Feedback talk:User/Konig Des Todes/Post 7-hero update: Profession Limitations

Did you mean those who "pay more" instead of "play more". Because....yeah, that's definitely an advantage. I hadn't even thought about it, but I guess you could have 5 Mesmers, a MM, and healers to just Esurge nuke everything. Karate Jesus   04:29, 5 March 2011  (UTC)
 * Most people go the route of "full party discord/sabway" and "7 smiter/hybrid monks" for what I've seen. -- Konig / talk 04:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I run 3 rits (of which one myself, with SoS because it's staple to me), 3 necros and 2 mesmers. I can already ditch one of each easily. Good proposal, hope they come across it. :) - Infinite - talk 04:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think this isnt the greatest Idea. Why? because if people want to run 7 necros let them, I'd much rather use a nice and balance team. Balance teams pwn sab/disc ways. So let the noobs use their 6-7 necros. I'll stick to my balance team lol User Fantil Swift Sig Icon.jpg antil   Swift  05:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree but I tend to dislike two things: Gimmicks and unwarranted/not-really warranted QQ. Personally, I don't see much issue since most people won't be having 7 characters of the same profession. But I also love promoting balance. Especially since this game was designed around balance, not gimmicks (at least originally). -- Konig / talk 05:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest to limit not the full party, but one player and his heroes. That is, if I use 7 heroes, I can't bring more that 4 heroes of the same profession (including myself). But it would be still possible to use team of 8 N's in cooperation with another player, that is (Player 1 + 3 his heroes) + (Player 2 + 3 his heroes) of the same profession. Rincewindmjr 08:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * +100 at this suggestion ^^, I already thought triple necro was extremely bad but now everyone's talking about 7 necro's! freakin' gimmicks :S --User The Holy Dragons sig.png The Holy Dragons 08:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * /Signed... If I want 6+ necro's, id just two-man with my friends like we -always- do... it allows for better splits/flanking manuevers! ^_^ --Falconeye 23:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * TBH i can't believe anyone would even take 7 epicly overrated discord necros. You don't need heroes of the same type to make an owning hero team. Unless facing specific enemies balance beats everything. I myself tend to take a MM a panic and and a anti melee mes with phychis instability backed with a heal and a prot and the last 2 are different per area i am in. Havn't had any trouble regardless wich area i was in, NM and HM both unlike the time when i tried discord. Damysticreaper 15:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As one of the original people arguing that mercs provide a sort of in-game advantage...I don't like this idea. (1) ANet has already chimed in on this: they don't think it's an in-game advantage, so the playing field is already level (in their view). (2) I generally prefer that ANet give us the tools to play, but not tell us how we should use them. Limiting the number of profs available is prescriptive. I think this is especially true for something for which people pay money. (3) And some people have already bought 7-packs with the intent of having more than three heroes of same prof; this seems to punish them. (Although I suppose ANet could offer a refund or store credit.)

Finally, if ANet really agrees that there is some sort of minor or major advantage, there are other ways to balance the playing field without restricting the number of profs. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To counter your "forced to play a certain way" argument - which is completely true - Guild Wars was and should still be designed with two fundamental concepts: Balance (which 7 of any one profession is not - that's gimmicky), and skill (not skills, but skill - and gimmicks and grind remove skill). If a game is designed with a concept in mind, then the game is going to "force" the player to play such a way. For instance, Portal forces a player to use one's mind to solve puzzles but also forces the player to use the idea of momentum and portal travel. Is this bad? No, instead of allowing the players to go in guns-a-blazing if they wanted to, they make the player figure out how to defeat their enemies using 2 connected portals.
 * "Forcing" players to play a certain way isn't a bad thing. Sure, it's restricting and not everyone would enjoy it, but not everything is for everyone and not even Guild Wars can cater to every kind of player.
 * Personally, for me it isn't an issue of "you shouldn't sell game benefits" - because to me, 7 necros isn't a game benefit - but rather it's the idea to allow people to play gimmicky ways to play the game instead of upholding what they said that Guild Wars is. So long as it's not a game breaking thing, it doesn't matter to me what it is. And I consider 7 heroes of the same profession borderline game breaking, simply because it breaks the philosophy of the game.
 * Other things I want to see changed for this reason: Hard Mode, Consumables, Titles. -- Konig / talk 05:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A F K's opinion
No.
 * Necromancer
 * Minion Master / Bomber, including Monk or Ritualist skills for support, preferably with a hard res
 * Ritualist
 * Spirits. Hard res. Party support. More spirits. Strong healing
 * Monk
 * Ray of Judgment + res + energy management (maybe) + support skills with ~2 more damaging abilities
 * Ranger
 * Splinter Barrage, a pet if you like having one around, one or two support skills, and a Rit hard res
 * Elementalist
 * 1 Ritualist spirit (Recuperation?), Spirit Light, your favourite snare, your favourite AoE ability, a hard res, _____ Attunement, whatever you feel like
 * Mesmer
 * Energy Surge... anti-melee... anti-caster... some Rit healz, hard (Rit) res. What specifically likely depends on the area, but universal builds are possible
 * Dervish
 * The new Forms excel at party support. I must test the new Eternal Aura sometime
 * Paragon
 * Imbagon. Even if denied that build; it's a class that's quite proficient at combining damage and support; I'd never lament having to bring one along
 * Warrior
 * Hundred Blades, Whirlwind Attack... ask someone to bring Splinter Weapon if you only have 10-15 minutes to vanquish the zone (or whatever it is you're doing)
 * Assassin
 * You're anti-gimmick, so I consider it unlikely you have any interest in this profession

So... given that I can do any mission, any quest, any vanquish with any combination of the above... why can't I play with what I find fun? You seem to be missing the point; people bringing eight of the one profession isn't generally the problem. Look at the skills stapled to 5+ of those players bars. Those skills are the issue.

At the expense of causing some issues, such as annoying those who simply like playing with only 1-2 professions (me), causing any player who bought Mercenary Heroes to demand an immediate refund... and not forgetting it would take some of ArenaNet's resources (that could be spent on alternative projects) to implement, this solution seems flawed to me. It's not dealing with the problem (skills that need adjustment); it's masking the problem by trying to limit how many copies of the skill wander into the same team. (Why not just impose a direct limit on copies of each skill?!)

The collateral damage caused is not worth what is, no offense, an ineffective change. I'll tell you a secret, Konig. There's a reason why ArenaNet tries to put balanced teams at the center of ~all testing. It's because one of their duties is to ensure each profession is, in some vague manner, playable. It's simply quicker to test each bit of content with as many professions in the team as possible, as it means testing that content fewer times. It doesn't mean players shouldn't be entitled to play with different styles; merely there's a limit on how much time ArenaNet will devote to ensuring each profession can do something worthwhile in 95%+ of all content.

Don't get me wrong; out of the community you're easily in the top five in terms of those with my respect. Your knowledge on Guild Wars never ceases to impress or amaze me. But this is a bad idea. Your change doesn't counter any OP part of the game. All it does is say "right, you can bring your OP goodies, just not many of them". You also singularly fail to say why everyone should play balanced. I've never found it attractive nor fun; why is that wrong? I have an offer for you; I'll let you play balanced if you find it fun - on the condition you let me assemble my teams the way that I find fun. Sound good to you? A F K When  Needed 17:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote something up, then decided to just nod and say:
 * I agree, except one thing: This suggestion has 2 reasons, one you picked up and countered excellently (except for the fact that this is mainly to counter 7-heroes-of-the-same-professions, such as discordway, therefore your skill list on para, derv, and war hold no barring imo) and one reason you overlooked. This suggestion isn't purely for reducing OP'ness but also - the point which you said I didn't point out - to follow the original idea of the game's philosophy: Balance. In this case, a balance among professions.
 * IMO, when people can be more effective using a single, or two, profession(s), then the game/area/skills clearly are not balanced. This is a mask for when the issues are skills, yes, but it's also one way to help prevent future balance issues from even being discovered (remember 10 min UWSC with 7 assassins? Do you think that speed would of been possible with a profession limit?).
 * Besides all of that, it's just a pet peeve of mine for the use of gimmicks (which, imo, can range from "utilizing the most OP shit" to "utilizing the same things" in terms of gameplay). And, to clarify one point: Just because I suggest it doesn't mean that it has to be done. You can play how you want while I play how I want, my suggestions are my opinions on how to alter the game - there will always be disagreements, even when no support can be given. -- Konig / talk 19:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

- I never defended Shadow Form. I don't think that's an argument in favor of a profession limit; I think it's an argument of allowing ≤ invincible characters into a team. And therein lies the snag which I get to. Some professions - due to their variety of skill functions (and not solely the overpoweredness of skills) - are more prominent than others. This is what I'd want to avoid. "my point is that I think 8 x Necromancer should be in-or-around equal to a more general team in terms of effectiveness - in an ideal world, at least." This is indeed the ideal scenario - any combination of professions (of any number) should be at least about equal to any other combination of professions - however this is not the case in GW1 because every profession has different niche's and in turn different skill capabilities. Because of the inherent differences of professions - in some cases it is the profession, not the skills, which are flawed in this regard (or rather, the profession's abilities to utilize skills) - multiples of one profession will out-perform multiples of another profession, or in some cases a variety of professions. Hence why I said that this suggestion is my opinion. Yes I suggest Anet to alter their game, but they don't have to so you're more than welcome to agree or disagree. But the builds of the secondaries would be less effective (albeit not by much) and there'd be better alternatives, so it really wouldn't be a "flaw" per say. -- Konig / talk 23:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * - I agree; those were rather more for teams with a combination of professions than all the same. However, I could easily suggest a team build consisting of nothing other than Paragons, if you desire it? Perhaps not the most effective; but it should be capable of taking on the average vanquish, at least. Dervish, with the new Forms and Eternal Aura, if nothing else, can certainly manage some party support. Touch range limitations aren't as damaging when both are melee, imo. Otherwise there is this; I don't mean to suggest it's a spectacular skill, however the Dervish profession is fairly self-sufficient, and shouldn't need too much support when played well. Warriors... hm, nevermind.
 * - I couldn't agree with you more if you complimented how attractive I am. I never intended to defend such a scenario; my point is that I think 8 x Necromancer should be in-or-around equal to a more general team in terms of effectiveness - in an ideal world, at least.
 * "Do you think that speed would of been possible with a profession limit?"
 * - Unless I'm mistaken, you suggest that ArenaNet implement this, in which case, no I can't play how I want to.
 * As I said before; I greatly value your knowledge, insight and opinion - but in this instance - I simply can't agree with you. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K  When  Needed 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's about skill balance you are concerned about this change will practicly do nothing about it. Weak and unpopular skills will remain unused even if you limit heroes players will only take the good ones and will stick to the meta. As far as improving the balance between skills the only viable method is the skill suggestion page and let anet know wich skills in your view are underpowered compared to or just plain weak and needs a balance and how they could balance it. As far the copy-paste builds like sab and discord...well altough it's mainly 1 profession used you seem to forget that the secondaries and skills used are all vastly different and the power comes mostly from the secondary profession skills they use when using more than 3 copies. I myself am using 4 necros atm sab style with the 4th a N/Rt blood prot using Blood Ritual and Spoil Victor and it works nicely for me, but i also know if i would take more than 4 necros trying to fill roles supposedly done by other professions it will result in imbalanced fail team. Right now people are still experimenting what to take and what suits them best. Of course first choise will go to discord due to it's popularty for it's spike damage but they all will learn than 4 copies of discord is more than enough to effectivly spike a target to death due to it's spammability and will realise that there are better elites to take. At that point they realise thay are better off taking heroes that the profession they have been using they necros secondary profession for. And at that point if your change would be put trough you overlooked one critical flaw: it's as easy as hell to take multiple prof heroes and make their secondaries all the same and let them all have the same build. So in the end it just doesn't work out like you hope it would. The Live Team has done some very good skill balancing between GWB and we should just patiently wait how they will continue rebalancing the game. Damysticreaper 22:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @AFK: "[...] Perhaps not the most effective [...]"
 * "I simply can't agree with you."
 * @damysticreaper: "it's as easy as hell to take multiple prof heroes and make their secondaries all the same and let them all have the same build."


 * The thing is, Konig, if this decision is implemented, it's no longer just your opinion. If I wanted to spend $50 on 7 mercs, why should ANet say I can't make them all the same profession? Why is it more important that this gimmick get nerfed, but not any of the dozens of others? And, I still don't understand why running 7 necros is more of a gimmick than running even three discords?

True, and I never said that it would be (though it would be my opinion that said implementation was a good idea :p). Technically you'd be able to make them all the same profession but you wouldn't be able to use them all at once. I agree with the PvE skill comment. Either way, this was proposed before Stumme made his stance and I merely haven't deleted it because I find it silly but it's just me - and most of the arguments I think would never even appear if they had implemented some form this when the merc heroes came out. -- Konig / talk 00:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If ANet is only going to make a few changes, I'd much rather see them adjust the full set of PvE-only skills so that they are merely competitive with regular skills instead of OP'd. I'd like to see them do more than they did with BUH (nerfed to near uselessness). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "if this decision is implemented, it's no longer just your opinion"