Gw2's runes vs Gw's.

[zealex.9410]

Been playing Gw since the sale where i bought and having finished Prophecies, I decided to deck out my character and Holy shit. Runes in Gw1 are really interesting. Well interesting and simplistic at the same time tbh.

 

The better a Rune is ( class stat runes that is) the bigger the tradeoff. Basically in gw2 terms a Rune would give me lets say 150-200 power but reduce my hp by 400 or 500. This is such an interesting system making build making have alot more thought behind it. U make actual choices and theres tradeoffs so you must consider more things, Runes because of that also feel impactful so far while playing with them.

 

Compaired to Gw2 where runes are basically all powerups with no downside and u end up just taking the strongest one because why not.

 

Yes scholar runes are a thing but you dont actually have a downside on picking them. U will get the bonus until u drop bellow x % in which case you wont. Theres no tradeoff to make you think "Can i handle such loss?" " Am i able to build around it so its not as big of an issue and maximise on the pros"

 

Id really like if the devs in the future in an expac introduce such runes again. Would be quite interesting to see how ppl play around with them and what kind if builds they allow.

 

For example a rune that take away a % of your hp and based on that % u get healing or dmg or toughness. Classes like necro, warr etc would benefit more than lets say an ele or a thief and vice verca for other runes.

 

 

Would be also cool if theres a quote why the devs didnt do any of these(that ik of) in gw2 or why they didnt further develope on them.

[Cyninja.2954]

> Rune of Superior Vigor Superior / Gold Health +50 (Non-stacking)

- https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Rune

 

Where is the downside on Rune of Superior Vigor? Actually where is the downside on any of the profession-independent runes?

 

The downside to GW2 runes is: you don't get bonuses from other runes. You already have downsides to not using a full set of 6. Stating that there is no trade-off is looking at runes in a very simplistic way. GW2 runes were specifically designed with set bonuses in mind to allow mix and matching. Now one can argue that mix and matching often does not work well since the 5 and 6 piece bonuses are to strong, but to argue there is no downside?

 

Here is what is going to happen if strait up X for Y runes were introduced in GW2:

 

1. If X for Y runes outperform the current meta runes, they will replace them since output is the only thing that matters. GW1 actually had tank and healer builds, GW2 does not. **Net result: Powercreep.**

2. If X for Y runes do not outperform current meta runes, they will be another useless addition among the many not used stat combinations and useless rune sets in game. **Net result: nothing.**

[zealex.9410]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > Rune of Superior Vigor Superior / Gold Health +50 (Non-stacking)

> - https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Rune

>

> Where is the downside on Rune of Superior Vigor? Actually where is the downside on any of the profession-independent runes?

>

Gw1 is quite limited from what iv seen so far in only reducing your hp. Gw2 could do alot diff things. Also through my experience so far Class specific runes are a huge deal and they boost your performance alot.

 

> The downside to GW2 runes is: you don't get bonuses from other runes. You already have downsides to not using a full set of 6. Stating that there is no trade-off is looking at runes in a very simplistic way. GW2 runes were specifically designed with set bonuses in mind to allow mix and matching. Now one can argue that mix and matching often does not work well since the 5 and 6 piece bonuses are to strong, but to argue there is no downside?

>

 

That would be true if there was a massive number of runes which were very close in terms of performance. You dont have a downside because you already have a best rune. If you pick a bad rune the downside is that you arent picking the good one but shooting yourself isnt quite the same.

 

Also that arguement aplies to gw1 as well, u have universal runes as well as class specific attribute runes. On top of the tradeoffs the class slecific tent to have.

 

> Here is what is going to happen if strait up X for Y runes were introduced in GW2:

>

> 1. If X for Y runes outperform the current meta runes, they will replace them since output is the only thing that matters. GW1 actually had tank and healer builds, GW2 does not. **Net result: Powercreep.**

 

Gw2 can very much have and already has some healing and tanking builds. Its the content that doesnt make them more common. Classes in gw2 can have more solutions to problems at all times than gw1 ever did and content hasnt really picked up the pace to match that.

 

> 2. If X for Y runes do not outperform current meta runes, they will be another useless addition among the many not used stat combinations and useless rune sets in game. **Net result: nothing.**

 

Ye i hope if they add these runes they also rework runes in general. A nice idea would be to have such runes be one offs that dont stack so you got set runes, 1 offs etc and you can mix and match them how ever you like.

 

"Do i out this rune here and go for a 5 piece set rune or go full set instead." On top of the one off having (or not a negative stat). Really nice system considering warframe basically took the same system for their game.

[starlinvf.1358]

The real issue is cost of the trade off. Cyninja is on point in that GW2 is much more "output" oriented then GW1, because everything scales multiplicative (upward) with more investment. GW1 also did a lot more playing with those numbers, which made the smaller number scales more meaningful and coherent. Everything had built in diminishing returns, making min/maxing a lot less effective then it is here. Name one build in GW2 were dipping a 100 points into a stat is really worth giving up 200 in the one your build uses the most...... I can't either. Or could anything in the game right now support the concept of a 55 Monk, and how would it be more effective then a 250 Monk? This game just lacks the mechanical means to do stuff like this.

 

The other problem is the sheer volume of attacks and the damage scales. Adding another 10% modifier can add another 1000 dmg to an attack on the high ends of raid builds; and they have the group comp structure to work around weaknesses. But all that does is push the DPS values even higher, warranting even heavier nerfs to skills and traits to try and reel that power in. The alternative would compensate for this in raid boss stats..... but that only further solidifies min/max builds as being a requirement for a safe/efficient run, increasing the barrier for entry and overall toxicity of the Raid community. Skill splitting isn't the be-all-end-all answer either, because some issues are mechanical in nature (see Deadeye). A build's operation should be fairly uniform across the game modes, but how their strategically used is where it should have more emphasis, and is the area where the game struggles the most in balance.

 

The other is the overall fear of players making "bad choices"... ones that legitimately hurt them mechanically. Back in the days of GW1 I would had said "no one would be that stupid"..... today, thats has become my default assumption, because most players don't like to invest any substantial thought into anything that isn't comparing two numbers to see which is bigger (and always assume bigger numbers are better).

 

The game just isn't in a position to make this concept of baseline trade offs work for the majority of players and game modes. And of the few that could, it runs the risk of unbalancing the damage scales even further then they already are (to everyone's detriment with how Devs have to target meta level issues). Another thing worth pointing out is that mobs in GW1 were not much different then players when it came to how they approached combat and buildcraft; even to the point where the Doppleganger fight can be nigh impossible if your build is too good, and generally cheesed by putting flaws in the build you could intentionally exploit. The mobs verses players in GW2 is so night and day, that the few cases mobs have access to reasonably strong skills that mirror player skills, usually ends up with the player getting their ass handed to them. That lead to a strong leaning toward unique skills for mobs, in order to build specific vulnerabilities into the fight that are more obvious for players to exploit. That one key difference is enough to change what we emphasize for combat efficiency; which in turn has massive influence on what does or doesn't work in the buildcraft.

[maddoctor.2738]

Keep in mind that the Runes in GW1 are very simplistic. Runes that offer attribute boosts do just that, they increase an attribute by 1, 2 or 3 points and that's it. The higher the increase, the higher the health penalty. Although it looks like there is "choice", in the end there aren't any builds (outside 55 Monks) that use more than one Superior Rune (the +3 Rune), and most builds do not use Superior Runes at all. The difference between +2 and +3 is very little, it more often depends on reaching a certain amount of damage or healing but in most cases it's not worth it. Which is why many Superior Runes have low values, lower than Major Runes, it's because they are useless in more than half the builds. And the other half is more specialized builds.

 

More importantly, in GW2 runes offer way more than a +number to an attribute. They have on-hit abilities, boost at least 2 stats and the 6th bonus is usually a unique effect. The "drawback" of GW2 runes is that if you use less than 6, you don't get to use their full ability. In GW1 there is no such thing because Rune attribute bonuses do not stack.

 

> Would be also cool if theres a quote why the devs didnt do any of these(that ik of) in gw2 or why they didnt further develope on them.

 

The answer is rather simple: The Rune system of GW2 is way more complex than the simplistic GW1 version. They reworked the system completely so having those "drawbacks" isn't needed.

[zealex.9410]

> @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> The real issue is cost of the trade off. Cyninja is on point in that GW2 is much more "output" oriented then GW1, because everything scales multiplicative (upward) with more investment. GW1 also did a lot more playing with those numbers, which made the smaller number scales more meaningful and coherent. Everything had built in diminishing returns, making min/maxing a lot less effective then it is here. Name one build in GW2 were dipping a 100 points into a stat is really worth giving up 200 in the one your build uses the most...... I can't either.

 

What? You arent gonna pick to boost a stat that doesnt benefit you at the cost of one that does. Thats being bad at making the best choices with the tools u have. In gw1 i doubt u will choose to lower alot of your effectiveness in 1 aspect of your class if it doesnt benefit you massively in another. Thats how build crafting works.

 

> Or could anything in the game right now support the concept of a 55 Monk, and how would it be more effective then a 250 Monk? This game just lacks the mechanical means to do stuff like this.

>

 

Mmos evolve and things can be added and experiemented on. And idk i havent played 55 monk monk but why would it? Runes in gw2 could support diff concepts.

 

> The other problem is the sheer volume of attacks and the damage scales. Adding another 10% modifier can add another 1000 dmg to an attack on the high ends of raid builds; and they have the group comp structure to work around weaknesses.

>

 

Gw1 had a bigger amount of attacks with more being introduced with each expansion from what i understand.

 

> But all that does is push the DPS values even higher, warranting even heavier nerfs to skills and traits to try and reel that power in. The alternative would compensate for this in raid boss stats..... but that only further solidifies min/max builds as being a requirement for a safe/efficient run, increasing the barrier for entry and overall toxicity of the Raid community.

>

 

The runes and sigils to some extend already so that they have aged badly and ppl have asked for a long time that anet revisists them. Adding runes which have tradeoffs could come with changes or reworks to alot if not all the existing runes.

 

Aditionally runes in gw1 esp the ones that affect you primary secondary stats affect all the skills of said stat making you stronger in terms of dmg or utility and the content is fine in that game as well.

 

> Skill splitting isn't the be-all-end-all answer either, because some issues are mechanical in nature (see Deadeye). A build's operation should be fairly uniform across the game modes, but how their strategically used is where it should have more emphasis, and is the area where the game struggles the most in balance.

>

> The other is the overall fear of players making "bad choices"... ones that legitimately hurt them mechanically. Back in the days of GW1 I would had said "no one would be that stupid"..... today, thats has become my default assumption, because most players don't like to invest any substantial thought into anything that isn't comparing two numbers to see which is bigger (and always assume bigger numbers are better).

>

 

Its a game, making a bad choice wont ruin you and gw2 is great at allowing you to salvage or revert a bad choice. Such choices dont matter for ppl who dont invest in them as they didnt matter for me while i was doing my normal mode playthrough. Also back in the day the internet wasn't as available and used as it is today. If someone wants to make a more informed decision today they have the most tools available. If someone doesnt want to thats fine thats their choice.

 

Much like when a dev is balancing encounters so that they require some lvl of understanding to deal with that way u can balance buildmaking to require some lvl of understanding. If you try to balance for the lowest of lows u will always miss the mark.

 

> The game just isn't in a position to make this concept of baseline trade offs work for the majority of players and game modes. And of the few that could, it runs the risk of unbalancing the damage scales even further then they already are (to everyone's detriment with how Devs have to target meta level issues). Another thing worth pointing out is that mobs in GW1 were not much different then players when it came to how they approached combat and buildcraft; even to the point where the Doppleganger fight can be nigh impossible if your build is too good, and generally cheesed by putting flaws in the build you could intentionally exploit. The mobs verses players in GW2 is so night and day, that the few cases mobs have access to reasonably strong skills that mirror player skills, usually ends up with the player getting their kitten handed to them. That lead to a strong leaning toward unique skills for mobs, in order to build specific vulnerabilities into the fight that are more obvious for players to exploit. That one key difference is enough to change what we emphasize for combat efficiency; which in turn has massive influence on what does or doesn't work in the buildcraft.

>

 

Yeah but that has alot more to do with the skill bar u build rather than the stats u upgrade. The stats are the answer to how tough the content is scaled or not. Skills are the direct answer to their attacks/mechanics and things that can kitten you.

 

To some extend stats can deal with both but in general each is more effective against a specific thing.

 

 

Much like in Gw2 a mob might have a massive aoe attack with a break bar or a channel. U can either build for stats to deal with it but alot of the time the best method is using your abilities like u do in Gw.

[zealex.9410]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Keep in mind that the Runes in GW1 are very simplistic. Runes that offer attribute boosts do just that, they increase an attribute by 1, 2 or 3 points and that's it. The higher the increase, the higher the health penalty. Although it looks like there is "choice", in the end there aren't any builds (outside 55 Monks) that use more than one Superior Rune (the +3 Rune), and most builds do not use Superior Runes at all. The difference between +2 and +3 is very little, it more often depends on reaching a certain amount of damage or healing but in most cases it's not worth it. Which is why many Superior Runes have low values, lower than Major Runes, it's because they are useless in more than half the builds. And the other half is more specialized builds.

>

> More importantly, in GW2 runes offer way more than a +number to an attribute. They have on-hit abilities, boost at least 2 stats and the 6th bonus is usually a unique effect. The "drawback" of GW2 runes is that if you use less than 6, you don't get to use their full ability. In GW1 there is no such thing because Rune attribute bonuses do not stack.

>

> > Would be also cool if theres a quote why the devs didnt do any of these(that ik of) in gw2 or why they didnt further develope on them.

>

> The answer is rather simple: The Rune system of GW2 is way more complex than the simplistic GW1 version. They reworked the system completely so having those "drawbacks" isn't needed.

 

There are some exciting runes but idk u say that they give u alot more. 2 diff stats is like gw1 but in gw1 u get some of 1 stat but u lose some from another. U get unique effects but alot of them are normal numbers increases for meeting some criteria which can be found in gw1 as well.

 

In gw2 also the top choices are numeric increases for most if not for all cases which idk how is more complex really.

 

Also a big majority of runes in gw2 are usless but the ones that arent dont have compairing wins and losses and finding a good balance.

 

Theres builds that will go for 4-2 or some other combination of the 6 slots but thats alot more rare than choosing between hp and other stats which come with the prob all the class runes.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> Also a big majority of runes in gw2 are usless but the ones that arent dont have compairing wins and losses and finding a good balance.

 

The loss is the need to use 6 of them even though you might not like some of the bonuses. Even in situations where you use 4-2 you lose the extra abilities that having more of the same rune would give you. You are overthinking the health penalty of GW1 as if it's something important while in reality it's not. The vast majority of GW1 superior runes (those that drain your health) are also useless and you will struggle to find a build with more than 1 Major Rune. The most widely used and expensive Runes in GW1 are Vigor runes and various Insignia, Survivor and Radiant notably, that offer no penalties whatsoever. The health penalty doesn't make the Rune choice more important, it allows to have a difference between a +1, a +2 and a +3 Rune, otherwise everyone would be using the +3 Runes instead. Runes of GW2 work like the Insignia instead, you stack more of them, for extra benefit. And Insignia have no penalties.

[zealex.9410]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > Also a big majority of runes in gw2 are usless but the ones that arent dont have compairing wins and losses and finding a good balance.

>

> The loss is the need to use 6 of them even though you might not like some of the bonuses.

 

The +6 is just that good that carries tge other 5 runes, doesnt mater wether u like them or not. And if you use it that means thererent other better alternatives.

 

> Even in situations where you use 4-2 you lose the extra abilities that having more of the same rune would give you. You are overthinking the health penalty of GW1 as if it's something important while in reality it's not. The vast majority of GW1 superior runes (those that drain your health) are also useless and you will struggle to find a build with more than 1 Major Rune. The most widely used and expensive Runes in GW1 are Vigor runes and various Insignia, Survivor and Radiant notably, that offer no penalties whatsoever. The health penalty doesn't make the Rune choice more important, it allows to have a difference between a +1, a +2 and a +3 Rune, otherwise everyone would be using the +3 Runes instead. Runes of GW2 work like the Insignia instead, you stack more of them, for extra benefit. And Insignia have no penalties.

 

All the +1+2+3 rules remove you hp at least that what i saw. Runes and insignias are very diff and can be both equiped on your armor tho. Which in it of it self is more costumisation than gw2's system.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> All the +1+2+3 rules remove you hp at least that what i saw. Runes and insignias are very diff and can be both equiped on your armor tho. Which in it of it self is more costumisation than gw2's system.

 

Far more customization? GW2 armors can have loads of different stats (check here if you are interested: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Attribute_combinations) while GW1 armor doesn't offer any stat boosts. All the stats come from the Insignia and Runes (with some rare exceptions, like head items giving +1). GW2 has way more Armor customization than GW1.

 

+1 Runes do not remove any health which is why they are the most widely used and the most expensive Runes. Superior Runes (-75) lower more than double the health from Major Runes (-35) which is why they are generally not worth it, double the penalty for a +1. Superior Runes are only used in a tiny minority of builds that benefit from them. Yes, they exist as an option, but Nomad's stats exist as an option in GW2, but who uses those anyway.

[LucianDK.8615]

not everyone runs with x6 runes of a type. 4x Nightmare and 2x Trapper is a popular choice for condi builds to minmax duration.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

The tradeoff you talk about is not part of your gear. When you build for glasscannon, you (theoretically) have less defense. We know it doesn't work as intended as there are professions that can survive a lot as glass cannons, but that's beside the point.

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> not everyone runs with x6 runes of a type. 4x Nightmare and 2x Trapper is a popular choice for condi builds to minmax duration.

 

But thats a outlier, mostly boiling down to a mathematical quirk of duration over damage. The only reason its popular is because theres no full Rune set that offers similar DPS output. Just like Scholars is the go-to power damage rune for raids, because being over 90% HP is normal in that game mode, and theres no demand for additional precision stats. Just like some builds will run Renegade runes if they meet a certain threshold that causes % bonus to be larger then a flat bonus.

 

But that is a whole different issue with the meta, as neither of these (especially not trapper/nightmare) were intended to dominate the way they do. In fact, most rune power was meant to be weighted in their special features (the 4 and 6 for most), as the majority added additional mechanics that play into the buildcraft.