Guild Wars 2

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Black Iris Flowers.3418:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Danikat.8537:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

A simple solution would be to release a GW2 app that you can monitor, play with, and feed Aurene on your smartphone.

If you have a smartphone…

Also release it as a browser mini-game so you can play at work?

I want whatever job you have where it’s okay to just kitten off and play games

Welcome to the US Government!

Can confirm, US Gov let’s you play games at work

Back on topic, I like the idea of a daily with Aurene, although I wouldn’t want it to be the way Smooth Penguin suggested. I’m not able to get on every day unfortunately.

That said, we do have additional things we can do with Aurene, namely the gifts we can give her after Crack in the Ice. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Precocious_Aurene_

reikken.4961:

for an option purely in game that you can grind all day any time, gathering is 15-20g/h iirc

From what you remember, is that gathering anywhere? Or specific routes? If the latter, do you have a guide handy at all?

reikken.4961:

swiping your credit card

lel

I have a few qualifiers for what I mean by best.

1: Must always be available – AB is great but can only be done every 2 hours. I’m looking for something that I can pick up whenever I feel like it.
2: Must be consistent – something that isn’t going to change week in week out.
3: Must be “safe” – I’m not a fan of risking gold to make gold, just don’t enjoy it much

I’m doing alright on gold (at 40g right now) and do AB and T4 Fractals from time to time to make my money and have some fun. I’ve seen a few gold making guides but all so far seem to be missing at least one of the criteria I’m looking for above. I’m not new to the game but still haven’t found anything that matches everything I’m looking for. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Frediosz.2718:

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

Well I’m not sure what Fat Club is, but yes there will always be a meta. I’ve admitted that multiple times now. Still, I think the suggestion is relevant to the meta in the way’s I’ve described throughout this thread.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

Seera.5916:

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.

Weapon skills will always be a part of a player’s build…

I’m getting lazy with my words. I meant take weapons skills off of their current build trees and put them in their own weapon specific trees as this thread suggests.

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.

Obtena.7952:

ZacHank.1358:

I’m a firm believer that Anet intended all build traits to be equally useful.

I don’t see anything ingame that makes me think this was Anet’s intention at all. It would be nice, but I don’t think there is some way to measure what ‘equally useful’ is or when it’s even achieved. I can see you put some thinking behind your ideas, but this assumption you have made means it’s all built on a faulty premise.

No, I think that if Anet intended all build traits to be equally useful, they would have went a completely different route for the first time they did the traits revamp. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that something like a take less damage when falling trait is no where near as useful as a damage increase or a runspeed trait, yet Anet left many of those things as is. Therefore …

I do believe that Anet made certain traits useful for SPECIFIC scenarios; so in that sense, damage when falling traits are good for JP’s. In that sense, Anet has already achieved what you think was intended, in a very limited sense.

Back to meta; it can never be a lie. It does exist, simply because of the way the encounters are designed. Even if you think there could be certain setups that are equivalent to each other, then you would just have many meta builds, not just one. But make no mistake, it’s still real.

The only way to ‘wreck’ meta is to have dynamic encounters where boss actions and parameters (e.g., immunities) change in real time, so that no player could anticipate the best way to defeat them. That has nothing to do with any parameter a player could choose; it’s entirely on encounter design.

I think what I meant by the title is that we should have as many meta builds as possible. From my perspective, what people call the ‘meta’ is a limited few builds, or just 1 single build, per class, or even limiting what classes people should use altogether. I think when people hear meta they hear 2 things, “best” build(s) and “only” build(s). I know the latter is not the literal meaning of meta, but I do think this is the way many people use it.

I don’t think dynamic encounters would be a very good way destroying any meta. PvP and WvW are dynamic environments and there as still PvP and WvW meta builds.

I guess my belief in all builds being equally useful comes from the fact that multiple builds exist at all. Why make more than 1 build if you never intend for people to use it. I don’t think ANet has accomplished this even in a specific scenario sense. The falling trait for example is basically worthless even in specific scenarios. But perhaps ANet thought it would be more useful for some reason which is why it’s there?

Crinn.7864:

ZacHank.1358:

Raise the effectiveness of non-meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit. Lower the effectiveness of the current meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit.

Anet already does that. If look at balance patches post HoT, they all involves buffs to underused traits and abilities, with nerfs to overused traits and abilities.

Yup! Exactly. My suggestion is simply another way I think the meta could be mitigated.

Crinn.7864:

Metas cannot be designed out the game. Metas are player created and player enforced. Metas are basically just accepted conventions.

For example PS warriors aren’t actually mandatory for raids. It’s entirely possible to generate 25 might via distributed might generation. However pinning all the might gen on the warrior reduces the workload of the rest of the group so it’s become the accepted standard.

Right and I never meant to say that ANet can completely design the meta out of the game, but they can do many things to mitigate the meta. Make additional weapons perform a similar functions as the meta requires (as this suggestion looks to do) and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit. Raise the effectiveness of non-meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit. Lower the effectiveness of the current meta build traits and you’ve mitigated the meta a bit.

There will always be a meta since players will always be looking for what’s most effective. And high skill content groups will be looking for players who are using the most effective builds. But mitigating the meta in the ways mentioned above, for example, can allow groups to utilize non-meta builds without sacrificing too much efficiency-wise. Then players who prefer non-meta mechanics would have an easier time finding a high level group. If playing a non-meta build isn’t as big of a deal to content like raids and T4 fractals then people will be more able to play what they like if what they like isn’t the meta (without lowering skill requirements). In the end I think that’s better for everyone. Hopefully that makes sense.

ugrakarma.9416:

no thank you.
Enough of the circus in this game, which already has a horrible state of visual coherence and class roles. The Zergs here look more like a rio carnival parade, than a legion of soldiers to the war, since “anything can, everything is allowed.”

I am in favor of the idea, that certain classes must be forced to certain weapons, reducing the “carnival parade” factor.

I always play warriors because I like greatswords and hammers.

But it seems to me that crying in GW2 for “balancing” has gotten us to the ridiculous point of having a warrior efficiente with a longbow, or with shield+mace.

There is already diversity in this game with the actual professions, if one dont fit your style, change profession!

If we follow the current path, it will not make any difference to a ranger or warrior, or a necromancer, because they have made all professions fit the idea of “one size fits all”. That is, in the name the “diversity of builds” or “theres no meta, anything works”, they kill the diversity of professions, and if all professions are the same, there no diversity at all.

So my style is a heavy armor class that wields a greatsword with an offhand longbow. It was in D&D and has been for every MMO that will let me. The only class that fits for in GW2 is Warrior (until I get my Guardian leveled up). So your suggestion to change profession is useless to me and I would argue useless to many other players as well. You risk alienating a large chunk of players with that idea and I don’t think that could be a good thing under any circumstances unless you were creating a new game.

Obviously with this suggestion there will still be profession uniqueness (builds, playability, weapons, armor, etc all will be unique to different professions as they currently are). But giving people more options doesn’t kill diversity, rather it does quite the opposite. The more options you have, the more diversity you’ll have (unless there’s a meta of course).

You argue that on one hand that the builds we currently have is a carnival circus, so it would make sense if you were arguing for less diversity (restricting each class to a very small amount of gear and weapons) in order to gain that “legions of soldiers” professionalism feel. But on the other hand you claim that this same build structure is what gives us diversity and argue that if we increased options we would decrease diversity. Those points seem contradictory to me. Perhaps I’m just not understanding you properly yet.

Personally I don’t see GW2 as a “legions of soldiers” type of game. Rather, to me, the zerg is legions of elites who each specialize in their own thing. Personally I like it that way.

Seera.5916:

More builds possible = harder to balance due to the more builds that use any particular trait or skill.

And where did I say that we shouldn’t attempt to balance?! What I said was balance is impossible to obtain. No MMO out there has achieved balance. And that the more builds possible, the harder it is to balance. Because of that higher chance that one build may become OP due to a balance change and one may become underwhelming. All due to how the skills and traits work with each other.

A jigsaw puzzle isn’t the same thing as balancing all of the skills an MMO has. And I’ve never ever seen a puzzle that’s just a solid color. So let’s keep the barely usable analogies to things that actually exist.

I’m sorry, I meant attempt to balance in the way that I was suggesting. You seemed to be implying that since my suggestion may add to the difficulty of balancing that it shouldn’t be attempted. That’s all I meant by that.

As to the jigsaw puzzle, I still think it’s a useful analogy. And the solid color puzzles totally exist (just google it) and they are terrible, haha.

Seera.5916:

More builds = harder to balance. There’s no way around it. Because each skill will do different things and will have a different synergy with the other skills a class has. When Skill A is paired with Skill B, it’s OP, but it’s balanced when paired with Skill C, and Skill B and Skill C are balanced when paired with other. And if you have all three, it’s OP. But if you bring Skill A or Skill B down to being balanced, then the pairings of Skill A to Skill C and Skill B to Skill C become underwhelming.

That’s why games with different classes and different builds will never achieve balance. Because different builds use skills differently. One skill may be used for it’s might stacking in one build, but for it’s damage in another build. Nerf one skill to bring one build down from OP and you kill another build’s viability in competitive things due.

The more combinations out there the more chances that changing one skill will destroy the balance of more builds.

More builds (or build options) does not necessarily mean harder to balance, that’s just simply not true. If you have a jigsaw puzzle with 300 pieces but they are all white I think that would be much more difficult to successfully put together than a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle of some famous painting. This may be generally true (more pieces is harder to put together than less) but it certainly isn’t always true and I think my suggestion could add things while making it easier to balance.

Tied to that, I don’t think you have to nerf an entire skill to balance it, you can nerf just one aspect of it. Don’t nerf skill A in it’s entirety, just nerf skill A’s aspect of being too op when paired with skill B. And do it in such a way that skill’s A’s tie to skill C doesn’t get nerfed and skill B’s tie to skill C doesn’t get nerfed. It’s difficult, sure, but certainly not impossible.

Your last statement is definitely true, the more combinations out there the more chances that changing one skill will destroy the balance of more builds. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to balance what we have.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

I like the idea of removing weapon proficiency from trait lines. It made sense originally (when a power weapon had reduced cool-down in a trait line that boosted power), but it no longer fits the game.

However, I think it’s a complete mistake to tie your idea to a discussion of the meta. It’s either a good idea on its own merit or its not; tying it to something that evokes controversy will just distract the conversation. Accordingly, OP: I hope you delete your post here and start a new thread, where you introduce your idea and explain why it’s good for the game, without mentioning the meta at all.

Yeah my guild leader said something similar. I didn’t mean to evoke controversy. In my mind the merit of this suggestion was (or is) its tie to the meta. I thought it would be good for the game because of the effects it would (might) have on the meta. But perhaps not, or perhaps it shouldn’t.

Seera.5916:

There’s no way that adding more different builds will make it easier to balance the game. Because now there are more builds that ANet has to make sure are relatively equal.

I think adding more to builds could make it easier if what was added gave different builds more of the same options. See weapons example above.

Seera.5916:

And there will always be a meta. The meta is player created. There will always be one build or one team composition that will be the most efficient and that will be the build or team composition used. The only variations typically accepted are ones that don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

Right, and this will always be the case, and that’s fine. But I think Anet should cater to more variations so that as many as possible don’t fall too far behind the top build or team comp.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Viable in what way? Viable to succeed in some game-play circumstances? Viable in every possible game-play circumstance? Viable in a content meta? Then there’s viable versus optimal. Meta builds are chosen because they are believed to be optimal. Making more options will not impact that because there is only one optimal choice, by definition.

Viable in more circumstances than before. I don’t mean this suggestion to be an end all be all, more of a step in a new (hopefully better) direction. More options on weapons, for instance, could impact this if those options were relatively the same for each weapon. There will always be an optimal choice, but I think we can decrease how optimal the best choice is.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Builds are mostly about combat. Combat means damage along with other factors like sustainability, control and support. Most build options are already viable in many combat situations. If you think they need work to be “viable,” then you’re in all likelihood wanting more build choices that compete with the perceived top builds on one or more of those factors. That can’t happen without those builds doing similar things to the top builds in similar circumstances.

Yes exactly, I’m wanting more build choices that compete with the perceived top builds. These builds could do similar things in similar circumstances, or we could boost the usefulness of other traits to be more competitive. Not sure what the absolute best solution is in the end, but I think this suggestion could allow more build choices to at least compete better than before with meta builds.

Ardid.7203:

I think the idea is lovely, but you should remember Anet is trying to REDUCE factors that affect balance. If you create a complete new tree of traits for weapons, that could be combined with the normal traits… well, the possible builds multiply exponentially (which is great), but the balance issues multiply in the same proportion (which is a nightmare).

I think adding new trees of traits for weapons could do exactly that, reduce factors that effect balance. If all weapons trait trees for all weapons per class have very similar or exactly the same traits available then the addition of trees can reduce factors that effect balance by increasing support for existing builds. Let me try to give an example.

Let’s say all weapons have 1 passive trait and 1 active trait that you can choose from a multitude of options. Let’s say the passive trait on all weapons is to reduce the cooldown of that weapons skills. Let’s then say that the active trait that you can choose is

1. increase direct damage for this weapon
2. increase/add condition damage for this weapon
3. increase boon #1
4. increase boon #2.
5. etc.

This could make existing unused builds more viable options while maintaining the usefulness of existing meta builds. Of course, this may not be the direction Anet or the players want to go, but it is an example of how that could work I think.

IndigoSundown.5419:

The fact of the matter is that some of those less useful traits are used in niche situations. No one, to my knowledge, slots a fall damage reduction trait for general purposes in raids, but they might if they’re doing a JP. Meta builds in PvE instanced content are different — by and large — from those used in WvW or PvP.

Sure, there are traits that are less useful now. What makes you think that ANet will suddenly be able to not only flatten the effectiveness of existing traits while adding yet more and then balancing the new ones against the existing ones for mainstream purposes? If they’ve not done so with the existing traits to your satisfaction, how would adding more options improve that situation.

Meta builds are those believed to work best. Meta considerations will always emphasize one build (per profession and/or role). That’s what a meta is. The only way to make more builds meta is to have them do the same things the meta builds do. That’s homogeneity, not diversity.

I think Anet can balance the effectiveness of existing traits through the implementation of more traits, but of course that certainly depends on the implementation.

The simplest solution, I think, is to make the traits relatively the same for every weapon per class. If done properly, whichever trait the player picks for their weapon sets would boost a certain build trait they find desirable. This would emphasize multiple builds, rather than one. I think this could make more builds more viable options as they are instead of making more builds do the same things as meta builds.

Runiir.6425:

I love the idea of removing weapon restrictions from traits as there are various weapons I prefer to use depending on what is in front of me and trying to swap trees to maximize it constantly just is such a pain I usually just equip from my bag and just deal with the crappy efficiency.

However, you will never get the skill level requirement to be the same. Being support and doing well is more challenging than just straight up DPS that only worries about themselves. Melee will always require a higher skill level than range, especially with the many bosses and abilities that heavily favor ranged play. Actively tanking something also requires higher skill.

That said, I believe they use the weapon traits to refine what the weapons were designed for. For example, warrior ax is designed for charging your adrenaline fast and for a focus on critical hits, the sword is designed for steady damage, and the mace is slower and designed more for spiked damage. The traits specifically for them enhance this, with the ax for example the specific traits increase critical chance/damage.
Now this could be continued in a weapon specific trait line but then you would need new traits in the current lines to keep weapon flavor or whatever they are going for.

I think that support roles are indeed harder, but they’re also more desired than an only dps role is. And I think moving weapon traits to their own individual trees can help encourage this.

As to what weapons are designed for and how traits encourage that, we could continue this in new trait lines and attempting to balance them as best we can. But preferably I think we should let the player decide what weapons are designed for. Personally I think the options available should allow all players to use whatever weapons they want in the way they desire. This, if done correctly, should make more classes viable options to bring in higher skill content like raids.

I’m a firm believer that Anet intended all build traits to be equally useful. Of course balancing is quite difficult and so there is bound to be certain builds that are better than others. This is why we have meta builds as we know them. However, I think Anet and the community at large should still push to make all traits as equally viable to use as possible.

Now I’m not anti-“elitism”. Builds, rotations, mechanics, etc. are complex and should require a decent amount of skill to pull off. That said I think all builds should be useful while requiring the same level of skill.

So I propose a partial solution that should help all builds become more equal while maintaining a high level of skill. This potential solution is to move weapon traits out of builds, make them their own additional thing, and replace them with new balanced traits.

Instead of restricting your weapon use to your build, each class should be able to “master” the use of all weapons available to them. So I propose that all weapon traits be turned into their own trait tree trainable by using the weapon in question. How would this look? Let’s look at the greatsword for Warrior as an example.

Forceful Greatsword would get replaced by a balanced trait that is useful no matter what weapon you use. As you use the greatsword as a warrior one can spend hero points on a greatsword trait tree. Each class will get additional trait trees for all weapons available to them. The traits are only used if you have the associated weapon equipped. 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.

What would this do? It should free up the regular trait trees as you won’t need to waste a trait on a weapon trait. It will give more options to the weapons you use and give more purpose to why you use them. This should make meta builds less required, give players more power to play how they want, while maintaining a high level of skill.

Thoughts? Am I wrong about the meta? Am I wrong about this implementation working as intended? Am I on the right track?

Thanks for the responses guys! This really clears some things up for me lore-wise. I really like the idea of Aurene being or becoming a good elder dragon. I really hope the future story explores the hope of that while maintaining the threat of Aurene becoming corrupt.

Alright, so I’m fairly new to GW2 lore so perhaps this is something that is more easily answered. Why are we helping Aurene? I assumed that Glint’s egg may not be a dragon but something else and so it was worth protecting due to the unknown. But now that we know it is indeed a dragon why are we helping it? Or at the very least why has no one stopped and said “whoa, what exactly are we doing here?” It seems like we’ve simply jumped to the idea that protecting a dragon is an objectively good thing.

Perhaps it’s simply instinct, but I think our PC is more intelligent than to follow instinct blindly. I have a few questions, then, concerning lore some of which I’d like to be answered in episode 3.

1: Is Aurene an elder dragon? My understanding is that when we talk of dragons we exclusively mean elder dragons. Since we’ve called Aurene a dragon, we are calling her an elder dragon.

2: Granted Glint turned against Kralkatorrik to help Destiny’s Edge, but my understanding was Glint was Kralkatorrik’s champion, not a dragon herself. Am I understanding this correctly?

3: Given 1 and 2 are true, Aurene will need to consume magic and as a result will become very powerful. Is she just using us for that end? How do we know her motives are good? Why haven’t we asked that yet? Can we really trust an elder dragon even if we were able to trust Glint? And if so, what does that mean for when Aurene grows up? Does this change how elder dragons will operate in the future?

foxinabox.5296:

Hey ZacHank,

Hey! Thanks for the info, I’ll certainly check you guys out, I like what I see so far

Quick question though, what is Discord missing organizationally for you guys? To me TeamSpeak feels like a step back so I’m just curious on that, no worries if you don’t want to answer. Discord is fairly important to me to use but I would be willing to go back to TeamSpeak depending on what you guys are like

If anyone has any suggestions on possible guilds to join or the best place to look I’d be much obliged. I’ve read through the forums and have done a bit of research, but I’m very new to this guild thing and there’s a lot to learn

Hey all,

Intro: I’ve been playing GW2 for a couple of years, on and off, now casually. After pushing through a block of not wanting to level anymore I finally ground out the last few to lvl 80 and now have full Exotic gear. I’m having quite a bit of fun and think it’s time to try and get into a guild. I’ve had a few guild invites but they haven’t been what I’m looking for so I thought I’d reach out here. My info & gaming philosophies can be found below. Skim through the relevant categories as you see fit

Player Style – RPG Philosophy: I’m an RPG player which to me means that I have a role that I like the characters I play fill when playing an RPG. Typically this is a semi-tanky, heavy armor wearing character with a 2h Sword and a Longbow. I realize that this isn’t the best setup for a GW2 character but it works fairly well with the warrior so that is the character I play in GW2. I don’t play any other characters seriously so I wouldn’t be switching between characters. I play my warrior exclusively.

Player Style – MMO Philosophy: I like to do everything MMO’s have to offer. Right now I’m working on map completion just because, but I’d like to move on to learning Fractals, WvW, PvP, and Raids (if I got HoT). I don’t take any of these too seriously, but like to dabble in a bit of everything.

Social Preference – Guild Philosophy: I’d like to be a part of a guild that is respectful, chatty, and doesn’t take themselves too seriously either Respect is the big one here and to me this means being sensitive to the different demographics that play (i.e. no sexism, no racism, etc) and being willing to engage in respectful conversations on differing ideas (i.e. politics and religion).

Voice Preference: I use Discord as my VOIP and I highly recommend it. I’ve also used TeamSpeak, but I highly prefer Discord.

Server Preference: Yak’s Bend is a must. I can’t afford to spend IRL money to switch.

Active Time: This really depends on the day and my IRL plans. I play a couple times a week typically which can be either evenings or weekend days.

Thank you for your time.