Feedback talk:User/Silverdawn/No Attributes

I completely agree with this idea.

What I really would like to know is if the devs have already tested the game without attributes. What I mean is, have the devs have already tested implementing only the traits system as the only way to change the characters fighting capabilities? For that they would have to create a bigger variety of traits of course, but the advantage of having such an innovative and different feature for mmorpgs and specially for GW2 (considering the devs philosophy for this game) is too great to don't test it. And they do have the system thought and made and they do have the ideas for it, why don't try this now?

One way to do it, if they want to keep the attributes, is making traits the only way to change attributes and remove the numbers/percentage from the attributes (since it leads to doing math and to take the fun and immersion from the game) and give a bar in front of each attribute that are filled by the traits choices of the player (that way players can alway compare between them and see how balanced the attributes of their character are without doing math, avoiding the possibility of making "best *inserts role* stats builds").

I really would like to know the devs opinions about this. Morcotulcon 02:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"There is an optimal mix for each class and role, and for every point you deviate from that, your character's viability suffers that much more."

This happens regardless of attributes. Whatever system you use, having builds that perform better than others is inevitable. Koda 13:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, of course. No system is perfect. However, there is a difference between (a) accepting that there will be imbalances and choosing the best available system to provide different strengths while keeping overall power reasonably balanced (ie, traits), and (b) encouraging imbalances for no differences in gameplay feel besides a correctly statted character being enjoyable to play and an incorrectly statted character being absolutely impotent (ie, attributes). --Silverdawn 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Optimal mix?

"There is an optimal mix for each class and role, and for every point you deviate from that, your character's viability suffers that much more."

Is there an optimal mix for each class and role? In every game I've played to date, there is a mix that some players have stated is optimal, but I've always been able to develop my own that is better suited to my style of play. I find it much more difficult to customize a set of traits to fit my needs than to adjust attributes.

By their very nature, traits are unique and interact in a complex fashion. With dozens of traits, that makes a system feel random...which drives people to following the advice of others. I don't enjoy games that appear obtuse without hours and hours of practice.

I'm not saying removing traits would be horrible. I'm saying that they fulfill a critical requirement for players like myself to be in control of how their character performs. If that can be addressed by traits (or something else), then fine. However, at the moment, that does not appear to be the case for GW2 anymore than it was for previous games.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is an optimal mix that can be found mathematically. Sooner or later, an additional point of strength won't add as much effectiveness as a point of perception or a point of vitality. It probably won't take very long for some hard-core gamer to figure out how the system works, exploit the system and share what he found with the rest of the community. This will make the game easier, leading the developers to increase the difficulty back to where it should be relative to an optimized character. This will make the characters of casual gamers less viable, meaning that they will probably either seek advice and conform to the optimum or give up in disgust. The developers cannot simply balance the attributes because doing so would affect the entire game and they would have to re-balance every single encounter.

Traits can be more easily balanced by the developers to add just as much effectiveness as any other trait, so you could theoretically select traits at random and still come up with a character that plays quite differently than other characters but is still just about as effective overall. A choice between two traits, "X skill does more damage" and "Y skill has less recharge time" is about personal preference if the player knows the developers crunched numbers to make sure both choices were equally good in the long-term. If the traits aren't equally good, the developers can adjust the individual trait without throwing the entire game out of balance.

Traits give a player finer control over how he customizes his character, making it a more powerful tool to change how your character plays. It does this in such a way that it guards against your character becoming over- or under- powered, making the game more about player tactics and skill than about player stats. Traits are also more straightforward than attributes and are able to give raw numbers rather than hiding behind a layer of abstraction (exactly how much damage will an extra 10 points of strength give you?), meaning in all likelihood, players will not have to turn to others for advice. It's just better game design.

Also, you don't need to worry about the game being obtuse on first face. The multi-use and position-dependent skill system will definitely engage your brain while still maintaining a clean and user-friendly UI. --Silverdawn 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood my objections. But, rather than trying to restate them, let me put this a different way: based on my experience with GW1, I trust ANet to get the balance right (or nearly so) out of the box on day 1. If they say they need traits and attributes (or only one or the other), then I'm willing to accept that especially based on seeing what they've published so far about how they are trying to evolve RPG and MMO RPG.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If history has taught us anything, it is that the combined efforts of a million or more players is much better at finding ways to exploit the system then ArenaNet is balancing it. Although I agree with you that ArenaNet put out an excellent, relatively well-balanced game, I feel it is prudent to plan for system that can be adjusted easily later on. I remain skeptical at best about their decision to include attributes, especially because the only real reason I have heard them give (other than "it works for our game", which is circular reasoning and therefore doesn't count) is to beef up the gear system with attribute bonuses. I love the fact that they are evolving MMOs, but when they unnecessarily trade in some of the innovations that made the original Guild Wars great for the traditional conventions of other games, it makes me wonder if Guild Wars 2 will have the same characteristics that drew me to its predecessor. Once Guild Wars 2 comes out, you can't go back because the original will be a ghost town. PS: I'm sorry I misunderstood your objections. The only thing I can think of might be some confusion around the word "obtuse", by which you might have meant "impenetrable". --Silverdawn 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

oi - dont heap me in with you

(1)I think a more likely scenario is they will happily spend days on end crunching numbers to find the absolute best trait and way to use the build they finally choose, and when a new campaign comes out with new traits, they will buy it so they can start all over again.

I honestly dont think the sole reason people play a game is to start over when a new one comes out you can if you want, but id rather keep my max level character

(2)Attributes do not provide a real choice - if anything they do, if everything went up it'd be really boring and your character wont be specialised and therefore if you were an elementalist you won't be classed with your element 'fire', 'water', 'air', 'earth', but just branded as 'elementalist' and for warrior its not 'double axe', 'double sword', 'great sword', 'sword and shield' ect its just 'warrior'

(3)Attributes penalize multi-role functionality - elementalists can 'attune' to different elements and warriors can choose different weapon sets which would probably mean you can set different stats and skills to those sets which would effectively increase multi role functionality

(4)Attributes aren't balanced - theres people at anet paid to find and balance unbalanced things

(5)Attributes are redundant - point of traits is to increase the effectiveness of your attributes

(1) I meant, happily start number-crunching the costs and benefits of new traits to find the best build all over again. Of course you would be able to keep your max-level character. That isn't even an issue here. There is such a thing as context, you know!

(2) Actually, with the attribute system proposed for GW2, "Strength" increases all those weapons you listed at the same time, and "Intelligence" makes an elementalist better in all attunements, not just one. So, it does not provide the specialization you're looking for. But again, you missed the point. Attributes don't provide a real choice because there is a mathematically "best" way to allocate your attributes for the role you're going for, and a real choice is a decision between two equally beneficial options.

(3) The skills come with the weapon; you can't replace weapon skills like you could in GW1. However, you can slot traits to individual weapons, changing the way your character uses that weapon. Traits do indeed swap out when you swap weapons, but attributes remain constant. If you are a physical class (and only physical classes have to deal with this) and you equip a melee weapon in one weapon slot and a ranged weapon in the other, you are going to be less effective at both weapons because you have to divide attributes between strength and agility. So yes, attributes are the one part of the system that penalizes multi-role functionality.

(4) Attributes are very difficult (if not impossible) to balance. A balanced attribute system would probably either too simple to be interesting or too complicated to be worth the trouble, and that's not even considering the system's other inherent flaws. Even worse, if the imbalance is found out after game launch, they cannot be balanced because every class uses attributes. To change attributes would change every other class -- and that is a balancing nightmare. In GW1, they couldn't really do too much to the monk because changing the monk too much would mean rebalancing every encounter. It's the same principle.

(5) The point of traits is to customize your character. Some traits do this by adding to your attributes. However, traits could be better utilized as the central customization mechanic. Attributes could be better utilized by deleting them.

By the way, who am I talking to? There's a signature button up top on the editor that will sign for you, like this: --Silverdawn 23:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"(2)Attributes do not provide a real choice - if anything they do, if everything went up it'd be really boring and your character wont be specialised and therefore if you were an elementalist you won't be classed with your element 'fire', 'water', 'air', 'earth', but just branded as 'elementalist' and for warrior its not 'double axe', 'double sword', 'great sword', 'sword and shield' ect its just 'warrior'

(3)Attributes penalize multi-role functionality - elementalists can 'attune' to different elements and warriors can choose different weapon sets which would probably mean you can set different stats and skills to those sets which would effectively increase multi role functionality"

"DERP"

Indeed. — Raine Valen 4:29, 13 Feb 2011 (UTC)