Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Pretty Little Trait Machine

ArenaNet Petersblog on new secondary attributes and traits

Recap:
  • 5 new attribute stats and 8 new class-specific ones
  • The new attributes are only gained by investing points into trait lines and equipping gear
  • You get a trait point every level from 11 to 80
  • Trait points can be spent across 5 different trait lines, which are kind of like talent trees
  • Each point put into a line improves 2 attributes assigned to that line, and spending 5/15/25 and 10/25/30 points unlocks minor/major slots for traits (talents)

You can put 30 max points into each trait line, so, I'm assuming at 80 you could max out 2 trees and have another 10 points to spare.

I like it in that it adds some defined variety and flavor to classes. For instance: my favorite class is usually some form of Beastmaster, because (A) I wuv animals, I like the idea of having a trusty companion who can rip your f'ing face off in the blink of an eye, and, (B) I'm pretty shitty at video games and you can usually play a pet class with your eyes closed.



Now, with this Beastmastery trait line, the Ranger will be putting points into a new-fangled Empathy stat to strengthen his pet while unlocking traits that augment a pet-centric style of play.

Sounds good and gooder. Like the blog says, "Play Your Way".

Some guys hate pet classes, but like playing sharpshooting Archers. Fair enough, don't put your points into Beastmastery, put them into Marksmanship. And so on. Now each class is even more varied and customizable. And, yes, using talent trees called 'Beastmastery' and 'Marksmanship' sounds super creative and original.

There are, naturally, gripes to grope at --

You have to visit a trainer to re-spec traits, so players won't be as optimal when switching roles on the fly (something that was proudly bragged about when ArenaNet talked about killing the Holy Trinity roles of tank and healer). They've essentially traded a bit of versatility for more variety and customization -- not the worst trade-off in the world, I think. But everyone thinks different things.

If anything, I was more bothered by the need to hit level 40 and 60 to progress past the caps of 10 and 20 points per trait line. Let's say you're a Fire Mage and you're mad about fire spells... do you want to hit invisible walls and not be able to trait more into Fire Magic? Probably not.

It also might be an issue if gear gets in the way of 'Play Your Way'. Are items going to be itemized and itemified well enough that I could compete with a balls-out, crit-crazy Skirmisher Ranger if the #'s on my gear just don't add up for me as a B.M. Ranger?

Also, the attributes are tied to specific trait lines, and thus trait lines are tied to specific attributes. Like stated above, a Beastmaster Ranger will be increasing his Empathy stat, which makes more than enough sense. But it also improves his Compassion, the stat that boosts your healing powers. This makes sense, balance-wise, but what if you want Beastmastery and don't give a shit about healing? And so on. I'm sure there are players that would associate "Death Magic" with, you know, making shit die. But, with Necromancers, Death Magic actually increases his armor and prolongs the few friendly neighborhood boon spells he knows.



1 comment:

  1. It sounds suspiciously close to the system used in DAoC where you had all of your baseline spells, but could then spec into your choice of three different trees, thus making you better at one or two specific types of skills/spells and giving you additional skills/spells in those lines. IIRC, you could only max out one mastery line in DAoC, but you would still have enough points left over to spec up fairly high in the other two.

    The more I read about GW2, the more I think they took every excellent system from DAoC for their game, and I couldn't be happier because regardless of the PvE changes and Mastery levels, nobody has done three faction PvP (hell, _any_ PvP) quite as well as DAoC does. I'll need to play to see if it lives up to the expectations, but it really sounds spot on thus far.

    ReplyDelete