Guild Wars 2

Hmmm, did I accidentally delete this entire thread? Edit: nope

You can never ‘solve’ the problem of offering large diversity and having perfect balance. This is similar to the classic development problem where getting everything 100% perfect is far far too slow to be workable – the world moves on why you dodder and tinker.

The answer to the problem of balance and diversity is actually fast releases (im taking hourly/daily/weekly) therefore you can make extremely small tweaks constantly and react near instantly to game breaking balance issues. Job done. It takes a mature development model with great automated testing to do this however.

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.

I don’t think you can actually make a thread about balance without talking about why the meta exists. After all, the meta is the result of the way the game is designed and what builds are optimal to ‘solve’ the game. You can’t talk about one without the other.

Obtena.7952:

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.

I don’t think you can actually make a thread about balance without talking about why the meta exists. After all, the meta is the result of the way the game is designed and what builds are optimal to ‘solve’ the game. You can’t talk about one without the other.

yep, I think OP should spend more time advocating for new challenges.

Meta builds between game modes are not the same.

1 meta for pvp

1 meta for dungeons

1 meta for wvwvw

1 meta for roaming
etc

vesica tempestas.1563:

The answer to the problem of balance and diversity is actually fast releases (im taking hourly/daily/weekly) therefore you can make extremely small tweaks constantly and react near instantly to game breaking balance issues. Job done. It takes a mature development model with great automated testing to do this however.

No, fast releases make problems worse.

Metas don’t resolve instantly, and they take time settle. Moreover balance changes themselves are made after careful observation and prolonged metric -gathering.

Making rapid changes is making changes without knowing the full extent of the meta. It’s like trying to shoot targets with a gun that has no sights. It’s random guessing that could make balance worse much faster than it will make it better.

Moreover there are other problems with rapid changes. Constant changes leaves the meta in a perpetual state of flux, which has negative consequences to the players. Why bother buildcrafting when your work is null and void after a week? It will also put off casual players who aren’t as interested in the meta as much as they are in just enjoying their class.

Rapid iteration typically works better for competitive gaming because it requires a constant re-analysis. The absence of a strict meta is strictly a good thing. The more frequently someone needs to re-evaluate strategy, the better the game is. This is especially good in every competitive environment, and why the MOBA scene is so smart; every game differs in a lot of cases, and one nerf can shake everything up nicely for a long time to come, allowing for even small balance tweaks to propagate. The very act of balancing is give-and-take backed by good design. The faster (in terms of speed) you give and take and re-evaluate, the better your conclusions will be when evaluating what to do next. If you put two roughly-similarly-weighted rocks on a scale, it’d be easier to get them to weigh the same by quickly shaving the heavier one and re-checking (and seeing how effective the adjustments were relative to the disparity) than trying to model the rock mathematically and devise a system to cut the exact amount of volume necessary. And this assumes objectivity in balance; what if your scale isn’t guaranteed to be right (player perceptions/the meta), or the rocks vary in unknown densities in certain sections (innate design differences and mechanics)? Waiting to maybe see if the scale changes its mind or fixes itself won’t do you any good, especially if it’s not showing any signs of changing (I.E. a stale meta).

The problem is GW2 is so build-heavy now with such an asburd amount of money locked behind making changes to one’s build (outside of sPvP) that making changes would make people upset, especially in PvE, and we know how ANet treats PvE balance (generally better than sPvP and WvW).

This is a culmination of problems, though. It’s bad balance and profession design, and bad management of the systems underlying the game (I.E. massively increased crafting prices going unchecked or even encouraged) which inhibits players from responding to repeated changes, too. Of course, this could be intentional to alleviate concerns with actually making substantive changes in profession design and balance.

Overly-rapid iteration will cause such problems, however. Changing such things in daily intervals or even weekly ones is too quick to tell (like cutting the rocks again before letting the scales stop moving/adjusting after putting them down). I think ANet would be a lot more successful here if they took a monthly approach to balance and invoked some (forced, even) diversity while analyzing why things are as they are to perform reworks as needed. We haven’t seen this, however, and I doubt we ever will.

You know when a system is not balanced when the meta evolves extremely slowly or does not evolve at all with very consistent games with little deviation. This has been the case in GW2 for years and several unchanged design perspectives/directions have led it to continue and worsen in most cases.

The profession developers are unfortunately unwilling to perform the major reworks necessary for the health of the game because it would inspire so much radical shifting from having not done a good design job to begin with, sadly.

Like your suggestion. Also, I would like if Anet would make all trait and skills totally independent of each other (CDs, GCDs, durations, etc.) between PvE and PvP.

I don’t wish to not talk about the meta and I never implied that I didn’t. My title and OP has a great deal about the meta in it. What I said was I don’t wish to talk about “about the meta itself”, that is I don’t want to talk only about the meta. My preference would be to talk about the meta in conjunction with this suggestion, and it seems that we have moved beyond that within this thread.

curtegg.5216:

Like your suggestion. Also, I would like if Anet would make all trait and skills totally independent of each other (CDs, GCDs, durations, etc.) between PvE and PvP.

Thanks!

ZacHank.1358:

I don’t wish to not talk about the meta and I never implied that I didn’t. My title and OP has a great deal about the meta in it. What I said was I don’t wish to talk about “about the meta itself”, that is I don’t want to talk only about the meta. My preference would be to talk about the meta in conjunction with this suggestion, and it seems that we have moved beyond that within this thread.

yea, you are not really solving meta build problems with your suggestion.

All you are doing is shifting the meta. I think other posters realize this problem.

If you truly want to change the meta, you kinda have to change the game mode itself. Meta is a reaction to game modes. They are never the problem itself

loseridoit.2756:

yea, you are not really solving meta build problems with your suggestion.

All you are doing is shifting the meta. I think other posters realize this problem.

If you truly want to change the meta, you kinda have to change the game mode itself. Meta is a reaction to game modes. They are never the problem itself

I think this would solve 1 meta build problem, that being the restriction of classes to specific weapons. Releasing that meta restriction would open up more styles of play that would work with the meta.

This suggestion isn’t meant to drastically change the meta, it’s a baby step in a series of potential baby steps.

ZacHank.1358:

loseridoit.2756:

yea, you are not really solving meta build problems with your suggestion.

All you are doing is shifting the meta. I think other posters realize this problem.

If you truly want to change the meta, you kinda have to change the game mode itself. Meta is a reaction to game modes. They are never the problem itself

I think this would solve 1 meta build problem, that being the restriction of classes to specific weapons. Releasing that meta restriction would open up more styles of play that would work with the meta.

This suggestion isn’t meant to drastically change the meta, it’s a baby step in a series of potential baby steps.

Do you think anet team will balance around multiple builds? They wont. Any build that does not revolve around a few players in this game will be nerfed. I had fun builds nerf by anet due to bug fixes.

loseridoit.2756:

Do you think anet team will balance around multiple builds? They wont. Any build that does not revolve around a few players in this game will be nerfed. I had fun builds nerf by anet due to bug fixes.

I mean yeah, I do think that. If I didn’t I wouldn’t have bothered to post my suggestion.

ZacHank.1358:

loseridoit.2756:

Do you think anet team will balance around multiple builds? They wont. Any build that does not revolve around a few players in this game will be nerfed. I had fun builds nerf by anet due to bug fixes.

I mean yeah, I do think that. If I didn’t I wouldn’t have bothered to post my suggestion.

sometimes I end up thinking is that the only way to have a voice sometimes is to incite the whole player base into a flame war and be the target of it.

I won’t go over the meta discussion but instead focus on the suggestion.
Let’s take the Warrior example and I must say I’m not sure what you are suggesting here and how your suggestion will open up builds for Warriors. The most widely used Warrior build is the PS Warrior, and it relies on these two traits to work:
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Forceful_Greatsword and
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Phalanx_Strength

So basically every time you critical hit someone you get might with the first, and then you apply it to the party with the second. If you remove Forceful Greatsword from the game then the entire build is dead. Then you say:

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.

So the Forceful Greatsword trait won’t be mandatory, but PS Warriors will be REQUIRED to use this new Greatsword traitline anyway to get the Might on Crit ability, in effect Warriors will still stay on their Greatsword. Warriors will stay in GS to provide Might to the group (which is what the meta Warrior build is all about) so what exactly did you accomplish with this change?

Moreover, Forceful Greatsword is a trait you choose for your build. There are two other Strength master choices if you don’t play with a Greatsword so I don’t see the problem there either.

ZacHank.1358:

loseridoit.2756:

yea, you are not really solving meta build problems with your suggestion.

All you are doing is shifting the meta. I think other posters realize this problem.

If you truly want to change the meta, you kinda have to change the game mode itself. Meta is a reaction to game modes. They are never the problem itself

I think this would solve 1 meta build problem, that being the restriction of classes to specific weapons. Releasing that meta restriction would open up more styles of play that would work with the meta.

This suggestion isn’t meant to drastically change the meta, it’s a baby step in a series of potential baby steps.

Restricted weapon access by class is not a result of meta, so changing that doesn’t affect meta existence. The proof is already in game … we gained more access to weapons through elite specs … but there is still builds for each class optimal for content. The idea that you can remove meta without changing the fundamental way the game works is absurd. You can’t sprinkle classes with some new skills/weapons/traits and pretend that has a profound impact on increasing number of optimal builds. We would need orders of magnitude increase in access to new skills/weapon/traits in order to get a chance that any combination of those new things would mimic top performance of any other build.

I’m pretty sure it’d shake things up a lot. In the case of just the warrior, if PS was made to apply to all weapons, I can’t think of any reason whatsoever to bring a GS warrior to any PvE encounter when Flurry S/x Berserker would do just as well if not better for stacking might and providing much better damage.

I don’t think it’d necessarily improve the game, though. The optima would still exist in much more obvious fashion than the rest of the choices.

Crinn.7864:

vesica tempestas.1563:

The answer to the problem of balance and diversity is actually fast releases (im taking hourly/daily/weekly) therefore you can make extremely small tweaks constantly and react near instantly to game breaking balance issues. Job done. It takes a mature development model with great automated testing to do this however.

No, fast releases make problems worse.

Metas don’t resolve instantly, and they take time settle. Moreover balance changes themselves are made after careful observation and prolonged metric -gathering.

Making rapid changes is making changes without knowing the full extent of the meta. It’s like trying to shoot targets with a gun that has no sights. It’s random guessing that could make balance worse much faster than it will make it better.

Moreover there are other problems with rapid changes. Constant changes leaves the meta in a perpetual state of flux, which has negative consequences to the players. Why bother buildcrafting when your work is null and void after a week? It will also put off casual players who aren’t as interested in the meta as much as they are in just enjoying their class.

no the key is fast tiny changes, e.g increases the dps of one item by a couple, then a couple more etc. tiny gradual increments, its the way most smart dev houses are going- the alternative is big changes, and big changes generate constant flux, small changes dont.

For e.g, lets say the community made it clear that spec/build x has an issue, so now with quick incremental releases Anet can gradually change the offending build and watch the impact on the data. If it doesn’t work, tomorrow they reverse it and try something else. It was such a small change there was no major impact, there’s never major impact as everything is drip fed in constantly and player live testing drives out the best design.

Ps this isn’t a thing i’ve made up, top Dev houses aim for a potential of thousands of potential changes a day if they wish (i’m amazed myself by this)

Those thousands of changes are usually programming, though, often probably done through Test Driven Development. The entire Agile development scheme revolves around this.

That said, rapid iteration of the evolution of game mechanics (changes once every few weeks) is the way to go and is consistently being done by the best and most successful game companies.

vesica tempestas.1563:

no the key is fast tiny changes, e.g increases the dps of one item by a couple, then a couple more etc. tiny gradual increments, its the way most smart dev houses are going- the alternative is big changes, and big changes generate constant flux, small changes dont.

For e.g, lets say the community made it clear that spec/build x has an issue, so now with quick incremental releases Anet can gradually change the offending build and watch the impact on the data. If it doesn’t work, tomorrow they reverse it and try something else. It was such a small change there was no major impact, there’s never major impact as everything is drip fed in constantly and player live testing drives out the best design.

A class is either strong enough to be in-meta, or it isn’t and is out-of-meta. Those are the only two states. There is no grey area. You’re in or you’re out.
A balance patch only matters if it causes a class to cross the threshold between in-meta, and out-of-meta.

This is why incremental changes don’t work. You’re assuming that incremental changes will cause incremental shifts in meta. This is false. Incremental changes will cause zero changes in the meta up until the threshold is crossed at which point the meta will dramatically swing.

Just look at the aftermath the necro GS changes last balance patch. Look at the aftermath of all the incremental shatterstone buffs. Nothing changed. Why? Because the changes didn’t push the threshold and as such they where meaningless.

Also “watching the impact on the data” requires actually having data. And gathering good data requires time.

DeceiverX.8361:

That said, rapid iteration of the evolution of game mechanics (changes once every few weeks) is the way to go and is consistently being done by the best and most successful game companies.

If by “best and successful” you mean MOBA’s and MOBA’s only then sure.

Also MOBA use rapid changes because it’s good for their monetization. MOBA make money selling champions, so they want to change the meta frequently as doing so makes them more money. MOBA balance passes aren’t even trying to balance the game, they are just trying to change the meta for no other reason than to change the meta.

Moreover rapid changes would be extremely risky given how intricate the meta is in gw2.
Revs are a good example of this. A single change to Mesmer’s signet of inspiration caused revenants to be pushed completely out of the raid meta. Rapid changes would mean classes would be screwed one week, amazing the next then screwed again. That’s not more balance that’s just trolling the players.

The SoI nerf didn’t screw over Rev, though. qT and DnT both proved on paper even after the nerf, rev still had a commanding spot in optimized raid groups. You talk about being screwed for a meta that not only doesn’t matter if it exists (so long as the gameplay is good), but for the design decisions which have blatantly and undeniably ruined the competitive formats. That’s not a fair compromise when the only aspect of the game that should ever have a real metagame will ever be the competitive PvP environments the term for the “meta” in PvE isn’t even correct use of the word nor is it respective to what it means in game design, too. All it comes down to is people finding optima and sharing it with others who copy-paste and insist that people share the ideology. The entire existence of a real metagame in PvE does not actually exist and the thoughts surrounding the use of the optima are invoked when there’s developer intervention and things change. Considering game design dictates this pattern is absolutely essential for success (or the perpetuation of a meta in a balanced intelligent-agent-versus-intelligent-agent environment), there’s factually no reason to be opposed aside from minor inconvenience of no longer being part of the optima for a period, which, if the consequences are short-term, it matters little, and suggests it will be resolved near in the future, too, encouraging the existence of optima that are more difficult to derive.

The problem is the fact people can’t deal with their class not being overpowered and cry and whine and carry on when it isn’t and complain then that PvE is too easy and such nonsese. The raids can be done with three people. They’re not DPS races that hinge on everyone playing into the optimal speed clear meta to beat. It takes some player skill and group cohesion, but literally any comp can clear the content if the players know what they’re doing.

And if the game changes so fast, you’re going to see less and less players demanding strict builds and the optimas will be harder to figure out on time for the next patch. This is the enablement of build diversity, and to be totally honest, the meta in PvE has almost no relevance considering the entire point of GW2 was for there not to be an optimization scheme. If the players can’t deal with that, that’s their own problem, because by all definitions achieving the goals of the game’s manifesto would abolish the entire concept entirely.

DeceiverX.8361:

The SoI nerf didn’t screw over Rev, though. qT and DnT both proved on paper even after the nerf, rev still had a commanding spot in optimized raid groups. You talk about being screwed for a meta that not only doesn’t matter if it exists (so long as the gameplay is good), but for the design decisions which have blatantly and undeniably ruined the competitive formats. That’s not a fair compromise when the only aspect of the game that should ever have a real metagame will ever be the competitive PvP environments the term for the “meta” in PvE isn’t even correct use of the word nor is it respective to what it means in game design, too. All it comes down to is people finding optima and sharing it with others who copy-paste and insist that people share the ideology. The entire existence of a real metagame in PvE does not actually exist and the thoughts surrounding the use of the optima are invoked when there’s developer intervention and things change. Considering game design dictates this pattern is absolutely essential for success (or the perpetuation of a meta in a balanced intelligent-agent-versus-intelligent-agent environment), there’s factually no reason to be opposed aside from minor inconvenience of no longer being part of the optima for a period, which, if the consequences are short-term, it matters little, and suggests it will be resolved near in the future, too, encouraging the existence of optima that are more difficult to derive.

The problem is the fact people can’t deal with their class not being overpowered and cry and whine and carry on when it isn’t and complain then that PvE is too easy and such nonsese. The raids can be done with three people. They’re not DPS races that hinge on everyone playing into the optimal speed clear meta to beat. It takes some player skill and group cohesion, but literally any comp can clear the content if the players know what they’re doing.

And if the game changes so fast, you’re going to see less and less players demanding strict builds and the optimas will be harder to figure out on time for the next patch. This is the enablement of build diversity, and to be totally honest, the meta in PvE has almost no relevance considering the entire point of GW2 was for there not to be an optimization scheme. If the players can’t deal with that, that’s their own problem, because by all definitions achieving the goals of the game’s manifesto would abolish the entire concept entirely.

Um, k let me correct you on a few things.

Firstly what Qt actually said was that they couldn’t actually find a place for a Rev within an optimised group, not that it was a viable option.

Secondly, there is always a meta. ALWAYS. Why? Very simple reason – humans are efficient at finding efficient ways to do things that require the least amount of effort. PVE meta does exist, look at dungeons back when they were popular – zerk or gtfo. Zerkers dealt high damage at a fast rate and thus cleared the dungeon. More and more people began using and expecting thus it became the “meta”.

Meta isn’t something limited to PVP, it happens in PVE too. If the entire point of GW2 was for there to be no meta, it failed rather spectacularly. Hell there was never meant to be a “trinity” but guess what, now there is.

Finally, yes raids can be done with three people however the premise on which you state that is false. Done by three people in highly optimised…oh that’s right, DPS builds. The raids ARE a DPS check (some encounters more than others). If they could be done by any class in any gear all with the same level of success, then there would be no meta. But that’s not how it works.

The SoI indirectly screwed Rev out of the Raid “meta” for optimal DPS. Can they still raid? Yes same as any other class.

maddoctor.2738:

If you remove Forceful Greatsword from the game then the entire build is dead. Then you say:

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.

So the Forceful Greatsword trait won’t be mandatory, but PS Warriors will be REQUIRED to use this new Greatsword traitline anyway to get the Might on Crit ability, in effect Warriors will still stay on their Greatsword. Warriors will stay in GS to provide Might to the group (which is what the meta Warrior build is all about) so what exactly did you accomplish with this change?

Moreover, Forceful Greatsword is a trait you choose for your build. There are two other Strength master choices if you don’t play with a Greatsword so I don’t see the problem there either.

So perhaps I haven’t explained this well enough yet. Let me know if this makes sense.

1: Remove Forceful Greatsword from the Strength line
2: Add Trait lines for each weapon that get automatically activated when you switch to that weapon. Ex: When you switch to sword and torch the sword trait line and torch trait line get activated, when you switch to greatsword the greatsword trait line gets activated.
3: Make one of these traits within these lines to recharge that weapon faster. Perhaps this trait would be a given.
4: Make several other traits to choose from for that weapon including things like apply might on crit or add condition damage, etc. for all weapon trait lines.

This way, all weapons will have the ability to work with whatever build you want. If you have a ps warrior you can get might generation with a longbow. If you’re a condi warrior you can get condition damage with a greatsword, etc.

In the example of a PS warrior, while forceful greatsword get’s removed, the mechanics stay available and can be added to any weapon you want, not just greatsword like the current meta requires. Does that make more sense?

DeceiverX.8361:

I’m pretty sure it’d shake things up a lot. In the case of just the warrior, if PS was made to apply to all weapons, I can’t think of any reason whatsoever to bring a GS warrior to any PvE encounter when Flurry S/x Berserker would do just as well if not better for stacking might and providing much better damage.

I don’t think it’d necessarily improve the game, though. The optima would still exist in much more obvious fashion than the rest of the choices.

It would only improve the game by giving players more options. In my experience, might generation for a warrior is more important than top-of-the-line dps. People are more willing to take a warrior with slightly less dps than a warrior with no might generation. Giving might generation to all weapons may relax weapon requirements a bit.

Obtena.7952:

Restricted weapon access by class is not a result of meta, so changing that doesn’t affect meta existence. The proof is already in game … we gained more access to weapons through elite specs … but there is still builds for each class optimal for content. The idea that you can remove meta without changing the fundamental way the game works is absurd. You can’t sprinkle classes with some new skills/weapons/traits and pretend that has a profound impact on increasing number of optimal builds. We would need orders of magnitude increase in access to new skills/weapon/traits in order to get a chance that any combination of those new things would mimic top performance of any other build.

So the meta effects more than just what build you should take, it often effects what weapons you should take. Ex: a ps warrior needs to use greatsword. My suggestion wouldn’t effect the meta by increasing the number of optimal builds, but it would effect the meta by increasing the number of viable weapons you can use within a meta build.

ZacHank.1358:

This way, all weapons will have the ability to work with whatever build you want. If you have a ps warrior you can get might generation with a longbow. If you’re a condi warrior you can get condition damage with a greatsword, etc.

First, wouldn’t be much easier to change Forceful Greatsword into Forceful Weapon and apply the benefit regardless of weapon that way.

Second, doing this with all weapon traits will remove a great deal of weapon diversity. Should all weapons be treated the same?

Third, in any case, the next step will be to find the fastest attacking weapon and call that the next meta. Maybe it’s GS due to 100-blades. In the end, nothing will change much in the meta.

maddoctor.2738:

First, wouldn’t be much easier to change Forceful Greatsword into Forceful Weapon and apply the benefit regardless of weapon that way.

Second, doing this with all weapon traits will remove a great deal of weapon diversity. Should all weapons be treated the same?

Third, in any case, the next step will be to find the fastest attacking weapon and call that the next meta. Maybe it’s GS due to 100-blades. In the end, nothing will change much in the meta.

Huh, didn’t think of just changing Forceful GS to Forceful Weapon…the more I think about it the more I like it! That could definitely be a really simple and perhaps better alternative to my suggestion The only issue I could see is then you could have multiple different traits that effect weapons apply to a single weapon (ex: a Burning, Might Generating, Damage Increased Greatsword). There would need to be some safeguards in place so you couldn’t make your weapons too OP. So, then again, my suggestion may be better after all. Still, I like it.

As to removing weapon diversity, I think it would do exactly the opposite. With this suggestion, instead of restricting players to only using a few weapons if they want to utilize the meta traits, now they can use whatever weapons they want. To me, that appears to be an increase in diversity, not a decrease, even if the weapons themselves do behave more similarly.

As to the fastest/most powerful weapon becoming the meta, sure that would definitely happen, but again I think that’s far less restricting than the current way the current meta’s restrict weapon use. As I said to DeceiverX, in my experience, might generation for a warrior is more important than top-of-the-line dps. People are more willing to take a warrior with less dps than a warrior with no might generation. Giving might generation as an option to all weapons may relax weapon requirements a bit.

ZacHank.1358:

Obtena.7952:

Restricted weapon access by class is not a result of meta, so changing that doesn’t affect meta existence. The proof is already in game … we gained more access to weapons through elite specs … but there is still builds for each class optimal for content. The idea that you can remove meta without changing the fundamental way the game works is absurd. You can’t sprinkle classes with some new skills/weapons/traits and pretend that has a profound impact on increasing number of optimal builds. We would need orders of magnitude increase in access to new skills/weapon/traits in order to get a chance that any combination of those new things would mimic top performance of any other build.

So the meta effects more than just what build you should take, it often effects what weapons you should take. Ex: a ps warrior needs to use greatsword. My suggestion wouldn’t effect the meta by increasing the number of optimal builds, but it would effect the meta by increasing the number of viable weapons you can use within a meta build.

Yeah I’m not denying you can CHANGE the meta by offering a few more choices for builds or changing existing skills/weapons/etc…. ; that happens all the time.

The question here is if making these new offers or changes adds more builds that are ‘meta-like’; my claim is that unless many hundreds more things are added, the answer is no. It’s my understanding that’s the whole point of the thread.

Obtena.7952:

Yeah I’m not denying you can CHANGE the meta by offering a few more choices for builds or changing existing skills/weapons/etc…. ; that happens all the time.

The question here is if making these new offers or changes adds more builds that are ‘meta-like’; my claim is that unless many hundreds more things are added, the answer is no. It’s my understanding that’s the whole point of the thread.

The point of this thread is to increase the number of viable weapons you can use within a meta build. If you take the assumption that weapons are a part of meta builds (which I do, gear is a part of my build), then it does add more builds that are ‘meta-like’ by adding more weapons to the meta builds. Does that make sense?

I get that, and unless the devs SPECIFICALLY target numbers between weapons to match damage outputs, the answer to that question is no.

Think of it this way … Anet could have done that but I don’t see much evidence in game they have. Ask yourself why? I think it’s obvious; why would they provide numerous weapons all producing the same DPS? I don’t see any reason for them to do that because you don’t actually have any meaningful variety; you just have numerous weapons all doing the same damage output that simply have different names and maybe a few minor effect differences. People see through that thin veil of ‘variety’ when choices aren’t meaningful. We know when something is different by name only. It’s just a waste of time to do that.

Obtena.7952:

I get that, and unless the devs SPECIFICALLY target numbers between weapons to match damage outputs, the answer to that question is no.

I agree to an extent. There are a couple of exceptions to this rule.

1st, the damage doesn’t have to be exactly the same. For example, if the shortbow has 0.2% less damage than a hammer, one may still go for using the shortbow if it’s easier to use or they simply like it more.

2nd, if weapon skills themselves (not weapon build traits) bring something else to the table than damage (like the burst skill of Mace stunning for Warrior for example), then one may still wish to bring that weapon along.

This suggestion is only meant to change weapon build traits, not weapon skills themselves. There would still absolutely be weapon variety between weapons via their own skills. Warrior isn’t going to be able to do 100 blades with a torch for example.

I think the meta is currently restricting people who use it to only a select few weapons. No choice at all is worse than no meaningful choice.

Well, in that case, we are there on most classes anyways. We have the first and second things for most classes. I mean, I get damage very close using different weapons and builds for almost all the classes. Unless you have a very specific case you want to talk about, I think you need to go check and convince yourself that’s the case. The only way the meta restricts people is because they DON’T go and convince themselves there are other options very close to meta. They just assume what they have been told is the best builds and everything else is garbage. It’s meta-pusher propaganda.

Obtena.7952:

Well, in that case, we are there on most classes anyways. We have the first and second things for most classes. I mean, I get damage very close using different weapons and builds for almost all the classes. Unless you have a very specific case you want to talk about, I think you need to go check and convince yourself that’s the case.

There is one specific case that actually brought this idea to mind in the first place.

My main character is a Warrior. To me, that means I play as a warrior, that is what my character is, and I’d rather not switch to a different class. In every mmorpg possible I like to play a warrior type character that wears heavy armor and wields a greatsword and a longbow. With GW2, so far so good.

The issue is with the meta. Longbow works with a condi build and Greatsword works with a power build. I want both of them to be viable options at the same time as I equip them both at the same time. I want it so that when I weapon swap I don’t also have to switch builds and gear. I can’t gear for both at the same time, and I don’t expect that I should be able to. What would help though is if I could generate might with my longbow in the same way Forceful Greatsword works, making it a better weapon swap than it currently is in a Power PS Warrior build. As it stands, I feel constricted not versatile, with the way things are with the Warrior meta’s. I feel a little forced in high level content to keep my Greatsword on and never weapon swapping to my Longbow.

This idea led to me thinking that this kind of versatility would be really nice if it were available for all weapons in each class. Thus the suggestion. Thoughts?

My thoughts are that what you ask is not possible without making weapons much more generic in application than they are presently. I mean, sure you can imagine specific changes that could make either of those weapons appeal more in a non-optimal build, but that doesn’t change the fact that meta will continue to exist and likely not include those weapons any longer because of the changes to them.

This just goes back to what I was saying previously; if you want more weapons applicable with similar performance, then the devs can only do that by making those weapons more like each other. Eventually, they are different in name only. For instance, you want to generate might on LBow, so it’s more appealing in power, so it feels better with a GS power build setup … the next step is what? GS applying some conditions so it feels better paired up wtih a LBow condi setup … then you use Vipers and then what do you have … some middleground between pure condi and power; people refer to this as a hybrid build. You’re just blurring the differences between the two weapons and the game styles you are trying to target; generic.

This whole thread is rather misleading because the existence of the meta has nothing to do with how Anet comes up with the concepts of these weapons. It’s not like they have a meta target, then they see how each weapon relates to that. Personally, I get what you are talking about; I would love ot be able to choose any weapon I want, then decide how I want to play, but GW2 just doesn’t work like that. It’s simpler; If you want a specific style, you are locked into a subset of your available weapons. Anything else would require a huge rethink … to the point of being too disruptive to consider in the current game.

Obtena.7952:

My thoughts are that what you ask is not possible without making weapons much more generic in application than they are presently. I mean, sure you can imagine specific changes that could make either of those weapons appeal more in a non-optimal build, but that doesn’t change the fact that meta will continue to exist and likely not include those weapons any longer because of the changes to them.

This just goes back to what I was saying previously; if you want more weapons applicable with similar performance, then the devs can only do that by making those weapons more like each other. Eventually, they are different in name only. For instance, you want to generate might on LBow, so it’s more appealing in power, so it feels better with a GS power build setup … the next step is what? GS applying some conditions so it feels better paired up wtih a LBow condi setup … then you use Vipers and then what do you have … some middleground between pure condi and power; people refer to this as a hybrid build. You’re just blurring the differences between the two weapons and the game styles you are trying to target; generic.

This whole thread is rather misleading because the existence of the meta has nothing to do with how Anet comes up with the concepts of these weapons. It’s not like they have a meta target, then they see how each weapon relates to that. Personally, I get what you are talking about; I would love ot be able to choose any weapon I want, then decide how I want to play, but GW2 just doesn’t work like that. It’s simpler; If you want a specific style, you are locked into a subset of your available weapons. Anything else would require a huge rethink … to the point of being too disruptive to consider in the current game.

I don’t mean to be misleading. I don’t think the meta has anything to do with how ANet comes up with any concepts at all, but it does come about from the way the game is designed. People will always look for how to play games the most efficiently, the meta is what people have discovered for GW2 as a result of the way the game was designed. I think how weapons work in game can be designed better and relax the meta a bit. This suggestion is meant to be a better design for the way weapons work. And I think it could work without being too disruptive to the current game.

As to this leading to the difference between weapons being in name only, I think you’re giving in to the slippery slope fallacy a little too much. It does not follow that this suggestion will inevitably lead to weapons being different in name only. Giving people a little more breathing room in their weapons selection can (and I think should) be balanced with keeping weapons unique. I personally don’t see how this suggestion would lead to the extreme you’re claiming. But if you’re certain of this, then I think you need to offer a bit more reasoning to this thought. My question for you is, remembering that weapons would still have their own unique skills, would this make weapons too similar? If so how? What does “too similar” mean if this suggestion were implemented?

I can’t answer that without actual outputs from implemented changes but from a general point of view, I would consider LBow and GS to be too similar if LBow just did what GS does at a longer range. I don’t know if your suggested changes do that … likely not. But then, let’s not pretend you’re suggestion is based on dismantling meta builds if it doesn’t. I mean, to be frank, your thread title is massively misleading. Really, what you want is just some boosts to LBow. I don’t know why you’ve taken this route to suggest it.

Obtena.7952:

I can’t answer that without actual outputs from implemented changes but from a general point of view, I would consider LBow and GS to be too similar if LBow just did what GS does at a longer range. I don’t know if your suggested changes do that … likely not. But then, let’s not pretend you’re suggestion is based on dismantling meta builds if it doesn’t. I mean, to be frank, your thread title is massively misleading. Really, what you want is just some boosts to LBow. I don’t know why you’ve taken this route to suggest it.

In regards to the example of the Lbow doing what the GS does at a longer range, I just can’t see that being the case. Lbow would still have it’s unique weapon skills and GS would still have it’s own. For example, Lbow could not do a Whirlwind Attack for instance and GS would not do Arcing Arrow. In my view, those differences would make their performances quite different and not at all too similar.

This suggestion applies to more than just Lbow, even if that’s where the idea for this suggestion originated. Many classes are restricted to specific weapons based on which meta build they take. One only has to go to Metabattle to see this is the case. This suggestion should, in theory, lessen the restrictions on which weapon you take to high level content that usually requires a meta build.

I feel like this suggestion is entirely within the logic of it’s title. I’ve stated before that I’m not trying to dismantle meta builds altogether, that just isn’t possible. But, if balanced well while maintaining a high level of skill, people should be encouraged to use whatever build they want including weapon selection. The meta does exactly the opposite of this by encouraging restricted play. This suggestion does relax meta builds by not restricting what weapon one uses within their build while still getting the performance they’re looking for. In that way, this suggestion is based on dismantling the meta. This has been the intention of the suggestion from the beginning. So I can’t see how the route the title suggests is misleading.

Personally, I don’t think just having unique weapon skills is going to ensure that the weapons feel different enough to fool anyone in thinking they have meaningful choices for different builds, even if they do perform the same; people interested in performance will always find the one that performs the best, even if it’s only a few percent from the next lowest performing build.

The fact will always remain that this game is simply conceived as a DPS race with any opponent; you win by killing them first. The presence of a few different effects here or there will not change this. In the end, those effects are just flavour, but make no mistake, it’s the same meal. This is why no matter what you can conceive, the change will be insignificant unless encounters changes with it. I mean, you have a noble intentions, but both the class AND the encounters must change to widen player interests in non-meta builds.

Obtena.7952:

Personally, I don’t think just having unique weapon skills is going to ensure that the weapons feel different enough to fool anyone in thinking they have meaningful choices for different builds, even if they do perform the same; people interested in performance will always find the one that performs the best, even if it’s only a few percent from the next lowest performing build.

The fact will always remain that this game is simply conceived as a DPS race with any opponent; you win by killing them first. The presence of a few different effects here or there will not change this. In the end, those effects are just flavour, but make no mistake, it’s the same meal. This is why no matter what you can conceive, the change will be insignificant unless encounters changes with it. I mean, you have a noble intentions, but both the class AND the encounters must change to widen player interests in non-meta builds.

That’s very possible, but again I would say that a meaningless choice is better than no choice at all, which is one way the meta typically restricts players. The same meal with a variety of flavors is better than being forced to eat 1 specific meal.

Another question I have is, how do weapons feel different enough now? If the meta does not restrict us to use specific weapons and we really do have a meaningful choice as is, how so? What specific functionality are you talking about here?

I think I do agree that encounters must change alongside class, but if so then we may as well push for any change in that direction we can. I think this suggestion wouldn’t hurt the current game, it would give players more options even if they weren’t incredibly meaningful (not sure I agree on that part though), and it would make space for changing encounters. Thoughts?

ZacHank.1358:

Obtena.7952:

Personally, I don’t think just having unique weapon skills is going to ensure that the weapons feel different enough to fool anyone in thinking they have meaningful choices for different builds, even if they do perform the same; people interested in performance will always find the one that performs the best, even if it’s only a few percent from the next lowest performing build.

The fact will always remain that this game is simply conceived as a DPS race with any opponent; you win by killing them first. The presence of a few different effects here or there will not change this. In the end, those effects are just flavour, but make no mistake, it’s the same meal. This is why no matter what you can conceive, the change will be insignificant unless encounters changes with it. I mean, you have a noble intentions, but both the class AND the encounters must change to widen player interests in non-meta builds.

That’s very possible, but again I would say that a meaningless choice is better than no choice at all, which is one way the meta typically restricts players.

Sure, but that’s not true. We do have choice and even non-meta choices can be very close to performance you get with optimal builds. I can remember when metapushers would tell me Hammer Gaurdian was not good because it wasn’t meta … then they would present data that showed it was within a few percent of the meta build. That’s not unique to Guardian either. Many classes have a similar situation … so it’s not like we don’t have choice like you say.

So again, what is your purpose in this thread? I mean, if you want variety and performance that is within a reasonable range of the performance you get with the meta, we have it in most cases. Is it 100%? No, but to claim it is 0% is definitely not true. I know you don’t want to discuss meta but … you can’t avoid it if you want a variety of similar builds … we already have great variety in lots of crap builds …

I love reading amateurish game design ideas. Please continue this thread.

Obtena.7952:

Sure, but that’s not true. We do have choice and even non-meta choices can be very close to performance you get with optimal builds. I can remember when metapushers would tell me Hammer Gaurdian was not good because it wasn’t meta … then they would present data that showed it was within a few percent of the meta build. That’s not unique to Guardian either. Many classes have a similar situation … so it’s not like we don’t have choice like you say.

So again, what is your purpose in this thread? I mean, if you want variety and performance that is within a reasonable range of the performance you get with the meta, we have it in most cases. Is it 100%? No, but to claim it is 0% is definitely not true. I know you don’t want to discuss meta but … you can’t avoid it if you want a variety of similar builds … we already have great variety in lots of crap builds …

Yeah it’s not 0%, my example does imply that & that is incorrect, you’re right.

I’ll just focus on your specific critique of my idea. You say that “I don’t think just having unique weapon skills is going to ensure that the weapons feel different enough to fool anyone in thinking they have meaningful choices for different builds.” For me, with this suggestion, weapon choices would feel more meaningful in a variety of ways. I would think the choice would feel more meaningful from a role-playing standpoint (my guy looks and behaves the way I want him to), from a functional standpoint (I can do more with the specific choices I make), and from a variety standpoint (there is a little more wiggle room to accommodate a larger variety of play-styles). From my perspective, if this suggestion were implemented, I would not only have more options, but more meaningful options. If I want to compete on a top level as a warrior, for instance, my choice to play as a warrior feels more meaningful as I feel less restricted to play as a specific kind of warrior at that level or for that content. Even though the meta stays in a bunch of other ways, I would think this change would still make my choices more meaningful. This is the intended purpose of this thread.

First, even if you don’t agree, does that reasoning make some sense? Second, again in your view, how do weapons feel different enough now in a way that wouldn’t if this were implemented? If the meta does not restrict us to use specific weapons and we really do have a meaningful choice as is, how so? What specific functionality are you talking about here?

NikeEU.7690:

I love reading amateurish game design ideas. Please continue this thread.

Poe’s Law.

If you’re not going to offer a real critique then don’t bother posting, please. It simply serves as trolling &, from the high quality of your videos, the title of troll doesn’t suit you.

I really do wish for you to explain yourself though. What about this suggestion is amateurish? Do you see this as not working from a functionality standpoint? Would implementing this suggestion break something else in combat? Or perhaps you think ANet has done well in their combat design which has brought about ‘the meta’ and you don’t think the meta should be a lie? From your videos it’s very clear that the meta isn’t a lie (you make that argument very well) and it also seems likely you think the meta shouldn’t be a lie. Any further real critique (no flaming or trolling please) would sincerely be appreciated.

ZacHank.1358:

Obtena.7952:

Sure, but that’s not true. We do have choice and even non-meta choices can be very close to performance you get with optimal builds. I can remember when metapushers would tell me Hammer Gaurdian was not good because it wasn’t meta … then they would present data that showed it was within a few percent of the meta build. That’s not unique to Guardian either. Many classes have a similar situation … so it’s not like we don’t have choice like you say.

So again, what is your purpose in this thread? I mean, if you want variety and performance that is within a reasonable range of the performance you get with the meta, we have it in most cases. Is it 100%? No, but to claim it is 0% is definitely not true. I know you don’t want to discuss meta but … you can’t avoid it if you want a variety of similar builds … we already have great variety in lots of crap builds …

Yeah it’s not 0%, my example does imply that & that is incorrect, you’re right.

I’ll just focus on your specific critique of my idea. You say that “I don’t think just having unique weapon skills is going to ensure that the weapons feel different enough to fool anyone in thinking they have meaningful choices for different builds.” For me, with this suggestion, weapon choices would feel more meaningful in a variety of ways. I would think the choice would feel more meaningful from a role-playing standpoint (my guy looks and behaves the way I want him to), from a functional standpoint (I can do more with the specific choices I make), and from a variety standpoint (there is a little more wiggle room to accommodate a larger variety of play-styles). From my perspective, if this suggestion were implemented, I would not only have more options, but more meaningful options. If I want to compete on a top level as a warrior, for instance, my choice to play as a warrior feels more meaningful as I feel less restricted to play as a specific kind of warrior at that level or for that content. Even though the meta stays in a bunch of other ways, I would think this change would still make my choices more meaningful. This is the intended purpose of this thread.

First, even if you don’t agree, does that reasoning make some sense? Second, again in your view, how do weapons feel different enough now in a way that wouldn’t if this were implemented? If the meta does not restrict us to use specific weapons and we really do have a meaningful choice as is, how so? What specific functionality are you talking about here?

The problem with weapons is the simple approach of their basic design in the game. There are really just two main things that make a weapon feel different:

1. Application of damage – i.e., weapon is condi or direct damage
2. Range

Anything else, while it might have a practical difference, does not make the weapon feel different. For example, whether the weapon gives protection boon or apply vuln … it still feels the same. Whether it has AOE attacks or not, again, not much difference in feel. The two things I mentioned actually differentiate more than any other factors how you play your character when you equip weapons with those different flavours.

So when I see suggestions to give more power flavour to a condi weapon, or change range on something so it’s ‘useful’, I simply see that as a degradation of the fundamental parameters that give the weapon it’s feel ans style of play. I think your suggestion with might proc on LBow does this. Perhaps not completely to the point of making it the same as GS, but I think the goal should be to maintain the flavours weapons have, not push them to be all the same good one.

Frankly, I would rather see Lbow lose more of it’s power flavour and get many more conditions. I think that would be a really fun way to play the game … as a ranged condition user that could hold it’s own more than other ranged condi users.

Obtena.7952:

The problem with weapons is the simple approach of their basic design in the game. There are really just two main things that make a weapon feel different:

1. Application of damage – i.e., weapon is condi or direct damage
2. Range

Anything else, while it might have a practical difference, does not make the weapon feel different. For example, whether the weapon gives protection boon or apply vuln … it still feels the same. Whether it has AOE attacks or not, again, not much difference in feel. The two things I mentioned actually differentiate more than any other factors how you play your character when you equip weapons with those different flavours.

So when I see suggestions to give more power flavour to a condi weapon, or change range on something so it’s ‘useful’, I simply see that as a degradation of the fundamental parameters that give the weapon it’s feel ans style of play. I think your suggestion with might proc on LBow does this. Perhaps not completely to the point of making it the same as GS, but I think the goal should be to maintain the flavours weapons have, not push them to be all the same good one.

Frankly, I would rather see Lbow lose more of it’s power flavour and get many more conditions. I think that would be a really fun way to play the game … as a ranged condition user that could hold it’s own more than other ranged condi users.

I would add to your list of what makes a weapon feel different.

3: The weapons look and animations (size, appearance, what your character looks like while using it, etc. In this latter way GS feels like a very different weapon on a Guardian than on a Warrior).
4: Weapon specific skills (A GS whirlwind attack makes GS feel much different than a weapon that doesn’t have it, like LB) I’ll explain this a bit more in a second.

I think we should keep in mind that these are our own opinions, and I completely understand why you don’t include these things in how a weapon feels different, but I honestly do. Some may see it your way, others my way.

As to weapons changing to be too similar, I don’t think this would happen. The only thing this suggestion would do would take the mechanics from weapon traits that are currently in game and allow you to swap them around. For the LB, burning arrows currently only buffs the condi damage that is already there. The LB’s weapon skills themselves are what makes it a condi weapon (specifically Scorched Earth, Fan of Fire, & Pin Down). That would still be staying the same with this suggestion. This is a big reason why I think weapon skills really do make weapons feel different.

What would change with this suggestion is one could buff their weapon with whatever trait they want while using whatever build traits they want as well. So for LB, one could run Burning Arrows as it would be attached to the weapon itself and still run Empowered Allies. They could, if they wanted, run Forceful Longbow to maintain might. But since LB would still be a condi weapon, Burning Arrows would still be the best to run when using a LB as a warrior since it would still be a condi weapon.

So, you and I could both get what we want if this suggestion were implemented. You could get a bit more condi damage since you can run Burning Arrows and Empowered Allies at the same time and I would be able to maintain might with my LB in a power build. Flavors may differ a little, and someone who makes an unconventional choice (like I would) may have an better time in a high level group, but ultimately the meta would stay the same.

ZacHank.1358:

NikeEU.7690:

I love reading amateurish game design ideas. Please continue this thread.

Poe’s Law.

If you’re not going to offer a real critique then don’t bother posting, please. It simply serves as trolling &, from the high quality of your videos, the title of troll doesn’t suit you.

I really do wish for you to explain yourself though. What about this suggestion is amateurish? Do you see this as not working from a functionality standpoint? Would implementing this suggestion break something else in combat? Or perhaps you think ANet has done well in their combat design which has brought about ‘the meta’ and you don’t think the meta should be a lie? From your videos it’s very clear that the meta isn’t a lie (you make that argument very well) and it also seems likely you think the meta shouldn’t be a lie. Any further real critique (no flaming or trolling please) would sincerely be appreciated.

Overly complicated solutions to non-problems dont really require in depth critique. All I have to do, as others have already done, is to say the problem he is describing isn’t a problem and thus any solution is nonsensical.

The whole thread is stupid because the basic premise is “anet intended all traits and skills to be equally good.” For starters they didn’t. So any crazy conclusions to you draw from that premise are wrong. Any crazy solutions you come up with from those conclusions are wrong too.

NikeEU.7690:

Overly complicated solutions to non-problems dont really require in depth critique. All I have to do, as others have already done, is to say the problem he is describing isn’t a problem and thus any solution is nonsensical.

The whole thread is stupid because the basic premise is “anet intended all traits and skills to be equally good.” For starters they didn’t. So any crazy conclusions to you draw from that premise are wrong. Any crazy solutions you come up with from those conclusions are wrong too.

1st it is a real problem for those that see it that way, and I know I’m not the only one that sees it this way. If you like things the way they are, then of course you wouldn’t see a problem, but if that’s all your saying then simply leave it at that. It’s no use to convince me that a problem doesn’t exist, especially when I see one, if you don’t back up your claim.

2nd, this suggestion isn’t at all complicated. Simply allow players to select weapon enhancing build traits for whichever weapon they want. That’s a very simple concept and could be relatively simple to implement as Maddoctor suggested.

3rd, I said Anet intended all build traits to be equally viable/useful which I think is an important distinction from “good”. My evidence for this is simply that many different build traits exist. Why would Anet waste time, energy, resources, money, etc, programming Powerful Synergy if they never intended for people to use it. As it stands, and since Phalanx Strength is much better in almost all situations, people don’t ever use it. I think, since Anet put the resources into developing Powerful Synergy, they intended for people to use it. To expand this reasoning to all traits is a very logical step to make.

You make a lot of assumptions about this suggestion, which is understandable but if you’re going to offer a critique then you really should back up those assumptions with your reasoning, otherwise you’re just flaming (which really is beneath you). No matter how stupid you may find an idea, if you’re going to engage it, then you should make that critique seriously.

Hold on … you can claim problems are real for the people that play the game, but the practical reality is that it’s only the problems that ANET thinks exist that get fixed. That’s a universal MMO dev truth, not just unique to Anet. If you want to pontificate problems that only exist in players’ minds, then I see little point in doing so.

Nike is right. Anet never targeted ‘equal’ as a goal for anything, so appealing to arguments that we should have equivalent (within reason) but different feeling builds where equivalence isn’t a goal is a bit ‘so what’ … especially if we actually have it already. I still can’t quite figure out what you want accomplished in this thread, other than a very specific buff to Warrior LBow.

There always be meta where stakes are high, and in Fat Club they’re enormous.

Obtena.7952:

Hold on … you can claim problems are real for the people that play the game, but the practical reality is that it’s only the problems that ANET thinks exist that get fixed. That’s a universal MMO dev truth, not just unique to Anet. If you want to pontificate problems that only exist in players’ minds, then I see little point in doing so.

Nike is right. Anet never targeted ‘equal’ as a goal for anything, so appealing to arguments that we should have equivalent (within reason) but different feeling builds where equivalence isn’t a goal is a bit ‘so what’ … especially if we actually have it already. I still can’t quite figure out what you want accomplished in this thread, other than a very specific buff to Warrior LBow.

Hmm, good point on problems only getting fixed when Anet see’s it. Although I would say that this post could potentially bring this idea to their attention if they haven’t already considered it. I’m not trying to pontificate anything, I’ve tried to give full reasoning behind my suggestion and I don’t wish to be dogmatic about anything. In my view, this would only be a small improvement to an otherwise amazing game.

I would say that equivalence (or equitableness) really is a goal that Anet set and I think the reasoning I gave Nike about usefulness seems entirely logical to me. Could you address that argument specifically? I don’t really understand the conclusion that Anet never targeted equal usefulness of build traits as a goal. Specifically, if Anet never intended that all build traits be used/useful then why did they waste development time and resources on making those traits that are never used?

As to this being a suggestion meant only to give a very specific buff to Warrior, how is that the conclusion you’re drawing? With this suggestion Guardians could chill on crit with any weapon not just hammer; Necro’s could get increased condi damage with any weapon not just scepters; Mesmers could inflict cripple with any weapon not just GS, Warrior can gain burn damage with any weapon not just LB; Rangers could get pierce on any ranged weapon not just shortbow; etc etc etc. This suggestion is meant to allow players to select the trait buff they want to the weapon they want. There will still be optimal selections of course and weapons would remain unique in the way I described earlier, but players would get more of a choice then they have now. That is what I want accomplished with this suggestion. Does that still not make sense?