Feedback talk:User/Skyy High/Signet of Energy

Wouldnt this just simply be the same thing as the Potion system but with a different name? Seem pointless. I rather keep the consumables. --Knighthonor 00:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC) . I believe that you, sir, are just trolling. --217.129.133.230 03:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it would not. I don't know anyone else that would actually want consumables, especially after they ruined GW PvE. -~=Ϛρѧякγ User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк)  02:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the first section, Knighthonor? I explicitly stated the problems inherent in a consumable system, and how switching to a skill in place of potions would fix these problems. I'm talking specifically about problems #4-6. To be clear, and I'm looking at you Sparky, I don't think consumables are inherently evil or that it's necessarily a bad idea having them in GW2, I just don't think it's a good idea to tie them so closely to energy, the second most basic and important number in the game (after health). Skyy High 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While energy may arguably be the second most basic and important number in the game, it's definitely not the second most basic and important mechanic in GW2. In GW1 a player would have to pay close attention to their energy (unless they were a Paragon >.>), and any player could easily win a fight by looking only (or mostly) at the UI. In GW2 energy takes a more calm place at the background. You don't need to freak out just because you used a 25e skill out of time, GW2 tolerates a few mistakes because you now have to pay attention to the environment, your party's health bars (since almost anyone can heal/protect), positioning, enemies (since they no longer appear on the compass), combos and skills that you may use to make a combo, environmental weapons... The focus of fights has changed, people cannot pay attention to everything if there are lots of complex systems involved, and I understand that the new energy system will tolerate an unwise use of a certain skill while it will still penalize if such mistakes are commited often. As for the use of potions, I refrain from making a judgement until I see it in action. But I do know that if they exist, they will be accessible (noone ever farmed for salvage kits, and they are used quite often by most people) and, above all, I know that the good players won't make the amount of mistakes necessary to even need to take a potion, so energy potions won't even be necessary if the player is a relatively good one. I think of it as a simpler GW1 mechanic: you better watch out your energy and use it wisely. The difference is, if you don't, you may have another chance at the cost of your money. But if you play right, you won't need to spend any money at all. Structured PvP, of course, is another story... --217.129.133.230 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We already know that there won't be any structured pvp in Guild Wars 2. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 03:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? --217.129.133.230 03:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, GW2 will have the capability for structured pvp. But no one's going to do it because it's going to suck. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 03:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * GW1's PvP was very acclaimed for being a true e-sport. They said they were aiming at the same thing with GW2. While potions may unbalance things, I'm sure they will find a good solution for that. Why doubt that Humanity can go to the Moon if they already did it? Combat is looking much more thrilling than GW1's and there are still a lot of tactical options to make, even if they're not exactly the same as GW1's. I don't think we have any reason to say that "no one's going to do it because it's going to suck"
 * Salvage kits literally cost less than nothing and can't help you in battle, so they are somewhat unrelated. Consumables may not be inherently "evil", but consumables that provide advantages in battle are never friendly. -~=Ϛρѧякγ User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк)  03:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just mentioned them when referring to the accessibility to energy potions (because they stated several times they will be very cheap, which is the category I think salvage kits belong to). And they also said that energy potions will not be necessary. I've seen many videos from GamesCom (as I believe most other people have too) and I rarely saw people using potions. The ones that did it had been experimenting with their skills and abilities without even noticing their energy. My point is that they won't be necessary for good players. You won't have to spend your gold in potions, you will be able to be an efficient player without using them. The ones that do it were not as efficient as you and they may pay a small fee to fill up their energy gauge, while yours does it fast by natural regeneration. Potions will not be an advantage, they will be a "baind-aid" for careless playing. Inefficient players will be of more use to their peers by instantly recharging half of their energy, but efficient players will be more efficient (since they use their skills more wisely) without paying a thing for it. A "skilled" player will not have any advantage at all in having potions because, being a "skilled" player, s/he didn't waste her/his energy. Potions are in fact being friendly to the community because they act as a solution by not allowing unskilled players to be entirely useless to those around them. I think potions have a great synergy with the "all-players-with-a-common-goal" mentality GW2 has. In this way, everyone can be helpful. --217.129.133.230 03:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I'm not sure why you're not getting this, but more energy is always an advantage. Sure, skilled players can get by without using potions, but they will always be more effective with potions. If they are so dirt cheap that everyone can use them, then they serve no purpose because the designers can achieve the same exact effect by slightly lowering the energy cost of every skill, which is not annoying and does not remove fun from the game. Potions are not friendly to the community because either everyone will use them (being an annoyance or giving you a disadvantage if you don't use them) or people with money will have an advantage or you will be required to bring them in order to play a gimmick for a dungeon speed clear (if not, you can't get a team to do the dungeon). -~=Ϛρѧякγ User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк)  04:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand your point, and I agree that lowering the energy cost of all the skills would be better and would achieve the same result. But I don't think that potions will ruin the game, if done right. PvE will be extremely different from GW1 because you don't need to find a party, you can just go out and meet people. So you're not going to be screamed at if you don't have potions, because every single player that joins the fight is a helpful addition (and, because there is no cap limit to the number of players in a certain area--unlike GW1's explorable areas--other people won't wish they had an extremely efficient player that uses potions helping instead of you, because they can have both at the same time). You don't have to be the most efficient and l33t player of all time to be wanted, and neither are you competing with others to be chosen to do PvE content. Dungeons are not like this casual PvE, and I can see potions replacing BiP necros from GW1. Still, just like many people accepted "strange" and original builds in most PUGs as long as they worked, I can see most people in GW2 accepting "potion-less" players as long as they prove themselves good. The efficiency of players is not only in how many skills they can use (which is where potions give an advantage). You will have to use your skills in the right moment; combine them to make combos; postion yourself so you can make the most damage... brainless potion users will be less effective than a good potionless player, since they use lots of skills, but they don't use them right. So, the argument "I have potions" won't win against "I am a good player", because the player that has potions can be the worst player in the world, even if s/he has energy potions. Plus, if you can manage your energy right and be effective, noone is even going to notice you don't use potions unless you tell them. --217.129.133.230 14:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only kind of PvE, there are dungeons as well (organized PvE). Potions could be implemented to provide more depth in-battle and assist out-of-battle, but a potion that just gives you energy does not contribute to this. Nobody will accept potionless players because there will not be any - if something is common and purely advantageous, then everyone will always use it. At that point, potions become nothing more than a required annoyance, you'll only be able to play your best if you remember to go find the potion trader and stock up every time you want to play. The only way that potions can be a good thing is if they have a neutral effect (i.e., "fire resist potion" might give you +10 armor against fire damage, but -10 armor against cold damage) or do not affect battle. -~=Ϛρѧякγ  (τѧιк)  00:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept the arguments that "potions won't kill PvE" and "they allow bad players to contribute", I just don't think they're good enough to overcome the other flaws in the potion system, and I think that there are other ways you could go about implementing energy and energy regeneration that avoid these flaws. Izzy himself said that he (and I may be getting this quote slightly wrong) wants to "throw potions in a fire"; the issue is not that potions are absolutely good or absolutely bad, it's that they're a stopgap solution that is working right now but could be vastly improved.


 * They've said repeatedly that they don't want you to "prepare to have fun", they don't want you to go "oh crap I didn't spec for this boss fight, brb", they don't want you to feel that you need to grind gold to be competitive. Maybe potions won't favor the rich, maybe you won't ever NEED to pop a potion to play your character, maybe you'll be able to play entirely on energy regen...but that doesn't change the fact that buying and using potions continuously WILL be more effective. There's no downside to quaffing a potion right now; as long as you are down below 50% energy, you should always use a potion, on recharge, to get maximum energy regeneration. That's bad, because it doesn't punish players who need to use them often as a "save me" button (except for the nominal gold fee...which, if it gets too large, starts tipping us into the "grind to play" paradigm).


 * So, it's a given that the potion system, if we go with that, would need to come with some kind of downside to getting your energy boost. Others have suggested health sacrifices, but that would just result in some professions with better self-heals being better at spamming high energy skills. There are a myriad of other downsides you could come up with, but I say the simplest, most intuitive, most elegant, and most interesting would to simply go with the classic "now or later?" choice. We already have this kind of thing implemented in the game (Healing Signet on warriors is exactly the same, with health), so it would be trivial to implement it as an 11th skill in the current potion slot on the UI. Yes, you could keep potions and give them the same drawback (when you have a potion recharging, your energy regen diminishes), but that doesn't solve problems #4-6 I listed on the suggestion page.


 * Again, I won't ragequit if they keep potions. I get the point, I get what they're trying to do, I just think the Signet of Energy would do it a lot better (and it would refrain from pissing off the sizable portion of the community who considers "potions" and "game-destroying evil" to be synonymous). Ask yourself the question: what advantage does the potion system have over the Signet of Energy system? Skyy High 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. As a player, I would have more fun with something like this than with my own suggestion. Erasculio  01:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also like this suggestion, its simple and pretty similar to pots anyway, but without being a consumable and also being a bit more strategic, with the passive effect, I think its the best solution Yukatana 08:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I like the resume of the problems that the potions system have. But I think that potions beeing a gold sink is the only way to balance the economy balance between players. I don't think that buying potions is the problem, because that is the thing that the devs want in their game: something that makes players spend gold when needed in order to play, no matter what their level is. If there aren't items/services that forces players to spend gold all the time (and we have to specially consider cap-lvl players that already have their best/favourite gear,weapons,etc.) they will just gather more and more gold without having to spend 1 gold (only in gear/weapons from time to time), and those cap-lvl players (who already have the items they want) have advantage in gathering gold to all other players that haven't reach the same conditions. Not to mention that the concept of buying potions all the time makes all other items become much less expensive. So I think this is a problem for players against their interest in spending gold in consumables, but the game needs to have it in order to balance the economy between players.

I like your idea. It's simple, and has really good points. But there's always a "But", sry xD. The 1st problem is the economy balance in the game, as I said earlier. The 2nd is a question about the Signet interruption: it's interruptable by the user or by the enemies? 3rd and last: The Signet has levels? I hope not. The only thing that can change the Signet should be, and I completely agree with you, traits, equips. and skills, in which taking something in order to gain something else, making it balanced just like the example you gave.

To fix the 1st problem in your suggestion and considering the points about storage, have to stop in the city to buy consumables or forgetting to buy consumables, and others, I have a sub-suggestion for your suggestion: the signet can have a number (from 0-5 or 0-10). If it says "5", the player still has the chance to get his Energy bar completely full(?) for 5 times. If he's out of Energy, he clicks on the signet, gets his energy full(?) again, and the number drops to "4". The signet still has the recharge you said in your idea. The number is just a way to inform us how many times we can use it before it reaches "0". When it reaches "0", we have to buy some more again. We can buy "signet numbers" wherever we are by using a window for that, but we can only buy them in that window when out-of-combat and only from time to time (minutes or hours, don't know what the best is, but maybe players can have influence in that with traits too). It can be refilled to max in the NPCs in the city at any time. It can fall from the mobs (whatever "item" is the best choice of the devs to implement). Since it can only be filled up to a maximum of 5 or 10, the players can't pick up more when they reach the max number. And the signet itself gets instantaneously recharged when buying "signet numbers" or when picking up the "item" from the mob (need to find a good names for "signet numbers" and "item" lol) instead of taking a slot in the inventory.

What do you think? is it good? I mean, considering that IMO players need to buy consumables, is it good? -- Morcotulcon 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your premise is that spending a minuscule amount on potions is a gold sink. Following that, you expect it to have some meaningful effect on the economy. Oh, I am not even going to try to decipher why you think that making players spend gold will prevent  from . Regardless, the ability to buy potions anywhere removes most of the annoying part, potions would at least be acceptable that way. –~=Ϛρѧякγ  User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк)  &larr;&hearts;– 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was just talking about point#4 given in the original feedback, where clearly states about the potions system beeing a gold sink, which is true in a lot of other mmorpgs where the players are always buying dozens/hundreds of potions because they need to in order to be alive, leading to a gold sink. I wasn't saying the GW2 potions system nor my little suggestion would be a gold sink, because GW2 gameplay is made in order to be alive and using the Energy as if it was the "health" we see in fighting games, in other words, GW2= "I just won by a glimpse of Energy, thank god I didn't used a potion, it would be a waste"; some other mmorpg's= "oh s**t, I got out of potions, now i'm gonna die. Next time I will buy 3x more". So, they don't want the potions to be critical in gameplay, but they still have chosen that idea for the game and the only reason I find meaningfull is because people still have to buy them (there are a lot of better choices, but all of them remove the "buying" part, so it must be it IMHO).
 * BTW, no matter what the players lvl is or how much gold they have, they still feel the difference when buying potions all the time, because it forces players to be carefull on what things to buy and why when they need to always have in mind the quantity of gold they will spend on potions. It's just like your real life: if you wouldn't eat and drink you would have nothing to keep you from beeing rich and you would have so much money that buying clothes or furniture would be really easy, and if you would already have most of the clothes and furniture you want than your money wouldn't stop growing because you won't spend it, than the money is nothing to you and loses meaning, so why it exists in first place? But since you have to buy food and water all the time, it won't be easy for you to buy those things, and even if you have all the money, clothes and furniture you want, food and water still makes you lose a lot of money each month.
 * About my little suggestion, it's true that it would make players buy much less consumables and it would have a weak effect on the economy, but it's just an example. It needs to be tested and well balanced. I just used it in order to balance various things: the quantity of "signet numbers" the players have (the same number for everyone); the long-term resource the players get from the potions concept; the economy; and the feeling of "Using a number without thinking would be a waste since I can only use "5"/"10" or less of them. And I will have recharge after using once.... (later) now I only have "1", shouldn't have waisted them so fast (something to learn for the future). Should I use it now, or later? I hope an item to refill my signet falls from mobs or my window gets available again. I will have to use it well!". Just in mind, having "5" or "10" as max are just examples, they would probably change (or not) when tested properly. -- Morcotulcon 01:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think tying a gold sink to combat is a good idea. There are better ways to remove gold from the economy that don't make me pay for just going out and killing stuff. Weapon and armor degradation is an excellent gold sink, but that doesn't mean I'd be happy to see it in the game, because it's also annoying as hell to deal with regularly. Potions are the same, imo; something so basic to combat as your energy shouldn't be a gold sink. GW has always had cosmetic gold sinks, and I don't see why it should stray from that now.
 * As for your other questions: the signet could either be easily interruptible, or just interruptible by the player. That's a balancing issue. Making it easily interruptible would probably be too restrictive for use; if you're being pounded and need your emergency supply, you're in the worst position to activate something that's easily interruptible. To the last question: the signet could either be upgraded like normal skills, or it could function based off of a static percentage of your energy pool, or it could be based on your level. Honestly, I don't care much. The basic functionality is much more important to flesh out; I'm not a game designer, the details are ANet's job. Skyy High 17:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I like this.
Far better than the current potion system, at any rate. &mdash; Raine Valen    0:28, 28 Sep 2010 (UTC)