(edited by Koppartikus.2396)
Showing Posts For Koppartikus.2396:
The Gauntlet
Second on my list is the Gauntlet – an awesome idea that seems to be rushed out and not tested enough for polish. The gauntlet mainly suffers from the following issues:
- Incentive to experiment with builds/consumables, but no easy way to obtain consumables due to lack of black lion trader available in the instance
- Domed arena with textured floor grating creates issues in seeing AoE circles and camera faux pas near the edges that create a more frustrating than challenging experience for the more advanced fights
- The requirement for tickets means you need to acquire them through other means (which in this scenario becomes a mindless grindfest with the zerg below)
- Instancing this with the PVE content creates performance and latency issues that are difficult to alleviate given the format of the area
- The “double whammy” of a repair bill and a waypoint fee every time you lose seems unnecesary and is counter-intuitive to what the arena promotes: repeated tries for eventual success
- Difficulty gap of certain gambit achievements between professions
A lot of these (controls aside- I’m still not sure why our tab targeting and target clearing is so bulky and awful compared to other MMOs, but that’s for a separate discussion) I feel could have been polished or addressed if there was a bit more time in testing. I feel like the gauntlet is a great step in a new direction for more diverse and challenging game content, but the delivery and lack of foresight from the design team makes this more of a frustrating experience than a memorable one.
World Content
I’m particularly a fan of content that forces me to go out into the world and explore a bit. It’s fun mainly because it ends up creating its own adventures as you go to complete a more lengthy objective, and can lead to some fun and interesting times with friends.
The content provided to assist the balloon pilots seemed to be out of a book from a more traditional MMO – you’re tasked to do something simple and as a reward you get some leveled loot. Rinse and repeat.
Now, while I’m not necessarily opposed to tasks like this, I feel like the reward could have been more interesting – perhaps an actual balloon ride? A vista to collect? There are a lot of things that could have been put in place here, but instead we get a very tired and monotonous means of collecting your 30 boxes of treasure and achievement.
Second, some of the champions are poorly designed – they either offer absolutely no challenge or are so flagrant in their use of abilities that it’s absolutely frustrating. CC centric champions were the worst in this regard, as going against either of the 2 champions solo was more often than not a lesson in frustration, even with substantial on demand stability.
Again, the lack of testing and polish tends to rear its ugly head when you realize how easily these things should have been identified and remediated.
Conclusion
To close, I’m concerned about this month’s content mostly because ArenaNet has been very good with design iteration and about taking the game in the right direction. To me, this month’s content is a step in the wrong direction in almost every way.
The one thing I enjoyed was the reintroduction of Rox (a favorite of mine) and Braham (who seems to be written much better this time around), and after groaning at the ridiculousness of the first portion of the opening ceremony ended up appreciating where our favorite duo could be taking things further this month.
To top it off, the story around the content itself is very bland – I know this is more of a subjective point (which is why it’s not listed above) but I really don’t care for human nonsense at all. The monarchy surrounding the humans and all of the pomp and circumstance around their perseverance is very bland and feels overly hokey. Again, compare to Bazaar of the Four Winds – night and day with regards to the level of interest it inspires. I found myself intrigued in not only the story behind the Zephyrites but the landscape of the bazaar itself.
I really want to see this content succeed, but I believe at this point it might be too late to salvage a lot of it. I just hope that ArenaNet can understand why this content is a step in the wrong direction for the game and look to avoid such mistakes in the future.
(edited by Koppartikus.2396)
ArenaNet Design Team,
I have to say that I’m incredibly disappointed with this month’s content, the Queen’s Jubilee. After the astounding content we had in July with the Bazaar of the Four Winds I’m surprised to see the same company put out such drastically different content that seems to go against a lot of what the design team as a whole tries to reinforce in this great game.
A few high level points on what I really dislike:
- Incentive for nothing but mindless zerging in a small instanced area that wreaks havoc on both game performance and fun
- A reasonably well designed arena-like activity is plagued by a mix of UI/control/camera issues, unreasonable restricted access and demoralizing punishments
- Generally uninteresting world objectives that can sometimes frustrate or bore the player
The Pavilion
The group PVE content is perhaps the most egregious portion of the content unveiled so far – let’s first go back to last month’s group PVE content to compare. In the Bazaar of the Four Winds, we had the following:
- Instanced PVE content
- Scaling content based on the amount of people in the group
- Tiers of difficulty for all levels of skill
While there were some nitpicks to be had, I would call this content a success overall – it hit a lot of population demographics that Guild Wars 2 likes to cater to and proved to be fun to try in different ways.
In the Queen’s Jubilee, all of what we learned was effective in July has been thrown out the window. We have the following instead:
- Non-instanced content that impairs game performance based on population density
- Reward structure that creates the incentive for mindless zergs to loot farm
This loot focused content is uninteresting and seems to go against what Guild Wars 2 tries to promote – fun first, loot second. I have no idea how this even got through stress testing prior to release, because even on better machines the performance hit is more than noticeable. Past that, you essentially can go semi-afk with a zerg focused build that reminded me strongly of the awful Orr bot farms that plagued us at the game’s initial release.
I would have loved to see a total of 6 instanced mini-dungeons that actually put you through a short but intense gauntlet of enemies and faced you off with each section’s boss at the end, giving each fight interesting mechanics for a group to tackle. This does the following:
- Promotes meaningful group play
- Provides dungeon-centric players an outlet in the new content
- Potential for content recycling via fractals if the content was a popular success
They could follow the typical dungeon mechanics and would ultimately be a fast paced, fun way to group with friends and complete content.
(edited by Koppartikus.2396)
I was more talking about the other heals for Warrior (Mending and Healing Surge). Taking into account the possible use of just using the active every time it’s up or just using the passive and not the active, I feel Healing Signet should be at least equal to the other two before traits. Taking Signet Mastery should just help the offensive build who uses the active more often, IMO.
I don’t believe that’s currently the case…and then you factor in Mending removing conditions, Healing Surge granting Adrenaline, and both synergizing well with on-heal traits/gear vs Healing Signet giving something up for that effect (namely, half of its effect).
I don’t think the skill needs a HUGE improvement, but a re-thinking and re-balancing might help it…for example, would it be easier to increase the active heal if said heal occurred over a period of time (such as Troll Unguent)?
Gotcha – I do agree that it’s a bit lackluster baseline and wouldn’t mind a bit of love here, but not such that it starts to fall out of line with some of the other signets I mentioned (as the skill seems to be modeled on that structure). Perhaps halving the passive when it’s activated instead of completely removing it? Probably a bit too powerful. I like your idea of making the heal a strong HoT over something like 4 or 5 seconds – meshes with the vibe of the skill pretty well.
I’d love to see the skill fill a niche for builds who want to leverage activating their heals as much as possible. we already have a strong tier 1 trait that would synergize well with this kind of gameplay (Restorative Strength) and coupled with Signet Mastery you have a 16 second heal that has a lot of flexibility in how you want to use it. This might also give less durable builds incentive to run it.
- The scaling on the ability’s passive effect is too low for the passive’s proc frequency
- The base value of the ability’s passive effect is subpar for the passive’s proc frequencyDon’t forget:
- Active is not in line with other healing active skills.
Actually, I believe the active is in line with the others. It’s in the middle of the pack with a 20s cooldown (Malice has 15, Restoration has 25) and all heal for ~3300 with a .5 Healing Power ratio.
I’m basing my information off of the wiki:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Signet_of_Malice
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Signet_of_Restoration
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Healing_Signet
If the information’s wrong in there I’ll retract my statement, but I’m pretty sure the active is fine. It’s the passive that’s not pulling its weight in builds it should support.
I’m not sure why this thread devolves into a “Warriors are awful at sPVP” conversation daily when the focus is supposed to be about improvements to a particular skill. One skill is not going to fix broader issues a profession might in a particular venue. If you wish to talk about Warrior viability in sPVP, please do it in another thread.
If anything, we should be asking the following:
- Do skills that serve a similar purpose for other professions (Signet of Malice for Thieves, Signet of Restoration for Elementalists) work as intended?
- If these skills are in a good place for these professions, what is it that makes them effective and desirable as an option?
To me, Healing Signet tends to falter in efficacy when compared to its cross-profession counterparts for two reasons:
- The scaling on the ability’s passive effect is too low for the passive’s proc frequency
- The base value of the ability’s passive effect is subpar for the passive’s proc frequency
Now, since Healing Signet’s goal is to provide consistent passive healing to the Warrior, the frequency shouldn’t really be touched (ticking every second seems more than fair for a regeneration ability); instead we should be looking at improving either its scaling, its base value, or both depending on the goal of the designers. Personally, I think both could use a boost but that the scaling should take priority here, as this skill is naturally suited towards more durable builds.
Well, he mentions a stun breaker for signets, not particularly for Healing Signet. If any signet gets a stun break it’ll be Dolyak’s, since it’s our defensive signet that provides stability – stun breaks tend to be paired with stability or inherently defensive abilities across the board when you look at the skills of all of the professions.
I’m still not sure how Jon thinks the ability scales well – as a rule its activated heal scaling is on par with similar abilities (Signet of Malice, Signet of Restoration) but the scaling on their passive abilities is significantly better than ours – .05 and .1 respectively, against .033. I think a coefficient between .05 and .08 would put it in line to scale reasonably well with considerable Healing Power. Perhaps he’s looking at the defensive Tactics based Cleric’s build as a whole (with Inspiring Banners or Vigorous Shouts) and not realizing that the bulk of the sustainability doesn’t come from the signet’s scaling but with the already substantial healing the spec itself gives.
Do Warriors need more stun breakers? I don’t think they do. And I don’t think we should just tack things onto Healing Signet that don’t fit with the design of the ability.
The main problem with Healing Signet is that the chief reason for using it doesn’t work because it can’t sustain less durable builds and isn’t worth it for more durable builds. Fixing the ability isn’t supposed to fix the class, it’s supposed to make the ability become a desirable option.
Is the Warrior suddenly overpowered if it has a stun break on a 16s cooldown WITH the talent and if the Healing Signet is chosen? Compare that to say Necro stun break (just for an example)…discuss
Also, I am pretty sure the opposite should happen…Healing Surge’s base value should probably be increased (240-260 HP/second range, rough numbers, can always tweak it) with healing contribution either remaining the same or slightly decreasing further as to not make it far too valuable with Cleric gear.
I’m still not sure why we’re talking about stun breaks. A stun break is not going to make people start using this ability. The main problem with the ability is that it does not heal for enough under the conditions where it’s supposed to shine – passive sustained healing.
My whole point is that people tend to kitchen sink buffs under the guise of meaningful improvements, and in most cases these buffs don’t really address the root cause of why the ability is lackluster in the first place.
I’m not saying that Healing Signet doesn’t need something extra, but I’m saying we should fix it first before trying to jump to ways to further improve it. It’s a healing skill, and it’s not healing for enough at level 80. The questions we should be asking are, “Why is it insufficient?”, and “Under what circumstances is it failing?” Once we understand this, we can begin addressing the problem correctly.
The suggestion of adding a stun break, in this example, answers neither.
Can we please get this topic back on the mark and talk about Healing Signet? The derailing’s gotten pretty out of hand.
The goal of Healing Signet is to have a means to provide substantial passive healing. This kind of healing is naturally suited towards sturdier builds where high levels of sustainable healing mesh well with the increased eHP durable builds provide.
To this effect, I’d like to see the scaling on Healing Signet improved such that those who are willing to build towards that sturdiness (and are willing to invest in Healing Power) should be rewarded with a skill that scales with the build appropriately. At this point, a coefficient of .033 is just too low to warrant an investment in Healing Power.
Some people have mentioned adding a stun break to the ability, but since this skill has a 16s cooldown when traited I don’t really think that’s the best idea. We already have several skills that break stun that tend to be on our bars as is (Shake It Off, Endure Pain, Balanced Stance, etc.)
I’m still not sure on how well the active should scale or be balanced – it should be low enough to encourage leaving the signed off cooldown to leverage the passive but not so low where activating it feels useless.
Why wouldn’t you think a stun break on the healing signer is a good idea..?
Thieves have their shadowstep/stun breaker from their sword on zero cooldown all the time and it stun breaks AND teleports you a limitless distance back if you anchor yourself somewhere.
Other classes have their stun break on their weapon skill which is instant and on demand with zero cooldown while you say healing signet shouldn’t get a stun breaker?
This is the reason warrior’s don’t get buffed. People are not fully away of what the other classes are capable of doing and thus always don’t encourage significant warrior buffs.
Because you don’t provide any substantial reasons as to why it should be attached to the skill other than “Well X profession has this so we want it too!”
Do Warriors need more stun breakers? I don’t think they do. And I don’t think we should just tack things onto Healing Signet that don’t fit with the design of the ability.
The main problem with Healing Signet is that the chief reason for using it doesn’t work because it can’t sustain less durable builds and isn’t worth it for more durable builds. Fixing the ability isn’t supposed to fix the class, it’s supposed to make the ability become a desirable option.
Can we please get this topic back on the mark and talk about Healing Signet? The derailing’s gotten pretty out of hand.
The goal of Healing Signet is to have a means to provide substantial passive healing. This kind of healing is naturally suited towards sturdier builds where high levels of sustainable healing mesh well with the increased eHP durable builds provide.
To this effect, I’d like to see the scaling on Healing Signet improved such that those who are willing to build towards that sturdiness (and are willing to invest in Healing Power) should be rewarded with a skill that scales with the build appropriately. At this point, a coefficient of .033 is just too low to warrant an investment in Healing Power.
Some people have mentioned adding a stun break to the ability, but since this skill has a 16s cooldown when traited I don’t really think that’s the best idea. We already have several skills that break stun that tend to be on our bars as is (Shake It Off, Endure Pain, Balanced Stance, etc.)
I’m still not sure on how well the active should scale or be balanced – it should be low enough to encourage leaving the signed off cooldown to leverage the passive but not so low where activating it feels useless.
I think the passive might need to come up in non-healing builds. If I run a clerics tactics build this signet can hold its weight, but it currently has NO place in a berserker build. Not sure it should be as viable in a seeker build, but it needs to see some play in soldiers, and certainly Valk and Shaman builds. Really signets are still going to have a hard time without a stun breaker (particularly in PvP and WvW). Obviously Dolyak signet is the most likely candidate here. Our next balance patch will absolutely be looking at stun breakers and spreading them out on all professions to make more categories of utilities viable. I’ll probably post this in general later as well but this was a larger balance pass and we will likely let this meta sit a bit longer than previous ones while we work towards taking time to push more less effective builds towards viable status.
Jon
Jon,
Thanks for your input, it’s good to hear that the signet is going to get a closer look by your team.
However, I respectfully disagree with your sentiments on what a player needs to do in order to make the signet effective in a build. I’ve leveraged the signet in a variety of builds and found that the signet tends to do well under the following conditions:
- Attached to a durable build
- Stacking other sources of health regeneration
- Signet trait synergy (optional)
Interestingly enough, Cleric’s gear is actually one of the worst ways to try to leverage the signet because the amount of healing per second you get from it is so small (at 1200 healing power you’re getting just under 40 HPS) that it’s not worth the stat contribution if you’re looking at the signet by itself. Mango Pies offer more than double this value on top of some vitality, and are easy to obtain. Stacking Adrenal Health on top of this allows a warrior to get a solid amount of HPS without any investment in healing power. In fact, warrior sustainability in its current state actually discourages the use of cleric’s gear due to the mechanics behind it.
One of the positives about this signet is that with Signet Mastery the cooldown is reduced to 16 seconds, which could offer a lot of interesting build options with runes/traits that proc via heal activation, but this works against the goal of the signet: delaying the use of the signet as long as possible so as to exploit it for its passive.
I feel that this signet gets little use past the initial leveling phases in part due to the way people build their warriors (where healing over time isn’t an effective form of healing for glass cannon or offensively focused builds) and the ways in which the signet conflicts with itself in its design (short CD, lackluster active, effectively non-scaling passive and poor scaling active). It has very specific niche uses at level 80 but in order to see more widespread use we need to see some tweaks in the signet itself and/or some additional trait support (the Elementalist trait where the passive still persist after the signet is activated would help out the signet immensely, as an example).
I purposely shied away from discussing Tactics traits that provide healing through shouts and banners because I don’t believe Healing Signet should be linked with them – of course if you run either trait it can help prop up Healing Signet, but the same can be said about Mending and Healing Surge, and I’m sure one could argue that the additional healing power actually helps out the other two skills more than it does Healing Signet.