PDA

View Full Version : GW2 Proffessions: Equality vs. Lore



Elex Aio
12-04-2008, 03:51
I was on the Official Wiki, on Gaile's GW2 Suggestions page, and I saw a really good idea! People were discussing whether the way proffessions work should go by equality or lore. (for example, should norn be stronger/have more health or should all only be asthetically different). I know for a while, people have been pondering this question and are very divided.

But the real answer is both! All players can be pleased by making all races (basicly) equal while still going by lore. The poster of the idea said that norn might have more health, asura have more energy (even warriors can benefit from this), char have stronger attacks, and humans get benefits from (drawing power from) the gods. I agree with this. I also suggested that perhaps humans could be the "well-rounded" class that had bonuses in all areas, yet not as potent. Also Sylvari could perhaps be faster (We can't really make good, backed up ideas about Sylvari yet though, since we know little about them). The poster of this idea said that this way, with different buffs on different races, each race would be wanted for all proffessions. I think this would lead to interesting combinations with proffessions and races as well.

I posted this here because I found the idea to be REALLY awesome, and I want it to be seen.

Note that there might still be one balance problem: Perhaps people that might find, regardless of the other buffs, that one race is still best suited for a certain class. (Even though this might be completely opinion, and depending on how you like to play, like prefering axe over sword, they'd both still get used.) But I'm sure that if it was a major issue, it could be balanced easily.

The Sins We Die By
12-04-2008, 04:07
We've been discussing similar things in the "Passive Ability on Races" thread here.

Elex Aio
12-04-2008, 04:38
Oh.

>.>

<.<

Well I'm glad its already a common idea, it'd be great if Anet used it.

Zsig
12-04-2008, 05:41
...and i thought this was a thread about professions... and not races, as suggests the title

Elex Aio
15-04-2008, 22:31
oops... I can't believe this is the first time I realised this. Sorry for the misleading title! :embarassed:

raspberry jam
16-04-2008, 00:53
Perhaps people that might find, regardless of the other buffs, that one race is still best suited for a certain class. (Even though this might be completely opinion, and depending on how you like to play, like prefering axe over sword, they'd both still get used.) But I'm sure that if it was a major issue, it could be balanced easily.No it couldn't, and even if it could, the prejudices would still remain. However that isn't even the main problem.

The main problem is that, as you say, different races would fit different playstyles. You're basically asking players to choose a playstyle before they become familiar with playing - say you want to make a healer type, but you haven't played healer before. What will you do? Go for asura, knowing that they have more energy, or sylvari, knowing that they have better energy regen, or humans, knowing that they get bonus on all healing spells (or whatever)? Even if these were balanced, your personal style would fit one race better than the other.

Once you decide, it might take weeks before you realize that another race would suit you better. In that case you'd need to either go with the bad choice, or remake your char, essentially throwing away weeks of playing. Hell, you might even never realize it, and instead simply think that it's a boring game!

The Sins We Die By
16-04-2008, 14:05
Once you decide, it might take weeks before you realize that another race would suit you better. In that case you'd need to either go with the bad choice, or remake your char, essentially throwing away weeks of playing. Hell, you might even never realize it, and instead simply think that it's a boring game!

Or just make a new character and come back to one you made previously later...

Making too big a deal out of this, ANet will release information on the game when it's coming out and you'll be able to see the different bonuses to make your choice.

Vana
16-04-2008, 15:02
Or just make a new character and come back to one you made previously later...

Making too big a deal out of this, ANet will release information on the game when it's coming out and you'll be able to see the different bonuses to make your choice.

why would you want to come back to a character that's crippled compared to the new one?

Coming from D2, one of the things I liked the most about guildwars when I started playing it was that you will never be better off rolling a new character of the same profession. (not worse either, but that's beside the point)


I'm very much against the concept of passive abilities

raspberry jam
16-04-2008, 15:04
Or just make a new character and come back to one you made previously later...While you might want to have several characters, most people elect to not have several characters of the same type (e.g. healer-type, mage-type; basically, using GW as example, most people would have one character of each profession but not 3 mesmers).

EDIT: Vana said it much better than me, but I meant the same thing, just said it in another way.

Akirai Annuvil
16-04-2008, 15:41
But the real answer is both! All players can be pleased by making all races (basicly) equal while still going by lore. ~~~ The poster of this idea said that this way, with different buffs on different races, each race would be wanted for all proffessions. I think this would lead to interesting combinations with proffessions and races as well.
~
But I'm sure that if it was a major issue, it could be balanced easily.

The idea is pretty idiotic. Adding passive abilities to the various races will assure the races are more fit for one playstyle over another. This is pretty much guaranteed.
Balancing them would not be easy in anyway the word easy can be interpreted.

BrotherGrimm
16-04-2008, 15:51
I'm very much against the concept of passive abilities
I seriously don't see the reason for different races then....I'm very much against just having a bunch of different looking dress up dolls for no real reason.

Divinity Archer
16-04-2008, 16:51
Imho, the best thing would be racial-PvE skills if you want racial differences that badly.

It would probably end up in racial discrimination, but so will passive abilities, I think racial-PvE skills would be more suitable for PvP balance etc.

The Sins We Die By
16-04-2008, 17:20
why would you want to come back to a character that's crippled compared to the new one?

Coming from D2, one of the things I liked the most about guildwars when I started playing it was that you will never be better off rolling a new character of the same profession. (not worse either, but that's beside the point)


I'm very much against the concept of passive abilities

How are you coming back to a crippled character? Do you really think you won't be able to change your profession or adjust how powerful skills are?

I'm against limiting gameplay and not having differences in abilities for races would do that. Every race is able to do the same thing in the same way as another? Why do that? What's the point? Aesthetics? Great games are based on mechanics not eye candy that satisfies everyone.

Beta Sprite
16-04-2008, 17:21
Imho, the best thing would be racial-PvE skills if you want racial differences that badly.

It would probably end up in racial discrimination, but so will passive abilities, I think racial-PvE skills would be more suitable for PvP balance etc.

My problem with this is that 'becoming the bear' is part of being a Norn. If it was a PvE-only skill, it would defeat the purpose of having races in PvP. Plus, even if they were PvE-only skills, you would get racial discrimination in PvE if the skills weren't balanced properly. I figure you might as well make them open to PvE and PvP, and balance them right.

My personal favorite solution is this: Give each race some abilities/advantages at character creation. Then, allow that character to gain the advantages of other races through quest chains, such as gaining a 'Blessing of the Bear' that is simply another race's 'becoming the bear' skill.

Another possibility would be 'secondary races'. Much like the current secondary professions, but granting the advantages of one other race. I don't like that idea as much, though.

BrotherGrimm
16-04-2008, 17:27
My problem with this is that 'becoming the bear' is part of being a Norn. If it was a PvE-only skill, it would defeat the purpose of having races in PvP.
I think if you take a poll of PvP GW players they would WANT to defeat the purpose of having races in PvP.....balance is of the utmost importance in PvP...not cute Asura or Nasty looking Charr character models.

I would think the solution to PvP is to put a basic PvP environmental effect that removes ALL racial characteristic modifications. You could then have whatever PvE attribute/skill changes you wanted and any character moving into PvP areas would simply have them not apply while in those areas. Just a suggestion.

The Sins We Die By
16-04-2008, 17:38
I think if you take a poll of PvP GW players they would WANT to defeat the purpose of having races in PvP.....balance is of the utmost importance in PvP...not cute Asura or Nasty looking Charr character models.

My vote is...
Complex and confusing ftw!

Seriously why dumb things down by disregarding differences in races? Change the skills to be less conditional if you want it simpler. [Oppressive Gaze][Discord][Xinrae's Weapon]

Vana
16-04-2008, 19:05
I seriously don't see the reason for different races then....I'm very much against just having a bunch of different looking dress up dolls for no real reason.

Neither do I. I never said I supported the idea of races.




How are you coming back to a crippled character? Do you really think you won't be able to change your profession or adjust how powerful skills are? I'm against limiting gameplay and not having differences in abilities for races would do that. Every race is able to do the same thing in the same way as another? Why do that? What's the point? Aesthetics? Great games are based on mechanics not eye candy that satisfies everyone.

Why did you create the other character? Because the first one was inferior due to the choice of race. It still is. And yes, I'm assuming that we won't be able to change profession.
They managed that perfectly fine in GW1 with primary attributes. I'm sure they can think of something innovative for GW2 too.

The Sins We Die By
16-04-2008, 20:19
Why did you create the other character? Because the first one was inferior due to the choice of race. It still is. And yes, I'm assuming that we won't be able to change profession.
They managed that perfectly fine in GW1 with primary attributes. I'm sure they can think of something innovative for GW2 too.

Doesn't have to be passive skills in a bar, it can be attribute based again for all I care. So long as the diversity is there between races, I'm happy.

raspberry jam
17-04-2008, 00:36
Doesn't have to be passive skills in a bar, it can be attribute based again for all I care. So long as the diversity is there between races, I'm happy.Why do you want diversity between races? Everything that has been discussed in this thread shows that diversity between races is a bad idea, and every similar game where diversity between races exist is either horribly unbalanced (e.g. WoW), or the diversity itself is bad (e.g. D&D) for the reasons already specified in this thread:

The choice of race is not the choice of role.

Any irreversible choice that is not a choice of role will inevitably reduce the stability of the balancing system. On top of that, since we're talking about an MMO, everything in the game will be studied in detail and people will get to know what is most efficient, and over time, they will play that, and demand it in their groups. Demanding diversity between races is the same as decreasing actual diversity in the game.

The Sins We Die By
17-04-2008, 01:12
Why do you want diversity between races? Everything that has been discussed in this thread shows that diversity between races is a bad idea, and every similar game where diversity between races exist is either horribly unbalanced (e.g. WoW), or the diversity itself is bad (e.g. D&D) for the reasons already specified in this thread:

The choice of race is not the choice of role.

Any irreversible choice that is not a choice of role will inevitably reduce the stability of the balancing system. On top of that, since we're talking about an MMO, everything in the game will be studied in detail and people will get to know what is most efficient, and over time, they will play that, and demand it in their groups. Demanding diversity between races is the same as decreasing actual diversity in the game.

No, diversity between races is not bad, and not having it is pointless. I wouldn't get the game if every race did the same thing the same way. Idc if they all end up good at melee, so long as there's differences in how they are attacking. This is becoming the same thing as the passive ability thread, but whatever. Make norn attacks hit hard but slower, human better chance to critical, sylvari attack quicker but weaker, asura add magical qualities to their attacks. Making them all do everything the same way is stupid b/c then aesthetics are more important than the game being mechanically diverse.

Elex Aio
17-04-2008, 01:59
It seems apparent that almost any type of diversity (besides looks) would cause horrible imbalance. But what is the purpose of putting races into the game if their never was an intention to create non-aesthetic differences? I'm sure Anet will make something unique about each race. Passive abilities seem to not be the way to go, there would be discrimination. But wouldn't it be just another form of the discrimination we see in Guild Wars today, what with the big three (monk, warrior, and elementalists) being the main proffessions that are used (and others, at times). Indeed, it would be nice to remove/ prevent the addition of more discrimination, but what is there to do.

I'd be fine with what ever they did in PvE as long as it wasn't too extreme, with one race obviously trumping another. I believe the races will create interesting abilities and interesting lore/storylines in the PvE world.

When it comes to PvP, I have no idea what they could do, in order to make the game balanced yet at the same time interesting. I sure hope that they make differences apply in PvP, but I haven't a clue on what could be done.

Terenas
17-04-2008, 15:43
No it couldn't, and even if it could, the prejudices would still remain. However that isn't even the main problem.

The main problem is that, as you say, different races would fit different playstyles. You're basically asking players to choose a playstyle before they become familiar with playing - say you want to make a healer type, but you haven't played healer before. What will you do? Go for asura, knowing that they have more energy, or sylvari, knowing that they have better energy regen, or humans, knowing that they get bonus on all healing spells (or whatever)? Even if these were balanced, your personal style would fit one race better than the other.

Once you decide, it might take weeks before you realize that another race would suit you better. In that case you'd need to either go with the bad choice, or remake your char, essentially throwing away weeks of playing. Hell, you might even never realize it, and instead simply think that it's a boring game!
This post possibly deserves a cookie.
I'd like races to be different, but rj's post makes a lot of sense to me.
I still can't figure how much different gw2 will be from gw1. If they take the standard-rpg route, odds are race is going to play a definite role (i.e.: not only aesthetic differences) in the game mechanics.

raspberry jam
17-04-2008, 17:37
Make norn attacks hit hard but slower, human better chance to critical, sylvari attack quicker but weaker, asura add magical qualities to their attacks. Making them all do everything the same way is stupid b/c then aesthetics are more important than the game being mechanically diverse.You'd kill diversity if you made them have differing abilities. A far better solution would be to allow players to choose throughout the ability "spectrum" so to speak, by reversible choices and adaptability (the way it currently works). Depending on exactly how the combat system would work, the examples you give would be awfully unbalanced. Sylvari would use constant Flurry? For free?

[Flurry]

I can't see why any physical would be anything but sylvari. Then again, maybe the combat system would work in some other way, and instead no one would use it because it would be bad. Sure, it was just your examples, but it shows very well how hard it would be to balance something like that.

The one possible way is to give a small bonus that is significant at first but goes away as the power level increases, so as to be virtually gone by the time you reach the level of the average player (e.g. the +5 on swords that humans in WoW get, it's nice for the starting levels but no one cares once you reach levels 50-60-70).


No, diversity between races is not bad, and not having it is pointless.Diversity between races is bad because of irreversible choice. When you make the choice of race, you can't go back on that - you can't make an asura into a human (probably). I already explained the kind of situations that would lead to. But, to move on: Why do you think it's pointless? You simply make your character look different, like wearing a suit of armor, which you in the current game can modify as you please using runes and insignia - is that pointless as well?

Akirai Annuvil
17-04-2008, 18:38
I can't see why any physical would be anything but sylvari.
A few situations are imagineable, dependant on exact numbers of course.
Either way there's another reason why races shouldn't have inherent passive bonuses which affect all their skills/spells.
For example let's say sylvari have a 33% increased casting speed, where as Asura have their energy costs lowered by 33%.
A person now choses a profession, for this example, it's Mesmer.
A Mesmer with (x) points in FC has ~1.8cast Diversion (40% cast time reduction).
With an Asura this is not overpowered. A 1.8 second, 7 energy Diversion is slightly better than normal but it doesn't matter that much; after all energy isn't Diversion's limiting factor.
With a Sylvari the skill becomes way overpowered. Instead of taking 3cast, or even 1.8, suddenly it only takes .75 seconds. A skilled opponent can add 60 seconds disablement to one of your 1 second cast skills every 10 seconds. The skill is almost uninterruptable.
This means that either (1) Diversion, (2) FC or (3) Sylvari passive has to be nerfed. Diversion is a fine skill and shouldn't be. FC is the basic benchmark for making Mesmer skills mesmer only. What remains is the Sylvari passive, which then needs to be nerfed to be completely ineffectual.

This is of course using GW1 skills, however the above can be applied to pretty much all skill sets. If you allow people to stack metamagic you'll have incredible balance issues.

As ar as I can think off, there are 3 ways to add passive abilities without harming game balance.
(1) Make it PvE only. Duh. Problems would still remain, but it doesn't screw with balancing.
(2) Make them fade over time. In other words, you gain say a +20 energy bonus as an asura at level 1. This decreases by 1 every two levels.
(3) Remove classes, make your race your class. If youre Norn you're Warrior. Human, Mesmer. Asura Elementalist. Sylvari, Ranger. <Undisclosed race X>, Monk.

Actually there would be a fourth way to allow for some racial differences which would be:
(4) Add totally crappy racial abilities nobody who is serious will ever wanna use anyway. Or add good ones but make them PvE-only, incurring the wrath of those who like to pug and will be discriminated.

Alaris
17-04-2008, 18:56
Racial skills are the way to go.

Passives usually mess up everything to the point that to keep any semblant of balance, you need to nerf the passives until they no longer matter.

But skills, even passive skills, these take up a slot in your 8 skill bar. Also, you get a choice of which skills you bring, and hopefully, there are ways to compensate fairly well if you don't have that race. For example, there are other ways to increase damage & health than using the associated Norn skill. There are other ways to increase casting speed or decrease energy costs.

Another idea would be to make all these racial skills available to all races (as in GW:EN), but if it's your race you can use a rune to augment it by +1..3. Also make it so that you level up faster for your own race. So you're encouraged to use skills of your own race, but you're not restricted to them.

The Sins We Die By
17-04-2008, 19:09
Given that we don't know the balance I can't really say anything regarding current skills and how methods in GW will carry over to GW2 as I have no clue. I'm going to assume though that ANet will end up balancing things between races in such a way that it all equals out in the end. That way the methods may be different but they will be fair and equal. I'm also assuming ANet would bring things in line that get out of line. Hopefully that's what they are trying to do, b/c it allows for different ways to optimally run a team instead of jut one way. That allows for far more diversity than having all the races doing the same things the same way, and more than the current system.

Zsig
17-04-2008, 21:34
Even having passive abilities taking place on the skill bar is a bad idea, because you take off the skill factor from the game into a more passive way of playing.

Let's say you have like 5 passive skills on your build, then a ress, some utility and an attack skill. Do you think there's any skill at all by playing the game just hitting one button mindlessly? That already happened in GW a bunch of times (Searing Flame, paragons, and others) and next thing you see is those skills getting nerfed.

Balancing the "passives" as someone proposed, by making them useless at higher levels of play only makes it worse... it's bad design , and only shows how broken the game is in terms of balance regarding levels of play...even though that might even occur considering the level limits we know so far and how that's gonna affect the "power creep" factor that can't be helped in such model.

Passives are bad.


The main problem is that, as you say, different races would fit different playstyles. You're basically asking players to choose a playstyle before they become familiar with playing - say you want to make a healer type, but you haven't played healer before. What will you do? Go for asura, knowing that they have more energy, or sylvari, knowing that they have better energy regen, or humans, knowing that they get bonus on all healing spells (or whatever)? Even if these were balanced, your personal style would fit one race better than the other.

Once you decide, it might take weeks before you realize that another race would suit you better. In that case you'd need to either go with the bad choice, or remake your char, essentially throwing away weeks of playing. Hell, you might even never realize it, and instead simply think that it's a boring game!
Indeed that's an excellent point. And i can't seem to counter that arguement with another, except that i'm biased because i'm one of those players that when i first start playing the game i make one of each and every possible combination to see which one fits my playstyle, and then sitck with that.

On the other hand, most complaints lately about GW1 is how it became a game where titles makes you only want to play one character and not the others, so providing they don't make the same mistakes regarding titles, that's already a good opportunity to start and play a new character. Diversity. You might even call it "throwing away weeks of playing", but after all, this is a game, and if we're not having fun playing a game.... well, i guess you know the rest...

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 07:29
Passive is not bad, 80 armor vs 60 armor is a passive difference, but the benefits 60 AL get from ranged casting compensates for the difference in armor.

The suggestion is to give ALL the races different means to fulfill ALL the roles equally in the end. It's a compromise between having profession or race specific roles (current system) and having no differences for each race (a bad system in general).

If you have no differences in the races it'll still be each player running the optimal build for a particular role, just with a different skin, how is that diverse?

Zsig
18-04-2008, 07:51
The suggestion is to give ALL the races different means to fulfill ALL the roles equally in the end. It's a compromise between having profession or race specific roles (current system) and having no differences for each race (a bad system in general).


I totally agree with that. But you don't NEED to give each race passive abilities to accomplish what you're saying.

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 07:57
I totally agree with that. But you don't NEED to give each race passive abilities to accomplish what you're saying.

Right, and you see it working well currently in GW with scythes. Look at how the dervish, assassin, and ranger run them. All different ways of being able to run a build b/c of their primaries and yet they are all very efficient. That's the idea just to extend it to the all the roles races could take.

Akirai Annuvil
18-04-2008, 15:33
Right, and you see it working well currently in GW with scythes. Look at how the dervish, assassin, and ranger run them. All different ways of being able to run a build b/c of their primaries and yet they are all very efficient. That's the idea just to extend it to the all the roles races could take.
That's a completely terrible example. All three of the builds are broken.

If you allow people to stack metamagic you'll have incredible balance issues.
Anyone have anything which you know actually disproves this as all plain logic means stacking metamagic = bad for balance?

For those who don't know the definition: metamagic is best described as skills or attributes which affect other skills' efficiency or effect. Examples would be Divine Favor or [[gole], [[barbed arrows] and fast casting.

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 16:30
That's a completely terrible example. All three of the builds are broken.


It's not a bad example Akirai. They are broken overall, but in comparison to each they are fairly equal which is the point I'm making.

Alaris
18-04-2008, 17:00
Anyone have anything which you know actually disproves this as all plain logic means stacking metamagic = bad for balance?

First off, I don't think that you can logically go from one to another, not without additional assumptions.

Balance means having equal chances for different players. A game is balanced if all players have access to the same skills. In GW, it is often implied that you have equal chances for different competitive builds. So a game is balanced if there are different ways to be competitive.

If stacking metamagic is too powerful, then competitive builds will be those taking advantage of that. If those are balanced, then it's all good, no?

You have the unstated assumption that by balance, you mean balancing builds that do use that mechanic with those that do not use that mechanic. That is a crucial assumption.

There are tons of ways that GW limit your ability to stack effects. A condition does not stack with itself. You can only have 1 preparation, 1 elite, 1 stance, 1 weapon spell, etc at a time. Skill modifiers usually affect the 1..N next skills or attacks, and often have short durations. Barrage & volley removes preparations. Armor buffs stack to a limit.

While in theory, it is possible to design a game where metamagic stacking does not unbalance the game (in the broader sense of balance), in practice there are reasons not to. Exploiting broken mechanics is something players love doing. Also, a game would be much less fun if too dependent on a type of skill, whatever that type of skill is (e.g. including stacking metamagic). Finally, the skill system has to be simple enough to understand, and varied enough to be fun for different play styles.

raspberry jam
18-04-2008, 17:19
It's not a bad example Akirai. They are broken overall, but in comparison to each they are fairly equal which is the point I'm making.Using broken builds are a bad example, always. If you limit yourself to things that are balanced you'd see why.

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 18:07
Using broken builds are a bad example, always. If you limit yourself to things that are balanced you'd see why.

The fact that the build is broken has nothing to do with my point, and if you'd get past the fact that scythes are broken you'd understand that. My point still remains that 3 different primaries are running something on basically equal terms, and the warrior can actually do the same by using flourish, so 4 primaries not 3.

Alaris
18-04-2008, 18:08
Using broken builds are a bad example, always. If you limit yourself to things that are balanced you'd see why.

Why are these builds broken? They seem pretty effective.

As much as it pains me that N/Rt's make good healers (because it steals jobs from real Mo's like me), I think it's great that you get to play different ways and be competitive. That's what I want in balance. Diversity of competitively-viable options.

raspberry jam
18-04-2008, 18:58
Why are these builds broken? They seem pretty effective.Too effective, with too little effort, and not responding to skilled play.


The fact that the build is broken has nothing to do with my point, and if you'd get past the fact that scythes are broken you'd understand that. My point still remains that 3 different primaries are running something on basically equal termsBut your point only works for broken builds. If you look to balanced builds you'd see that your point melts away. What you're saying is that if GW2 is fundamentally unbalanced, your suggestion works. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean I wish GW2 to lack balance.


and the warrior can actually do the same by using flourish, so 4 primaries not 3.[Flourish] :huh: Yeah... And [glyph of renewal][divine spirit] is a great combo for monks, rite?

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 19:26
Too effective, with too little effort, and not responding to skilled play.

But your point only works for broken builds. If you look to balanced builds you'd see that your point melts away. What you're saying is that if GW2 is fundamentally unbalanced, your suggestion works. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean I wish GW2 to lack balance.

[Flourish] :huh: Yeah... And [glyph of renewal][divine spirit] is a great combo for monks, rite?

The scythe is what makes them broken, b/c of the insane amount of damage not the fact that they all run it well.

Another example is the rit as a healer versus the monk as a healer, the rit has great healing effects, but some of them require conditions that are a bit harder to meet and so while they are different the end result is fairly even, if scythes weren't so ridiculously powerful they would all be about equal while not being broken.

Spirit Light, Mend Body and Soul, Soothing Images, Protective was Kaolai, Weapon of Remedy, Weapon of Warding, Spirit Transfer, Life, Feast of Soul's, Wielder's Boon. Those are some of the better skills and are about even with monk skills and combo heals. The difference is that monk's mix prot with their healing skills, while rit's mix damage, but in terms of healing they are both perfectly capable and basically even.

Alaris
18-04-2008, 19:42
Too effective, with too little effort, and not responding to skilled play. But your point only works for broken builds. [Flourish] :huh: Yeah... And [glyph of renewal][divine spirit] is a great combo for monks, rite?

What are you trying to argue anyway? That balance is impossible? That we shouldn't even try?

Are the scythe rangers so good that skilled players with balanced builds can't counter them? Even if, then just nerf them some. Nothing wrong with the game design, just needs a bit of adjustment. Seems to me that the problem is the scythe. The fact that so many professions can use it is a good sign for race-profession combinations.

Races are going to happen. Now we (they) choose whether we get only cosmetics, passives, or racial skills. If there are more choices, I don't know them. We might also get race-prof restrictions, but I hope not. I personally vote for racial skills, with enough to provide variety and a way to balance such that every race-prof is viable in different ways.

We're arguing that the most fun would be if work towards the idea of making every race-prof combination competitively viable.

Balance is impossible anyway. People will always find new ways to break the balance. People will always gravitate towards stereotypes and cookie-cutters. That's not a reason to make a game where only those stereotypes are available, and where only cookie-cutters are available.

When balance is broken, ANet usually respond by balance changes, bringing back the new builds to normal levels. So a player using a Paragon can rest assured that the character will never be underpowered. But it will remain a Paragon.

By definition, balance in complex games is achieved by constantly monitoring the game and adjusting it. Or make the game so simple that it's not fun to play.

ANet's track record is great IMO. Most of the time, there are multiple team builds viably competing in HA. When one is truly overpowered, it receives a nerf, and it gets back into balance. Also, the current system allows less-skilled players to get some wins, so it's somewhat friendly to new players.

There are plenty of different viable ways to play all the different professions, and plenty of viable ways to combine two professions into a unique build. It's fun. It allows you to be creative. Even after 3 years, there are new builds and team builds coming out on a regular basis.

Zsig
18-04-2008, 20:02
If what Akirai tried to say with stacking metamagic = balance issues, and that using passive abilities works just as a stacking tool that only sits there, well, stacking, making it harder to balance...

Then all I have to say is, yes, I totally agree with him.

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 20:24
If what Akirai tried to say with stacking metamagic = balance issues, and that using passive abilities works just as a stacking tool that only sits there, well, stacking, making it harder to balance...

Then all I have to say is, yes, I totally agree with him.

Differences have to be either passive, in race skills, or both. I vote both b/c it mixes things up far more. That makes it harder to balance sure, but it adds more diversity they just need to get things figured out and address problems early in the game.

Elex Aio
18-04-2008, 20:49
What if the races had passive abilities, but they were linked to another attribute line (but no skills)? Thus, you'd have to put points into it, it's not just an inherent ability that you can always have up. It would be just like passive primary attributes in GW today, like fast casting, expertise, or strength. (except without the skills) You could even use existing primary attributes and give the classes (or their future versions) new, no passive functioning primary attributes.

Consider each race having 1 attribute to it (these maybe, now that I think of it could be linked to PvE skills, allong with the passive ability) and each proffession has 4 attributes. This way one character would have 9 attributes (every character doesn't have to have these exact numbers, depending on proffession, this is just an example). Of course (assuming attribute points are still used) this might mean that points might be spread too far, but it is quite possible that it would work, considering that today a E/N would have 9 attributes. If it didn't work, attribute point ammounts and skill-power scaling could just be re-worked for then new game.

This deals with the problem of having unbalanced racial abilities (you have to put points in it to have it active) but still leaves the problem of more and less favorable abilities, but it's basicly the same as today's proffession discrimination.

This could also open the door to all types of new build ideas, you could have for example an Asura/Necromancer/Mesmer, and you have the choice where to put your points. Maybe you want them in your racial attribute, or your primary attribute, or maybe just all in basic attribute lines, ect.

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 20:59
<snip>

Primary skills are extensions of the passive nature of the primary attribute and would basically be the equivalent to race skills, except that with race skills no other race would be able to use them.

Not sure about having Race/Profession/Profession, THAT many combinations is what made balance hard in GW. If they can do it though I'd probably like it.

Akirai Annuvil
18-04-2008, 21:10
So a game is balanced if there are different ways to be competitive.
In rock paper scissors there are 3 ways to be competitive. Yet it's not the balance I'd desire for GW, 1 or 2 for that matter.


The scythe is what makes them broken, b/c of the insane amount of damage not the fact that they all run it well.
It's a combination of factors, including scythe's high crit damage, auto AoE, shadow steps, wearying strike/pious assault, melform, (arguably) guiding hands and escape, combined with the power of nature rituals. Depending on which build you're referring to of course.
Oh and VoD.
What's broken is that it takes no skill to run in anyway (activate: melform/escape/assassin'sremedy+apostasy+way --> shadow step/33% speed boost run towards enemy --> press 123. Rinse and repeat on recharge. Dash to retreat for sin and derv.) yet it rewards players almost as much as balanced builds do, which have to adopt multiple strategies, require more coordination and simply more skill for each and every skill bar of the team.


If what Akirai tried to say with stacking metamagic = balance issues, and that using passive abilities works just as a stacking tool that only sits there, well, stacking, making it harder to balance...

Then all I have to say is, yes, I totally agree with him.
Hmm in a way yes.

To reformulate:
(1) Skills are balanced largely by their costs. Energy, cast time or recharge most prominently.
(2) Primary attributes affect these costs. They're a form of passive metamagic.
(3) Balancing skills with this form of passive metamagic in mind means changing energy cost, cast time or recharge accordingly. For example, because Rangers have Expertise [[crippling shot] is balanced at 10 energy; after all, Expertise affects it and it is in actuality 4 energy which is balanced for its effect.
(4) It is alread hard to balance around this.
------
Now enters GW2 with each character being both a Race and Class.
------
(5) Races give a character 1 form of passive metamagic. Class' primary attribute gives 1 form of passive metamagic. En totale: 2 forms of passive metamagic per character.
(6) Skills have to be balanced around two forms of metamagic. For example:
The elemenalist skill [[obsidian flame] has two limiting factors: exhaustion* and cast time. Say the Sylvari have an increased cast speed as their passive ability. A Sylvari Elementalist in that case has access to two passive forms of metamagic to deal with [[obsidian flame]'s limitation. Energy Storage, which allows the building of as much exhaustion as is wanted and the Sylvari quick cast, which prevents it from being very easily disrupted.
Because of this the skill would need to be nerfed to prevent abuse.
(7) However, just because a skill is overpowered in one specific set of metamagics, does not mean it is overpowered in another set of metamagics.
To further the example: the Asuran passive ability reduces energy cost of spells. This is a great boon for spells for which energy is a limiting factor. An Asuran elementalist therefore excells at using high energy cost skills which also causes exhaustion ([[dragon stomp] comes to mind).
However it does not in particular excell at spells with cast time and exhaustion as limitations, like [[obsidian flame]. To put it simply, [[obsidian flame] is balanced for an Asuran Elementalist. However it still has to be nerfed because of the Sylvari Elementalist whose set of metamagics allows it to bypass [[obsidian flame]'s set of limitations.
(8) Balancing all the skills in the game around any class having two passive sets of metamagic is impossible. This is not just theorycraft and has actually been proven in the past. Remember the [[Mantra of Recovery] Mesmers who were able to bypass both the limiting factors of recharge and casting time. [[Oath Shot] trappers and spirit spammer able to bypass cost and recharge. [[divine boon] and [[mantra of recall] monks able to bypassing the limits healing efficiency and energy.

Basically, adding a passive ability to every race in GW2 is compareable to giving every class an extra primary attribute, but with a default level of 12, no attribute points needed. If I'm the only one who sees a balance issue here, I'm fairly sure the rest of you are bat**** crazy.

In the positive meaning of the word, of course. And hooraye bbcode :D

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 21:22
<snip>

I have been under the impression there will be no passive bonuses to professions. And I can guarantee it has not been proven that it's impossible to balance two passive bonuses as many of the current primary attributes have 2 or more passive bonuses. The important thing is to match the bonuses up correctly to prevent something from becoming OP.

Akirai Annuvil
18-04-2008, 22:21
I have been under the impression there will be no passive bonuses to professions.
Source? in that case I know I won't have to buy GW2.


And I can guarantee it has not been proven that it's impossible to balance two passive bonuses as many of the current primary attributes have 2 or more passive bonuses.
Name one. Or actually just name the 'many'.

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 22:48
Source? in that case I know I won't have to buy GW2.


Name one. Or actually just name the 'many'.

No source, just my feeling based on the information presented.

Spawning Power. 1)Spirit health buff 2)weapon spell duration buff.

Expertise. 1)Decrease energy cost of ranger skills 1)decrease energy cost of attack skills 3)Decrease energy cost of touch skills 4)decrease energy cost of binding rituals.

Critical Strikes. 1)Bonus Critical ratio 2)Energy return from critical hits.

Mysticism. 1)Health return on enchant loss 2)Energy return on enchant loss.

In addition to those passive traits of the professions, they have differences in armor, max health, and energy regen. That's far more than just 2 passive bonuses being dealt with.

Edine Ailif
18-04-2008, 22:58
What about having lore-based passive abilities or special skills but allowing the other races to work to achieve the similar benefits?

For instance, a Norn wants to be a spellcaster but it's the Asurans who are initially better suited for the role. Have a quest/challenge/mission available to teach the Norn and change the racial benefits so that, with effort, your abilities are equivalent to the Asurans'.

I've got absolutely no reason to believe they'll do this, but it seemed like a nice idea. I'm torn because I want to have my cake and eat it too. :tongue:

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 23:03
I've got absolutely no reason to believe they'll do this, but it seemed like a nice idea. I'm torn because I want to have my cake and eat it too. :tongue:

Honestly I hope they don't...

!
>.>
<.<
>.>
Cake!

mmm cake...

Wuzzman
18-04-2008, 23:05
probably if Anet is thinking with their head on their shoulders, different races will be pve only or the pvpve section of the game (that RA/AB hybrid thing). Serious pvp won't have races.

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 23:07
probably if Anet is thinking with head on their shoulders, different races will be pve only or the pvpve section of the game (that RA/AB hybrid thing). Serious pvp won't have races.

Umm...right...
Why?

Akirai Annuvil
18-04-2008, 23:18
No source, just my feeling based on the information presented.
Thank god. You had me slightly worried there.

For the rest you seem to not quite understand what I was getting at with my 8-step explanation.
Every primary attribute offers a solution to a certain limitation on a skill. Fast Casting for example solves the limitation of cast time. Diversion is a prime example. It will not be used at a 3 second cast time. Plain and simple, it's practically impossible. It's a limitation installed to ensure that it does not grow too powerful without some form of metamagic in place to make it useable. Fast Casting is that form of metamagic.
Fast Casting, basically, removes the limitation of casting time from spells. That is the limit it removes, that is fast casting's metamagic.

All of the examples you quoted also only remove one limit; only apply one type of metamagic. To explain the most obvious example:

Expertise. 1)Decrease energy cost of ranger skills 1)decrease energy cost of attack skills 3)Decrease energy cost of touch skills 4)decrease energy cost of binding rituals.
You're correct in your assessment that it affects 4 different type of skills. A 100% true.
In all of these cases however, it removes only one limit; energy cost. Mysticism is the same, it's sole purpose is to lower the energy cost of enchantment spells targeting you. Crit Strikes too.
Spawning Power is different in that it increases the efficiency of your binding rituals/weapon spells. In other words, if your rituals/weapons are ineffective in regards to their costs, investing in Spawning Power removes that limitation. It's similar to Divine Favor; a lot of healing prayers in particular are balanced in cost around df adding a certain amount of health. The difference is, no viable weapon spell is balanced around spawning power. In fact, the only oft used weapon spell which is even affected by it is weapon of warding, which is fine without points in spawning.

Wuzzman
18-04-2008, 23:24
Umm...right...
Why?

because races don't belong in pvp thats why.....

The Sins We Die By
18-04-2008, 23:38
snip

I read your post 2 times over and I don't think I entirely get what your saying. I understand that the primary attributes take away limitations, but I don't see how just 1 limitation is being removed in regard to a profession, which i think is what you meant.

Btw thank you for reminding me of fast casting as it effects signets and spells.

Multiple limitations are changed, either by increasing or decreasing limitations. Most of the primaries are addressing multiple issues though, b/c skills have been subdivided. Btw it's not so much of an issue now, but spawning is big for Warmonger's Weapon too. The other thing is didn't address the armor/energy/energy regen/health differences, though. That's part of the passive qualities of professions as well. Using that as evidence I'd say it is possible to balance multiple passive abilities, as it's been going on for a while now.

Wuzzman
18-04-2008, 23:56
I read your post 2 times over and I don't think I entirely get what your saying. I understand that the primary attributes take away limitations, but I don't see how just 1 limitation is being removed in regard to a profession, which i think is what you meant.

Btw thank you for reminding me of fast casting as it effects signets and spells.

Multiple limitations are changed, either by increasing or decreasing limitations. Most of the primaries are addressing multiple issues though, b/c skills have been subdivided. Btw it's not so much of an issue now, but spawning is big for Warmonger's Weapon too. The other thing is didn't address the armor/energy/energy regen/health differences, though. That's part of the passive qualities of professions as well. Using that as evidence I'd say it is possible to balance multiple passive abilities, as it's been going on for a while now.

the problem is that most of the primary attributes of each profession deals with energy management or at least energy efficiency. The only class that doesn't have some sort of energy management in their primary is mesmers with fast casting and mesmers have inspiration to make up for it. You want to see a passive attribute nerfed repeatedly check soul reaping. I see races being with passive abilities fine for pve, mainly because pve doesn't need balance....

Zsig
19-04-2008, 00:22
I read your post 2 times over and I don't think I entirely get what your saying. I understand that the primary attributes take away limitations, but I don't see how just 1 limitation is being removed in regard to a profession, which i think is what you meant.

From what i could understand, and i think it's right, it's something like this:

Elementalists can have more energy, this means they can cast high costing spells. But it doesn't mean they can cast spells too fast.

Mesmers can cast spells way faster than anyone. But this doesn't mean they have the energy to cast the most expensive ones.

Each profession has a different mentality to it. If for example in GW2 one profession gave the Energy buff (GW1 Elementalist's Energy Storage) and one RACE gave Fast Casting buff, It would be nearly impossible to balance.

Skyy High
19-04-2008, 00:33
I still say the best, and most obvious, way of making races unique is to give them unique (or partially unique) skills, and no "race attribute". Passive abilities are a pain in the arse to balance, moreso when they stack with other passive abilities, like Akirai's been saying. Norns get form skills that buff them up for certain tasks (hey, there could be an owl form that gives +energy or something), Asura get special magics that help them, and the Sylvari, Humans, and Charr all get skills or spells as well, that each make them do the same job as any other race's profession "x", but better.

Individual skills are way easier to balance than entire attributes, and they could even make it so after you've beaten the game and everything, you could unlock other race's special abilities, so in the end, everyone is exactly the same. Just as it is now. Just as it should be.

Tru Reptile
19-04-2008, 00:45
mainly because pve doesn't need balance....

Erm, what?

raspberry jam
19-04-2008, 04:08
When balance is broken, ANet usually respond by balance changes, bringing back the new builds to normal levels. So a player using a Paragon can rest assured that the character will never be underpowered. But it will remain a Paragon.

By definition, balance in complex games is achieved by constantly monitoring the game and adjusting it. Or make the game so simple that it's not fun to play.

ANet's track record is great IMO. Most of the time, there are multiple team builds viably competing in HA. When one is truly overpowered, it receives a nerf, and it gets back into balance. Also, the current system allows less-skilled players to get some wins, so it's somewhat friendly to new players.

There are plenty of different viable ways to play all the different professions, and plenty of viable ways to combine two professions into a unique build. It's fun. It allows you to be creative. Even after 3 years, there are new builds and team builds coming out on a regular basis.This is all completely correct and the main reason as to why there will be a ton of infuriated players if ANet needs to rebalance something that depends on race, alternatively the reason why they won't rebalance something that depends on race and that should be rebalanced.

GW is relatively well balanced because it is designed to be easy to balance.


In rock paper scissors there are 3 ways to be competitive. Yet it's not the balance I'd desire for GW, 1 or 2 for that matter.What

In (fair) RPS there is no way to be competitive unless you can second guess your opponent. That's like saying there are two ways to be competitive when you flip a coin.

Akirai Annuvil
19-04-2008, 11:29
What

In (fair) RPS there is no way to be competitive unless you can second guess your opponent. That's like saying there are two ways to be competitive when you flip a coin.

You sure about that? (http://www.rpschamps.com/)


Elementalists can have more energy, this means they can cast high costing spells. But it doesn't mean they can cast spells too fast.

Mesmers can cast spells way faster than anyone. But this doesn't mean they have the energy to cast the most expensive ones.

Each profession has a different mentality to it. If for example in GW2 one profession gave the Energy buff (GW1 Elementalist's Energy Storage) and one RACE gave Fast Casting buff, It would be nearly impossible to balance.
That's the ultimate conclusion yes.


The other thing is didn't address the armor/energy/energy regen/health differences, though.
Well there isn't much to adress. Basically caster skills gets balanced around 4 energy regen and 1 primary attribute, melee skills gets balanced around 2 energy regen and 1 primary attribute.
I don't see how that's compareable to you're suggested system which would force Izzy to balance every, single skill with this in mind:
How is it affected by...
The profession's primary attribute?
The primary attribute+Asuran passive?
The primary attribute+Sylvari passive?
The primary attribute+Norn passive?
The primary attribute+Human passive?
The primary attribute+<race> passive+other skills?

Where currently the thing to be kept in mind is:
How is it affected by...
The profession's primary attribute?
The primary attribute+other skills?

Apparently it's impossible to balance skills adequately in the current system. Let alone in the suggested.

What you're suggesting, is to give every character access to their secondaries primary attribute, but instead of actually having to put points in it, it's at an automatic 12. Of course that's going to break the game. I don't see how you can think it wouldn't.

raspberry jam
19-04-2008, 14:20
You sure about that? (http://www.rpschamps.com/):grin: Those guys are totally nuts.

Wuzzman
19-04-2008, 18:59
Erm, what?

name me one reason for pve to need balance.

Gmr Leon
19-04-2008, 19:46
name me one reason for pve to need balance.

Without balance in PvE you would get:
Professions excluded for camping builds.

No one getting a hit in due to the various campers.

People using some exploit in a speed buff to steal people's drops.

Overpowered professions in general.

If the monsters use the same skills as players, and they use a build that's overpowered, the players have issues beating them. That leads to frustration and players not having fun, fun being the main goal of a video-game.

With the new races, it could become even more complicated in issues depending on how they're implemented. The Norn are basically a combat oriented race, if not balanced correctly they could roll over anything.

Same with the Asura, they would roll over the need for human Elementalists. Sylvari could possibly roll over the need for human Rangers, and so on and so forth.

See, I was only able to come up with a few reasons, that's why we have entire companies dedicated to this stuff and not a single person. :laughing:

Tru Reptile
19-04-2008, 19:48
name me one reason for pve to need balance.


If PvE didn't need balance then "There's Nothing to Fear!" and Seed of Life (was it?) wouldn't have needed to be toned down. If you have overpowered stuff then it causes problems, like UB and consets do. Just because you play a game or game mode that isn't PvP doesn't mean the game doesn't need to be balanced.

But before you say "if overpowered skills/items bother you that much then don't use it" playing Ostrich by sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away. With that said, how about you give me a reason why PvE doesn't need balance?

The Sins We Die By
19-04-2008, 21:16
What you're suggesting, is to give every character access to their secondaries primary attribute, but instead of actually having to put points in it, it's at an automatic 12. Of course that's going to break the game. I don't see how you can think it wouldn't.

I don't know what the system will be and there's no guarantee that would break a system such as the one you're describing. The suggestions are for what people would like to see in whatever system ends up being implemented, but sense we don't know what the system is, we can't know what suggestions would break it.

raspberry jam
19-04-2008, 21:51
I don't know what the system will be and there's no guarantee that would break a system such as the one you're describing. The suggestions are for what people would like to see in whatever system ends up being implemented, but sense we don't know what the system is, we can't know what suggestions would break it.No matter what system will be used, you can always find a parallel suggestion that will break it. But under your assumption no suggestion can be made at all since you don't know if you'd actually like the combination of your suggestion with the system that has not yet been implemented.

By the way, you still didn't explain why it would be "pointless" to not have differences between races.

Akirai Annuvil
20-04-2008, 12:44
Technically balance in PvE isn't necesarry in the same vein as it is in PvP.
In PvE the main goals are:
Having fun (by completing PvE missions/areas) with anyone online.
Getting good items.
They're really the only two types of content offered.
In PvP the goal is:
To prove you are better at playing as a tactical team than your opponent.
For the latter, balance between skills and risk and reward is essential; otherwise the sole goal of PvP cannot be achieved. It is essential that PvP is a balanced environment for it to be even playable.
For the former, the most important thing is to allow everyone to play as much with everyone and win on a consistent basis. For that UB and consets are actually a pretty ideal solution. Everyone can play with everyone, regardless of choices made previously, in every area of the game. 'Skill' is still rewarded by simply being speedier and gaining more items in a smaller timeframe. It does bring it's own set of problems, in that the individuality of the player is completely compromised. Regardless the situation in PvE does not demand balance between at the very least risk and reward.

Oh note: I find the individuality of players to be of far more importance than being able to have fun with anyone online and getting 'good' items I find totally and utterly unimportant for my gameplay. So I'm pro the changing of several key PvE skills.

I don't know what the system will be and there's no guarantee that would break a system such as the one you're describing. The suggestions are for what people would like to see in whatever system ends up being implemented, but sense we don't know what the system is, we can't know what suggestions would break it.

That is the lamest cop out I've ever seen anyone use on these forums. "We don't know what the system will be so we don't know whether any suggestion we make will be good or bad." If you seriously believe in that, stop making any suggestions.

As for me, what I would like to see? A balanced, competitive gaming environment. Guess what? That automatically excludes adding racial passives.

Larqh
21-04-2008, 00:57
To be frank, if races are only cosmetic, I'll be very disappointed. Many many games have race inherent traits, even MMOs, unless I'm terribly mistaken. I've not ever heard of those being unbalanced. So, I've no reason to believe that inherent abilities cannot be balanced.

raspberry jam
21-04-2008, 02:10
To be frank, if races are only cosmetic, I'll be very disappointed. Many many games have race inherent traits, even MMOs, unless I'm terribly mistaken. I've not ever heard of those being unbalanced. So, I've no reason to believe that inherent abilities cannot be balanced.Basically every game I can think of that offers racial traits also offer situations where you can exploit said traits to create a considerable advantage to yourself. That another choice of race would give you some other advantage in some other situation, does not mean that the game is balanced.

Larqh
21-04-2008, 03:09
Basically every game I can think of that offers racial traits also offer situations where you can exploit said traits to create a considerable advantage to yourself. That another choice of race would give you some other advantage in some other situation, does not mean that the game is balanced.

If it's so unbalanced, then why do so many people play them? And for so long I might add. People have been playing this way for a VERY long time. That tells me that balance has got to be there. It certainly can't be said that all people choose one race to play in D20 games.

Wuzzman
21-04-2008, 03:55
Without balance in PvE you would get:
Professions excluded for camping builds.

No one getting a hit in due to the various campers.

People using some exploit in a speed buff to steal people's drops.

Overpowered professions in general.

If the monsters use the same skills as players, and they use a build that's overpowered, the players have issues beating them. That leads to frustration and players not having fun, fun being the main goal of a video-game.

With the new races, it could become even more complicated in issues depending on how they're implemented. The Norn are basically a combat oriented race, if not balanced correctly they could roll over anything.

Same with the Asura, they would roll over the need for human Elementalists. Sylvari could possibly roll over the need for human Rangers, and so on and so forth.

See, I was only able to come up with a few reasons, that's why we have entire companies dedicated to this stuff and not a single person. :laughing:

your first point is mute. Players play gimped classes all the time, some classes are automatically more pve geared then others, some builds are vastly more efficient in pve then others. Doesn't mean there isn't a large amount of players using said skill/build/profession because for some reason it isn't as balance as the another profession. Not being included in parties is a pug problem which is really not an issue because we will probably at least have henchmen. People exploiting the pve system is a non-issue, if it's not obvious hacking that intrudes on their playstlye then most players won't care, if someone is killing said mob too well, then player with underpowered profession will move to the next mob.

Look how much the pve player base cried when NPC's no longer stood in the aoe or minions masters couldn't get 40+ minions and the nerfing of op pve skills. Sure there are players who want pve more challenging, but that usually doesn't come at the expense of some broken 3 spell combo that autokills any mob you encounter being nerfed to make sure the difficulty is there. Besides monsters don't cry nerf, and the players like it that way.

Pve only skills were meant to be broken though Anet didn't at the time feel like giving people nuclear missiles, the skills were not suppose to be intended to be balanced. If Anet nerfed any pve skill it is for the sole purpose of encouraging variety, for that matter with the recent ursanway lol, it can easily be concluded that anet doesn't care about balancing the pve skills considering how much negative feedback it received when they did take a stab at balancing pve skills before. My guess is that Anet doesn't want to be very proactive about balancing pve skills like they balance skills for pvp because it is ultimately counter productive considering the vast majority of their player base hates having to change builds unless something stronger comes along.

While they are a good size of players who like the idea of a "balance pve" half the players who do pve don't care and that is a fact and that is what Anet has to cattier to. Those who want a "balance pve" most likely won't quite the game unless for some reason they are unable to complete missions/get gold/farming in general, and considering the current state of the game you can do that with any profession with any build, excluding pve skills. Those who don't care if pve is balance and will most likely make a 100 page long thread about how a certain skill changed wrecked their new found ability to farm will be the ones anet is worried about.

Largh people play them cause they don't care if the game is balance....notice those same games have very little if not any pvp to them, besides maybe world pk. (on a scale of 1-10 as far as pvp is concerned WoW gets a 2 for bothering to have pvp servers. )

raspberry jam
21-04-2008, 04:30
If it's so unbalanced, then why do so many people play them? And for so long I might add. People have been playing this way for a VERY long time. That tells me that balance has got to be there. It certainly can't be said that all people choose one race to play in D20 games.D20 games are a horrible example since all D&D games have been unbalanced from the start. However, game balance doesn't matter all that much in pen&paper RPGs since the actual roleplaying takes precedence, and besides a "DM has the final word" clause exists if things should get out of hand.

Anyway, as Wuzzman said, they play them because they don't care about game balance. And even if they did, racial traits are often such a small part of the inbalances that it's not even noticable.

So why ask for balance if no one cares about it? If GW is any lead, then it is to the fact that a complex but balanced game necessarily has interesting complexity. That is what attracted to many to GWs PvE (since there isn't much to do in PvE except fighting monsters), and having a tactically interesting multiplayer RPG is a niche that ANet are basically alone in.

Larqh
21-04-2008, 04:33
Okay, since I don't PvP at all, I don't see that aspect of it. I don't honestly know what might get affected there, if anything. I still think having different races with no passive traits would be pointless. Best to just leave us all human.

BTW, is Larqh, with a Q. (Why do people always insist on spelling it wrong!?! I'm a cute ranger, not a freaking ogre!)

Raspberry, I really don't understand why you say it's imbalanced, but to each his or her own. I really have yet to see any proof that it is.

Wuzzman
21-04-2008, 04:40
D20 games are a horrible example since all D&D games have been unbalanced from the start. However, game balance doesn't matter all that much in pen&paper RPGs since the actual roleplaying takes precedence, and besides a "DM has the final word" clause exists if things should get out of hand.

Anyway, as Wuzzman said, they play them because they don't care about game balance. And even if they did, racial traits are often such a small part of the inbalances that it's not even noticable.

So why ask for balance if no one cares about it? If GW is any lead, then it is to the fact that a complex but balanced game necessarily has interesting complexity. That is what attracted to many to GWs PvE (since there isn't much to do in PvE except fighting monsters), and having a tactically interesting multiplayer RPG is a niche that ANet are basically alone in.

i think that is truly the only reason you balance pve, because you can on hit massacre everything in most games anyway, and if pve isn't about farming to the next level/item then why not make it challenging. But there is a cut off point where alot of players don't care to know the finer points of the game and don't want to know lol. Guild Wars 2 will probably be a balance between blowing up stuff and difficulty.

Zsig
21-04-2008, 07:53
D20 games are a horrible example since all D&D games have been unbalanced from the start. However, game balance doesn't matter all that much in pen&paper RPGs since the actual roleplaying takes precedence, and besides a "DM has the final word" clause exists if things should get out of hand.

It's funny you mention that.
On the new 4th edition coming due June, they are adopting measures to move away from that mentality. More and more, the "roleplay" aspect of D&D has been getting set aside in favor of munchkins and gamists.

Granted, they say that in 4E all races are going to be meaningful and not just aesthetics like they were in 3rd ed. (For those who doesn't know, when you reached a high enough level, like 14 and up, the race you chose to play was nothing more than a word written in a piece of paper). They'll present unique options for each race as you advance, sorta like Skill Trees.

From that, you can clearly see that even P&P RPGs are going to that direction.

On another topic, the "balance" issue, yes, other games have races and it doesn't seem to be a problem there. But when you start getting competitive on such games you'll see the lack of balance. And I'll tell you one more thing, inside this genre of games, GW is VERY competitive, and in all sorts of competitions balance is imperative.

Wuzzman
21-04-2008, 09:25
or races could be pve only, i mean they already have different level caps for pve and pvp, wouldn't it make sense to make everyone the "default" race for pvp chars.

Larqh
21-04-2008, 13:43
or races could be pve only, i mean they already have different level caps for pve and pvp, wouldn't it make sense to make everyone the "default" race for pvp chars.

That might be reasonable.

One thing I have a question on though, and I apologize if this was already addressed earlier in the thread and I missed it. How are inherent racial traits very much different from the primary attributes for each profession? For instance, eles have huge energy storage. Rangers can cut the energy cost of their skills. No one can heal better than monks thanks to divine favor. I would call these inherent traits. How are they any different from the racial inherent traits we are discussing?


Edited for typos.

raspberry jam
21-04-2008, 14:12
One thing I have a question on though, and I apologize if this was already addressed earlier in the thread and I missed it. How are inherent racial traits very much different from the primary attributes for each profession? For instance, eles have huge energy storage. Rangers can cut the energy cost of their skills. No one can heal better than monks thanks to divine favor. I would call these inherent traits. How are they any different from the racial inherent traits we are discussing?It's exactly the same thing, which kind of is the point. Warriors have strength which gives them some extra melee damage, and look, warriors usually go melee. Elementalists have more energy, so more spell spam, and what do they do? They spam high energy spells. Monks heal better, so in parties, monks... heal. Etc.

Now you can reason "elementalists have a lot of energy and healing takes energy so why not use an ele as healer?"

Well, because despite the large energy pool of an elementalist, monks are still better healers. Now if you hand out such traits to races, which have no specific roles, players will assign such roles rather quickly. You'll see a lot of norn warriors, asura eles, human monks etc. This will happen because despite the best efforts from ANet to balance things, there will still be things left to exploit.

Larqh
21-04-2008, 14:34
So, basically, no inherent traits, race or profession - wise, are wanted? I can see where people might want that. I'd never seen an uproar over the profession traits, but that may have happened before I came to the GW realm. So, this is why I questioned the logic behind not wanting race specific traits when we already have profession traits. If those were equally non-desired, then I guess many would prefer no races or professions. I myself would not want that, but I can see how others would. So, perhaps an option would be to have no races or professions. Seriously, it doesn't make sense for a Norn to only be as strong as a human. I certainly wouldn't play a game like that. But obviously, you would. I'm not saying you are wrong for feeling that way. I'm just saying that I wouldn't want races to be that way. It wouldn't make sense. If the races must all be exactly the same, don't bother having races.

raspberry jam
21-04-2008, 14:52
So, basically, no inherent traits, race or profession - wise, are wanted?You are completely wrong, that's not what I said at all.

I'd like to see profession specific traits, but not racial. Professions are intended to take their respective roles. Races are not.


If the races must all be exactly the same, don't bother having races.Well, to be honest I don't see why they bother with having races at all. Logically, it must unbalance the game, and create role niches, at least if you make races mechanically different.


make senseFireballs anyone?

The Sins We Die By
21-04-2008, 14:54
By the way, you still didn't explain why it would be "pointless" to not have differences between races.

There becomes no reason to have races at all, that's why. It may as well be all humans again if they aren't going to give toons any differences in mechanics.



That is the lamest cop out I've ever seen anyone use on these forums. "We don't know what the system will be so we don't know whether any suggestion we make will be good or bad." If you seriously believe in that, stop making any suggestions.

As for me, what I would like to see? A balanced, competitive gaming environment. Guess what? That automatically excludes adding racial passives.

If the truth is a cop out in your opinion, fine call it what you want. Regardless we can't really discuss implementation only Ideas and what would be bad or good about them.

Akirai Annuvil
21-04-2008, 16:34
If the truth is a cop out in your opinion, fine call it what you want. Regardless we can't really discuss implementation only Ideas and what would be bad or good about them.
...what? When you discuss what is good or bad about a suggestion you discuss it under the hypothetical that it would be implemented in the system. Otherwise it becomes impossible to discuss anything and this forum section is moot (something I'm inclined to think either way, but w/e).
Besides that even if the system wouldn't end up broken and borked, I don't see who would gain an advantage. Racial discrimination is gonna happen, even if there is a perfect balance between all of them simply because of player ignorance. Whether a race has a passive or not doesn't matter much to the casual player but being excluded from casual pugging does (whether casual pugging=PvP or PvE even being irrelevant for the moment). The only ones it's going to make a possibly positive difference for are those who like fidgeting around with making builds. And for that too the balance needs to be achieved and maintained which is not going to happen.

It may as well be all humans again if they aren't going to give toons any differences in mechanics.
(1) I really don't see how that would be a problem.
(2) Aesthetics make a fair difference. Why do you think people get FoW and suggestions for titles are so often made? The outrage at the reskinned armor/pets? The requests for additional customizability? Same wish here.

The Sins We Die By
21-04-2008, 17:53
snip

My personal preference is to hold true to the lore and give races differences in mechanics, aesthetics are a sidethought and I hardly care about them. I enjoy older games such as Galaga, Command and Conquer, Golden Sun, etc and I enjoy those for the game content not choice of how something looks or lack thereof. I run GW on the lowest settings possible for whatever I'm doing (except for screenshots), b/c I don't want visuals to take away from performance at all. I understand some people need to have their eye candy to gain any interest, but don't let that go so far that the mechanics don't get developement.

At least they've already announced such differences with the bear form. Hopefully they stay commited to having such differences. I still would prefer that races perform better overall at certain roles.

raspberry jam
21-04-2008, 18:53
There becomes no reason to have races at all, that's why. It may as well be all humans again if they aren't going to give toons any differences in mechanics.But races are already pointless. GW has only one race (human) and is a very good game. Unless you want to break the balance, you shouldn't let races mean anything but looks.

Larqh
21-04-2008, 19:05
But races are already pointless. GW has only one race (human) and is a very good game. Unless you want to break the balance, you shouldn't let races mean anything but looks.

Races would certainly be pointless if it's only cosmetic.

No one has offered any hard evidence that it would break the game. So, I'm just going to have to say, I completely disagree and step away.

Sefk
21-04-2008, 20:51
Well, like it or not, but if devs have decided to add races, it's for race specificities.

What's the point creating 5 races, armors for each races, emotes for each races and maybe starting zones for each races only for cosmetics?

I know it's not a very good comparison, but Starcraft becomes much more interesting than warcraft II because of races' specificities. Of course devs may have to readjust plan in order to have a good balance between differences and equality. But it's their job.

Akirai Annuvil
22-04-2008, 13:09
What's the point creating 5 races, armors for each races, emotes for each races and maybe starting zones for each races only for cosmetics?
How about increased sales? I know, I know, it's become hip and happening to say you only care about the gameplay and the gameplay is all that matters, but aesthetics and presentation are still the two main selling points of any game to the casual gamer. You can't explain gameplay and racial balance in a small 2 minute trailer -- you can show off their awesome looks and check it off on your implemented features list.

No one has offered any hard evidence that it would break the game.

(5) Races give a character 1 form of passive metamagic. Class' primary attribute gives 1 form of passive metamagic. En totale: 2 forms of passive metamagic per character.
~snip~
(8) Balancing all the skills in the game around any class having two passive sets of metamagic is impossible. This is not just theorycraft and has actually been proven in the past. Remember the [[Mantra of Recovery] Mesmers who were able to bypass both the limiting factors of recharge and casting time. [[Oath Shot] trappers and spirit spammer able to bypass cost and recharge. [[divine boon] and [[mantra of recall] monks able to bypass the limits of healing efficiency and energy.
~snip~
Basically, adding a passive ability to every race in GW2 is compareable to giving every class an extra primary attribute, but with a default level of 12, no attribute points needed. If I'm the only one who sees a balance issue here, I'm fairly sure the rest of you are retarded.
Both past experience and plain logic should tell you otherwise.


I understand some people need to have their eye candy to gain any interest, but don't let that go so far that the mechanics don't get developement.
'Eye candy' is something which adds to the game. The mechanics suggested detract from the game. So, add what adds to the game, subtract what subtracts from the game, PROFIT.

The Sins We Die By
22-04-2008, 14:18
'Eye candy' is something which adds to the game. The mechanics suggested detract from the game. So, add what adds to the game, subtract what subtracts from the game, PROFIT.

It adds to how marketable something is, not how good the product is overall.

raspberry jam
22-04-2008, 14:30
It adds to how marketable something is, not how good the product is overall.I really fail to see why people keep suggesting things that they think would be "marketable" when they could be asking for a good game.

The Sins We Die By
22-04-2008, 14:40
I really fail to see why people keep suggesting things that they think would be "marketable" when they could be asking for a good game.

I don't know...

It works for apple. Just look at the iPod and how they constantly update the look to sell more, when the product is as fragile as glass.

Akirai Annuvil
22-04-2008, 14:49
Anyone who thinks 'eye candy' or in other words: quality graphics and graphical design detract from a game is a complete moron. Good graphics make a game better in the same way good music does. There's a reason every single FF fan was psyched when they heard FF7 would be remade for the PS3 with PS3 quality graphics. Good graphics don't just add to marketability. It adds to the overall experience.
The mechanics suggested don't add to the overall experience; in fact they detract from it. Therefore, no to the mechanics, yes to the cosmetics.

The Sins We Die By
22-04-2008, 17:15
Therefore, no to the mechanics, yes to the cosmetics.

Personal preference then. I prefer fun or complex mechanics over visuals. That doesn't mean I don't like visuals obviously, I just don't find them to be the highest priority in a game.

Sefk
22-04-2008, 23:39
How about increased sales? I know, I know, it's become hip and happening to say you only care about the gameplay and the gameplay is all that matters, but aesthetics and presentation are still the two main selling points of any game to the casual gamer. You can't explain gameplay and racial balance in a small 2 minute trailer -- you can show off their awesome looks and check it off on your implemented features list.

But it wont be profitable in the long run. Review and friends will say that GW2 sucks with no true content. People who buy GW2 wont buy expansions, etc. etc.


Anyone who thinks 'eye candy' or in other words: quality graphics and graphical design detract from a game is a complete moron. Good graphics make a game better in the same way good music does. There's a reason every single FF fan was psyched when they heard FF7 would be remade for the PS3 with PS3 quality graphics. Good graphics don't just add to marketability. It adds to the overall experience.
The mechanics suggested don't add to the overall experience; in fact they detract from it. Therefore, no to the mechanics, yes to the cosmetics.

Again, Starcraft vs Warcraft 2.

Akirai Annuvil
22-04-2008, 23:45
Review and friends will say that GW2 sucks with no true content.
Thank god having good graphics and customizeable appearances automatically means a game's gameplay has to suck. This is ****ing sarcasm.

You know what'd suck? Passive racials. Or active racials for that matter. Racials of any kind really. Since, yaknow, it would be bad, unoriginal content which makes pvpers run away from the game screaming.

I prefer fun or complex mechanics over visuals.
I'm so glad the latter excludes the former. This is ****ing sarcasm, too.

Why on earth do people seem to think that adding a feature for purely cosmetic reasons means you can have no depth in any other area of the game? It's completely moronic.

The Sins We Die By
22-04-2008, 23:49
Why on earth do people seem to think that adding a feature for purely cosmetic reasons means you can have no depth in any other area of the game? It's completely moronic.

This is the first choice anyone will make in the game and it should be based on mechanics not cosmetics.

Sefk
22-04-2008, 23:55
Thank god having good graphics and customizeable appearances automatically means a game's gameplay has to suck. This is ****ing sarcasm.
But a game solely based on it, sucks.

I'm not buying a 3d animation movie, I'm buying a game.


You know what'd suck? Passive racials. Or active racials for that matter. Racials of any kind really. Since, yaknow, it would be bad, unoriginal gameplay.
What do you have more original to propose?

Fromj a roleplay/immersion point of view, racial distinction is very important. I can't understand why an asura should have the same armour than a norn. For pvp, is it more interesting to have true races? Starcraft is fantastic, because each time you change race, there is a new gameplay. It's a not so hard to add level of complexity in pvp gameplay.

Kyrion Hellcat
22-04-2008, 23:56
Again, another thread in which people automatically assume that racial differences MUST and HAVE TO give PvP advantages.

And if they only provide PvE advantages?

- What happens if Norns can carry an extra Bag?
- And if Sylvaris have a smaller aggro radius?

Seriously people... With all that "BALANCE MUST PREVAIIILLLLL !!!"... You are starting to behave like fanatics....

Tru Reptile
23-04-2008, 00:02
Why on earth do people seem to think that adding a feature for purely cosmetic reasons means you can have no depth in any other area of the game? It's completely moronic.

I don't understand it either.

I always used to love the design of the Charr Hide armor, but because of it's stats I never bought it. Now that armor differences are cosmetic only, I can add whatever stats that I want. But because the difference is cosmetic doesn't mean the gameplay suddenly goes in the crapper. The same would be true for the races in GW2.

The Sins We Die By
23-04-2008, 00:41
I don't understand it either.

I always used to love the design of the Charr Hide armor, but because of it's stats I never bought it. Now that armor differences are cosmetic only, I can add whatever stats that I want. But because the difference is cosmetic doesn't mean the gameplay suddenly goes in the crapper. The same would be true for the races in GW2.

The reason this argument doesn't work is b/c armor is there strictly to change the look. If they wanted to they could have made it all the same until it became max and I wouldn't have cared, b/c once armor reaches a certain point it doesn't matter. Armor initially had differences, but they gave in to people's desire to have the different looks and did manage to mix the mechanics in quite well with insignia's. Races have lore though, and therefore should have traits based off that lore, armor does not and while flameforged sounds like it has lore they decided it shouldn't. So you can take away the lore from races if you want, but you'll disgruntle more of the fanbase than you'll make happy.

Tru Reptile
23-04-2008, 00:50
EDIT: Nevermind. Let's just say that when (not if) balancing issues occur between races, and you see racial discrimination, I'll be the first to say I told you so.

I'm done here.

The Sins We Die By
23-04-2008, 01:07
EDIT: Nevermind. Let's just say that when (not if) balancing issues occur between races, and you see racial discrimination, I'll be the first to say I told you so.

I'm done here.

By all means. It's what I want after all, for them to take on certain roles better than each other. I don't want all races to be balanced at everything. As for Pugs and discrimination, it won't matter, people will still be told to run this or that build no matter what. Difference is, with only a few races they'd have to take some of each to fulfill each role in terms of efficiency.

Akirai Annuvil
23-04-2008, 10:22
This is the first choice anyone will make in the game and it should be based on mechanics not cosmetics.
For the majority of the players, it's going to be based of cosmetics. Accept reality instead of trying to defeat it. Plus why would it be any better if people had to choose their first choices based on mechanics instead of cosmetics? There are plenty of RPGs which give you one choice at the start: mage class or physical class. Further specialization happens as you progress. To a certain degree you see that in GW even; you don't choose your secondary until you've tried them all.

Races have lore though, and therefore should have traits based off that lore,
This is the most ****ed up reasoning to add anything to a game where you want to maintain a semblance of balance.
Pin Down has lore; Aidan uses it to completely stop a Devourer from moving in one of ANet's little stories. Obviously it should function as a 100% snare.

It's what I want after all,
You actually want racial discrimination and game imbalance to occur? Wow you really know how to improve a gameplay experience.

But a game solely based on it, sucks.
It'd help if this had any relevance whatsoever to the discussion.
It doesn't.

What do you have more original to propose?
No races is nowadays more original than races. Races without passive is more original than races with.
You also missed explaining why you want to add a, yaknow, bad gameplay mechanic.

Starcraft is fantastic, because each time you change race, there is a new gameplay. It's a not so hard to add level of complexity in pvp gameplay.
PvP gameplay is already complex enough.
Gameplay changes based on your build, your class, your teams build, your teammates and your hall. If you think the only way to change up your gameplay in SC is by changing races you're mistaken btw.

The Sins We Die By
23-04-2008, 13:45
Only 5 races akirai. If they do specialize at roles you can't exclude one, therefore discrimination can't occur unless parties want to run gimped.

raspberry jam
23-04-2008, 16:07
I don't know...

It works for apple. Just look at the iPod and how they constantly update the look to sell more, when the product is as fragile as glass.Marketability works for selling things, yes. The thing is, it's Apple themselves that want marketability. Their customers don't suggest it. Are you ANet?

The Sins We Die By
23-04-2008, 16:23
Are you ANet?

No, though it's important they hear what people like and don't like.

raspberry jam
23-04-2008, 16:23
Again, Starcraft vs Warcraft 2.Are you seriously comparing races/nations/sides in an RTS game with races in RPG games?

Which team you want to play as is primary choice in RTS games. That means that when you sit down to play, the main initial choice you make in the game itself (the actual software) is to choose a team to play as. Your choice is based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of said team, compared to your own strength and weaknesses as a player, alternatively, which side looks coolest.
Any which way, the choice of team in an RTS is what gives the majority of static difference in gameplay. That is why it is the primary choice.

What is the primary choice in RPG games? Traditionally, it's class (profession, or whatever you want to call it), not race. Choosing to play as, say, warrior or mage etc. is the choice that gives the main gameplay difference. Because there is a lot of difference between swinging a sword and throwing a fireball. Swinging a sword is always swinging a sword: humans do it in pretty much the same way as half-orc/half-centaurs, and they get pretty much the same results.
The choice of class in an RPG is what gives the majority of static difference in gameplay. That is why it is the primary choice.

Team choice in RTS = Class choice in RPG.


No, though it's important they hear what people like and don't like.Exactly. Tell them what you, and you alone (unless you make a poll. lol), like and what you don't like. Let them decide what is marketable.

amcoolio
23-04-2008, 17:21
Here is what I think they will do (and hoping they will do, because it would be great and add a lot more diversity to the game):

They will consider lore, and it will play a factor, but all races/professions will still be equal.

Each race and profession will have a certain set of skills, with about 30-40% of skills the same for every race for that profession. For example, all monk classes for every race will have Mend Condition and Remove Hex, if this was Guild Wars 1. But each monk race would have their own set of unique skills, but balanced so there is equality. Not just the same skills with different names, but slightly different effects and largely different skill animations. Like say, the difference between Glimmer of Light and Word of Healing.

While a human monk can't use a charr-monk-specific skills, there would be scrolls (in PvE only) similar to beta-Guild Wars where they can temporarily learn the skill, so they won't have to create all the monk race characters to unlock every skill. You can also cap elites with any race, but if you want to use a race-specific elite that isn't your race, there will be repercussions (like a weaker version or you have to take an added useless skill like Charm Animal on your bar for the sole purpose of being able to use that skill).

This way, you can continue lore by having skills named after each race but still have equality in doing so.

If this system is implemented there is no need for race-specific passive abilities, like "charr are stronger".

raspberry jam
23-04-2008, 17:37
But each monk race would have their own set of unique skills, but balanced so there is equality. Not just the same skills with different names, but slightly different effects and largely different skill animations. Like say, the difference between Glimmer of Light and Word of Healing.What are you smoking and how expensive is it? I definitely want some of it.

amcoolio
23-04-2008, 18:00
Obviously Glimmer and WoH is a pretty steep comparison because Glimmer is insanely overpowered at the moment. I couldn't think of anything else because I mainly play monk. But there is nothing wrong with that plan.

raspberry jam
23-04-2008, 18:36
Obviously Glimmer and WoH is a pretty steep comparison because Glimmer is insanely overpowered at the moment. I couldn't think of anything else because I mainly play monk. But there is nothing wrong with that plan.Yes there is, if you rebalance those skills so that they are roughly equal in one part of the game, one of them will be much more powerful than the other in some other part.

I don't play monk a lot (I used to but not anymore), how is Glimmer overpowered?

amcoolio
23-04-2008, 18:52
One part of the game? Some other part? What are you talking about? There will be no rebalancing, it would be balanced from the start. Slightly different effects, called a different name, and a different skill animation, so you can tell the difference between a human monk and a charr monk.

Glimmer is an instant-cast, low energy, instant-recharge ~170 health skill that you can use on yourself with max healing prayers. Why would anyone take any other healing elite? WoH is worse if target is over 50%, heals for only a little more if under 50%, has a casting time, and a much longer recharge. You can heal twice or even three times with Glimmer for 350-400 health in the amount of time you can any other healing spell.

raspberry jam
24-04-2008, 00:20
What I am talking about? I'm talking about the speed with which damage comes, the ease with which the enemy can be manipulated (in PvE), the efficiency of prot (due to type and number of damage sources) and the average energy cost of healing the damage away, and the expected amount of self heal - the factors that healing spells are balanced by. These factors are very different in for example the crystal desert compared to vabbi.

Glimmer heals for 164 on 16 healing prayers and 14 divine favor, and WoH heals for 286 if below 50, which you should wait for (this is PvE, in PvP you can reroll so it's not an issue). If you don't wait, it still heals for 180. Sure, maybe you can heal twice or thrice in the amount of time you cast WoH once, but that would cost 15e, if the damage is that spread, why not use Heal Party. Well as I said it's been a long time since I played monk so you're probably right.

Akirai Annuvil
26-04-2008, 00:12
Word of Healing > Glimmer of Light.

on 16 healing prayers and 14 divine favor
Try 14 hp, 7/9 df.

raspberry jam
26-04-2008, 05:33
Try 14 hp, 7/9 df.lol why, it's PvE, you can use sups and not risk dying, hell in normal mode you can have dual superiors and not die.

Akirai Annuvil
26-04-2008, 11:55
I saw the word: balance, so I assumed it was PvP.
WoH>Glimmer btw.

Skyy High
26-04-2008, 20:04
Can we get over the fact that WoH is better than Glimmer and back to the original idea, which was to give races racial-specific skills that are balanced against each other?

raspberry jam
26-04-2008, 21:53
Can we get over the fact that WoH is better than Glimmer and back to the original idea, which was to give races racial-specific skills that are balanced against each other?Why would you want this? Cutting yourself out of role specific skills I can understand (like, a warrior not having access to fire aoe spells), but cutting down the number of mechanics you can access because of racial choice? Why?

Because that's what it is about, you can have all the different mechanics you want, but there are only so many ways you can think of to do a certain thing.

In other words if the devs come up with 15 healing spells, they can give you all 15, or they can give you 5.

They won't come up with 45 different spells and give 15 to each race just because there are 3 different races (well they could, but what's the point, most of those 45 would be either identical or unbalanced since there are only so many ways you can make a healing spell).

amcoolio
27-04-2008, 21:35
Using your example. Out of 15 healing skills.

7 would be the same for every race, and 8 each different for each race. Kind of like how there are core skills and Factions skills and Nightfall skills.

You are automatically assuming that there would be unbalance. Well there is a way to balance. Its not impossible.

Its hard to read what you are trying to say.

Zsig
27-04-2008, 23:50
(well they could, but what's the point, most of those 45 would be either identical or unbalanced since there are only so many ways you can make a healing spell).
(emphasys mine)
Without counting the duplicate skills, there's about 35 Healing Prayers Skills in GW1, which to me, is more than enough to prove otherwise.

If you don't believe that skills could be balanced, than there's no alternative but to make a game without any skills, or make a game like RPS, otherwise, as you say, there will be lack of balance.

raspberry jam
27-04-2008, 23:58
Using your example. Out of 15 healing skills.

7 would be the same for every race, and 8 each different for each race. Kind of like how there are core skills and Factions skills and Nightfall skills.Out of 15 skills?

7 + ( 8 * 5 ) = 47

You'd have to come up with 47 skills, not 15. And all of those would have to be balanced against each other. How many ways can you think of to heal someone? How many if you remove all the crap (Mending etc.)?


(emphasys mine)
Without counting the duplicate skills, there's about 35 Healing Prayers Skills in GW1, which to me, is more than enough to prove otherwise.

If you don't believe that skills could be balanced, than there's no alternative but to make a game without any skills, or make a game like RPS, otherwise, as you say, there will be lack of balance.35 healing prayers skills, but if you give Glimmer of Light and Mending to one race, and Word of Healing and Words of Comfort to the other race, one race will be better than the other. You can shift around those skills between races, but you'll never attain balance (look at GW for example, it's 3 years old and certain skills are still unbalanced) - and even if you do, no one will think you did.

Of course skills can be balanced, but one reason why GW is easy to balance is that you have access to everything. LoD was overpowered so they nerfed it, but monks could switch their elite to something else. In other words you can rebalance after release. You can't rebalance racial skills after release because then you'll screw over every player who already created a character.

The Sins We Die By
28-04-2008, 03:02
You can't rebalance racial skills after release because then you'll screw over every player who already created a character.

If that were the case they can't rebalance primary attribute skills b/c it screws over GW characters, but they do.

amcoolio
28-04-2008, 03:44
Out of 15 skills?

7 + ( 8 * 5 ) = 47

You'd have to come up with 47 skills, not 15. And all of those would have to be balanced against each other. How many ways can you think of to heal someone? How many if you remove all the crap (Mending etc.)?

35 healing prayers skills, but if you give Glimmer of Light and Mending to one race, and Word of Healing and Words of Comfort to the other race, one race will be better than the other. You can shift around those skills between races, but you'll never attain balance (look at GW for example, it's 3 years old and certain skills are still unbalanced) - and even if you do, no one will think you did.

Of course skills can be balanced, but one reason why GW is easy to balance is that you have access to everything. LoD was overpowered so they nerfed it, but monks could switch their elite to something else. In other words you can rebalance after release. You can't rebalance racial skills after release because then you'll screw over every player who already created a character.

Just the fact that you are using the extreme example of giving one race Mending and once race Words of Comfort just proves you do not understand what we are saying.

And it is easy to balance them with eachother. Take one skill, give it different names, slightly different stat track and effects, casting time, recharge time, etc.

Zsig
28-04-2008, 05:17
Now I partially agree with you.

As amcoolio just said, you can't compare both mentioned skills. Also, one thing important to mention is that when GW1 came with prophecies it was much easier to balance with the number of skills they had back then, later with new campaigns and OverPowered skills it became way harder, firstly due to the number, and secondly due to their utility, since most had been taken care of and there wasn't much to go for.

And here's where I agree with you. They are (or were) still trying to fix the paragon, nerf after nerf, and guess what? It's still broken. And that's mainly due to their primary attribute -the one thing that turns each profession away from each other, much like racial effects would probably work- that makes them generate energy like it was nothing. There's nothing that can be done about them except removing the paragons from the game altogether, and I know many people that would be happy about it, and many that would be sad (me at least, as I love paras).

So, question is, at which point can you balance one thing after it's released in game? Or it shouldn't be a problem as long as it's all there from the start and not some kind of "Big Boom" expansion that ruins everything (or at least upsets "status quo")?

Akirai Annuvil
28-04-2008, 12:56
Divine Healing
Signet of Devotion
Cure Hex
Dwayna's Kiss
Ethereal Light
Heal Other
Heal Party
Healing Breeze
Orison of Healing
Patient Spirit
Signet of Rejuvenation
Word of Healing
Infuse Health
Zealous Benediction
14 pure healing skills, with Cure Hex, Healing BNreeze and Signet of Devotion being dubious entries. These are pretty much the only pure healing skills which see use. Funnily enough that isn't even enough for one race according to the scheme suggested; let alone 5.

As for variations on base skills, are you guys thinking something like this?
Human: Word of Healing, 5e // 3/4c // 2r
Faster recharge than the base (1 second)
Sylvari: Word of Healing, 5e // 1/4c // 3r
Faster cast time than the base (1/2 second)

Guess what. The Sylvari version is about 10x better than the human version, even though it's only a .5 second cast difference.

amcoolio
28-04-2008, 15:28
Nope. The human WoH would have more healing power, called something else, and have different stipulations. For example, longer cast time, but more healing if target is below 50% while the Sylvari would have quick cast but under 25% health for target. And the Charr version would have less healing and longer cast time but remove a condition if target is below 50%.

amcoolio
28-04-2008, 15:32
And that is just an elite skill. In my plan every race would still have the same Orison of Healing, Healing Breeze, and Dwayna's Kiss.

Akirai Annuvil
28-04-2008, 15:47
Aha so the Charr version would be useless, the Sylvari version would be OPed, and the human version would simply be a completely different skill altogether.

I see your point.

amcoolio
28-04-2008, 16:33
Aha so the Charr version would be useless, the Sylvari version would be OPed, and the human version would simply be a completely different skill altogether.

I see your point.

I'll let the Devs worry about balancing skills instead of bickering on a forum about it. Its not about specific skills anyway. BTW, you got it wrong. How would the Charr version be useless if it removes a condition.

I don't see the point of "there is no way to balance skills if this was true" when I specifically said any PvE monk race can learn each and every skill, there would just be added stipulations if you wanted to use one.

This would fix the overpowering of skills in a big way, if there were one strong skill for each race and no possibility of having two of the skills on your bar, which you can now because the monk class has access to 125-150 skills.

Skyy High
28-04-2008, 16:34
Stop thinking with the GvG mentality for a minute, because it would be quite simple to make all of these racial skills PvE-only. Even if they weren't PvE-only, it wouldn't matter terribly much, since anyone playing high level PvP would of course re-roll their character to be the best possible, rather than going, "But, but, I'm a Sylvari, now I'm nerfed, waaaah."

If the GW2 PvE is at all like GW's PvE, these minute differences won't matter at all. And if they ever did, you'd be able to balance them; like Sins said, players can't change their primary professions in GW, but that hasn't stopped ANet from destroying certain skills and builds for each class that were OP-ed.

raspberry jam
28-04-2008, 20:54
Just the fact that you are using the extreme example of giving one race Mending and once race Words of Comfort just proves you do not understand what we are saying.lol Words of Comfort sucks.


If the GW2 PvE is at all like GW's PvE, these minute differences won't matter at all. And if they ever did, you'd be able to balance them; like Sins said, players can't change their primary professions in GW, but that hasn't stopped ANet from destroying certain skills and builds for each class that were OP-ed.And look at the outcry. However in GW you can still build to get past the nerf because you have access to every single skill.

The Sins We Die By
28-04-2008, 21:15
And look at the outcry. However in GW you can still build to get past the nerf because you have access to every single skill.


I don't think you understand that they nerf when something becomes too effective. Not to make a concept useless.

raspberry jam
29-04-2008, 00:30
I don't think you understand that they nerf when something becomes too effective. Not to make a concept useless.That's why I see so many zergway teams nowadays.

Anyway, what if they couldn't nerf it without making it useless?

InfernoStyx
29-04-2008, 02:15
This might have been said earlier but what about racial abilities that are caused by a combo of class and race? Example would be ele's Standard human 4 pips energy and GW1 energy advancement. asura would have same energy but their spells would cost less. Slyviri would have say 5 energy pips because of nature attunement. Norn could have an owl form or something similar what would give faster casting and charr could have energy regen based on allies near by. Hopefully they would follow the lore and find a way to give some balance. Because if the races is just gonna be visual only I would be disappointed

Akirai Annuvil
29-04-2008, 03:00
I don't think you understand that they nerf when something becomes too effective. Not to make a concept useless.

[[divine boon] disagrees. [[mantra of recall] disagrees. The inspiration line disagrees. [[Ether renewal] disagrees. [[grenth's aura] disagrees. [[fear me!] disagrees. [[energizing finale] disagrees. [[incoming!] disagrees. [[recurring insecurity] disagrees. [[shadow prison] disagrees. [[ritual lord] disagrees. [[watch yourself!] disagrees. [[angorodon's gaze] disagrees. [[fertile season] disagrees.

Skyy High
30-04-2008, 02:44
And look at the outcry. However in GW you can still build to get past the nerf because you have access to every single skill.
And? It's not like we're suggesting each class have one racial skill that they're entirely dependent on, and if it turns out to be too powerful and gets nerfed the race as a whole is trash.

amcoolio
30-04-2008, 06:35
[[divine boon] disagrees. [[mantra of recall] disagrees. The inspiration line disagrees. [[Ether renewal] disagrees. [[grenth's aura] disagrees. [[fear me!] disagrees. [[energizing finale] disagrees. [[incoming!] disagrees. [[recurring insecurity] disagrees. [[shadow prison] disagrees. [[ritual lord] disagrees. [[watch yourself!] disagrees. [[angorodon's gaze] disagrees. [[fertile season] disagrees.

....And all of those skills were too effective. You can still smite without ether renewal, its just harder to do so.

Your argument disagrees.

Akirai Annuvil
30-04-2008, 12:33
You can still smite without ether renewal, its just harder to do so.
You have got to be kidding me. The Ether Renewal build was killed. The Dboon was killed. SWAY was killed. Zergway was killed. Bloodspike was killed.

NO WAI U CAN STIL RUN EM THEY R JUST BAED lolol

Yeah great counterargument of yours. Izzy does not have a problem killing skills, individual builds or teambuilds. That was my point. And hey, besides you're terrifically wrong one-liner it still stands.

The Sins We Die By
30-04-2008, 14:15
You have got to be kidding me. The Ether Renewal build was killed. The Dboon was killed. SWAY was killed. Zergway was killed. Bloodspike was killed.

NO WAI U CAN STIL RUN EM THEY R JUST BAED lolol

Yeah great counterargument of yours. Izzy does not have a problem killing skills, individual builds or teambuilds. That was my point. And hey, besides you're terrifically wrong one-liner it still stands.

They nerf the skills that make a concept too effective, they don't remove the concept. Damage redux is achieved through more than just "WY!" or "Incoming!" Healing is achieved through more than just Divine Boon and Mantra of Recall. You didn't understand what I was saying.

Akirai Annuvil
30-04-2008, 15:01
Pretty sure they removed binding rituals from the game. Byebye original rit concept!

The Sins We Die By
30-04-2008, 17:02
Pretty sure they removed binding rituals from the game. Byebye original rit concept!

It's getting close to that it seems. Then again though, relying on NPCs to be your bar is a pretty weak game concept.

raspberry jam
30-04-2008, 19:47
And? It's not like we're suggesting each class have one racial skill that they're entirely dependent on, and if it turns out to be too powerful and gets nerfed the race as a whole is trash.And again I have to ask. Do you really trust the questionably brilliant minds at ANet to pull off such an act? And even if they did, would people think they did (thereby avoiding discrimination)?

And even if all those things happened, what would you have achieved? You would still have reduced diversity - tell me now that an asura monk with access to 15 spells could play much more than one or two builds?


you'reNO

BAD AKIRAI

BAD

The Sins We Die By
30-04-2008, 19:50
And again I have to ask. Do you really trust the questionably brilliant minds at ANet to pull off such an act? And even if they did, would people think they did (thereby avoiding discrimination)?

And even if all those things happened, what would you have achieved? You would still have reduced diversity - tell me now that an asura monk with access to 15 spells could play much more than one or two builds?


/sigh

How long did it take for GW to get as many skills as it has now? Do you really think they will release GW2 with 1000+ skills?

raspberry jam
30-04-2008, 20:14
/sigh

How long did it take for GW to get as many skills as it has now? Do you really think they will release GW2 with 1000+ skills?No, which is sort of my point. It will have a small number of skills compared to the current GW (or skills might not at all work like they do now), and by cutting characters out from skills by their race, you reduce the number of builds that they can equip. Only a relative small number of builds (compared to the total amount of possible builds) will be good/useful, but you'd have to disperse these already few good builds over all racial choices.

Basically, by choosing race and profession you'd be cutting yourself down to a very small number of useful builds, say 2-3 assuming that the total number of valuable builds would be ~30 per profession given that all skills were available to everyone. Remember, the amount of builds is also reduced by not being able to use for example norn skills together with asura skills.

Having access to skills is a passive racial ability, one that has a powerful influence on game balance.

Zsig
30-04-2008, 20:26
And even if all those things happened, what would you have achieved? You would still have reduced diversity - tell me now that an asura monk with access to 15 spells could play much more than one or two builds?
Wow, you are really missing the point. Aren't you?


Basically, by choosing race and profession you'd be cutting yourself down to a very small number of useful builds, say 2-3 assuming that the total number of valuable builds would be ~30 per profession given that all skills were available to everyone. Remember, the amount of builds is also reduced by not being able to use for example norn skills together with asura skills.
Where is that coming from? Just because in GW1 new expansions brought new overpowered skills, that made Izzy nerf most of them OR buff old ones in order to keep useful/competitive, by no means GW2 should follow that same example.

Is it so hard to consider that given the experience they had with GW1 and the mistakes they made, all the things they learned, that they at least try their best not to make the same mistakes again? Really? Isn't it why they are making GW2 in the first place? To amend their incorrigible mistakes?

Why do you keep thinking that, for example, just because out of the 30 or so skills in Healing Prayers, only 15 or so are useful, that MUST be the case in GW2?

Are you really that narrow minded?

The Sins We Die By
30-04-2008, 20:28
No, which is sort of my point. It will have a small number of skills compared to the current GW (or skills might not at all work like they do now), and by cutting characters out from skills by their race, you reduce the number of builds that they can equip. Only a relative small number of builds (compared to the total amount of possible builds) will be good/useful, but you'd have to disperse these already few good builds over all racial choices.

Basically, by choosing race and profession you'd be cutting yourself down to a very small number of useful builds, say 2-3 assuming that the total number of valuable builds would be ~30 per profession given that all skills were available to everyone. Remember, the amount of builds is also reduced by not being able to use for example norn skills together with asura skills.

Having access to skills is a passive racial ability, one that has a powerful influence on game balance.

Prophecies had about 80 skills per profession on release, right? Professions have primary attributes which can't be taken advantage of, except a few cases, by other professions. So how is races having skills going to be much different than b4?

Akirai Annuvil
01-05-2008, 15:39
NO

BAD AKIRAI

BAD
...goddammit.
I cannot live with such blasphemy.
/wrists


Why do you keep thinking that, for example, just because out of the 30 or so skills in Healing Prayers, only 15 or so are useful, that MUST be the case in GW2?
Srsly? There's a finite number of skills useable without being broken. Besides that there is the question whether you even want to have more than 15 or so useful skills.

Alaris
01-05-2008, 15:50
Srsly? There's a finite number of skills useable without being broken. Besides that there is the question whether you even want to have more than 15 or so useful skills.

Besides balance and brokenness, there's also the issue of customizability and playstyle. More skills gives you some leeway as to how you play.

For example, skills that are more energy dependent will require you to figure a way to have enough energy to maintain them. Skills that take longer to cast are more easily interrupted. Etc.

In GW1, you can customize your build to suit your play style. I hope that there's enough good skills in GW2 to be able to do that.

It's fine if some skills are variant of each other. It's also fine if different races have variants of some of each other's skills, as long as they also include their flavor / uniqueness.

I'd also be happy if we could learn racial skills from other races, except that we would not be able to be as efficient at those skills (like runes for primary profession only). That would go a long way towards allowing players to pick their race, and yet allow them access to all areas.

raspberry jam
01-05-2008, 16:02
Wow, you are really missing the point. Aren't you?No. I thought the idea of racial skills was there to bring diversity to the game. Instead it would necessarily reduce diversity, so it's a bad idea. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.


Why do you keep thinking that, for example, just because out of the 30 or so skills in Healing Prayers, only 15 or so are useful, that MUST be the case in GW2?

Are you really that narrow minded?The current GW puts a lot of weight at being able to make a good build. With a good build, something that seemed near impossible with a bad build can now be merely a little challenging, or even downright easy. This is because GW very much rewards skill, and it does take a lot of skill to come up with a good build (granted, it doesn't take a lot of skill to visit PvXwiki, but at some point someone came up with each of the builds on that site).
This is of course a very attractive feature for the people who loves to tinker around with their builds.

Let's assume that they keep both the heavy focus on making a good build, and the idea that skill should be rewarded.

"Skill" here is just the ability to make correct choices, bringing the right skills in your build. To be able to make correct choices, there must be bad choices - there must be options to not take, otherwise, it wouldn't matter which options you do take since you are not rewarded for it any more than you would be with any other option.

Thus, there must be bad skills in the game. They are bad just so that the good ones can be good, or at least better than the bad ones. This goes for any game that is even remotely similar. Look at the card game Magic: the Gathering. There certainly are a lot of bad, useless and/or gimmicky cards in that game, and they are supposed to be there.

There are two other possibilities: either the skills system won't work as it does now, which means that the discussion about racial skills is pointless anyway since we have no idea what we would be talking about, or that the idea that player skill should be rewarded is removed, in which case the "game" would just be a fancy chat program with the option to collect useless stats, like most other MMOs are.

Alaris
01-05-2008, 16:45
I thought the idea of racial skills was there to bring diversity to the game. Instead it would necessarily reduce diversity, so it's a bad idea. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Should we promote cosmetic or playstyle diversity? It's a choice, a preference, but ultimately it'll be hard to promote both.

Racial skills means that you can pick a unique playstyle. It contributes to playstyle diversity, even if most warriors end up being norn, because asuran warriors will be different playstyle-wise.


"Skill" here is just the ability to make correct choices, bringing the right skills in your build. To be able to make correct choices, there must be bad choices. (...) Thus, there must be bad skills in the game.

Simplistic, and wrong.

Bad skills are mostly wasted. Nobody uses them after a while, so you might as well not have them at all. Unless those bad skills are the only ones available at the beginning of the game.

A good build is one that (1) take advantage of synergies between skills, and (2) is adapted to the task at hand. So there's plenty of ways to design a bank of skills such that those skills will be good in some builds and situations, and bad in other builds and situations.

There does not need to be "bad" skills. There just needs to be "bad ways" to put skills together, or "wrong skills" for a given task.

Akirai Annuvil
01-05-2008, 16:58
Nobody uses them after a while
You do realize that people still use flare, mending, power shot, backfire and flurry three years after release right?

raspberry jam
01-05-2008, 17:16
Should we promote cosmetic or playstyle diversity? It's a choice, a preference, but ultimately it'll be hard to promote both.

Racial skills means that you can pick a unique playstyle. It contributes to playstyle diversity, even if most warriors end up being norn, because asuran warriors will be different playstyle-wise.No. Racial skills mean that you will pick a unique playstyle, and short of rerolling your character, which is not always something you'd want to do in PvE, you'd have to stick with that playstyle.

One of the strengths of the current GW, for PvE, is that if you get tired of your current playstyle you can switch to something else because there are so many choices available to you. Multiple reversible choices bring diversity, makes for a game that is easy to balance, and highly rewards player skill.


Simplistic, and wrong.

Bad skills are mostly wasted. Nobody uses them after a while, so you might as well not have them at all. Unless those bad skills are the only ones available at the beginning of the game.I know it sounds stupid to say "they are there to not be used", but that's the way it is. Any game that reward skill needs to have options to not take. GW just happens to reward skill in build-making.


A good build is one that (1) take advantage of synergies between skills, and (2) is adapted to the task at hand. So there's plenty of ways to design a bank of skills such that those skills will be good in some builds and situations, and bad in other builds and situations.

There does not need to be "bad" skills. There just needs to be "bad ways" to put skills together, or "wrong skills" for a given task.So we agree then. With less skills at hand, there are less possible synergies. Allowing any character to use any skill in the game would mean that he had access to the most synergies. (that's the reason why I like your idea about being able to learn skills from other races. having passive racial abilities, including skill access, in the start of the game is ok, as long as the differences fade out and disappear as you reach the power cap)

The Sins We Die By
01-05-2008, 19:39
I think we need to get something cleared up. I'm thinking GW2 will be Race/1 Profession. Therefore Races would have to replace the role of primaries, which is why I have the stance I have.

Zsig
01-05-2008, 19:47
First of all, I'm not home so I won't address all issues with quotes.

I won't say that you are wrong because that's your opinion and I respect that, even though I don't agree with you. I do agree with all your reasoning on gaming skill, It's just that (the best analogy I can come up right now) in your mind the only manner by which you can achieve 4 is by adding 2 and 2 together, and it is true, 2+2=4 everybody knows that, but you seem to refuse to believe in the idea that that are other ways to achieve it.

Your M:tG analogy fails simply based on the fact that there are no ways to "balance" or "update" one card after it's release, and guess what? GW is an online game where the devs CAN (and should) make such fixes. But (repeating myself) due to the HUGE ammount of "cards" in the current "format" it's easier for them to simply make only a percentage of them comparatively useful on a playing field, so that you can still keep some sort of balance. It's either that or just give up of balance.
Also, in Magic there are no obviously useless cards, it's only the player notion that makes them so, and after that, there's nothing that can be done to prevent that (e.g. you can't "buff" it after printed)

If you think that there must be bad skills, then it only proves how narrowminded you are.
"Here, let's make a couple skills that are useless and noone will ever use them..."
BS! All skills on a skill based game must have some usefulnes under the right circunstance/synergy/combination.

raspberry jam
01-05-2008, 20:10
2) Your M:tG analogy fails simply based on the fact that there are no ways to "balance" or "update" one card after it's release, and guess what? GW is an online game where the devs CAN (and should) make it so. But (repeating myself) due to the HUGE ammount of "cards" in the current "format" it's easier for them to simply make a percentage of them comparatively useful on a playing field, so that you can still keep some sort of balance.
Also, in Magic there are no obviously useless cards, it's only the player notion that makes them so, and after that, there's nothing that can be done to prevent that (or simply "buff" it)Actually Magic cards are balanced during pre-release play testing. It's true that they can't rebalance a card after release (except for banning it from tournaments), and this is, of course, due to the restrictions of the format (being a physical card game). So why would you want to introduce restrictions in GW2? The current GW is easy to balance because there are so few restrictions.

In GW, there are no useless skills. Even skills seen as epic bad like Mending can be used. It's just that some skills are bad compared to the good ones. In the same way, there are cards in Magic that are bad compared to good cards.

Also this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr52) might be of interest to you.


If you think that there must be bad skills, then it only proves how narrowminded you are.I have already shown how bad skills are there so that choosing good skills will be rewarded. You are free to point out where and how I am wrong, but please don't call me narrowminded without at least showing how it could be any different.


I'm thinking GW2 will be Race/1 Profession.I'm thinking that it doesn't matter, since skills are tied to a character's role in a team anyway.

Zsig
01-05-2008, 21:39
Actually Magic cards are balanced during pre-release play testing.Pre-release and actual release are not the same thing. And yes, I played at least 3 pre-releases.

except for banning it from tournamentsThere's no such a thing in GW.

So why would you want to introduce restrictions in GW2? The current GW is easy to balance because there are so few restrictions.Speak for yourself. That's YOUR personal opinion. Restrictions adds replayability. In GW we can't change our primary profession which makes the game a game where you can easily recognize other's capabilities and roles within a party. In GW we can't bring primary attributes from our secondary profession. In GW we can't equip other profession's armor. In GW we can only have 8 skills on our skill bar, in GW we can only have one Elite SKill at a time (by default at least). Those are all restrictions. Would you really think that taking these restrictions off (yes because as you point any and all kind of restriction is bad) would make GW an easier game to balance?

In GW, there are no useless skills. Even skills seen as epic bad like Mending can be used. It's just that some skills are bad compared to the good ones. In the same way, there are cards in Magic that are bad compared to good cards.And now you are contradicting yourself as you pointed how there are so many useful skills and the rest are mostly useless. Also, the whole Magic comparison is not valid (I read the link you posted, and I found it a very interesting read, thank you. Even though most, if not all reasons pointed in that article cannot be compared in any way with GW) as they're different medias and have different formats, only the concept is borrowed. Where in M:tG you got tornament formats (T1, T2 and such) in GW you don't (there are no skill rotations), where in most kinds of tournaments in M:tG you have no limit on the number of "rares" you can bring, and in GW you have such limit, the "level" discrepancy of two given elites is more closely tied in GW than in M:tG for that reason. Just because in Magic: the Gathering there are needed "bad" cards, you don't need to have them in GW even less so if you only bring the same reasons into consideration. The only reasonable argument from that article that remains to me, is the learning curve experience that bad skills provide. Which is not enough to me.

EDIT:
To me I *think* that it'll be
Race (1) / Primary Profession (2) / Secondary Profession (3)
1= (unchangeable + unique individual skills + no passive abilities)
2= (unchangeable just like GW1, or changeable only once "on a life time" quest)
3= (changeable just like GW1)
Does it really matter what I think? I think not. Or maybe that's what I hope, not what I think.

raspberry jam
02-05-2008, 03:42
There's no such a thing in GW.Well, PvE-only skills are "banned" from PvP. But I get your point.


Speak for yourself. That's YOUR personal opinion. Restrictions adds replayability. In GW we can't change our primary profession which makes the game a game where you can easily recognize other's capabilities and roles within a party. In GW we can't bring primary attributes from our secondary profession. In GW we can't equip other profession's armor. In GW we can only have 8 skills on our skill bar, in GW we can only have one Elite SKill at a time (by default at least). Those are all restrictions. Would you really think that taking these restrictions off (yes because as you point any and all kind of restriction is bad) would make GW an easier game to balance?Some restrictions add replayability. Others don't. To not allow you to change primary profession is quite motivated and even desirable. For example, playing a warrior is a completely different experience from playing a monk. You'd want to have a reason to bring both your warrior and your monk character through all the missions, to live through the experience of taking on two so different roles, seeing the game from all sides.

For races it's different. The playstyles will differ a little, but certainly not a lot (Healers will still heal, damage casters will still toss fireballs, etc). Unless there is one storyline per race, the chance that you'd want to bring a human monk through the game after playing a norn monk and an asura monk and a charr monk is quite close to zero.

Equipping armor... lol are you serious? How does preventing this this add to replayability?

Finally, no, the limitation to 8 skills per build is a good thing. But your build can be changed, apart from primary profession, which I have already dealt with. Your race cannot. You'd have much less choice with your build if half, or even a third, of your skill selection is racial skills. That would certainly reduce replayability since you'd get bored of it quite quickly.


Also, the whole Magic comparison is not valid (I read the link you posted, and I found it a very interesting read, thank you. Even though most, if not all reasons pointed in that article cannot be compared in any way with GW) as they're different medias and have different formats, only the concept is borrowed. Where in M:tG you got tornament formats (T1, T2 and such) in GW you don't (there are no skill rotations), where in most kinds of tournaments in M:tG you have no limit on the number of "rares" you can bring, and in GW you have such limit, the "level" discrepancy of two given elites is more closely tied in GW than in M:tG for that reason. Just because in Magic: the Gathering there are needed "bad" cards, you don't need to have them in GW even less so if you only bring the same reasons into consideration.I'd re-read that article then. To list the headlines:

1) All The <Skills> Cannot Be Good - this is still true. Even if you remove all bad skills, there would still be skills that are better than others. Well, that is, you could shrink it down to one healing skill, one ranged damage spell, one bow attack, etc., but... that would be boring.

2) Different <Skills> Appeal to Different Players - this is also true. Some people care a lot about efficiency and would never dream of taking a bad skill if that meant they lost 5% of their potential. Some people don't care at all about efficiency, so they bring stupid skills just because they like the name, or the animation, or want to feel that they do damage even when their main job is healing, etcetera.

3) Diversity of <Skill Effects> is Key to Discovery - IWAY for PvP, B/P for PvE, 'nuff said.

4) Power Levels Are Relative - can be ignored, since we don't know at all how the PvE metagame (lol) will look, and people will reroll for PvP anyway.

5) Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player - I guess this is the one you agree with already?

6) People Like Finding “Hidden Gems” - this argument is void in any MMO. Any hidden gem is quickly found, analyzed, and wikified (and then denied existence by ANet community rep).

7) <ANet skill creator/balancer> is Only Human - it might seem at first that it's ok, since skills can be updated later on. However, that was true for the original GW as well, but that certainly didn't prevent a vast load of gimmick and/or unbalanced builds from persisting many months after first appearing.

lorddarkflare
02-05-2008, 04:33
Since A-net is deciding to have many races(and the fact that we already know Norn will be different) we can all pretty much assume that races WILL matter in Gw2.

The question is how do we minimize the impact in PvP and stop the differences from breaking the game.

This thread would better serve the purpose of finding a way to minimize the damage instead of arguing.

Even if you disagree as to whether or not it will happen, we should still think of how it could happen without the game breaking in two.

raspberry jam
02-05-2008, 04:47
The question is how do we minimize the impact in PvP and stop the differences from breaking the game.That's interesting but not the topic of this thread. In PvP you'll be able to reroll at will anyway, meaning that people will choose the most efficient race if there is even a shred of difference. But that doesn't matter. The races themselves won't give rise to gimmicks etc., the differences in gameplay itself will, no matter what they are tied to.

The Sins We Die By
02-05-2008, 04:59
We don't know enough anyways to discuss such a thing darkflare

BrotherGrimm
02-05-2008, 12:51
I think we need to get something cleared up. I'm thinking GW2 will be Race/1 Profession. Therefore Races would have to replace the role of primaries, which is why I have the stance I have.
While I support some sort of Racial separation in the PvE area of the game, I certainly DON'T want the above. I see no reason you shouldn't have the option to play an Asuran Warrior even if they are at some slight disadvantage to another Race Warrior (but they should also have some advantages like higher energy or e-regen).

Also, the idea that Racial skills or differences will FORCE specific playstyles is ridiculous. There are plenty of firestorm warriors running around in GW now. They certainly have the capability of completing the game with that build....

raspberry jam
02-05-2008, 14:47
Also, the idea that Racial skills or differences will FORCE specific playstyles is ridiculous. There are plenty of firestorm warriors running around in GW now. They certainly have the capability of completing the game with that build....Hahaha, that's true.

But if that's true, then the argument that different races would have different playstyles is void, since I can play my norn warrior as I would play an asura warrior (at least, if I had access to the skills needed). It just wouldn't be as efficient.

However, allowing me to play in a non efficient manner would essentially reward me for skilled play, whereas disallowing it, would not.

If which playstyle is the most efficient is locked to race, you won't be able to switch after creating your character. Unless you are ok with subpar playing. But people are not ok with that, which is why you see so many mesmer players complaining about discrimination etc.

In other words, passive racials (and racially limited skill access is such!) needs to be very weak or possibly non existent.

Alaris
02-05-2008, 15:01
In other words, passive racials (and racially limited skill access is such!) needs to be very weak or possibly non existent.

It needs to be large enough to encourage picking skills of your own race, but small enough to allow you to use skills of other races and still get into groups.

A racial rune would work wonders, I think, especially give that you can't really see if people are using it. Two warriors of the same build might actually have the same stats.

raspberry jam
04-05-2008, 17:23
It needs to be large enough to encourage picking skills of your own raceSo you want less diversity?

Pluggalug
05-05-2008, 10:43
I have to say that I think there should be diversity. It will look totally idiotic if an Azuran warrior can do equal damage as a Norn. Therefore Azura shouldnt be able to use Warriors. Give them elementalist, give them mesmer, but for christsake dont give them WARRIOR. In the same way Norn shouldnt be able to use mesmers or necros, as they are practicly against witchcraft. So to make it short: use (almost) the same proffesions but make them special for the race. (like give Azura air ele and givve Charr fire ele)

Zsig
05-05-2008, 18:14
Ok, seeing as how this thread's discussion is not leading anywhere, and how the thread's title fits on what I'd like to discuss, without the need to create yet another thread on race discussion, I'll just raise a topic I'd like to know other people's opinions about.

Races: Equality vs. Lore ?

After reading Pluggalug's post a few posts above, it kinda made me think. Should each race have limited number of professions they can play (like in WoW), or should each profession be open for each and every race?

Before answering, I'd like to present a few points.

In GW1 we only have humans, so it's way easier to deal with that problem, because humans are the "main race" and everything else is just not as important in terms of playability and such. So you can just give other races whatever humans have because that's the way it is.

Now think about that in GW2, humans are going to be in equal footing with other races, and then there are a couple things to consider. For example, would it be "right" to have a tinker/high-tech profession and allow it to every race even though Norn and Charr are supposedly "primitive"? Would it be "right" to have monk skills (or even a profession called "Monk") with names like Dwayna's Kiss, Aura of Balthazar and such, even though, for example, Charr and Norn doesn't even believe in such Gods (the Five human Gods) in the first place?

Now, when you think about it, the "best" way to address such incompatibilities, would be to have each race have their own set of professions available to them right? Wrong, at least in my opinion, one of the worst features presented in WoW is the fact that each race can only play a given number of professions/classes. I mean, if you want to play a Druid you have to either be a Night Elf or Tauren. That's stupid, but again, it's just my opinion. And i don't think GW2 should have that.

So, the question: How would you do it? Would you just give professions a bland and generic "name" and "feeling" so that it fits every race, and in the process "killing" a little bit of each race's lore? Or would you make each race rich in terms of combining Lore and Mechanics but limiting options and imposing restrictions?

How would you address that?

raspberry jam
05-05-2008, 18:22
How would you address that?I'd ignore lore completely, then make the game itself good, then rewrite/amend (as needed) the lore to match.

Pluggalug
05-05-2008, 18:47
Im already one step ahead of u Zsig. ive been thinking about that before and ive also comen to a conclusion. As the GW classes are perfectly balanced as they are now you shouldnt change them. Just... improve them. As u said Norns dont believe in The (six?) human gods. And therefore they dont have monks. But insted u can give them a shaman. Of course this shaman of theirs shouldnt be using Kiss of Dwayna and stuff, but maybe "Blessing of the Raven" or something. And Charr could have "Aura of the firewielder" (Charr shamans are cald firewielder) Think about it.

Aiiane
06-05-2008, 23:32
Akirai, if you can't be polite, don't post. Though the same goes for you, Pluggalug.

Calling others names is nonconstructive and not something we need here. It doesn't accomplish much beyond flaring tempers. Seriously, this isn't 2nd grade.

InfernoStyx
07-05-2008, 01:58
I think the idea of certain races having a special class would actually be really cool. Like for the asura you could have Golemancers. I disagree that you should just throw out all lore though. Without a background what kind of story would you have. Maybe PvP should only be humans. We do have to realize that there are two different parts of this game and they are different, people like different things though so we gotta consider everyone

Tru Reptile
07-05-2008, 02:26
One of the reasons I don't play WoW is because professions are limited to certain races. If GW2 does the same then I'll have to pass.

Egal
07-05-2008, 06:45
Regarding the Races: Equality vs Lore question, I'd say have the same skills available to every race. If there's a conflict regarding lore then make duplicate skills with different names that meet lore considerations. Perhaps those Asura Warriors could have an Asuran skill or two that, say, a Norn Warrior doesn't have, but that's about as much differentiation as I'd need or like to see.

While one might now argue that it's inappropriate for a Norn to be using skills associated with Dwayna, we've had three years of fish monks, plant monks, insect monks, shadow army monks, etc.

I think Raspberry Jam hit the nail on the head, 5 posts above.

The Sins We Die By
07-05-2008, 14:25
I don't, then your just making everyone the same in a roundabout way. Specialization at roles or different ways to be good at each role. Never make it so all the characters can do the exact same thing, unless the game is going to have one race.

Pluggalug
07-05-2008, 17:15
Akirai, if you can't be polite, don't post. Though the same goes for you, Pluggalug.

Calling others names is nonconstructive and not something we need here. It doesn't accomplish much beyond flaring tempers. Seriously, this isn't 2nd grade.

In my own defence, I have to say that ive been using smilies and stuff and havent been insulting anyone. I think this all is pretty idiotic and havent been taking it seriously.

BrotherGrimm
07-05-2008, 19:05
If which playstyle is the most efficient is locked to race, you won't be able to switch after creating your character. Unless you are ok with subpar playing. But people are not ok with that, which is why you see so many mesmer players complaining about discrimination etc.
I disagree....I think there are plenty of players out there that would gladly play a n Asuran Warrior just to be different that the other 100,000 Charr & Norn warriors. Why not have ANet putting some small incentive (nothing to effect actual in-game power) to actually play the game with a slightly "gimped" race/profession combination. In all my 3 years of playing PvE I've never stepped out of town and thought, "is this the most efficient, hardest hitting, bestest in the world build for this character?" In PvP, I could understand that mentality, but in PvE it hardly matters that much. Yes, I realize that in current end game content type areas this may pose a problem, but I think those usually end up discriminatory no matter what you do.

The mesmer players that complain are those that don't really understand what a Mesmer should be...they really want to be an ele with nicer clothes.

On the other side of all this wishful thinking, I tend to hope that the higher end PvP is completely isolated from whatever racial differences ARE implemented. I don't know how the high end PvPers feel about that, but if they want absolute balance, I'm not so sure that PvP should be human vs human only.

raspberry jam
07-05-2008, 19:18
In all my 3 years of playing PvE I've never stepped out of town and thought, "is this the most efficient, hardest hitting, bestest in the world build for this character?" In PvP, I could understand that mentality, but in PvE it hardly matters that much. Yes, I realize that in current end game content type areas this may pose a problem, but I think those usually end up discriminatory no matter what you do.That's hardly a reason to create a system that is imbalanced by design. And you might not feel the need to create a good build, but a lot of people do. I'd say that the majority do.


The mesmer players that complain are those that don't really understand what a Mesmer should be...they really want to be an ele with nicer clothes.No, they are the ones infuriated that you don't need mesmers in PvE when you can take an extra SF ele (or ursan. of course.) and just blow through whatever is in your way.


On the other side of all this wishful thinking, I tend to hope that the higher end PvP is completely isolated from whatever racial differences ARE implemented. I don't know how the high end PvPers feel about that, but if they want absolute balance, I'm not so sure that PvP should be human vs human only.Racial differences won't matter to PvP. They will pick whatever race, if any, is best for the job. No one will care if every warrior is a sylvari; cosmetic/rp diversity isn't the point there.

The Sins We Die By
07-05-2008, 20:13
That's hardly a reason to create a system that is imbalanced by design. And you might not feel the need to create a good build, but a lot of people do. I'd say that the majority do.

The suggestion is not to make an imbalanced game. Limiting what races are most efficient at for particular roles is balancing.

BrotherGrimm
07-05-2008, 21:39
That's hardly a reason to create a system that is imbalanced by design. And you might not feel the need to create a good build, but a lot of people do. I'd say that the majority do.
Who said I didn't try to use a GOOD build? There is distinct difference between having a decent build that works well with the team and having THE prescribed 8 skills from the wiki that is KNOWN to be the cookie cutter classic of the week. From the way you make it sound, everyone in PvE should just farm Norn rank and go Ursan for everything....it's the most efficient team build, right?


No, they are the ones infuriated that you don't need mesmers in PvE when you can take an extra SF ele (or ursan. of course.) and just blow through whatever is in your way.
Most PvE Mesmer's I know (and my main toon is now my Mes) kind of enjoy our outcast status and love showing reluctant PUGs that Mesmers really shouldn't be underestimated. Those that are "infuriated" really need to consider BEING SF ele's if they crave PUG acceptance to that degree.


Racial differences won't matter to PvP. They will pick whatever race, if any, is best for the job. No one will care if every warrior is a sylvari; cosmetic/rp diversity isn't the point there.
Did you read what I wrote? If the differences won't matter and cosmetics aren't the issue, then why even HAVE races in PvP? If everyone in PvP is human then balance (on the race issue) is automatically preserved and racial differences in PvE won't be an issue for PvP.

raspberry jam
07-05-2008, 22:22
Who said I didn't try to use a GOOD build? There is distinct difference between having a decent build that works well with the team and having THE prescribed 8 skills from the wiki that is KNOWN to be the cookie cutter classic of the week. From the way you make it sound, everyone in PvE should just farm Norn rank and go Ursan for everything....it's the most efficient team build, right?I'm not saying that they should, I'm saying that a lot of them do. I'm also saying that in design, you should think of what people do in various situations, since it never works out the way you first plan it.


Most PvE Mesmer's I know (and my main toon is now my Mes) kind of enjoy our outcast status and love showing reluctant PUGs that Mesmers really shouldn't be underestimated. Those that are "infuriated" really need to consider BEING SF ele's if they crave PUG acceptance to that degree."Damn conformists."
/sip coffee

PvE should be designed to prevent the situation from arising at all. But it's not. It's designed so that mesmers are not actually needed, at all.


Did you read what I wrote? If the differences won't matter and cosmetics aren't the issue, then why even HAVE races in PvP? If everyone in PvP is human then balance (on the race issue) is automatically preserved and racial differences in PvE won't be an issue for PvP.Mostly to make it easier (or... well, to make it possible at all) to use a non-human PvE character for PvP. You could make it so that he takes on all the stats a human would have, but it's better to just let him stay as he is, since that would make PvP easier to grasp for a player who previously only PvE (since he don't have to care about all his stats suddenly changing, sort of the same argument as to why it's bad to split skills into PvP and PvE versions).

Egal
08-05-2008, 06:51
I don't, then your just making everyone the same in a roundabout way. Specialization at roles or different ways to be good at each role. Never make it so all the characters can do the exact same thing, unless the game is going to have one race.

Woops, hold on! Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant make the same professions available to every race, and make all the the skills of that profession available to all players playing that profession, regardless of which race they've chosen.

Specialization based on profession is retained and those professions remain distinct from one another, as they do now (more or less.) But all Mesmers, for example, work in essentially the same way because they draw skills from the same skill pool.

If I was misundersood I hope that clears it up. If i was understood but you disagree, well, fair enough :wink:.

raspberry jam
08-05-2008, 15:06
Specialization based on profession is retained and those professions remain distinct from one another, as they do now (more or less.) But all Mesmers, for example, work in essentially the same way because they draw skills from the same skill pool.Sins mean that specialization would be on race too. For example, human mesmers would have to be domination while asura mesmers would have to be illusion. For some reason, she thinks that this would increase diversity.

I think it would just be boring for the player to not be able to change.

BrotherGrimm
08-05-2008, 20:00
If she means HAVE to be (as in you can't even make the selection of Human Mes with Illusion attributes), then I am against that. If she is suggesting that a Human Mes might be slightly more adept at being Domination rather than Illusion, I welcome that kind of diversity.

I think it would be terribly boring to play a game where a 8 foot tall Barbarian fights with the same specifications as a 3 foot tall troll doll....

raspberry jam
09-05-2008, 07:00
If she means HAVE to be (as in you can't even make the selection of Human Mes with Illusion attributes), then I am against that. If she is suggesting that a Human Mes might be slightly more adept at being Domination rather than Illusion, I welcome that kind of diversity.The thing is, it wouldn't be diversity. Since you'd have to disperse the powerful builds over all races (or else create discrimination) you'd end up with maybe 1-3 good builds for any given race/profession combo instead of maybe 20-25 or more like we have now.

Also, if a rebalancing is needed, you'd have to rebalance to keep this number - you can't just nerf skills as needed, because then maybe human rangers or charr monks or something would be totally screwed because their only viable elite now reminds of Ether Renewal.


I think it would be terribly boring to play a game where a 8 foot tall Barbarian fights with the same specifications as a 3 foot tall troll doll....But the current GW is like that; your physical appearance makes no difference to your combat stats. Do you think that Guild Wars is terribly boring?

amcoolio
09-05-2008, 10:05
No, but I think the concept of a foot-tall monster having the same abilites as a human are ridiculous, especially for that hero from EotN (that I haven't touched) that I see randomly in pve. I mean realistically, a warrior would have a harder time hitting that than a human.

It it is going to be that way (the way raspberry jam suggests) where every race can do everything then don't have races at all and make it human only. I don't like the concept of different races anyway, they make the game look more tacky. I'm glad GW didn't put elves in the game because that would be the ultimate tacky move.

I can see GW2 going the route of each race having specific skills and then a character can take on a profession like monk, warrior, mesmer, etc. So you would see Charr/Warrior or Human/Ranger and none of Charr/Human or Human/Charr.

Oh, and if they put the Ursan "bears" into the game like EotN then ArenaNet should be bombed and the developers should move on to different career choices.