Showing Posts For JonPeters.5630:

Stat Combos

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Pro Tip: Crit Damage (aka Ferocity) can now be a primary stat if that opens up some suggestions.

Jon

[Merged][PvP][Warrior] Healing Signet is Too Powerful

in Profession Balance

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

I was simply stating that the problem is we are not going to address the issues that the passive sustain is creating until we make the active use have a place in combat so even if it is not THE PROBLEM, it is the blocking issue.

Jon

Hate to post and run

in Profession Balance

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Was just here for some discussion and thanks for that. My posting time is limited and does tend to come in bursts. I’m out of time for now, but I will be back again some day (like Frosty the snowman.) Also expect other designers to start jumping in sometime next week as well. Looks like this forum is off to a good start and thanks for all of the current constructive posts. Keep them coming and we can make this place a rare species. The elusive constructive balance forum. :P (crosses fingers)

Jon

[PvX] My blasts prioritize my combo fields

in Profession Balance

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Self Priority is very important because entire builds can and are usually made around own combo fields. Water Staff Elementalists, for example.

Time Based should be a second factor too, so that organized teams can coordenate their combo fields well. Meanwhile, as long as a Self Priority system, pugs shouldn’t screw you this way.

Another good thing about Self Priority, is that you have control over it. You can choose to delay your own combo fields if you wish to take advantage of your party’s fields.

All good points. Just want to make sure you guys do the exercise and think about the drawbacks of self priority. I just want you to do that to understand what we need to do with every decision we make because it will help you make more informed suggestions. Overall, I agree this seems like a big win, but in order to do something here we need to vet the entire decision and all edge cases, etc.

Jon

PvE Zerkers.

in Profession Balance

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Good to know you’re actively taking steps to punish good players.

In what way is shifting a meta away from a mindless DPS race “punishing good players”?

I suggest not arguing, because it just creates the impression that you want to get involved in a mindless discussion. Rather, just post your own thoughts on why the current Berserker heavy meta is in fact not rewarding for good players. That would be more constructive for this forum and for solving the problem. That being said, I appreciate your response. We are here reading and I am happy to read any and all criticism if it is actually concise, constructive, and courteous.

Totally did not mean to start all 3 words with c, but oh well.

Jon

[Merged][PvP][Warrior] Healing Signet is Too Powerful

in Profession Balance

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

The biggest problem is IMO is actually the active heal. If we reduce the passive without doing something to make the active useful, we are just creating a different problem. Truly the active on this skill right now is in the following place. When I see someone press it I think “No No No don’t do that!” We are discussion some options here so if you want this to be constructive give suggestions towards improving the active. Reducing the passive is easy to do but we will not do it without solving the other problem. Also we will not greatly reduce it because it is giving Warriors a sense of sturdiness that we want their profession to have. Without strong heals, Warriors feel too much like everyone else. Setting them apart with strong heals has been good for changing their playstyle feel, but we agree it needs some tweaks.

Jon

PvE Zerkers.

in Profession Balance

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

I replied to a similar thread with this as well. We are taking some steps towards shifting the meta in the near future. I suspect some concrete info will come out about this next week.

Jon

[PvE] Revising the "DPS Meta"

in Profession Balance

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

We are trying to take steps to address some of the dominance of Berserker/DPS players. More info next week, I think.

Jon

[PvX] My blasts prioritize my combo fields

in Profession Balance

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Very difficult subject here. I agree you want some form of understandable rules of which field will trigger, however I’m not certain that your own fields is the right one. I’m also not sure it is wrong, but I want to have a bunch of alternative discussion before we dedicate programmer time (which is what it would take) to address this issue.

I think a good exercise would be to list some possible systems and list the pros and cons of each.

i.e.

List Method
There is a personalized list where you get to pick the order that you care about.
Pro: You get to decide
Con: It is a pretty advanced decision that I never expect 90% of players to understand so it doesn’t solve the problem for the majority of the playerbase.
Con: Whatever you setup outside of a specific combat situation isn’t necessarily going to be the right thing once you get in combat. If instead there is a logic rule instead of a chosen one you can adapt your tactics to follow that rule and get the situational results you desire.
Con: Probably the most work of any of the currently proposed solutions without solving the problem for every user.

I think there are a few more pros/cons to this system as well but I think you get the idea.

Other ideas floating out there

  • Fixed Priority – Always the same priority for all players.
  • Time Based – The most recent or least recent field is what triggers.
  • Self Priority – Your own fields take priority (this would have to be a rule that stacks on top of another system.

Jon

[Engineer] Has anyone seen A.E.D?

in Profession Balance

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

There is some merit here. This skill had such a high risk/reward tradeoff that we knew it was possible that it had a chance to become too strong or not strong enough. I do think it is closer than you all think and I would be wary of increasing it. I think the key question is going to be where do you increase, which is a better discussion. Does it need a better baseline? Does it need a better reward heal? Longer buff duration? Faster cast time? Lower cooldown? Or maybe just gadgets need some good traits to empower it more?

Hopefully that helps direct this discussion a bit. Let’s keep this thread to this particular heal. If you have concerns about the effectiveness (in either direction) of other heals either start an individual thread for those that you are concerned about, or start a general thread but keep in mind that you will have to work hard to keep a general heal balance thread focused and productive.

Jon

Are there ever going to be utilities?

in Structured PvP

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Way to go, Jon…making me look bad!

Aww, don’t be such a grouch! Oh wait…

As for the new heals, I’m sure this will be good for some classes, but on my thief, I feel like I already have some of the best heals in the game. It’s going to be tough to add something that will appeal to me more than Withdraw or Hide in Shadows.

P.s. I’d rather see more Elites added than either heals or utilities.

Oh the new thief heal is going to mix some things up for sure!!!

Are there ever going to be utilities?

in Structured PvP

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Hey josh. I wrote my post before I saw yours.

Are there ever going to be utilities?

in Structured PvP

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

The reason we went with heal skills first is that we actually believe this is the highest impact area for build diversity.

1) it is a small pool to begin with so adding to it increases choice by a large %
2) it sees a lot of use
3) it heals you which is pretty important

As time goes on we will also introduce traits, utilities, elites, and potentially other stuff.

Jon

Enemy endurance bar

in Structured PvP

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Hi Jon!
I’ll have to agree with 5G;
It’s hilarious to talk about Clutter when minionmancers/spiritrangers/Phantasms mesmers see play. PETTING ZOO META!

It would not be clutter if you could only see the endurance bar of one guy that you have targeted. Still I would much rather see Casting bars; or both.

Could just watch and internalize the evade bar.

" He dodged, he dodged again, no more endurance. SPIKE NOW"

The problem with this is the fact that Energy Sigils exist, endurance levels are very transient and no, it’s not reliable information to count dodges or see the endurance bar atm until that’s changed.

Yeah this sums up a lot of what I was saying. The more we learn the more we can improve this aspect of the game. It is something we are very aware of but it won’t be solved overnight.

Enemy endurance bar

in Structured PvP

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

I’m not sure how you interpreted my saying clutter is currently ok? There are clearly clutter issues and the point I was making was that this is a place where we would potentially introduce more clutter. Given all of the clutter plus all the added lack of fidelity we would get into knowing an enemies endurance the information gained bang for the technical, UI and design buck is absolutely not worth it. The same could be said about our current effect clutter, but that problem a) already exists b) is harder to solve c) is being worked on and d) doesn’t excuse us making other similar mistakes.

Jon

Enemy endurance bar

in Structured PvP

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

I’m on vacation. I think it is today but don’t know when. Be patient.

Enemy endurance bar

in Structured PvP

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

In a attempt to make this discussion a bit less hostile because I’m not sure what is so contentious here I’ll chime in a bit with some of the game design reasoning for what we show.

1) Having a bunch of hidden stuff is generally bad. Being able to keep track of hidden stuff doesn’t really improve the skill cap of the game in a good way. It just creates a bunch of confusion for most players and a bunch of not fun management for those that can deal with it. I would rather their skill was being used in more controllable areas of the game that place skillful and fun demands on those players.

2) There is a cutoff for what we can show both from a UI standpoint and from a technical standpoint and from a design standpoint.

  • UI: We want a glance at an enemy to provide the most important information possible and not be full of clutter. You can see first hand (skill effects) how clutter can detract from a game and this was one area where I think we succeeded in keeping clutter down. If we show endurance, what else do we want to show and how slippery is that slope.
  • Technically: We want to limit the amount of information that your computer needs to have in order to play the game. This means that players with lower bandwidth can still play the game without requiring the server to relay too much information to them. The argument that I have more bandwidth and want to turn it is not going to work here because we build an environment and establish the minimum requirements to enter that environment and then it is our job to make sure not to design things that take away from the equitable nature of the game.
  • Design: Once you start considering these two elements design comes in and has to make judgement calls about what is important. We have to weigh all UI clutter and other screen clutter, not just health only vs health + endurance. We have to weigh all technical limitations not just the cost of sending endurance to each client but what things are necessary so that we can save up for showing things that absolutely are necessary. Now for endurance in particular we take into account things like how static something is. Health is pretty slow moving, relatively speaking to computer cycles and network packets sent. Endurance on the other hand is very transient. It can go from full to empty to full again in a few seconds based on differing factors that have already been mentioned in this thread. For example you might see someone at low endurance so you fire a spell knowing they can’t dodge, but before you finish casting they could weapon swap, refill half way and have a dodge available. This is going to cause players to make decisions based on it that are in actually lacking the full information that they need to really make that decision anyway.

Hopefully that gives you guys some insight into how stuff like this works. For endurance in particular these different factors led us to not report it and leave it off of the UI because we decided to make that trade off in order to make other design decisions. This stuff cascades very quickly and is a large part of the complexity that is the game design of a game as large as Guild Wars 2.

Jon

Changing Guardian Renewed Focus?

in Guardian

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Virtues are not balanced for PvE vs PvP vs WvW they are balanced for combat which is tuned for generally 1-5 combatants. Whethe or not they are effective in a given encounter depends on that encounter. Sometimes they are more useful as passive abilities and sometimes they are more useful as actives. Finally, they are not balanced against other skills specifically, they are balanced as the class mechanic of the Guardian profession which is an effective profession in nearly all if not all content.

Changing Guardian Renewed Focus?

in Guardian

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

This is absolutely working as intended. The game wide rule (minus a bug or two that we are working on) is that once a skill has given you any of the benefits, canceling or interrupting that skill puts it on full cooldown. The alternative, in this case especially, is to be able to make yourself invulnerable for 2 seconds, cancel and then recast 4 seconds later which would be very broken.

Jon

Then wouldn’t it be more beneficial to players to just get the virtues at the start of Renewed Focus instead and ride out the invulnerability duration.

It might, however that is not the only consideration when creating a skill. In this particular instance the idea of refreshing virtues is powerful and we want you as a player to commit to this instead of casting and canceling right away. It is also flavorful in that you meditate for a few seconds to renew your focus not he other way around.

Jon

Changing Guardian Renewed Focus?

in Guardian

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

This is absolutely working as intended. The game wide rule (minus a bug or two that we are working on) is that once a skill has given you any of the benefits, canceling or interrupting that skill puts it on full cooldown. The alternative, in this case especially, is to be able to make yourself invulnerable for 2 seconds, cancel and then recast 4 seconds later which would be very broken.

Jon

Dec. 10th Balance Preview - Updated Nov 6th.

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

First of all I just want to thank everyone for the passionate energy that was put into this thread. This was an experiment for us, but I will say that it was a very successful experiment and we hope to do it again. Not just sometime in the future but really for any large balance release when possible.

I want to remind you as well that there are a ton of reasons why we do or do not make adjustments based on feedback. A lot of it goes back to portions of the original post about what is good for the game, what we have time to change, and what we have time to test after it has been changed.

This was a very positive experience for us as developers and I hope that is what you all take away from it as well. There was a lot of great discussion in this thread as well as in the specific threads on profession, WvW, and PvP sub-forums. Even if it appeared to go unnoticed, it did not. I personally read every single post in all 11 of those threads, and I am quite certain that I am not the only developer working on balance who did so.

Many things that were discussed will see the light of day in some form in the future, even though the focus of these topics were about what is going to be seen for Dec 10th. Some big takeaways for the future. We want control builds and condition builds to have more of a place in high end PvE. We want all profession build diversity to continue to increase, which we will do through more trait and skill work. We want to continue to more clearly define the play styles of the professions. We want to make the combat in Guild Wars 2 better for every single person playing.

Thanks one more time for all of your great feedback here, for all of the thanks you gave us for trying this experiment, and for all of your patience as we work towards improving this game that we and you both already love.

I’m going to go ahead and close this post now. I will leave the profession sub forum ones open as I think they can still be a good positive place for discussion. Finally, I will leave you all with one more thing to keep you thinking about Dec 10th for a few more weeks.

What was posted here is everything we were able to talk about at the time, but there are a few other exciting things coming to that patch, but you will have to wait a little more to hear about those.

Jon

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Please respond to some of the more serious, well reasoned arguments concerning this change. There have been a dozen solid arguments as to why this is a bad idea, which take into consideration how S/D is forced to Spec and gear if it wants to remain effective, and also how thief was designed as part of the lowest Base HP pool in the game, with no way to block, go immune or psuedo-immune, no access to protection or stability.

When you make a statement like this, it is important to re-read the original post in general about how to give feedback. I appreciate the passion here, but literally this breaks every rule that I laid down.

How to give good feedback and what to expect.

  • Be constructive. If you think a change may cause issues, say why and give examples. Try not to argue with others – make your point and then accept that other people may have different points of view.
  • Be concise. Our time is limited and we can’t read walls of text because it will prevent us from having the time to read as many posts as possible. Bullet points or numbered lists are very easy for us to read!
  • Be specific. “I expect this change to accomplish A, but I think it will actually accomplish B”. The more specific you are, the better we are able to understand where you’re coming from, what type of content you play, and it helps us to understand the context for your feedback.
  • Be objective. Keep in mind that just because you may not like something, that doesn’t make it bad. Others may have differing opinions. They may play a different type of content, or they may play a different profession, so be objective and keep in mind – we have to balance the game for EVERYONE, not just you.
  • Be respectful. This goes for your fellow community members as well as for devs. Respect the ideas and opinions of others.
  • Be mindful of scope. These are the changes we are trying to get in for the Dec. 10th balance patch. That doesn’t leave us with time to rework entire classes, or redesign entire weapon sets with this update. Keep scope/work/time/resources in mind when you make your suggestions.
  • Be mindful of context. Power creep is something we’re trying to avoid. Sometimes a profession may not receive as many increases as other classes. A lot of times, this is because that class is already performing very well in the current state of the game. So keep the overall context/state of the game in mind when giving feedback.

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Infiltrator’s Return
The thing I have heard the second most discussion regarding. This is a big change to this skill, but we beleive it is a necessary one. In many cases this is not going to matter. There are only 2 situations where this is a truly impactful change.
1) It stops you from using this skill while stunned, which puts more burden on Sword/Dagger thieves saving their stun breakers. This is the kind of gameplay we want to encourage because it puts more risk in using a rewarding skill like Infiltrator’s Strike.
2) Mostly in PvP, this skill can no longer be used by S/D thieves to teleport stomp someone. This is actually the more impactful moment as it occurs more often, but I think it puts the burden on these players to run a second weapon set that can help them in these situations (OH pistol for instance.)

No, no, no, and no. The reason I absolutely am 100% against this change is the entire thief class is built around the idea that abilities are instant with no cast time with no cooldown (on weapon skills), because they are the only class with a resource pool for their abilities. Make it cost more initiative or give a debuff that slows down initiative gain. Reduce the damage, change the range, etc etc… I don’t care about that. What bothers me is the adding a cast time to a class who’s core mechanic is all about no cooldowns and being able to quickly maneuver around.

I’m not sure what you mean by instant, but this is currently the only instant weapon ability. We are not adding a HUGE cast time to this skill. This skill is going to have a 360 millisecond cast time. ~1/3 of a second.

Jon

With no access to stability (other than a 90 second elite) the ability to avoid the following hit if you had a good enough reaction time seemed like part of the design of the sword. It currently doesn’t break stuns anymore, just moves you (possibly) out of range. Would you be adversed to the idea of making the return in the 600-450 range instead of putting a cast time on it so that the immediate next (melee) hit can avoided while it does not completely remove pressure from you?

You can still avoid follow ups with this. 360 milliseconds is faster than almost any attack and certainly faster than almost all dangerous ones. The only loss here is using this while stunned and using it to teleport finish an opponent.

yep! so in sum you are basically removing the only usefulness of this ability and making it a gap closer, no one will hit that button again until it switches back to Infiltrator’s Strike.

Why not remove the shadow return all together? it would be just another Shadow Shot with a insignificant imob instead of the blind… It would be alot more usefull then the new (worse) shadow return.

It is currently for 3 initiative:

  • gap closer
  • 1s immob

for 2 more initiative:

  • escape when not stunned
  • remove 1 condition

With the new base regen that means you can gap close and immobilize and remove a condition every 5 seconds. Even if you spread that initiative over 4 skill slots that skill can be used every 20 seconds.

Jon

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

The only thing black powder can’t provide is protection against carpet bombing down targets.
Keeping in mind we can still teleport stomp, with shadow step, but we are still giving up a utility/actual stun break to do.

From what I understand, using IS requires using a utility anyways, or burning your Steal.

Yeah you burn your steal (35-20s cooldown) with it, instead of burning shadowstep (50-40s cooldown.)

Jon

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Great post, and yes we considered that, but its nice to get some good back and forth. The other drawback is that its PBAoE not ranged… Food for thought.

Wow that was fast. What timing. I’m impressed.

Since you’re here, I’ll leave a semi-relevant brain fart. Siphoning is lackluster and really hard to balance because of it’s simultaneous heal and damage. What about creating a Necro-unique condition that drains health into life force? It would fit into the sustain paradigm of the Blood tree, and create some DS/condition synergy as well. Obviously, not a suggestion for the coming patch, but it popped into my head about 3 minutes ago while reading the last couple pages of this thread and thought I’d throw it out and see if it catches.

We talked about a condition like that, but it blows out because we would want to balance it when you only had 1 target to apply it to, but if you epidemic it it now is hitting 6 targets and is wildly OP.

So just lock that skill out from working with epidemic? Like a stun or a daze.

How about 2 necros using this…

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Great post, and yes we considered that, but its nice to get some good back and forth. The other drawback is that its PBAoE not ranged… Food for thought.

Wow that was fast. What timing. I’m impressed.

Since you’re here, I’ll leave a semi-relevant brain fart. Siphoning is lackluster and really hard to balance because of it’s simultaneous heal and damage. What about creating a Necro-unique condition that drains health into life force? It would fit into the sustain paradigm of the Blood tree, and create some DS/condition synergy as well. Obviously, not a suggestion for the coming patch, but it popped into my head about 3 minutes ago while reading the last couple pages of this thread and thought I’d throw it out and see if it catches.

We talked about a condition like that, but it blows out because we would want to balance it when you only had 1 target to apply it to, but if you epidemic it it now is hitting 6 targets and is wildly OP.

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

We are going back and forth between 2s and 3s of weakness. 3s with full condi duration and with Near to Death trait is almost 65% uptime, which sortof scared us on an adept trait that gives AoE weakness. 2s works out to 42% uptime when maxed out which felt a little better. Still open to discussion so thanks,

Jon

Don’t forget the context of that uptime. To get it, we have to use DS on cooldown, which restricts our defense by a massive amount. Trading our ability to absorb bursts in exchange for weakness uptime that benefits the whole group actually sounds fairly fair. Since it’s only an adept level trait though, 2s would still be apropriate imo. It still lets us use DS to mitigate spikes, which is what it’s needed for. In reality, very few people will use the skill for it’s uptime. They’re going to hold their DS cooldown until it’s needed.

Similar complain about staff. The argument that MOB is one of the best abilities in the game relies on the assumption of a situation that almost never happens. To get the numbers you mentioned, you need to hit 5 enemys and 5 allies simulatneously, and the conditions need to stay for their full duration and not get pushed off. Having all of these things at the same time is so unlikely that it can be discounted completely. In actual use, MOB is a mediocre ability made strong only by it’s short cooldown and the lack of any other DPS options on that weapon. If you really want to go through with nerfing this, take a look at adjusting the autoattack damage or upping the damage of the other marks to compensate.

Great post, and yes we considered that, but its nice to get some good back and forth. The other drawback is that its PBAoE not ranged… Food for thought.

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Infiltrator’s Return
The thing I have heard the second most discussion regarding. This is a big change to this skill, but we beleive it is a necessary one. In many cases this is not going to matter. There are only 2 situations where this is a truly impactful change.
1) It stops you from using this skill while stunned, which puts more burden on Sword/Dagger thieves saving their stun breakers. This is the kind of gameplay we want to encourage because it puts more risk in using a rewarding skill like Infiltrator’s Strike.
2) Mostly in PvP, this skill can no longer be used by S/D thieves to teleport stomp someone. This is actually the more impactful moment as it occurs more often, but I think it puts the burden on these players to run a second weapon set that can help them in these situations (OH pistol for instance.)

No, no, no, and no. The reason I absolutely am 100% against this change is the entire thief class is built around the idea that abilities are instant with no cast time with no cooldown (on weapon skills), because they are the only class with a resource pool for their abilities. Make it cost more initiative or give a debuff that slows down initiative gain. Reduce the damage, change the range, etc etc… I don’t care about that. What bothers me is the adding a cast time to a class who’s core mechanic is all about no cooldowns and being able to quickly maneuver around.

I’m not sure what you mean by instant, but this is currently the only instant weapon ability. We are not adding a HUGE cast time to this skill. This skill is going to have a 360 millisecond cast time. ~1/3 of a second.

Jon

With no access to stability (other than a 90 second elite) the ability to avoid the following hit if you had a good enough reaction time seemed like part of the design of the sword. It currently doesn’t break stuns anymore, just moves you (possibly) out of range. Would you be adversed to the idea of making the return in the 600-450 range instead of putting a cast time on it so that the immediate next (melee) hit can avoided while it does not completely remove pressure from you?

You can still avoid follow ups with this. 360 milliseconds is faster than almost any attack and certainly faster than almost all dangerous ones. The only loss here is using this while stunned and using it to teleport finish an opponent.

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Even though we wont do it for Dec 10. I just wanted to throw out a wacky possible idea for Dhuumfire that we could discuss…

  • Life Blast has a 100% chance to cause Burning on hit (2 seconds long). 6 seconds ICD.

Obviously the #s are ballpark and not necessarily final. The % chance, duration, and ICD are all subject to change.

Jon

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

UPDATE

No longer swapping Flanking Strikes and Trickster because we felt it was taking away more build diversity than it was creating. We will revisit what to do with Trickster in the future.

Nooo, I was so happy to have Trickster at Adept ;_;. Why not changing it with Merciful Ambush or Instictual Response while buffing these traits? They are quite weak after all.

Yeah those are the kinds of ideas, but we don’t want to move flanking and don’t have time to buff something else right now. I will save these suggestions for when we do get to this.

Jon

posted my earlier comment while you make your note official-
It was a great idea maybe you have Long Reach/Uncatchable/merciful Ambush/Instinctual Response für switching,
oh plz it would be so more useful in Adept
hope

It will get there, just hang on because we want to get it right so after Dec 10…

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

The point is this thing is unbounded. You can be hit a bunch of times and it keeps stacking up the might. Maybe the duration is a bit low, but with no cooldown this is a good interesting trait.

You can be hit a bunch of times… while <25% HP.

I can’t speak for other Necros, but if I get hit “a bunch of times” while <25%, it doesn’t matter how many stacks of Might I get because I just died.

Like I said, it works while in DS.

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

I feel like the weakness is just a little bit too small. I feel like 3s base would be perfect. In PvP overall condition duration sits at 50% at max for weakness, which would give it a 45% uptime, assuming you used it on CD. But more realistically, it’d be used less often as the normal bleed burst rotation.

Otherwise, I think its a decent option, my only fear is that, like other on-entry skills, it ends up too weak because it “can” be spammed every 7s in one build.

We are going back and forth between 2s and 3s of weakness. 3s with full condi duration and with Near to Death trait is almost 65% uptime, which sortof scared us on an adept trait that gives AoE weakness. 2s works out to 42% uptime when maxed out which felt a little better. Still open to discussion so thanks,

Jon

But that build would have to be:

30/10/0/0/20 (+10) … in WvW … with duration food … and double duration weapons … and duration crystals …

I think you meant 30/20/0/0/20 which is generally accepted as one of the best condition builds, which is what you run this with, and also not including food, but only including condition duration runes. With food it actually goes to.

54% uptime @ 2s
82% uptime @ 3s

Jon

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Infiltrator’s Return
The thing I have heard the second most discussion regarding. This is a big change to this skill, but we beleive it is a necessary one. In many cases this is not going to matter. There are only 2 situations where this is a truly impactful change.
1) It stops you from using this skill while stunned, which puts more burden on Sword/Dagger thieves saving their stun breakers. This is the kind of gameplay we want to encourage because it puts more risk in using a rewarding skill like Infiltrator’s Strike.
2) Mostly in PvP, this skill can no longer be used by S/D thieves to teleport stomp someone. This is actually the more impactful moment as it occurs more often, but I think it puts the burden on these players to run a second weapon set that can help them in these situations (OH pistol for instance.)

No, no, no, and no. The reason I absolutely am 100% against this change is the entire thief class is built around the idea that abilities are instant with no cast time with no cooldown (on weapon skills), because they are the only class with a resource pool for their abilities. Make it cost more initiative or give a debuff that slows down initiative gain. Reduce the damage, change the range, etc etc… I don’t care about that. What bothers me is the adding a cast time to a class who’s core mechanic is all about no cooldowns and being able to quickly maneuver around.

I’m not sure what you mean by instant, but this is currently the only instant weapon ability. We are not adding a HUGE cast time to this skill. This skill is going to have a 360 millisecond cast time. ~1/3 of a second.

Jon

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

UPDATE

No longer swapping Flanking Strikes and Trickster because we felt it was taking away more build diversity than it was creating. We will revisit what to do with Trickster in the future.

Nooo, I was so happy to have Trickster at Adept ;_;. Why not changing it with Merciful Ambush or Instictual Response while buffing these traits? They are quite weak after all.

Yeah those are the kinds of ideas, but we don’t want to move flanking and don’t have time to buff something else right now. I will save these suggestions for when we do get to this.

Jon

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Siphoned Power description is wrong. What that trait does is give you Might for 5 seconds everytime you are struck when your health is below 25%. This includes going into DS at that point and then building up a bunch of might by getting attacked. I will get the text updated on that for sure.

Jon

And you feel 1 stack of might for 5 seconds.. while being in execute range is as useful as say +10% damage while target has a condition.. or even 2% to 8% damage increase based on how many conditions the target has? Or the newly improved Death GM minor.. 10% of toughness as bonus power(which for me will be 300 power.. nice!).

Is that the intended use for this trait? To actually want to remain at 25% HP and then perform a full deathshroud rotation while being hit to maybe add the burst from 8-10 extra might stacks? The power of this trait is so low, that the minor trait which adds might when casting Lifeblast probably doubles or triples its damage value.

The point is this thing is unbounded. You can be hit a bunch of times and it keeps stacking up the might. Maybe the duration is a bit low, but with no cooldown this is a good interesting trait.

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

I feel like the weakness is just a little bit too small. I feel like 3s base would be perfect. In PvP overall condition duration sits at 50% at max for weakness, which would give it a 45% uptime, assuming you used it on CD. But more realistically, it’d be used less often as the normal bleed burst rotation.

Otherwise, I think its a decent option, my only fear is that, like other on-entry skills, it ends up too weak because it “can” be spammed every 7s in one build.

We are going back and forth between 2s and 3s of weakness. 3s with full condi duration and with Near to Death trait is almost 65% uptime, which sortof scared us on an adept trait that gives AoE weakness. 2s works out to 42% uptime when maxed out which felt a little better. Still open to discussion so thanks,

Jon

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Siphoned Power description is wrong. What that trait does is give you Might for 5 seconds everytime you are struck when your health is below 25%. This includes going into DS at that point and then building up a bunch of might by getting attacked. I will get the text updated on that for sure.

Jon

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

UPDATE

No longer swapping Flanking Strikes and Trickster because we felt it was taking away more build diversity than it was creating. We will revisit what to do with Trickster in the future.

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

“all thief specs got massive buffs”. Yea, I guess a level 1 thief is now 25% stronger with any weapon.
Sword auto hits 3 targets. Pistol whip hits 3 targets 7 times plus initial strike.
Pistol shot with auto ricochet hits up to four targets. Unload with ricochet hits up to 15 targets.
Considering 100% crit rate on pistol whip/unload is not a problem at all, wan’t me to point out the loss?
Before (unload):
Base regen: 0.75/second
Average opportunist regen: (5(ricochets per unload average) plus 8 hits over)x4 = 52 crits in 7 seconds. 7.42 crits per second. 1-(1-0.3)^7.42 = 93% chance to get 1 initiative EVERY second.
Total regen: 0.75 plus 0.93*1= 1.68 initiative/second (average).
After (unload):
Base regen: 1/second
Opportunist: 0.2/second
Total regen: 1.2/second.
Summary: 30% nerf to P/P, the weakest thief spec.

Good point I hope jon will take a look at the math .

This is incorrect simply because Opportunist already had an ICD. Also a minor trait that gives even 1/2 of what you think it gave is not going to let us balance init regen for any non Opportunist specs.

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

AN UPDATE
Weakening Shroud. This trait now does a smaller version of Enfeebling Blood when entering Death Shroud. Bleeding (1 stack only; 6 seconds [10s with full condition duration spec]). Weakness (2s [3s with full condition duration spec]). No ICD.

Obviously this is a very big change so please discuss, and keep your discussion constructive, so that we can actually talk through the merits/downsides.

Jon

Dec. 10th Balance Preview - Updated Nov 6th.

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Ok some more incoming updates

THIEF

  • No longer swapping Flanking Strikes and Trickster because we felt it was taking away more build diversity than it was creating. We will revisit what to do with Trickster in the future.

NECROMANCER

  • Weakening Shroud. This trait now does a smaller version of Enfeebling Blood when entering Death Shroud. Bleeding (1 stack only; 6 seconds [10s with full condition duration spec]). Weakness (2s [3s with full condition duration spec]). No ICD.

Necro one in particular I would love some discussion on I’ll go post in the sub forums for each of these professions to allow some discussion on pros/cons.

Thanks,

Jon

Dec. 10th Balance Preview - Updated Nov 6th.

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

By the way I am currently in process of making some replies and discussion in the specific sub-forums where we are currently thinking about things so feel free to jump over there and join in. Also about to update the original post.

Dec 10th thief changes

in Thief

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Uncatchable is a good trait, and it was considered for moving up, but ultimately passed on for reasons that escape me right now.Jon

Suggestion – move it to major instead of flanking strikes, but increase the radius by 40.

And I am thrilled about the PW change… When do you estimate can tell us how will it look like? Because it was quite decent before the 15th of October patch (1s rounded stun meant you could hit with half of the flurry before the stun ran out in wvw). And it always was a great skill for PvE.

Noted. That is likely what we would have done. I would like to hear the opposing view of players who run this trait with only 10 points in trickery…

Jon

I happen to use uncatchable in adept in a p/p build with ricochet in master.

The build is currently 0 20 0 30 20 quad pistols (for quick pockets and quick recovery -> unload spam) 15 crit strikes was pretty mandatory so I took combo crit chance as well.

This was meant to be one of the boys up in the front lines where surviving relied a lot on signet of malice + ricochet and feline grace. You can’t “win” every encounter. There will always be oh crap moments where you have to run. Right now uncatchable is the only way my 4p build gets to run away. Cripple for the runners and body shot for the leapers/teletubies.

If you bring uncatchable up to master, then it competes with ricochet and ricochet > uncatchable. Ricochet + signet of malice turn unload into a significant heal skill (which is what lets me stay in the front lines)

Now it was suggested that ricochet could be moved to arms (swap with improvisation). I could get behind that since 3/5 p skills benefit from condition duration. Then unload could benefit from the power.

Thanks for the feedback Seetoo. If we did bring it up to master we would certainly buff it making it master worthy.

December 10th Ranger changes

in Ranger

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Summoned creature AI is a different can of worms that we aren’t opening for the same reason. Pets that delay F2 use isn’t some wait script we put into their skills it has to do with core AI behavior shared by all pets and creatures and how they decide tasks. Rewriting that has the risks of breaking millions of unknown things so we have up until now band aided the solution. It is something that needs addressing but won’t be addressed until we can kitten how and when we will test it.

As a former AAA PC game developer, I am mystified by the above.

My frost drake’s underwater F2 is instant, but the dry land F2 has a several-second delay — that makes no sense whatsoever. Underwater, I press F2, and the button works immediately; on dry land, clicking F2 does nothing initially, for 2-3 seconds.

Why the difference?

Since you asked so nicely. The underwater skill is an instant skill which doesn’t not require the AI to change it’s think state, as it can fire off during other actions. The land skill plumbs into our animation system which requires the drake to change it think state and execute a new order to the animation system. Both AI think state and animation can’t be running 100% of the time on every creature on the server for obvious reasons (it would create massive CPU usage and generate tons of skill lag) Animations are masked by client side blending, but the AI stuff has no way to be masked. We can make special cases for Ranger Pet F2, but doing so requires time and testing.

Can someone put this in layman’s terms?

Due to poor programming concepts pets have to actually contact the server and effectively ask for permission to run their F2 ability if any animations are involved in the ability. They then have to wait for the server to respond before they actually pull off the maneuver.

Being ignorant about how an online game must function does not make for good laymans terms. If we did not validate skill use on the server players could hack their clients to use skills without cooldown. I don’t think a lot of players would enjoy that.

That’s true, but the way your describing it doesn’t make any sense either. F2 should be an automatic block. It doesn’t matter what the pet is doing or trying to do. It should not need to reference some list, or work it’s way through a decision tree. As soon as the system sees F2 it should wipe the out whatever the pet was about to do, or what it planned to do next and immediately interpose it with the F2 command.

Just like when I’m in the middle of any action that isn’t a leap and I hit dodge. The system doesn’t have to figure out if I should finish doing what I was doing, or what animations to do, it stops everything and throws me in the proper direction running the dodge animation.

That’s how Pets should work. This also “should” not effect anything else because only Ranger pets even have an F2 to interpose it. It’s not like a Scale is suddenly going to have an F2 go off and interrupt its regen vomit, there is no F2 to go off.

Maybe it would be a tough change to throw this in now, but that’s why I said poor programming, this is something that should have been done as soon as F2 for Pets became a thing. The fact that it has never been addressed in any way is a poor programming decision.

Right but we are not going to get into the nitty gritty of server programming and how a giant online game needs to send packets back and forth to a multitude of clients and how it needs to handle dropped packets, and how it needs to handle different kinds of server hops, and how it needs to prioritize what it send/receive when the client bandwidth is overloaded. Let’s please leave any technical discussions out of this. This is a design discussion on potential ranger changes and I think if you look at the overall performance/uptime/etc of our server structure with or without some actual expertise you would have a hard time arguing that Guild Wars 2 is not one of the most technically sound massive online games to date.

December 10th Ranger changes

in Ranger

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

No because in order for the creatures to attack they are going to use animations. For example I’m not going to spit fire breath out of a drake without it using its fire spitting animation.

Add quickness to F2.

Quickness is not the problem. The problem is the server delay which would also have to wait for in order to get quickness applied.

December 10th Ranger changes

in Ranger

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Ah, Zen
I think he means Swoop would receive the invulnerability effect of an evasion for the duration of the existing animation, not that it would help you evade something by automatically moving you backward. Less like Lightning Reflexes, more like Mesmer Distortion.

Correct!

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

A number of times there have been balence discussion on the pvp forums which pertain to changes that effect both pvp and pve. When a pve point is brought up – such as an argument for a split – we are told to go back to the class subforum. With that in mind, I think this is the appropriate place to get dev feedback on the pve side of things.

How do the devs feel these changes will improve or weaken the state of necros in pve? (Read: dungeons and fractals, not open world). Would you consider splitting the weakening shroud change for pve as spoj suggested? What can we look forward to in future changes that will improve our ability to deal with massive spike damage and provide greater team utility?

Sure. I think all of these following changes are more or equally useful in PvE than PvP. with the last two being very PvE focused.

  • Curses VIII – Banshee’s Wail. Increase cooldown reduction from 15% to 20%.
  • Death 5 – Reanimator. Decreased cooldown from 30s to 15s.
  • Death 25 – Deadly Strength. Increased conversion from 5% to 10%.
  • Blood Magic 25 – Blood to Power. Decreased health threshold from 90% to 75%. Increase Power from 90 to 120.
  • Soul Reaping II. Vital Persistence. Increased reduction of life force drain from 25% to 50%.

Dec. 10th Balance Preview (Necromancer)

in Necromancer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

“Could you not combine Protection of the Horde with Flesh Of The Master?” -Scarran

We could but I think that would be a wildly OP Master trait…

Currently what is the difference in me spending 20 points in Death Magic and taking Flesh of the Master? Am I not receiving the same benefits? As I get Protection of the Horde as the minor trait at 15 points and I get Flesh of the Master 20 point major.

The difference would be that we would be adding a new 15 point minor as well that you would be getting for free that would have similar power to these. If we took any two major traits that had synergy and merged them they would be overpowered. No difference here.

December 10th Balance update

in Engineer

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Wow. Just wow.

“Oh most engineers take this trait. This limits build variety. Let’s make it harder to get”

How do you arrive at this instead of :

“Oh most engineers take this trait. Maybe the other traits are just really bad compared to it – we should balance things”

This is hopeless.

If all we do is take the worst traits and buff them, then every patch everything gets stronger and eventually the game is broken. The word balance literally means reaching an equilibrium which is in between two end points. This means that in order to reach it things must assuredly go up and down.

I would say this is not what you are accomplishing

I mean its clear that you guys are doing this “zero-sum” sort of balancing, but what you doing here doesn’t make sense.

If you buff a trait to compete with an already awesome trait, the player has to pick between the 2 traits and the strength of the overall engineer should be around equal assuming you can make those traits about even. It’s not like if you buff the trait they also add the power of that new trait; no they have to pick, its either or.

IP is probably the best trait in the adept tier. The other traits in adept are pretty insignificant. The master tier in explosives has strong traits.

Moving IP to master tier means I must pick inferior traits. This is not “zero-sum”, clearly this is negative; a nerf.

Agreed 100% you are taking the best adept trait in the explosives line where there aren’t any other great traits and moving it up to master tier where there are great traits, and justifying it by moving down accelerant packed turrets which is useless as turrets are basically in a really bad place right now. And as ostricheggs has already said you are only hurting fringe builds by doing this such as hybrid users who have limited access to burning. Bomb builds will just grab forceful explosives and IP in the master trait and lose nothing for it, further making people want to run it. So please do tell how this helps build diversity which was your reasoning for moving it in the first place?

For condition engineers we have left Shrapnel intact here as the alternative. For power engineers we have left Empowering Adrenaline intact here as the alternative. No need to argue that these traits are worse than IP, we know that, this is why IP was moved. The real question is why are these not Adept tier worthy, which we think they are…

December 10th Ranger changes

in Ranger

Posted by: JonPeters

JonPeters

Game Design Lead

Summoned creature AI is a different can of worms that we aren’t opening for the same reason. Pets that delay F2 use isn’t some wait script we put into their skills it has to do with core AI behavior shared by all pets and creatures and how they decide tasks. Rewriting that has the risks of breaking millions of unknown things so we have up until now band aided the solution. It is something that needs addressing but won’t be addressed until we can kitten how and when we will test it.

As a former AAA PC game developer, I am mystified by the above.

My frost drake’s underwater F2 is instant, but the dry land F2 has a several-second delay — that makes no sense whatsoever. Underwater, I press F2, and the button works immediately; on dry land, clicking F2 does nothing initially, for 2-3 seconds.

Why the difference?

Since you asked so nicely. The underwater skill is an instant skill which doesn’t not require the AI to change it’s think state, as it can fire off during other actions. The land skill plumbs into our animation system which requires the drake to change it think state and execute a new order to the animation system. Both AI think state and animation can’t be running 100% of the time on every creature on the server for obvious reasons (it would create massive CPU usage and generate tons of skill lag) Animations are masked by client side blending, but the AI stuff has no way to be masked. We can make special cases for Ranger Pet F2, but doing so requires time and testing.

Can someone put this in layman’s terms?

Due to poor programming concepts pets have to actually contact the server and effectively ask for permission to run their F2 ability if any animations are involved in the ability. They then have to wait for the server to respond before they actually pull off the maneuver.

Being ignorant about how an online game must function does not make for good laymans terms. If we did not validate skill use on the server players could hack their clients to use skills without cooldown. I don’t think a lot of players would enjoy that.