Feedback talk:User/Michael81411/War of Attributes

Smehow even after reading this twice, I still don't quite get what you are saying. Is it possible to rephrase? --Thalanor Thornhale 05:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what he's saying is that attributes can be good if (1) every attribute is equally useful to every class. The way this can be accomplished is by making each attribute mean something different to every class.  Another way to make players accept the attribute system is to (2) make certain attribute levels required to access certain content.  However, I would disagree with him.  His first suggestion kind of hearkens back to the days of GW1's profession-specific attributes, as "aggression" on a warrior is not the same as "aggression" on an elementalist, but it really fails to emphasize a playstyle.  For example, "Aggression" benefits hammer, axes, swords and longbows at the same time, and does not really change the way the warrior is played.  It also locks each class into playing it's traditional role - in his example, warriors would always be 2/3rds as effective with ranged weapons as they were with melee weapons.  The second point is not so much worse as simply more annoying.  For example, you would have to respec attributes on the fly to learn skills or participate in quests - or worse yet, you'd be stuck with what you spec'd to begin with.  Compare this to traits, which can be learned in a flavorful way (ie, a sword trait might be learned by roving around and defeating swordmasters) and actually do emphasize different roles - by directly making your warrior more mobile, able to better heap on spike damage, or a variety of other things.  They do this in a cleaner, more balanced and noticable way, and they can be more easilly changed upon weapon swap, keeping your character adaptable.  Traits and attributes fill the same role in the game.  Traits do a better job; attributes just mess things up. --Silverdawn 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)