So I realized something. I don't dislike "passive" traits. What I dislike are boring traits. I dislike traits like the little 10% more damage traits that just become a matter of "gobble all the little bonuses you can!" Especially on Thief. None of these traits alone tend to change the way you approach a fight. I tend to not dislike many of the Grandmaster minor traits in this category as much, but that's mostly because they tend to be thematic and therefore take a type of playstyle to keep turned on.
Those are pretty much exactly the traits I zero in on. "+x damage", "y% chance", "increases damage by z." They're boring, but theorycrafters
love them because they give simple, easily-calculated bonuses with no room for error. They're foolproof damage increases that make the
character better regardless of the
player's skill. I think we probably align on what constitutes a 'good' trait and what constitutes a 'boring' trait.
It's hard to find a catch-all term other than 'passive' for these kind of things, because boring is to subjective. I used "mindless" at first, but it comes off as condescending. ArenaNet tends to talk in terms of "Skillful" traits and abilities, though I can't for the life of me remember what their opposing term was (it was mentioned in a stream a while ago). I like traits that change things in a very noticeable, tangible way. You just cant get that with 'little bites' of power.
I'm fine with certain "uncounterable" traits. That's because many of them are build defining. The issue comes to their trade off and design. What people want are more opportunities. One example is Fresh Air, a trait that you can't completely avoid allowing to trigger but you can mitigate the advantage and the opportunities it gives the Ele player through good play. Using the word "passive" is disingenuous to a lot of traits.
Fresh Air doesn't really fall into my definition of a 'passive' trait, though it is close. Yes, the function itself is passive, but it's triggering something the player has to acknowledge and act on. It's not just "lets you pew-pew harder" or "lets you pew pew again sooner" automatically because all it's doing is giving you the option to switch attunements, which is arguably one of the more skillful aspects of the profession.
Again, this is why 'passive' isn't perhaps the
best term, but as a catch-all may be the most appropriate for quick discussion without sounding like I'm talking down to people.
Part of the problem is the ease, or lack of, in playing against it. Some traits gain their opportunity by being defensive minded, and it's harder in this game to change up your method of offense than your method of defense. Examples of this are in Automated Reponse and Diamond Skin.
Both of those traits are pretty boring, but it's hard to argue against wanting some kind of defensive option. That's one of the reason I allowed specific slots for reactionary traits (which both Automated Response and Diamond Skin would likely fall under); they give you a way to incorporate 'emergency', defensive traits without feeling like you're gimping your damage.
But I digress. What I really wanted to do was make a comparison to Monster Hunter. The thing is, most of Monster Hunter's closest equivalent to GW2's trait system, the armor skill system, is used to improve some thing you already do by X%. The primary difference is that those changes make huge mechanical differences for different weapon types (classes). One example is the fact that everyone in Monster Hunter has an endurance bar for dodging, but many weapons come with different additional ways to use endurance so getting more or less regeneration changes the opportunities and decision making for them. Even raw attack damage has a place because it can effect flinches, trips, and limb breaking of the monsters.
This is what I'm constantly getting at when I talk about a "rule-breaking" approach to mechanics. To use your MH example, endurance is used for dodging, but based on weapon choice that rule can be broken to perform different functions. "Huge mechanical differences" is more or less what I would like traits to do.
Your system, Retro, would make GW2 even less of an RPG than Monster Hunter in ways. Not saying that that's good or bad, but an observation of parts like the Weapon Traits (although that can also be seen as just a streamlining).
That was my intent; to make traits big, gameplay changes rather than tiny little shifts in the under-the-hood math. RPGs are defined by their math, since they're digital versions of tabletop games which, when you get down to it, used all of the stats and dice rolls to simulate conflict resolution (since the alternative is "I killed the goblin with my axe", "No you didn't, he dodged", "Well, I predicted his dodge and moved with him and still killed him", "Nuh-uh!"). Which is fine for both table top games and RPGs. But we're at a point where games can do all the heavy lifting math used to and put that power in the hands of the gamer rather than the numbers.
Basically, the less stats and number crunching involved in a game that I am not specifically playing for those kind of mechanics (i.e JRPGs, SRPGs,etc.), the more I enjoy it. My ideal MMO is a stat-less, class-less, level-less skill-driven horizontal-oriented action game.
It's also why I see potential in a large majority of the new Grandmaster traits. While most see them as underpowered or useless, I see opportunities created for a lot of types of builds that are nowhere near the radar of the meta. Even something simple like the Guardian being able to trait for 50% more HP above base can bring a build into proper existence.
The Force of Will trait could be handled in a much more interesting way though. Instead of just "have more health!", it could be treated almost as a 'layer' of health over your existing HP bubble. Something like this:
Anyone who wants to injure you has to get through the "Blue" health first. And while that extra health effect is active, there's a visual indicator on your character; you're glowing with blue fire or something cool like that. The trick is, the extra health you get cannot be healed in combat, and is instead restored only after your health regenerates fully outside of combat.
Same effect (3000 HP is how much health you'd have at 80 with the trait), different approach. It takes the rule "Guardians have x health" and breaks it; Guardians have x health,
but also have a special health 'armor' you have to break through first to hurt them. Using my trait concept above, Force of Will would be considered an "Expertise Trait". A nice "Ascended Trait" could allow you to break the broken rule, and allow you to restore your Force of Will-based health in combat somehow.
And it's a lot more interesting than 300 vitality.
