64 replies to this topic

[Levik Greywind]

Specilizations... Cro! We need an ele raid post expansion because I bet we'll be able to spec them even more!

[Holden McGroin]

The extra specializations has me worried for future balance

[Sorrows]

Depends if they take specializations out of PvE. They said it was all PvE progression, so depends on what kind of level playing field it will have in PvP.

[Slein Jinn]

Sorrows, on 25 January 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

Depends if they take specializations out of PvE. They said it was all PvE progression, so depends on what kind of level playing field it will have in PvP.

That was masteries.  It seemed pretty clear the specialisations are intended to be global.  From the rather imprecise way they described it, it sounds like they're basically doubling the number of classes not even including the new Revenants.  From their example of Rangers, you'll have a choice regarding whether to basically "evolve" your Ranger into a "Druid", which has a new weapon, new heal(s), new elite(s), etc.--for all intents and purposes, it sounds like "Ranger" and "Druid" will be two separate classes in practice if not in name.  I can't really think of a worse thing they could have put in an expansion, personally.

[Gudradain]

Don't see why it should inherantly be a bad thing that a ranger could specialize to be a druid.

It's just new stuff

[Slein Jinn]

Because 18? classes is way, way too many.

[Silvernis]

Slein may be veering towards melodramatic, but I do share his concerns to some extent. The more moving parts you add to a machine, the more likely it is that something (or many things) will break. I am cautiously excited about most of the stuff in the trailer, but I can't help worrying that new classes, weapons, traits, etc., could end up being more frustrating than fun.

Or maybe it could end up being awesome if ANet is careful. Who knows? We'll have to wait and see.

[Biff Rangoon]

It just makes Slein's spreadsheets more complicated.

I'm hopeful too, but I understand there could be some growing pains or anet may just get it wrong.

I'm personally hoping the new content will raise the skill ceiling for warriors somewhat. My growth with them has really been more fight tactics, movement and positioning that applies to all classes, rather than warrior specifically. I'd love a ceiling more akin to what elementalists or engineers have.

[Slein Jinn]

Biff Rangoon, on 26 January 2015 - 01:22 PM, said:

It just makes Slein's spreadsheets more complicated.

I'm hopeful too, but I understand there could be some growing pains or anet may just get it wrong.

Even if ANet "gets it right", 18 is just plain too many classes.  I know it's deeply engrained in modern American culture that you can make everything better by just giving people more "choice", but more choice genuinely is sometimes objectively worse.  Psychologically, people always say they want more choices, but there's a growing body of research that shows that adding more choices doesn't merely have diminishing returns, but it actually decreases satisfaction after a certain point.  There's an optimal amount of choice to offer, and I'm pretty confident 18 classes would be way past that point.  

But, of course, all that's irrelevant if they don't get it right, and I can't think of many examples of games with that many options that are remotely close to balanced.  Most games struggle to achieve balance with half that.  And I don't say that from a lack of faith in ANet--I've probably probably shown more confidence in their development team than most around here for sure up to this point--but there are simply limits to what any game company can do.  

Quote

I'm personally hoping the new content will raise the skill ceiling for warriors somewhat. My growth with them has really been more fight tactics, movement and positioning that applies to all classes, rather than warrior specifically. I'd love a ceiling more akin to what elementalists or engineers have.

I really don't think warriors have any less depth than Elementalists or Engineers.  There's a lot of nuance to warrior play at the high end.  Adrenaline management is a big thing, for one; do you use it offensively, do you save it for the condi clear, or do you sit on it for the healing?  Do you pop your shouts for the heals before you've used your Adrenaline and waste the Inspiring Shouts?  When you have a stack of condis to clear, which order do you use your condi clears to make sure you're converting the best ones to boons with the warhorn?  What do you do with your Combo Field: Fire after you've had to use it when you maybe didn't want to; do you weapon swap and leap through it for Fire Aura, or do you blast it for Might even though your target is out of range?  Do you pop Fear Me aggressively to maximise the healing/clondi clear/adrenaline you're getting from it, or do you save it to clutch interrupt a heal or burst?  Do you Shake It Off with no conditions on you for the stunbreak, or do you eat the stun so you can clear conditions later?  Do you use your Shouts and Warhorn early for personal survival to get them back off cooldown faster, or do you save them for when they'll make a bigger impact on team support?

Sure, there are builds with more or less depth for any class, but there is a ton of depth in the Warrior class.  I think it's pretty telling that you hear pretty much every class variously described as both "easy" and as "hard".  Some classes are definitely easier to be "decent" at than others, but being exceptional at any of them is roughly equally difficult.  If you're convinced you've skillcapped Warrior, by all means, come play Shoutbow with us in tPvP more.  Either will win a lot, or you'll uncover some depth you didn't realise was there--either way, sounds like a win-win to me.

[Gudradain]

I think that thinking about it as 18 classes might be the wrong mindset. When don't even know how it will be exactly. It could simply be adding something like a mastery that unlock a new trait line that "transform" your ranger into a druid by enabling him to use a staff.

Is there specific details out there yet?

[Biff Rangoon]

Slein Jinn, on 26 January 2015 - 03:36 PM, said:

I really don't think warriors have any less depth than Elementalists or Engineers.  There's a lot of nuance to warrior play at the high end....

I agree on the nuance point, but disagree on the complexity point. Elementalists have to make the same sorts of decisions you listed, but they do it with twice the number of equipped weapon skills that, when combined with traits, can lead to all sorts of interesting rotations and complexity. Engineers can do similar things through the use of kits.

I find thieves have the same level of complexity as warriors, though they're a bit more lethal at the high end. Mesmers have greater complexity and a higher ceiling and (perhaps) floor. I've no experience with rangers, necros, or guardians.

Don't get me wrong, I continue to main my warrior because I like it. I enjoy that I can continue to improve my skills by learning these nuances, and I love when I come across a warrior that's better than me so I can learn more things faster. But I can't help but feel this nuance mastery phase comes a lot sooner to the warrior than several other classes, and that means the ceiling is lower. Hence, why I'm hoping the upcoming changes to warriors adds to the class.

[UltraEM]

It's one new spec per class in the X-pac, and more specs will be added in the future. So, expect even more sub-classes.

[Slein Jinn]

I wouldn't really say that the extra skills available to Elementalists and Engineers add any real complexity when compared to classes like Warrior and Thief, because they're balanced by having less ready access to those skills.  Elementalists especially have some brutal cooldowns.  Eles also have pretty straightforward, monofunction utilities, and Engis sacrifice theirs for the kits in the first place.  I guess having more skills adds an illusion of complexity that might befuddle completely entry-level players, but even at the lower-middle tier of play, where players are thinking in terms of memorising and executing "rotations", Ele or Engi rotations aren't really any more complicated or difficult than Warrior rotations.  The whole idea of basing your play around memorising and executing rotations kinda fades away at the high end, anyway, though; offense is very opportunistic, and defense is very reactive.  

I read the map chat in Heart of the Mists a lot when I'm waiting for queues and whatnot.  Not that I put much stock in the opinions of random map chat trolls, but it is a bit telling that, when players ask for an "easy" build to play, they're overwhelmingly directed toward D/D Elementalist.  I wouldn't say they lack depth, either, but I will say I'd be hard pressed to come up with as lengthy a list of critical snap decisions for D/D ele as I just gave for Shoutbow warrior.  

Quote

But I can't help but feel this nuance mastery phase comes a lot sooner to the warrior than several other classes, and that means the ceiling is lower.

I would be inclined to reject your premise there, but regardless, your conclusion certainly doesn't follow from it.

[Bathory]

WTB Hell's Precipice and Thunderhead Keep missions. 100e obo

[Tatiena]

With regards to WvW, PCGamer had an interesting interview:

PCG: With most of the expansion it's easy to see how it's an extension of the game. With the new WvW borderland map you've announced, that sounds more integrated into an existing thing. How does that affect World vs. World overall?
Colin: Yeah, so the new borderland map joins the rotation with the borderlands we have today. I think it just expands the depth of the World vs. World experience. Currently, the borderland is replicated three times as a home for each world, and our new borderland will give us a chance to get a lot more variety in gameplay. As a map itself, the borderland map is the strongest interpretation of how we believe the World vs. World experience should be played. Every location really provides key strategic value to the world that holds it. I think when you consider World vs. World as kind of like playing a giant RTS, and you're one of the troops, you want to have holding locations provide strategic value. That's a big part of that component of building a giant strategy and fighting with your army.

Towers are located at chokepoints in the new borderland map, and have walls around them that guard those chokepoints, so holding a tower actually helps you control movement in the map. It helps you prevent enemy armies from making quick assaults on your keeps. There are shrines that you can take, and the more shrines you hold, the more abilities that become available to your world around your keep, so defending your home becomes easier the more shrines that you hold. It becomes more important to hold each of those strategic locations. We're going to take the philosophy that we've built into this map, and we're actually going to apply it broadly to World vs. World as well, to make holding and defending key locations a bigger part of World vs. World. We think some of the most fun experiences in World vs. World are when you have these battles that happen at these towers and keeps—these epic siege moments—and we really want to get more of that experience and make that more of an important part of winning in World vs. World.

[Rimmy1a]

Tatiena, on 28 January 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

to make holding and defending key locations a bigger part of World vs. World. We think some of the most fun experiences in World vs. World are when you have these battles that happen at these towers and keeps—these epic siege moments—and we really want to get more of that experience and make that more of an important part of winning in World vs. World.

Take note, people who think no white swords and uncontested flipping of objectives is a good thing!

[UltraEM]

I like that idea of using towers to hold chokepoints to prevent beelines for the keeps. It ensures that more areas of the map will be played in more often, and towers can no longer be ignored. Skilled attackers will have this meaningful advance throughout the map, and skilled defenders will be able to lock down their precious keeps. This also means that there is high potential for fights at every single objective., and those fights will not just be for fight's sake, but contribute to the PPT war as well. I hope I am right.

[Slein Jinn]

Slein Jinn, on 26 January 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:

That was masteries.  It seemed pretty clear the specialisations are intended to be global.  From the rather imprecise way they described it, it sounds like they're basically doubling the number of classes not even including the new Revenants.  From their example of Rangers, you'll have a choice regarding whether to basically "evolve" your Ranger into a "Druid", which has a new weapon, new heal(s), new elite(s), etc.--for all intents and purposes, it sounds like "Ranger" and "Druid" will be two separate classes in practice if not in name.  I can't really think of a worse thing they could have put in an expansion, personally.

Quote

Colin: We're really trying to make it feel like it's almost a sub-profession or a secondary profession if you will, and not just a new set of a couple of skills. It's not just opening up the capacity to use a staff. When a ranger becomes a druid, they have an entire new set of skills and traits that come available to them. And their profession mechanic changes as well. That's true with all the specialisations. You actually play the profession differently, not just in skills and traits, but in the core mechanics of those professions. Some of them will change an existing profession, some of them might give them entirely new profession abilities and remove other ones. It really varies specialisation to specialisation, but it really should feel like you are playing a new version of your old profession. And players can actually mix and match a little bit. If you are playing as a Druid you will be able to use a lot of the Ranger's skills, and you can actually slot them in to make a lot of creative builds. But a Ranger can not use any of the stuff a Druid has unless they become a Druid.

(Source)

So it will be exactly as bad as I expected.

[Hatfox]

UltraEM, on 29 January 2015 - 12:49 AM, said:

I like that idea of using towers to hold chokepoints

Just as long as the chokepoints aren't just a Necro funhouse of EotM-style fatal drops everywhere.

As for the class specialisations, I'm still hoping they're not a permanent switch if you choose to use them. I don't think it would be so bad if say, you could switch from druid back to regular ranger.

[Rimmy1a]

Hatfox, on 29 January 2015 - 06:42 PM, said:

Just as long as the chokepoints aren't just a Necro funhouse of EotM-style fatal drops everywhere.

You can't get feared out of a waterslides chute.