ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Minor Racial Impact

Please add thoughts! -- Verhaze 17:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Napalm Flame 17:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen to this man. --Jette 20:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If every elementalist is an Asuran and every warrior is a Norn, I think that's pretty much goodbye to GW2 right there. --Vennykins (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think this would automatically assign every race a certain profession, as disadvantageous combinatons are dumb and would hence be evaded - i really don't like that idea. —ZerphaThe Improver 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The more we get to decide by ourselves, the better, imho. -- Verhaze 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm interpreting this wrong, but I think the point is to have as few racial impacts as possible. Ideally, all races will simply be the same. That's not likely, though, so trying to minimize their effects is the next best option. --Jette 10:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just add subtext under the races: beginner, medium, hard, 1337. Sylvari would probably be 1337 since frost on a winter's morning'd be enough to kill them. Then put it next to titles like 'beginner - slayer of all.' At least the Norn would have less inflated egos. Spawnlegacy 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean, or how it fits into this discussion? :P -- Verhaze 18:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion slight difference in races is a good idea (assuming ArenaNet balances them right). Think of it this way: an Asuran spellcaster is more powerful than a Charr spellcaster (due to Asuran race bonuses), but a Charr spellcaster would have more armor and be able to take several more hits than a tiny Asuran. Also think of an Asuran warrior versus a Charr warrior. Sounds one sided doesn't it? That actually isn't true. An Asuran warrior would be able to cast several magical buffs to decrease the damage of the Charr brute, maybe even magically increase the damage of his attacks. A Sylvari warrior would also make quite a formidable foe, from what I have read they would probably have buffs to make them harder to hit and a Norn spellcaster would probably be able to cast amazing nature buffs and would most likely make a great support profession. The problem with all this is that it is all mere assumptions, but I could see several of these ideas becoming a reality.--Fox427 04:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And there will always be one option that is superior to the others, effectively limiting class selections for any given race. Oops. --76.25.197.215 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't agree. As 76.25.197.215 says, one option will always be superior to the others. I don't want that option to be caused by race. Fox assumes that ANet balances them right. Now, that also is assuming that they improved since GW1, because let's face it, PvE isn't very well balanced. I've heard the PvP is great, but I don't really PvP that much. Rank requirements in teams keep me from bothering to even try. I don't know... I just don't want to be forced to play a specific race just because it's the most effective for a given class. Race has way too much impact on the aestethics for me to be able to live with that. -- Verhaze 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution

The classic solution of giving more energy to the more magical race and more health/strength to the giant race would excaberate our current dilemma. So I propose this: Unique skill-sets (PvP and PvE-oriented) to each race ON TOP of the profession's skill-sets. Remember the PvE Sunspear/Lightbringer and EotN skills? If we have each race have their own title tracks with their UNIQUE skills (ranging from spells to physical attacks for each but with bias dependent on the race), then the issue of races having advantages in one profession is moot.

Example: Asurans have their own unique, technological-style "spells." Norns have their transformations. Charr have fire-based unique spells / Effigy creation, etc. Sylvari have spells that benefit from the vegetation around them. Humans have Zaishen skills, forms/blessings from your ancestor characters in GW1, and/or effects from faith in the 6 Gods... I dunno. Hell if Tengu were playable, they could have bird calls similar to Paragon chants. Same with Centaurs: they could have specific charging/run stances and kick attacks.

In addition, might also introduce the possibility for "group attacks" in PvE, where a band of Charr have their "warband formation" for better defense or something. Or humans in a group form a legudo (where they bunch together and their shields raise to cover the entire group, Roman legion style), with squishies in the centre for protection.

(I know this sounds overbalanced, but here's the kicker: there should be obvious DRAWBACKS for the unique skills. For instance, while the Charr use their fire abilities, they take double damage from water. Or if the Asurans employ GOLEM or magic spells, their should be exhaustion or something. Or even have direct counters -- and not player-made metagame counters, I mean skills intended to counter other skills -- like humans having a counter-tactic for when Norn transform into a bear. "Throw a fish at it!").

Jarrkha 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Jarrkha 21:54, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

"And there will always be one option that is superior to the others, effectively limiting class selections for any given race. Oops. --76.25.197.215 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)" --71.229.253.172 02:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I wish I had any ideas for a solution myself, but I seriously have no idea of how to balance it out, except of course giving NO race-specefic pros and cons. Making race a purely aestethic choice. Of course I understand that this is a boring alternative, so I'm all ears to suggestions. It's obvious that the Norn will be able to shapeshift into bears, which is ok for me. As a Norwegian I'm a natural fan of the Norn, fun seeing all the mis-typed Norwegian names (not to mention the gender-bent names, female names on males? Love it ^^). But ranting aside, I guess one could give all races one ability like that. Anyone played Morrowind? If I recall correctly, the racial benefits there were pretty well balanced out. I'm not a 100% sure though, I never paid much attention to the racial benefits. Bottom line: I really don't know. As the jerk I am I just brought up an issue, without really having an answer. -- Verhaze 11:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way to balance it perfectly is to have no racial benefits. And even in Morrowind, the race choices only seemed balanced because people don't obsess over non-multiplayer RPGs enough to playtest to find the best race/class combinations, and the bonuses were only temporary anyway. --71.229.253.172 18:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, theres little fuss in single player games xP And I hardly used them anyways, since you got way too overpowered way too fast in Morrowind. I hope there will be a lot of customization options though, like for looks. Im a huge fan of stuff like that :( Oblivion took it too far though. But the character building system in Aion looks really nice =o -- Verhaze 23:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

lol Verhaze. In any case, I think we motley small bunch are being too stubborn about racial traits: I do not believe the ONLY way to keep things balanced would be to have nothing unique -- that would be a colossal waste of opportunity for GW2. They have extended the beta to release at some later time so they are putting deep thought into this. The Eye of the North PVE skills are, at-a-glance, pretty balanced and not contrived in any way. The same quality of work can be reasonably expected for GW2. Jarrkha 00:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Jarrka

And basically the only one that was used (until recently) was Ursan. Refer to 76.25.197.215's comment. --71.229.253.172 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance to that thing. Ew.-- Verhaze 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To the guy above Verhaze: The other skills were used QUITE A BIT before Ursan was nerfed. Let's actually hear some well-reasoned, direct, poignant arguments against this idea, please, and not just exaggerated conjecture made for the sake of re-arguing the original points before my idea.

Jarrkha 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Jarrkha

Non-gameplay effecting differences

How about if the differences between the races were just things which don't directly affect the gameplay? Such as how some titles effect the rate of retaining a salvaged item or a lockpick. I'm not entierly sure which races would get to do what... but it gives people reason to chose one class over another for something other than aesthetics. Although, unless if balanced properly (talking about balancing non-gameplay things feels odd <.<), almost everyone would end up going as one race. I guess that if one class had a bonus to retaining an item when salvaging everyone would have one of them just to salvage things, which is ofcourse a negative point, but we already have that in GW1 - especially with identifying golds on main characters. The problem comes when people are forced to do tedious annoying things if they want to get things absolutely perfect... avoiding that with this idea would be tricky.--Vennykins (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I love the idea. Love it. :D -- Verhaze 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is a wonderful idea, but (as mentioned before) would still make the races seem bland and indifferent. Although, the conversation above game me an idea. What if instead of race specific title tracks, each race had its own set of primary attributes, similar to profession specific primary attribute, such as energy storage or fast casting? The skills themselves would not all have to raise the user's attributes at all, and would be usable in PvP. For example, a Charr player could have a skill like "Ferocious Roar" witch could weaken foes for x seconds within earshot, or a Sylvari player could have a skill like "Ventari's Light" which heals for x health and removes one condition. These race specific skills would not be totally unique and there would almost always be a similar universal skill. The benefit to this is it would also allow for quite unique profession-race combinations. For example a Ranger-Elementalist Sylvari player, with a limited choice of healing skills would be able to bring along something like "Ventari's Light." --Fox427 03:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is a great idea -- and race-specific primary attributes actually have their own discussion (see Racial Traits, I think). So you're not the only one to think about it ;) Jarrkha 23:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Jarrkha

Universal Attributes

Yay, I finally have a decent suggestion!

What if there were several universal attributes, and then let each race get a "head start" on one each? Lets call two of them attribute X and Y. Humans get +5 ranks in attribute X and Sylvari +5 in Y. Now, as they reach closer to where we stop getting attribute points (say lvl 20 in GW1) the human won't be able to put more ranks in attribute X, since he already got a head start, but the Sylvari could be able to catch up. I think this is a good solution. This way every race will be equal, once they have spent enough time in their class. Which is quite logic. I like logic.

As for the universal attributes, Im thinking maybe things like.. Energy Storage, Divine Favor, Strength? Asura gets a headstart on Energy Storage, Sylvari gets Divine Favor (since they are "beings of light", Norn gets Strength obviously, Charr gets Expertise, Humans get Leadership.

(These are only example suggestions using GW1 attributes, of course.)

A Charr, with a little extra effort, could turn out as just as skilled a healer as a Sylvari. Humans could bulk up their Strength and brawl with the best of the Norn. You get my point. You don't get any race-preferances in groups, forcing the players into choosing a specific race for a specific class, thus effectively robbing them of their customization-possibilities.

I want to play a Sylvari healer. I want to play a human mage. I don't want to play race A combined with class B just because this is the only way to get into a good team as a class B.

-- Verhaze 07:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I still like my idea, because it doesn't make on race better at a single thing, but it does make them completely different, and would also allow for new and interesting race-profession combinations. The idea I had would not make it so a Human or Asura couldn't fight a Norn warrior. The only way it would give one player an advantage would be that one player may use their skills more effectively in combination with basic skills than their opponent (this would be player skill, not a balancing issue).

I'm not saying that making all races somewhat equal is a bad idea, to me it just, in a way, defeats the purpose of having other races. To me it's like saying an average man and a bear have the same potentail to win in a fist fight. Besides, it has already been basicly announced that Norn will have their own uniqe "Become the Bear" skill anyway. I don't think Universal attributes are a bad idea, I just personally perfer there to be solid differences, rather than just bonuses. --Fox427 04:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

-=It may be that there are a lot of people, myself included, who may not mind what you guys purport as imbalancing. If one race has a supposed advantage over another (not necessarily pertaining to profession), it wouldn't be as if this has never happened in an RPG before. Some of the makers of GW came from *Blizzard* mind you, so have a little faith. It is not about giving us players carte blanche to create human bulldozers and pansy Charr healers (not saying healers are pansy, just saying the Charr healers are pansy in my experience of fighting them in Prophecies and GW:EN), b/c then GW2 would be no different in semantics (just aesthetics) from GW1, and that was NOT the goal from what I understand. My best advice at this moment is for us to buck up, seriously.

It would do no real harm to do as others have suggested here and have no uniqueness to the races - no tangible harm, mind you, but an intellectual "crime." However, if we implement any of the compromising solutions suggested above, tweak them before release, I can 85% guarantee the harm would be from the idiots who screw everything up for everyone, whom we'll have to deal with ANYWAY. So, it is in GW's nature to be imbalance, we'll have to deal with these "shortcomings." Life is about balancing things out, not starting out with a balance to begin with - that's physics. All you'd be doing would be delaying the inevitable: the solutions proposed EMBRACE the war of imbalance. The key thing you should take away from my solution, for example, was that we allow advantages AND DISADVANTAGES for playing each class. That would likely be a clean-cut solution to the bulk of our problem, because the Guild Wars's set-up is such that skills and builds offer you buffs, normalcy, AND/OR ganking. That's THREE categories: if we didn't have distinct super "racial advantages" OR "disadvantages," then GW2 wouldn't be too different, but we are proposing that we have BOTH, so that there are OBVIOUS drawbacks for becoming an uber Bear Norn or using some contrived Sylvari heal. All your base are belong to us!

In short, it is best to take the best of all worlds for this case (and this is hardly a two-sided issue), by seeing the 3rd side of the story. I'd be heart-broken if we had the extremities of boring "fair" humans-matching-norns-in-size OR if we had the original racial trait/advantages for certain classes originally proposed. Take a middle ground!=-

99.247.17.46 23:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Jarrkha

Nicely put, but my main concern is that far after launch people won't try other race-profession combinations. --Fox427 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Skillz?

You know they could just balance it with the skills they give each race. Like how they have a core skill set and then some unique for each profession, but again that would trust anet to balance skills. . . — Seru Talk 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Another way to use one profession set for all races?

This is somewhat similar to the "universal attribute" idea above, but I think it's different enough to merit a new header.

Basically, the idea is that there are no penalties to picking a specific race-profession combo, but there are bonuses for what variety of that profession you play. If we keep the attribute system, but eliminate the "primary attribute" system, this could work. Basically, each race gets a small (+1 or +2) bonus to one of the attributes of each profession. Thus, (to use a current profession) an Asuran Elementalist, used to working with electricity, might excel at Air Magic, while the historically fire-oriented Charr might prefer Fire Magic, and the Sylvari, who are connected to nature, would use Earth. Humans could have the bonus in their current primary attribute if we keep the same professions from GW1. This would, of course, still lead to something of a stereotype for characters (Asuran spiker Eles, Charr nuker Eles), but no race-profession combination would be inferior right off the bat. Obviously, each profession would need five attributes. Also, each race could have race-specific skills for each profession and attribute, so that other attribute combinations aren't disadvantaged. I'd also suggest at least one special profession for each race, though these would naturally be overpopulated at the beginning of the game as Assassins were with Factions, etc. Just my two cents. 72.67.218.21 16:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)