No more jewels in amulets on the 15th?

#21 - March 28, 2014, 10:24 p.m.

I can’t speak for the designers, but I see this change (and the runes change) as one with the goal of streamline builds. Removing unneeded complexity benefits the game by making it easier for new players to pickup, while also making it easier balance the game as a whole.

Sure more options mean more possible builds, and more ability to tailor to your exact play style, but it doesn’t necessarily mean better builds or a better game.

I know at first, when doing the mental math, it felt like a bit of a contradiction to add more complexity in one area (traits) while removing it from another (amulets). Again, not presuming to speak for the designers, but I think it makes sense when you consider the impact each area has. Amulets are raw stats so they have a much bigger impact on balance because they affect everything. Why wouldn’t they want to lock down the most highly variable aspect of balance? Having greater impact means the cost of complexity grows exponentially.

At the same time, I could see the change also giving the designers more flexibility to do even more with amulets because math. 10 amulets with 10 jewels is 100 possible combinations, right? Now they only have to worry about just 12 amulets… which means they have 88 more amulets to go before they reach the same level complexity.

I know some people will think the difference between ‘streamlining’ and ‘dumbing down’ is only semantic, but I think intent is very important when trying to project where the game is heading in the future. This is part of the reason I’m very optimistic about where we’re going, and I think you should be too.

What are your arguments for the fine-tuning approach that jewels give? What exactly did it open up? What is now going to disappear? I’m genuinely interested in both sides of this one.

#24 - March 28, 2014, 10:41 p.m.

clint.5681:

How does streamlining it for new players when you can step into Pve/wvw and have tons of different options that dwarfs amulet + jewels.

The cost of mistakes are so much lower in PvE. Most PvP players are way more skilled than our AI, so you can get away with bad builds for much longer.

#32 - March 29, 2014, 12:36 a.m.

Acandis.3250:

Let’s pretend for a second that the people that make these decisions frequent this forum and care about what any of you have to say…

+1

#32 - March 29, 2014, 12:41 a.m.

Justin had the crux of the reasoning correct – it’s a small tweak to your build that a lot of players could do without. It’s a very small stat change in exchange for another aspect of a PvP build. By removing it, it’s one less thing a new player needs to learn. With runes, sigils, amulets, weapon skills, slotted skills, minor traits and major traits, making a build is a pretty hefty process. Jewels were a very, VERY small % of that overall build.

Trust me, doing focus tests and watching new players play the game, our builds can be very overwhelming. You guys are experts by now, but you have to keep in mind that other players are not as advanced as you are, and removing pieces to the builds allows us to slightly lower the barrier to entry.

#36 - March 29, 2014, 1:11 a.m.

Just wanted to call some attention to this thread.

It is confusing for me to see this kind of mixed messaging. A ton of people agreed in that thread that there are too many moving parts in this game to balance it well enough. Now you guys are in here saying that removing jewels equates to dumbing the game down.

Can you guys do me a favor and try the game out after the features are in the game before assuming removing this is going to ruin everything?

#82 - March 29, 2014, 11:31 a.m.

Pyriall.5027:

I find it a bit curious that NOW you quote a forum post, being that is supports your position (even moderately at best). Yet, all the other posts (hello skyhammer and skyhammer farming threads) were thought of as not valid enough.

Pyriall, I don’t HAVE a position. If anything, my position tends to stand with the community. Sometimes, you guys send mixed messaging, which is what I am trying to understand. If I go back to the devs and tell them the feedback you give in this thread, then what should I say when they bring up the point I made?

I’m not going to get into detail on the Skyhammer point because I don’t want to derail this thread, but I will say that using Skyhammer to argue your point is backwards. The only reason I commented on that thread is because I needed to know what I was going to say when I went to the team and explained how the community feels it should be removed. It was literally the first issue I raised to the team the day I came back.

You act like it is ArenaNet vs. the community, and that is just wrong on so many levels. When you see me picking apart your arguments and pointing things out, it’s because I want to make sure you have thought everything through before I raise it to the team.

We all want the same thing. For GW2 to be the best it can be.

Now, back on topic. OE, I think your points are valid. I feel like your thread has mixed messaging in it, though. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you started this thread with the concern that we are removing a piece that you feel is tantamount to build diversity. Can you explain which builds you feel this will affect? I’m asking this because I am seeing posts from others that say it’s not really going to change much.

Everyone kept asking me “Is this patch going to shake up the meta?” and it always made me chuckle knowing what was coming. Given that we are changing so much, it will be a major shake-up for those of you that have known our game through it’s ups and downs. In that sense, it will be a big adjustment.

This is why I ask that you guys try things out before assuming this will hurt build diversity or the game in general. We are shaking things up and changing systems that we have not liked for a long time. Yes, it’s going to be a renaissance of GW2 PvP.

I’m just asking you guys to be open to it. If this goes out and it didn’t work out as we had planned, then we are open to change too.

Now, I won’t post for the rest of the weekend, but I had to get that off my chest. The movers are going to be here in 30 minutes so I need to go scramble to get things ready.

#173 - March 31, 2014, 11:52 a.m.

I think the big reason we need to streamline things and make it easy to pickup is NOT because newbies are dumb or incapable of figuring it out, but rather because PvP is very, very intimidating. Reduction in apparent complexity helps PvP be more approachable and less intimidating.

Also, I can’t undersell the benefits of reducing conceptual complexity for assisting designers achieve balance. We are finite creatures, us humans, and can only hold so many things in our mind at one time. We can create tools to help work around this, but anything that helps make balance easier gets my vote.

#180 - March 31, 2014, 1:24 p.m.

Brando.1374:

so will pvp be endgame or more tailored to newer players?

When I say new players, I mean players new to PvP, not necessarily new to the game. In this sense PvP can be a new endgame for some players.

Brando.1374:

I guess my question is, will this update just bring new players into pvp or will it also keep them interested a month later?

I believe it will do both. Reducing perceptual complexity will help us attract additional players, and rewards will give them reason to stay.

#182 - March 31, 2014, 1:45 p.m.

Master of Timespace.2548:

But does this change make the game easier to balance in any meaningful sense? How many balance problems have there been due to the jewels?

It isn’t just about jewels, it’s about stats in general. I can totally see why our designers would want the most influential thing (stats) to be locked down.

#198 - March 31, 2014, 7:09 p.m.

Nike.2631:

I want a game that’s interesting to play every time I play it, not one I have to play 600 times to get Shiny X.

You aren’t alone in that. Just because we’re trying to appeal to one type of player does not mean we will ignore the others.