A Better Approach to Trait Organization

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Choppy.4183

Choppy.4183

In another post, I proposed an approach to traits that’s described below. In retrospect, it deviates from the intention of that thread’s OP, so I’ve moved it here. I’ve obviously focused on warrior traits, but I think it’s a better conceptual approach for all classes.

I also think this is inline with what the game designers always intended, but various limitations, especially at game launch, forced them to muddle the concept a bit.

Anyway, I’m curious what other people think about it.

Strength: All things direct damage focused, including weapon traits for weapons with no real condi aspect. Can have traits that augment burst, but only with respect to direct damage.

Arms: All things condi related, including weapon traits with a primary condi focus. Can have traits that augment burst, but only with respect to condi damage.

Defense: All things related to going tank Can augment burst, but only with respect to personal survival. Shield trait stays here, obviously.

Tactics: All things related to team support, whether offensive, defensive, and healing buffs. Can augment burst, but only with respect to party buffing. Warhorn trait stays here, banner trait goes here too.

Discipline: Principally focused on optimizing the burst mechanic. While the other traitlines might have some traits that interact and improve the burst mechanic, this is where the best stuff would be. For example, Strength would keep Berserker Power, but Discipline would keep Heightened Focus, Burst Mastery, pick up Embrace the Pain (taken out of Cleansing Ire), a trait to increase Adrenaline gain on crit, etc., etc.

Berserker: Pretty much what it is now, largely (but not exclusively) focused on the Berserk state with paths focused on direct damage, another on condi, and the third on survival.

Also, I think Robert Gee’s concept of 3-paths in a traitline is fantastic, and it would be great to see that reflected in the other traitlines to the extent possible.

For example, Strength could have a path for raw damage buffs, another for crits, and a third for a few power burst and weapon traits. Discipline could have a path for augmenting bursts toward raw power, another for condi, and a third for survival. that sort of thing. Or, if that invades too much on the burst territory of the other lines, Adrenaline gain, Adrenaline conservation, and additional burst effects (like adding Taunt, Fear, etc).

Of course, the idea would be to make it so no traitline is mandatory, rather they just allow you to focus on different things. By not taking Discipline, you still have a powerful build with an ok to good burst, but you’ve specialized in other areas. You could skip Defense in favour of keeping yourself (and your allies) going through Tactics and maybe some of the survival traits in Berserker. You could go YOLO hybrid by taking Strength, Arms, and Berserker, or YOLO power by taking Strength, Discipline, and Berserker, YOLO condi by taking Arms, Discipline, and Berserker, supertank by going Defense, Tactics, and Discipline or Berserker, etc..

Does that sound appealing to anyone else?

I’m Biff Rangoon, and I approved this message.
Ehmry Bay | Omg Brb Icecream Truck (ICEE)

(edited by Choppy.4183)

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: perko.8309

perko.8309

What’s clear is that Warrior needs a scrub to bring back some trait line synergy. They intentionally scattered things all over to dismantle Hambow and still have some strange choices. What you outline here is certainly better than the as-is state. There may be times where the trade-offs on trait selection are tougher choices than desired. Right now, for ex, you can get some pretty good YOLO by combining the crits in Arms with the raw damage of Strength. I’m on board in general, but I like having parallel paths in the same trait line that focus on different things (like condi vs direct damage). So the part about 1 trait line being condi and another being direct is less appealing. Perhaps if you had the condi damage in one trait line, but then some complimentary condis in another (CC in Tactics, for ex) it would be even more appealing.

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Choppy.4183

Choppy.4183

I think Berserker provides this already… a bit of a wildcard that could be used for condi, direct damage, or survival. Which path you’d take would depend on your other trait choices and your objectives.

Spreading condis to Strength or direct damage buffs to Arms, I can’t see though… it would just feel like muddling up like we have now, spreading the relevant traits for a build across more than three traitlines.

I’m Biff Rangoon, and I approved this message.
Ehmry Bay | Omg Brb Icecream Truck (ICEE)

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: emkelly.2371

emkelly.2371

I’m that previous thrads op. I’m so glad you made your own thread, becuse i loved the concept.

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Magnussen.8732

Magnussen.8732

I like this idea. I’d like to suggest taking it even a step further:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/warrior/Problem-with-Warrior-in-5-words

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Cygnus.6903

Cygnus.6903

I think Berserker provides this already… a bit of a wildcard that could be used for condi, direct damage, or survival. Which path you’d take would depend on your other trait choices and your objectives.

Spreading condis to Strength or direct damage buffs to Arms, I can’t see though… it would just feel like muddling up like we have now, spreading the relevant traits for a build across more than three traitlines.

Your suggestion seems good.

A problem I see is that if every warrior line offers a ‘theme’, you can only take so many traits that benefit you. For example, if you put all condi traits into 1 line, you will lose out on a few traits simply because you have to pick another in that spot. At least now, you can arguably still get all the condi traits by picking ‘awkward’ traitlines. The over-discussed topic of Fast Hands baseline comes to mind here.

As of right now, the gank heavy class that is warrior can do just that reasonably well; ganking. If you take Str, Dis and Berserker, your damage is absolutely batpoop crazy right now.

Still, Anet should follow this topic closely.

I only state my opinion unless stated otherwise.
Hulk Roaming Montages/Build Vids
I always rage but never quit.

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Choppy.4183

Choppy.4183

A problem I see is that if every warrior line offers a ‘theme’, you can only take so many traits that benefit you. For example, if you put all condi traits into 1 line, you will lose out on a few traits simply because you have to pick another in that spot. At least now, you can arguably still get all the condi traits by picking ‘awkward’ traitlines. The over-discussed topic of Fast Hands baseline comes to mind here.

As of right now, the gank heavy class that is warrior can do just that reasonably well; ganking. If you take Str, Dis and Berserker, your damage is absolutely batpoop crazy right now.

Still, Anet should follow this topic closely.

On the issue of having to pass up core traits for your build (e.g. condi traits on a condi build) because they’re all located in one or two spots, I actually see that as a good thing.

One of the reasons Anet shifted to the current approach to traitlines was to make balancing easier than it was, and this would help with that. Warriors have too much condi pressure? Well, we know where to look for that… Arms and Berzerker. That sort of thing.

Besides, being able to take 12 full traits dedicated to condi (via Arms and Berserker), or direct damage, etc, is probably better than we have now anyway.

And, yes, additional attention would have to be paid to new combinations. For example, we shouldn’t want warriors that can one-shot opponents, especially at range, by way of some crazy new trait combo.

But here again, I think Anet’s current approach to traits (three full lines, rather than trait points) makes balancing way easier than it used to be under the trait-point system. Failing that, the skills that are disproportionately benefiting from a particular trait combo could always be adjusted (e.g. Kill Shot on a full YOLO setup).

That’s the intent here… to set up clear roles for each traitline that corresponds to a major plank in a given build so better support build synergy, player options, and maintaining balance for the good of the game.

I’m Biff Rangoon, and I approved this message.
Ehmry Bay | Omg Brb Icecream Truck (ICEE)

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Cygnus.6903

Cygnus.6903

On the issue of having to pass up core traits for your build (e.g. condi traits on a condi build) because they’re all located in one or two spots, I actually see that as a good thing.

One of the reasons Anet shifted to the current approach to traitlines was to make balancing easier than it was, and this would help with that. Warriors have too much condi pressure? Well, we know where to look for that… Arms and Berzerker. That sort of thing.

Besides, being able to take 12 full traits dedicated to condi (via Arms and Berserker), or direct damage, etc, is probably better than we have now anyway.

And, yes, additional attention would have to be paid to new combinations. For example, we shouldn’t want warriors that can one-shot opponents, especially at range, by way of some crazy new trait combo.

But here again, I think Anet’s current approach to traits (three full lines, rather than trait points) makes balancing way easier than it used to be under the trait-point system. Failing that, the skills that are disproportionately benefiting from a particular trait combo could always be adjusted (e.g. Kill Shot on a full YOLO setup).

That’s the intent here… to set up clear roles for each traitline that corresponds to a major plank in a given build so better support build synergy, player options, and maintaining balance for the good of the game.

Well, havign to pick between traits that would fit your build really well is not what other classes have to do right now. The amount of synergy I can get between traits on my Revenant or Guardian is nuts and I find myself giggling over some new synergy that I discover a lot these days.

Warrior just does not seem smooth in that sense.

Like I said in Magnuss’ topic, I think you guys are on to something here. The three choices per traitline seems the way to go to me.

I only state my opinion unless stated otherwise.
Hulk Roaming Montages/Build Vids
I always rage but never quit.

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: emkelly.2371

emkelly.2371

I aspired to a different philosophy. in my opinion every trait line should incorporate your unique talent. Every other class has this in some form or another. The ones the warrior has do not have synergy and often are counter intuitive. In my thread i tried to redesign Warrior around this ideal. in order to allow the warrior to work more effectively regardless of their build. I also tried to give specific examples by comparing the abilities to abilities on the wiki.

I agree with the ideas in this thread though. they are not so much opposed, but couple of ideas that would work well when mixed together.

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Henry.5713

Henry.5713

Kind of wondering why this hasn’t happened already. Would fit the simple and beginner friendly design idea ArenaNet keeps talking about.
They could finally change stuff like having to pick between Berserker’s Power and Axe Mastery or Merciless Hammer and Burst Mastery.
Those balance changes feel completely outdated now. Back from an acient time when anything but Shoutbow was being played.

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Arcade.8901

Arcade.8901

Kind of wondering why this hasn’t happened already. Would fit the simple and beginner friendly design idea ArenaNet keeps talking about.
They could finally change stuff like having to pick between Berserker’s Power and Axe Mastery or Merciless Hammer and Burst Mastery.
Those balance changes feel completely outdated now. Back from an acient time when anything but Shoutbow was being played.

Because all of that takes developers time and testing. Currently while our trait lines should get a massive shake i hope it won’t happen since, it’s easier for Anet to redesign Berserk in terms of up to date needs rather waiting 6 month + for massive trees rework…

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Choppy.4183

Choppy.4183

Kind of wondering why this hasn’t happened already. Would fit the simple and beginner friendly design idea ArenaNet keeps talking about.
They could finally change stuff like having to pick between Berserker’s Power and Axe Mastery or Merciless Hammer and Burst Mastery.
Those balance changes feel completely outdated now. Back from an acient time when anything but Shoutbow was being played.

Because all of that takes developers time and testing. Currently while our trait lines should get a massive shake i hope it won’t happen since, it’s easier for Anet to redesign Berserk in terms of up to date needs rather waiting 6 month + for massive trees rework…

Agreed. I presume there are a lot of things competing for the designers’ and developers’ time. Plus, it’s easier for someone like me to say, “traits should be overhauled to do _” than to actually do it. Plus, everyone’s got an opinion and then they have that multiplied across all classes.

As to why it wasn’t done before, I think this is well within the concept the designers had in mind, but they probably didn’t know exactly how they’re game was going to evolve at launch, the original trait system had aspects that got in the way of this sort of approach, etc, etc.

@Cygnus
You’ve mentioned Fast Hands a couple of times and I haven’t responded to it. It’s a tough one for the kind of model I’m proposing because i’t’s a general sort of trait that fits for any kind of build, so the question is where to put it. Warrior Sprint is kind of like this too, but less so.

I’ve been a long and vocal proponent of making Fast Hands baseline for warrior. If that’s not an option for some reason, then it presents a challenge to what I’m proposing in that at least one of the goals is to make it so no traitline is mandatory (and Fast Hands feels like it’s doing that now).

In that case, I’d probably favour scrapping the trait altogether but making changes to warrior weapon cooldowns and weapon skill effects to make camping one weapon for a full 10s more viable. I’d also go back to the days when we didn’t lose adrenaline if a burst doesn’t hit or make building up adrenaline way faster too.

I’m Biff Rangoon, and I approved this message.
Ehmry Bay | Omg Brb Icecream Truck (ICEE)

(edited by Choppy.4183)

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Henry.5713

Henry.5713

Kind of wondering why this hasn’t happened already. Would fit the simple and beginner friendly design idea ArenaNet keeps talking about.
They could finally change stuff like having to pick between Berserker’s Power and Axe Mastery or Merciless Hammer and Burst Mastery.
Those balance changes feel completely outdated now. Back from an acient time when anything but Shoutbow was being played.

Because all of that takes developers time and testing. Currently while our trait lines should get a massive shake i hope it won’t happen since, it’s easier for Anet to redesign Berserk in terms of up to date needs rather waiting 6 month + for massive trees rework…

Not the biggest fan of only giving Berserker everything it needs to compete with other professions (which quite frankly is a lot). The state of the basic Warrior wasn’t that great long before HoT launched.

I’d much rather have a good trait clean up, changes to utilities, weapons and some fresh ideas.

How about:
-A shield based trait to change basic dodge into a block ability, synergizing with block based traits and runes.

-Some taunt utility skill. (Seemed obvious ever since taunt was introduced. Might just be me, though…)

-The ability to carry three different sets of weapons (Yes, I know what you are thinking).

- Rework to turn stances into passive buffs to swap between, depending on the situation.

- And the dream: baseline Fast Hands.

You are right, though. These would require a lot of testing, balancing and many ressources dedicated to them. Probably far from being a priority.
Necromancers are a good example. Some might remember the huge list of buffs and changes from a while back. It took what felt like forever and they were in a worse state than Warriors are right now.

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Choppy.4183

Choppy.4183

As an amendment to my original post, what do people think about dropping weapon specific traits altogether? Someone, I can’t remember who, suggested this ages ago, replacing these traits with more generic status effects to weapon attacks.

An obvious example that people have called for is making the might stacking of Forceful Greatsword apply to all weapons. But we could take the concept further, like adding or boosting various conditions and buffs without naming the weapon.

Weapons would retain their core attacks but, in this way, someone could trait to make any weapon a halfway decent damage, condi, hybrid, or (soft) cc weapon, recognizing that some weapons would be naturally better for a particular role than others.

Weapons with lots of iterative attacks (gs, offhand axe) would be better for effect on hit or crit, weapon with lots of hard cc (mace, hammer) would be better for effects triggered by landing hard cc, dedicated ranged weapons would be better for effects tied to ranged attacks, etc.

The rationale for this approach is much clearer for warrior than any other class – we have so many weapons to choose from, slotting weapon traits in a way that doesn’t create conflict is nearly impossible. Taking this approach, players select the effects they like and have them interact with any weapons they choose to equip.

Leg Specialist is an example of a trait that takes this sort of approach.

Thoughts?

I’m Biff Rangoon, and I approved this message.
Ehmry Bay | Omg Brb Icecream Truck (ICEE)

(edited by Choppy.4183)

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Jzaku.9765

Jzaku.9765

As an amendment to my original post, what do people think about dropping weapon specific traits altogether? Someone, I can’t remember who, suggested this ages ago, replacing these traits with more generic status effects to weapon attacks.

An obvious example that people have called for is making the might stacking of Forceful Greatsword apply to all weapons. But we could take the concept further, like adding or boosting various conditions and buffs without naming the weapon.

Weapons would retain their core attacks but, in this way, someone could trait to make any weapon a halfway decent damage, condi, hybrid, or (soft) cc weapon, recognizing that some weapons would be naturally better for a particular role than others.

Weapons with lots of iterative attacks (gs, offhand axe) would be better for effect on hit or crit, weapon with lots of hard cc (mace, hammer) would be better for effects triggered by landing hard cc, dedicated ranged weapons would be better for effects tied to ranged attacks, etc.

The rationale for this approach is much clearer for warrior than any other class – we have so many weapons to choose from, slotting weapon traits in a way that doesn’t create conflict is nearly impossible. Taking this approach, players select the effects they like and have them interact with any weapons they choose to equip.

Leg Specialist is an example of a trait that takes this sort of approach.

Thoughts?

I definitely agree with taking another look at our large number of weapon-specific traits cluttering up our traitlines. If you don’t use that particular weapon, the trait is completely dead to you most of the time and it’s a contributing fact towards our bad build diversity.

I was thinking about how about making all traits like Shield Master, in that it’s still a “weapon-specific trait” with the associated cooldown reduction, but can benefit numerous other weapons as well? You might consider taking shield master anyway if you were running a condi build with say, MH Mace + OH Sword. The easy example would be like you said, Forceful Greatsword affecting all weapons. How about stuff like:

Crack Shot: Rifle skills -20% CD and pierce, Stunning/KD/Launching a Foe makes your next attack unblockable?
Axe Mastery: Literally just combined with Furious thanks
Burning Arrows: LB skills -20% CD and auto burns, Leap/Blast/Whirl finishers grant 2 stacks of might to all nearby allies

Just stuff like that to make you stop and consider the trait even if you weren’t running that weapon.

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Cygnus.6903

Cygnus.6903

As an amendment to my original post, what do people think about dropping weapon specific traits altogether? Someone, I can’t remember who, suggested this ages ago, replacing these traits with more generic status effects to weapon attacks.

An obvious example that people have called for is making the might stacking of Forceful Greatsword apply to all weapons. But we could take the concept further, like adding or boosting various conditions and buffs without naming the weapon.

Weapons would retain their core attacks but, in this way, someone could trait to make any weapon a halfway decent damage, condi, hybrid, or (soft) cc weapon, recognizing that some weapons would be naturally better for a particular role than others.

Weapons with lots of iterative attacks (gs, offhand axe) would be better for effect on hit or crit, weapon with lots of hard cc (mace, hammer) would be better for effects triggered by landing hard cc, dedicated ranged weapons would be better for effects tied to ranged attacks, etc.

The rationale for this approach is much clearer for warrior than any other class – we have so many weapons to choose from, slotting weapon traits in a way that doesn’t create conflict is nearly impossible. Taking this approach, players select the effects they like and have them interact with any weapons they choose to equip.

Leg Specialist is an example of a trait that takes this sort of approach.

Thoughts?

This is a good idea. Perhaps though, we should have both. I’ve Always been a fan of traits that allow me to boost specific weapons, although some of these traits are designed and allocated way better then others, with Forceful GS simply being overpowered af.

For instance, getting might on a critical hit is good enough for a GM trait. Take it out of Forceful GS, but let that trait exist for the people that do want to use GS (to increase dmg and reduce it’s cooldowns).

Another example, Blademaster. Take out the increased crit chance against bleeding foes, which is surely enough for a Master trait on it’s own, and let the cooldown reduction remain for sword (maybe add another effect on crit for sword to the trait to make it comparable to Forceful GS).

You would have to find additional space for these traits, but think of the possibilities it would open up.

I think these changes are completely in line with traits I see for other classes (stuff like getting torment on crits, applying might to yourself and others when getting a boon, etc.). These traits do not discriminate and can thus be used for any weapon set.

I only state my opinion unless stated otherwise.
Hulk Roaming Montages/Build Vids
I always rage but never quit.

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: GenoGar.5497

GenoGar.5497

As an amendment to my original post, what do people think about dropping weapon specific traits altogether? Someone, I can’t remember who, suggested this ages ago, replacing these traits with more generic status effects to weapon attacks.

An obvious example that people have called for is making the might stacking of Forceful Greatsword apply to all weapons. But we could take the concept further, like adding or boosting various conditions and buffs without naming the weapon.

Weapons would retain their core attacks but, in this way, someone could trait to make any weapon a halfway decent damage, condi, hybrid, or (soft) cc weapon, recognizing that some weapons would be naturally better for a particular role than others.

Weapons with lots of iterative attacks (gs, offhand axe) would be better for effect on hit or crit, weapon with lots of hard cc (mace, hammer) would be better for effects triggered by landing hard cc, dedicated ranged weapons would be better for effects tied to ranged attacks, etc.

The rationale for this approach is much clearer for warrior than any other class – we have so many weapons to choose from, slotting weapon traits in a way that doesn’t create conflict is nearly impossible. Taking this approach, players select the effects they like and have them interact with any weapons they choose to equip.

Leg Specialist is an example of a trait that takes this sort of approach.

Thoughts?

I do like the idea. Weapon specific traits are way too conditional for a class that is all about the variety. The worst case is when the weapon itself is pretty terrible without the matching trait to make it good (Forceful Greatsword being the most egregious example).

The problem with taking out weapon specific traits is that you need to rebalance the weapons that depended on that trait. Without FGS, GS will probably not see too much play since Axe/Axe can achieve the same effect that PS GS achieves (if it had the might on crit effect) with a much much better auto attack and overall more forgiving skill application (because kitten HB channel) and a more convenient vulnerability stacker. You would have to make GS way better to balance it against other better weapons. Hammer GM would make GreatAxe pretty stupid. Some traits plain don’t translate well at all like Longbow or Rifle trait.

It would probably be best to take the Guardian approach where the weapon trait is not a super big difference maker. You can still use Hammer, Scepter, Sword, Mace, Shield, Focus, and Staff to great effect without the specific trait that makes it better. GS has a small case to be made. I think this is true because there are so many traits that compliments the Guardian that affect multiple weapons. Things like burning related traits, stat and damage modifiers that aren’t weapon specific but strewn across entire categories of weapons (Right-Hand Strength, old Two-Handed Mastery), or straight up buffs to the base class (Virtues line).

A Better Approach to Trait Organization

in Warrior

Posted by: Choppy.4183

Choppy.4183

I do like the idea. Weapon specific traits are way too conditional for a class that is all about the variety. The worst case is when the weapon itself is pretty terrible without the matching trait to make it good (Forceful Greatsword being the most egregious example).

The problem with taking out weapon specific traits is that you need to rebalance the weapons that depended on that trait. Without FGS, GS will probably not see too much play since Axe/Axe can achieve the same effect that PS GS achieves (if it had the might on crit effect) with a much much better auto attack and overall more forgiving skill application (because kitten HB channel) and a more convenient vulnerability stacker. You would have to make GS way better to balance it against other better weapons. Hammer GM would make GreatAxe pretty stupid. Some traits plain don’t translate well at all like Longbow or Rifle trait.

It would probably be best to take the Guardian approach where the weapon trait is not a super big difference maker. You can still use Hammer, Scepter, Sword, Mace, Shield, Focus, and Staff to great effect without the specific trait that makes it better. GS has a small case to be made. I think this is true because there are so many traits that compliments the Guardian that affect multiple weapons. Things like burning related traits, stat and damage modifiers that aren’t weapon specific but strewn across entire categories of weapons (Right-Hand Strength, old Two-Handed Mastery), or straight up buffs to the base class (Virtues line).

I don’t think balancing the weapons would be that complicated, tbh.

First, look to the cooldowns. If the traits continue to exist but spread the non cooldown bonuses to any weapon slotted, the first thing to look at is the loss of cooldown reduction. I’ve noticed weapon cooldowns getting shorter overall, so determining whether to apply a blanket a -20% on all (or some) weapon skills or to leave them as is would be the first step.

Second, some thought should be given to the role a given weapon should have, if any. Meaning, should axe be the raw damage dealer, gs the damage and mobility weapon, mace the cc and vulnerability weapon, etc., of should we make them fairly generic so it’s just down to personal taste? I prefer the “role approach” personally.

Third, it’s a matter of looking at how the different weapon skills could/would interact with the specific traits available. We can’t really do that in advance of actually mapping out those traits. Assuming we knew what the proposed traits would do, then we’d look for any overpowered trait-weapon combos and decide whether to address the trait or the specific weapon skill interacting with it.

Seems like a pretty methodical straightforward process to me.

I’m Biff Rangoon, and I approved this message.
Ehmry Bay | Omg Brb Icecream Truck (ICEE)