PDA

View Full Version : being able to swith primary/secondary profession



KingJalis
28-07-2008, 10:16
i've been thinking about this idea for a few weeks now.

example: if you are a necromance/ritualist character you would want to be able to switch the professions back and forth making you a ritualist/neromance.

another idea would be to change the primary profession to anything else like assassin, warrior etc

Jair of the Forest
28-07-2008, 10:21
:shocked:

Please don't.

raspberry jam
28-07-2008, 11:38
Sure, why not. It would shrink the number of character slots needed down to 1.

On the other hand, it would reduce replay value (or rather, incentive to replay) as well as promote cookie cutters and likely introduce grind "because there is nothing else to do".

In a level (or class) free system, by all means, but just allowing to change primary in the current system would suck. Sorry.

SibbTigre
28-07-2008, 11:50
I have to say "no". It's like saying "No classes.. well, classes don't matter but your skills will be restricted by which two professions you want to use at any given time."

I can't think of a much more annoying way to do that system.

Kael Valeran
28-07-2008, 13:59
looks like classes will have a flavour of the month too till they nerf it, then another one gets it. imagine in toa, when perma sf is suddenly allowed, district1, all sins, district 2, all sins, district 3, all sins, etc... and the other areas will be empty cuz ectos are just so cool.

Balan Makki
28-07-2008, 15:18
With the hint that there will be light, medium, heavy armor; the addition of endless leveling; instant access to all PvP stuff via PvE characters; I'm guessing this is how GW2 is going to handle it.

One avatar, that can learn/train/switch between all primary professions. When a new expansion is released, the level cap rises to accomidate the new professions. (Attribute points to be gained per level and spent to a max cap per profession.)

Leveling could be endless with such a system.. . Identity will matter in GW2. Easier to spot the same friend wandering the wilds, or avoid the same birdbrain you pugged with last night.

I like the idea.

Shadowspawn X
28-07-2008, 18:30
One character is fine by me, its all I really play anyway.

sorudo
28-07-2008, 19:03
for PVP, i don't mind, but no to PVE.

Kael Valeran
28-07-2008, 19:48
With the hint that there will be light, medium, heavy armor.

hmm you actually mean like nwn, with penalties for wearing heavy armor? hmm, that will be guild wars: calculation

Tru Reptile
28-07-2008, 21:51
:shocked:

Please don't.

You bring up a valid argument... :rolleyes:


On the other hand, it would reduce replay value (or rather, incentive to replay)

That incsntive to replay depends on the person. It gets annoying having to roll a new character to play a new profession and go through the same areas that I find boring over and over again. If you want to roll a new character, great, but we should be allowed to change our primary profession.


as well as promote cookie cutters

I have no idea how that would even begin to promote cookie cutters, atleast any more than not being able to change our primary.


and likely introduce grind "because there is nothing else to do".

I'd consider having to go through the same areas over and over again everytime I wanted to play a new profession as grind.


but just allowing to change primary in the current system would suck. Sorry.

I disagree. Sorry.


It's like saying "No classes.. well, classes don't matter but your skills will be restricted by which two professions you want to use at any given time."

Not being able to change your primary is more restricting:

"Hey, guildie, we need a healer for this mission, can you help us?"

"Sure, just let me hop on my Monk and.. oh wait, my Monk isn't that far in the game yet. Sorry."

Compared to:

"Hey, guildie, we need a healer for this mission, can you help us?"

"Sure, just let me change my primary and set my skills."

So yeah, I think people should be able to change their primary profession.

sorudo
28-07-2008, 22:23
Not being able to change your primary is more restricting:

"Hey, guildie, we need a healer for this mission, can you help us?"

"Sure, just let me hop on my Monk and.. oh wait, my Monk isn't that far in the game yet. Sorry."

Compared to:

"Hey, guildie, we need a healer for this mission, can you help us?"

"Sure, just let me change my primary and set my skills."

So yeah, I think people should be able to change their primary profession.
it's more likely that they then ask someone els.....
the reason that you have a primary stuck is to balance and reward the players, if you screw around with it it's just useless to begin.:wink:

Tru Reptile
28-07-2008, 22:29
it's more likely that they then ask someone els.....
the reason that you have a primary stuck is to balance and reward the players, if you screw around with it it's just useless to begin.:wink:

I have no idea how being stuck in a profession is balance or rewarding the players...

krattos
29-07-2008, 00:17
Sounds like Final Fantasy XI, in that you can change your primary and secondary job (classes are called jobs in FFXI), but FFXI is a PvE game with a tiny bit of PvP, so, it was all very balanced.

Akirai Annuvil
29-07-2008, 00:26
Tru is a great guy and an excellent poster.

SibbTigre
29-07-2008, 01:33
You don't like rolling a new profession? The why play a game that's based on 6 distinct professions? Why play a game that works because of its class system?

As Sorudo said, its ok for PvP, because in PvP I know people don't like re-rolling their chars.

But PvE? That'd completely de-base any game.

If you don't like fixed classes, support raspberry's idea of no fixed classes, which would allow you to develop the char the way you want, but sorry, it'll still stop you being a heavy-plated, two-hander wielding, spell slinger.

Then again, you're all being stupid to some degree, since Anet's said several times there's going to be less skills, and different professions. So "monks" might not even exists, or your precious warriors..

Switch primary profession? Find me a role playing reason to allow, please.

Last I heard, a warrior could not become a mage overnight, let alone in a splitsecond.

raspberry jam
29-07-2008, 02:11
I disagree. Sorry.No need to apologize, dear Reptile! I shall now tell you how wrong you are, and everything will be just fine. :smiley:


That incsntive to replay depends on the person. It gets annoying having to roll a new character to play a new profession and go through the same areas that I find boring over and over again. If you want to roll a new character, great, but we should be allowed to change our primary profession.No you are confusing incentive with desire. If you have to reroll to play another profession, you will automatically replay the storyline (at least the beginning of it) and see the game from another point of view. Without multiple characters, you may not have the desire to do so, since there is no incentive to it. On the other hand, it's a minor point. Having a single character would be perfectly fine. MMOs don't aim at replay value anyway - with them, it's more about value of continuous play.


I have no idea how that would even begin to promote cookie cutters, atleast any more than not being able to change our primary.Quite simple, in the same way as Ursan Blessing promotes a cookie cutter (namely, ursanway) - through universal availability. If you create a mesmer character, you are stuck with playing a mesmer. If the preferred cookie cutter is (for some reason. lol) warriors, eles and monks, your mesmer won't fit in. And then he'd have to create or join a non-cookie-cutter team so he too can play.
If, on the other hand, he is able to switch to, say, warrior, chances are that he'd do that a lot of the time. So mostly you'd be playing cookie cutter, but in addition to that, since everyone does that, there won't be any oddball team to join the day you really want to play mesmer.

Tru Reptile
29-07-2008, 02:25
You don't like rolling a new profession? The why play a game that's based on 6 distinct professions? Why play a game that works because of its class system?

You might want to read my posts a bit more carefully. Not everyone finds it fun to play through the same areas over and over and over again everytime they want to play as a new profession. The class system would still be there.


Switch primary profession? Find me a role playing reason to allow, please.

I don't need to find you a reason to allow anything. Different people role play differently. Amazing, huh?


Last I heard, a warrior could not become a mage overnight, let alone in a splitsecond.

I hope you aren't trying to pull the "lawl it iznt realistix" card. Because if you are, realism doesn't have to effect every aspect of a video game...

Tru Reptile
29-07-2008, 02:52
Tru is a great guy and an excellent poster.

Maybe it's because I'm tired, but I'm unable to detect if this is sarcasm or not. I'll say it's not because you wouldn't hurt me like that, right?

...Right? :cry:

Lihinel
29-07-2008, 08:38
Switch primary profession? Find me a role playing reason to allow, please.

Last I heard, a warrior could not become a mage overnight, let alone in a splitsecond.

1a.) Its called a game mechanic
game mechanics have noting to do with role playing

1b.) Find me a role playing reason to allow:
Instant Attribute Change (originialy you had to grind refuond points)
Instant Secondary Profession Switch (originialy you had to got to a dessert npc)
Instant Map Travel (thank anet they got that one from the start)

...

The ability to store 10 Swords/Schields/Hammers; 10*250 stacks of Wood/lockpicks/... in a bag

...

Monsters to drop gold coins when they are killed

...

Balan Makki
29-07-2008, 17:02
Not being able to change your primary is more restricting:

"Hey, guildie, we need a healer for this mission, can you help us?"

"Sure, just let me hop on my Monk and.. oh wait, my Monk isn't that far in the game yet. Sorry."

Compared to:

"Hey, guildie, we need a healer for this mission, can you help us?"

"Sure, just let me change my primary and set my skills."


This happens to me more times than not. And why I would hope to see a solution in GW2.. . . missed out on a lot of elite areas because I came too late, with the wrong class. (never use Ursan, nor do guilds/alliance)

Oh, and redoing the same area won't be so bad if it is a modified, class specific Mission/Quest instance. Specifically tailored to the new profession I'm training. Re-usable instances, as was developed in GW1, could provide very class specific and unique content, even though the area/dungeon has already been explored.



Quite simple, in the same way as Ursan Blessing promotes a cookie cutter (namely, ursanway) - through universal availability. If you create a mesmer character, you are stuck with playing a mesmer. . . .

We seem to already have this in GW1, and oddly enough, I've never found it problematic. In fact, it allows more flexibility for single Primary system we currently have, and has proven it's worth by allowing the not so "leet" players to see more of the game. Accessibility makes more sense, even if it requires a few cut cookies. You'll always get this nonsense, regardless of the game.

SibbTigre
29-07-2008, 17:20
1a.) Its called a game mechanic
game mechanics have noting to do with role playing...

Thanks dude, great to know you think.

To anyone who still thinks switching Primary profession is a good idea:

What's the point of allocating a primary profession if you're going to change it?

Just why?

Oh dear, someone needs a healer, but you've got a warrior, you chose warrior as primary, you shouldn't be able to change your primary if the game uses primaries. Its not in any game and for a good reason.

realism card? No, but last I checked in GW, you couldn't take a warrior and change him to a monk and expect him to match a monk for healing prowess.

If you think haivng only one character will increase replay value or whatever, read what Raspberry said. It removes any desire to replay easpecially the early game because guess what, you know something that works and you'll always have that nagging feeling on your superman-character to switch to what you already know works rather than try something new.

If you can't change primary, you can't get that. Yes, you know warrior worked and how to use it, but now you're a ranger and cna't just 'switch'.

The idea is a bad one at best, because it removes any point having professions. let's just give everyone enough points and all attribute lines to play with. Afterall, they'll play with them all anyway if they can change primary profession.

raspberry jam
29-07-2008, 17:32
We seem to already have this in GW1, and oddly enough, I've never found it problematic. In fact, it allows more flexibility for single Primary system we currently have, and has proven it's worth by allowing the not so "leet" players to see more of the game. Accessibility makes more sense, even if it requires a few cut cookies. You'll always get this nonsense, regardless of the game.How do you mean? Universal availability is an issue for one single team build in GW, and that one single team build is very hotly debated indeed, because of exactly the reasons I outlined.

Balan Makki
29-07-2008, 18:25
Its not in any game and for a good reason

Why?


The idea is a bad one at best, because it removes any point having professions.

Why?


Let's just give everyone enough points and all attribute lines to play with. Afterall, they'll play with them all anyway if they can change primary profession.

6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other??

We already have switchable primaries, you just have to play each profession through the entire game over and over to have access to them all. No thanks. That would add up to about 1000 wasted hours, and would be far more a grind than content.

Though I do like the "profession-less" idea as well. Kinda how Dungeon Siege worked.

As for RP and profession switching, creating the lore is easy enough.



How do you mean? Universal availability is an issue for one single team build in GW, and that one single team build is very hotly debated indeed, because of exactly the reasons I outlined.

It gives players greater flexibility, the way "Switching professions", or "No professions" would.

The overwhelming popularity of this flexibility is demonstrated among many who never even visit the forums. (Never, in all my time in two very large alliances, did I hear anyone complain of Ursan. The issue only exists here on the forums--not in game.) It's the biggest whiner Non Issue Arena Net has bought into. But it has given them enough info, that they'll likely Buff many elites to equal Ursan, as it's really what players want in PvE.

If ursan did not exist, oh well. Though I would hope that Arena Net would provide some means for players to access content and get into groups. This is likely another reason GW2 was conceived. The profession system is way to limiting and excluding for group play. Let alone, the endless nonsense of equiping 100 heroes, 10 alts yada yada. . .

Titles will be account based, professions could be unified to one character or completely removed giving greater flexibility to GW2 players. Sounds good to me.

Tru Reptile
29-07-2008, 18:51
Its not in any game and for a good reason.

FFXI says hello.


realism card? No, but last I checked in GW, you couldn't take a warrior and change him to a monk and expect him to match a monk for healing prowess.

The last time I checked, GW2 is a new game.


The idea is a bad one at best, because it removes any point having professions.

No it doesn't.


Afterall, they'll play with them all anyway if they can change primary profession.

They can play with them all anyway if they keep rolling a new profession. The difference is they wouldn't have to keep rolling a new character.

sorudo
29-07-2008, 18:53
I have no idea how being stuck in a profession is balance or rewarding the players...
it rewards you because it gives you a good feeling that you make that profession this strong, being able to switch your primary is like having a plain one class system, no one takes your game serious and plays serious.
for as far as i've played MMO's, the ones with even the ability to change your whole existence just makes the game plain boring, no challenge in it at all.
and the whole challenge of a stuck primary system is to build around that what you made, and as GW is made for stratagy, i don't think it's a good move to step away from that.:wink:

Alaris
29-07-2008, 18:55
Perhaps if there was some incentive to sticking to your primary, some incentive that neither asks of you to grind each profession, nor makes you weaker when you use another profession.

For example, what if you didn't get XP for using another profession. You still get the accomplishment etc, but if you keep playing other professions all the time, you don't level up.

Ok, not a good idea, but hopefully you see where I'm going with it.

Tru Reptile
29-07-2008, 19:17
Shouldn't the incentive to sticking to a primary be because it's fun? Not everyone will like every profession. If they were able to change their primary, they wouldn't feel like they wasted their time on something they didn't like, compared to having to roll a new character each time.

Alaris
29-07-2008, 19:40
Shouldn't the incentive to sticking to a primary be because it's fun? Not everyone will like every profession. If they were able to change their primary, they wouldn't feel like they wasted their time on something they didn't like, compared to having to roll a new character each time.

I think it's best to think of it as a continuum from single-profession to no profession.

Single-profession games lack variety. Some professions are discriminated against. And the discrimination is usually warranted: there are always some things that given professions are bad at.

I'm glad GW adopted the dual-profession system, with the secondary giving you a lot of different ways to play. Nevertheless, the system has its limits. Warriors will never make good healers, except for echo mending (j/k). Likewise, only monks seem to make good monks. Resto rits can be played as secondaries on some other professions. Still, profession discrimination exists, and again, with some reason. Some team builds work better than others.

Push that concept further to make any primary profession being able to take on any role, and you have Ursan and the like. You remove lots of discrimination, but sacrifice some individuality.

Finally, you have the no profession system, with no individuality.

Back to your question

1) Being able to play different style is fun. But having to redo everything just to play different styles might not always be fun. In GW, I prefer the Ranger because I can play different roles well.

2) Some professions just have a hard time in some places. Hopefully, balance will be such that most professions are good in most places, yet some professions will still be bad in some places. Profession discrimination is thus something that comes with professions. Worse than profession discrimination is the fact that a given profession might not be able to achieve some task.

drox
29-07-2008, 21:14
Not being able to change your primary is more restricting:

"Hey, guildie, we need a healer for this mission, can you help us?"

"Sure, just let me hop on my Monk and.. oh wait, my Monk isn't that far in the game yet. Sorry."

Compared to:

"Hey, guildie, we need a healer for this mission, can you help us?"

"Sure, just let me change my primary and set my skills."

So yeah, I think people should be able to change their primary profession.

it should be:
"Hey, guildie, we need a healer for this mission, can you help us?"

"Sure, just let me change my primary and set my skills. plus buy monk armor with upgrades and a nice monk wand with cute updates."

nah its a crappy idea. changing sec. proffesion is good enough.

SibbTigre
29-07-2008, 21:21
The last time I checked, GW2 is a new game.

It is, but how does that validate any decision to remove replay value?


No it doesn't.

Why, in an MMO, should they give us professions, if the character can change profession at will?


They can play with them all anyway if they keep rolling a new profession. The difference is they wouldn't have to keep rolling a new character.

How would making them not have to reroll improve the longevity of the game, or provide replay value. As I said, by making it so that the one character can fill any role, the person goes through the game in certains roles at each part, and will most likely stick to those roles at those parts, meaning there is no replay value. Keep it impossible to change primary profession, there's incentive to try the mission in a different way, because there's actually a challenge that hasn't been answered by that new character - something a "switch primary profession" system would not allow.

Taking what Alaris said about discrimination, if you implement a system whereby anyone can simply change primary profession, we'll end up with:

"Go melee noob!"
"I don't want to"
"Kick the noob!"

Either stick to the current dual profession system where the primary cannot be changed, or go to a system whereby players can use templates, but there are no professions, but characters can become specialised, or even a "Jack of all trades" (which would not have equal power in any role compared to a specialised character - although this is what you're after with "switch primary profession").

Edit:

Thinking about it, I kind of like a system that would allow the "jack of all trades" style characters.

And it would remove the need to change your primary profession, although you wouldn't be quite as powerful as a specialised character. And such characters would probably be welcome in most teams, because they can fill (almost) any role.

Tru Reptile
29-07-2008, 22:57
plus buy monk armor with upgrades and a nice monk wand with cute updates.

You do realize the armor system in GW2 will be different, right?


nah its a crappy idea.

A crappy idea that's been proven to work well? Oh, ok.


It is, but how does that validate any decision to remove replay value?

I still don't see how changing primaries means less replay value. They can still have quests tied to professions.


Why, in an MMO, should they give us professions, if the character can change profession at will?

So a person can... play a different profession without having to make a new character?


How would making them not have to reroll improve the longevity of the game, or provide replay value. As I said, by making it so that the one character can fill any role, the person goes through the game in certains roles at each part, and will most likely stick to those roles at those parts, meaning there is no replay value. Keep it impossible to change primary profession, there's incentive to try the mission in a different way, because there's actually a challenge that hasn't been answered by that new character - something a "switch primary profession" system would not allow.

Quests could open up when a person changes their primary.


Taking what Alaris said about discrimination, if you implement a system whereby anyone can simply change primary profession, we'll end up with:

"Go melee noob!"
"I don't want to"
"Kick the noob!"

So avoid idiot pugs like most sane people do. Discrimination will exist whether you can change primaries or not.

Note: we don't even know if the story line will be different for each profession. So bringing that up now is a bit silly.

SibbTigre
29-07-2008, 23:10
I still don't see how changing primaries means less replay value. They can still have quests tied to professions.

What's to encourage people to bring up new characters, if primary profession no longer matters (as would be the case in a system where primary prof can be changed at will)?


So a person can... play a different profession without having to make a new character?

Secondary professions, rightfully, give limited ability to do that. But as I said, if primaries can be changed, they would be the same as secondaries, and there would in fact be no point making any such distinction; in fact there'd be no point having professions at all because they can be changed at will so no character has a profession, they have a role.


Quests could open up when a person changes their primary.

This still avoids addressing how to actually keep players in the game once they've completed it. Since the characters already leveled, changing primary profession and redoing the same missions isn't going to be the same as starting a new character, but why start a new character when you've already got access to all professions?

Thus why the game's longevity would suffer. Replay value is gone because there's no incentive to start new characters, and the content isn't replayable to the same degree as with the GW1 system.


So avoid idiot pugs like most sane people do. Discrimination will exist whether you can change primaries or not.

Then why make switching primaries a feature of the game when it creates a new discrimination?

As for avoiding idiot PuGs, thank you. Pugging is one of the things that used to make GW fun for me.


Note: we don't even know if the story line will be different for each profession. So bringing that up now is a bit silly.

I didn't bring up quests, I brought up teaming. Don't pin that on me.

Bravo
29-07-2008, 23:20
"Go melee noob!"
"I don't want to"
"Kick the noob!"
As opposed to now where you won't even get into the party if your not on a "melee noob" or will be told to change character to go "melee noob" anyway... Bad parties/party leaders will always be present.


How would making them not have to reroll improve the longevity of the game, or provide replay value. As I said, by making it so that the one character can fill any role, the person goes through the game in certains roles at each part, and will most likely stick to those roles at those parts, meaning there is no replay value. Keep it impossible to change primary profession, there's incentive to try the mission in a different way, because there's actually a challenge that hasn't been answered by that new character - something a "switch primary profession" system would not allow.

Suddenly most likely becomes absolute certainty? If someone is/was willing to replay a mission as a different character/profession, isn't it likely that they ... will? At least at some point.

Almost irrelevent personal GW background history:


I'm going to inject my own GW history into this debate:

Prophecies: I only own the one account so creating 6 characters was out of the question ("I'm not going to repay for something I already own" - the same argument I apply to charging MMOGs), instantly I'm struck down to either deleting something I have invested effort in, or doing as I did creating 3 PvE characters and 1 slot free to reroll for PvP as needed.

I chose monk, warrior and necromancer. I only bothered to 'complete' (actually only the necromancer completed all the titan quests so it depends on the definition of complete but I digress) the game on the monk and necromancer. The warrior I decided to leave at Thunderhead keep because to be frank, I sucked. Only recently did he actually get to the skill trainer with all skills, he did have access to all skills however from the various skill trainers dotted around the landscape (i.e. maguuma, etc.), so in a skill shopping spree he unlocked 'most' skills for his designated primary/secondary. The other characters also unlocked most of the skills for their respective primary/secondary, with the necromancer receiving most supplemental skills due to being at that time my favourite character, and for another reason that will be explained later. Then about half of the prophecies only life span was spent PvPing either in RA or GvG.

Factions came out: Created a ranger and 'completed' the game, using the ranger to also unlock all assassin skills as she went. Ritualist had already been unlocked (or a significantly high proportion of the skills) by release thanks to the preview weekends, so I felt no need to create another character. Monk and Necromancer have reached the hatchery and grove missions where they remain as don't want to complete these.

Significant lengths of time spent in RA, HA or GvG.

Nightfall: Didn't create a character at all, since I could unlock a high number of skills by recreating a character, playing the first mission and buying a few skills in the first city then repeat, then using PvP faction to unlock the rest. By release most skills were unlocked so I took my necromancer into Nightfall and played with her. She 'completed' the game but hasn't been to any 'elite' areas.

Significant lengths of time spent in RA.

EoTN: Unlocked all skills on/before release thanks to high faction cap, and running to the EoTN city area and spending lots of skill points. Haven't played EoTN at all, or guildwars much since.

Now PvP characters as they exist in GW will cease to exist (http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/guild-wars-2/preview/guild-wars-2/a-2007040916325477081/g-20070327111030501040 - "In what’s perhaps a push for simplification too, you’ll no longer have a separate RPG and PvP avatars"), since we have been told that PvE characters will fullfil this role adequately (sounds like a step back - but here's the clincher) if PvE characters can change primary, then there truly is no need for PvP characters (except for equipment). And for most of GW1 I imagine that the only elements that PvP player repeated were either:

1) PvP and faction grind all skills/unlocks
(slow initially due to a) absence at the start of prophecies b) low faction gain until ((just?)before) factions c) easily obtained skills from quests etc. versus constant faction requirement d) low faction cap).

2) PvE until all skill/profession trainers found, then 'farm' for experience (my 'favourite' was 'putrid farming' off the mobs just outside droknars forge that fight each other (basically spamming putrid explosion with some disease and other AoE thrown in), I say favourite because it was still mindnumbingly dull). Saving faction for any rune/equipment unlocks that don't come from farming (which in my case was a lot, after >3000 hours of playing I can quite categorically state that I found no superior vigors, no superior absorptions (before/after they actually (were/ceased to be) worth something)).


I'm still greatly concerned about equipment for GW2 seeing as PvP characters won't exist.


This still avoids addressing how to actually keep players in the game once they've completed it. Since the characters already leveled, changing primary profession and redoing the same missions isn't going to be the same as starting a new character, but why start a new character when you've already got access to all professions?

Thus why the game's longevity would suffer. Replay value is gone because there's no incentive to start new characters, and the content isn't replayable to the same degree as with the GW1 system.

PvP?

On a more serious note, ANet will already have your money. As such they have the option of periodically releasing small amounts of new content (a la old system (sorrows furnace, additional skill quests going up seemingly every week for a few months at least initially)), or releasing large amounts of new content infrequently (a la expansions), or dynamic content such as their dragon fight where the world depends on the result. Or they could do nothing and get a bad reputation... but thats another thread (that's come to be after the original thread was highjacked despite being (in so far as I can interpret) misinformed).

Alternatively they could do for more grind to get 'good loots'... (a la current system).

Let me bring up another game that I played at a similar time to GW, not online (for the most part), NWN (and its add on packs). I think I can quite categorically state that I didn't replay NWN with all the character options that are open ... although I did explore some (for instance 3-4 options) new character options on one of the player run 'persistant worlds' yet I still felt that I got value for money in that game. (In fact, NWN triple pack and GW are the only games that I have bought for someone outside my family as a gift in a while, I'm a terrible person).

Tru Reptile
29-07-2008, 23:40
What's to encourage people to bring up new characters, if primary profession no longer matters (as would be the case in a system where primary prof can be changed at will)?

Why should a person have to feel encouraged to start all over when they could switch?


Secondary professions, rightfully, give limited ability to do that. But as I said, if primaries can be changed, they would be the same as secondaries, and there would in fact be no point making any such distinction; in fact there'd be no point having professions at all because they can be changed at will so no character has a profession, they have a role.

The professions would still be different from eachother so I have no ****ing idea how you would think changing primaries would change that.


This still avoids addressing how to actually keep players in the game once they've completed it. Since the characters already leveled, changing primary profession and redoing the same missions isn't going to be the same as starting a new character, but why start a new character when you've already got access to all professions?

Fun fact: Not everyone is obsessed with starting over just to do the same things over again.


Thus why the game's longevity would suffer. Replay value is gone because there's no incentive to start new characters, and the content isn't replayable to the same degree as with the GW1 system.

Having to start over all the time doesn't mean it improves the replay value, it means you have to do the same **** over and over and over again.


Then why make switching primaries a feature of the game when it creates a new discrimination?

New or old... it's still discrimination. Being able to change or not change primaries wouldn't make difference in that regard.


As for avoiding idiot PuGs, thank you. Pugging is one of the things that used to make GW fun for me.

Good for you.

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 12:27
This goes for both Tru and Bravo..


The professions would still be different from eachother so I have no ****ing idea how you would think changing primaries would change that.

Something to do with, what was it, it doesn't matter what primary the player chooses for that character, because they can change it later (primary attribute and all, from the way I read it), which renders having the "primary" profession useless to begin with. Why classify every character by profession is if doesn't matter? Simple answer: Don't. Since armour is no longer dependant on profession, and if primary profession is going to be changable, its simpler to just not have professions.

That would mean the person creates their character, and has access to all attribute lines from the start. Now, I'm sure you're going to say "But while changable, primary prof determines which primary attribute the character can access", so as I said, the simpler system would be to make it so there's two groups of attributes:
One group is what would be considered your "primary", and you can only use one of these attributes at a time. if you choose, for example, soul reaping, you can't use energy storage.

The other group would be all the other attribute lines. If you wish, all these attributes could be put into sub-groups, and the character can only use two subgroups at a time.

This system does away with what, it has to be said, would be a pointless profession system.


Fun fact: Not everyone is obsessed with starting over just to do the same things over again.

Where did obsession come into this? I was talking about having fun.

Fun fact: A lot of people did, and do, enjoy starting again.


Having to start over all the time doesn't mean it improves the replay value, it means you have to do the same **** over and over and over again.

A person not wanting to start again is not going to have much replay value either, but why remove from those who are likely to want to start again?

A little hint: Going through the content again is replaying the content.


New or old... it's still discrimination. Being able to change or not change primaries wouldn't make difference in that regard.

Answer the question! Why add new discrimination?



Now to Bravo only:

In response to your grind comment:
You may enjoy grind dependent content, many people don't seem to agree with you, however. While optional grind can be fun, required grind is not for me (and many others).

In response to your 'assumption' about PvP requirements:
We don't yet know what classes are going to be in GW2, nor exactly how the PvP will work. As was also stated before, most people who do top-PvP specialise in very few professions, and are not likely going to need a system where they can change profession because in a system which doesn't allow it, they seem perfectly happy to have more than 1 PvP character, or reroll it.
Edit: On top of that, there's the fact that organised PvP is supposedly going to be UAX and sidekick system, which implies all the play has to do is create X profession, not play it through PvE, and it's there waiting to be used in Organised PvP. /edit.

So leave speculation on PvP until there's more information on the matter.


Suddenly most likely becomes absolute certainty? If someone is/was willing to replay a mission as a different character/profession, isn't it likely that they ... will? At least at some point.

It was meant to be interpreted this way:
They're most likely to stick to the profession they've already used on that mission, because they know how to use it. They've already done it on that character, so they already know how to get that character through.

If they started a new character, again, they already know how to get through, so is the experience going to be any different, because again, they'll be drawn to do it the way they've already done it because the system allows switching of primary profession.

Basically, for those of us who enjoy starting new characters that will specialise in a certain style, or rather, have a certain primary profession in the current system, will not enjoy starting new characters so much in the system that's been proposed.

As you said in your background, you stopped your warrior in THK because you said you found you were no good with that class, but your necro and monk you completed the game with (proph only of course). Actually, I was more or less in the same situation, if you swap necromancer for ranger initially. Do you think, if you could change your warrior's primary to monk, you'd complete the game in that situation, or would that cause you to abandon it completely, knowing that you're now going to use the same playstyle as with your actual monk to get your 'warrior' to complete the game? I know I would have abandoned my warrior if primaries could be switched and I tried it.

And Tru only:

Unless you honestly believe that everyone will end up playing only the various PvPs in GW2, replayability of the PvE will be important. Your initial question in response to my question, is rather nasty to those people who do enjoy starting again, and to anyone that won't go over to PvP. It does answer my question of course:
Without encouragement to start new characters, people who decide they don't like the PvP will complete the PvE content and probably stop playing. How does this fare for GW2? Imagine bad press, because there is no longer any replay value.

Balan Makki
30-07-2008, 13:28
Basically, for those of us who enjoy starting new characters that will specialise in a certain style, or rather, have a certain primary profession in the current system, will not enjoy starting new characters so much in the system that's been proposed. .. ..

You would be able to start as many characters from scratch as you want to start, in any Profession System, regardless of all your fears. In a profession-less, or Multi Profession system you just have more options. If you just want to stick to one profession per character, then that is your choice. Roll 15 alts and train them in a single profession. While most of us roll one character with a starting profession, and learn other professions over hundreds of hours of non grind, non repeat gameplay. The better choice is obvious.

Seems you feel having options is a bad thing. Unfortunately for you, GW is all about options, it's what makes the product great. GW2 will likely have many more options than GW1.

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 13:31
You would be able to start as many characters from scratch as you want to start, in any Profession System, regardless of all your fears. In a profession-less, or Multi Profession system you just have more options. If you just want to stick to one profession per character, then that is your choice. Roll 15 alts and train them in a single profession. While most of us roll one character with a starting profession, and learn other professions over hundreds of hours of non grind, non repeat gameplay. The better choice is obvious.

Seems you feel having options is a bad thing. Unfortunately for you, GW is all about options, it's what makes the product great. GW2 will likely have many more options than GW1.

Its not that options are bad, but that switching primary is a bad option to add. And no, in a system where the primary profession is non-static, there is no need to create multiple characters, and as you've just pointed out (probably unwittingly), those that would choose to have more than one character will in effect, be punished for doing so, because they would never catch up to those that didn't unless they abandoned all but one character.

And there's nothing to suggest at the moment, that there will only be non-grind content, and again, you've avoided answering the replayability value of the game. I seriously doubt advanced as the game will be, PvE will be infinite, meaning that at some point, it will either become repeat content, or there will be nothing to do.

The better choice is obvious: Don't make such a stupid system in the first place.

Balan Makki
30-07-2008, 14:05
Its not that options are bad, but that switching primary is a bad option to add. And no, in a system where the primary profession is non-static, there is no need to create multiple characters, and as you've just pointed out (probably unwittingly), those that would choose to have more than one character will in effect, be punished for doing so, because they would never catch up to those that didn't unless they abandoned all but one character.

And there's nothing to suggest at the moment, that there will only be non-grind content, and again, you've avoided answering the replayability value of the game. I seriously doubt advanced as the game will be, PvE will be infinite, meaning that at some point, it will either become repeat content, or there will be nothing to do.

The better choice is obvious: Don't make such a stupid system in the first place.

You are making some fairly large assumptions. "There may be no need to create multiple characters", but the option is there if you want to. And Races will likely be reason enough to create multiple characters, as their will likely be many things specific to the races, professions not being one of them.

The replay-ability of the game gets better with Multi Professions, not worse. Read my earlier posts in this thread, very easy to accomplish without over taxing the devs. GW and Arena Net are masters at this. Here again: you don't need to make new areas, you just need to develop new quest/mission lines to training a new profession. It will likely take you deep into dungeons etc, areas what you can't just breeze through. If you want a profession it will take you a lot of time to train it. Each profession having it's own unique adventures in the same world, sometimes even in similar, parallel adventures with other professions. These are just ideas off the top of my head. Imagine what Arena Net could come up with, having fulltime employees in think-tanks.

You make too many assumptions that something Won't Work, when, in fact, it already has worked. I'm making many assumptions in the positive. If this is the direction GW2 is headed, I'm excited about the possibilities. . .

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 14:43
You are making some fairly large assumptions. "There may be no need to create multiple characters", but the option is there if you want to. And Races will likely be reason enough to create multiple characters, as their will likely be many things specific to the races, professions not being one of them.

If primary professions can be changed, then apart form races (which would also become a why) there is no incentive to start new chars.


The replay-ability of the game gets better with Multi Professions, not worse. Read my earlier posts in this thread, very easy to accomplish without over taxing the devs. GW and Arena Net are masters at this. Here again: you don't need to make new areas, you just need to develop new quest/mission lines to training a new profession.

Regardless of how a non-static primary class system is implemented, they still get more replayability with a static primary class system.

Why do they need to abandon the current style of multi-professions? They don't. Its proven to work, and it doesn't have the same abuse your system would have.


It will likely take you deep into dungeons etc, areas what you can't just breeze through. If you want a profession it will take you a lot of time to train it. Each profession having it's own unique adventures in the same world, sometimes even in similar, parallel adventures with other professions. These are just ideas off the top of my head. Imagine what Arena Net could come up with, having fulltime employees in think-tanks.

But those dungeons would exist anyway, and again it would favour those that play less characters, thus punishing us that enjoy diversifying and having more characters.


You make too many assumptions that something Won't Work, when, in fact, it already has worked. I'm making many assumptions in the positive. If this is the direction GW2 is headed, I'm excited about the possibilities. . .

GW2 is not heading in the non-static primary profession line, last I heard, and I'm grateful for that.

I'm making assumptions about a theoretical system that I strongly feel wouldn't be in the best interest of the players, you believe differently, and that's your right, but you're assuming it would work.

So yes, I'm negative about it. You be postive about it, but attack my arguments for being based on assumptions just as much as your are?

No-ones yet answered my point about added discrimination as a result of such a system.

No-ones really answered the point about replayability, except to say "races", which was irrelevant to the case of replayability due to classes.

No-ones answered the point that such a system would in fact, punish any player that wanted more than 1 character for each race by reducing how far through the content that player could get in the same amount of time.

I'm all for no professions, but if a character specialises in, for arugments sake, elemental magics they should not be able to retract that so easily as to change their specialisation.

Your system would lead to all sorts of abuse (discrimination, "the perfect set-up's for all areas on a single character.. talk about overpowered in GW1, it'd be a balancing nightmare in GW2), the system I want is one where you have specialised characters, and then for people like you, there can be such things as a "jack of all trades" who while not being as powerful in any single field as a specialised character would be, you have much greater diversity allowing you to fill more roles than that specialised character.

If that system was implemented, wouldn't we all be excited? We wouldn't need to worry about changing primary or secondary profession.

What I'm saying is simple: Any system where there are professions or classes is open to abuse, at least in the form of discrimination. if you don't want the "primary" profession to be non-static, a better system would be to not have "professions" at all, but rather allow character specialisation or "jack of all trades" style characters. This would dramatically increase replayability, and discrimination, while it would still exists, would not come in the form of "Go melee noob", which is pretty much inevitable in a system where primary profession is non-static (at least in the Free to play area, where you can expect the more immature audience).

Twyst Tye
30-07-2008, 16:34
I don't like the idea of being able to switch primaries, as I like the benefits of primary attributes being exclusive to a class. Specialization is important to me.

On the other hand, I also dislike replaying the same content just to reach X destination with another character. My proposed resolution:

Once you have played the content through with one character, all locations/missions/outposts that you've completed become unlocked for all characters (existing and subsequent) on the account.

You could choose to skip missions you dislike, or jump directly to a mission where a guildmate needs help, or a farming spot, or elite content where your main profession is not as desirable as some other.

Alaris
30-07-2008, 16:52
I generally like the idea of being able to progress much faster on new characters on the same account as seasoned characters.

Currently in GW1, you have unlocked skills which you can buy on skill trainers earlier, as well as tomes, and heroes can use unlocked skills.

There should be more. Like grind catch up, e.g. your new character gets 10x Asura rep (perhaps with scroll) until he catches up to the max Asura rep on the account.

Drec Sutal
30-07-2008, 17:05
In GW1.... I've got to say no. In GW2... if there's a serious difference between races (and what we know about the norn says there is) then changing primary professions wouldn't be so bad. In fact it's probably a good idea, since otherwise you might end up needing (number of races)*(number of professions) to be able to play any build... it'll suck to have a high level fully equipped asuran monk only to find that the meta has shifted to sylvari monks, and whatnot.

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 18:12
...My proposed resolution:

Once you have played the content through with one character, all locations/missions/outposts that you've completed become unlocked for all characters (existing and subsequent) on the account.

You could choose to skip missions you dislike, or jump directly to a mission where a guildmate needs help, or a farming spot, or elite content where your main profession is not as desirable as some other.

So, open world, almost?

Twyst Tye
30-07-2008, 19:19
So, open world, almost?

Open world? Well, since I don't yet understand how instanced areas and outposts are going to work with the persistent world, I'm not sure if my answer is yes or no.

I'm saying as long as you've completed the game (as in, followed the storyline to the completion of the end mission) with one character, any other characters could jump/map to any and all unlocked outposts.

BlueHeaven
30-07-2008, 19:41
This was sorta done in FFXI online. You had one character, but you could choose different proffesions (in town/moogle).
Each proffession needed to be leveled though, so if your where a level 15 warrior, then switch to a thief, you would start as a level 1 thief.

Its almost the exact same as switch character except the new character can start from the old characters progression. But I think its unneeded, and not a good idea for anet as the sell character slots for $10 a piece.

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 19:43
Open world? Well, since I don't yet understand how instanced areas and outposts are going to work with the persistent world, I'm not sure if my answer is yes or no.

I'm saying as long as you've completed the game (as in, followed the storyline to the completion of the end mission) with one character, any other characters could jump/map to any and all unlocked outposts.

Ah. Hmm, I'm not so sure, but it would be a useful feature.

Alaris
30-07-2008, 19:49
I'm saying as long as you've completed the game (as in, followed the storyline to the completion of the end mission) with one character, any other characters could jump/map to any and all unlocked outposts.

Maybe not all unlocked outposts, but you could build in shortcuts that are unlocked depending on what you do with your character. So if you unlock the sunspear sanctuary, you'd unlock the docks and its mission for other characters. If you finish the game, the vortex would remain there for other characters to go through. If you find a passage to Vabbi, then that unlocks a city in Vabbi for all characters.

You'd still have to do most of the exploring and unlocking, but it would be much easier to get to a given place right away with a new character.

Bravo
30-07-2008, 20:06
Now to Bravo only:

In response to your grind comment:
You may enjoy grind dependent content, many people don't seem to agree with you, however. While optional grind can be fun, required grind is not for me (and many others).

In response to your 'assumption' about PvP requirements:
We don't yet know what classes are going to be in GW2, nor exactly how the PvP will work. As was also stated before, most people who do top-PvP specialise in very few professions, and are not likely going to need a system where they can change profession because in a system which doesn't allow it, they seem perfectly happy to have more than 1 PvP character, or reroll it.
Edit: On top of that, there's the fact that organised PvP is supposedly going to be UAX and sidekick system, which implies all the play has to do is create X profession, not play it through PvE, and it's there waiting to be used in Organised PvP. /edit.

So leave speculation on PvP until there's more information on the matter.


Once again the lack of the internet to convey sarcasm rears its head again. I am anti-grind too, and dislike the way that ANet chose to go with respect to faction titles/skills.

Whilst we have also been told that organised PvP will have fixed levels and fixed equipment (can be found in the link in my previous post), we have also been told that spontaneous PvP (dislike thinking of it as 'dis-organised' or 'un-organised' seeing as there are likely to be guilds partaking in this form of PvP - see the common complaint of guilds 'spiking' RA, particularly before leaving was punished) will be a drop in World vs World battle where equipment and levels will play a part. As PvP characters won't exist, that means that the PvE character has to partake in this.

Referencing back to my GW history (see 'spoiler' in previous post), you can see that the character I created in PvE factions was a ranger primary instead of assassin primary. The reason I chose ranger specifically was because after trying a ranger in RA, I found the class to be fun; but I didn't have the slots, nor inclination to buy a slot when the option became available, to make one for PvE. The option to create PvP characters and use them in spontaneous PvP fully unlocked was a masterstroke - at least from my point of view, and directly influenced my gaming choices regarding PvE.

I just wish there were more information releases, particularly about PvP.


As you said in your background, you stopped your warrior in THK because you said you found you were no good with that class, but your necro and monk you completed the game with (proph only of course). Actually, I was more or less in the same situation, if you swap necromancer for ranger initially. Do you think, if you could change your warrior's primary to monk, you'd complete the game in that situation, or would that cause you to abandon it completely, knowing that you're now going to use the same playstyle as with your actual monk to get your 'warrior' to complete the game? I know I would have abandoned my warrior if primaries could be switched and I tried it.

The fact of the matter is, the warrior lies abandoned anyway, 100 hours played, compared with over 3300 hours over the whole account. Compared with the 300 hours that a PvP monk has been played on over 21 months.

Would I change the character's primary to get passed such a hurdle? My answer would probably be yes, but then I might choose to go back later and retry the mission once I had obtained new skills for the primary (for instance, the warrior could not at that time obtain certain elite skills until after thunderhead keep: backbreaker/earthshaker (not sure which of these) or eviscerate, and this doesn't include possible skills from the secondary (healing hands for the Wa/Mo :) ) that were previously unable to be accessed.

Would I change the character's primary permanently? Would depend on the number of future hurdles, but in any case, it would probably have been a case that I would have changed the character's primary to ranger instead of one of the other primaries that I had already played so I would have had a character at the time that I might have wanted to play.


If they started a new character, again, they already know how to get through, so is the experience going to be any different, because again, they'll be drawn to do it the way they've already done it because the system allows switching of primary profession.

Well there is still the question of unlocks (what the character is capable of as opposed to the player - although we have been informed that there will be fewer skills (hopefully only the 'fill out the allotted skills per profession' skills are removed)), and the question of motive. I'm not sure who would want to make a character in exactly the same style as a character they have already made when they already have said character.


That would mean the person creates their character, and has access to all attribute lines from the start. Now, I'm sure you're going to say "But while changable, primary prof determines which primary attribute the character can access", so as I said, the simpler system would be to make it so there's two groups of attributes:
One group is what would be considered your "primary", and you can only use one of these attributes at a time. if you choose, for example, soul reaping, you can't use energy storage.

The other group would be all the other attribute lines. If you wish, all these attributes could be put into sub-groups, and the character can only use two subgroups at a time.

This would probably be the streamlined version that ANet would use instead of that mentioned in the original post if ANet were to introduce such a system. (Reference the initial mechanism to change secondary professions by finding an NPC in the desert and talking to them compared with the current mechanism of 'k' then drop down menu. I would hope that ANet keeps the attitude of steamlining mechanics regarding character management.)

(Offtopic note: I hope if they decide to keep the Xunlai chests that they allow you to go directly into the backpacks of your other characters, so that 'giving' a different character an item doesn't consist of logging into the giving character to take something out of storage so that there is a gap in storage for the item wanting to be traded, logging back into the character you were playing to 'receive' the item from storage, then possibly logging back out again to put whichever item you moved out of storage back into storage, then back again to the character you were already playing. PHEW. If it were technically feasible (and I hope with a new engine there won't be as many technical impossibilities), then it would be far more streamlined for the player.)

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 20:17
This would probably be the streamlined version that ANet would use instead of that mentioned in the original post if ANet were to introduce such a system. (Reference the initial mechanism to change secondary professions by finding an NPC in the desert and talking to them compared with the current mechanism of 'k' then drop down menu. I would hope that ANet keeps the attitude of steamlining mechanics regarding character management.)

I agree with the streamlining part, which is why I pointed the pointlessness of having professions in a system where primary profession would be changed at will.
That does not however change the fact I'm still against the idea.

I must accept that there are players who will want their characters to do everything (jack of all trades), but they must accept that there will be people like me that don't want all characters to be everything.
Which is why I prefer not the streamlined version of the non-static primary profession idea, but having the ability to get the character, and either permanently specialise the character in certain fields (Eg, ranged combat, communicating with nature), or become the 'jack of all trades'.

That later system being (hopefully) the best of both?

BlueHeaven
30-07-2008, 20:40
I agree with the streamlining part, which is why I pointed the pointlessness of having professions in a system where primary profession would be changed at will.
That does not however change the fact I'm still against the idea.

I must accept that there are players who will want their characters to do everything (jack of all trades), but they must accept that there will be people like me that don't want all characters to be everything.
Which is why I prefer not the streamlined version of the non-static primary profession idea, but having the ability to get the character, and either permanently specialise the character in certain fields (Eg, ranged combat, communicating with nature), or become the 'jack of all trades'.

That later system being (hopefully) the best of both?

This would make sense if you were only aloud ONE character per account with ONE profession.

When someone says, 'Hey we need a Monk for FoW', and I'm currently playing a Necro, I say, 'Let me switch my character (avatar basically)' and come back with my Monk.

Whether you want it to stay the way it is now or not, I don't believe it would change the game play at all besides needing to use a seperate Avatar for each primary Profession.

Bravo
30-07-2008, 20:54
The trouble with a 'jack of all trades' character is that they have to become the benchmark for 'is the mission/area' possible. This will then quickly lead to some, or many, specialised characters (which are ultimately better in at least one aspect - they are specialised and hopefully in an area that the player themselves want to specialise in) calling the game too easy. Alternatively there is the question of who do you take in the group the R/x or the r/... (R representing the future equivalent of the ranger, r representing a jack of all trades playing as an approximation of a ranger) when you know long range skill are going to be beneficial (for instance fighting casters on the battlements of a fort you are storming or whatever).

Then comes the question of PvP viability:

Look at how signet of mystic wrath spike teams were received by the population - teams of 8 monks that could kill the enemy in a spike and at the same time use their energy to heal. This is an example of a 'jack of all trades' style affair when Jack is sufficiently powerful to overwhelm the specialists (whom I shall refer to as Jills for hilarities sake).

The Jills complained and Jack was nerfed (and in my opinion rightly so). Now look at the 4th attribute line of Monks (divine favour, healing prayers, protection prayers and), sneezing at your opponent prayers - ok I kid, smiting prayers is useful for certain areas of the game such as those consisting of high armoured undead foes...

Then look at paragons, another form of a Jack, and the Jills have complained, and Jack has been nerfed (then buffed, then nerfed, then buffed...) and has been a source of contention as PvE paragon can't find a group, yet PvP complains that all they encounter are masses of paragons performing lots of 'passive' defense.

I question what is wrong with the 'temporary' specialisation of characters? My character could choose to specialise in sneezing prayers, but finding out that the principle doesn't work can't choose to completely respecialise without going back to school (i.e. deletion and reroll)?

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 20:55
This would make sense if you were only aloud ONE character per account with ONE profession.

You quoted me talking about two systems.. could you be a little more specific which system you're refering to?

The system of switching the 'primaries' of the characters, or the one allowing players to choose what each of their 'avatars' becomes?

I'm assuming Anet will allow more than one character per account for some really strange reason.


The trouble with a 'jack of all trades' character is that they have to become the benchmark for 'is the mission/area' possible. This will then quickly lead to some, or many, specialised characters (which are ultimately better in at least one aspect - they are specialised and hopefully in an area that the player themselves want to specialise in) calling the game too easy. Alternatively there is the question of who do you take in the group the R/x or the r/... (R representing the future equivalent of the ranger, r representing a jack of all trades playing as an approximation of a ranger) when you know long range skill are going to be beneficial (for instance fighting casters on the battlements of a fort you are storming or whatever).

Not really. The specialised character has a much narrower path to tread. Where one mission/quest may be easy for that path, they require help for other missions/quests because their chosen path is not well suited.

This is where the Jack of all trades has it better; not being specialised in any field, it would have the best ability to adapt to any situation, but not being the master of any field, it too might require help. They do not have to become the benchmark.


Then comes the question of PvP viability:
..

PvP is always going to be a toughy, but I reckon, just like in GW, the top-PvPers would have several specialised roles, rather than trying to master them all.


Then look at paragons, another form of a Jack, and the Jills have complained, and Jack has been nerfed (then buffed, then nerfed, then buffed...) and has been a source of contention as PvE paragon can't find a group, yet PvP complains that all they encounter are masses of paragons performing lots of 'passive' defense.

PvE paragons can't find groups? When'd that happen?


I question what is wrong with the 'temporary' specialisation of characters? My character could choose to specialise in sneezing prayers, but finding out that the principle doesn't work can't choose to completely respecialise without going back to school (i.e. deletion and reroll)?

Having permanent specialisation shouldn't exclude tempary 'experimentation'. I think what would have to be created is a way for characters (or initially players..) to 'experiment', or temporarily specialise, with fields, to find what they think is best for them, before actually choosing whether to make that speciality permanent.

sorudo
30-07-2008, 20:57
the main reason why i like the current system of GW is because i can see who is what.
if there is no base line, you can't recon who is who, making the whole pri/secon system a fail.
if you want to create a monk, i don't think you like to have a buffed up human, or a warrior as a walking skeleton(a.k.a assassin).

BlueHeaven
30-07-2008, 21:01
You quoted me talking about two systems.. could you be a little more specific which system you're refering to?

The system of switching the 'primaries' of the characters, or the one allowing players to choose what each of their 'avatars' becomes?

I'm assuming Anet will allow more than one character per account for some really strange reason.

What I was stating, is that in most cases, the only difference between being a monk vs being a necro is logging out and switchin from your monk avartar character to your Necro avatar character. So instead on doing that, you could just stay on that avatar and switch your proffession and all things that come exclusively to the profession would also switch. Meaning the latter system would not differ very greatly in game play than the former as other (maybe not you) have stated it would.

And you are assuming correctly about Anet.


Then comes the question of PvP viability:

Look at how signet of mystic wrath spike teams were received by the population - teams of 8 monks that could kill the enemy in a spike and at the same time use their energy to heal. This is an example of a 'jack of all trades' style affair when Jack is sufficiently powerful to overwhelm the specialists (whom I shall refer to as Jills for hilarities sake).

PvP would be the least affect by this as PvP only character can already be deleted/created on a whim at full level to what ever build profession they want.

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 21:13
What I was stating, is that in most cases, the only difference between being a monk vs being a necro is logging out and switchin from your monk avartar character to your Necro avatar character. So instead on doing that, you could just stay on that avatar and switch your proffession and all things that come exclusively to the profession would also switch. Meaning the latter system would not differ very greatly in game play than the former as other (maybe not you) have stated it would.

Actually, I think the avatar should change, but I know what you're meaning.

Yes, the latter system (non-primary switching) wouldn't differ greatly, especially if combined with someone's idea of once town's unlocked on account, all 'avatars' on that account get it. However, my system (which wouldn't use 'professions') is about specialising characters, so you'd still have to switch 'avatars', but you wouldn't have to go town hopping after. This would still mean you might want to let the team know what name to invite of course.


PvP would be the least affect by this as PvP only character can already be deleted/created on a whim at full level to what ever build profession they want.

GW2 won't have PvP only characters. Only 'PvE' characters.


the main reason why i like the current system of GW is because i can see who is what.
if there is no base line, you can't recon who is who, making the whole pri/secon system a fail.
if you want to create a monk, i don't think you like to have a buffed up human, or a warrior as a walking skeleton(a.k.a assassin).

Which goes against having changable primary professions, I suppose.

I don't like fixed professions for the same reason you like the current system: The current system gives you "monk", "Elementalist", so unless you ask the person the build they are running, you don't actually know what they're running (Try joining a team on a monk char when the team asks for "monk", then when the mission starts, point out you're a smiter not a healer :tongue:).
By removing the class label, people might actually take a more active role in preparing the team, rather than assuming all monks are healers, all elementalists are going to run fire or water etc..

Bravo.. keep asking questions.. we'll come up with the perfect system eventrully.. I like the way you keep bringing up new little things I need to think about!

Bravo
30-07-2008, 21:52
http://guildwars.incgamers.com/showthread.php?t=442792 (ok had to look DEEP to find that post but hehe.)


Having permanent specialisation shouldn't exclude tempary 'experimentation'. I think what would have to be created is a way for characters (or initially players..) to 'experiment', or temporarily specialise, with fields, to find what they think is best for them, before actually choosing whether to make that speciality permanent.

Oblivion has something akin to this, it tells you to play through a short introduction and at the end even recommends a class with certain 'major' skills, based predominantly on the actions of the player up to the end of the experimentation period, that start with a boost and are easy to level, and minor skills that start at the baseline and are harder to level. Character levels are gained when you gain 10 levels in a major skill and character attribute points (strength/speed/etc.) can be assigned based on how many skills you level, as each skill has a linked attribute (so if you do a lot of sneaking, and level that one the most, then you have the option to raise dexterity a lot for instance).

Power players will realise (at different rates) that you would want your major skills to reflect different attributes so that you can always increase your attributes the maximum amount each time you level. They may also realise that the stereotypical, for instance the 'Elven archer' (who would receive a bonus to archery at selection of race (comes after true character creation)), will actually end up weaker if they choose, in this instance, archery as a major skill because they lose the opportunity to use those archery skill levels to gain character levels, and hence attribute points, because of a (double: once from race, once from 'class') 'boost' given at character creation.

None of the standard character classes feature a balance of major skills, they all miss out on at least one attribute line. Custom classes can be made, but the beginner isn't likely to look into such a feature too heavily.

I did not realise this until I was (what I consider to be) a significant proportion of the way through the game, having leveled many times when it struck me; my error. I would like to consider myself intelligent, but when you look at some of the build ideas that I come up with, you might disagree.

I stopped playing Oblivion soon after. I'm a fickle gamer and can find my pleasures elsewhere hehe.

Temporary experimentation will still no where near match the capabilities someone with perfect foresight (aka wiki build), or permanent experimentation.

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 22:10
http://guildwars.incgamers.com/showthread.php?t=442792 (ok had to look DEEP to find that post but hehe.)

Hmm, I myself never have had a problem in PvE finding a team until the whole Ursan thing went big in non-elite areas.


<Oblivion>

Yes and no, I found that the suggested class is based on the attributes combination as a result of attribute increases and base race levels, not how the player did the tutorial. But that's not the topic :laugh:


Temporary experimentation will still no where near match the capabilities someone with perfect foresight (aka wiki build), or permanent experimentation.

I'm guessing around 90% of players still don't actually use wiki, despite what one might get off forums. Permanent experimentation would lead to Jack of all trades, thus (one of the reasons) why I suggested such a concept would be allowed to exist in a profession free game.

Of course, that coul lead to the player deciding that they actually enjoyed the melee side of the game, and start a new character that would specialise in that field.

While the "switching primary" would simply allow the player to now select warrior as his or her class, to really get to know the class, its best if he or she gets to play it from the beginning as that class, at least in my experience.

Under the specialisation system, he or she would be able to do that, yet still if he or she found that it wasn't quite what they expected, they could still add to their character's abilities, by sacrificing melee potency, for example.

Gods.. that's not a good explanation is it?

Bravo
30-07-2008, 22:33
My one biggest problem with "exclusive" specialisation is shown rather nicely in this comic http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20071110.jpg (would you believe that the search engine wouldn't pick up any results for tabula, or rasa, but when you put in clones the first hit is a comic with the name tabula rasa (d'oh)).

I want to be a soulless coked out porn star... wait no, I want to be the person that makes the good choices with regard to character development, not have bad decisions come back to haunt me until such time as I can gather enough experience to buy the skill I find I should have been using (especially if I find I had to roll a new character to get optimum use out of the skill).

SibbTigre
30-07-2008, 22:38
Nice comic.

I don't think it should become a case of bad decisions haunt you, which is the reason for experiementation, didn't I go over this last time?

With the experimentation (or temporary specialisation, if you wish) you make sure you're making the right choices for you. That last part can't be stressed enough.

I'm not sure it has to be exclusive in its entirety either. Nothing stops an archery expert learning how to use a blade, or dabbling in the healing arts, for example, but they can't expect that blade skill or healing skill to become as great as their archery skill, or get onto par with healing masters or blade masters.

This is why the current GW has two professions: You can max out your main, but not the 'hobby', so to speak, and this concept should be taken on if they chose to make a profession-free system.

Bravo
30-07-2008, 22:58
After what point can a hobby become a main? Yes I know in GW1 there are builds which many refer to as 'gimmicks' in the form of 'bunny thumpers' etc. that can in certain cases outperfom the primary class in a certain role (as evidenced by the fact that they can/could replace the primary class in said role in GvG for instance- all because they could spam irresistable blow, and still have a lot of knockdowns, and still cause damage if blinded etc.).

Why can't a bunny thumper change into a hammer warrior ... they both probably spend 97(?) attribute points into hammers. In GW2 (by speculation, some posts mention that all classes will have access to 'light' and 'heavy' armours) they could both have the same armour values...

After how long would a 'crit barrager' not possibly want the option of just becoming a 'barrager' ...

Balan Makki
31-07-2008, 00:14
If primary professions can be changed, then apart form races (which would also become a why) there is no incentive to start new chars.

You are assuming there would not be an incentive. I assume there would be plenty of incentive, thus more choice in the end.

There will be incentive. As much, if not more than we have in GW1


Regardless of how a non-static primary class system is implemented, they still get more replayability with a static primary class system.

Depends on many factors, but assuming that the game is anything like GW1, players will get the same amount content whether they were to play a Multi-profession character or a dozen single profession alts.


Why do they need to abandon the current style of multi-professions? They don't. Its proven to work, and it doesn't have the same abuse your system would have.


Impossible to abuse a system that works properly. I'm assuming that it would work properly. They won't abandon the old system, they'll likely just add in a bunch more options, the biggest possibly being a multi-profession system.


But those dungeons would exist anyway, and again it would favour those that play less characters, thus punishing us that enjoy diversifying and having more characters.

Not true. Completely false. The amount of time to develop a multi-profession character would be almost exactly the same as developing multiple single profession characters, especially if environmental unlocks are account based, as was suggested above.

GW2 is not heading in the non-static primary profession line, last I heard, and I'm grateful for that.

This is all just speculation. So your guess is as good as mine.


No-ones yet answered my point about added discrimination as a result of such a system.


Non issue. If done correctly you'll have no difference between a Multi-profession character VS a dozen single profession alts.



No-ones really answered the point about replayability, except to say "races", which was irrelevant to the case of replayability due to classes.

I've answered it a dozen times, you choose not to listen.


No-ones answered the point that such a system would in fact, punish any player that wanted more than 1 character for each race by reducing how far through the content that player could get in the same amount of time.

Not true. False. (Based purely on assumption, from both you and me. ;) )


I'm all for no professions, but if a character specialises in, for arugments sake, elemental magics they should not be able to retract that so easily as to change their specialisation.

Depends on game design, not assumption. May not be easy at all. . . no need to retract anything, as you could always switch back.


Your system would lead to all sorts of abuse (discrimination, "the perfect set-up's for all areas on a single character.. talk about overpowered in GW1, it'd be a balancing nightmare in GW2),

No, again you need to pay more attention to what you read. The Multi Profession idea suggests that you can switch between primaries--not play them all at once. A primary profession would be mutually exclusive when you switch to it. Identical to how GW1 works. But with less grind, less maintenance, less overhead.


the system I want is one where you have specialised characters, and then for people like you, there can be such things as a "jack of all trades" who while not being as powerful in any single field as a specialised character would be, you have much greater diversity allowing you to fill more roles than that specialised character.

This is a very good idea as well. Has a whole lot of potential.


If that system was implemented, wouldn't we all be excited? We wouldn't need to worry about changing primary or secondary profession.

I'd would love to see a system like this fleshed out completely, and thoughtfully. Would be awesome.


What I'm saying is simple: Any system where there are professions or classes is open to abuse, at least in the form of discrimination.

True, but even in a non-profession system you'll have these problems. If you choose the wrong path, you're just as screwed as when you choose the wrong profession for the job. Unless you can just respec as if you had a Multi-Profession character. 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.



if you don't want the "primary" profession to be non-static, a better system would be to not have "professions" at all, but rather allow character specialisation or "jack of all trades" style characters.
There is lots of merit to this concept, though I'm not sure this is the thread for a discussion of it.


This would dramatically increase replayability, and discrimination, while it would still exists, would not come in the form of "Go melee noob", which is pretty much inevitable in a system where primary profession is non-static (at least in the Free to play area, where you can expect the more immature audience).

Perhaps. Depends on game design. Though I'm sure you'll get something like this if you have a non-profession system as well. Though profession-less may be very confusing for the team types who like to run specific builds.

You have probably already surmised that I'm either really bored or a nut-job, being that I'm debating the value of assumptions and conjecture. I'm a little of both actually.

Anyway: Viva La Assomption!!!

raspberry jam
31-07-2008, 10:01
Which is why I prefer not the streamlined version of the non-static primary profession idea, but having the ability to get the character, and either permanently specialise the character in certain fields (Eg, ranged combat, communicating with nature), or become the 'jack of all trades'.

That later system being (hopefully) the best of both?I'd really prefer having a system without permanent choices after initial character generation, as one of the things I really like about the current GW is the "once unlocked, free to use" idiom. A system where you can switch around even your primary profession would, if it was well designed, automatically tend towards that people either would specialize or become a jack-of-all-trades, simply because the amount of things needed to unlock in order to do anything else would be too large, or too difficult to attain - but at the same time, rewarding those with enough dedication to actually unlock all those things with the ability to be good at whatever they wanted (which again, would be realistic, remember, as a human you can learn any one thing well, and if you only had enough time you could learn many things... if you had 400 years you could easily learn 10 real-life professions).

SibbTigre
31-07-2008, 11:17
After what point can a hobby become a main?

At the point where the previous main actually suffers and becomes hobby, I'd say.


Why can't a bunny thumper change into a hammer warrior ... they both probably spend 97(?) attribute points into hammers. In GW2 (by speculation, some posts mention that all classes will have access to 'light' and 'heavy' armours) they could both have the same armour values...

After how long would a 'crit barrager' not possibly want the option of just becoming a 'barrager' ...

Crit barragers are based off a different energy system from barragers, and usually land more criticals, so I'm not sure they'd want to become just a barrager.

Other than that, it is all speculation on how it'll work. The trouble is, for how the system(s) would really work, we'd have to wait for the betas to find out.



You are assuming there would not be an incentive. I assume there would be plenty of incentive, thus more choice in the end.

There will be incentive. As much, if not more than we have in GW1

What incentive in a "non-static primary profession" system, would there be to create a second human character?


Depends on many factors, but assuming that the game is anything like GW1, players will get the same amount content whether they were to play a Multi-profession character or a dozen single profession alts.

Combine with people's hopes for an infinite level system, it does result in people who prefer multiple characters to a single character being punished.


They won't abandon the old system, they'll likely just add in a bunch more options, the biggest possibly being a multi-profession system.

From now on, let's wait to see how they'll implement their new professions, seems wiser than hoping for something.

sorudo
31-07-2008, 18:17
i think that, if you look at it at what a prof really is, it makes sence you can't change your primary.
your profession is sorta what you studied for the last 10 years, not something you can change in a phone poof.

Bravo
31-07-2008, 19:45
http://guildwars.incgamers.com/showthread.php?t=480926

I believe it is safe to say the 'replay value' is an irrelevent argument looking at the responses...

Regarding the extra criticals for an assassin barrager vs a ranger barrager, the difference is negligible in terms of dps due to the ranger having a higher base chance to critical hit due to higher marksmanship (so prhaps only 1/20 shots would give a critical to the assassin but not the ranger), higher base bow damage and higher barrage damage...


What incentive in a "non-static primary profession" system, would there be to create a second human character? What incentive is there in the current game to create a second monk/warrior/...?

SibbTigre
31-07-2008, 19:50
They removed it when they changed how the attributes were done, but that doesn't answer the actual question; In GW2, they've announced there will be more than one playable race, and the general feeling regarding that was no race should be given significant advantages over any other (in other words, location and cosmetic differences only). That means that "professions" will still be the key distinction between characters.

So the question: In a non-static primary profession system, what incentive is there to create a second human character?

Alaris
31-07-2008, 20:05
The incentive to creating new characters should be (1) because you want to start again, (2) because you want to keep achievements separate, or (3) see #1 and #2.

Diablo 2 (and countless games) had you start new characters just to change your attribute points.

GW removed that, and IMO the game is a lot more fun. But you still need to create a new profession to play certain styles, and in some cases, to avoid profession discrimination.

raspberry jam
01-08-2008, 08:56
I agree with Alaris. You should start over because you want to, not because you have to.

SibbTigre
01-08-2008, 12:03
I can agree with that, but I don't feel making primary profession non-static is good idea.

Domitilde
01-08-2008, 13:21
I've heard that the ACLU is opening an office in the Henge of Denravi to fight profession discrimination. But until it gets done, I do have a couple of characters that I really don't like to play much anymore because of their primary profession but don't have the heart to delete and start over because of all that I have invested in them. It would be a much smaller price to pay in getting new armor and weapons for the new primary than the chore of going through the beginning quests on the islands in Cantha or Elona, or the tedious quests of Old Ascalon. That keeps me from starting over.

raspberry jam
01-08-2008, 13:51
ACLUAscalon Civil Liberties Union?

BlueHeaven
01-08-2008, 17:04
I've heard that the ACLU

We need some Affirmative Action for mission grouping. There must be at 'least' one mesmer in each group, even if an Elementalist is more qualified :)

Wethospu
01-08-2008, 21:59
No idea what's going on but I would love that my only PvE character, Warrior could be all classes.

Yes, I'm lazy. Jokies, just don't have much time.