Feedback talk:User/Kuby8388/Area of Effect Mechanics

I agree with your critique and believe you have accurately stated the problem that - until now - has been couched in vague terms by other critics. The size of the graphic representations of the skills in GW2 do not match the invisible dimensions of the skills. It is these invisible dimensions (which I will refer to as the "impact dimension") which are used to determine if a skill hits a target or not, rather than the graphic representation. Since there appears to be a discrepancy between these two, it leads to the impression that either:

a) a skill that should have missed its target based on its graphic representation, hits the target, instead, due to a much larger - but invisible - "impact" dimension...

or

b) a skill that should have hit its target based on its graphic representation, misses the target, instead, due to a much smaller - but invisible - "impact dimension".

Either of these two situations leads to a perceptual mismatch which leaves players scratching their heads wondering why their attack missed when it looked like it should have hit, or, conversely, wondering how in the world their shot hit the target when it looked like it went wide and should have missed.

Assuming I've accurately restated your argument and assuming that what we're both stating is also an accurate description of what's really happening in GW2 combat, then here are my random thoughts:

• ArenaNet may have tweaked this "impact dimension" in favor of making it a little easier to hit a target. This could be the result of play-testing revealing that matching the graphic representation of the skill 1-to-1 with the "impact dimension" was proving too difficult or frustrating for some players to accurately hit their targets. Though this may penalize the more skillful players, it does make the game more approachable to a greater number of people. Especially when you consider that the demographic they are marketing to - MMO RPG players - may not have the eye-hand coordination and twitch reflexes of their FPS brethren.

• As you stated in your post, the focus of GW2 is on cooperative team play while FPS tend to favor the uber-skillful soloist. Creating a combat mechanic which errs on the side of making it easier to hit a target supports the spirit of more cooperative team-based play.

• Unlinking the graphic representation of a skill from the "impact dimension" of that skill allows developers to showcase fantastic graphics while keeping their impacts reasonably sized relative to the size of the skill animations.

Perhaps one solution to the problem would be - in hard mode (if one exists) - to shrink the ratio between the graphic representations of the attack skills and their "impact dimensions". This will force players in hard mode to aim more accurately, appeasing those among the player base who want to showcase their skill and helping reduce or eliminate that perception gap I spoke of earlier.

With regards to the confusion over the Ranger's great sword skill "Counterattack", it does sound confusing coming from a traditional MMO RPG background. In that genre, attacks have been split up and categorized; the two most common categories being physical (or melee) attacks and magical attacks. However, in GW2, such distinctions are being thrown out; everything is called an attack now. A Ranger shooting an arrow, a thief firing a pistol, a Warrior swinging a sword, a Necromancer invoking Life Siphon, an Elementalist casting Fireball, etc. All of these are now classified generically as an "attack"; no longer are they sub-divided into melee attacks, ranged attacks, magical attacks, psionic attacks, etc. Once this concept is understood, then the Ranger's "Counterattack" description stating "Block and counter an attack..." means it will block and counter any weapon skill used by any profession.

I understand your frustration with GW2 having no clearly defined roles for the professions; especially given the historically heavy dependance of MMOs and RPGs on classes fulfilling a specific function. Your comparison between the GW2 Ranger and the DOTA2 Drow Ranger served to illustrate this difference. However, this is by design. Professions in GW2 are no longer tied to fulfilling a specific function; Rangers are not exclusively the ranged melee class of GW2, for example. When professions are constrained to a role, the player who chooses that profession is now locked into a specific play-style. Even worse, specific roles assigned to specific professions creates dependancies on those professions for all of the other players in the game. The simplest example being the dreaded, "Group looking for monk for XYZ"; see the problem?

By eliminating the assigning of a role to a specific profession, ArenaNet is permitting players to assume whatever role they wish in a group. This frees people to play according to how they want to play, rather than being dictated to by the game's underlying design of how they have to play. It's a subtle but very powerful shift of the paradigm; and one that I welcome with open arms.

However, it will tend to cause a little dissonance for players coming from other games which relied on the old model of "profession = role"; this even includes GW1. Many learning models state it takes 3 weeks of engaging in a new behavior before it will become a habit and replace old behaviors and attitudes. Give yourself 3 weeks to play GW2 and I imagine - after that initial break-in period - you'll never want to go back to the "profession = role" model.

As far as defense is concerned, I agree with you arguments. One idea I floated in your previous Brawling post was the idea that weapon skills could be given a secondary defensive action in which they counter the attack skills of an enemy. This would play out according to the tried-and-true rock-paper-scissors paradigm of fighting games. In other words:

• weapon skill #1 blocks weapon skill #2,

• weapon skill #2 blocks weapon skill #3,

• and weapon skill #3 blocks weapon skill #1.

Players don't have to use their attack skills in this fashion. However, for those who wish to take a more active role in their defense, these options would be there. I concede a pure fighting game implementation of this mechanic would not be the best solution for GW2. The idea was to get the creative process started in thinking about ways to add new defense mechanics to give players a more active role in combat beyond the heavy emphasis on offense you identified for GW2. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 02:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)