be continued in a weapon specific trait line but then you would need new traits in the current lines to keep weapon flavor or whatever they are going for.

I think that support roles are indeed harder, but they’re also more desired than an only dps role is. And I think moving weapon traits to their own individual trees can help encourage this.

As to what weapons are designed for and how traits encourage that, we could continue this in new trait lines and attempting to balance them as best we can. But preferably I think we should let the player decide what weapons are designed for. Personally I think the options available should allow all players to use whatever weapons they want in the way they desire. This, if done correctly, should make more classes viable options to bring in higher skill content like raids.

IndigoSundown.5419:

The fact of the matter is that some of those less useful traits are used in niche situations. No one, to my knowledge, slots a fall damage reduction trait for general purposes in raids, but they might if they’re doing a JP. Meta builds in PvE instanced content are different — by and large — from those used in WvW or PvP.

Sure, there are traits that are less useful now. What makes you think that ANet will suddenly be able to not only flatten the effectiveness of existing traits while adding yet more and then balancing the new ones against the existing ones for mainstream purposes? If they’ve not done so with the existing traits to your satisfaction, how would adding more options improve that situation.

Meta builds are those believed to work best. Meta considerations will always emphasize one build (per profession and/or role). That’s what a meta is. The only way to make more builds meta is to have them do the same things the meta builds do. That’s homogeneity, not diversity.

I think Anet can balance the effectiveness of existing traits through the implementation of more traits, but of course that certainly depends on the implementation.

The simplest solution, I think, is to make the traits relatively the same for every weapon per class. If done properly, whichever trait the player picks for their weapon sets would boost a certain build trait they find desirable. This would emphasize multiple builds, rather than one. I think this could make more builds more viable options as they are instead of making more builds do the same things as meta builds.

Ardid.7203:

I think the idea is lovely, but you should remember Anet is trying to REDUCE factors that affect balance. If you create a complete new tree of traits for weapons, that could be combined with the normal traits… well, the possible builds multiply exponentially (which is great), but the balance issues multiply in the same proportion (which is a nightmare).

I think adding new trees of traits for weapons could do exactly that, reduce factors that effect balance. If all weapons trait trees for all weapons per class have very similar or exactly the same traits available then the addition of trees can reduce factors that effect balance by increasing support for existing builds. Let me try to give an example.

Let’s say all weapons have 1 passive trait and 1 active trait that you can choose from a multitude of options. Let’s say the passive trait on all weapons is to reduce the cooldown of that weapons skills. Let’s then say that the active trait that you can choose is

1. increase direct damage for this weapon
2. increase/add condition damage for this weapon
3. increase boon #1
4. increase boon #2.
5. etc.

This could make existing unused builds more viable options while maintaining the usefulness of existing meta builds. Of course, this may not be the direction Anet or the players want to go, but it is an example of how that could work I think.

Healing power should be removed… hehe

ZacHank.1358:

The simplest solution, I think, is to make the traits relatively the same for every weapon per class. If done properly, whichever trait the player picks for their weapon sets would boost a certain build trait they find desirable. This would emphasize multiple builds, rather than one. I think this could make more builds more viable options as they are instead of making more builds do the same things as meta builds.

Viable in what way? Viable to succeed in some game-play circumstances? Viable in every possible game-play circumstance? Viable in a content meta? Then there’s viable versus optimal. Meta builds are chosen because they are believed to be optimal. Making more options will not impact that because there is only one optimal choice, by definition.

Builds are mostly about combat. Combat means damage along with other factors like sustainability, control and support. Most build options are already viable in many combat situations. If you think they need work to be “viable,” then you’re in all likelihood wanting more build choices that compete with the perceived top builds on one or more of those factors. That can’t happen without those builds doing similar things to the top builds in similar circumstances.

There’s no way that adding more different builds will make it easier to balance the game. Because now there are more builds that ANet has to make sure are relatively equal.

And there will always be a meta. The meta is player created. There will always be one build or one team composition that will be the most efficient and that will be the build or team composition used. The only variations typically accepted are ones that don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

I like your idea OP. I think it’s a good direction to go in.

I like the idea of removing weapon proficiency from trait lines. It made sense originally (when a power weapon had reduced cool-down in a trait line that boosted power), but it no longer fits the game.

However, I think it’s a complete mistake to tie your idea to a discussion of the meta. It’s either a good idea on its own merit or its not; tying it to something that evokes controversy will just distract the conversation. Accordingly, OP: I hope you delete your post here and start a new thread, where you introduce your idea and explain why it’s good for the game, without mentioning the meta at all.

no matter what you do though there will ALWAYS be a best thing to use in any given scenario. the best anet can do is try to make sure that everything does at least have a purpose

IndigoSundown.5419:

Viable in what way? Viable to succeed in some game-play circumstances? Viable in every possible game-play circumstance? Viable in a content meta? Then there’s viable versus optimal. Meta builds are chosen because they are believed to be optimal. Making more options will not impact that because there is only one optimal choice, by definition.

Viable in more circumstances than before. I don’t mean this suggestion to be an end all be all, more of a step in a new (hopefully better) direction. More options on weapons, for instance, could impact this if those options were relatively the same for each weapon. There will always be an optimal choice, but I think we can decrease how optimal the best choice is.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Builds are mostly about combat. Combat means damage along with other factors like sustainability, control and support. Most build options are already viable in many combat situations. If you think they need work to be “viable,” then you’re in all likelihood wanting more build choices that compete with the perceived top builds on one or more of those factors. That can’t happen without those builds doing similar things to the top builds in similar circumstances.

Yes exactly, I’m wanting more build choices that compete with the perceived top builds. These builds could do similar things in similar circumstances, or we could boost the usefulness of other traits to be more competitive. Not sure what the absolute best solution is in the end, but I think this suggestion could allow more build choices to at least compete better than before with meta builds.

Seera.5916:

There’s no way that adding more different builds will make it easier to balance the game. Because now there are more builds that ANet has to make sure are relatively equal.

I think adding more to builds could make it easier if what was added gave different builds more of the same options. See weapons example above.

Seera.5916:

And there will always be a meta. The meta is player created. There will always be one build or one team composition that will be the most efficient and that will be the build or team composition used. The only variations typically accepted are ones that don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

Right, and this will always be the case, and that’s fine. But I think Anet should cater to more variations so that as many as possible don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

I like the idea of removing weapon proficiency from trait lines. It made sense originally (when a power weapon had reduced cool-down in a trait line that boosted power), but it no longer fits the game.

However, I think it’s a complete mistake to tie your idea to a discussion of the meta. It’s either a good idea on its own merit or its not; tying it to something that evokes controversy will just distract the conversation. Accordingly, OP: I hope you delete your post here and start a new thread, where you introduce your idea and explain why it’s good for the game, without mentioning the meta at all.

Yeah my guild leader said something similar. I didn’t mean to evoke controversy. In my mind the merit of this suggestion was (or is) its tie to the meta. I thought it would be good for the game because of the effects it would (might) have on the meta. But perhaps not, or perhaps it shouldn’t.

Seera.5916:

There’s no way that adding more different builds will make it easier to balance the game. Because now there are more builds that ANet has to make sure are relatively equal.

And there will always be a meta. The meta is player created. There will always be one build or one team composition that will be the most efficient and that will be the build or team composition used. The only variations typically accepted are ones that don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

Indeed, but if some meta is to much and is carying more the players then the players carries the build it should be changed, there should a shorter gap between Meta and non meta.

Aeolus.3615:

Seera.5916:

There’s no way that adding more different builds will make it easier to balance the game. Because now there are more builds that ANet has to make sure are relatively equal.

And there will always be a meta. The meta is player created. There will always be one build or one team composition that will be the most efficient and that will be the build or team composition used. The only variations typically accepted are ones that don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

Indeed, but if some meta is to much and is carying more the players then the players carries the build it should be changed, there should a shorter gap between Meta and non meta.

This is an oxymoron. You cannot make a difference gap smaller between things being optimal or not.

It’s like asking for Rabid to be on par with Viper’s. One is finely tuned to have a defensive stat set, the other is a glass cannon. The same applies to traits. Something will always be best in slot, nothing short of a complete system overhaul will fix this, however in doing so you will eliminate diversity in the process as you’ll end up with a homogeneous system in its place.

TexZero.7910:

Aeolus.3615:

Seera.5916:

There’s no way that adding more different builds will make it easier to balance the game. Because now there are more builds that ANet has to make sure are relatively equal.

And there will always be a meta. The meta is player created. There will always be one build or one team composition that will be the most efficient and that will be the build or team composition used. The only variations typically accepted are ones that don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

Indeed, but if some meta is to much and is carrying more the players then the players carries the build it should be changed, there should a shorter gap between Meta and non meta.

This is an oxymoron. You cannot make a difference gap smaller between things being optimal or not.

It’s like asking for Rabid to be on par with Viper’s. One is finely tuned to have a defensive stat set, the other is a glass cannon. The same applies to traits. Something will always be best in slot, nothing short of a complete system overhaul will fix this, however in doing so you will eliminate diversity in the process as you’ll end up with a homogeneous system in its place.

I understand you but i do not see it ending like that, offc the system had to be overhauled a litlle bit (wich is what Anet will never do, i dont see that happening).

The change they did in druid healing power was a good one, they did the same to mace healing, heals less but if u invest it will heal more, some classes migh have to much effectivness in some stats, and those quoficients need to be changed, that wont create the homogeneous gameplay, cause the diferent play styles are still there, but would require more player side than class carrying the player due its effectiveness, with this alot of stats could come back to pvp, pve would not be affected…

ZacHank.1358:

Seera.5916:

There’s no way that adding more different builds will make it easier to balance the game. Because now there are more builds that ANet has to make sure are relatively equal.

I think adding more to builds could make it easier if what was added gave different builds more of the same options. See weapons example above.

Seera.5916:

And there will always be a meta. The meta is player created. There will always be one build or one team composition that will be the most efficient and that will be the build or team composition used. The only variations typically accepted are ones that don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

Right, and this will always be the case, and that’s fine. But I think Anet should cater to more variations so that as many as possible don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

More builds = harder to balance. There’s no way around it. Because each skill will do different things and will have a different synergy with the other skills a class has. When Skill A is paired with Skill B, it’s OP, but it’s balanced when paired with Skill C, and Skill B and Skill C are balanced when paired with other. And if you have all three, it’s OP. But if you bring Skill A or Skill B down to being balanced, then the pairings of Skill A to Skill C and Skill B to Skill C become underwhelming.

That’s why games with different classes and different builds will never achieve balance. Because different builds use skills differently. One skill may be used for it’s might stacking in one build, but for it’s damage in another build. Nerf one skill to bring one build down from OP and you kill another build’s viability in competitive things due.

The more combinations out there the more chances that changing one skill will destroy the balance of more builds.

Seera.5916:

More builds = harder to balance. There’s no way around it. Because each skill will do different things and will have a different synergy with the other skills a class has. When Skill A is paired with Skill B, it’s OP, but it’s balanced when paired with Skill C, and Skill B and Skill C are balanced when paired with other. And if you have all three, it’s OP. But if you bring Skill A or Skill B down to being balanced, then the pairings of Skill A to Skill C and Skill B to Skill C become underwhelming.

That’s why games with different classes and different builds will never achieve balance. Because different builds use skills differently. One skill may be used for it’s might stacking in one build, but for it’s damage in another build. Nerf one skill to bring one build down from OP and you kill another build’s viability in competitive things due.

The more combinations out there the more chances that changing one skill will destroy the balance of more builds.

More builds (or build options) does not necessarily mean harder to balance, that’s just simply not true. If you have a jigsaw puzzle with 300 pieces but they are all white I think that would be much more difficult to successfully put together than a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle of some famous painting. This may be generally true (more pieces is harder to put together than less) but it certainly isn’t always true and I think my suggestion could add things while making it easier to balance.

Tied to that, I don’t think you have to nerf an entire skill to balance it, you can nerf just one aspect of it. Don’t nerf skill A in it’s entirety, just nerf skill A’s aspect of being too op when paired with skill B. And do it in such a way that skill’s A’s tie to skill C doesn’t get nerfed and skill B’s tie to skill C doesn’t get nerfed. It’s difficult, sure, but certainly not impossible.

Your last statement is definitely true, the more combinations out there the more chances that changing one skill will destroy the balance of more builds. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to balance what we have.

As long as there are two or more ways to do something, one of those ways will be considered better.

This is how metas form.

ZacHank.1358:

Seera.5916:

More builds = harder to balance. There’s no way around it. Because each skill will do different things and will have a different synergy with the other skills a class has. When Skill A is paired with Skill B, it’s OP, but it’s balanced when paired with Skill C, and Skill B and Skill C are balanced when paired with other. And if you have all three, it’s OP. But if you bring Skill A or Skill B down to being balanced, then the pairings of Skill A to Skill C and Skill B to Skill C become underwhelming.

That’s why games with different classes and different builds will never achieve balance. Because different builds use skills differently. One skill may be used for it’s might stacking in one build, but for it’s damage in another build. Nerf one skill to bring one build down from OP and you kill another build’s viability in competitive things due.

The more combinations out there the more chances that changing one skill will destroy the balance of more builds.

More builds (or build options) does not necessarily mean harder to balance, that’s just simply not true. If you have a jigsaw puzzle with 300 pieces but they are all white I think that would be much more difficult to successfully put together than a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle of some famous painting. This may be generally true (more pieces is harder to put together than less) but it certainly isn’t always true and I think my suggestion could add things while making it easier to balance.

Tied to that, I don’t think you have to nerf an entire skill to balance it, you can nerf just one aspect of it. Don’t nerf skill A in it’s entirety, just nerf skill A’s aspect of being too op when paired with skill B. And do it in such a way that skill’s A’s tie to skill C doesn’t get nerfed and skill B’s tie to skill C doesn’t get nerfed. It’s difficult, sure, but certainly not impossible.

Your last statement is definitely true, the more combinations out there the more chances that changing one skill will destroy the balance of more builds. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to balance what we have.

More builds possible = harder to balance due to the more builds that use any particular trait or skill.

And where did I say that we shouldn’t attempt to balance?! What I said was balance is impossible to obtain. No MMO out there has achieved balance. And that the more builds possible, the harder it is to balance. Because of that higher chance that one build may become OP due to a balance change and one may become underwhelming. All due to how the skills and traits work with each other.

A jigsaw puzzle isn’t the same thing as balancing all of the skills an MMO has. And I’ve never ever seen a puzzle that’s just a solid color. So let’s keep the barely usable analogies to things that actually exist.

Issue I have is everyone kinda decided that this class unless you run bla build from meta site you suck. I have run elixer Juggernaut engi since i started playing my engi if i want to put it in pure trailblazer gear and use a different rune then i will why cause it burns stuff it dies, if i want to run my necro in a Valkyrie/marauder power minion build i will cause necro only has bleed/vulnerability/ torment/fear/frost which in all fairness 2-3 hardly work on npcs and bleed can be done by anyone with fast enough rotations, also if a want to my viper thief could do bleed with poison faster then my necro. heck my revenant is build in crusader with wanderer trinkets to be a wvw tank and can tank most of pve solo. my point use what you like and have fun don’t be a cookie cutter clone.

oh and to all the meta is everything people. i really do not care if you can’t dodge and are using berserker and scholar rune which does not work for ever class, i do not care it kills stuff fast if you are dead cause you got sneezed on or did not dodge a circle you are not a dps you are a minus dps from the group.

ZerotheFang.5890:

oh and to all the meta is everything people. i really do not care if you can’t dodge and are using berserker and scholar rune which does not work for ever class, i do not care it kills stuff fast if you are dead cause you got sneezed on or did not dodge a circle you are not a dps you are a minus dps from the group.

glass canon meta builds assume you can play exceedingly well. Alot of people do not make good use of scholar runes. Hating meta builds is overall a dumb thing. When people find efficient builds they become meta in every game.

No game that wants to have differing classes with different builds can ever have “balance” Balance requires homgenization for classes to be even. Most games aim for a perfect imbalance to make things different enough while not having too large of a gap in power between the differences.

Seera.5916:

More builds possible = harder to balance due to the more builds that use any particular trait or skill.

And where did I say that we shouldn’t attempt to balance?! What I said was balance is impossible to obtain. No MMO out there has achieved balance. And that the more builds possible, the harder it is to balance. Because of that higher chance that one build may become OP due to a balance change and one may become underwhelming. All due to how the skills and traits work with each other.

A jigsaw puzzle isn’t the same thing as balancing all of the skills an MMO has. And I’ve never ever seen a puzzle that’s just a solid color. So let’s keep the barely usable analogies to things that actually exist.

I’m sorry, I meant attempt to balance in the way that I was suggesting. You seemed to be implying that since my suggestion may add to the difficulty of balancing that it shouldn’t be attempted. That’s all I meant by that.

As to the jigsaw puzzle, I still think it’s a useful analogy. And the solid color puzzles totally exist (just google it) and they are terrible, haha.

jigsaw puzzle is not really a good one, it has a single definitive answer. Build diversity is the opposite of this. You want diversity of solutions that are not fixed with the winning position being a satisfactory state that has required skill and coordination to complete. Unfortunately ‘tightly tuned’ raids that have dps ceilings etc are examples of jigsaws.

The type of Jigsaw that would represent this satisfactory diversity is a jigsaw where the pieces can be combined in many different ways, and the final picture can vary but still be recognizable Tightly tuned raids this is not.

In terms of rads therefore, you need to get rid if dps race style fights (diversity busting force min max stat simplification) and relax/broaden the criteria for success. You then need to retrain players who are tunnel visioned into trying to simplify an encounter into criteria they can visualize, i.e stand here, max dps there and have raid leaders that look for general skill levels and builds and ‘co-ordinate’ rather than dictate. Not an easy thing and requires a change of approach where the encounter is just as important as winning – harking back to rpg board games where losing games were often as fun as winning ones.

no thank you.
Enough of the circus in this game, which already has a horrible state of visual coherence and class roles. The Zergs here look more like a rio carnival parade, than a legion of soldiers to the war, since “anything can, everything is allowed.”

I am in favor of the idea, that certain classes must be forced to certain weapons, reducing the “carnival parade” factor.

I always play warriors because I like greatswords and hammers.

But it seems to me that crying in GW2 for “balancing” has gotten us to the ridiculous point of having a warrior efficiente with a longbow, or with shield+mace.

There is already diversity in this game with the actual professions, if one dont fit your style, change profession!

If we follow the current path, it will not make any difference to a ranger or warrior, or a necromancer, because they have made all professions fit the idea of “one size fits all”. That is, in the name the “diversity of builds” or “theres no meta, anything works”, they kill the diversity of professions, and if all professions are the same, there no diversity at all.

ugrakarma.9416:

no thank you.
Enough of the circus in this game, which already has a horrible state of visual coherence and class roles. The Zergs here look more like a rio carnival parade, than a legion of soldiers to the war, since “anything can, everything is allowed.”

I am in favor of the idea, that certain classes must be forced to certain weapons, reducing the “carnival parade” factor.

I always play warriors because I like greatswords and hammers.

But it seems to me that crying in GW2 for “balancing” has gotten us to the ridiculous point of having a warrior efficiente with a longbow, or with shield+mace.

There is already diversity in this game with the actual professions, if one dont fit your style, change profession!

If we follow the current path, it will not make any difference to a ranger or warrior, or a necromancer, because they have made all professions fit the idea of “one size fits all”. That is, in the name the “diversity of builds” or “theres no meta, anything works”, they kill the diversity of professions, and if all professions are the same, there no diversity at all.

So my style is a heavy armor class that wields a greatsword with an offhand longbow. It was in D&D and has been for every MMO that will let me. The only class that fits for in GW2 is Warrior (until I get my Guardian leveled up). So your suggestion to change profession is useless to me and I would argue useless to many other players as well. You risk alienating a large chunk of players with that idea and I don’t think that could be a good thing under any circumstances unless you were creating a new game.

Obviously with this suggestion there will still be profession uniqueness (builds, playability, weapons, armor, etc all will be unique to different professions as they currently are). But giving people more options doesn’t kill diversity, rather it does quite the opposite. The more options you have, the more diversity you’ll have (unless there’s a meta of course).

You argue that on one hand that the builds we currently have is a carnival circus, so it would make sense if you were arguing for less diversity (restricting each class to a very small amount of gear and weapons) in order to gain that “legions of soldiers” professionalism feel. But on the other hand you claim that this same build structure is what gives us diversity and argue that if we increased options we would decrease diversity. Those points seem contradictory to me. Perhaps I’m just not understanding you properly yet.

Personally I don’t see GW2 as a “legions of soldiers” type of game. Rather, to me, the zerg is legions of elites who each specialize in their own thing. Personally I like it that way.

Metas cannot be designed out the game. Metas are player created and player enforced. Metas are basically just accepted conventions.

For example PS warriors aren’t actually mandatory for raids. It’s entirely possible to generate 25 might via distributed might generation. However pinning all the might gen on the warrior reduces the workload of the rest of the group so it’s become the accepted standard.

Crinn.7864:

Metas cannot be designed out the game. Metas are player created and player enforced. Metas are basically just accepted conventions.

For example PS warriors aren’t actually mandatory for raids. It’s entirely possible to generate 25 might via distributed might generation. However pinning all the might gen on the warrior reduces the workload of the rest of the group so it’s become the accepted standard.

Right and I never meant to say that ANet can completely design the meta out of the game, but they can do many things to mitigate the meta. Make additional weapons perform a similar functions as the meta requires (as this suggestion looks to do) and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit. Raise the effectiveness of non-meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit. Lower the effectiveness of the current meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit.

There will always be a meta since players will always be looking for what’s most effective. And high skill content groups will be looking for players who are using the most effective builds. But mitigating the meta in the ways mentioned above, for example, can allow groups to utilize non-meta builds without sacrificing too much efficiency-wise. Then players who prefer non-meta mechanics would have an easier time finding a high level group. If playing a non-meta build isn’t as big of a deal to content like raids and T4 fractals then people will be more able to play what they like if what they like isn’t the meta (without lowering skill requirements). In the end I think that’s better for everyone. Hopefully that makes sense.

ZacHank.1358:

Raise the effectiveness of non-meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit. Lower the effectiveness of the current meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit.

Anet already does that. If look at balance patches post HoT, they all involves buffs to underused traits and abilities, with nerfs to overused traits and abilities.

Crinn.7864:

ZacHank.1358:

Raise the effectiveness of non-meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit. Lower the effectiveness of the current meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit.

Anet already does that. If look at balance patches post HoT, they all involves buffs to underused traits and abilities, with nerfs to overused traits and abilities.

Yup! Exactly. My suggestion is simply another way I think the meta could be mitigated.

ZacHank.1358:

I’m a firm believer that Anet intended all build traits to be equally useful.

I don’t see anything ingame that makes me think this was Anet’s intention at all. It would be nice, but I don’t think there is some way to measure what ‘equally useful’ is or when it’s even achieved. I can see you put some thinking behind your ideas, but this assumption you have made means it’s all built on a faulty premise.

No, I think that if Anet intended all build traits to be equally useful, they would have went a completely different route for the first time they did the traits revamp. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that something like a take less damage when falling trait is no where near as useful as a damage increase or a runspeed trait, yet Anet left many of those things as is. Therefore …

I do believe that Anet made certain traits useful for SPECIFIC scenarios; so in that sense, damage when falling traits are good for JP’s. In that sense, Anet has already achieved what you think was intended, in a very limited sense.

Back to meta; it can never be a lie. It does exist, simply because of the way the encounters are designed. Even if you think there could be certain setups that are equivalent to each other, then you would just have many meta builds, not just one. But make no mistake, it’s still real.

The only way to ‘wreck’ meta is to have dynamic encounters where boss actions and parameters (e.g., immunities) change in real time, so that no player could anticipate the best way to defeat them. That has nothing to do with any parameter a player could choose; it’s entirely on encounter design.

Obtena.7952:

ZacHank.1358:

I’m a firm believer that Anet intended all build traits to be equally useful.

I don’t see anything ingame that makes me think this was Anet’s intention at all. It would be nice, but I don’t think there is some way to measure what ‘equally useful’ is or when it’s even achieved. I can see you put some thinking behind your ideas, but this assumption you have made means it’s all built on a faulty premise.

No, I think that if Anet intended all build traits to be equally useful, they would have went a completely different route for the first time they did the traits revamp. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that something like a take less damage when falling trait is no where near as useful as a damage increase or a runspeed trait, yet Anet left many of those things as is. Therefore …

I do believe that Anet made certain traits useful for SPECIFIC scenarios; so in that sense, damage when falling traits are good for JP’s. In that sense, Anet has already achieved what you think was intended, in a very limited sense.

Back to meta; it can never be a lie. It does exist, simply because of the way the encounters are designed. Even if you think there could be certain setups that are equivalent to each other, then you would just have many meta builds, not just one. But make no mistake, it’s still real.

The only way to ‘wreck’ meta is to have dynamic encounters where boss actions and parameters (e.g., immunities) change in real time, so that no player could anticipate the best way to defeat them. That has nothing to do with any parameter a player could choose; it’s entirely on encounter design.

I think what I meant by the title is that we should have as many meta builds as possible. From my perspective, what people call the ‘meta’ is a limited few builds, or just 1 single build, per class, or even limiting what classes people should use altogether. I think when people hear meta they hear 2 things, “best” build(s) and “only” build(s). I know the latter is not the literal meaning of meta, but I do think this is the way many people use it.

I don’t think dynamic encounters would be a very good way destroying any meta. PvP and WvW are dynamic environments and there as still PvP and WvW meta builds.

I guess my belief in all builds being equally useful comes from the fact that multiple builds exist at all. Why make more than 1 build if you never intend for people to use it. I don’t think ANet has accomplished this even in a specific scenario sense. The falling trait for example is basically worthless even in specific scenarios. But perhaps ANet thought it would be more useful for some reason which is why it’s there?

ZacHank.1358:

I think what I meant by the title is that we should have as many meta builds as possible. From my perspective, what people call the ‘meta’ is a limited few builds, or just 1 single build, per class, or even limiting what classes people should use altogether. I think when people hear meta they hear 2 things, “best” build(s) and “only” build(s). I know the latter is not the literal meaning of meta, but I do think this is the way many people use it.

As far as meta goes, there is only ever going to be one build — per profession, per role — especially for instanced PvE content. Literally, the only way a developer could get around that would be by making multiple builds perform the exact same role with the exact same efficiency. This is because metas form based on perceived efficiency.

Once developers shoot for professions bringing different things to the table and playing differently, there will be professions and builds that will not be part of the meta.

ZacHank.1358:

I guess my belief in all builds being equally useful comes from the fact that multiple builds exist at all. Why make more than 1 build if you never intend for people to use it. I don’t think ANet has accomplished this even in a specific scenario sense. The falling trait for example is basically worthless even in specific scenarios. But perhaps ANet thought it would be more useful for some reason which is why it’s there?

Developers make multiple build options available for basically two reasons:

1. It gives the number crunchers something to do initially, and after balance patches. After all, metas can and do get shaken up when such patches hit.
2. There are a raft of players out there who play MMO’s for immersion and fun. Many of them do not give a kitten about whether their build is optimal, so long as it is viable in the content they want to play. If someone wants to make a shield-wielding, damage absorbing character, they can do so, even if PuG groups for instanced content see no need for such a build. These players do not care about the meta, and guess what, they paid for the game, too.

Would you use a Philips head screwdriver to screw in a flathead screw? No, you’d use a flathead screwdriver for it.

It’s the same way with traits, you take traits based on what you’re doing. If you’re in openworld where you have lots of running to do, you take runspeed traits. If you’re in a raid where you don’t have lots of running to do you don’t take runspeed traits.

Traits are simply tools the developers give us to solve problems with.

ZacHank.1358:

I think what I meant by the title is that we should have as many meta builds as possible. From my perspective, what people call the ‘meta’ is a limited few builds, or just 1 single build, per class, or even limiting what classes people should use altogether. I think when people hear meta they hear 2 things, “best” build(s) and “only” build(s). I know the latter is not the literal meaning of meta, but I do think this is the way many people use it.

I think so to, but I think we all have to be realistic in how much effort that would require without really delivering much to the game. Again, how you compare one build to another? Even if you take the simplest measure; DPS, then it’s quite a complex task to purposefully develop an alternate combination of traits/stats/weaponskills/etc…. that isn’t just a variation on the current meta, but is close to it in damage … then you do that 9 times for each class … then you do that again every time something changes the game to make sure you maintain this multi-meta utopia.

Maybe it’s not obvious to you but that’s a lot of work and frankly, the end result is that no one really cares all that much because Anet stopped doing something else in the game to deliver these additional meta builds. It’s not practical and it’s not realistic because alternate builds, whether they are equivalent or not, don’t really score high on the content meter.

I think the other final thing to note is that we almost have this without any extra work from the devs. If you are willing to compromise your damage even just 10% of what the meta gives, a whole world of builds opens up to you on many classes. So, really what we are talking about is if the work necessary to achieve that meta equivalence is worth the effort. I can’t see how it would be. If you’re not playing meta anyways, obviously your not a stickler for whatever percentage of damage you lose. This appeals to such a small proportion of the community.

Obtena.7952:

I think so to, but I think we all have to be realistic in how much effort that would require without really delivering much to the game.

I’m frankly getting tired of this argument; it’s not the consumer’s job to be “understanding” and “realistic”, all the consumer has to do is judge the final product. Besides, I hardly think it “unrealistic” for developers to balance their kittening game beyond three to four limp efforts yearly.

Obtena.7952:

Even if you take the simplest measure; DPS, then it’s quite a complex task to purposefully develop an alternate combination of traits/stats/weaponskills/etc…. that isn’t just a variation on the current meta, but is close to it in damage …

Of course it’s complex, no one has disputed that; it’s probably why they’re so god awful at it.

Obtena.7952:

Maybe it’s not obvious to you but that’s a lot of work and frankly, the end result is that no one really cares all that much because Anet stopped doing something else in the game to deliver these additional meta builds.

What you mean is, no one cares except raiders, PvP:ers and WvW:ers (because that’s where balance actually matters).

Obtena.7952:

It’s not practical and it’s not realistic because alternate builds, whether they are equivalent or not, don’t really score high on the content meter.

On the contrary, balance is everything in PvP-focused game modes; way more important than content.

Obtena.7952:

This appeals to such a small proportion of the community.

Yeah, I wonder how that portion of the community got so small in the first place…

You can be tired of that fact all you want; this isn’t a charity and those devs aren’t working for free. It’s a business decision to put them on balancing efforts vs. other things and that has a greater business impact than you seem to be able to comprehend.

If you think it’s realistic for devs to balance their games, then you have to ask yourself why so many MMO’s don’t do it to the degree players desire. I’ve challenged you with this line of thinking in the past … you balked with lame “I’m a bitter player, so devs are incompetent” response. Maybe you should step up with some critical thinking and answer it, because it’s not just GW2 that has this situation … it’s common to experience this in even the best MMOs and in PVP.

So again … you can either be realistic in your view to how MMO’s work … or be like you, the bitter player that decides that all can and should be done, regardless of actual restrictions and constraints … and if it’s not done, you simply dismiss it as lazy, stupid or incompetent game devs that don’t deliver. /shrug

Obtena.7952:

You can be tired of that fact all you want

I’m tired of the argument because it’s used to justify and rationalize away any fault, inadequacy and culpability on ArenaNet’s part.

Obtena.7952:

this isn’t a charity and those devs aren’t working for free. It’s a business decision to put them on balancing efforts vs. other things

You’re right, it’s not a charity; it’s a product we paid for, and as such we’re not in any way obliged to consider the business side; that’s ArenaNet’s job. Obviously it’s a business decision, and obviously they don’t deem it worthwhile (or else are incompetent), but that’s hardly a reason for us to stop voicing our opinions; if I were to consider the business side I’d say it’s short-sighted and foolish to focus only on things that will yield a measurable short-term gain whilst largely ignoring one of the very fundaments of the game.

Obtena.7952:

and that has a greater business impact than you seem to be able to comprehend.

I’m sure you have great insights into ArenaNet as a company.

Obtena.7952:

If you think it’s realistic for devs to balance their games, then you have to ask yourself why so many MMO’s don’t do it to the degree players desire.

Then you can also ask yourself why so many MMOs are failing and why e-sports games, which place a premium on balance, are so popular.

Obtena.7952:

So again … you can either be realistic in your view to how MMO’s work … or be like you, the bitter player that decides that all can and should be done, regardless of actual restrictions and constraints … and if it’s not done, you simply dismiss it as lazy, stupid or incompetent game devs that don’t deliver. /shrug

No, I can either express my opinion as a paying costumer and “business” be kitten ed, or I can be like you, the apologist who justifies every issue the game has with “it’s a bad business decision”.

Pakkazull.6894:

Obtena.7952:

You can be tired of that fact all you want

I’m tired of the argument because it’s used to justify and rationalize away any fault, inadequacy and culpability on ArenaNet’s part.

Sure, but you don’t seem to want to comprehend the fact that perfect balance between classes isn’t what makes this business money. Anet could hire a whole bunch of devs and set them to the task … and then what? GW2 would have 10 million players because they have awesomely balanced classes? I mean, the assumption that excellent class balance is some significant driving factor to player retention and acquisition is borderline absurd. No one bought this game under the premise that balance was perfect, or even good. They bought it based on the features the game promoted, the theme, etc… GW2 is not unique in the state of it’s class balance compared to other MMOs. I have YET to see a game promoted because of class balance and MMO’s persist and succeed where class balance is not good; I can’t see how anyone would conclude that well balanced classes leads to the success of an MMO. Certainly it could help, but it’s a minor consideration from a business perspective.

Yes, some people leave because their class sucks. So be it. Any game company knows this is a real effect and it’s part of their business plan to deal with it through many different ways. Yes, they could deal with that with a huge balancing effort, but frankly, that’s not an effective solution. You may not want to admit it, but the greatest mitigation to unbalanced classes is allowing players choice among many classes. Anet’s class provision is quite good.

You keep mentioning it’s important for PVP. But in fact, it’s not as important as you would like everyone to believe because as a competitive element of the game, the players in it will take the classes they are most successful with, even if they aren’t balanced perfectly. They want to win. Case in point; the existence of stacked Rev teams.

Anyways, back to the topic. No, I don’t think balancing classes is any sort of practical or logical ‘solution’ to the meta. I think it’s even debatable if the existence of the meta is a problem. I think the only problem is that Anet doesn’t market the game effectively as an alternative approach to the tired methods that other MMO’s rest their laurels on, that most players can’t break their mentality away from.

Obtena.7952:

Sure, but you don’t seem to want to comprehend the fact that perfect balance between classes isn’t what makes this business money.

Again, I don’t give a kitten.

Obtena.7952:

Anet could hire a whole bunch of devs and set them to the task … and then what? GW2 would have 10 million players because they have awesomely balanced classes? I mean, the assumption that excellent class balance is some significant driving factor to player retention and acquisition is borderline absurd.

Nice straw man you’ve got there. I never claimed it helps with acquisition, but I definitely believe it helps with retention; the only thing more important than balance in WvW and PvP is the core gameplay, and if the balance is bad, the core gameplay is bad.

Obtena.7952:

No one bought this game under the premise that balance was perfect, or even good. They bought it based on the features the game promoted, the theme, etc…

No, you’re quite right, but some of us did buy HoT on the premise that elite specializations would be horizontal progression and not power creep, and see how that turned out.

Also, I’d argue that people assume a decent balancing effort is part of the package when they buy a game without it having to be explicitly promoted.

Obtena.7952:

You keep mentioning it’s important for PVP. But in fact, it’s not as important as you would like everyone to believe because as a competitive element of the game, the players in it will take the classes they are most successful with, even if they aren’t balanced perfectly. They want to win. Case in point; the existence of stacked Rev teams.

I can only assume you don’t play much PvP if you can pretend that skipping from one broken class to the next is a substitute for proper balancing. Sure, some people do it just because they like to win, but I don’t believe for a second that people actually think it’s fun or healthy for the game.

Pakkazull.6894:

Also, I’d argue that people assume a decent balancing effort is part of the package when they buy a game without it having to be explicitly promoted.

I would agree, but any reasonable person would also premise that by acknowledging that this is a subjective assessment as well. There is no objective measure of balance. Really the whole idea of what is balanced is completely ridiculous to begin with. It’s much simpler than players like you think it is.

I’m just lol at your assumptions about PVP. I don’t pretend that people use the classes that are most effective for them; that’s what winners do. It’s the losers that complain about inbalance.

Obtena.7952:

I’m just lol at your assumptions about PVP. I don’t pretend that people use the classes that are most effective for them; that’s what winners do. It’s the losers that complain about inbalance.

I see, you’re resorting to ad hominems now. Well, I can’t say I’m surprised, considering your tone throughout has been thinly veiled condescension, and I guess there’s nothing left to say here (except that I got to legendary division the last three seasons. Not that it means anything, but I wouldn’t classify it as “losing” either).

Until I see your stupid kitten rear its ugly head in another thread—bye.

Players don’t choose classes in PVP because of balance, they choose based on how they perform with them. Assuming that most people like to win in competitive environments, it follows logically their choice is not based on how balanced a class is, but how well they know the class and can use it’s tools to be successful with other people in a team. The idea you present that players look for balance more than anything else in PVP play modes makes no sense, because being successful in those environments is SOO much more than taking a balanced class.

If you find my tone condescending, consider yourself a hostile witness. Given the fact that you only assume the worst possible (and least sensible) reasoning for the lack of balance in this game, I think that’s rather appropriate. I will be looking forward to our next discussion. Thank you.

Well this didn’t go in the direction I expected/wanted.

1: I do think build balance is difficult, likely impossible, but worthwhile to aim for both financially for ANet and from a play-ability standpoint as a player.

2: I think my suggestion offers a way to try and help balance what we have by removing the weapon restrictions on classes that the meta creates.

3: But this conversation has seemed to derail into an argument about the meta itself. Perhaps it will be best to remake this thread without any mention of the meta. There are plenty of good reasons to take weapon skills off of builds without referencing the meta.

ZacHank.1358:

Well this didn’t go in the direction I expected/wanted.

1: I do think build balance is difficult, likely impossible, but worthwhile to aim for both financially for ANet and from a play-ability standpoint as a player.

2: I think my suggestion offers a way to try and help balance what we have by removing the weapon restrictions on classes that the meta creates.

3: But this conversation has seemed to derail into an argument about the meta itself. Perhaps it will be best to remake this thread without any mention of the meta. There are plenty of good reasons to take weapon skills off of builds without referencing the meta.

Weapon skills will always be a part of a player’s build…

Crinn.7864:

ZacHank.1358:

Raise the effectiveness of non-meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit. Lower the effectiveness of the current meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit.

Anet already does that. If look at balance patches post HoT, they all involves buffs to underused traits and abilities, with nerfs to overused traits and abilities.

If only this were really true on the majority of the professions. I play mostly the weakest builds in the game and almost all of them have been nerfed directly since HoT rather than buffed. They balance the meta, and that’s it. Anything else is seemingly too much to do.

I think only DH has really gotten this benefit in any meaningful substance, but it’s Karl’s favorite so…

Seera.5916:

ZacHank.1358:

Well this didn’t go in the direction I expected/wanted.

1: I do think build balance is difficult, likely impossible, but worthwhile to aim for both financially for ANet and from a play-ability standpoint as a player.

2: I think my suggestion offers a way to try and help balance what we have by removing the weapon restrictions on classes that the meta creates.

3: But this conversation has seemed to derail into an argument about the meta itself. Perhaps it will be best to remake this thread without any mention of the meta. There are plenty of good reasons to take weapon skills off of builds without referencing the meta.

Weapon skills will always be a part of a player’s build…

I’m getting lazy with my words. I meant take weapons skills off of their current build trees and put them in their own weapon specific trees as this thread suggests.