Guild Wars 2

Introduction
When players brainstorm ideas on how to improve this game, the terms “active traits” versus “passive traits” come up frequently. In this thread, I hope to clarify what is meant by these terms as well as to make the case that adding more “active traits” in place of “passive traits” to the game will improve overall gameplay, build diversity, and player involvement.

This thread does not approach the subject of balance. Whatever the current meta may be, I intend for the move towards active traits to be no less relevant.

I have mained elementalist since launch, and so the majority of my examples will stem from the elementalist trait line. This is due solely to my familiarity with them; examples of active and passive traits can be found in the trait lines of all professions.

I have summarized the core of my argument in the following points:
• An active trait is one that requires direct player input in order to be utilized correctly. It influences a player’s behavior when in combat rather than simply influencing the build the player constructs out of combat.
• A passive trait is one that requires no direct player input in order to be used correctly. It in no way alters the player’s behavior, and it provides it maximum benefit regardless of the player’s actions.
• Active traits deepen the interactions between a player and their abilities, offering multiple options for similar roles and helping to dispel the notion of a “strictly superior” build for a given weaponset or role.
• Passive traits simplify the interactions between a player’s build and their playstyle, allowing the playerbase to agree upon a limited number of “best” builds for given roles.
• More active traits would deepen gameplay, broaden playstyles, and help to mitigate flavor-of-the-month (FOTM) builds.

Due to the limitations of the forum, I have linked the full article as a text file. I recommend pasting the text into a word document for improved readability. Large spaces have been added between sections for QOL.

If you are at all interested in this subject, I recommend you read the full article and post any question or comment you may have below. You are also encouraged to post your own take on active and passive traits.

Finally, many questions and concerns are answered in the article itself. I recommend you read at least the opening paragraph of each section before posting.

LordEarle.9754:

• Active traits deepen the interactions between a player and their abilities, offering multiple options for similar roles and helping to dispel the notion of a “strictly superior” build for a given weaponset or role.

Do you sincerely believe this to be true?

The formatting of that text document is hellish on my browser, I have to scroll along to read a line. Try adding more line breaks in.

Dirame.8521:

LordEarle.9754:

• Active traits deepen the interactions between a player and their abilities, offering multiple options for similar roles and helping to dispel the notion of a “strictly superior” build for a given weaponset or role.

Do you sincerely believe this to be true?

I know I do.

Ryld.1340:

Dirame.8521:

LordEarle.9754:

• Active traits deepen the interactions between a player and their abilities, offering multiple options for similar roles and helping to dispel the notion of a “strictly superior” build for a given weaponset or role.

Do you sincerely believe this to be true?

I know I do.

There’s is always going to be a superior build for a specific scenario. Even his examples of Altruistic vs Monk’s shows that.

Another example I’d throw out is Fresh Air. Superior for burst because most of the skills used in that combo are instant cast and on a very quick cooldown. Yes, the trait might be active but no other burst build for the ele can come close to it because of the way the skills function.

EDIT: Let me clarify my statement by saying that I do agree that traits should be made more active but I do not believe in the notion that active traits will instantly be the things that solve the problem of FOTM.

The one thing I disagree with is the idea that making more active traits would mitigate FOTM builds. People reroll to the FOTM build even if its “hard” to play, because they instantly assume that its easy to play, and therefore, even when they totally suck at it, they decide to play it anyway, without realizing how terrible they are.

Just because you make builds a bit harder to play through active traits, does not solve FOTM. FOTM will always and forever be an issue, there is quite literally not a thing you can do to solve it. Even if they reached perfect balance, there would still remain favorite builds that cycle through according to the game’s meta at the time, becoming FOTM according to the meta (like CC warriors became FOTM to deal with all the condi spam).

I guess no one is willing to read the long txt.

I highly suggest everyone reads it. Lordearle is highly intelligent and is one of the best eles in this game. I can completely 100% vouch for him and many others can too.

Oh god, this kitten again..

swiftpaw.6397:

Oh god, this kitten again..

It has nothing to do with class balance. It is just strictly about traits. This is somthing that anet should read and NEEDS to READ

kitten s.7421:

swiftpaw.6397:

Oh god, this kitten again..

It has nothing to do with class balance. It is just strictly about traits. This is somthing that anet should read and NEEDS to READ

Yeh, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone discuss active vs passive play at all.

swiftpaw.6397:

kitten s.7421:

swiftpaw.6397:

Oh god, this kitten again..

It has nothing to do with class balance. It is just strictly about traits. This is somthing that anet should read and NEEDS to READ

Yeh, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone discuss active vs passive play at all.

Then if you have nothing to contribute why post?

kitten s.7421:

swiftpaw.6397:

kitten s.7421:

swiftpaw.6397:

Oh god, this kitten again..

It has nothing to do with class balance. It is just strictly about traits. This is somthing that anet should read and NEEDS to READ

Yeh, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone discuss active vs passive play at all.

Then if you have nothing to contribute why post?

Because I can.

And here come the Ranger mains getting defensive about anything that addresses their class and its laughable state of cheesiness…

jmatb.6307:

And here come the Ranger mains getting defensive about anything that addresses their class and its laughable state of cheesiness…

Oooh! This is about rangers? Oh I how I do love those topics on here.

Well yeah if you know how to read and look at the OP’s post you see the definition of passive as being literally word for word, tooltip by tooltip, a description of the class that is universally despised in PvP known as the Ranger

jmatb.6307:

Well yeah if you know how to read and look at the OP’s post you see the definition of passive as being literally word for word, tooltip by tooltip, a description of the class that is universally despised in PvP known as the Ranger

Oh ok, I’ll just sit here quietly and wait for the ranger mains to show up. >_>

Stop derailing the thread! This isn’t about any class other then ele since it is being used as the sample. Stop the qq and please be constructive and pray with me that Anet sees this.

It looks like its about the game as a whole… and this swiftpaw troll is only here because she wants to troll any thread that talks about passive kitten

jmatb.6307:

It looks like its about the game as a whole… and this swiftpaw troll is only here because she wants to troll any thread that talks about passive kitten

and you completely enticed him.

jmatb.6307:

It looks like its about the game as a whole… and this swiftpaw troll is only here because she wants to troll any thread that talks about passive kitten

Yep, that’s me. I was sleeping nice and tight in a cocoon of blankies and fluffy cushions, but then alas! For woe is me, at 2:30AM my passive thread senses started tingling. I lept out of bed, hair flailing, clothes half falling off (oh my) and raced over to my desktop to rectify the issue.

Swiftpaw Sharpclaw, reporting for duty!

Not like this crap matters anyway, just like this game. Devs think Eles just two attunements and that Rangers can’t handle controlling their pets more than they already don’t, so you’ll see more passive kitten on every single class and then Guild Wars 2’s PvP slogan will be:

“So easy a caveman can do it!” kitten kitten

Excellent read. Very enlightening. I never actually took the time to think about the way traits in this game are designed, but I suspect that it is much easier for ANET to balance a game where there are fewer builds.

Back on topic. Let’s take a trait that passively increases your damage by 5% while wielding a certain weapon. That’s a boring, lackluster trait. Now let’s take a trait that increases your damage by the % of health you are missing while also increasing the damage you take by 20%. While in essence, that may seem like a passive trait because you don’t need to do anything to activate it, it is an active trait because it forces you to actively make decisions – do I want to stay at low health in order to do massive damage and risk dying? Or should I heal up so that I can continue dpsing with no bonus damage. Those kinds of traits make the game exciting and create unique styles of gameplay.

I support the addition of more active traits. Without a doubt, the addition of more active traits would increase build diversity and vary the gameplay between people of the same class quite considerably. It would also make people who like making new builds very happy.

The addition of more active traits would also raise the skill cap for classes as you would have to meet certain criteria in order to benefit from the active trait you have taken. I really, really like this idea because for starters, having more things that you can do within a given situation allows you to be creative and flexible with your skills. It also means that if you’re really proud of your build, people who haven’t played it as long as you have will not be nearly as good at it.

If my example of traits was terrible and I deserve to be smacked, it’s 4:30 am here. Cut me some slack, you get the gist of it.

Edit: I can also vouch for Lord Earle. He is very knowledgeable and is exceptionally good at playing the Elementalist class.

Dirame.8521:

Ryld.1340:

Dirame.8521:

LordEarle.9754:

• Active traits deepen the interactions between a player and their abilities, offering multiple options for similar roles and helping to dispel the notion of a “strictly superior” build for a given weaponset or role.

Do you sincerely believe this to be true?

I know I do.

There’s is always going to be a superior build for a specific scenario. Even his examples of Altruistic vs Monk’s shows that.

Another example I’d throw out is Fresh Air. Superior for burst because most of the skills used in that combo are instant cast and on a very quick cooldown. Yes, the trait might be active but no other burst build for the ele can come close to it because of the way the skills function.

EDIT: Let me clarify my statement by saying that I do agree that traits should be made more active but I do not believe in the notion that active traits will instantly be the things that solve the problem of FOTM.

I agree with you that some active traits will be better than others for particular scenarios, but this is exactly what allows them to produce build diversity. For example, imagine that a guardian had to fill every single one of his trait slots with either Monk’s Focus or Altruistic Healing. If he/she runs a build that could benefit from either, then there appears an entire spectrum of possible trait combinations depending on whether the guardian knows he/she will be in teamfights always, sometimes, or never.

Following this logic, the only time that an active trait can be said to be absolutely better than its alternatives is when the player knows beforehand exactly what situations he/she will face. This is the case with Fresh Air. Other elementalist builds can achieve bursts equaling or exceeding that of Fresh Air builds, but most of them require the elementalist to enter melee range of the target. In a meta involving copious amount of aoe, this playstyle will naturally fall out in favor of the ranged playstyle allowed by Fresh Air.

Therefore, while it is true that active traits do not guaruntee build diversity, they certainly help.

Concerning FOTM builds, I am not under the illusion that an increase in active traits would immediately banish all FOTM builds, but the removal of instant gratification would certainly help to mitigate the phenomena. A player that initially performs poorly with a FOTM build should be more likely to go back to playing what they like rather than playing what they think the meta demands of them. Still, human nature is strange, and I have no way of proving this assertion. In the end, you may be right.

I hope this helps to clarify my position, and as always thank you for your well thought out feedback.

Bump because the Devs need to read.

Totally agree in principle with the idea that Active Traits > Passive Traits from a design perspective. Part of the design issue in this game, however, is that it can be very difficult to classify certain traits as being passive vs. active.

Case in point: Evasive Arcana
Is it active when you Earth Attune, then roll a water field to get the heals? I think so. Is it passive when you just happen to need to dodge something? You bet.

In general, all of the “on-crit” and “on-dodge” traits contribute to the problem, not because they are necessarily “passive” all of the time, but more because they simply proc too often and too reliably. Traits should be redesigned to proc on successfully completing a complex action (like Persisting Flames which procs specifically when Blast Finishing Fire Fields only) rather than proc’ing when RNG grants a favorable roll, or when you press the dodge button.

By the way, Runes and Sigils also need improvement by the same logic.

Fresh Air is no more “active” then the Alacrity traits which are clearly passive benefit.
Arcana isn’t an active trait line because it reduces attunement cooldowns which is functionally the same as a crit recharging your air cooldown, it is still passive, the passive allows you to make an active decision but the trait is 100% passive
Stone shards isn’t more “active” then executioner which again, these are all passives which affect active decisions.
Dagger training? Passive, affects your active decisions, your dagger hits are stronger, that headshot you threw out is not, either way to reap benefit you need to use a dagger skill but it very passive.

Mug, turns Steal into an attack, completely active.

There is an exaggeration of passive vs active by the community.
It’s not really a big deal, and it doesn’t stifle build variety either.

“Passive traits simplify the interactions between a player’s build and their playstyle, allowing the playerbase to agree upon a limited number of “best” builds for given roles. This is due to the fact that—unlike active traits, which can have a range of effects depending on a player’s actions—passive traits provide a flat benefit to the player that can be compared to other traits in numb, mathematical terms.”

That isn’t real tea.
It doesn’t matter whether it is passive or active that changes build variety, it’s upon what the trait is doing itself.
Auto immune defense is passive, tempest defense is passive, Last stance is passive, but all of these passives can change a match-up or be rendered in-effective by other builds.
Since the passives themselves can be played around they are just as valid for “build diversity”.
HgH is an active trait for passive benefit.
On-crit procs or on-hit procs come off as an oddity because there is no consistency to them they proc when they want, they don’t hurt build diversity, they’re frustrating to play against.

If a trait is created, “you deal 30% less damage but 60% more damage with auto attacks.” It’s still passive, but the trade-off will likely change how you play by shifting more focus to your auto attack. This doesn’t require direct input, it’s the same thing as normal except one thing does more damage and everything else does less. If I put this on a melee character however, suddenly many of my abilities go from my “damage dealers” to straight utility.

tl;dr Passive vs active doesn’t matter. What does matter is what the trait actually does. It’s fairly off for players to hold the amount of passive traits on the devs, when traits being passive isn’t an inherit issue in the slightest.

I’ll add something productive, even though Anet is not going to do a revamp of traits just because people don’t like passives. They are in “shaving” mode right now – they don’t want to do wholesale changes.

Anyway, here are some ideas of traits that would promote more intelligent play than what we have.

- Replacing flat cooldown reduction traits with those that recharge key skills on successful execution of another.

For example, Whirling Wrath recharges upon a successful Leap of Faith but Whirling Wrath gets a longer CD so it has an impact.

- Replacing on crit effects with guaranteed crits when specific conditions are met. Hidden Killer is a great example of this, and you could do that with every class. If you’re investing in crit damage you want to end fights fast, and these traits would let you do that at the risk of missing them, which dodging provides.

- Successful executed skill creates enhanced next series of attacks. Ex. Eviscerate creates 5 vulnerability on the next three successful attacks. Updraft creates 2s weakness on the next three successful attacks.

- Sigils can be passive, but only in a limited way.

I’ll update later

LordEarle, thank you very much for this thoughtful and very well-explained post. I personally very much agree with you, regardless of how strong some traits can be. I also agree there is a very grey line as to what is active vs. passive.

Take the trait, elemental attunement (gain a boon each time you swap in a small aoe radius). This is a passive trait at low-levels of play when players just cycle through their attunements and keep a lot of boons up that help them stay up and do more damage. However, when the boons are strong/useful (protection, or swiftness in wvw), it adds a whole extra level of play that can be realized (save the earth-swap to counter imminent burst, swap attunement right before churning earth pops to get fury, etc). This added complexity is fun because if improves fight diversity and gives players an opportunity to grow. A good ele is more thoughtful about when they swap, whereas a bad ele just go through rotations.

Also, active traits are just MORE FUN. While I do take the +10% damage within 600 range trait when I d/d, I hate taking it because it is so boring. It is much more fun to have a trait that DOES something and opens up new opportunities for creative use – as with rock solid. I am still working on using this trait to maximum effectiveness b/c of the trade-off possibilities it provides, but it adds a whole extra layer to the skill-cap for me to continue working towards.

bumping. this needs to stay on the first page for the foreseeable future.

also, re: passive v active classification I would categorize as such:

passive = effects or augmentations to a character’s functionality outside of player control and irrespective of any particular skill, group of skills, or class mechanic – largely involving RNG, such as: on-hit procs, on-crit procs, at % HP procs, when CC’d procs, etc.

active = additional effects or augmentations to skills, groups of skills, or class mechanics requiring player input/initiation, such as: CD reductions, area of effect increases, rewarding successful skill combinations (not enough of these IMO), on dodge, on use of skill mechanic, etc.

we all know this is bad concept and with the number of active skills in GW2 compared to other MMOs, its just over the top.. only one who dont know it are devs, or they act as they dont at least…

MaXi.3642:

we all know this is bad concept and with the number of active skills in GW2 compared to other MMOs, its just over the top.. only one who dont know it are devs, or they act as they dont at least…

WoW initially had way more passive crap. I think they consolidated their traits over time though, and now you are left with 1 choice of skill every so often.
I talk a little bit more about it below.

How Do Active Traits Improve Build Diversity?
Active traits deepen the interactions between a player and their abilities, offering multiple options for similar roles and helping to dispel the notion of a “strictly superior” build for a given weaponset or role.

In my understanding, passive traits most often define this “role” you are talking about (more accurately, define in what proportions you are doing what “role”).

You say “active = options for roles”, and I would add: “passives + commitment to a trait line + choice of weapon = definition of role”. The role must be defined somehow.

Or to be clear, there are two levels:
- Building your character, selecting skills, equipment, runes, etc. – the macro (mostly passive),
- Playing and reacting – the micro (mostly active)

E.g.:
Passive trait “Metal plating” that makes turrest more resistant.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Metal_Plating
Passive trait “Autotool” that heals turrets.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Autotool_Installation
Already you are committing your character to be more static with those choices, you are starting to define your role.

Ok, I quote this game too often (boooo!) but in WoW they’ve changed the game these days so that you just plainly and simply chose “a role”.
You litterally click a button and say: “I am a tank”, or “I am a DPS” or “I am a healer” and then you sprinkle some “active traits” on top.
This is the rawest expression of what you are describing here. You pick a role, and you select active traits on top to color/nuance this role.

Gw2 makes it in a more nuanced way by giving us trait lines, and a choice to commit deep or not to a trait line (which are often tied to 1 or 2 specific roles) – nuance not needed that much in WoW, as you pick one of the three roles of the trinity and fully commit to it, as people can “heal each other”, “tank for each other”.
In GW2 you generally need to be a bit of everything, in proportions suitable for your skill level and preferred playstyle (that’s the theory of course, but in practice it seems that in PvE everyone goes full-DPS for example).

Passive traits decide if you are more “tanky”, “dps”, “heal”, “roamer”, “support” or a mixture of this (depending on your choice of passive).
Many passive traits will influence the final build, choice of weapons, etc.

Perhaps we need a more “binary” approach to this problem (Wow-style) but I think I like (roughly) the way you can shape your character now with passive and active skills.

Next, let’s revisit the first passive traits we looked at: Burning Precision. In its current state, it does not encourage the player to make any decision in combat that they would make otherwise. […]
Consider what would happen if, instead of applying burning on a critical hit, the trait increased the elementalist’s chance to critically hit when attacking a burning target. Suddenly, the elementalist is rewarded for actively focusing burning targets and timing bursts when his/her target has the burning condition active. This requires conscious thought and should therefore now qualify as an active trait.

This is typically one of the traits that will be used at a macro/build level (not micro/skill level).
For example, you could then build for high crit to nearly ensure a burning and then use the ele Dagger 5 (burning ennemies take added damage)…
Or play with a guardian who use the trait +10% dmg against burning targets, and think that the trait will synergise with your team and give a globally higher uptime to burns, and thus improve the general DPS (after all burns stack in duration, so you just need to add a few seconds every now and then).

Maybe all the passive traits should have at least an active effect on them to offer more options? (e.g. “20% proc burn + 5% dmg against burning targets”)