Passive Ability On Races

[The Sins We Die By]

I mentioned this in one of the other... 50? ...or so GW2 threads, but I thought it would be good to create a fresh thread for this particular idea.

Anyways besides the different races likely having armor + skill variances, I'd like to see them also have a passive ability as well. Going with my previous suggestions...

Sylvari: Given the current information regarding them, particularly their connection to their surroundings (especially plants) and desire to learn I thought of this. Named to the effect of "Insight" they would be able to see skill activation used on allies on their party menu (or whatever would display your teammates). Maybe different degrees of highlighting could apply based on how many enemies are targeting a teammate.

Charr: They like their warbands, so I was thinking something to the effect of "Formation." They could receive a buff to armor/attacks for each adjacent ally in a chain.

Norn: The most obvious thing to me was that since they like to go solo give them a buff somehow if they are out of nearby range of an ally, but that doesn't really mesh well with the whole team thing so I dunno for sure.

Humans: I really couldn't think of anything, we are kinda boring XD

Asura: slight magic use buff, too easy, but feel free to suggest other things.


Added:
Kinda sounds like primary attributes from GW I know, but these aren't effected by points/leveling.

[Ace Bear]

Might have to put some more thought into it.
Sylvari: Given the current information regarding them, particularly their connection to their surroundings (especially plants) and desire to learn I thought of this. Named to the effect of "Insight" they would be able to see skill activation used on allies on their party menu (or whatever would display your teammates). Maybe different degrees of highlighting could apply based on how many enemies are targeting a teammate
Either useless if the mechanics of GW2 are completely different then gw. Or broken if GW2 is a lot like gw. Sins already remove positioning, silvari would remove even targetting an enemy heh.
Charr: They like their warbands, so I was thinking something to the effect of "Formation." They could receive a buff to armor/attacks for each adjacent ally in a chain.
New ursan, but whatever, not really a pve fan so just do it, yo.

The rest I can't say much about heh. Decent idea but just keep working on it.

[The Sins We Die By]

Might have to put some more thought into it.

Either useless if the mechanics of GW2 are completely different then gw. Or broken if GW2 is a lot like gw. Sins already remove positioning, silvari would remove even targetting an enemy heh.

Idea is specifically due to step ganking honestly, and other forms of team spiking.

I'll think on them more, though obviously the numbers I can't really say anything about as I have no clue so things being broken partially would depend on that.

[Cardinal Cyn]

For the sake of a balanced game, I really hope they don't do any race specific bonuses and that any difference between the races is purely cosmetic.

[benjaminge]

I would like to see each race have something similar to a professions primary attribute, that is linked to a few skills and that only that race can access. An obvious example is the Norns ability to change into a bear. There would be a skill to trigger this, and the skill would be affected by the attribute, i.e length of change, damage and helath increase etc.

just an idea. i'm getting kicked outa the internet cafe now, so i may elaborate tomorrow. nighty night.

[captain lucky]

I think Humans should have a leadership bonus of sorts. In my eyes Humans produce the most capable leaders out of the different races.

[Lanyare]

I would like to see each race have something similar to a professions primary attribute, that is linked to a few skills and that only that race can access. An obvious example is the Norns ability to change into a bear. There would be a skill to trigger this, and the skill would be affected by the attribute, i.e length of change, damage and helath increase etc.

just an idea. i'm getting kicked outa the internet cafe now, so i may elaborate tomorrow. nighty night.

I quite like this idea, as long as the differences aren't too huge and the system not too complicated. It shouldn't affect the difficulty of the game in general (for example one Race being much harder to play with than another).

[Tro]

Humans should be able to use less materials for crafting Gear

[Arthur Victus]

I quite like this idea, as long as the differences aren't too huge and the system not too complicated. It shouldn't affect the difficulty of the game in general (for example one Race being much harder to play with than another).
This reminds me of an online game called Knight Online now known as Knight Empire. the unique idea that was poised by this game was one of 2 sects. Ogres and Humans. Each side had its own cities and everything. Different enemies that had the exact same skills and could drop the exact same gear, only, you couldn't venture into these lands unless you were certainly searching for death. (Venturing into an opposing area would mean they could pk you on sight) The neat thing about it was that you couldn't understand their language either... The game would scramble their words incomprehensibly if you tried to whisper to each other... it made for exciting Battles. Which were massive and incorporated anyone. there were safe Zones in 1 main city that linked the 2 (worlds) so to speak.
GW would be interesting if you couldn't understand the other languages... at least in some parts. And if there were some racial differences, especially in those foreign lands. Just a thought.

[The Sins We Die By]

GW would be interesting if you couldn't understand the other languages... at least in some parts. And if there were some racial differences, especially in those foreign lands. Just a thought.

Would work for the Sylvari, but everyone else is on the same page.

[Tro]

Nore can change into Bears right?

I wonder how that would work out

[OldFool]

Humans should be able to use less materials for crafting Gear

Asura would get that one before humans with those tiny bodies of theirs...

[Alaris]

I like the idea of skill differences including passive skills, with different themes.

But I would want people to play all races mixed with all professions. Would be boring to see only Norn warriors, only Asura casters...

So...

Asura could have access to technology, like Golems, as well as shields and weapon spells to leech life & energy from foes. Increased speed for casting & attacking would be nice too.

Norn would have forms of course, some which increase health & attack damage, but also others more suited to caster classes. Like "Form of the owl", added energy and casting speed while in this form.

Sylvari could have a connection with nature, being able to draw from it either for health regen, mana regen, or even nature-based skills like stealth attacks or plant-based spells. A second pet would be nice too.

Human: the courageous and social race would get skills with shouts, standards, and perhaps traps too. They would also get a few healing spells without needing to be monks.

Charr: fierceness and flames. Perhaps a few spells to add fire damage to their attacks and defenses. Skills to boost their attack speeds and running speeds, or defense while casting.

[Tro]

anybody else wana play a Oni ??
they look so cool

[Zsig]

This game sells as a "game of skill" and sa such, i don't really think that passive abilities would cut. Since there is not skill involved in passive abilities, and that's the main reason i think that instead of passive abilities, the races should provide Racial Skills.

Each race would provide enough racial skills to fill EVERY profession (as i probably also suggested on the other 50 or so GW2 threads).

Sylvari would deal with the "Collective Counciousness" (sort of Hive Mind), as they have that Dream of Dreams stuff where they share experiences, and that makes them more apt and aknowledgable, so a sylvari warrior could have a "Collective Strength" skill that when used would give him a bonus on attacks equals to the number of other Sylvari on the group (including himself, otherwise it's not that good), and so on for other professions.

The Charr could have skills similar to Gloat (check wiki), but for particular purposes, the Warrior's "Gloat" would give him health regen and adrenaline or IAS (as in IWAY), the Elementalist's "Gloat" would give energy regen, and so on.

The Norn, we all know they'll be able to turn into bears, but that shouldn't be enough, if you play as a necromancer for example, you'd have something to help you there, not sure what, but probably something related to the animal totems of the Norn (wolf, eagle, owl, raven ... ) in this particular case, i'd go with something related to the Raven as it relates to death, so.. eh ... the skill could grant you Death Vision?(You could see invisible things and such)

Asura, they play with alchemy, or at least they talk about the True Alchemy, i think it'd be a good fit if they inherited the Ritualist's Item Spells and Weapon Spells, along with some Golem crafting and the Summoning (we seen Mursaat, Imp, Elemental, Naga...). There's enough room there for every profession in the game. Warriors and Rangers with enchanted weapons, raw magic for any other profession.

Who am I missing... ah, humans... in other games, and even in Pen and Paper (or tabletop) games, humans are often the guys who "blend" , or the people who are good at nothing but can do a little bit of everything. I'm not sure where anet is going with humans... Maybe humans doesn't have any special ability, but on the other hand they can benefit by all other races abilities that would otherwise only affect their kin... kind of a passive ability i know... but... oh well...

Anyway, just a few ideas out the top of my head, there's plenty of room for inovation and ground to cover, just because they say "norn can become bear" it doesn't necessarily needs to mean that they are the best warriors... maybe stronger... but not best.

If they opt for passive abilities, that they be as subtle and irrelevant as possible...

[benjaminge]

*points above* (dont wana quote WHOLE thing):

This is pretty much what i want to see - i think.

A handful of racial skills that can benifit any profession when used correctly, that are affected by the racial attribute (obvioulsy unique to the race...). And then access to all the professions as primary or secondary.

[Shadowleaf]

This game sells as a "game of skill" and sa such, i don't really think that passive abilities would cut. Since there is not skill involved in passive abilities, and that's the main reason i think that instead of passive abilities, the races should provide Racial Skills.

I don't agree with that. The way they set up the passives in GW made a lot of sense. They give the profession an advantage at using certain types of skills/tactics. It makes sense that races would take on this role in GW2.

I'm not sure how I feel about both races and professions having passives, but it seems like a good idea to move them to races at least.

Here's what I'd like to see:

Charr:
+ Maximum HP
+ Damage in melee
+ Damage for Fire Magic
+ Armor vs Fire damage
- Armor vs Cold damage
some offensive combat related active abilities

Asura:
Faster casting speed
+ Armor vs. all armor respecting spells
some spell related active abilities

Humans:
+ Maximum Energy
+ Damage at ranged attacks
longer stance durations
some active abilities, stances, attack skills, etc...

Norns:
+ Maximum HP (more than Charr)
+ Armor vs. Cold damage
animal forms with different passive benefits

Sylvari:
(I don't know much about them)
+Armor vs. Earth damage
some passives/actives related to earth magic, spirits, etc?

They'd need to be balanced by the actives they had of course since some races make more sense with more passives while others make more sense with more actives.

[benjaminge]

Here's what I'd like to see:

Charr:
+ Maximum HP
+ Damage in melee
+ Damage for Fire Magic
+ Armor vs Fire damage
- Armor vs Cold damage
some offensive combat related active abilities

Asura:
Faster casting speed
+ Armor vs. all armor respecting spells
some spell related active abilities

Humans:
+ Maximum Energy
+ Damage at ranged attacks
longer stance durations
some active abilities, stances, attack skills, etc...

Norns:
+ Maximum HP (more than Charr)
+ Armor vs. Cold damage
animal forms with different passive benefits

Sylvari:
(I don't know much about them)
+Armor vs. Earth damage
some passives/actives related to earth magic, spirits, etc?

They'd need to be balanced by the actives they had of course since some races make more sense with more passives while others make more sense with more actives.

hmmm, as I said I would like to see something similar. the only issue I have with this is that it will mean that we would probably end up having all warriors as Norns and Charr, Spell casters as Asura, maybe Sylvari (who are supposed to be magically adept) and maybe humans etc etc.

I dont want a race to be significantly better at a single profession than any of the other races. I can see the situation now,

xxx says:GLF Asura Monk and Charr Warrior

me: Hi, I'm a warrior, but I'm a human...

xxx says: sorry, we want a Charr.

me: Oh...

xxx says: sorry, try taking henchies. (although I read they were scrapping henchmen for a single companion...)

:cry:

Maybe something similar to what you suggested, but more balanced?

[Shadowleaf]

hmmm, as I said I would like to see something similar. the only issue I have with this is that it will mean that we would probably end up having all warriors as Norns and Charr, Spell casters as Asura, maybe Sylvari (who are supposed to be magically adept) and maybe humans etc etc.

I dont want a race to be significantly better at a single profession than any of the other races. I can see the situation now,

xxx says:GLF Asura Monk and Charr Warrior

me: Hi, I'm a warrior, but I'm a human...

xxx says: sorry, we want a Charr.

me: Oh...

xxx says: sorry, try taking henchies. (although I read they were scrapping henchmen for a single companion...)

:cry:

Maybe something similar to what you suggested, but more balanced?

Depending on the active abilities it wouldn't be so absolute. The reason I put in some general ideas for actives is that those would be the balancing factor against the passives. The more primal races (Charr and Norn) get more passives while the more advanced or magically adept races get more actives.

[captain lucky]

hmmm, as I said I would like to see something similar. the only issue I have with this is that it will mean that we would probably end up having all warriors as Norns and Charr, Spell casters as Asura, maybe Sylvari (who are supposed to be magically adept) and maybe humans etc etc.

I dont want a race to be significantly better at a single profession than any of the other races. I can see the situation now,

xxx says:GLF Asura Monk and Charr Warrior

me: Hi, I'm a warrior, but I'm a human...

xxx says: sorry, we want a Charr.

me: Oh...

xxx says: sorry, try taking henchies. (although I read they were scrapping henchmen for a single companion...)

:cry:

Maybe something similar to what you suggested, but more balanced?

Its also possible that there may now be proffesions exclusive to certain races. E.G can you see a Necro Norn? An Asuran Ranger?

[Shadowleaf]

Its also possible that there may now be proffesions exclusive to certain races. E.G can you see a Necro Norn? An Asuran Ranger?

While those combinations don't seem to make sense, they should be allowed for the sake of diversity and/or roleplaying depending if you're talking about PvP or PvE.

[Alaris]

Less restrictions, more choice. One great thing about GW1 is that you can select any 2 professions to combine, and there's plenty of reasons to combine them.

It would be boring if as a P you'd have to /W, as A you'd have to /R, or as E you'd have to /Me to be effective.

BTW, just allowing any combination means nothing if oddball combinations are ineffective. So not only they should allow Norn Necros, but there should be good reasons to be a Norn Necro.

[Alleji]

Something that wouldn't force you to always roll a norn warrior because that's the optimal combination for PvP.

I'm gonna use a WoW example here: in WoW, in competitive high-end PvP people used to roll optimal race/class combinations for the slight advantages they granted, such as gnome warrior for escape artist (lets you break snares). Blizzard only recently put a stop to this and disabled racials in arena. I'd be surprised if anet makes the same mistake Blizz made four years ago and lets racials affect PvP.

They have three possible solutions:
1. No racials
2. Racials relevant in PvE only - for example, all beast type creatures would appear neutral to Sylvari becauser of their affinity to nature (i.e. not aggro the Sylvari player unless attacked)
3. Disable racials in PvP

[Zsig]

Don't forget also, that in GW1 the most troublesome balancing aspect, that has been subject to whine, rants, and all others sorts of problems were the passive abilities, namely: Soul Reaping, Expertise, Fast Casting and Leadership.

It's pretty hard to balance one thing that will stay on you and you don't need to move a finger for it to kick in.

If Passive Abilities shift from Primary Attribute to "Racial Attribute", it could work, but, contrary to what someone pointed above, balancing Passive Abilities with Active Abilities is wrong and due to fail.

Edit:
Concerning the above poster. If you don't take passive abilities and instead use the "Racial Skills", then in PvP all you need to do is disable the racial skills and then everyone is equal (your option number 3)

[Shadowleaf]

Assuming the races have their own active or passive benefits, it's ultimately going to come down to synergy between skills and those benefits, and the balance of those skills. There must be a wide variety of skills that are viable which have different synergies with different races.

It doesn't really matter if the race has a general benefit for the profession if there are viable skill synergies to utilize for other profession/race combos.

[BrotherGrimm]

I suggest some carefully balanced racial skills with the possiblity of attribute bonuses/penalties for certain races and certain attributes.
(considering the attribute system will be similar to GW now).

There is certainly some more possibilities (like a racial attribute that modifies skills and has directly linked racial skills), but they may prove far too complex depending on the number of races, attributes/professions and skills.

[Zsig]

I gave a bit of thought to humans and maybe there's something that could work.

As the game stands now we have 8 skill slots on our bar.

From what we know so far, races will have their own abilities, and whether they are passive or active it's up to conjecture, but one thing noone can deny is the fact that Norn WILL be able to assume a bearform, and that right there, to me is an example of Activated Ability, which i'm calling thereafter Racial Skill.

Anyway, each of the races would then have a given number of skill slots plus one exclusive for one of it's Racial Skills, to keep it simple let's just say 7 Skill Slots + 1 Racial Skill Slot (even though I think they could give like 10 skill slots total).

Then, each race should have a number of Racial Skills at least double the number of Professions, so that for example, if there are 8 professions initially, each race should have about 16 Racial Skills (and some of them could even be an Elite Racial Skill), and needless to say, you'd chose one of such Racial Skills to fill your Racial Skill Slot. (Sorry if it sounds confusing... ask and i'll try to explain better if so).

Humans would be an exception to the rule. They would have NO racial skills, none at all! Instead, humans would make use of an extra Skill Slot, so that, while all races would have 7 skill slots + 1 racial slot (which would be only available for a racial skill), humans would have 8 skill slots (again, being the total number of skills just an illustration).

This would basicly represent humans ability to be flexible, even though they got no "trademark" move. Simply putting, one free slot to bring whatever you want

"humans would suck then..." one could say? Well I don't think so... if you think about in GW1, what would you do with an extra slot on your character?

------

Going back to the "passive" discussion, if they do bring passive stats in the game, they'd need at least to remove the passive bonus provided by the primary attribute (providing they still use such a thing), otherwise we have a predominance of "passiveness":wink:

[The Sins We Die By]

if you think about in GW1, what would you do with an extra slot on your character?

Rez Slot :laugh:

Going back to the "passive" discussion, if they do bring passive stats in the game, they'd need at least to remove the passive bonus provided by the primary attribute (providing they still use such a thing), otherwise we have a predominance of "passiveness":wink:

That'd be fine with me. Hopefully there would be options between completely passive skills instead of being stuck with one particular thing like the primary lines (Spawning Power saddens me deeply as it's on one of my favorite professions).

[OldFool]

lol...I can't see an asuran warrior.
It would be hacking at everyone's ankles.

[The Sins We Die By]

lol...I can't see an asuran warrior.
It would be hacking at everyone's ankles.

Would be easier to use knee cutter or hamstring :laugh:

[FourthVariety]

Let's apply the current system to GW2. Then we have "culturally unique" skills distributed among Kurzick/Luxons, Ascalonians and the races. Those skills have a value in relation to your standing with these factions. For GW2 that could mean that players start off with a head start in their birth faction, but can acquire all others as well. Heck, we can even gain Ursan blessing right now.

Inherent unchangeable bonuses will only lead to less variety instead of more. What is the use of five races if all the races get pressured into certain directions regarding their profession. Especially pugging will suffer from racial attributes. What is the idea of inventing the Norn when they are only a Wammo skin? Why develop all the assets for the Asurans if they are limited to wielding a staff? If the races are really here to increase the diversity among players they must under no circumstances limit/impact the choice of the profession in any way.

My vote is for the current system, where even outsiders can learn the culturally unique skills of another race.

[raspberry jam]

anybody else wana play a Oni ??
they look so coolI want to play an aatxe. At least if racial differences do exist.

That said, I truly believe that racial differences, at least differences that remain in effect once you have reached the power cap (soft or hard) will only serve to create discrimination in PvE and to kill diversity in PvP. I'd truly like to see that race was a purely cosmetic choice (and possibly also choice of starting location in the game world).

There will maybe be race specific skills, but if so, please let all or at least most (not the norn bear skill, etcetera...) of those skills be learnable by characters of other races too.

[The Sins We Die By]

Let's apply the current system to GW2. Then we have "culturally unique" skills distributed among Kurzick/Luxons, Ascalonians and the races. Those skills have a value in relation to your standing with these factions. For GW2 that could mean that players start off with a head start in their birth faction, but can acquire all others as well. Heck, we can even gain Ursan blessing right now.

My vote is for the current system, where even outsiders can learn the culturally unique skills of another race.

If you want a truly even distribution you should probably choose a human, assuming they will be the all around type. It's kind of just duh that Sylvari and Asura are going to be better casters and Charr and Norn are going to be better Meleers. I don't recall them saying that races would promote playing every type of playstyle... in fact here is a quote from the official wiki
Different races will have different advantages and disadvantages, for example the Norn will be able to shapeshift into a half-bear half-human, with increased health and melee damage. It is presently not known what advantages other races will have.
Maybe there will be more room the diversity you want, but I want the races to be more efficient at certain things and less than others like in the quote so that party roles are still somewhat defined. I'm sure they will be less defined in hopes that it will help with pugging, but they still need to be there for PvPers.

Inherent unchangeable bonuses will only lead to less variety instead of more. What is the use of five races if all the races get pressured into certain directions regarding their profession. Especially pugging will suffer from racial attributes. What is the idea of inventing the Norn when they are only a Wammo skin? Why develop all the assets for the Asurans if they are limited to wielding a staff? If the races are really here to increase the diversity among players they must under no circumstances limit/impact the choice of the profession in any way.

Less is more. Without restrictions games are not enjoyable, try playing a game when there are no set rules.

[Kjentei]

I don't want Racial "Passive Abilities" if they are going to benefit or be more suitable for certain professions.

I want an Asuran Warrior to be as effective and not disadvantaged to a, e.g., Charr Warrior, just because they are small and known for magical mastery. I want a Norn Necromancer to be as magically able as an Asuran Necromancer, despite that Norn usually tend be the physical, un-magical professions like Warrior, Ranger and Paragon.

I would prefer that as any race, I could feel I could make any profession I want and not be criticized for making a profession (in that race) that would be more compatible or benefit more from a "Passive Ability".

Also, I'd feel that "Passive Abilities" are more of a restriction WoW has (never played WoW though so I'm not 100% if that is true).

- - -

Edit:
With further thought, I would not mind (but would preferably not have):

Skills only a race can use (Would like this PvE-only, maybe)

Armor +10 (vs. earth damage) for Sylvari
Armor +10 (vs. fire damage) for Charr
Armor +10 (vs. lightning damage) for Asura
Armor +10 (vs. cold damage) for Norn
Armor +10 (vs. either slashing, piercing or blunt damage) for Human

But I disagree with certain races having more maximum health, energy, or longer/faster durations/activations for some skill types.

[BrotherGrimm]

I don't want Racial "Passive Abilities" if they are going to benefit or be more suitable for certain professions.

I want an Asuran Warrior to be as effective and not disadvantaged to a, e.g., Charr Warrior, just because they are small and known for magical mastery. I want a Norn Necromancer to be as magically able as an Asuran Necromancer, despite that Norn usually tend be the physical, un-magical professions like Warrior, Ranger and Paragon.
Hmm....what exactly is the reason for different races? Just the appearance? I know some people play this game to have virtual paperdolls, but does it seriously make SENSE for an Asuran Warrior to be as effective as a Charr Warrior? Yes, I know we are talking about a fantasy world and asking if something makes "sense" is rather obtuse, but I just feel that if you want to make an Asura Warrior you CAN, it's just going to be at a slight disadvantage to a Charr Warrior. Yes, this plays more to the RPG side of the game than the PvP side (where absolute balance may dictate an even attribute playing field), but I just feel that if the only difference between an Asura Warrior and a Charr Warrior is the skin, then it really takes a lot away from the game itself. I also see how it "limits" choices, but I'm not talking about drastic differences....I'm talking about the Asura having a max Strength of 11 and a Charr having a max Strength of 13. That kind of difference, not huge major buffs or nerfs.

IDEA: how about limiting certain rune or inscription placement based on race? The Asura warrior could never use anything beyond minor Strength and the Charr could never use anything beyond major Elemental runes (except for Fire)....yeah, maybe too complex and less fair than simple base attribute bonus/penalties.

[Tru Reptile]

I also see how it "limits" choices, but I'm not talking about drastic differences....I'm talking about the Asura having a max Strength of 11 and a Charr having a max Strength of 13. That kind of difference, not huge major buffs or nerfs.

The point is that even if the difference is so minute it isn't noticeable people will still discriminate because it's still technically better.

Trust me, I've seen it happen plenty of times and it'll happen in GW2. I've been saying this from the moment Anet announced playable races:

The only differences should be the skin. This is the only real way to prevent race discrimination and the devs wouldn't even have to worry about balance issues.

[Skyy High]

Why must all racial attributes automatically make one race a better, for example, warrior than another. Why can't they just be different? IE, a charr warrior hits harder and faster than an asura, but the asura has higher energy regen to spam attacks more often, and has access to stuff like Asura Scan to boost his damage, possibly above the Charr.

I'm sure it's possible to balance the races so that each has attributes that make it different than, but equal to, all the other races at any given profession.

[Saldonus Darkholme]

I can see a small buff, just a little something to deal with.For example, with the charr, have an effect that increases armor level by 5 for every companion charr within earshot, or Norn having a "bloodlust" attribute that increases attack speed or damage by 3% for every shout, or while under the effects of an animal-form, or some such.

I guess the closest thing the current game would have to it would be like the Ranger's (well, any bow user) increase in damage and distance by utilizing the territory.

Perhaps, having a benefit, not in combat, but in other things, like in luck or in salvaging?

[Zsig]

Why must all racial attributes automatically make one race a better, for example, warrior than another. Why can't they just be different? IE, a charr warrior hits harder and faster than an asura, but the asura has higher energy regen to spam attacks more often, and has access to stuff like Asura Scan to boost his damage, possibly above the Charr.

I'm sure it's possible to balance the races so that each has attributes that make it different than, but equal to, all the other races at any given profession.

Exactly, they don't have to, but even if they don't, noone but the community itself will claim that a given race/prof combo is optimal for a given task, even if proved wrong.

This exists in game (GW1), and will exist in GW2 whether there are races / racial skills / passive abilities / whatever or not.

It's been statiscally proved that Vampiric weapons are better at doing overall damage than Sundering, but when you go to the market, "perfect" = sundering. This is just an example.

The problem is in the community, not in the game.

There are many ways an asura could be as good or even better at warriors than Norn, but the player base mindset will be the final arbitrer of such judgement

The point is that even if the difference is so minute it isn't noticeable people will still discriminate because it's still technically better.
QFT
And as the saying goes, the devil lies in the details, and more often than not, passive abilities are always underlooked "details" that sums up...

Hopefully, the discrimination, even if still present, it won't affect as "heavy" as it does in GW1, because as far as i saw somewhere, the game will be more "solo"-friendly

But I disagree with certain races having more maximum health, energy, or longer/faster durations/activations for some skill types.
Believe it or not, this already exists in GW1 as well.
Currently, Dervishes have more health than any other profession in game.


My vote is for the current system, where even outsiders can learn the culturally unique skills of another race.
So basicly, what you're saying is that, if one race has wings and can fly, all others should be able to do the same just by flapping their arms?

It's kind of just duh that Sylvari and Asura are going to be better casters and Charr and Norn are going to be better Meleers. I don't recall them saying that races would promote playing every type of playstyle... in fact here is a quote from the official wiki...
You are wrong. Here's a quote from one of the interviews about GW2
We want races to really have a pretty big impact on the way characters play. For example, the Norns, who are the big, burly, half-giant Viking guys from up in the North, all have the ability to shape-shift into a were-bear form; giving them more health and making them stronger, that sort of thing.

So a Norn warrior is going to have this were-bear ability, while a Human warrior will have a completely different ability just as significant - though we're still throwing around exactly what it will be.

So people who like playing as warriors are going to get a lot of variety out of choosing whether they want to be a Norn, an Asura, or Human warrior - as those are all going to feel very different.

Eurogamer Interview (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=75018&page=2)

Each race should be potentially equal at a given task.

[Skyy High]

It's been statiscally proved that Vampiric weapons are better at doing overall damage than Sundering, but when you go to the market, "perfect" = sundering. This is just an example.
Yet no one discriminates in PUGs because some n00b has a vampiric weapon instead of a sundering. Or even 1k armor instead of FoW.

By the by, sundering is still used in high level PvP quite often. It's worth losing the extra 3 dmg per hit, when you have a chance at getting 20% AP on a critical hit when you're spiking. Besides, a melee character spends quite a bit of time blind, hexed, getting kited, or being blocked, so you'll actually probably be losing health more than you're gaining it.

In PvE, vamp > sundering pretty much all the time though.

Believe it or not, this already exists in GW1 as well.
Currently, Dervishes have more health than any other profession in game.
Because they're front line characters with max 70 armor? You may as well complain that warriors have the most armor in the game. Fact is, if you take the armor and equipment off, every lvl20 character is exactly the same, which was the point.

So basicly, what you're saying is that, if one race has wings and can fly, all others should be able to do the same just by flapping their arms?
Erm, apart from the Norns with their shape-shifting, there really aren't that many huge differences between the (announced) races. They're all bipedal, intelligent beings, with (ostensibly) the ability to use magic. I can't see why the majority of the race specific skills need to be exclusive to one race or another (though there should be some, since the norns are almost certainly getting exclusive shape-shifting abilities).

[Zsig]

Erm, apart from the Norns with their shape-shifting, there really aren't that many huge differences between the (announced) races. They're all bipedal, intelligent beings, with (ostensibly) the ability to use magic. I can't see why the majority of the race specific skills need to be exclusive to one race or another (though there should be some, since the norns are almost certainly getting exclusive shape-shifting abilities).

Sylvari have the Dream of Dreams which i highly doubt any other race could benefit from.

Even though any Bookah could operate an Asura "technology" (providing the Asura choses to allow that), the ability to imagine and create such things are kept for them, and them alone, due to their intelligence or whatever... and they're sensible about their intelect.

In GW1 we only "borrow" from the Bear it's abilities, it's not the same as the norn call it "becoming the bear", a thing that only the norn, due to spiritual achievement or otherwise can get.

The Charr have ... uh... fur?

Jokes aside, you can't just compare biotypes and behavior. There's more to it that each race inherit just for being it that no other race can get. The Lore provides a bunch of it for each race, enough to make them unique.

On the vampiric vs. sundering subject(which doesn't belong here) it was just a common misconception the community usually falls in. I know the properties, and how they work.

On the other topic, i was just pointing out that differences on health, energy, and armor do exist, although in GW1 we don't have races, so i admit it's sort of an irrelevant statement.
For example, Dervishes have more health than everybody, but would a Norn Dervish have more health than a human Dervish? Iguess that should be the point then. And whether it's good or bad.

[The Sins We Die By]

Eurogamer Interview (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=75018&page=2)

Each race should be potentially equal at a given task.

It may even out that way, but all the races should not be able to complete a role in the same fashion. Otherwise there is no point in the races. If a norn can end up healing the same dps as what some would consider a caster type fine, but it should something to the effect of weaker healing with shorter recharges on skills. Even if the net effect on the energy system is evened out that's fine too, but there HAS to be differences in completing roles among the races. If there's not it would hurt the diversity of the game not add to it.

I still prefer limiting roles to promote players to try out the more classes. It appears that is going to be less the idea in this game, but as long as it's still there somewhat people will try other races beyond aesthetic reasons. Not only that but then there is more than just a skin difference, allowing players to experience content in a slightly different manner increasing the diversity of the game overall.

[Terenas]

Judging from the interview, it seems that there should be differences between the races.

I'd like the races to be -very- different in actual stats, and if a Norn Warrior is going to perform better than a human one, so be it, we can always customize the look.
"Potentially equal at a given task" is a tricky expression: the first tricky part being 'potentially' at least as long as we know relatively few details.
As for discrimination, well, that is part about the player, part about the mechanics.

For those who are very skilled/good there might be (supposed) optimal lineups with optimal race/professions combo.
If your character does not fit in this scheme, it is rather likely to be sub-optimal, therefore discarded in favor of an optimal choice.

Kudos to Anet if they can devise a clever system for the races + skills + professions, in many games I played you pick Race before Profession/Class, because you race limits your class choices.
Let's see what we get with GW2.

[Mister Smartypants]

This statement...
Different races will have different advantages and disadvantages, for example the Norn will be able to shapeshift into a half-bear half-human, with increased health and melee damage. It is presently not known what advantages other races will have.
...is one of my biggest concerns about GW2.

I remember from my D&D days that, for the min-max powergamers, playing a certain profession automatically meant playing a certain race for the inherent bonuses of that race - dwarven warrior, gnome illusionist, halfling thief etc. I'm a combination of min-max and RP: I want a character that looks the way I imagine them to, without gimping their abilities compared to other characters of the same class in order for them to look that way. In particular, I prefer caster classes, but I really *really* don't want to be restricted to playing an asura if I want to make the most efficient/effective caster possible. (My beautiful Smartypants, an asura, ugh!) I'm all for the differences between races being purely cosmetic.

However, if there really must be racial abilities, I hope that this later quote...

We want races to really have a pretty big impact on the way characters play. For example, the Norns, who are the big, burly, half-giant Viking guys from up in the North, all have the ability to shape-shift into a were-bear form; giving them more health and making them stronger, that sort of thing.

So a Norn warrior is going to have this were-bear ability, while a Human warrior will have a completely different ability just as significant - though we're still throwing around exactly what it will be.

So people who like playing as warriors are going to get a lot of variety out of choosing whether they want to be a Norn, an Asura, or Human warrior - as those are all going to feel very different.
...proves true, and the skill balancer(s) pay particular attention to the comparative effectiveness of the different race/class combinations in PvE as well as PvP.

[Kjentei]

But I disagree with certain races having more maximum health, energy, or longer/faster durations/activations for some skill types. Believe it or not, this already exists in GW1 as well.
Currently, Dervishes have more health than any other profession in game.

I said races not professions. I'm not an ignorant GW player. The extra maximum health that Dervishes receive is there, but for all of the races (Assuming each race can play a Dervish).

Hmm....what exactly is the reason for different races? Just the appearance? I know some people play this game to have virtual paperdolls, but does it seriously make SENSE for an Asuran Warrior to be as effective as a Charr Warrior? Yes, I know we are talking about a fantasy world and asking if something makes "sense" is rather obtuse, but I just feel that if you want to make an Asura Warrior you CAN, it's just going to be at a slight disadvantage to a Charr Warrior. Yes, this plays more to the RPG side of the game than the PvP side (where absolute balance may dictate an even attribute playing field), but I just feel that if the only difference between an Asura Warrior and a Charr Warrior is the skin, then it really takes a lot away from the game itself. I also see how it "limits" choices, but I'm not talking about drastic differences....I'm talking about the Asura having a max Strength of 11 and a Charr having a max Strength of 13. That kind of difference, not huge major buffs or nerfs.

I disagree. I feel that an Asuran Warrior and a Charr Warrior should only have a skin difference. I don't think that would take something away from the game but would instead prevent restrictions based on the peer pressure, elitism and criticism from other players. An Asuran Warrior might find himself in a situation where he needs Strength higher than his 'maximum' Strength, and therefore, can't achieve a second(s) longer duration or a skill or weapon attribute requirement, and therefore might not be wanted for a PuG or PvP team. I don't think races should have maximums on attributes.

Speaking about game realism and sense, I feel that since the Asura are intelligent, they would be able to make up for their short stature in physical combat, with e.g. Asuran PvE-only skills or with the design of the weapons they have (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Nojj).

The point is that even if the difference is so minute it isn't noticeable people will still discriminate because it's still technically better.

Trust me, I've seen it happen plenty of times and it'll happen in GW2. I've been saying this from the moment Anet announced playable races:

The only differences should be the skin. This is the only real way to prevent race discrimination and the devs wouldn't even have to worry about balance issues.

I strongly agree with this.

I also, think "Passive Abilities" on races would not affect PvP well (based on the advantages and disadvantages a race would have for each profession would would create restrictions based on, like many people have said, peer pressure, elitism and criticism from other players).

I think based on interviews about GW2, e.g. what Erik Flannum has said, that there will be Racial Skills (like the GW1 PvE-Only skills) in GW2. And IMO hopefully they are PvE-only.

I still prefer limiting roles to promote players to try out the more classes. It appears that is going to be less the idea in this game, but as long as it's still there somewhat people will try other races beyond aesthetic reasons.

You may be right, but we cannot predict (but I expect) there will be many reasons other than aesthetic reasons for players to try other races.

However, if there really must be racial abilities, I hope that this later quote...
[quote=Erik Flannum]
We want races to really have a pretty big impact on the way characters play. For example, the Norns, who are the big, burly, half-giant Viking guys from up in the North, all have the ability to shape-shift into a were-bear form; giving them more health and making them stronger, that sort of thing.

So a Norn warrior is going to have this were-bear ability, while a Human warrior will have a completely different ability just as significant - though we're still throwing around exactly what it will be.

So people who like playing as warriors are going to get a lot of variety out of choosing whether they want to be a Norn, an Asura, or Human warrior - as those are all going to feel very different....proves true, and the skill balancer(s) pay particular attention to the comparative effectiveness of the different race/class combinations in PvE as well as PvP.
I also strongly agree with this.

[The Sins We Die By]

I missed this in the quote on the norn bear form somehow...
We want races to really have a pretty big impact on the way characters play.

I think that says what they are going to do right there.

[Mister Smartypants]

Yes, it does, hence my concern. If I wind up feeling forced to play a limited selection of race/class combinations, or have a certain appearance that doesn't suit the character I have in mind, in order to be effective or to utilise my primary GW character's inheritance, GW2 isn't going to hold my interest for very long. (For example, one reason I won't touch WoW with a barge-pole is its cartoony graphics. I just couldn't stand to look at a character that ugly every day.) It might seem shallow to some but I'm far too interested in the visual aspects of the game to want to play it if I'm going to be hemmed in by restrictions like that. I'd rather pay-to-play Aeon.

[mocax]

Maybe a race can quest for a blessing of another race and inherit that other race's traits.

Imagine a Norn with Asura's voice..... >.>

[kyln]

"We want races to really have a pretty big impact on the way characters play."

While it does mean that races will be a factor, it doesn't mention how.

How I would like to see it in a profession system.

When a Warrior:
Norn- get an inherent bonus to strength

Human- get an inherent bonus to tactics

Charr- gain adrenaline faster

Asuran- gain energy faster or have more of it

Sylvari- gain a %chance to block attacks

In the case of warriors this would encourage races to focus on using certain types of skills or attributes that have synergies with racial bonuses. It makes sense that a Norn warrior would be the strongest, but a human warrior has a chance using tactics to be just as effective, a sylvari would not hit as hard as a norn, or the tactics of the human warrior, but agility and intuition would allow them to defend against attacks in a way the others cannot, etc.

This will likely lead to some discrimination anyways. No matter how carefully balanced, there will always be some combinations that are better than others, if only marginally. And once the community thinks one is better, whether it is or not, it will be seen as so by almost every standard PuG.



What I would prefer would be a professionless system. Each race has a unique attribute line that affects other attributes in specific and special ways. Creating fascinating combinations of skills and attributes. This could achieve the goal stated in the quote as well. Asuran are physically weak, but use technology to augment their combat, they could be "spell swords" as it were, when physical fighters, and use technology like constructs when casters. Norn would have various forms that would make them better at various tasks, from casters to physical combatants. Etc.

[The Sins We Die By]

<snip>

I don't mind different means to achieve the same goal at all, that's how it should be done with the races otherwise there may as well just 1 toon type if everyone can do the same thing the same way.

[Duskstryder]

Less restrictions, more choice. One great thing about GW1 is that you can select any 2 professions to combine, and there's plenty of reasons to combine them.

It would be boring if as a P you'd have to /W, as A you'd have to /R, or as E you'd have to /Me to be effective.

BTW, just allowing any combination means nothing if oddball combinations are ineffective. So not only they should allow Norn Necros, but there should be good reasons to be a Norn Necro.


I don't mind different means to achieve the same goal at all, that's how it should be done with the races otherwise there may as well just 1 toon type if everyone can do the same thing the same way.

These statements reflect how I look at how the races should be- a way to add variety to gameplay. There will always be those who think things have to be a certain way- e.g. Warriors have to be Norn, casters have to be Asuran. As long the game is setup such that these aren't necessity, there should be enough ppl that maintain both ways of thinking- those that say Norn Tank, and those that say hey, it's still fun and effective to be an Asuran Tank (as silly and amusing as it sounds):laugh:.

[BrotherGrimm]

It would be a sad waste of a potential game play element if ANet makes an Asuran Warrior the exact same as a Norn Warrior....sad indeed.

It's just like it is now. If you care about PUG acceptance, let that dictate your choice in race / class. If you like to be the outlaw / outcast, play an Asura Warrior and kick some tail. Nobody is restricting your choices, you just have to be willing to live with the choices you make. I play as a Sin and Mesmer a LOT now and I know about being discriminated against...then again, I could care less about being a PUGable commodity.

What I'm talking about is PvE. It's very possible that in order to balance PvP, there may need to be some method to make all racial differences null and void.

[The Sins We Die By]

It's very possible that in order to balance PvP, there may need to be some method to make all racial differences null and void.

That's easy allow for roles, one type is better at this way of healing, another is better at that type of healing. This is good at this type of damage, this one is good at that type of damage. That can use these utilities well, the other can use those utilities well. Improve the current PvP is all they need to do, no need to change it entirely.

[Tru Reptile]

It would be a sad waste of a potential game play element if ANet makes an Asuran Warrior the exact same as a Norn Warrior....sad indeed.

It would be even more sad if people feel forced to play X race because it's better for Y profession. It would also be sad to see crap like this:

"lol that Asuran is a Warrior!" /kick
"Norns suck at Monks, roll an Asura n00b!" /kick
"lawlz Humans are average in everything!" /kick

[The Sins We Die By]

It would be even more sad if people feel forced to play X race because it's better for Y profession. It would also be sad to see crap like this:

"lol that Asuran is a Warrior!" /kick
"Norns suck at Monks, roll an Asura n00b!" /kick
"lawlz Humans are average in everything!" /kick

This is not a problem with the game, it's a problem with people. Start your own pugs get people who aren't going to be asses about your particular choice of character and build. It'll be a new game and have lots of returning and new people, and standards won't be around immediately except probably for PvP.

[Alaris]

This is not a problem with the game, it's a problem with people. Start your own pugs get people who aren't going to be asses about your particular choice of character and build.

It becomes a problem with the game if these race-profession combos are indeed less efficient at their task. If the Asura Warrior can't keep up with the Norn Warrior, then that's bad.

[The Sins We Die By]

It becomes a problem with the game if these race-profession combos are indeed less efficient at their task. If the Asura Warrior can't keep up with the Norn Warrior, then that's bad.
No it would not be a problem. The races are holding true to their physical abilities. The asura make up for their shortcomings in one thing by excelling at another. It doesn't make for a problem as long as an Asura/Warrior can be efficient at the combo, even though it's not it's best task to do.

[Alaris]

No it would not be a problem. The races are holding true to their physical abilities. The asura make up for their shortcomings in one thing by excelling at another. It doesn't make for a problem as long as an Asura/Warrior can be efficient at the combo, even though it's not it's best task to do.

Just so we're clear, I've been arguing that different races should be good at most or all professions, just in different ways. I've also been arguing that if only certain race-professions were good combos, that would be bad.

So if the Asura warrior compensates for lower health & strength by using better shields and life stealing, for example, that's all good for me. That is, assuming that overall it's as good to be a Asura Warrior as it is to be a Norn Warrior.

[Tru Reptile]

This is not a problem with the game, it's a problem with people

Actually, the problem is with both the game and the people. Basically the game dictates what would be the best race for X profession and the people would follow it. Much like how you see cookie-cutter builds, you'll see cookie-cutter race/profession combinations.

I'd rather have Anet avoid all of that crap and just make the differences asthetic. Honestly, if you want a game with races that have different stats and discrimination, then there's plenty of games to choose from. I want GW2 to avoid that pitfall.

[The Sins We Die By]

I'd rather have Anet avoid all of that crap and just make the differences asthetic. Honestly, if you want a game with races that have different stats and discrimination, then there's plenty of games to choose from. I want GW2 to avoid that pitfall.

lol ANet would lose more people basing the game off aesthetics than making a good game mechanically. No one thinks eye candy > game mechanics. Btw there are plenty of games with a single toon and multiple skill paths as well, I'd hate for GW to fall into that pit though, b/c you never hear about those games. Races MUST be better at certain tasks than others. Keep them all efficient at everything else they aren't great at if want to just play for aesthetics.

[Tru Reptile]

lol ANet would lose more people basing the game off aesthetics than making a good game mechanically. No one thinks eye candy > game mechanics. Btw there are plenty of games with a single toon and multiple skill paths as well, I'd hate for GW to fall into that pit though, b/c you never hear about those games. Races MUST be better at certain tasks than others. Keep them all efficient at everything else they aren't great at if want to just play for aesthetics.

lol, It isn't about eye candy, it's about balance. Saying X race must be better at Y profession than any other race is a bad design decision because it limits players, and causes race descrimination. The idea of adding playable races is supposed to provide players with more variety, but having the races being the best at a certain profession takes that variety away.

[raspberry jam]

lol ANet would lose more people basing the game off aesthetics than making a good game mechanically.The choice isn't aesthetics of appearance vs. good game mechanics, its aesthetics of some irrational "different races must be different" vs. good game mechanics.

Seeing it that way, you are correct. Good game mechanics would in this case be keeping the differences between races on the level of appearance and starting location only.

[The Sins We Die By]

lol, It isn't about eye candy, it's about balance. Saying X race must be better at Y profession than any other race is a bad design decision because it limits players, and causes race descrimination. The idea of adding playable races is supposed to provide players with more variety, but having the races being the best at a certain profession takes that variety away.

More variety is fine, as long as it's a different means to achieve the same goal. i.e. Norn attacks are stonger, but slower, human attacks have a better chance to critical, silvari attack quicker, asura have magic qualities to their attacks. As long as there's a difference I don't care, that's diversity there, not all races do the same thing the same way.

[raspberry jam]

More variety is fine, as long as it's a different means to achieve the same goal.The current GW has 1235 PvP-allowed skills (290 of which are elite skills) and 74 PvE-only skills (4 of which are elite, excluding temporary skills such as Jujundu Siege), allowing for an unimaginably vast number of combinations, yet you see the same builds (less than 200 I'd say) circulated again and again, with minor variances maybe. For something as definitive as racial choice, players would take their time to figure out what was best. You'd see only norn melee, asura damage casters, human healers or whatever.

There wouldn't be more variety, there would be less.

[The Sins We Die By]

The current GW has 1235 PvP-allowed skills (290 of which are elite skills) and 74 PvE-only skills (4 of which are elite, excluding temporary skills such as Jujundu Siege), allowing for an unimaginably vast number of combinations, yet you see the same builds (less than 200 I'd say) circulated again and again, with minor variances maybe. For something as definitive as racial choice, players would take their time to figure out what was best. You'd see only norn melee, asura damage casters, human healers or whatever.

There wouldn't be more variety, there would be less.

1235 PvP skills were not around when the game first came out, there were around 450 skills for the initial release. And your trying to make diversity in PvP sound like it's an issue, when it's not. The parties and the bars are not all the same, regardless of the similarities there are differences. Another flaw you have is that you seem to think that selecting a race for PvP will be a problem, when it won't, rerolling ftw. The other thing is that you seem to think players won't try to figure out what is best to run if there were no differences in races, which is wrong. In PvP what's optimal will always be used. Being able to do things in different ways though would allow for multiple balanced team types with slightly different tactics, instead of a general template with slight variences.

[Alaris]

For something as definitive as racial choice, players would take their time to figure out what was best. You'd see only norn melee, asura damage casters, human healers or whatever.

There wouldn't be more variety, there would be less.

I disagree. It depends how it's implemented.

An Asuran with Pain Inverting Shield & Energy-Stealing Weapon Spell might end up preferred by many over the higher health & damage of the Norn.

Similarly, if the Norn have a large energy pool, that might be preferred for casting by many over the mesmer-like skills of the Asura.

Of course, you'll still have more Norn Warriors and Asuran Casters than vice-versa. But at least this way you won't have *only* Norn Warriors and Asuran Casters.

You could also fine-tune the racial skills until it reaches a good balance.

The same happened in WoW. There were more players on the Alliance side than on the Horde side, because all the good-looking characters were on the Alliance side. So they added good-looking Blood Elves on the Horde side, and some bad-looking race on the Alliance side, which helped to even out the differences.

[The Sins We Die By]

I disagree. It depends how it's implemented.

Yes, and they will do it right. Things that end up out of balance can be addressed after release and fixed.

[Divinity Archer]

The same happened in WoW. There were more players on the Alliance side than on the Horde side, because all the good-looking characters were on the Alliance side. So they added good-looking Blood Elves on the Horde side, and some bad-looking race on the Alliance side, which helped to even out the differences.

What I also saw happening in WoW (in the short time that I played it) is that Undead characters have an incredible racial-skill that offers a bigger advantage in PvP then most other races. I hope it wont go that far in GW2.

[Zsig]

As long as they don't make the same mistake as in GW1, which is the exaggerated number of skills on each of the new chapters, balancing the game in terms of skills shouldn't be a problem.

Also, this discussion is almost irrelevant. We all know each race will have different options and will not be only "cosmetic", so regardless what you think, all we have left is to hope that they can do it without screwing balance and freedom of choice.

Discrimination can't be helped though, except maybe try to minimize it (and i know, making them only cosmetic would help, but at what cost?). Even if you make them purely cosmetic people will try to find reasons to say one is better than the other.

"ah, but norn are bigger so that makes them bigger targets and thus easier to pinpoint and hit"

"ah, but Sylvari are so kewl, they MUST be good!"

[Divinity Archer]

Even if you make them purely cosmetic people will try to find reasons to say one is better than the other.


Hehe, I guess you are right with that, but knowing there is no real difference should be more then enough for me :wink:

If racials traits are going to be there, I hope Anet is going to balance them propperly.

[raspberry jam]

1235 PvP skills were not around when the game first came out, there were around 450 skills for the initial release. And your trying to make diversity in PvP sound like it's an issue, when it's not. The parties and the bars are not all the same, regardless of the similarities there are differences. Another flaw you have is that you seem to think that selecting a race for PvP will be a problem, when it won't, rerolling ftw. The other thing is that you seem to think players won't try to figure out what is best to run if there were no differences in races, which is wrong. In PvP what's optimal will always be used. Being able to do things in different ways though would allow for multiple balanced team types with slightly different tactics, instead of a general template with slight variences.450 skills in 8 slots is still an unimaginably vast number of combinations, but even so, the number of builds used back then was probably larger than the number used today - and not due to simply not knowing which builds were the best.
Besides that, I'm talking about diversity in endgame PvE, where people can be expected to have most skills. How many elementalists out there are fire eles? A good chunk, right? How many of those use either Savannah Heat or Searing Flames as their elite? How many Word of Healing monks are there, compared to the number of monks that choose Greater Conflagration as elite?
Possible diversity does not mean actual diversity, and making the choices that create such diversity irreversible (and putting them as early as character creation), will only - in fact, can only - serve to reduce diversity.

A much better solution would be to develop all the various differences in gameplay, and then offer them all, by reversible choices (in the same way that our current characters can change secondary profession).

I'm not concerned about PvP here, for the simple reason that if there isn't a possibility to create a PvP-only character instantly ready for play the way the current GW has, I won't be getting GW2. It's PvE I'm concerned about.

I disagree. It depends how it's implemented.

An Asuran with Pain Inverting Shield & Energy-Stealing Weapon Spell might end up preferred by many over the higher health & damage of the Norn.

Similarly, if the Norn have a large energy pool, that might be preferred for casting by many over the mesmer-like skills of the Asura.

Of course, you'll still have more Norn Warriors and Asuran Casters than vice-versa. But at least this way you won't have *only* Norn Warriors and Asuran Casters.An interesting argument. Let's compare it to the current GW. Let's say you want to play a heavy melee character, so you create a warrior. After trying sword, axe and hammer you decide that the axe suits your personal play style best. Even so, the option to use any of the two other warrior weapons is still there.

Now fast forward to GW2. You want to play a heavy melee character, so you create an asura. They have pain inverting shields and what not, so that sounds good. After trying asura, norn and human... no wait... you're playing an asura all the time, so that's all you'll see. Even so, the option to play as a norn... still exists... if you feel like building up a new character from scratch, that is...

So since the racial choice will matter so much (if it does), players will try as best as they can to decide beforehand what they want to play. They'll read boards, read wiki, etc. etc., prejudice will be even more prevalent than in the current GW, and still people will make the wrong choice, choosing one race when they if you see to their personal playstyle might prefer another race better, simply because you can't get the experience from playing thought just reading about it - and by then they have spent months or at least weeks building up a character of the "wrong" race.

Racial choice is irreversible, and therein lies the problem. By having an irreversible choice that reflects your future playstyle, not your intents concerning the character (healer, melee, etc.), you have already made an implementation decision that leads to all kinds of problems that I have detailed here, and way more than that as well.
What I'm trying to say is that you can't simply say "It depends how it's implemented", because by saying that races have differing characteristics you have already made an implementation decision.

[The Sins We Die By]

450 skills in 8 slots is still an unimaginably vast number of combinations, but even so, the number of builds used back then was probably larger than the number used today - and not due to simply not knowing which builds were the best.
Besides that, I'm talking about diversity in endgame PvE, where people can be expected to have most skills. How many elementalists out there are fire eles? A good chunk, right? How many of those use either Savannah Heat or Searing Flames as their elite? How many Word of Healing monks are there, compared to the number of monks that choose Greater Conflagration as elite?
Possible diversity does not mean actual diversity, and making the choices that create such diversity irreversible (and putting them as early as character creation), will only - in fact, can only - serve to reduce diversity.

A much better solution would be to develop all the various differences in gameplay, and then offer them all, by reversible choices (in the same way that our current characters can change secondary profession).

I'm not concerned about PvP here, for the simple reason that if there isn't a possibility to create a PvP-only character instantly ready for play the way the current GW has, I won't be getting GW2. It's PvE I'm concerned about.


Now your backtracking and changing your points. Playing stupid has nothing to do with balance, greater conflag has nothing to do with someone trying to fulfill a healing role. Then you also talk about ele's always run fire in PvE. That's kind of duh as its a stong AoE hitting lots of foes, that point means nothing other than fire magic fulfills that purpose better than air. That has nothing to do with comparing professions, it's just a distraction. Diversity does mean real diversity. Also I am not suggesting irreversible choices, my suggestion does not give players a choice to select what they want inherent bonuses to races to be or what racial skills will do. The suggestion does make the differences balanced though, b/c that is the suggestion... to make the end result the same but the means different.

[Mister Smartypants]

I disagree with The Sins We Die By's stance that different races should be better at some things than others. That's not the sort of game I want to be playing. That is all.

[Akirai Annuvil]

(1) There was more build diversity, in both PvE and PvP, when Nightfall had not been released yet. Both when it was only prophecies and when it was prophecies + factions.
(2) Multiple passive forms of metamagic stacking on each other are incredibly hard to balance; to the extent suggested, with 5 classes and 4 races, it is impossible.
(3) Merge these. (http://guildwars.incgamers.com/showthread.php?t=476845)

[Alaris]

A recurrent theme in my reply: what is the alternative?

the number of builds used back then was probably larger than the number used today - and not due to simply not knowing which builds were the best.

I'm not interested in arguing in the number of builds used. I'm interested in arguing about the number of viable builds. If I can play an Asuran Warrior viably, then I'm happy with that.

Besides that, I'm talking about diversity in endgame PvE, where people can be expected to have most skills.

Not every build is a good build. So what? But there are good reasons to play just about any combo of 2 professions in GW. 90 ways to combine 2 of 10 professions. That's huge. That's fun. And most of them viable.

Possible diversity does not mean actual diversity, and making the choices that create such diversity irreversible (and putting them as early as character creation), will only - in fact, can only - serve to reduce diversity.

Consider the alternative. Some argue that Norn should be better warriors and Asuras should be better casters. That's even less diversity than what you're arguing against, because there's no incentive to be an Asuran Warrior or a Norn Monk other than for roleplaying reasons.

A much better solution would be to develop all the various differences in gameplay, and then offer them all, by reversible choices (in the same way that our current characters can change secondary profession).

I've argued (perhaps elsewhere) that because of the introduction of race, they should make primary and secondary professions reversible. You'd have the equipment serve as incentive to stick with fewer primary professions, because you'd need different sets of equipment for the different professions.

I'm not concerned about PvP here, for the simple reason that if there isn't a possibility to create a PvP-only character instantly ready for play the way the current GW has, I won't be getting GW2.

I think PvE characters will have access to max stats & max equipment in PvP areas.

So since the racial choice will matter so much (if it does), players will try as best as they can to decide beforehand what they want to play.

See above. Besides, even so I'd prefer the option of choosing a race & profession over choosing only a profession. As long as ANet is committed to balancing these options, then the profession-race combo is not inherently *wrong*, it's just *wrong* for your play style.

Having some insight pays. Besides, I started collecting titles on my Paragon, then decided the Paragon was wrong for me and started over on my Ranger. What is the alternative? Would I have preferred that there would not be a Paragon in the first place? No.

Having the freedom of choice comes with the consequences of making bad choices. But it's still better than not having a choice.

Racial choice is irreversible, and therein lies the problem. What I'm trying to say is that you can't simply say "It depends how it's implemented", because by saying that races have differing characteristics you have already made an implementation decision.

It depends on how it's implemented.

Consider the alternative. In WoW, Night Elves have the ability to make themselves invisible. I think that this is a unique thing that only they can do (or maybe 1-2 professions can also, I don't know). And it's a powerful ability.

Night Elves also can't be Warlocks, so they can't summon demons. Which I wanted to do.

I wanted a Night Elf Warlock. But the developers said no. Frankly, if the Night Elves had 50% less mana for some reason, it would be really bad for Warlocks, and we'd have the same problem.

Fast forward to GW2. Not only you can be any race and any profession, but you have good reasons to be those. You have choices.

In short:
1) Not having a choice is bad IMO. In GW1, you only have 1 race, hence, no choice.
2) Unbalanced choices are also bad. Norn with high health & melee damage is no good for casters.
3) Balanced equal choices is not really a choice (except for cosmetics). If all races have all the same abilities, then it's boring. But still better than #1 or #2.
4) Balanced unequal choices is meaningful and fun. They play differently, but they all are viable choices. BTW, it's easier to implement than you'd think. If Asura Warriors are bad, just boost the Asura Warrior skills (pain invert or leech melee equipment skills).
5) Provide enough racial skills to choose from that hopefully you won't feel like you made a permanent bad choice. In GW1, a lot resides on choose the right primary: skill choices, primary ability's passive bonus, energy, armor... But with a choice of racial skills, you have more leeway to pick the one(s) that fit your playstyle.
6) Reversible choice > permanent choice > no choice.

[themagicmoedee]

I've been away for a while and given the thread a brief reading, but it seems to me like the new feature today in Gamasutra suggests a proper response to this proposal. Specifically, if the racial abilities naturally pidgeonhole into specific utilities (say, one race has an ability that makes healing work better), you're pretty much going to doom that race into being dedicated healers.

[raspberry jam]

Now your backtracking and changing your points. Playing stupid has nothing to do with balance, greater conflag has nothing to do with someone trying to fulfill a healing role. Then you also talk about ele's always run fire in PvE. That's kind of duh as its a stong AoE hitting lots of foes, that point means nothing other than fire magic fulfills that purpose better than air. That has nothing to do with comparing professions, it's just a distraction. Diversity does mean real diversity. Also I am not suggesting irreversible choices, my suggestion does not give players a choice to select what they want inherent bonuses to races to be or what racial skills will do. The suggestion does make the differences balanced though, b/c that is the suggestion... to make the end result the same but the means different.My point is that with passive abilities you might very well be able to say "running norns as melee is kind of duh since they have much more health/hits harder/can be a bear".

I'm not interested in arguing in the number of builds used. I'm interested in arguing about the number of viable builds. If I can play an Asuran Warrior viably, then I'm happy with that.My sentiment exactly...

Not every build is a good build. So what? But there are good reasons to play just about any combo of 2 professions in GW. 90 ways to combine 2 of 10 professions. That's huge. That's fun. And most of them viable.Absolutely.

[sever artery][gash][dragon slash][club of a thousand bears][flail][enraging charge][for great justice][rebirth]

[power attack][healing breeze][spear of light][sever artery][resurrection signet][defensive stance][shields up][purge signet]

Both these W/Mo builds are "viable". One of them will get you kicked from a FoW pickup group.

Consider the alternative. Some argue that Norn should be better warriors and Asuras should be better casters. That's even less diversity than what you're arguing against, because there's no incentive to be an Asuran Warrior or a Norn Monk other than for roleplaying reasons.The alternative - that is, no difference between races at all - would make it possible to, in good conscience, choose to play an asuran warrior for roleplaying reasons without being penalized for it much later in the game. That sounds good to me.

I've argued (perhaps elsewhere) that because of the introduction of race, they should make primary and secondary professions reversible. You'd have the equipment serve as incentive to stick with fewer primary professions, because you'd need different sets of equipment for the different professions.This somehow reminds me of Dungeon Siege. Can you expand on your thoughts?

As long as ANet is committed to balancing these options, then the profession-race combo is not inherently *wrong*, it's just *wrong* for your play style.That's what I meant by "wrong"... But since you can't change your race once you choose it, you won't discover that you made a wrong choice until you have played for quite some time - or maybe never.

Having some insight pays. Besides, I started collecting titles on my Paragon, then decided the Paragon was wrong for me and started over on my Ranger. What is the alternative? Would I have preferred that there would not be a Paragon in the first place? No.But a ranger is quite different from a paragon. Let's say you, for some reason, got irritated on your paragon's hairstyle. You wanted to change it. Would you go back and make a new paragon, playing through all the missions you already played, getting all the skills you already had earned, leveling through all the levels you already leveled through (and remember, in GW2 there will potentially be endless levels)...?

Having the freedom of choice comes with the consequences of making bad choices. But it's still better than not having a choice.Sure - and it's even better to have choices without consequences. The variances in gameplay mechanics can, and should, still be there, I'm just saying that they should be tied to choices such as choosing a secondary profession in the current GW. If this would for example mean race-specific skills that are given to characters of that race early on but that characters of any race can earn eventually, then fine, I'm ok with that.



1) Not having a choice is bad IMO. In GW1, you only have 1 race, hence, no choice.
2) Unbalanced choices are also bad. Norn with high health & melee damage is no good for casters.
3) Balanced equal choices is not really a choice (except for cosmetics). If all races have all the same abilities, then it's boring. But still better than #1 or #2.I agree with all these, of course (not that #3 is "boring" though, since that entirely depends on the gameplay).

4) Balanced unequal choices is meaningful and fun. They play differently, but they all are viable choices. BTW, it's easier to implement than you'd think. If Asura Warriors are bad, just boost the Asura Warrior skills (pain invert or leech melee equipment skills).I disagree with this. It's not at all easy to balance, which is exactly why build diversity in GW is comparatively small compared to the number of potential builds. The problem is in orthogonal parts of the combat system - for example, in the current GW, elementalists outdamage warriors during low levels because they have access to skills such as "do 100 damage on target", while warriors outdamage anything on very high levels because of extremely spammable skills that cause armor-ignoring damage (the "orthogonal" part here is that some damage ignores armor, some damage don't).
The task of balancing is then to make sure that no matter what your irreversible choices has been, you should still be able to reach anywhere within the action space - in short, an asura warrior with pain inverting abilities should, in all parts of the game, be as valuable as a norn warrior who simply hits harder and has more health. Even if that was possible to do (and that would require you to define the combat system), you'd then be faced with the problem of making every other race/profession fit and be equally valuable.
There are two ways to do this. The first way is to make the combat system very simple (e.g. Diablo 2), oriented on flat, boring concepts such as straight damage, and requiring no support roles. the second way is to create a system as complex as the one in the current GW, but then making everything fit would be a monumental task (in the current GW that task is completed by making sure that the amount of irreversible choices is, like... one. Your primary profession).

6) Reversible choice > permanent choice > no choice.We agree. So why do you want to have permanent choices when they can be reversible?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Just to add, the main problem is availability of options. Currently, my level 20 elementalist can play as water ele even if she spend her entire life playing fire ele. But in the suggested GW2, a level 50 sylvari elementalist could not suddenly choose to play the "asura way" at level 50 - for that, you'd have to make a completely new character and level that character to 50. The obvious solution if you want to be able to play the complete game would be to have 30+ characters, which is not very appealing.

[The Sins We Die By]

1) Not having a choice is bad IMO. In GW1, you only have 1 race, hence, no choice.
2) Unbalanced choices are also bad. Norn with high health & melee damage is no good for casters.
3) Balanced equal choices is not really a choice (except for cosmetics). If all races have all the same abilities, then it's boring. But still better than #1 or #2.
4) Balanced unequal choices is meaningful and fun. They play differently, but they all are viable choices. BTW, it's easier to implement than you'd think. If Asura Warriors are bad, just boost the Asura Warrior skills (pain invert or leech melee equipment skills).
5) Provide enough racial skills to choose from that hopefully you won't feel like you made a permanent bad choice. In GW1, a lot resides on choose the right primary: skill choices, primary ability's passive bonus, energy, armor... But with a choice of racial skills, you have more leeway to pick the one(s) that fit your playstyle.
6) Reversible choice > permanent choice > no choice.

1) You have 10 professions, that = choice

2) It is bad for casting, but I prefer set roles. Also you assume that bear form is going to be only difference between norn and the other races.

3) I agree it's boring, but it's not better than having set roles.

4) I'd word that differently, but I understand what you mean. That's my limit to where I'd find GW2 acceptable. If they don't go with that, set race roles, or with something in between I wouldn't play it. The ritualist and ranger and PvE skills are probably the best examples of this type of play in GW. In all honestly this is probably the way PvE should be set up though not PvP, as PvE is meant to be easier, more laid back, and not as competitive.

5) This is the way I prefer to play and hopefully this stands at least for PvP, primary professions or races dictating a lot of what you can do best, efficiently, or badly.

6) I agree 100%, though right there you just disproved your own point.
3) Balanced equal choices is not really a choice (except for cosmetics). If all races have all the same abilities, then it's boring. But still better than #1 or #2.

[Zsig]

Reversible choice > permanent choice > no choice.
I'll show you bellow why that is true but shouldn't be taken to the extreme.
Absolutely.

[sever artery][gash][dragon slash][club of a thousand bears][flail][enraging charge][for great justice][rebirth]

[power attack][healing breeze][spear of light][sever artery][resurrection signet][defensive stance][shields up][purge signet]

Both these W/Mo builds are "viable". One of them will get you kicked from a FoW pickup group.


The answer is actually "Both". Both the presented builds would get you kicked from a PuG in FoW. Because as the game stands now, you're only accepted if you use Ursan.

Reversibility is good, but there's a measure of how much of it should be used, otherwise, if you make all choices reversible you'll end up with something like [Ursan Blessing].

There needs to be permanent choices, or the fact that the game offers hundreds or thousands of skill possibilities turns out redundant if one can/must take only the best option in order to play the game.

[The Sins We Die By]

Reversibility is good, but there's a measure of how much of it should be used, otherwise, if you make all choices reversible you'll end up with something like [Ursan Blessing].

There needs to be permanent choices, or the fact that the game offers hundreds or thousands of skill possibilities turns out redundant if one can/must take only the best option in order to play the game.

I like that wording better than my own.

[Alaris]

1) You have 10 professions, that = choice
2) It is bad for casting, but I prefer set roles. Also you assume that bear form is going to be only difference between norn and the other races.
3) I agree it's boring, but it's not better than having set roles.
4) I'd word that differently, but I understand what you mean. That's my limit to where I'd find GW2 acceptable. If they don't go with that, set race roles, or with something in between I wouldn't play it. The ritualist and ranger and PvE skills are probably the best examples of this type of play in GW. In all honestly this is probably the way PvE should be set up though not PvP, as PvE is meant to be easier, more laid back, and not as competitive.
5) This is the way I prefer to play and hopefully this stands at least for PvP, primary professions or races dictating a lot of what you can do best, efficiently, or badly.
6) I agree 100%, though right there you just disproved your own point.

1) Yes. I was making a point about race.
2) I *hope* that there will be Norn forms for casting classes.
3) Matter of opinion, I guess.
4-5) Bacon.
6) If you can change your primary profession, then great.

1) One of them will get you kicked from a FoW pickup group.
2) The alternative - that is, no difference between races at all
3) This somehow reminds me of Dungeon Siege.
4) That's what I meant by "wrong"... But since you can't change your race once you choose it, you won't discover that you made a wrong choice until you have played for quite some time - or maybe never.
5) But a ranger is quite different from a paragon.
6) Sure - and it's even better to have choices without consequences.
7) If this would for example mean race-specific skills that are given to characters of that race early on but that characters of any race can earn eventually, then fine, I'm ok with that.
8) I disagree with this. It's not at all easy to balance
9) The task of balancing is then to make sure that no matter what your irreversible choices has been, you should still be able to reach anywhere within the action space
10) We agree. So why do you want to have permanent choices when they can be reversible?

1) Discrimination is a different conversation altogether. If they are viable ways to play, I'm ok with that. You can find ways around discrimination.
2) Cosmetic differences only. It's a matter of opinion.
3) Sorta like DS. But instead, imaging you choose your race, and then you can switch around your primary and secondary professions at will. Of course, you'd then have to have armors and items for each profession you want to use. You still need to select your build before getting into explorables.
4) Yes, but at least it won't be because the race-prof is not viable.
5) Again, both are viable.
6) Choices without consequence... is it really better? I'd vote for some consequences but enough leeway so that you don't feel too limited.
7) Or you could have all race skills available to all races, except that you can equip a rune for your race.
8) It's not easy to balance, of course. But it's well within the abilities of ANet.
9) See #8.
10) You can't revert race. But passive built-in abilities are far worse than what I am proposing. A choice of racial skills adept for different professions is pretty reversible.

[The Sins We Die By]

6) If you can change your primary profession, then great.

You can, just have to reroll, but that doesn't work very well for PvE lol. I think I'd actually like races to not be changable in PvE, cuz it's a little odd to suddenly be asura then norn.

[raspberry jam]

Sorta like DS. But instead, imaging you choose your race, and then you can switch around your primary and secondary professions at will. Of course, you'd then have to have armors and items for each profession you want to use. You still need to select your build before getting into explorables.I see what you mean, but the common way to think about a character is "I want this character to be a healer", "I want this character to be melee", etc. Race is frequently a secondary choice.


4) Yes, but at least it won't be because the race-prof is not viable.
5) Again, both are viable.Totally dodging my point.

6) Choices without consequence... is it really better? I'd vote for some consequences but enough leeway so that you don't feel too limited.Of course choices should have consequences, it wouldn't be much of a game if it didn't. What I meant was that there should be as few permanent consequences as possible, which you agreed with.
Why? Because the (PvE) game should not be about completing mission/quests and becoming a hero, not about character creation!

7) Or you could have all race skills available to all races, except that you can equip a rune for your race.That is exactly the kind of thing that would create discrimination. Yes, as you said, there are ways to deal with discrimination. Why don't you go and tell that to all the pissed off mesmer players.

8) It's not easy to balance, of course. But it's well within the abilities of ANet.GW is well-balanced because it's made from the beginning to be easily balanced. And yet:

Prophecies fire ele elite: [mind burn]

Nightfall fire ele elite: [searing flames]

Eye of the North ele elite: [ursan blessing]

Not to mention how long it took them to figure out that soul reaping was unbalanced - no wait: not to mention that they still haven't figured out that expertise is unbalanced. And I'm saying that knowing that ANet is a company that actually knows how to balance a game like this. And you want to throw a problem that is several orders of magnitude greater into their lap?

10) You can't revert race. But passive built-in abilities are far worse than what I am proposing. A choice of racial skills adept for different professions is pretty reversible.And of course, no differences except cosmetic ones would be even better, speaking in the interests of diversity that is. So why do you want mechanical differences?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Reversibility is good, but there's a measure of how much of it should be used, otherwise, if you make all choices reversible you'll end up with something like [Ursan Blessing].

There needs to be permanent choices, or the fact that the game offers hundreds or thousands of skill possibilities turns out redundant if one can/must take only the best option in order to play the game.I see. That must be why everyone and his mother ran UB in Prophecies.

Actually, you can quite easily escape all sorts of cookie cutter builds by making sure that everything is balanced. That people point to unbalanced skills/builds and attempts to use these to show that perfect balance is possible is simply astounding.

Of course, cookie cutter builds cannot be escaped since you cannot (and should not) balance everything perfectly, and that is what will kill diversity if there are differences between races. We will only see healers of one race, melee of another race, damage casters of a third race and so on.

[NeHoMaR]

I didn't read this thread, only the title, anyway I think GW2 should have some differences between races, I mean, an Asura warrior shouldn't be exactly the same (in stats) as a Norn warrior. Or, just don't allow a Asura to be a warrior at all.

[Alaris]

1) the common way to think about a character is "I want this character to be a healer". Race is frequently a secondary choice.
2) Totally dodging my point.
3) Of course choices should have consequences, it wouldn't be much of a game if it didn't. What I meant was that there should be as few permanent consequences as possible, which you agreed with.
4) Why? Because the (PvE) game should not be about completing mission/quests and becoming a hero, not about character creation!
5) That is exactly the kind of thing that would create discrimination. Yes, as you said, there are ways to deal with discrimination. Why don't you go and tell that to all the pissed off mesmer players.
6) Not to mention how long it took them to figure out that soul reaping was unbalanced - no wait: not to mention that they still haven't figured out that expertise is unbalanced.

1) That's often the case, but I think it would be fun if it wasn't. I've enjoyed going melee, spirit spammer, or even healer using my ranger. I've enjoyed lots of different ways of playing my necro. Something to consider: pick your race, but have professions changeable.
2-4) Not dodging, but rather, having a different opinion. Part of the roleplaying aspect and the fun of having different races is that they have different abilities, different flavors. The runes idea was not meant to put everyone on a same footing, but rather, to encourage people using skills from their own race. So that they keep their flavor. The balancing still has to be there, so that every race-prof is viable. Character creation is a big part of roleplaying. Some people will even re-roll just because they don't like the look or the name anymore.
5) Mesmers would still prefer to be mesmers than to re-roll, and I understand and respect that. Same with sins. Deleting those professions will do no good. People want to have different characters, different races, that have different strengths and weaknesses. That will happen. What I ask is that any race-prof combo is viable.
6) Expertise is not unbalanced, it's flexible. Soul reaping just needed a small nerf. And balancing is a work in progress, always.

And PUGs will be PUGs, discrimination and prejudice and all. Some PUGs are great. Some are not. I've had a guy yelling at everyone in the team for not doing things right. We ditched him.

There's enough players in GW to find the ones that play nice, and have fun. Find them. Then it really won't matter that you are a sin or mesmer, in fact, they will take you in for your unique strengths.

Unless, of course, you are an Asuran Sin called "Killroy Stoneskin".

EDIT: btw, a ranger using a scythe has a different build than a sin or a dervish using a scythe. They could be balanced, as in equally strong and useful, but each has its strengths & weaknesses. Sin relies on critical hits for energy, Derv relies on enchantments, and Ranger does not have those weaknesses nor does she benefit from those strengths.

[raspberry jam]

1) That's often the case, but I think it would be fun if it wasn't. I've enjoyed going melee, spirit spammer, or even healer using my ranger. I've enjoyed lots of different ways of playing my necro. Something to consider: pick your race, but have professions changeable.But... that just leads back to square 1. Then if you join a team for something else than soloing, you'll be expected to go melee if you are norn, expected to heal if you are sylvari, etc., simply because that's what your race does best (and if there are even slight differences, the expectations will be there, and the discrimination too).

2-4) Not dodging, but rather, having a different opinion. Part of the roleplaying aspect and the fun of having different races is that they have different abilities, different flavors. The runes idea was not meant to put everyone on a same footing, but rather, to encourage people using skills from their own race. So that they keep their flavor. The balancing still has to be there, so that every race-prof is viable. Character creation is a big part of roleplaying. Some people will even re-roll just because they don't like the look or the name anymore.I kind of, sort of, like the runes thing, as well has having racial skills that everyone (even those not of your race) can learn eventually, it's the best way to implement passive racials if you must have them.
But I still think that permanent choices are bad, and you shouldn't make people feel forced to reroll.

5) Mesmers would still prefer to be mesmers than to re-roll, and I understand and respect that. Same with sins. Deleting those professions will do no good. People want to have different characters, different races, that have different strengths and weaknesses. That will happen. What I ask is that any race-prof combo is viable.You have two problems then:
1) GW2 will be made by a company that couldn't make all combos equally viable even back when there was only 6 professions and 1 race. That's not saying they are bad at balance. Rather the opposite, they are good at balance, which should show how hard this problem really is.
2) Even if they succeed, discrimination exists in people's heads. Mesmers are perfectly viable in PvE, yet the problem exists.

6) Expertise is not unbalanced, it's flexible. Soul reaping just needed a small nerf. And balancing is a work in progress, always. Expertise is ridiculously unbalanced.

And PUGs will be PUGs, discrimination and prejudice and all. Some PUGs are great. Some are not. I've had a guy yelling at everyone in the team for not doing things right. We ditched him.

There's enough players in GW to find the ones that play nice, and have fun. Find them. Then it really won't matter that you are a sin or mesmer, in fact, they will take you in for your unique strengths.If this was true, then there would be no problem. If your close friends, guildies, etc. were always available when you wanted to group up, the problem would not exist. But as they are not, it does.

EDIT: btw, a ranger using a scythe has a different build than a sin or a dervish using a scythe. They could be balanced, as in equally strong and useful, but each has its strengths & weaknesses. Sin relies on critical hits for energy, Derv relies on enchantments, and Ranger does not have those weaknesses nor does she benefit from those strengths.Bu... wha... what??? :huh:
They are unbalanced because the effort needed to play a scythe ranger is almost nil (being one of my most played builds I know this. lol) while being a very strong melee character, at least as long as you do what you normally do with scythes.

[Skyy High]

Raspberry, all rhetoric aside, there are going to be racial skills. Unless of course, you don't think there will be a public outcry when players can't turn into nornbears. The only thing to be done is to make sure that other classes have racial skills that make them equally desirable.

If you take away the lock on primary profession (which has definitely been hinted at by the devs in some interviews), then you're left with exactly the same scenario as you have today: one choice upon character creation. Only, instead of choosing what profession you are, you choose what race you want to be. Even if it does turn out that asura warriors are, for whatever reason, unwanted in some endgame dungeon, the player would be able to swap professions to some caster class and play as that. Anyone hardcore enough to be attempting something that players actually discriminate for would certainly not have a problem with changing his profession to be more suitable if he could, just like a blood necro who really wanted to get in a PUG for the Deep (when people actually went there) would have no trouble with going echo-SS.

I specifically am talking about elite missions here, because no one gives a crap in normal PvE, at least not in the game we have now. Sure, sometimes you'll run into people who whine and cry when you bring along a bad build, but quite often the e/r beastmaster will be just fine for getting through the game, and he'll be able to find at least a couple people to do it with, if he so desires.

To me, this is the best compromise between promoting playability and balance, while making the game make some sort of sense. Having a norn and an asura be exactly the same from the get-go truly makes no sense; if at the end of the game, both learn all the racial skills of the other, that would be perfectly fine, but it will disappoint and confuse a lot of PvE-ers if there really is no difference between norn and asura warriors. Heck, I can imagine a lot of people making up their own differences ("Norns always hit harder," "Asura crit more often," "Sylvari block more often," etc) if the devs don't put in ones of their own.

[Zsig]

Raspberry, all rhetoric aside, there are going to be racial skills. Unless of course, you don't think there will be a public outcry when players can't turn into nornbears. The only thing to be done is to make sure that other classes have racial skills that make them equally desirable.


Exactly. Two facts we can't deny is that:

1) Norns are going to be ble to assume bearform;
2) All other races will have abilities just as significant.

These two facts were given in the interview. You can't deny that, regardless of what you *think* would be the best scenario, and honestly, you won't change anyone's minds with what you think, and as is the case of most forums, noone gives a damn about what you or anyone else think.

So, saying that you want the races to be purely cosmetic is pointless.

[raspberry jam]

I'm not saying that there will not be differences between races. There probably will be. What I'm saying is that these differences will cause problems. These problems should be recognized, and if possible we should suggest methods to avoid them, so that, after GW2 is released, we can blame ANet for completely ignoring us.

Skyy: You are right, but the problem is that as a necro, switching from blood to curses isn't really a big deal. You are still a necro, you are still a sorcerer of death etc., just using spells from a different one of your black-spined, bone-inlaid spellbooks.
Switching from healing to melee is a big deal, or from melee to healing (which is the very thing that so many paladin players think is boring about endgame WoW. now watch people saying that "I play a paladin healer and its fun"), is a big deal.

Then we have the same problem as the current one with mesmers who go ursan because no one accepts them as mesmers. The argument that "oh but their characters can play now, so mesmers have access to endgame content" is, as you very well know, stupid, because they do not have access as mesmers but as ursans. It'll be the same in GW2 then; a human character that has been played as ranger for the entire storyline, has access to the endgame content... but only as necromancer.

To me, this is the best compromise between promoting playability and balance, while making the game make some sort of sense. Having a norn and an asura be exactly the same from the get-go truly makes no senseWhy not? Because the norn is bigger?

Having a 7ft male warrior be exactly the same as a 5ft female warrior makes sense?
Fireballs makes sense?
Having a bleeding wound that stops bleeding on its own accord in 20 seconds makes sense? How about a severed tendon that heals by itself in 15 seconds?

[Skyy High]

Those things make sense, because they're standard rpg/fantasy game fare; we suspend our disbelief and they make sense in the context of the game world. But likewise, the idea of a big bruiser of a race hitting harder than a little guy with a big mouth is also ingrained in the standard fantasy genre mentality. I'm not debating whether or not it would be the best idea, as far as pure game design goes, to have the races be identical. I'm saying it won't (or shouldn't, provided ANet does their jobs) make a big enough difference to warrant shredding the idea of "big race = hit hard" that is sure to be in everyone's mind when they buy GW2.

The average player isn't going to go on a forum and read arguments about why it's better game design for the races to be exactly the same; he's going to load up his norn and just expect to be smacking people around harder than the little asura next to him. I submit that this mentality will be so strong, people will start to make up hidden racial stat boosts just because they believe so strongly that a norn warrior will hit harder than an asura warrior.

I also maintain that subtle differences in power will make absolutely no difference for 95% of PvE, if it's anything at all like PvE in the current game. The remaining 5% will be populated by people who care more about completing the mission by any means necessary, and less about Joe Casual who wants to get through the game with his "weak" Sylvari warrior. Chances are, if Joe Casual isn't hardcore enough to be able to play a bunch of different professions on his Sylvari as easily as we swap builds today, he's probably not good enough to do the mission anyway.

Of course, this is me assuming that people will actually use the profession-swapping ability we will (supposedly) have; I know you say that swapping from monk to warrior is a big deal, but how many people only stick with one profession (talking PvE here) because that's all they know? In my experience, people stick with one profession because they want one main character, but they can and do play other professions as well, at least well enough to get through the game. This is in a game that, as you well know, rather discourages people from having multiple chars, and hence playing multiple professions. Turn that around for a second; what if GW2 actually encouraged players to play multiple professions? This isn't PvP where you need to learn your role, inside and out; swapping roles throughout the game can be fun and add to the experience, if it's encouraged (and not forced through game mechanics).

[raspberry jam]

...

Skyy, are you serious? You say yourself that such thoughts will exist, even that people will make up hidden stat bonuses themselves (which I doubt. well, someone probably will, but that someone can probably be ignored), and then you say that ANet shouldn't at least try to combat that? That they should even encourage discrimination?

The average player isn't going to go on a forum and read arguments about why it's better game design for the races to be exactly the same; he's going to load up his norn and just expect to be smacking people around harder than the little asura next to him.The average player loads up the current Guild Wars and expects to tank with his warrior and about a million other preconceptions, most of which are false in GW. And that is a very large part of what makes it an exciting game. A lot of things that "makes sense" in other games was thrown out the window in GW - and what we got was the best game