Guild Wars 2

Raine.1394:

When I look at spellbreaker I see fun. That said, I hate how they have done elite specs as it runs counter to every notion of build diversity I have ever held. Except for a couple niche applications of core builds anything “new” (elite/spec) will simply function as a new fotm build. Pretty much what you want to avoid in class and build balance, but it’s the path Anet has chosen. They often take the road less traveled, even if it’s a road less traveled for a very good reason.

I don’t think it’s a bad move. I just think they’re going too slow with their diversity. Basically, once every profession has 4-5 elite specs to choose from, that’s quite a bit of choices, skill varieties and ways to play the different game modes. It’s only “less diverse” if you feel it’s absolutely necessary that non-elite spec builds must remain as competitive in the various game modes as the optimal specs.

It’s some strange equality phenomenon that is spreading indiscriminately. Sure, it’s good to seek equality over the various professions, but within the profession? It’s not really necessary. Just because something isn’t optimal doesn’t mean it’s not viable. Choosing to be optimal is choosing to give up choice.

Leo G.4501:

Raine.1394:

When I look at spellbreaker I see fun. That said, I hate how they have done elite specs as it runs counter to every notion of build diversity I have ever held. Except for a couple niche applications of core builds anything “new” (elite/spec) will simply function as a new fotm build. Pretty much what you want to avoid in class and build balance, but it’s the path Anet has chosen. They often take the road less traveled, even if it’s a road less traveled for a very good reason.

I don’t think it’s a bad move. I just think they’re going too slow with their diversity. Basically, once every profession has 4-5 elite specs to choose from, that’s quite a bit of choices, skill varieties and ways to play the different game modes. It’s only “less diverse” if you feel it’s absolutely necessary that non-elite spec builds must remain as competitive in the various game modes as the optimal specs.

It’s some strange equality phenomenon that is spreading indiscriminately. Sure, it’s good to seek equality over the various professions, but within the profession? It’s not really necessary. Just because something isn’t optimal doesn’t mean it’s not viable. Choosing to be optimal is choosing to give up choice.

The problem with that last part is that in PvP if you’re not at least somewhat optimal you’re probably worthless because the optimal build tends to be far and away better than anything else. In PvE good luck running high level PvE content when the game wants you to be optimal as well. Wasn’t like this at the start but power creep has ruined that over the years.

There’s obviously always going to be a meta of some sort, but the problem GW2 has been having is that the meta is just so much better than the alternatives.

BurrTheKing.8571:

Leo G.4501:

Raine.1394:

When I look at spellbreaker I see fun. That said, I hate how they have done elite specs as it runs counter to every notion of build diversity I have ever held. Except for a couple niche applications of core builds anything “new” (elite/spec) will simply function as a new fotm build. Pretty much what you want to avoid in class and build balance, but it’s the path Anet has chosen. They often take the road less traveled, even if it’s a road less traveled for a very good reason.

I don’t think it’s a bad move. I just think they’re going too slow with their diversity. Basically, once every profession has 4-5 elite specs to choose from, that’s quite a bit of choices, skill varieties and ways to play the different game modes. It’s only “less diverse” if you feel it’s absolutely necessary that non-elite spec builds must remain as competitive in the various game modes as the optimal specs.

It’s some strange equality phenomenon that is spreading indiscriminately. Sure, it’s good to seek equality over the various professions, but within the profession? It’s not really necessary. Just because something isn’t optimal doesn’t mean it’s not viable. Choosing to be optimal is choosing to give up choice.

The problem with that last part is that in PvP if you’re not at least somewhat optimal you’re probably worthless because the optimal build tends to be far and away better than anything else. In PvE good luck running high level PvE content when the game wants you to be optimal as well. Wasn’t like this at the start but power creep has ruined that over the years.

There’s obviously always going to be a meta of some sort, but the problem GW2 has been having is that the meta is just so much better than the alternatives.

Then you can blame the players. Because I don’t believe, if you’re not optimal then you’re worthless. To me, that just feels like a horrible over-generalization. There’s nothing wrong with having weaknesses (in fact, I think it’s in everyone’s best interest that specs have weaknesses) and that’s the give-and-take that should occur, having a weakness usually means you have some degrees of strength.

Now if we’re willing to sacrifice choice for the most optimal strengths in a given environment where nothing tangible is on the line (we’re not talking about war, human welfare or money here), then who is limiting whom?

i would try to run a spellbreaker with some signets, those precisous seconds on unblockables really look sweet with those daggers xD

mXz.4512:

People getting hyped about the new expansion’s cool ‘n all, but no one needs to be making assumptions or making claims about what they think is true about how new exp mechanics are going to be before the game even releases. It’s virtually impossible to tell.
(time travel does not exist… yet.)

If time travel exists at any point in history, then it exists for all points in history.