Obtena.7952 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice of flavour and playstyle is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than counting beans. Frankly, while it's not something most people would directly admit ... the fact that people tend to 'stick' with classes and complain about class performance is also an indicator that others tend towards diversity over balance as well. If they didn't they would just swap classes like it didn't matter to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted November 13, 2019 Author Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > As interesting as this discussion may be, why not come up with specific ways you feel professions can be improved to have more build diversity? It would probably be more productive, and interesting for the devs, if you came up with actual ideas, not just theories of X topic? Personally, the first thing i would do is change the trait system. The trait system in it's current state has many redundancies, and is formed with too many exclusive properties (IE: if a trait requires a certain utility to be useful, then if one decides to use different utilities, then the trait becomes useless) So i would start with a complete rework of traits, mainly with the purpose of making each and every trait useful in any situation. Accompanying this we can also solve the issue of invarience in the same stride, by introducing another dimension to the trait system, a scaling level system to each trait. so for example, let's take this trait "Written in Stone" from the elementalist traitlines...just a random trait i decided to pick on a class that i play often. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Written_in_Stone Signets gain reduced recharge and continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging. Recharge Reduced: 20% What i would do is add a leveling system, so lets say you are granted a total of 30 points to place into your traitlines, and each trait has 5 levels each. For every point you invest, the trait becomes stronger, and usually scales up, from single target to zerg level. Since you only have 30 points, you can only max out 2 of the traitlines, so you have to divide up these points in ways that appeal to you. >! So Level 1- >! Signets gain reduced recharge. >! Recharge Reduced: 20% >! >! So Level 2- >! Signets gain reduced recharge and continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging. >! Recharge Reduced: 20% >! >! So Level 3- >! Signets gain reduced recharge, continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging. >! Active Bonuses Apply to nearby Enemies. >! Recharge Reduced: 20% >! >! So Level 4- >! Signets gain reduced recharge, continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging. >! Active Bonuses Apply to nearby Enemies. Passive bonuses apply to nearby allies. >! Recharge Reduced: 20% >! >! So Level 5- >! Signets gain reduced recharge, and reduces the recharge of equipped signets on allies around you (Does not stack) >! Continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging. >! Passive bonuses apply to nearby allies. Active Bonuses Apply to nearby Enemies. >! Recharge Reduced: 20% So as you can see, each level progressively improves the capability of signets, and at the final level offers an additional dimension to the trait's interaction with other traits from other players. On top of this it makes elementalist specifically useful for provideing it's own signet effects to others, making this specific build configuration UNIQUE. These few changes alone allow for a hell of a lot more diversity. This is just an example in a vacuum. A more well-thought out example would take more time and energy to fully pan out the capabilities, interactions and tuning to determine how strong it can be, and tuning of other skills as well. So conceptually it is not impossible to design the game to have 100x more diversity just by simply addressing all the issues i pointed out throughout the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds because the variations still exist; THAT is diversity. Diversity says NOTHING about their relative performance. That's what balance is about. Diversity and Balance are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? > > The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. > > OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. > endgame is where diversity matters most, and that's where 99% of the complaints are being generated from. maybe you don't care how limited things are for endgame, but some do. i'm making direct replies to the op, so pay attention before you assume again... "Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity". No, they are not. They are part of build diversity. And balance is just as important of a factor, as are the mechanics (profession designs, cc system, stealth, player stats and a ton others) that govern combat, as build diversity. "If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...". Yes, in GW2, because Anet designed the game to not have meaningful roles or playstyles outside of damage roles. The team intentionally designed the game that way, so players are mentally stuck. In every other mmo game, that has classes, build diversity means offering various roles to play (tank, healer, non-heal support, cc, melee damage, ranged damage... and so on), but gw2 wanted to reinvent the wheel with "Damage, Control, Support" anti-trinity design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted November 13, 2019 Author Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > > > > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? > > > > The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > > > > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. > > > > OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. > > > > endgame is where diversity matters most, and that's where 99% of the complaints are being generated from. maybe you don't care how limited things are for endgame, but some do. > > i'm making direct replies to the op, so pay attention before you assume again... "Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity". No, they are not. They are part of build diversity. And balance is just as important of a factor, as are the mechanics (profession designs, cc system, stealth, player stats and a ton others) that govern combat, as build diversity. > > "If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...". Yes, in GW2, because Anet designed the game to not have meaningful roles or playstyles outside of damage roles. The team intentionally designed the game that way, so players are mentally stuck. In every other mmo game, that has classes, build diversity means offering various roles to play (tank, healer, non-heal support, cc, melee damage, ranged damage... and so on), but gw2 wanted to reinvent the wheel with "Damage, Control, Support" anti-trinity design. > > You should go back and read the spoiler tag under that comment. Roles have the opposite effect of diversity because roles aren’t scale invariant. If you pigeonhole a class to be a 1v1 damage dealer they won’t have diverse options in scales larger than 1v1. You can have a class that is a damage dealer that has variance in all scales, so long as that damage dealing scales from 1v1 to 5v5 to Zerg v zerg In the same vain, you still pigeon hole a class with this damage dealer role by excluding it from being able to support, tank etc...so no matter how you flip that coin, roles will always bottle neck a classes diversity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyKitty.6120 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds because the variations still exist; THAT is diversity. Diversity says NOTHING about their relative performance. That's what balance is about. Diversity and Balance are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. There's an insane diversity of builds that make sense but their prevalence in real gameplay, especially in high-end PVE and WvW, is abysmally low and thus the real diversity of builds being used becomes very narrow if there's huge differences in performance between competing builds. And thus, there might be great build diversity in theory, but in practise there's hardly any diversity if the balance in performance is bad. By balancing the relative performances between builds, more builds become considered a viable option for doing the things in demand and that leads to greater practical diversity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > > > > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? > > > > The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > > > > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. > > > > OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. > > > > endgame is where diversity matters most, and that's where 99% of the complaints are being generated from. maybe you don't care how limited things are for endgame, but some do. Again, do NOT equate diversity with balance. This is WRONG. We have LOTS of diversity. Do not assume that when I attempt to correct your understanding of the difference between balance and diversity that this means I don't care about options people want for endgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted November 13, 2019 Author Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"LadyKitty.6120" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds because the variations still exist; THAT is diversity. Diversity says NOTHING about their relative performance. That's what balance is about. Diversity and Balance are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > There's an insane diversity of builds that make sense but their prevalence in real gameplay, especially in high-end PVE and WvW, is abysmally low and thus the real diversity of builds being used becomes very narrow if there's huge differences in performance between competing builds. And thus, there might be great build diversity in theory, but in practise there's hardly any diversity if the balance in performance is bad. By balancing the relative performances between builds, more builds become considered a viable option for doing the things in demand and that leads to greater practical diversity. but that’s what me and obtena are saying. Diversity and balance are mutually exclusive entities, that have an effect on the other. But they are separate things. Balance leads to homogeneity, and diversity leads to heterogeneity. You can still have both, but only one of those options leads to both diversity and balance, which is the route of heterogeneity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"LadyKitty.6120" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds because the variations still exist; THAT is diversity. Diversity says NOTHING about their relative performance. That's what balance is about. Diversity and Balance are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > There's an insane diversity of builds that make sense but their prevalence in real gameplay, especially in high-end PVE and WvW, is abysmally low and thus the real diversity of builds being used becomes very narrow if there's huge differences in performance between competing builds. And thus, there might be great build diversity in theory, but in practise there's hardly any diversity if the balance in performance is bad. By balancing the relative performances between builds, more builds become considered a viable option for doing the things in demand and that leads to greater practical diversity. Yes I know this ... >< I understand what you mean by practical diversity ... but we have to be careful with our terms here. What you mean by practical diversity is not the same thing as the diversity that the OP and I are referring to. That differentiation is VERY important to understanding the OP's points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > > > > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > > > > > > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? > > > > > > The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > > > > > > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. > > > > > > OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. > > > > > > > endgame is where diversity matters most, and that's where 99% of the complaints are being generated from. maybe you don't care how limited things are for endgame, but some do. > > Again, do NOT equate diversity with balance. This is WRONG. We have LOTS of diversity. Do not assume that when I attempt to correct your understanding of the difference between balance and diversity that this means I don't care about options people want for endgame. > > I’m gonna make this easier on you to understand... This is the title “ The importance of Build Diversity and why it's more important than balance.” This is my reply... "Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity". No, they are not. They are part of build diversity. And balance is just as important of a factor, as are the mechanics (profession designs, cc system, stealth, player stats and a ton others) that govern combat, as build diversity.” You don’t need to make an attempt to correct my understanding, you need to realize I’m talking directly to the op and addressing specific statements. I don’t care what you are expecting me to post or not post. Understand now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 That doesn't make sense. The build pool is finite because of the finite number of combinations of things that make a build. if you add 'role' as a factor to segregate this finite pool of builds further, you still have the same number of builds. The diversity is reduced if encounters don't need those roles. I mean ... who hasn't been refused a team because someone already filled the role in the team that person was playing? Roles can be very restricting on diversity. We've ALL see this happen ... even in GW2. I didn't misunderstand you. I just don't agree with what you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God.2708 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 I'm not sure how role is cropping up into this discussion at all. Role is a descriptive term utilized by players to provide clarity to a builds purpose. It has nothing to do with balance or diversity, at least in GW2. There's no box you check that designates you as 'DPS' or 'Healer' which would factorize diversity. It occasionally gets utilized as a lens through which to view balance, but ultimately isn't a primary concern of Anets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > > > > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > > > > > > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? > > > > > > The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > > > > > > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. > > > > > > OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. > > > > > > > endgame is where diversity matters most, and that's where 99% of the complaints are being generated from. maybe you don't care how limited things are for endgame, but some do. > > > > i'm making direct replies to the op, so pay attention before you assume again... "Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity". No, they are not. They are part of build diversity. And balance is just as important of a factor, as are the mechanics (profession designs, cc system, stealth, player stats and a ton others) that govern combat, as build diversity. > > > > "If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...". Yes, in GW2, because Anet designed the game to not have meaningful roles or playstyles outside of damage roles. The team intentionally designed the game that way, so players are mentally stuck. In every other mmo game, that has classes, build diversity means offering various roles to play (tank, healer, non-heal support, cc, melee damage, ranged damage... and so on), but gw2 wanted to reinvent the wheel with "Damage, Control, Support" anti-trinity design. > > > > > > You should go back and read the spoiler tag under that comment. Roles have the opposite effect of diversity because roles aren’t scale invariant. If you pigeonhole a class to be a 1v1 damage dealer they won’t have diverse options in scales larger than 1v1. You can have a class that is a damage dealer that has variance in all scales, so long as that damage dealing scales from 1v1 to 5v5 to Zerg v zerg > > In the same vain, you still pigeon hole a class with this damage dealer role by excluding it from being able to support, tank etc...so no matter how you flip that coin, roles will always bottle neck a classes diversity. Optional roles to choose from, within each profession, that the devs have been trying to put in through elites, add to build diversity period. And balance is just as import factor as anything else, despite what you wrote in the title. I’ve made hundreds of threads about these topics, with actual suggestions on balance, roles, build diversity, weapons, skills, class mechanics... you name it. I’m fully aware of what you are trying to bring up, and you are wrong on a few fronts, hence my original statement to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted November 13, 2019 Author Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > > > > > > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? > > > > > > > > The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. > > > > > > > > OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. > > > > > > > > > > endgame is where diversity matters most, and that's where 99% of the complaints are being generated from. maybe you don't care how limited things are for endgame, but some do. > > > > > > i'm making direct replies to the op, so pay attention before you assume again... "Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity". No, they are not. They are part of build diversity. And balance is just as important of a factor, as are the mechanics (profession designs, cc system, stealth, player stats and a ton others) that govern combat, as build diversity. > > > > > > "If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...". Yes, in GW2, because Anet designed the game to not have meaningful roles or playstyles outside of damage roles. The team intentionally designed the game that way, so players are mentally stuck. In every other mmo game, that has classes, build diversity means offering various roles to play (tank, healer, non-heal support, cc, melee damage, ranged damage... and so on), but gw2 wanted to reinvent the wheel with "Damage, Control, Support" anti-trinity design. > > > > > > > > > > You should go back and read the spoiler tag under that comment. Roles have the opposite effect of diversity because roles aren’t scale invariant. If you pigeonhole a class to be a 1v1 damage dealer they won’t have diverse options in scales larger than 1v1. You can have a class that is a damage dealer that has variance in all scales, so long as that damage dealing scales from 1v1 to 5v5 to Zerg v zerg > > > > In the same vain, you still pigeon hole a class with this damage dealer role by excluding it from being able to support, tank etc...so no matter how you flip that coin, roles will always bottle neck a classes diversity. > > Optional roles to choose from, within each profession, that the devs have been trying to put in through elites, add to build diversity period. And balance is just as import factor as anything else, despite what you wrote in the title. > > I’ve made hundreds of threads about these topics, with actual suggestions on balance, roles, build diversity, weapons, skills, class mechanics... you name it. I’m fully aware of what you are trying to bring up, and you are wrong on a few fronts, hence my original statement to you. Your just misunderstanding the concept in its entirety. What increases diversity are options that allow players to adapt to more situations. The additional options that especs introduce increase diversity, but the roles those especs promote restrict them. Like obtena points out, if you were even remotely correct, we would have more diversity in WVW and other areas of the game but we don’t. So we have a “here we are now” moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jugglemonkey.8741 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 This thread reminds me about an argument I got into with a friend over the meaning of the word viable as used by the community. Viable, to me, is a measure of the ability of something to do a specific job. If condi build X can so the same job as condi build Y, and using either build results in a win, then both builds are viable. To him, a build being viable meant it was the _best possible tool_ for that job. There is truth in both of our positions. He is right in that we both acknowledge a problem the game has at the moment is that the best possible build for a role often so far outstrips it's competitors that it _becomes_ the only viable build. In group play, there is no support build that can match firebrand, there is no AoE boonstrip build that can match scourge etc, and if you try a comp that uses support classes other than firebrands you're probably going to get roflstomped by the other group. This leads players to insist on only the best because nothing else can actually compete, and that creates a meta where balance and build diversity are mutually exclusive; you're only balancing the best builds for a role against each other, and other builds get left by the wayside. The OP, if I understand him right, is saying that there needs to be more options for the same roles, so multiple support builds on other classes being able to do a firebrand's job equally as well as said firebrand. This build diversity certainly leads to a more interesting meta, if it's done right. This would work for PvE where the main things you need are damage, some ability to not die and to be able to remove break bars, but it's debatable whether you can achieve that in competitive environments when you have a class system where each class has inherent strengths. This might be a reason that MMO's tend to have poor PvP scenes in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted November 13, 2019 Author Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"God.2708" said: > I'm not sure how role is cropping up into this discussion at all. Role is a descriptive term utilized by players to provide clarity to a builds purpose. It has nothing to do with balance or diversity, at least in GW2. There's no box you check that designates you as 'DPS' or 'Healer' which would factorize diversity. It occasionally gets utilized as a lens through which to view balance, but ultimately isn't a primary concern of Anets. Roles came up earlier in this thread when a user pointed out a paradox arises if we nerf classes like FB and Scourge, that instead of increasing diversity and other classes rising up to fill the spot, more scourges will instead appear to fill the gap that scourge had left behind. I know it’s a long thread now, but i can’t spend my time repeating things that have already been discussed in the thread. For the sake of everyone reading, try and read through every post in its continuity so that context isn’t lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? > > > > > > > > > > The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. > > > > > > > > > > > > > endgame is where diversity matters most, and that's where 99% of the complaints are being generated from. maybe you don't care how limited things are for endgame, but some do. > > > > > > > > i'm making direct replies to the op, so pay attention before you assume again... "Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity". No, they are not. They are part of build diversity. And balance is just as important of a factor, as are the mechanics (profession designs, cc system, stealth, player stats and a ton others) that govern combat, as build diversity. > > > > > > > > "If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...". Yes, in GW2, because Anet designed the game to not have meaningful roles or playstyles outside of damage roles. The team intentionally designed the game that way, so players are mentally stuck. In every other mmo game, that has classes, build diversity means offering various roles to play (tank, healer, non-heal support, cc, melee damage, ranged damage... and so on), but gw2 wanted to reinvent the wheel with "Damage, Control, Support" anti-trinity design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should go back and read the spoiler tag under that comment. Roles have the opposite effect of diversity because roles aren’t scale invariant. If you pigeonhole a class to be a 1v1 damage dealer they won’t have diverse options in scales larger than 1v1. You can have a class that is a damage dealer that has variance in all scales, so long as that damage dealing scales from 1v1 to 5v5 to Zerg v zerg > > > > > > In the same vain, you still pigeon hole a class with this damage dealer role by excluding it from being able to support, tank etc...so no matter how you flip that coin, roles will always bottle neck a classes diversity. > > > > Optional roles to choose from, within each profession, that the devs have been trying to put in through elites, add to build diversity period. And balance is just as import factor as anything else, despite what you wrote in the title. > > > > I’ve made hundreds of threads about these topics, with actual suggestions on balance, roles, build diversity, weapons, skills, class mechanics... you name it. I’m fully aware of what you are trying to bring up, and you are wrong on a few fronts, hence my original statement to you. > > Your just misunderstanding the concept in its entirety. What increases diversity are options that allow players to adapt to more situations. The additional options that especs introduce increase diversity, but the roles those especs promote restrict them. > > Like obtena points out, if you were even remotely correct, we would have more diversity in WVW and other areas of the game but we don’t. So we have a “here we are now” moment. I’m not concerned with your concepts, I’m concerned with facts and solutions. I’m also not concerned about niggling over your definition of terms and how they are applied in an online game. “What increases diversity are options that allow players to adapt to more situations”... No kidding. That’s what elite specs, with their new weapons, new slot skills and new sets of traits, do. You don’t know what you are talking about with this statement... “ Like obtena points out, if you were even remotely correct, we would have more diversity in WVW and other areas of the game but we don’t.“. First off, I never made comments about GW2 having more diversity. In fact, I’m fully aware that GW2 doesn’t. GW1 had more roles, more builds and more skills to chose from than here. Anet went a different direction with GW2 and we have less of everything compared. And I’m fully aware of GW2 shortcomings, hence the hundreds of threads related to improving professions and combat, not just talking about what my definition of “words” are, and theories behind concepts. Again, you are wrong. Balance is just as important in the profession equation. And more optional roles available inside of professions adds to build diversity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted November 13, 2019 Author Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > endgame is where diversity matters most, and that's where 99% of the complaints are being generated from. maybe you don't care how limited things are for endgame, but some do. > > > > > > > > > > i'm making direct replies to the op, so pay attention before you assume again... "Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity". No, they are not. They are part of build diversity. And balance is just as important of a factor, as are the mechanics (profession designs, cc system, stealth, player stats and a ton others) that govern combat, as build diversity. > > > > > > > > > > "If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...". Yes, in GW2, because Anet designed the game to not have meaningful roles or playstyles outside of damage roles. The team intentionally designed the game that way, so players are mentally stuck. In every other mmo game, that has classes, build diversity means offering various roles to play (tank, healer, non-heal support, cc, melee damage, ranged damage... and so on), but gw2 wanted to reinvent the wheel with "Damage, Control, Support" anti-trinity design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should go back and read the spoiler tag under that comment. Roles have the opposite effect of diversity because roles aren’t scale invariant. If you pigeonhole a class to be a 1v1 damage dealer they won’t have diverse options in scales larger than 1v1. You can have a class that is a damage dealer that has variance in all scales, so long as that damage dealing scales from 1v1 to 5v5 to Zerg v zerg > > > > > > > > In the same vain, you still pigeon hole a class with this damage dealer role by excluding it from being able to support, tank etc...so no matter how you flip that coin, roles will always bottle neck a classes diversity. > > > > > > Optional roles to choose from, within each profession, that the devs have been trying to put in through elites, add to build diversity period. And balance is just as import factor as anything else, despite what you wrote in the title. > > > > > > I’ve made hundreds of threads about these topics, with actual suggestions on balance, roles, build diversity, weapons, skills, class mechanics... you name it. I’m fully aware of what you are trying to bring up, and you are wrong on a few fronts, hence my original statement to you. > > > > Your just misunderstanding the concept in its entirety. What increases diversity are options that allow players to adapt to more situations. The additional options that especs introduce increase diversity, but the roles those especs promote restrict them. > > > > Like obtena points out, if you were even remotely correct, we would have more diversity in WVW and other areas of the game but we don’t. So we have a “here we are now” moment. > > I’m not concerned with your concepts, I’m concerned with facts and solutions. I’m also not concerned about niggling over your definition of terms and how they are applied in an online game. > > “What increases diversity are options that allow players to adapt to more situations”... No kidding. That’s what elite specs, with their new weapons, new slot skills and new sets of traits, do. > > > You don’t know what you are talking about with this statement... “ Like obtena points out, if you were even remotely correct, we would have more diversity in WVW and other areas of the game but we don’t.“. First off, I never made comments about GW2 having more diversity. In fact, I’m fully aware that GW2 doesn’t. GW1 had more roles, more builds and more skills to chose from than here. Anet went a different direction with GW2 and we have less of everything compared. And I’m fully aware of GW2 shortcomings, hence the hundreds of threads related to improving professions and combat, not just talking about what my definition of “words” are, and theories behind concepts. > > Again, you are wrong. Balance is just as important in the profession equation. And more optional roles available inside of professions adds to build diversity. You just said in your previous comment that “roles increase diversity.” Now you say “I never said anything about gw2 having diversity.” This conversation is above your intellectual pay grade. Plenty of people here can at least keep up with the conversation without self contradicting them selves. Also, you aren’t stating any facts. The facts are that there is only 1 metagame. The burden is now on you to prove why balance would fix that, especially since there is historical precedent that balance has not been able to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we had less diversity when the game was launched as compared to now; over time we got more meaningful differences for class builds. It's not really illusionary ... the differences in elite specs are significant in most cases to core class because they do play differently. Even in core, there are options that result in meaningful diversity. It's no illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not the easiest argument to follow for many, but I think the OP is right on many points; I would rather play a game designed to favour diversity over balance. I guess that's primarily because as a player, choice is more valuable and meaningful to me to me than comparing numbers I get in a damage log. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you get to the end game phase of pvp, wvw and raids, then the choices of viability are very limited. We all know that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO, no ... your confusion is showing again. There are still lots builds. Diversity says NOTHING about their performance. That's what balance is about. They are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there are lots of poor builds and skills and traits and designs and roles in this game. What's the point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is this is diversity. Diversity isn't a measure of performance. It's a measure of variation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not digging into to 5 pages of the op's comments. I made a couple of comments on specific things and my points are correct. I don't care about the 50 other things that may have been mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK ... that's fine. It's just clear that you are drawing some relationship between balance and diversity ... you need to stop doing that because they are NOT the same thing and they are NOT related. That understanding is necessary to participate in the discussion meaningfully. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > endgame is where diversity matters most, and that's where 99% of the complaints are being generated from. maybe you don't care how limited things are for endgame, but some do. > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm making direct replies to the op, so pay attention before you assume again... "Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity". No, they are not. They are part of build diversity. And balance is just as important of a factor, as are the mechanics (profession designs, cc system, stealth, player stats and a ton others) that govern combat, as build diversity. > > > > > > > > > > > > "If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...". Yes, in GW2, because Anet designed the game to not have meaningful roles or playstyles outside of damage roles. The team intentionally designed the game that way, so players are mentally stuck. In every other mmo game, that has classes, build diversity means offering various roles to play (tank, healer, non-heal support, cc, melee damage, ranged damage... and so on), but gw2 wanted to reinvent the wheel with "Damage, Control, Support" anti-trinity design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should go back and read the spoiler tag under that comment. Roles have the opposite effect of diversity because roles aren’t scale invariant. If you pigeonhole a class to be a 1v1 damage dealer they won’t have diverse options in scales larger than 1v1. You can have a class that is a damage dealer that has variance in all scales, so long as that damage dealing scales from 1v1 to 5v5 to Zerg v zerg > > > > > > > > > > In the same vain, you still pigeon hole a class with this damage dealer role by excluding it from being able to support, tank etc...so no matter how you flip that coin, roles will always bottle neck a classes diversity. > > > > > > > > Optional roles to choose from, within each profession, that the devs have been trying to put in through elites, add to build diversity period. And balance is just as import factor as anything else, despite what you wrote in the title. > > > > > > > > I’ve made hundreds of threads about these topics, with actual suggestions on balance, roles, build diversity, weapons, skills, class mechanics... you name it. I’m fully aware of what you are trying to bring up, and you are wrong on a few fronts, hence my original statement to you. > > > > > > Your just misunderstanding the concept in its entirety. What increases diversity are options that allow players to adapt to more situations. The additional options that especs introduce increase diversity, but the roles those especs promote restrict them. > > > > > > Like obtena points out, if you were even remotely correct, we would have more diversity in WVW and other areas of the game but we don’t. So we have a “here we are now” moment. > > > > I’m not concerned with your concepts, I’m concerned with facts and solutions. I’m also not concerned about niggling over your definition of terms and how they are applied in an online game. > > > > “What increases diversity are options that allow players to adapt to more situations”... No kidding. That’s what elite specs, with their new weapons, new slot skills and new sets of traits, do. > > > > > > You don’t know what you are talking about with this statement... “ Like obtena points out, if you were even remotely correct, we would have more diversity in WVW and other areas of the game but we don’t.“. First off, I never made comments about GW2 having more diversity. In fact, I’m fully aware that GW2 doesn’t. GW1 had more roles, more builds and more skills to chose from than here. Anet went a different direction with GW2 and we have less of everything compared. And I’m fully aware of GW2 shortcomings, hence the hundreds of threads related to improving professions and combat, not just talking about what my definition of “words” are, and theories behind concepts. > > > > Again, you are wrong. Balance is just as important in the profession equation. And more optional roles available inside of professions adds to build diversity. > > You just said in your previous comment that “roles increase diversity.” Now you say “I never said anything about gw2 having diversity.” > > This conversation is above your intellectual pay grade. Plenty of people here can at least keep up with the conversation without self contradicting them selves. Also, you aren’t stating any facts. The facts are that there is only 1 metagame. The burden is now on you to prove why balance would fix that, especially since there is historical precedent that balance has not been able to fix it. > You should quote and make statements more accurately, not spin doctor my statements. This thread on the theory of concepts is pointless to the game and the devs. Nobody is going to read through this thesis paper. Post solutions to problems, not walls of text that don’t move this game forward or address issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God.2708 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"God.2708" said: > > I'm not sure how role is cropping up into this discussion at all. Role is a descriptive term utilized by players to provide clarity to a builds purpose. It has nothing to do with balance or diversity, at least in GW2. There's no box you check that designates you as 'DPS' or 'Healer' which would factorize diversity. It occasionally gets utilized as a lens through which to view balance, but ultimately isn't a primary concern of Anets. > > > Roles came up earlier in this thread when a user pointed out a paradox arises if we nerf classes like FB and Scourge, that instead of increasing diversity and other classes rising up to fill the spot, more scourges will instead appear to fill the gap that scourge had left behind. > > I know it’s a long thread now, but i can’t spend my time repeating things that have already been discussed in the thread. For the sake of everyone reading, try and read through every post in its continuity so that context isn’t lost. I mean yes, I see WHERE it came into the discussion. That doesn't answer my question of how. Perhaps I should have more explicitly used why. It has no bearing on the original topic because see my comment. There's no point in repeating it or utilizing it. Utilization of it should be re-directed. It muddles discussion. Elite specs didn't increase diversity because they added roles. They increased diversity because they flat out added more to the game. Some of those specializations are attempts to slot nicely into a role, but none of them are a button you check that requires you to be that role. Again: Role is a descriptive term to provide clarity for a builds purpose. Whether I say Healer vs DPS or Defensive Booner vs Offensive Booner vs Soft CCer vs Hard CCer vs Power damage vs Condi damage vs Green Number generator is irrelevant. It is the same number of 'builds', just labeled differently. You can say elite specializations introduced roles into the game, but all those roles existed before, elite specializations just resulted in a large balance improvement to healers. The giant condi damage overhaul introduced more diversity into the game, and you could say it introduced roles in the form of bringing about condi DPS. That doesn't change anything though, it's still just an identifier. Could just as easily say damage was buffed (and thus needed re-balancing as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted November 13, 2019 Author Share Posted November 13, 2019 > @"God.2708" said: > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > > @"God.2708" said: > > > I'm not sure how role is cropping up into this discussion at all. Role is a descriptive term utilized by players to provide clarity to a builds purpose. It has nothing to do with balance or diversity, at least in GW2. There's no box you check that designates you as 'DPS' or 'Healer' which would factorize diversity. It occasionally gets utilized as a lens through which to view balance, but ultimately isn't a primary concern of Anets. > > > > > > Roles came up earlier in this thread when a user pointed out a paradox arises if we nerf classes like FB and Scourge, that instead of increasing diversity and other classes rising up to fill the spot, more scourges will instead appear to fill the gap that scourge had left behind. > > > > I know it’s a long thread now, but i can’t spend my time repeating things that have already been discussed in the thread. For the sake of everyone reading, try and read through every post in its continuity so that context isn’t lost. > > I mean yes, I see WHERE it came into the discussion. That doesn't answer my question of how. Perhaps I should have more explicitly used why. It has no bearing on the original topic because see my comment. There's no point in repeating it or utilizing it. Utilization of it should be re-directed. It muddles discussion. > > Elite specs didn't increase diversity because they added roles. They increased diversity because they flat out added more to the game. Some of those specializations are attempts to slot nicely into a role, but none of them are a button you check that requires you to be that role. Again: Role is a descriptive term to provide clarity for a builds purpose. > > Whether I say Healer vs DPS or Defensive Booner vs Offensive Booner vs Soft CCer vs Hard CCer vs Power damage vs Condi damage vs Green Number generator is irrelevant. It is the same number of 'builds', just labeled differently. You can say elite specializations introduced roles into the game, but all those roles existed before, elite specializations just resulted in a large balance improvement to healers. The giant condi damage overhaul introduced more diversity into the game, and you could say it introduced roles in the form of bringing about condi DPS. That doesn't change anything though, it's still just an identifier. Could just as easily say damage was buffed (and thus needed re-balancing as well). Yes all these things were explicitly mentioned in the comments from the beginning where Nerah brought up the paradox. I even said exactly the same thing you just said to me, to swagger. Now roles wouldn't be a big deal if anet hadn’t explicitly designed the elite specialization with “roles” being the centerpiece. The so famously titled “Purity of Purpose” was an intentional design element when creating the specializations. Whether you liked it or not, the specs had roles built in...already predetermined things that you were fated to play. Rolling Druid? You are a support healer. Rolling Deadeye? You are a solo roamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycoprophet.8107 Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 Is balance is decent across all builds and classes more builds would be viable allowing for more build deversity no? Also having reworking traitline's to have more useful traits would open up diversity within the builds themselves cuz as of now almost ha f seem to have 0 synergy with anything and arnt worth taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now