Tiered Traits

[DrakeWurrum]

So it seems that, despite not being mentioned right-out in the blog they recently posted, tiered traits are in.

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comme...e_next/c4x43mi

There were a number of problems with the old system that we felt required a change. We believe this new system keeps the spirit of the old system, while actually working better in the long run. Here are the problems we believe this change solve:

1) Best builds were all 30,10,10,10,10. There was always a super strong trait in every line which made each player only put 10 points into that trait line and still gain a very powerful benefit. In the new system this will still be true, but it will be tempered because people will be giving up going 20 or 30 points into multiple lines. This has allowed us to shift traits around so that more of them get play at different levels, meaning they don’t all have to compete against each other at tier 1.

2) This system is so much easier to balance. It is not reasonable to make 12 equally useful traits, particularly given how some of them had niche effects. Making 12 equal traits is harder, takes longer and ultimately leads to some traits seeing a lot less use. Finally an important point is that balance creates more choice as well because unbalanced and bad builds aren’t really options. The old system created a very small subset of über-builds which stomped out a lot of the good builds along with the bad ones.

3) Opportunity Costs are what make interesting choices. Trait tiers allow us to split the traits. 6 allowed in slot 1, 10 (6 tier 1 and 4 tier 2) allowed in slot 2, and 12(6 tier 1, 4 tier 2 and 2 tier 3) allowed in slot 3. The final 2 tier 3 traits are "elite"-like, in the sense that you can only ever have one of them on your build at once. If I'm making a damage warrior I am going to put 30 points into strength, same as every other big damage warrior, but now those characters are all guaranteed to be split at least in half forcing you to not take one of the two exclusive final traits. Before, anytime a character went 30 points in a line they were taking the same 3 (maybe 3 out of 4) traits.

4) Option Shock. New players at level 20 were clicking on a trait line for the first time and seeing 12 options which was very overwhelming. This gives them a bit of a reprieve to pick between a smaller number of traits at first and then learn more as they have played their character more.

5) Putting 30 points into a line left you with a climax of picking the third most interesting trait which did not feel good. Players want to feel like that decision to go 30 is a big decision and that when they make it they get to make a big decision that simply could not happen in the old system. Now when you commit to 30 points you are rewarded with an important choice as well as options that you didn't previously have.

Finally, these are not the final balance numbers or often even the final traits/functionality and we will be iterating on this system as we move towards release. I know for certain there are already a number of changes I wish I could have made before this weekend, but they will have to wait until next time. If you had a really fun build before this change and it is lost now, post it in our beta forums and we can figure out how to make it viable. The intention here was not to remove fun, good builds but to create more viable builds that will increase the variety of characters in the game.

Jon P

Were there really THAT many 30/10/10/10/10 builds out there? I didn't see them. O_o

I can fully understand the 2nd point, and the 4th. I can somewhat understand the 3rd choice as well, but I felt like we already had opportunity costs with the old system.
But I fully disagree with the 1st and 5th choice as being accurate, or problems. Do we NEED that final choice to be such a big decision to feel good about it?

[Durzlla]

So it seems that, despite not being mentioned right-out in the blog they recently posted, tiered traits are in.

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comme...e_next/c4x43mi



Were there really THAT many 30/10/10/10/10 builds out there? I didn't see them. O_o

Oh trust me lol... the necromancer one i used was preeeeeeeeeeetty OP lol...

And on a side note i approve of this as long as the traits in the final one are more BA feeling then the other 2 ones, because if they aren't i feel like it'd fully defeat the purpose... and i doubt the 30/10/10/10/10 builds would become obsolete with this change either, they'd just have to change SLIGHTLY

NOW: Kinda off topic, the thing i REALLY am kinda sketchy about is the tiered skill system... i swear if i can't buy a few of the abilities i want just because they're in a higher tier and i have to buy a bunch of lame ones first... i will have to eat an asura and charr to quench my bloodlust...

@drakes ninja edit point: Nope, there was like 0 opportunity cost for a vast majority of my builds, i'd look at them and think 9/12 of the traits were kinda lame and throw them out instantly and then i'd struggle with the decision of whether or not i wanted to go 30/20/20, 30/10/10/10/10, 30/25/15 etc..

[Ynna]

Were there really THAT many 30/10/10/10/10 builds out there? I didn't see them. O_o

I can fully understand the 2nd point, and the 4th. I can somewhat understand the 3rd choice as well, but I felt like we already had opportunity costs with the old system.
But I fully disagree with the 1st and 5th choice as being accurate, or problems. Do we NEED that final choice to be such a big decision to feel good about it?

I didn't see many 30/10... builds, but I think it's safe to assume that Anet has better metrics on that, so the first reason is likely accurate.

The fifth is also somewhat true. Putting thirty points into one line is a rather big decision, the last point should count for more. (Not actually should, but I understand the reasoning.

I'm not against this implementation, provided the traits are interesting at every tier. I don't want the first options to be bland and easy, the second somewhat more interesting and the last choice a difficult choice between awesome traits.

[DrakeWurrum]

I didn't see many 30/10... builds, but I think it's safe to assume that Anet has better metrics on that, so the first reason is likely accurate.

Well that's why I responded to that comment asking where they saw it. I'd love to see more info on that. I could see it as being very rare for people to do it, but with those builds still being ridiculously OP, as that's how most OP things start out... but if the builds were rare and small things, I'm sure they could've found simple ways to tweak it without changing up the WHOLE system.

Will have to see how this plays out.

The fifth is also somewhat true. Putting thirty points into one line is a rather big decision, the last point should count for more. (Not actually should, but I understand the reasoning.

I understand the reasoning, but I don't agree with it. I don't think the final points spent in a trait line need to be more meaningful in order for going 30 points into a trait line to have meaning.

[rhandric]

Drake, I hate to say I told you so, but....

When you spread powerful traits over several lines, and let all traits be chosen as soon as you can get a trait in a line, it's easy to see how 30/10/10/10/10 builds happen and are OP. By putting stronger traits deeper (tiers), you force the player to make decisions and come up with interesting builds, rather than choosing a set of 7 traits that are OP because you can grab them all.

With the tiered system, yes you may be "forced" to take traits you otherwise wouldn't take, to reach traits you want, but that doesn't mean the traits you're taking are bad, in fact it opens up builds. I hate to bring WoW up, but I want to say it was Ghostcrawler who said (along the lines of), "<something about cookie cutter builds> but it's the extra points that make builds interesting." They give your build flavor rather than being the staple of the build.

[DrakeWurrum]

Ghostcrawler's designs haven't exactly been popular, and with good reason, you know. The result was that instead of allowing people to make choices between a bunch of good things, they moved to making required "choices" and then choosing between mediocre things, and then moved to telling us "This is what you get. Now choose these 6 nifty/fun toys."

[Durzlla]

Here's my necromancers trait build which had undead runes on all my gear with Malice + Vitality on all the actual pieces of gear, it was a great success on slaughtering people and getting out of downed state REALLY fast...

http://www.gw2tools.com/skills#n;pff...daa;cbYX;bUdYb

[rhandric]

I understand the reasoning, but I don't agree with it. I don't think the final points spent in a trait line need to be more meaningful in order for going 30 points into a trait line to have meaning.

It's mostly a matter of perception, but you shouldn't be able to choose the defining part of your build as soon as you're able to actually get a trait, or the concept of a build kinda loses its meaning.

[DrakeWurrum]

Drake, I hate to say I told you so, but....

When you spread powerful traits over several lines, and let all traits be chosen as soon as you can get a trait in a line, it's easy to see how 30/10/10/10/10 builds happen and are OP. By putting stronger traits deeper (tiers), you force the player to make decisions and come up with interesting builds, rather than choosing a set of 7 traits that are OP because you can grab them all.

Yeah, but I haven't been "told" at all. I've been told it's happened, rather than somebody showing examples. I've messed with builds like mad for months, and ain't been able to come up with any builds like that... and I sure as hell tried.

It's mostly a matter of perception, but you shouldn't be able to choose the defining part of your build as soon as you're able to actually get a trait, or the concept of a build kinda loses its meaning.

Can't agree with that. I could grab 3-4 builds from my list of builds for just about every single build concept out there, for all 8 professions, with each one working it in a different method. =\

[DrakeWurrum]

Progression through skills should result in the best rewards for the most committment to a line, not pick the best first and then go pick the best from each other line. This will promote actual decisions over "OMG that one spec if OP so everyone has it".

I didn't see it as picking the best from each other line, though. There wasn't a "best" in that sense with the trait system. O_o

[rhandric]

Ghostcrawler's designs haven't exactly been popular, and with good reason, you know. The result was that instead of allowing people to make choices between a bunch of good things, they moved to making required "choices" and then choosing between mediocre things, and then moved to telling us "This is what you get. Now choose these 6 nifty/fun toys."

Right, but my point with that quote, as unpopular as the implementation of the design was, the intent inherently has merit. It's fine if your build is similar to others by sharing a couple key traits, but the differences are what gives a build character. Think of it as a sandwich; the "required" traits are your bread and meat, the traits that you choose, that vary from player to player, meat and condiments.

---------- Post added 2012-06-06 at 03:45 PM ----------

I didn't see it as picking the best from each other line, though. There wasn't a "best" in that sense with the trait system. O_o

Ideally, yes, and a lot do have to do with your play style. However, it's not easy to balance 12 traits exactly evenly, let alone the 60 traits available to a player. And once there's an imbalance in the power of traits, players will flock to it.

[DrakeWurrum]

Right, but my point with that quote, as unpopular as the implementation of the design was, the intent inherently has merit. It's fine if your build is similar to others by sharing a couple key traits, but the differences are what gives a build character. Think of it as a sandwich; the "required" traits are your bread and meat, the traits that you choose, that vary from player to player, meat and condiments.

Take a look at LoL masteries, as an example. Just about everybody using a champion uses the same mastery tree at higher levels of play (and a lot of champions just use the same mastery pages), while their rune choices can actually vary fairly dramatically.

[Durzlla]

Well that's why I responded to that comment asking where they saw it. I'd love to see more info on that. I could see it as being very rare for people to do it, but with those builds still being ridiculously OP, as that's how most OP things start out... but if the builds were rare and small things, I'm sure they could've found simple ways to tweak it without changing up the WHOLE system.

Will have to see how this plays out.


I understand the reasoning, but I don't agree with it. I don't think the final points spent in a trait line need to be more meaningful in order for going 30 points into a trait line to have meaning.

I would rather putting 30 points into a trait line to be fairly significant and meaningful thing... the fact that you are devoting to that trait line is a fairly major thing...

@Rhandric, i'm not going to give Ghostcrawler credit for anything... that guy... just *facepalm* my god... a

[DrakeWurrum]

I would rather putting 30 points into a trait line to be fairly significant and meaningful thing... the fact that you are devoting to that trait line is a fairly major thing...

Define "meaningful" in this sense, though.

The devs seem to want all DPS Warriors to go 30 points into either Strength or into Arms, for example. Suddenly, every DPS Warrior is going some variant of 30/X or x/30/x or even 30/30/x. I see limited variety among DPS Warriors as a result. There will still be plenty of trait choices, sure, but it will be VERY quickly figured out which set of traits people speccing a certain way will be the most powerful in order to build towards the top tier choice they want.
This is what happened when GC decided that everybody needs to go X number of points into their primary tree before going elsewhere. Everybody started speccing the same way. The theory was fine behind it, but it didn't actually work in practice.

I just want to get away from the whole thing in WoW where you're not identified as a Warrior, but an Arms Warrior.
I don't want to be identified by which T3 major trait I have, so that I now must spec a certain way in order to be optimal with that major trait.

Obviously I should wait until we see it in practice, and if it gets to release see how it works at release, but I don't want to be restricted in my build choice. :S

[Durzlla]

Right, but my point with that quote, as unpopular as the implementation of the design was, the intent inherently has merit. It's fine if your build is similar to others by sharing a couple key traits, but the differences are what gives a build character. Think of it as a sandwich; the "required" traits are your bread and meat, the traits that you choose, that vary from player to player, meat and condiments.

In GW2 the "required" traits are the minor traits, you don't need to have major traits be "required" by any stretch of the imagination for GW2...

[Fencers]

I don't mind tiered traits. Honestly they are just talent trees turned sideways. No biggie.

Tiered skills is kinda irritating though. The game is so heavily PVP focus as is, I don't see the point of hammering it home by forcing me to choose a bunch of stuff I have no intention of using. :/

[Durzlla]

Define "meaningful" in this sense, though.

The devs seem to want all DPS Warriors to go 30 points into either Strength or into Arms, for example. Suddenly, every DPS Warrior is going some variant of 30/X or x/30/x or even 30/30/x. I see limited variety among DPS Warriors as a result. There will still be plenty of trait choices, sure, but it will be VERY quickly figured out which set of traits people speccing a certain way will be the most powerful in order to build towards the top tier choice they want.
This is what happened when GC decided that everybody needs to go X number of points into their primary tree before going elsewhere. Everybody started speccing the same way. The theory was fine behind it, but it didn't actually work in practice.

Um... i said ghost crawler was an idiot didn't I? If not, i'm sorry, he's an IDIOT... and i'm praying to all that is holy that by DPS warrior you are in fact referring to WoW, and not GW2..

And by what i was thinking as meaningful was something like say... I'm a beast master in GW2, so i'm going to rely on my pet and blah blah blah blah blah blah, so maybe my two 30 point traits are something around the lines of "Your pets provide additional benefits on their #1 skill" you know, to make it more pet emphasized and maybe a thing like "Your pet recieves an additional X% of stats from you, and you deal Y% more something or other based on your pet"

*shrugs* i just made those up on the top of my head and are probably OP/garbage idk, not putting much thought in making stuff up but i hope it gets the point across...

---------- Post added 2012-06-06 at 02:58 PM ----------

I don't mind tiered traits. Honestly they are just talent trees turned sideways. No biggie.

Tiered skills is kinda irritating though. The game is so heavily PVP focus as is, I don't see the point of hammering it home by forcing me to choose a bunch of stuff I have no intention of using. :/

Well in all fairness... it'll probably be a little better for some people and will kinda expand their horizons a bit, like for example, you get someone like me whose like "Lawlz anything that's not a spirit is lame!!" and then i am forced to buy a trap and start using it and decide "Omg.. traps are freaking amazing!! i'm going to entirely change my build now!"

In other words it kinda will make people sample their prof more and figure out how things actually play out with the prof instead of people just spending a ton of points on things that have cool descriptions and then end up disliking the actual playstyle of it.

[Glytch]

watch infusion of shadow be 30 point...

[Deleted]

Define "meaningful" in this sense, though.

The devs seem to want all DPS Warriors to go 30 points into either Strength or into Arms, for example. Suddenly, every DPS Warrior is going some variant of 30/X or x/30/x or even 30/30/x. I see limited variety among DPS Warriors as a result. There will still be plenty of trait choices, sure, but it will be VERY quickly figured out which set of traits people speccing a certain way will be the most powerful in order to build towards the top tier choice they want.
This is what happened when GC decided that everybody needs to go X number of points into their primary tree before going elsewhere. Everybody started speccing the same way. The theory was fine behind it, but it didn't actually work in practice.

I just want to get away from the whole thing in WoW where you're not identified as a Warrior, but an Arms Warrior.
I don't want to be identified by which T3 major trait I have, so that I now must spec a certain way in order to be optimal with that major trait.

Obviously I should wait until we see it in practice, and if it gets to release see how it works at release, but I don't want to be restricted in my build choice. :S

Well, at the very least, it's still an upgrade over WoW's MOP talent system. The system in GW2 still offers more choices. I'm not going to condemn it now, I'll see this weekend what I can build with this system. I don't agree with everything they said, but I can understand their reasoning on some points.

---------- Post added 2012-06-06 at 08:07 PM ----------

Tiered skills is kinda irritating though. The game is so heavily PVP focus as is, I don't see the point of hammering it home by forcing me to choose a bunch of stuff I have no intention of using. :/

Isn't everyting unlocked once you enter PvP? I can imagine that that hasn't changed.

[Fencers]

Well in all fairness... it'll probably be a little better for some people and will kinda expand their horizons a bit, like for example, you get someone like me whose like "Lawlz anything that's not a spirit is lame!!" and then i am forced to buy a trap and start using it and decide "Omg.. traps are freaking amazing!! i'm going to entirely change my build now!"

In other words it kinda will make people sample their prof more and figure out how things actually play out with the prof instead of people just spending a ton of points on things that have cool descriptions and then end up disliking the actual playstyle of it.

Sure. But why limit everyone to that? If I know how everything works I should be able to take 'this, that, the other thing and this thing' to suit my needs.