Curse

Shmanka · Jan 30, 2007, 02:31 PM // 14:31

Well, comments like this have been posted over multiple threads I have read and it seems to be routing down to a simple problem: Balance doesn't require more professions.

With the next chapter not too far ahead of us I am sure we can all relate to the moments when new chapters got released, and you threw every single gvg/ha strategy you have built over 6 months out the window. This in my opinion is the best positive side of introducing new professions, the completely easiest way to clear out and refresh a brand new metagame, yet I have more then just one problem to counter this.

Introducing more professions is more then ridiculous work for Anet that seems to have little benefit. Every campaign being released, more and more skills come for the existing professions, yet the newer professions are completely left out. The amount of skills obtainable by say, per warrior compared to a paragon are ridiculous. How can you have "balance" when there is a difference in choices based on profession numberically?

Skill updates and "nerfs" work in the same way to refresh a metagame, although with so much time invested into testing as we saw during the weekend event, that it infact, has downsides as well. People will not use certain professions/skills if something was touched off too badly.

What I proposed in another thread was to simply rotate the classes in the next expansions, remove 2 of the original 6 and replace them with the "newest" 4,
eg. Ranger, Mesmer, Monk, Necromancer, Ritualist, Assasin, Dervish, Paragon

This will give time and actual thought put into existing classes instead of "pumping more every 6 months."

With a total of 4 Professions every year, we are on a tight rope. Not only do I propose rotating classes I even propose having the games/expansions released every 7-8 months. This gives time for playtesting and balance, but does it give Anet enough funding?

Discuss.

Spellforge · Jan 30, 2007, 02:56 PM // 14:56

Part of me likes this , part of me doesn't. I can see the reasoning but I wouldn't enjoy this implementation. I have 4 Characters I play a lot. Warrior , Ranger , Monk and Necro.
The first 3 I have played all through all 3 campaigns , the last factions and nightfall only.
If a new campaign came out and I got no reward , therefore little incentive for 1 or 2 of these professions then I probably wouldn't run them through which would sadden me a bit as I am quite fond of the silly collection of polygons.
I liked the idea of the ritualist to begin with but never made one because the original plan was not to add to them in later campaigns (good idea that this didn't happen) But it caused me not to make one.
So I wouldn't agree with this idea.
Try this one instead - introduce new proffessions that are secondaries only - ie no primary attributes , no runes to increase attrbiutes.
This would add diversity but reduce the chances of imbalance.
Reduce the need for new armours (these new secondaries wouldn't need them)

For example
/summoner
summons some creatures - have say 3 attribute lines (no primary) have a few high energy summon spells and buffs for the summond creatures. No attribute would be greater than 12.
With no primary attrbutes you don't have to try to make them balanced , fit in and make sense

lyra_song · Jan 30, 2007, 03:17 PM // 15:17

I dont believe Anet introduces new professions for balance.

New professions are created so each game has something different and feels different.

New professions force tactics to change in each game, based on the enemy mob types you face (i tend to carry more enchantment removal in Elona for example).

If Anet wanted to balance the game completely, they'd stop making professions and skills and just tweak everything.

But that gets old really fast.

And lord knows theres some people who play this game with massively short attention spans.

=DNC=Trucker · Jan 30, 2007, 05:48 PM // 17:48

I just hate to see new professions become grinding attempts to add things you probably don't need

Warrior: Damage via physical melee attacking / high armor
Monk: Heal
Necro: Summon undead and curse enemy
Mesmer: Indirect - Enemy shutdown
Ele: Elementals!
Ranger: Ranged attacks, bow/trapping

New professions since originals:

Ritualist: Summon spirits/healing (same purpose as monk)
Assassin: Deadly physical attacks/lower armor (good addition imo, can't really compare to another class)
Dervish: Damage via physical melee attacking (same purpose as warrior)
Paragon: Spear attacks/support (basically a Ranger/Rt)

Please don't consider my definition of purpose to = same. I know the difference between a Ritualist and a Monk! However, they are both a means to an end: protect/heal your party. Ok, we have smiting and channeling for the "utility" attribute, ok ok. I am just talking about the main purpose here. When you are in a town asking for Monk, do you expect that monk to come in as a smiter? I seriously doubt it.

So, bringing in new professions is no doubt difficult to develop. What do you make these things do? More importantly, how do you characterize what they do so it makes sense in a game as such?

My suggestion? Exploit the primary attributes! Its the only way to /individualize/ each profession and make them more unique. Maybe add more primary attribute skills? Also, what about a skill in the Swordsmanship line that is only available to a primary Warrior? This way you can individualize a warrior class without having to sit around and think of a skill to put into the Strength attribute.

Vanquisher · Jan 30, 2007, 05:50 PM // 17:50

New professions are one of the reasons this game is so poorly balanced.

Hi Godmode and Paragons.

Winterclaw · Jan 30, 2007, 06:43 PM // 18:43

This is something I have been wondering about for a while. Eventually ANet will get too many new classes.

Earlier this month or last month I suggested that for chapter 5, none of the core starter classes be used, instead make it all the newer classes as that game's core professions. Another thing that could be done instead of adding new classes would be to add skill lines to older classes. One other way to solve this problem is have the next couple of chapters return to cantha and tyria and add the newer professions to both of those games.

Here's another reason why more classes are adding problems: armor. With every game, we are seeing fewer and fewer new sets of armor for each class. So in each game not only is each class getting less visual distinctions, but the newer classes aren't getting the wealth of choices. Consider this, in the first game, everyone had at least 4 elite armor options. In factions, the number was reduced to 3. In NF, sassis and rits only got two new armor choices while the others got 3 ascended armors: vabbian, ancient, and primeval. Consider this contrast: in factions rits got 12 armor types, in NF paragons got 7 types (neither counted obsidean). Factions "cheated" a little by having some of the proph armor for the core classes in it while NF failed to cheat (and it would have been really nice if those other designs were available).

One other problem of too many classes is UAS and UAX. It's getting more and more costly to keep up with the changes and for classes like warriors and els, most of the new skills were in one or two of the skill lines. That's getting too expensive for some people to keep one PC on top of the skills, much less all of them.

Winterclaw · Jan 30, 2007, 06:54 PM // 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

I dont believe Anet introduces new professions for balance.

New professions are created so each game has something different and feels different.

New professions force tactics to change in each game, based on the enemy mob types you face (i tend to carry more enchantment removal in Elona for example).

I agree with you about the why. However unless ANet increases its staff, the ability to add new classes and to continue to support the old ones is going to get more and more difficult for them. Also it's going to get harder for them to come up with new skill ideas and weapons to use in the future games.

I think there are ways fro anet to change the tactics in new games with the existing classes. For example give warriors and maybe dervishs a pole arm line of skills, give monks unarmed kung-fu skills, give assassins a line of skills that deals with dagger throwing, give mesmers a more or less direct damage line of skills, rits and rangers could get summons that act like pets, and give elementalists a new element or two (like light and darkness).

Quote:

there's some people who play this game with massively short attention spans.

What were we talking about again?

MagicWarrior · Jan 30, 2007, 07:14 PM // 19:14

I definitely would not want to see any professions removed. I like how every expansion adds more professions. Perhaps only one new profession per expansion might be better?

baddog992 · Jan 30, 2007, 07:19 PM // 19:19

I kinda of agree with the general points however its a selling point for GW that it has new classess, and to try and keep interest in the game high, if all you have is a new map and no new classess then your just talking about a expansion pack and then they would be forced to lower the asking price on the games they make, expansion packs sell for less dollars.

FoxBat · Jan 30, 2007, 07:22 PM // 19:22

Casual players (the majority) buy it to try out something new, hardcore pvpers are forced to buy it just to keep up. Seems win-win for Anet.

I also expect less to no support for asn/rit in chap 4.

Titan Chrae · Jan 30, 2007, 07:34 PM // 19:34

I look forward to trying the new classes for each campaign. This is one of the main enjoyments for me.

I can see, however, that as more and more classes are added the challenge for creating new skills and balancing existing skills becomes exponentially greater. The only solution I see is to hire more resources to carry on the business model (New chapter with two new professions every 6 months and no online fee.)

Can GW continue to grow it's player base to support more resources though? It seems to me that most of the players are return customers and the new costomer base needs to grow faster in order for this business model to succeed. Maybe we should get the word out to our friends and relatives about how great this game is!

Kelsey Cain · Jan 30, 2007, 07:37 PM // 19:37

Part of the problem is that the original core professions are too broad. I would be interested to hear whether, in hindsight, the developers feel they should have limited each profession.

For example an elementalist could quite easily be four seperate professions, ranger could be at least 3 (trapper/tracker, archer, beast master) etc

Perhaps in future they will look at expanding the current professions by adding 'specialist' classes derived from the exising core range (eg fire mage) which can access slightly more powerfull skills to balance the specialism.

lyra_song · Jan 30, 2007, 09:26 PM // 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelsey Cain

Part of the problem is that the original core professions are too broad. I would be interested to hear whether, in hindsight, the developers feel they should have limited each profession.

For example an elementalist could quite easily be four seperate professions, ranger could be at least 3 (trapper/tracker, archer, beast master) etc

Perhaps in future they will look at expanding the current professions by adding 'specialist' classes derived from the exising core range (eg fire mage) which can access slightly more powerfull skills to balance the specialism.

I feel that the broadness of the core professions is what makes the game good in the first place.

IIRC, Anet has made it clear that the expansion professions are specialists already.

The thing that Anet has to address is PvP with all the new classes and skills.
They need to apply LIMITATIONS to official tournaments, ie: ban some skills or skill combinations to prevent certain abuse without nerfing some skills to death. Maybe even create limited tournaments based on core skills alone.

For example.

Keep the Searing Flames + Glowing Gaze combo.

But if you enter HA, you can only have 1 elementalist in the party with those skills together on their bar.

yeah_hi · Jan 30, 2007, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Personally, I don't want to see more professions for a while (I'm not saying ever). I have enough to do as it is with 10 classes; both balance and originality issues concern me too.

I'd far rather forego new professions in the next chapter, and have the ability to create all of the existing 10 classes in it, and have new skills/armour available throughout the game for all 10.

My reason for this is: although I understand why, I was disappointed when I couldn't take an Assassin through pre-sear, and I was disappointed when I found that there were only 2 Elonian armours for my Rit (especially no endgame stuff).

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra song

They need to apply LIMITATIONS to official tournaments, ie: ban some skills or skill combinations to prevent certain abuse without nerfing some skills to death. Maybe even create limited tournaments based on core skills alone.

For example.

Keep the Searing Flames + Glowing Gaze combo.

But if you enter HA, you can only have 1 elementalist in the party with those skills together on their bar.

Although I can understand this, my opinion is that it would make the skill system too unwieldy. Banning skills and combinations seems to me to be a (potentially messy and confusing) workaround to the issue of balance, as opposed to a fix.

YMMV.

baddog992 · Jan 30, 2007, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Yes but then the broader problem is what skills to nerf? Do you nerf meteor shower because you think its overpowered? What about bleeding and/or poisin do you ban those, and they did lower the burning rate, Im not sure I like GW banning certain powers because some feel that its overpowered were do you draw the line at? Make it like rock,paper and siccors? I think your on a slipery slop when you ban certain powers in a match.

Bread Fan · Jan 30, 2007, 10:10 PM // 22:10

The biggest problem with new professions is that Anet has an inadequate testing team and they lack creativity.

NoChance · Jan 30, 2007, 10:57 PM // 22:57

I think Anet needs to phase skills and professions out. Sounds horrible, and it is, but I think it's the only way to keep GW expanding without becoming too big to balance.

If we are playing in a certain chapter, our skillsets should be restricted to the previous set of core skills (which would be collections of selected old skills from any chapter, and which would change every two years) plus the skills from the last three chapters.

this way the number of useable skills per chapter is more or less fixed...
allowing Anet huge flexibility in skill creation. This flexibility leads to more creativity in terms of skills, and in terms of making "theme" sets of skills...
which then keeps the game fresh.

As for professions, I think in terms of business, Anet must spit out new professions each chapter -- it's a big reason why people buy the game. This means that some of these professions will have to be phased out somehow. At best this would mean no new skills being developed for them.

Slirith · Jan 30, 2007, 11:08 PM // 23:08

sorry but no....new professions arent gonna go away....we need new classes to try, not just a new story. me for example, i dont play core professions cause they bore me to death. i like newness, not oldness like the core professions, even with new skills, they're still core and boring >.>. just my opinion lol

Grais · Jan 30, 2007, 11:25 PM // 23:25

Quote:

........ I even propose having the games/expansions released every 7-8 months. This gives time for playtesting and balance, but does it give Anet enough funding?

This is what I think ANet should think about seriously. Take a bit of time to fix PvP.
I PvP very little, I enjoy it when I do, just havent had a lot of opportunity in this regard.
Still I realise how important the PvP side of the game is. It is what will ultimatley sustain the franchise,and with 2 new classes every six months, with the backlog of problems they have allready piling up, they have to seriously think about putting the brakes on, and fixing the car before they travel much farther, lest we have a real overheat and blow a perfectley fine motor.
The idea NoChance presented sounds reasonable, something for Anet to think about.

Orinn · Jan 30, 2007, 11:55 PM // 23:55

I doubt that ANet plans on introducing 2 new professions each and every chapter. That's been said before, though. They may add new professions in a new chapter, they may not, but don't expect 2 new professions each chapter.

How much support should be given to non-core professions? That's an interesting question, as well as "how many skills should core professions have total?" My answer is that at some point, they need to stop adding new skills to the core professions. This doesn't mean, however, that they need to stop putting out expansions. What if chapter 4 didn't introduce any new skills for the core classes and had no new classes, but had new skills for the 4 non-core classes, and reused skills from Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall? It would reduce the need for balancing, as these skills already exist, it would lessen the impact of people "getting behind" because even if you don't have factions, you can cap a few elites that used to be factions-only.

Honestly, with all the skills already out there for the core classes, how many ever see use? Creating new skills is nice, but I'd personally rather see them rework and buff skills that are never used, then re-introduce the shiny new versions in a new chapter.