Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
- - - - -

Profession <> Attribute Relationships


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
108 replies to this topic

#91 drub

drub

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 454 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:21 AM

Sedna said:

A warrior speced in strength can have 17 different sets of skills. And an ele has 20 different sets. That's not that different...

No, we are referring to the skills available from weapons. If you want to include healing+elite+utilityx3, then the numbers are 17 and 25. Regardless, it's not a question of total number of skills, but the number which are viable.

The Elementalist has 20 weapon skills that all pull from the same stat for increased damage. They can equip a long-range weapon, a mid/short-range combo, etc. Those 20 skills all still gain from the same stat.

The Warrior has 12 weapon skills that can pull from multiple stats. To be "as good" in one of those stats as the Elementalist is in theirs means that both of their weapon sets must be relegated to the same type, otherwise the numbers become 6/20.

This is not tricky math, and I really do not understand what part of it you aren't getting. In splitting the needed stats for some professions and not others, you lower their total number of viable weapon permutations.

#92 drub

drub

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 454 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:25 AM

Draehl said:

Damn if you aint right!

Yeah, I was a bit taken aback when I first realized it, but technically it makes sense. Even at just one weapon set, the Elementalist has more accessible abilities than any of the other three professions at the moment, due to their attunement system.

Throwing in the allowance of swapping weapon sets, and I think you'd have issues not just with balance, but also with overcomplication. You'd have 40 abilities you could use within the first 5 slots. Madness.

#93 Kitsune

Kitsune

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1049 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:29 AM

drub said:

Yeah, I was a bit taken aback when I first realized it, but technically it makes sense. Even at just one weapon set, the Elementalist has more accessible abilities than any of the other three professions at the moment, due to their attunement system.

Throwing in the allowance of swapping weapon sets, and I think you'd have issues not just with balance, but also with overcomplication. You'd have 40 abilities you could use within the first 5 slots. Madness.

Would have been fun though :P

I at least hope that every weapon + attunement for the elementalist will have a *tad* more range flexibility than other weapons, given that we cant really go "oh, its long range time, swap!"

For example, it would be nice if each weapon had its general "focus" on its range, while still having one skill that is of the opposite range. Like Scepters being used for close range for like 4 of the 5 abilities, while one of them could have some long range capability, while still being inferior to a Staff. Like wise, it would be nice if the staff had at least one quick-casting ability that could help maintain range on foes that have closed the distance into melee range.

Given that Bows and Rifles have been shown to have at least one melee attack of sorts, this is still a possibility.

Edited by Kitsune, 30 August 2010 - 03:32 AM.


#94 Sedna

Sedna

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:34 AM

Kitsune said:

Misquoted, illogical, and rude...

Yea, filing this tool under "troll" for now. On to more productive discussions :D

I did not misquote. I stated my opinion. You misinterpreted my opinion. I corrected your misinterpretation and then you went on to say my correction was irrelevant, which would never have come up if you didn't misinterpret me in the first place. And please don't call me a troll, I'm trying to present my side of the argument the best I can.

Kitsune said:

Just as one parting clarification: There is no problem if a warrior or any profession for that matter happens to focus on melee or ranged weaponry exclusively, but what you fail to understand is that this system disadvantages people who wish to do both on the same paired weapon set.

That is, a Range/Melee weapon set warrior warrior is ALWAYS superior (from a statistical perspective) than a Mixed weapon warrior, by virtue of having to devote their stats between two pools as opposed to one.

If you want to call it a disadvantage, then it's a disadvantage. I obviously won't convince you otherwise. But I think you're severely underestimating the warrior's strength as a melee/ranged combatant even if the melee or ranged skills aren't as strong as a pure strength character or a pure agility character. Does not mean they wont be good enough for any one encounter. We don't even know how they've scaled the dmg on the skills of these weapons. Who knows, maybe a melee/ranged is as good as an ele, you could spec all strength and do a bit more dmg on melee but lose out on ranged skills or vice versa. Do we know if the attributes have a cap yet? idk about you but it seems to me they can hold their own.

Plus we can't even imagine how the attributes will intertwine with traits, armor, etc...

Edited by Sedna, 30 August 2010 - 03:44 AM.


#95 drub

drub

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 454 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:36 AM

Kitsune said:

Would have been fun though :P

I at least hope that every weapon + attunement for the elementalist will have a *tad* more range flexibility than other weapons, given that we cant really go "oh, its long range time, swap!"

For example, it would be nice if each weapon had its general "focus" on its range, while still having one skill that is of the opposite range. Like Scepters being used for close range for like 4 of the 5 abilities, while one of them could have some long range capability, while still being inferior to a Staff. Like wise, it would be nice if the staff had at least one quick-casting ability that could help maintain range on foes that have closed the distance into melee range.

Given that Bows and Rifles have been shown to have at least one melee attack of sorts, this is still a possibility.

It's actually already somewhat visible in the game demos. The starter Elementalist character they do the walkthrough with begins with a staff, but they seem to have no problem casting their main fireball spell with the mobs sitting practically on top of them.

Indeed, I don't recall any of their spells failing while using the staff with mobs in close proximity. The other side of the coin is being able to do ranged damage if you had only close/medium range weapons equipped, which isn't as much of an issue as you can always wait until they get closer, or perhaps keep one of your utility skills as a ranged nuke.

#96 Sedna

Sedna

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:42 AM

drub said:

No, we are referring to the skills available from weapons. If you want to include healing+elite+utilityx3, then the numbers are 17 and 25. Regardless, it's not a question of total number of skills, but the number which are viable.

And I was referring to weapon skills also, an ele can have 5 different sets of weapons to choose from. Each weapon set has 4 different sets in themselves 4x5=20 different skill sets. a warrior can equip 17 different sets of weapons, that's 17 different skill sets. 19 if you count the ranged.

#97 Kitsune

Kitsune

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1049 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:45 AM

Sedna said:

I did not misquote. I stated my opinion. You misinterpreted my opinion. I corrected your misinterpretation and then went on to say my correction was irrelevant, which would never have come up if you didn't misinterpret me in the first place. And please don't call me a troll, I'm trying to present my side of the argument the best I can.

Ok... here is exactly how you misquoted me:


You entered into this discussion with the following:

Quote

or warriors can do really good melee dmg and less ranged, but use ranged when the situation calls for it and a ranger can do really good ranged and less melee using melee only when the situation calls for it. When you pick one of these classes you're picking one of these play styles. There could very well be a mix of these in one of the next 4 professions like the magic wielding soldier everyone is rooting for. I still hold firm though that if you pick a warrior expect to have better melee dmg and if you pick a ranger expect to have better ranged dmg. Yes I am aware that in GW you had some pretty sick builds that's contradicting to this statement, but in this game there are no cross professions.


This is why you are misquoting me. THIS POST, and indeed your entire view on "weather a ranger should be better at range while a warrior is better at melee" is a completely tangental topic that has absolutely no barring on the current discussion regarding the Split - Stat issue between Strength and Agility.

None. What. So. Ever.

Hence, why I said that the topic that YOU introduced, and continued to defend and derail the thread with, was and is irrelevant to this discussion, which hinges on the idea that an profession should not be tied to one stat or another for their various weapon choices.

Weather a ranger deals over 9,000 damage with a bow while a warrior hits for 1 is NOT what we are discussing in this thread.

We ARE discussing weather it makes sense to unfairly penalize a ranged weaponry + melee weaponry selection based on the stat system as-is, which is a FACT. Not an oppinion, not some fluffy "we can't think for our selves because we lack data" statement, but cold hard fact with simple, blunt logic to back it up.

If you wield a Rifle and a Greatsword as a warrior, you WILL NOT have as much stats devoted toward either weapon's skills than if you had gone two melee or two range, in the current system. Further more, this is NOT the case for casters, who will have uniform function with Intelligence and all of their weapons.

Hence why people are saying this is a problem.

Quote

If you want to call it a disadvantage, then it's a disadvantage. I obviously won't convince you otherwise. But I think you're severely underestimating the warrior's strength as a melee/ranged combatant even if the melee or ranged skills aren't as strong as a pure strength character or a pure agility character. Does not mean they wont be good enough for any one encounter. We don't even know how they've scaled the dmg on the skills of these weapons. Who knows, maybe a melee/ranged is as good as an ele, you could spec all strength and do a bit more dmg on melee but lose out on ranged skills or vice versa. Do we know if the attributes have a cap yet? idk about you but it seems to me they can hold their own.

Plus we can't even imagine how the attributes will intertwine with traits, armor, etc...

You don't have to convince facts. Thats the lovely thing about them, they are not open for discussion (provided they are indeed accurate facts).

We know that stats impact ability performance in some tangible way. Fact.

We know that melee weapons uses Strength while ranged weapons use Agility. Fact.

We know that, given both of these facts, which are true, provable, and therefore defendable at the time of this post, that a character who equips both a ranged and a melee weapon at the same time will be forced to draw from both stat pools, meaning that there is a OR choice not an AND choice with their weapon efficacy. I choose to focus more on my ranged OR my melee.

We know that the Scholar classes, thus far revealed, rely solely on their Intelligence stat for all of their weapons. This means they only have to deal with a singular stat pool.


The damage between professions is totally, utterly irrelevant to this discussion, as is the difficult of an encounter in PVE. Purely looking at the class in and of itself reveals internal balance issues.

You gain MORE bang for your buck by investing in Strength OR Agility, unless there is a very strong diminishing return and/or a low attribute threshold, but even then that is still wasting stats to "come to par" with a singular focus, while having less stats for Perception / Willpower / Vitality.

Edited by Kitsune, 30 August 2010 - 03:54 AM.


#98 Sedna

Sedna

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:47 AM

Kitsune said:

Ok... here is exactly how you misquoted me:


You entered into this discussion with the following:

" or warriors can do really good melee dmg and less ranged, but use ranged when the situation calls for it and a ranger can do really good ranged and less melee using melee only when the situation calls for it. When you pick one of these classes you're picking one of these play styles. There could very well be a mix of these in one of the next 4 professions like the magic wielding soldier everyone is rooting for. I still hold firm though that if you pick a warrior expect to have better melee dmg and if you pick a ranger expect to have better ranged dmg. Yes I am aware that in GW you had some pretty sick builds that's contradicting to this statement, but in this game there are no cross professions."


This is why you are misquoting me. THIS POST, and indeed your entire view on "weather a ranger should be better at range while a warrior is better at melee" is a completely tangental topic that has absolutely no barring on the current discussion regarding the Split - Stat issue between Strength and Agility.

None. What. So. Ever.

Hence, why I said that the topic that YOU introduced, and continued to defend and derail the thread with, was and is irrelevant to this discussion, which hinges on the idea that an profession should not be tied to one stat or another for their various weapon choices.

Weather a ranger deals over 9,000 damage with a bow while a warrior hits for 1 is NOT what we are discussing in this thread.

We ARE discussing weather it makes sense to unfairly penalize a ranged weaponry + melee weaponry selection based on the stat system as-is, which is a FACT. Not an oppinion, not some fluffy "we can't think for our selves because we lack data" statement, but cold hard fact with simple, blunt logic to back it up.

If you wield a Rifle and a Greatsword as a warrior, you WILL NOT have as much stats devoted toward either weapon's skills than if you had gone two melee or two range, in the current system. Further more, this is NOT the case for casters, who will have uniform function with Intelligence and all of their weapons.

Hence why people are saying this is a problem.

Don't play warrior or ranger.

#99 drub

drub

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 454 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:48 AM

Sedna said:

And I was referring to weapon skills also, an ele can have 5 different sets of weapons to choose from. Each weapon set has 4 different sets in themselves 4x5=20 different skill sets. a warrior can equip 17 different sets of weapons, that's 17 different skill sets. 19 if you count the ranged.

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin. It hurts my head. I give up.

#100 Sedna

Sedna

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:49 AM

drub said:

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin. It hurts my head. I give up.

There is not, if I could make it simpler to you then I would but I can't. So I also give up on that front.

#101 Sedna

Sedna

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:52 AM

Anything else you guys want to nitpick or insult my opinions about? Because you're clearly above all that ;)

I'm done for tonight but I'll check back in tomorrow.

Edited by Sedna, 30 August 2010 - 03:55 AM.


#102 Kitsune

Kitsune

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1049 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:56 AM

drub said:

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin. It hurts my head. I give up.

I give up on this guy/gal as well. They are derailing the thread with their opinions at this point.

#103 Kitsune

Kitsune

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1049 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 04:04 AM

Sedna said:

Anything else you guys want to nitpick or insult my opinions about? Because you're clearly above all that ;)

I'm done for tonight but I'll check back in tomorrow.

But thats just it, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. (wish some high ranking republicans would learn this too.. *cough*)

Stat systems are not some mystical aspect that we don't know about. They are quantifiable, follow rules, and are a finite resource.

Basically, your *opinion* seems to be that a warrior *should* focus more on melee and less on range, while a ranger *should* focus more on range than on melee.

Those are value statements. Opinions. Which are perfectly logical to you, and many may share them as well.

But, from a *fact* based stand point, as far as this discussion goes, we are concerned with the idea that a Warrior, Ranger, or any other profession that uses weapons in a martial fashion (i.e. attacks instead of spells) will be needlessly disadvantaged from a quantifiable, numeric stand point because they will have *some* weapons that scale based on *some* stats, while others scale with others.

Example:

You have 200 points.

You place 100 in Strength, 100 in Agility. Lets say that works out to a magic number of +25% ability effectiveness.

Now, you instead put all 200 into one stat or the other, and assuming a liniar model without diminishing returns, or at least having not reached the diminishing returns threshold, you are now gaining +50% ability effectiveness.


Net result? You are 25% *more effective* with your weapon skills if you were a pure melee or pure ranged character than if you had equally focused on both.

Its really that simple.

#104 skold

skold

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 04:31 AM

Let's just leave Math out of it, she didn't do anything wrong.  And yes, math is a woman, I checked.

#105 drub

drub

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 454 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 04:37 AM

skold said:

Let's just leave Math out of it, she didn't do anything wrong.  And yes, math is a woman, I checked.

A rather seductive one, at that.

#106 Kitsune

Kitsune

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1049 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 06:00 AM

drub said:

A rather seductive one, at that.

I mean, who else but a female can make 1+1 >= 3 and actually be correct? Math MUST be a lady :)

#107 Sedna

Sedna

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 02:26 PM

Kitsune said:

Example:

You have 200 points.

You place 100 in Strength, 100 in Agility. Lets say that works out to a magic number of +25% ability effectiveness.

Now, you instead put all 200 into one stat or the other, and assuming a liniar model without diminishing returns, or at least having not reached the diminishing returns threshold, you are now gaining +50% ability effectiveness.


Net result? You are 25% *more effective* with your weapon skills if you were a pure melee or pure ranged character than if you had equally focused on both.

Its really that simple.

I've said this just not in your words.

Sedna said:

A warrior or ranger could go either way. They can be proficient in either form at one time exceedingly so. But to think they can be proficient exceedingly so at both at the same time is stupid to me.

I admit I started out talking about the wrong subject and I apologize about derailing us. But I understand the system. Where you see a disadvantage I see just another factor of the game to accept and play around. I played Aion regrettably for many months and at least we get to spec our points where we want in GW2, where as with Aion you were given melee attacks as a ranger but never used them because they sucked frankly. THAT was restricting. And in every kind of MMO experience computer or table top, you could be excellent at one or excellent at the other but never both at the same time, which is what I've come to accept and frankly feel comfortable with. At least this time with GW2 I know that if I spec ranged/melee I know I wont suck enough that I wont be able to finish the game.

#108 Rever

Rever

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 577 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 02:39 PM

I would expect the skills received early to grow in strength as they did in GW1. I would expect skills received later in the game to be more complex and strategic (more useful during a cross profession combo than alone but still useful either way) than the skills from received earlier but still have similar effectiveness and strengthen as the character progresses. At the end of it all I would expect all skills to have a useful function, maybe not for everyones play style but they will find their way into ppls builds for those who find them useful within their own play styles.

#109 Kitsune

Kitsune

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1049 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 09:04 PM

Sedna said:

Where you see a disadvantage I see just another factor of the game to accept and play around.

This would be fine *if* the developers didn't expressly state, multiple times, that each weapon option should be equally viable.

With this system as it currently stands, you are less effective for choosing a melee weapon and a ranged weapon at the same time. That is completely contrary to their desired goal, which is that you should have freedom of *choice* of your weapon pairs.

There is no innate reason to favor a melee/melee or ranged/ranged weapon set over a melee/ranged set.

The relative advantages and disadvantages of each individual weapon are more than enough. Its not like other games where "if in melee range you have to switch to melee, and if the foe is far away you have to switch to range" since there are mobile ranged weapons (i.e. short bow range) which can serve a similar function as melee, and highly mobile melee weapons (i.e. swords for both ranger and warrior) which can be used to close the distance with ranged foes.

That is, a melee/ranged Ranger could, for example, use sword/dagger in one and a longbow in the other. Melee set when things get close, then use some of the sword skills to get distance, and start using the long bow. A Shortbow/Longbow ranger would do a similar strategy with the short bow being used while moving, crippling the foe's movement ability, then switching to the long bow for some powerful stationary shots, then switching to the short bow again.

There is not some innate, magical balancing mechanisim that makes a melee/range set automatically more viable than a double melee or double range set. Therefore, there is no need to make either option "better" than another.

This is the problem with the stat split conundrum. If this was a different game in which you could focus your character at being good at melee, which makes their ranged effectiveness suffer, or vice verse, then I would agree with you.

But its not, because in GW2 there are melee weapons that overcome traditional melee issues (i.e. getting into range and staying there) and traditional ranged issues (i.e. mobility, limiting foes mobility, and keep-a-way tactics).

That is, a melee/melee set ranger doesnt have to worry about lacking ranged attacks, because they have other ways of basically accomplishing the same thing. This is true for a shortbow/longbow ranger as well, as they have things that cover the shortfalls of the traditional range class in melee range issues.