User talk:Guild Wars 3 perhaps

Hiya

If you'd be so kind as to create [[Feedback:User/Guild Wars 3 perhaps]], that'd be cool; doing otherwise could (well, well, eventually) result in deletion of any subpages of that page, which includes your suggestion. — Raine Valen 23:44, 14 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Head over to [[Feedback:Getting started]], and at Step two, enter your account name into the text box as is: Guild Wars 3 perhaps . Watch the capitalization, and it will work. G R E E N E R 01:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, Raine and Greener. I thought I had jumped through all of the necessary hoops to be able to make suggestions, but apparently not.--Guild Wars 3 perhaps 20:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would hazard that you did everything right, but after typing your name in at Step 2, you did a show-preview rather than a save. That would have allowed you to make the feedback suggestion without the root feedback page. On a side note, User:Guild Wars 3 perhaps is on the GW1 wiki. G R E E N E R 20:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking time to comment on a large number of suggestions by other contributors. In some ways, it's harder to give useful feedback than to create a new suggestion, so I especially appreciate it that you are gracious in your edits and that you make an effort to separate your personal preferences from notes about the viability of the ideas. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Squad Suggestion

This have already been implemented I believe? I just skimmed through your Squad idea, and they made a recent blog post on it: http://www.arena.net/blog/jordan-massey-on-the-role-of-the-squad-in-wvw

--Vipar 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, squads will be implemented in GW2. However - based on what I read in that recent blog post - they do not have the option of including parties as part of a squad. My suggestion speaks to allowing not just individual players but whole parties to join a squad and remain a party within that squad. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 04:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that's true, however what would you accomplish with this? The chain of command would just be more entangled. Why not just make your own squad, then (if you got the book to do so) and get your friends to join that? --Vipar 12:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the squad blog, the manual that grants the right to form squads will cost "a substantial sum of gold". Not every one who may be looking to join a squad will have earned enough gold to purchase a manual.

Then there are those players who - though they may have the gold - have no interest in being Squad Commanders. They may want to join a squad and they may even want to be in charge of a smaller party of players within that squad, but they don't want the full responsibility that comes with being a Squad Commander.

As far as the chain of command becoming more entangled, that's up to the individual players. There will be some players who prefer having a hierarchical command structure and find that it actually makes things less complicated rather than more so. For example, let's say there's a free-form squad of 30 players; no command structure whatsoever. The Squad Commander issues an order to attack a certain point. However, there are also assets which require defense and there remains the need to still gather resources while attacking and defending.

If the Squad Commander states, "Attack point X" what happens? Either:

(a) mass confusion as squad members try to figure out among themselves which of them should go attack point X, who should remain behind to defend point Y, who should continue in their gathering duties, etc. (remember, Squad Chat is one-to-many; they can't directly ask the Squad Commander for clarification via Squad Chat). This wastes precious time as the window of opportunity for attacking point X under optimum conditions closes.

or

(b) all of the squad members drop what they're doing and rush to attack point X, leaving point Y undefended and the resources ungathered. This is akin to Jade Quarry when someone shouts out in team chat to rush to the defense of a particular quarry that is under attack. The smart strategy is 2 or 3 players should go aid in the quarry's defense while everyone else stands their ground to continue defending whatever quarry they're already at. This way the already-captured quarries aren't left undefended and easily capped by the enemy.

But is this what happens? Most of the time, no. Instead, 6 or 7 players descend on the contested quarry to defend it, but at the expense of losing the other quarries because they abandoned them. All because there is no hierarchical command structure and no division of labor/assigning of specific roles to team members; it's a free-for-all. I would argue that such an approach in WvW will cost your side the match when facing an enemy with superior organization and some sort of command structure.

One solution is for the Squad Commander to scroll through his or her list of squad members and issue personal orders one-by-one in Squad Chat of who is to do what (e.g."Player A, Player B, and Player C go attack point X. Player D, Player E, Player F defend point Y. Player G, Player H, Player I continue gathering resources.") But that is a huge waste of time and imposes a significant burden on the Squad Commander as a micro-manager rather than playing the game.

How much easier it would be to have parties formed within a squad who are given specific tasks which are associated with the Squad Commander's map markers. After these roles are initially assigned, the Squad Commander doesn't even have to issue orders in Squad Chat any longer for the most common of tasks. All he or she has to do is place a map marker and the party assigned to perform the task that marker represents gets to work without wasting precious time chatting about it. For example, an assault party's leader will know to keep an eye on the attack map marker. Wherever the Squad Commander places that marker, that party leader knows that's the equivalent of a Squad Chat command to head to that point and attack whatever is located there; but it's much faster and more efficient to simply follow the marker.

Also, by delegating the work to sub-commanders (i.e. party leaders), this frees the Squad Commander from being forced to micro-manage their squad. If every time a Squad Commander wants to get something done he or she has to spend a minute or two explaining strategy and issuing specific tactical commands in Squad Chat, that narrowing of focus cripples their ability to step back, observe the entire theatre of war, and formulate appropriate strategies. It would be the equivalent of expecting a 4-star general to fight in a trench on the frontline; an inappropriate position to put them in. Not because a general shouldn't be a capable soldier, but because it's a waste of their talent as a supreme strategist who requires that eagle eye view and insulation from the micro-managing of tactical details to fully realize their abilities.

Lastly, nothing about my suggestion is meant to take away from the ability to form squads in which there is no hierarchical command structure. For those who want to form a squad in which there is one Squad Commander, no parties, and a large pool of squad members who have no specific tasks assigned to them by default, there's nothing preventing that from happening. My suggestion simply adds the ability to form parties within squads and/or parties to join squads and remain a party after joining. Simple as that. If Squad Commanders and party leaders then want to leverage this to their advantage by using it to create a hierarchical command structure within their squad, that's entirely up to them; there's nothing forcing them to do so.

I see what you saying, but I think the whole Micro-management part is intended. It's like playing Starcraft 2, difference being guiding players, rather than computers :P --Vipar 22:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've played Starcraft but not Starcraft 2. Though it's been many years, if memory serves, even in Starcraft a player had the option to group their units into parties/squads/platoons/whatever. At the very least, the player could mouse click-and-drag a bounding box around a group of units and assign an order which all of them would follow simultaneously. This lead to the formation of groups of units with specialized tasks based on their abilities; attack, defense, resource generation, etc.

So if anything, the Starcraft example reinforces my argument that allowing some form of similar organization within GW2's squads would be of benefit. Especially when you consider a Squad Commander won't have access to the kind of grouping tools available to a Starcraft player. The Squad Commander is dealing with real players rather than computer-controlled units. As such, he or she has no true direct manipulation of those players on the field of battle; they must rely entirely on the other squad members' willingness to follow orders. This leads to even less control on the part of the Squad Commander. But if every order has to be issued to each Squad Member individually (due to a lack of unit grouping controls) along with some strategic justification for that action (because you're dealing with real people rather than mindless computer-controlled units), that's going to take forever to get anything done.

That, or the players in the squad will eventually just ignore the Squad Commander because the process detailed above is so slow that it can't react fast enough to what's happening in real time on the field of battle. By the time the Squad Commander has finished issuing orders to 30 squad members based on a particular strategy, the course of combat will have changed to render that strategy obsolete. No leader in any competent military is ever expected to issue orders individually to every soldier in their command. That's why hierarchical command structures exist; because they're fast, they're efficient, and they work.

Conversely, if a Squad Commander has some reliable party leaders under his or her command, then the effort of issuing orders and implementing tactics can be delegated. This frees the Squad Commander to concentrate on high-level strategy; which from my reading of the blog is the role the Squad Commander is supposed to fill. But they won't be able to do that if they have 30 people under their command and have to not only formulate strategies but also plan tactics and then issue individual orders to every one of those players.

Keep in mind I'm not suggesting that party formation within a squad is a requirement; only an option. If a Squad Commander prefers to micro-manage their squad, more power to 'em. But for those players who would prefer to have a chain of command in their squad, the simple addition of permitting parties to exist within a squad addresses that need. It's then up to the Squad Commander and party leaders to figure out how to make that work for them. But at least the option exits rather than forcing players into a play style that may not suit them. I thought that was something GW2 was attempting to eliminate. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I havn't read it yet

But serious for this edit. A F K When Needed 23:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, AFK :) Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. You and Konig have been a great help. Teddy Dan 07:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to you, as well, Teddy. I read both your and Konig's Engineer posts with great interest. Unfortunate that the mods chose to engage in a bit of selective editing in that discussion thread rather than step back a bit, see the big picture, and realize what a passionate and useful debate had been stirred by this topic. But to their credit they didn't delete the threads and I appreciate them keeping them intact, even if they were moved off the main discussion page. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 19:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs some polishing, but I think it can work

→ moved from Talk:Engineer

I do see the points being made by those who don't care for this latest class. But to be fair, it's too early to properly evaluate how this class will fit into the larger GW2 world. However, I think it can work. Here are a few thoughts:

It breaks with traditional fantasy/swords and sorcery/RPG settings

Yes, this is a valid point. But equally valid is the fact that ArenaNet has already thrown down the gauntlet to challenge such preconceptions. GW2 is NOT GW1 redone with better graphics. It is a chronological successor set 250 years into the future of the present GW1 world. How many games do that as compared to simply rehashing the same theme for one, two, or sixteen sequels? I applaud them on being bold enough to do so.

Though I grant you from our own history that long periods of time can pass with very little technological evolution (the Middle Ages from the fall of the Roman Empire to the beginning of the Renaissance, for example) that is not where we're at in GW2. We're at a period following the elimination of multiple threats to Tyria (the end of the Guild Wars, the Lich, the Titans, the White Mantle, the Mursaat, the Shiverpeak Dwarves, Shiro, Nightfall/Abaddon, the Destroyers), relative peace reigns or at least the ending of active hostilities between old enemies (Charr and Human), and multiple races and cultures that had previously been segregated from one another (Asura in their subterranean homes, the Norn in their frozen wastes) or did not even exist (the Sylvari) have been brought together in close proximity.

All of those factors contribute to a much more active exchange of information and ideas as well as pressures encountered as these disparate races and cultures bump up against one another's borders. This in turn leads to advances in technology. Throw in the relatively recent threat of the awakening dragons and that serves to even further jumpstart the Guild Wars Renaissance. This is not Middle Ages Guild Wars circa 1350 - 1450 AD, this is Renaissance/Pre-Industrial Revolution Guild Wars circa 1600 - 1700 AD. That may not sit well with those among the fan base who want their swords and sorcery firmly set in an historical context that approximates Middle Ages Europe, but that's the path the developers have chosen. Consequently, the Engineer class fits within this historical context just fine.

It doesn't fit within the context of the technology of the time

Right you are; that is, if you were asleep all through history class. Technology is not purely linear and homogenous across all cultures and in all places simultaneously. Look at our own world. While the Egyptians were working near-miracles with stone that leave even present-day engineers scratching their heads over how they accomplished some of their feats, most of the rest of the world were still hunter-gatherer tribes. While the Greeks questioned the universe, invented logic, and raised the Parthenon, most of the world's people were just discovering sustainable agriculture. The natives of the British Isles were barely leaving the Stone Age while their Roman occupiers had built the Coliseum, a system of laws, the Roman Legions, and siege weapons. While Europe sank into the Dark Ages following the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Aztecs were building their pyramids in Central America. Around the same time, early Imperial China was inventing gun powder. When Europeans came to the New World with guns and other technologies, they encountered Native Americans using bows and arrows.

Technology ebbs, flows, changes, is forgotten, is rediscovered, and constantly evolves. And that's just in our own world. Heck, there are still hunter-gatherer tribes living in places like Borneo or the Amazon while Western civilization splits the atom, invents computers, and sends rockets to the moon. That represents an even greater technology gap than what is presented in the GW2 universe, yet we take it for granted.

In GW where you have five distinct races all vying for their piece of the world, how much more accelerated would the pace of change be with all of that pressure and competition for space and resources. Furthermore, technologies will be distinct to the races that create them. So, "yes", the Charr can build a civilization that is equivalent to the Industrial Revolution of our own world while Humans in Divinity's Reach lag behind that technology curve; that disparity still "makes sense" or otherwise "fits" within the historical context of the game.

In a sort of paradox, the Engineer fits even further within this framework because it DOESN'T fit. By not catering to preconceived notions of what a MMO RPG "should be" through the introduction of this square-peg-in-a-round-hole profession, the developers are further forcing players to consciously recognize that the GW world has advanced and that each race is charting its own path. There is a culture clash, both within and without the game; the Engineer epitomizes that changing world. If you feel unsettled about an Engineer rubbing elbows with a Middle Ages-era Warrior, then that's EXACTLY the emotion that defines a world in flux wherein all the old ways are being questioned and reconsidered as new technologies are invented. Consequently, the Engineer class fits within this technological context just fine.

It doesn't synergize with the other classes in the game

I seriously doubt that ArenaNet would go through all the trouble of creating a profession without an eye towards how each class will fit in with the others. We have yet to see an exhaustive skill list for the Engineer (or any of the other classes, for that matter). How can we possibly know how it will synergize with the other professions in the abscence of such information?

I, for one, see great potential for cooperative support from this class. From the skill videos I've seen so far, it appears the Engineer has quite a bit of crowd-control/snaring capabilities. In addition, I can see the Engineer's skills being combinable with other professions' skills. For example, an Engineer throws a fire grenade. A Ranger shoots arrows through the fireball created by the blast and ignites his arrows. An Engineer's Oil Slick could be ignited by an Elementalist's fireball. Turrets could be set up by an Engineer to create a cross-fire while a Death Shrouded Necromancer draws enemy aggro towards the waiting ambush. The Engineer's Backdraft skill of his flamethrower draws an enemy in to be finished off by a Warrior. The list goes on; and that's just from a few known skills.

If ArenaNet gets really creative with the Engineer, I can see them using alchemy to boost other players' weapons. Flaming oil on a sword, poison on some arrows, a "Honing Oil" skill to sharpen a weapon and permit it to do more damage or increase the chance of a critical hit for a short period, etc.

Also, as per a previous suggestion above and consistent with the Engineer being - well...an "engineer" - there should be a significant amount of skills that permit the class to interact with the environment. This could take the form of crafting weapons, defenses, potions, and/or other devices and structures on-the-fly out of environmental objects and materials to help allies or hinder foes. For example, a Hylek Claw + a piece of wood + a piece of onyx could create a poisoned arrow to grant a Ranger ally poisoning even if they don't currently have a Poison Arrow skill equipped. This would be consistent with an engineer's role as an inventor to creatively adapt materials at hand to suit a specific purpose. Consequently, the Engineer class should synergize with other professions just fine.

Lastly, I also get the sneaky suspicion the Engineer would be more acceptable to those protesting it if it were the Humans and not the Charr who were at the top of the technological totem pole ;) The Charr beat you to the punch, Human, and the Engineer is here to stay. MUWHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Guild Wars 3 perhaps 23:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You do a great job of pointing out major issues, and still you think it could work? The Commando profession was a joke for a reason, and while this isn't quite as extreme as that, it's still quite ridiculous in the context of the game. Especially with the other races. Sure, they've been moving the charr in that direction, as well as the humans and to some extent the asura (though not really), but a sylvari or norn with this class doesn't seem realistic at all. Sylvari especially. Lysander 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that the sylvari are an ever-curious, adaptable race and the norn are always vying for new ways to vanquish stronger foes. Your argument has already been considered and dismantled. You read the above, which is impressive on its own (I did, too), but you don't seem to have read previous sections. Most arguments concerning the cons to such a profession have been exhausted. Please, in the future, read everything before you comment. Someone may have already answered your question(s) and/or dismantled your argument(s). Repeating them helps nobody. Thank you for your time. Teddy Dan 23:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"a sylvari or norn with this class doesn't seem realistic at all." Outside what Teddy said, they'll probably go the same route as the charr guardian - it's a possibility but not common. I expect most NPC engineers to come from charr and asura, likewise, I expect most spellcasters to come from asura, humans, and sylvari. I also expect most rangers to come from norn, sylvari, and humans, most warriors from norn, charr, and human, most necromancers amongst sylvari (as shown in Ghosts of Ascalon, most other races have a dim view on them), most guardians from humans (mainly the seraph), and so forth. But it still makes sense for all races to take the role of all professions thus far. Mind you, charr racial skills most likely lean towards the engineer's side, so a charr engineer will pretty much be just a plain ol' charr with a few buffs. -- Konig/talk 00:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I was too lazy/frustrated to read a zillion pages of text before posting my frustrations. Here's the thing though, how many others do you think there are that'll be doing the exact same thing, immediately scrolling down to the bottom. At least the issues I perceive are now present here as they are above. As for the Sylvari, I was under the impression anet was creating them as a young magical race, the image of one launching grenades at an enemy is rather mortifying. And as you pointed out in such a kind manner, it's not just me saying that. Lysander 00:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright Konig beat me to the post, and what he says is right. Still, though, killin me. -same as above.

As to the Norn or Sylvari (or both) being incompatible with the profession: The sylvari are curious about the why, the how. Engineering is not only understanding how and why something works, but putting it to use, whether for construction, combat, or any other application. In fact, many of an engineer's motivations can be the same as an explorer: Find something new, and exploit it for all it's worth. I also have trouble accepting that the norn, the individualistic, thrill-seeking, adventure-loving heroes that they are, would pass up an opportunity to play with fire and explosions. Zolann The Irreverent 00:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right too, though the imagery is still a mental eyesore. Man, I didn't realize that by posting I'd be leaving my guts hanging open for all the crows to flock to. I'm not complaining though, I like debates. Plus, my weekend has just begun, I'm thousands of miles away from the nearest GW server, and I'm too tired to go out but it's too early to fall asleep. So thanks for keeping my night interesting. Lysander 00:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(OP Response to Lysander)What I was attempting to do was demonstrate - by taking examples from our own world - that some of the objections raised in the previous posts and which I bolded in my feedback don't hold up under close scrutiny. I would agree that this class would be ridiculous in GW1. But accepting that GW2 is set 250 years into the future - along with all of the forces that have shaped the world in that intervening time - it is conceivable that this class would exist. Even more so given that the Charr are credited with its genesis.

It really isn't over-the-top. The Charr - focused as they are on quick, easy, and effective functionality - would naturally pool proven pre-existing technologies and add their own twist. There's really nothing about the Engineer's weapons/equipment that is completely out-of-context. The grenades are just a smaller, more portable, and more effective version of dwarven powder kegs. Turrets are just a rifle (which no one seems to be objecting to) put on a tripod and given a spring-driven mechanism to permit auto-firing. A flamethrower is just fire oil put into a tank, carried on the back, and shot through a hose rather than lobbing it by hand.

The Charr are a warrior race and - like it or not - wars do advance certain types of technology very rapidly. Necessity being the mother of invention and all that. And for the Charr, the necessity is to win at all costs. So they will advance weapons technology (and those technologies that support it) faster than anyone else.

I agree that there is a certain cognitive dissonance going on with the introduction of this class. I, myself, was excited at the news that a new profession had been revealed but also a little taken aback by what I was seeing with the Engineer. But - on further reflection - I realize that's because I've allowed myself to develop a preconceived notion of what Guild Wars "should be" rather than allowing for what it "can be".

Intended by the developers or not, the Engineer truly represents the evolution of the game. It's forcing us to rethink our definition of MMORPGs as being ONLY a bunch of warriors and wizards running around slaying monsters while speaking in Olde English. Within the given parameters of GW2 being 250 years later and with the background story of the various races' cultural and technological evolution during that span, the Engineer is appropriate. It's OUR unwillingness to change our preconceived notions about MMORPGs that is causing the issue; not the GW2 universe.

Part of the problem is that we haven't had the opportunity to watch the slow pace of technological advance during those intervening 250 years. One moment we're in Middle Ages GW, the next we're thrust 250 years into the future with no opportunity to reconcile the changes we're witnessing within the game world.

If, instead, a sequel had been released only 50 years into the future in which we see Charr warriors running around with powder kegs strapped to their backs, we could accept that. Then another sequel 50 years further into the future in which the Charr have improved the formula for the black powder so that it packs as much explosive punch but with less material. Now their powder kegs are smaller but more numerous. Then the 3rd sequel takes us another 50 years into the future where a creative Charr experiments with riveting pieces of metal to the powder kegs to improve their lethality. Then the 4th sequel jumps another 50 years into the future in which the Charr have completely dispensed with wooden kegs for storing the black powder and are now filling small metal cylinders with it instead.

If we had that kind of progression, players would be much more accepting of the Engineer as it exists now. But we don't have the advantage of that slow witness to technological progress. We're told the game has jumped ahead 250 years and with it has come quite a few advancements. But they are still advancements that make sense and are consistent with the game's lore and history. Consequently, I accept the plausibility of the Engineer within the context of the GW2 universe.

I do agree with you about the Norn. The Engineer is not very "Norn-ish", culturally speaking. But that's assuming the Norn culture has remained 100% unchanged in 250 years. Again, we're back to preconceived notions. Much has changed for the Norn, having been driven from their ancestral home by Jormagg. Perhaps they have had to rethink their approach to war a bit in light of this crisis.

The Sylvari, on the other hand, should have no problem with this class. They are described as being very curious and willing to seek out new experiences and knowledge. I could see them being quite interested in all of the non-organic gadgets and widgets of the Engineer. Not so much from the standpoint of wanting to leverage the talents of the Engineer to some specific purpose (a means to an end, in otherwords) but because the glittery, sparkly, liquidy, weird, different, unusual, explody stuff that the Engineer carries is just SO GOSH DARN NEATO!!! that just being an Engineer for a Sylvari is an end unto itself. Which, given the volatility of the materials Engineers carry, would make a Sylvari Engineer quite dangerous. Something along the lines of:

"Let me show you THIS! It's soooooo COOOOOOL !!!"

- inscription found on charred tree stump in the crater of Morning Glory Glade. Believed to be the last recorded words of the first Sylvari Engineer Sunset Moonbeam. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And about norn engineers, for the norn the end justifies the means, and all fame is good fame. Therefore, why not use the new means to win over the most powerful foes? For is it not more fame gained for winning with new means than for losing with the old means?--Tuomir 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What I meant regarding the Norn is - currently, at least - they value personal accomplishment. The greater the risk, the greater the fame/legend. Standing a safe distance back and letting a turret or grenade do the killing for you doesn't carry as much personal risk. Consequently, a GW1-era Norn would probably scoff at any Norn who used such "cowardly" methods. A GW2-era Norn, on the other hand, has had to adapt to a changing world and perhaps all fame is good fame afterall. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How I understand it, the norn value not risk involved, but the effort put into it. Killing a gigantic beast through machinery is still killing a gigantic beast. You had to set up the machinery yourself - so a norn engineer may not brag "I killed the great five-tailed devourer!" but rather may brag "I created the machine that slew the dreaded five-tailed devourer!" It's still fame, just not the same. There are norn who value great drinkers. Not much risk there, especially to the norn (Kidneys be damned!). -- Konig/talk 02:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless of course the inebriated Norn in question is passing a kidney stone. In which case, passing the "Great Five-Lobed Kidney Stone of the Norn Alemoot" might involve considerable risk, indeed. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 02:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The second GW novel, Edge of Destiny, shows us how much Norn culture has changed, Eir actively seeks out help in fighting the Dragonspawn, and when the first attempt fails, the bigwig Norn of the village tells her not to come back until she had found some real heroes. The Norn have clearly recognized the need for change, their old ways would no longer be enough for survival; adapt or die, as they say.76.11.113.94 02:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Turrets are just a rifle (which no one seems to be objecting to) put on a tripod and given a spring-driven mechanism to permit auto-firing." Well, yeah, if you don't care that the turret is simply firing in one direction. The turrets we see in-game are multi-directional, enemy-seeking machines- robots - and the landmines are modern-looking contraptions with blinking red lights. Pardon me, but a) that turret tech seems rather advanced (robotics, really?), and b) it seems a bit odd to have LED-adorned landmines in a land where we still use torches rather than lightbulbs. I appreciate GW3perhaps' argument, and am not wholly against this class, but its aesthetics clash heavily in my mind with the rest of the GW world. It's not that it doesn't make any sense historically- it just strikes a bad chord in my mind. Asuran golems seem intrinsically linked with magic, but the engineers' turrets seem completely automatic, like steampunk robots, and visually offer no link to the magic. If the grenades/turrets/landmines just looked more magical and fantastical, they would settle a lot better in my mind, and probably others' minds, too. NALANA 16:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(OP Response to Nalana)Good points. They are the very reason I was taken aback a bit when first viewing the Engineer skill videos. The aesthetics and motive force behind the Engineer's gadgets didn't quite "fit". You've described it perfectly. In a world in which magic exists, the easy answer is the turrets simply combine magic and mechanics; but that's too facile.

We know the Charr - though not completely eschewing magic - are somewhat distrustful of it (following the downfall of the Flame Legion) and are placing more and more of their faith into their machines and industrial prowess. An auto-targeting, mobile turret for the Asura would work just fine because then you can claim its functionality is partly due to Asuran magic or it could be a mini-golem whose purpose is to act as a turret (which I think would be really cool). But with the Charr, that explanation doesn't quite work so well.

I am still accepting of the class as a whole; just maybe a little aesthetics and lore tweaking to give a better "fit". I do agree that the blinking red light on the mines has to go, though. To address these issues, I have started a new feedback suggestion in the Mechanics section. You can read it here if you're so inclined. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 18:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

---This is an intelligent, and calm-minded person. A mature and patient outlook. I like your face =D

  ~SiderFace

Thank you, Sider. Much appreciated :) I've just always figured you catch more flies with a teaspoon of honey than with a cup of vinegar. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 19:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So, my input on the whole "norn and sylvari can't be engies!" thing that some people are hung up about: [1] Does anybody remember this guy? I do. He's a norn poet and mathematician if you read closely enough. The point is that people seem to be caught on the idea that the racial stereotypes are NOT just stereotypes... which is wrong. Anyway! That's my little bit of information. I know it was kind of out of place at this point in this conversation, but this was the only one from the Engineer page that had that point in it! Also, I didn't notice such complaining about asuran Warriors, just saying. 69.121.219.6 01:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My take on it wasn't that Norn couldn't be Engineers due to a lack of brain power; it was because it runs counter to the Norn cultural value of earning reputation/fame through taking on challenges at great personal risk. The riskier, the better. Standing back out of a fight while throwing grenades, letting turrets snipe your enemies, snaring them with Elixir guns, and ambushing them with mines doesn't seem very Norn-ish. But that's in the context of a GW1-era Norn. I also conceded - what with displacement from their ancestral home by Jormagg and the changes brought about in the last 250 years - the Norn of GW2 may very well had to adapt their strategies, tactics, and even cultural values in order to survive. Thus, a Norn Engineer is certainly plausible. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 02:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was talking about, and I wasn't speaking directly to you. I was just placing the point here for people to read if they saw the conversation. :D 69.121.219.6 17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

From the Discussion Page of Kuby8388's Brawling Suggestion

I don't speak from experience in playing any of the betas. However, I have watched several hours worth of video of the betas and - based on what I've seen to date - I have to agree with you. The art is absolutely gorgeous, but the combat interactions are lacking.

I also agree with you regarding not having any real solid suggestions, either. I'll start with what I consider the easier of the two issues to tackle.

Combat Interactions

First, the combat interactions; there aren't any. Well, it would be more fair to say they are too subtle rather than non-existent; but if they're so subtle as to be barely noticeable, they might as well be non-existent. By combat interactions I mean connection with targets, impact, recoil, rebound, vibration, shuddering, shaking, etc. As it appears now, either (a) all weapons in the game are massless and cause no visible impact on their targets or (b) everyone is infinitely massive such that no amount of contact with a weapon will result in a visible impact.

Players and enemies take blow after blow from all manner of weapons and spells yet don't even so much as flinch. Because this runs counter to our personal real-world experiences, there's a disconnect when playing the game. I've read many posts which have complained of this but have been unable to articulate it; it's been couched in vague terms such as the "feel" of the combat isn't right, it's "floaty", "unreal", "disconnected", or other similar words.

What it comes down to is there is a lack of real-world physics modeling. I realize it's a fantasy game, but the more you can establish a connection with what players know to be real in their own experience - even if its subconscious - the more immersive the game. Everyone knows if you get hit by an object that weighs a lot, is moving fast, or both, you're going to recoil from the impact. But that's not happening in the game; thus the disconnect.

As the easier of the two issues I will be addressing here, this one has obvious remedies. The problem is whether they can be implemented at this late stage of development. Ideally, every impact of weapon or spell on an enemy or player would cause the model to recoil. Furthermore, the recoil should be localized. For example, shooting a giant boss enemy with a little arrow isn't sufficient mass to cause the much greater mass of the boss to recoil. However, the pain of the impact would cause that portion of the boss' body to recoil. If shot in the shoulder, the boss' shoulder should move in a direction directly away from the point of impact. By contrast, shooting a scrawny Skritt with that same arrow would not only cause a localized pain recoil, but may indeed be sufficient to cause the entire Skritt to be pushed back a foot or two from the energy of impact relative to the mass of the Skritt.

Unfortunately, as I said, it's probably too late to animate these types of realistic reactions into the character, NPC, and enemy models now. The compromise is to simply make everyone (players and enemies) get pushed back a bit when taking a blow and/or have a single generic impact reaction animation for each model (which might already exist). It might become repetitive looking after awhile but it's better than just standing there unphased by the impacts they're receiving.

Another solution which could be added in conjunction with the slight push back and impact reaction from above is to add an impact animation for each weapon and spell. Since it's probably too late to animate localized recoil animations for every model, this works as a substitute. For example, that arrow fired at the boss above will display an impact animation when it hits. I'm not suggesting a spurt of blood at the point of contact. Instead, in the case of the arrow, it could be a semi-transparent expanding ring of a light color, for example. In my head I'm seeing the equivalent of what it would look like to drop a stone in a pond with expanding concentric circles moving out from the point of impact and quickly fading out. This, in conjunction with the push back and generic impact reaction animation, would give at least some sense of connection between the arrow, it's impact, and the target. Each weapon (or class of weapons) and skill (or class of skills) would have their own impact animations. Though that might sound like a lot, it's certainly less than adding localized impact animations to every character and every enemy in the game.

Now, to tie it all together, add realistic reactions to the character or enemy using a weapon or spell. I realize there already exist weapon-use and spell-casting animations. However, those are tied more to the skill itself rather than the physical effect it has on the character or enemy using the skill. The best way I can demonstrate this is by example. Go to the video the OP linked to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orwa-lr8ECU). Watch the Charr who's firing the rifle (there's one at 0:22 and again at 1:26); there's a massive recoil. What's more is - in my opinion anyway - it looks really cool. But why? It's just a generic recoil from firing a rifle, right? No big deal. Now imagine the same Charr firing that rifle and not recoiling. It would look really...odd...wouldn't you agree? Why? Because it would be a disconnect between what we're seeing on the screen and what we know exists in the real world and our personal experience (especially for anyone who's ever fired a rifle). If the Charr didn't recoil, it wouldn't look real; which translates into breaking the game's immersion. This is an example of where the devs got it "right" with regards to the reaction of using a weapon.

Contrast this with the Ranger in the same video using the bow. Though I fully agree that a bow has nowhere near the recoil of a rifle, there's still some recoil involved. Yet this ranger must have the strongest bow arm in the known universe because there's practically no recoil at all. He just runs around with that bow arm outstretched as if forged from a block of pure titanium. To be fair, there is some reaction to the firing of the bow (and I'm referring to his left arm holding the bow, not the right arm pulling the bowstring); but it's so subtle it could be removed and you'd have a hard time telling the difference. The consequence is the bow has no sense of weight or mass and no effect on the Ranger when firing an arrow. The same could be said of the sword-wielders. Short of cleanly cleaving an enemy in two, every impact of the sword (or axe, or hammer, or mace, etc.) on a target should make the sword arm vibrate or shudder. Without this sense of mass, impact, and equal-but-opposite reaction, it leads to a sense of disconnection between the game world and what we know (even if only subconsciously) of the physics of the real world; this breaks immersion.

Lastly, on this topic, is the sense of kinetic impact. In a visual medium there's no way to convey this kinetically; short of wearing a full-body virtual reality suit, players are not physically experiencing the impacts witnessed in the game. To compensate for this, a common technique is to make the screen "shake" to indicate an impact. This can be done well and it can be done poorly; there's a fine balance between an amount that adds to the gaming experience versus an amount that distracts and detracts from the gaming experience. Since ArenaNet stated they were going to look into adding more of this shaking and vibrating to better indicate when a weapon or spell makes an impact, I'll withhold an opinion until I see the results. But while adding these shaking and vibrating effects, I also hope they will be working with the sound engineers to add impact noises which coincide with the visual effects.

In summary, the illusion of cause-and-effect and connection between game elements should be maintained down to the smallest detail and at all levels. The more this is done, the closer it comes to matching our personal experience in the real world; this translates into less suspension of disbelief on the part of the players and greater game immersion.

Combat Mechanics

This topic is perhaps the more difficult of the two to tackle. The former had simple solutions which involve adding or changing animations. This one is much more subjective and has more to do with the "experience" of the game's combat rather than quick and easy (comparatively speaking) technical changes.

I agree with the OP assessment that the combat is somewhat one-dimensional. Auto-attacking, auto-targeting, and auto-orienting a character to face the enemy all lead to less direct involvement of the player in the combat. I realize the alternative of making players having to micro-manage every combat action won't work, either. It would become overly complex and would alienate many of the current fan base; especially in light of their past experience with Guild Wars 1's static combat mechanics in which players didn't even have the option to move while using their skills.

So, how to make the combat more engaging/involving/immersive without also making it overly complex? I don't have a real good solution within the context of Guild Wars 2's current combat mechanics.

Mostly what I have to offer are observations of what I've seen in videos or what the OP offered as examples of how the combat isn't working with follow-up suggestions on how that particular observation or example could be improved upon.

First of all, bosses that just stand there while being ganked/mobbed/nuked by a few dozen players.

This is just unrealistic. Unless the boss is defending something of such value to it that it is willing to die rather than retreat, this just doesn't work. Since bosses are almost always the antagonist, this explanation falls short. In most cases, bosses aren't there defending something, they're there to attack something; it's the players who are the defenders. Watching as bosses stand there as if wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" across it while player after player lob AoE nuke after nuke on it just gets silly after awhile. It's even worse when a boss is a dragon who can fly away from the scene of battle if need be, yet will continue standing there getting nuked to death. If it were me, I'd certainly fly away if I was down to 10% of my health; why doesn't the dragon? Or, conversely, if there's a weakness or opening in the players' front line, why doesn't the dragon charge through it or otherwise decide, "To hell with this! I'm just going to leap over their heads and go ransack that village a couple miles away where the pickin's are easier.".

I understand the need to compartmentalize a game's challenges, retain control over spawn points, the flow of the storyline, etc. So I do "get it" why The Shatterer, for example, isn't allowed free reign over all of Tyria and is, instead, limited to just the Blazeridge Steppes or wherever he (she?) spawns. Even with such restrictions though, I'd still prefer to see a boss who acts in its own best interests rather than devolving into an elaborately animated target for the players to shoot at. At a minimum, let the bosses move around within their theatre rather than be rooted to a specific location.

Before anyone counters that The Shatterer does move around, that's not what I mean. Yes, The Shatterer will fly up into the air on occassion, whip its tail around on occassion, rear up on its hind legs on occassion. But it's always done within a confined circle outside of which The Shatterer will not trespass. After flying up in the air, The Shatterer returns to the same location it launched from. After whipping its tail around, its right back to the same spot it started at. Let The Shatterer loose! Let it roam around the battlefield, let it attack the cannon or mortar (and crew) that's giving it the most grief, let it attempt to avoid enemy (player) fire, let this battle become a running fire-fight ranging across the countryside with a swath of destruction in its wake. Let The Shatterer (or any boss) be a moving threat rather than the stationary target at a shooting gallery.

Lack of Combat Variety

The OP wrote:

"Overflow of players ganking a melee mob/bosses makes combat simply about spamming."

and:

"That is the case in PVP, but in PVE you can't kite with a melee weapon. This makes the option of range weapon more dominate than melee in PVE, so what happens is you would see 2-3 guys tanking in the front while 5-10 guys just spamming auto-attacks & random skills from the back. It is simple meat shield + spam, and not very fun."

The theme here is one of a lack of variety in the combat mechanics. There are plenty of skills to choose from. Unfortunately, how those skills are used in combat lacks variety; it devolves into spamming with weapon skill #1 or, worse, putting weapon skill #1 on auto-attack. In some of the battles I've watched the players could have set themselves to auto-attack and simply walked away to go get a cup of coffee; that's how unengaging the combat was.

Again, this is a very subjective and nebulous area of discussion.

One suggestion for making combat more interactive as well as increasing the role of meleeists is to implement a system of rock-paper-scissors skill counters. This isn't anything new or revolutionary; it's been used in fighting games for decades. The reason it's been used in fighting games for decades, though, is because it works. I'm defining works as a combat mechanic which directly engages the player in the fight on a button-by-button push and makes their choices of what skills to use and when have a decided impact on the outcome of the battle.

For example, weapon skill #1 counters weapon skill #2, weapon skill #2 counters weapon skill #3, and weapon skill #3 counters weapon skill #1. By implementing this kind of counter system, players not only have to consider what beneficial effect they get from using the skill, but also how it can be used to counter an enemy's attack. Now they have to consider the cost:benefit of using the skill for its stated purpose or holding it in reserve as a counter. When used as a counter, it will not do any damage or trigger any of its effects; it will simply cancel the opponent's skill. Enemies would also have this ability; they could cancel players' skills by using the appropriate counter-skill. This might give players incentive to do more than just spam weapon skill #1.

Another option, either instead of or in addition to the above, is to create a "block" or "parry" move. Perhaps this could be tied to the Endurance meter; each use of a "parry" or "block" move will deplete the meter by some amount. This was also suggested by the OP:

"Implement a second dodge designed only for melee purposes (ie.a weapon block or evasion against auto-attacks from mob(s))."

and:

"In the game I posted "Gunz", after you block a blow you receive a stun massive which you can use back at the enemy."

To answer the question of why bother using a "block" or "parry" move when we already have the "dodge" mechanic, I would suggest the following:

• The "block" or "parry" move would use less endurance than the "dodge" move per use; maybe 25% of Endurance as compared to "dodge's" 50%.

• Unlike "dodge", "block" or "parry" does not move the player away from their target; they get to stay within melee range if they were that close to their target to begin with.

• Lastly, unlike "dodge" which commits the player to that movement for its entire animation cycle, "block" or "parry" will permit the player using it to immediately follow-up with an attack of their own.

Also, per the OP's original suggestion, perhaps a successful "block" or "parry" will confer some additional benefit such as gaining a stun which can then be used against the opponent who was blocked or parried; it's the reward for having displayed sufficient skill in timing their "block" or "parry". It might require making a few successful blocks or parries to gain this reward. For example, a small meter above the skill bar fills up after each successful block or parry. Make three successful consecutive blocks or parries and now the player can use a stun against their target by pressing the same key assigned to the "block" or "parry" move.

Furthermore, make it so the "block" or "parry" would only spare the player from receiving damage from their current target; it won't protect them from AoEs or from taking hits from enemies other than their current target.

All of these factors then have to weighed by the player to decide when to use "dodge" versus when to use "block" or "parry". The "dodge" mechanic would largely be used for getting out of a bad situation/AoE while "block" or "parry" would be used more often in one-on-one or melee fights. This would further the goal of adding variety to combat (especially melee) rather than exclusively relying on weapon skill #1 auto-attack.

Lastly, make positioning influence damage. I realize there are currently skills or traits which increase some proffessions' damage if they manage to hit a target from the side or from behind. However, I'm suggesting making this universal rather than limited to the handful of skills and traits that currently employ flanking to advantage.

I'm not suggesting removing those skills or traits; especially as many of them trigger additional effects beyond merely increasing damage. Instead, simply add increased damage modifiers for any flanking or rear attacks as well as an improved chance to make a critical hit if striking from the side or from behind. The increases don't have to be so great as to permit "one-shotting" bosses. To the contrary, the increases can be modest; a flanking strike may increase damage 2.5% while striking from the rear increases damage by 5%, for example (or whatever testing reveals to be the best percentages). By implementing these damage and critical hit modifiers, it rewards players who take advantage of body positioning rather than just standing toe-to-toe with an enemy while spamming weapon skill #1 ad nauseum.

All of the above suggestions are intended to apply to enemies, as well; they, too, could use weapon skill counters, block and parry the players' attacks, and increase damage and crit chances from flanking and rear attacks. These additional skills could even be scaled according to an enemy's "intelligence". A deer, for example, probably won't be expert at countering a player's weapon skills. The Kraitt or a boss, however, would be devastatingly effective at utilizing the entire spectrum of these additional combat mechanics. There is even an opportunity to add some scaling within a single race. For example, a single Skritt may only manage to use flanking attacks and none of the other more sophisticated combat mechanics. Put a group of Skritt together, though, and - benefitting from their hive mind - they will start to use more and more of these skills as their numbers grow.

Taken together, these suggestion would create the opportunity for much more engaging combat in which players are taking an active role rather than fighting on auto-pilot. The other advantage is it doesn't prevent players from relying on auto-attack, auto-target, auto-facing, etc. If someone wants to play that way, there's no penalty to them for doing so; just walk up to an enemy and knock yourself out spamming weapon skill #1 to your heart's content. For those players who want a more engaging combat experience, though, their effort in timing their skills, positioning their characters, and weighing pros and cons of what skills to use and when will be rewarded with blocks, extra damage, and counters. All of this feeds into what has become an axiom of Guild Wars: "Easy to learn, hard to master".

Thank you for reading. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)