What's your opinion on roles?

[joneirikb.7506]

The best thing I can recommend is to find a guild or a "static" group to do dungeons/fractals with, that feels the same or is ok with it. You can play Tank/Healer/DPS style if you want to, as long as everyone agrees to it. The game allows for it, even if most people doesn't play that way.

 

I've been grouping up with a couple of buddies of mine, on whatever weird builds we've had at the time and done dungeons. I was testing a weird guardian build and ended up quite an efficient tank, so I just told the others to wait and let me pickup the enemies first since most enemies just target the first player they see. And another player had a staff elementalist so he doubled up as healer, just told him to torhw water fields on me and blast them. Wasn't fast, but it worked, and we had fun.

 

So the game doesn't need a hard trinity, it already allows you to play however you like, so the problem is finding other players to play with that feels the same.

[PyrateSilly.4710]

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> Considering GW2 was designed not to use those roles, I find it strange to say they've killed them. They're not actually supposed to exist to begin with.

 

This is it exactly .... the only role is the one you want to play ....

[FrizzFreston.5290]

GW2 does have roles, except its always tied to also fighting (DPS) yourself.

 

I would recommend playing Guardian, I do have near full DPS gear, but... I always trait for extra support and always try to use my skills as such. So yeah youre doing mostly damage, but you do keep an eye out for those who need healing or protecting while doing so.

 

I would say, its like a shooter, everyone has a gun to kill ... but your utilities determine your role..

[Rauderi.8706]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> I like the fact that roles aren't a hard requirement.

 

Best thing. Though, I would like to see more aggro control for those who want to tank, I'm glad none of it is required for most content.

 

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

I believe it's a failed experiment. It carries more or less the same drawbacks of the trinity system (i.e. required roles for high end content) with none of the advantages. By which I mean that the roles we do have do not feel fully developed and everything else is just "DPS".

 

Waiting for tanks and healers doesn't feel any different than waiting for druid and chrono. But playing tanks and healers feels distinctly different than playing DPS and creates gameplay dynamics that feel completely missing here in GW2.

 

In my opinion, trinity is simply better.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> I think build diversity is a good thing and A-Net should stop trying to force certain playstyles onto people.

 

I don't see ANet forcing play styles on anyone. It's the community that does so.

[Tails.9372]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > I think build diversity is a good thing and A-Net should stop trying to force certain playstyles onto people.

>

> I don't see ANet forcing play styles on anyone. It's the community that does so.

Then you might wanna take another look, for example they're constantly trying to force stealth down your throat if your playing as thief. Having the option to take a more stealthy approach is one thing, that's what shadow arts is there for but if you want to take a more direct approach with less focus on stealth you get the nerf bat for no reason. Also, traits like Sundering Shade have no business being in critical strikes.

[derd.6413]

> @"Rauderi.8706" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > I like the fact that roles aren't a hard requirement.

>

> Best thing. Though, I would like to see more aggro control for those who want to tank, I'm glad none of it is required for most content.

>

>

 

Warrior taunt spec?

[Nate.8146]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> I don't see ANet forcing play styles on anyone. It's the community that does so.

Not necessarily. Anet has changed builds through nerfs and buffs that generally lead to players changing skills, gear, and food setups. Some builds even had to migrate from power <-> condi in order to stay competitive. And then there's raids and timers which pretty much funnel you into specific skills and rotations.

 

Personally I like role based play as it gives each player a sense of purpose and it helps to slow things down so you can enjoy the content rather than burn through it. It also gives me a sense of pride over how I built my character and what I can individually contribute. ESO does this ok'ish as the builds are flexible enough that a healer can also double as a magicka damage dealer, so it's not a linear gameplay experience. Planetside 2 was another cool role based game. I loved playing as an engineer and repairing tanks and setting up defenses for my team. Or driving a sundeer, or dropship, or tank, or engaging in areal combat. So much diversity and each person is valued for their individual contribution.

 

But GW2 is fine in its own way. It's an MMO single player game until you want to do fractals, dungeons, metas, or raids. It doesn't force socialization on you even in group play modes. All you have to do is stay alive and DPS. You repeat those 2 tasks and no one will complain. You fail at either, and you will be called out.

[Algreg.3629]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > I think build diversity is a good thing and A-Net should stop trying to force certain playstyles onto people.

>

> I don't see ANet forcing play styles on anyone. It's the community that does so.

 

if you design gaming systems in a way giving certain character specs huge advantages in specific content, then you do.

[Rauderi.8706]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> > @"Rauderi.8706" said:

> > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > I like the fact that roles aren't a hard requirement.

> >

> > Best thing. Though, I would like to see more aggro control for those who want to tank, I'm glad none of it is required for most content.

> >

> >

>

> Warrior taunt spec?

 

I want that so bad, but there are very few taunts for Warrior, and it *should* have been a Spellbreaker shtick.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> I believe it's a failed experiment. It carries more or less the same drawbacks of the trinity system (i.e. required roles for high end content) with none of the advantages. By which I mean that the roles we do have do not feel fully developed and everything else is just "DPS".

>

> Waiting for tanks and healers doesn't feel any different than waiting for druid and chrono. But playing tanks and healers feels distinctly different than playing DPS and creates gameplay dynamics that feel completely missing here in GW2.

>

> In my opinion, trinity is simply better.

 

I don't think the experiment failed. Maybe it failed _you_ in some fashion, or some group of gamers of unknown size. For others, the experiment works famously.

 

In standard trinity, the whole system is geared towards the group producing the most DPS the game allows them to generate. The tank and healer are allowed to produce less DPS because their contribution is necessary to the group doing the most damage possible. In the same way, groups in GW2 aim to produce the most damage the system allows for. Some players play buff roles, one may hold aggro, one may heal, and some of those players are held to lower DPS standards because they are playing those roles.

 

Maybe, instead of the no-tank/healer experiment failing, what's failed anyone who thinks it has is the _way_ the skills which provide buffs/heals/control are used rather than those play options not being supported. Maybe any difference in how playing roles in traditional games feels is down to something as simple as the lack of being able to target allies.

 

Of course, it's also possible the experiment looks -- to me -- to have succeeded because I view traditional tanking as really stupid mob AI ignoring the attackers hurting it to focus on the one hurting them the least.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > I believe it's a failed experiment. It carries more or less the same drawbacks of the trinity system (i.e. required roles for high end content) with none of the advantages. By which I mean that the roles we do have do not feel fully developed and everything else is just "DPS".

> >

> > Waiting for tanks and healers doesn't feel any different than waiting for druid and chrono. But playing tanks and healers feels distinctly different than playing DPS and creates gameplay dynamics that feel completely missing here in GW2.

> >

> > In my opinion, trinity is simply better.

>

> I don't think the experiment failed. Maybe it failed _you_ in some fashion, or some group of gamers of unknown size. For others, the experiment works famously.

>

> In standard trinity, the whole system is geared towards the group producing the most DPS the game allows them to generate. The tank and healer are allowed to produce less DPS because their contribution is necessary to the group doing the most damage possible. In the same way, groups in GW2 aim to produce the most damage the system allows for. Some players play buff roles, one may hold aggro, one may heal, and some of those players are held to lower DPS standards because they are playing those roles.

>

> Maybe, instead of the no-tank/healer experiment failing, what's failed anyone who thinks it has is the _way_ the skills which provide buffs/heals/control are used rather than those play options not being supported. Maybe any difference in how playing roles in traditional games feels is down to something as simple as the lack of being able to target allies.

>

> Of course, it's also possible the experiment looks -- to me -- to have succeeded because I view traditional tanking as really stupid mob AI ignoring the attackers hurting it to focus on the one hurting them the least.

 

Is the AI really smarter in a non-trinity system? Or is it simply designed to be inscrutable to the player such that it precludes the possibility of threat manipulation (i.e. "tanking")? Where threat manipulation is part of the tank-DPS group dynamic, here there is nothing. You can see this has limited encounter design when they introduce pseudo-tanking into raid encounters, thus creating a pale shadow of trinity gameplay by necessity.

 

The same can be said of healing, which mostly consists of spamming area effects onto a stack of players. In a trinity game, there are several different types of healers and mechanics inherent to healing gameplay that are missing here. A druid is in GW2 is simply a dumbed down version of a trinity healer precisely because they wished to avoid the healing role, yet found it difficult to design compelling group encounters without them.

[man zonder schaduw.9721]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > > I believe it's a failed experiment. It carries more or less the same drawbacks of the trinity system (i.e. required roles for high end content) with none of the advantages. By which I mean that the roles we do have do not feel fully developed and everything else is just "DPS".

> > >

> > > Waiting for tanks and healers doesn't feel any different than waiting for druid and chrono. But playing tanks and healers feels distinctly different than playing DPS and creates gameplay dynamics that feel completely missing here in GW2.

> > >

> > > In my opinion, trinity is simply better.

> >

> > I don't think the experiment failed. Maybe it failed _you_ in some fashion, or some group of gamers of unknown size. For others, the experiment works famously.

> >

> > In standard trinity, the whole system is geared towards the group producing the most DPS the game allows them to generate. The tank and healer are allowed to produce less DPS because their contribution is necessary to the group doing the most damage possible. In the same way, groups in GW2 aim to produce the most damage the system allows for. Some players play buff roles, one may hold aggro, one may heal, and some of those players are held to lower DPS standards because they are playing those roles.

> >

> > Maybe, instead of the no-tank/healer experiment failing, what's failed anyone who thinks it has is the _way_ the skills which provide buffs/heals/control are used rather than those play options not being supported. Maybe any difference in how playing roles in traditional games feels is down to something as simple as the lack of being able to target allies.

> >

> > Of course, it's also possible the experiment looks -- to me -- to have succeeded because I view traditional tanking as really stupid mob AI ignoring the attackers hurting it to focus on the one hurting them the least.

>

> Is the AI really smarter in a non-trinity system? Or is it simply designed to be inscrutable to the player such that it precludes the possibility of threat manipulation (i.e. "tanking")? Where threat manipulation is part of the tank-DPS group dynamic, here there is nothing. You can see this has limited encounter design when they introduce pseudo-tanking into raid encounters, thus creating a pale shadow of trinity gameplay by necessity.

>

> The same can be said of healing, which mostly consists of spamming area effects onto a stack of players. In a trinity game, there are several different types of healers and mechanics inherent to healing gameplay that are missing here. A druid is in GW2 is simply a dumbed down version of a trinity healer precisely because they wished to avoid the healing role, yet found it difficult to design compelling group encounters without them.

 

@"IndigoSundown.5419" so you're saying that the new age of support is buffing and removing condi's from the dps?

and dealing damage in the meantime.

It feels weird to me that enemies veterans or elites for example deal only a little more damage then others.

tanks were designed to deal with the high damage these enemies should deal. healers to take care of the tanks and then dps to kill it, THAT is team effort.

like it is now (elite and veteran deal only a bit more damage and got like 5 times normal health or) its just a buttonclicker game.

Well it feels to me so.

 

 

As @""AliamRationem.5172" says the tread system is a cool way to make it a challange to keep aggro as a tank. I think Anet should think about how to implement roles into the game but not as hard requirements. but hey whats fun about raiding or doing dungeons without roles? we got enough elite specs to let classes play different roles.

if roles were starting today the ques would be hours because we all be waiting for a druid or chrono. but what if there were like 3 healer classes 3 tank classes and probz a lot more dps classes. It will go faster. It will bring joy for all types of players.

 

[Chyanne Waters.8719]

Sorry but all I see is that the OP wants this to be like the game he/she came from. Wanna be a healer you have a few options Druid, Elementalist, Guardian, and Revenant as Ventari. They have to be equipped to heal and you do not get to heal from the party bar. Healing in this game is challenging for a healer type. You also have to set your profession up with the right armor, trinkets, runes and sigils to be a healer. Stop complaining and learn what has to be done. Same with tank there are a few professions for that also. DPS is needed in fights, but that does not mean every build is DPS it really depends on the player armor and build they use. GW2 was built on a non holy trinity idea we been using it for almost 6 years now and I do not think its gonna change. So give it a try and see what you can do to make GW2 your game instead of the one you used to play.

[zealex.9410]

> @"man zonder schaduw.9721" said:

> That's true but they are pretty much used for raids and high lvl fractals.

> i would like to see roles to be needed in lower lvl fractals and even dungeons (they will need to come back first tho).

> so people can learn how to play and all, i think it's more fun. It feels like it's all about dps nowadays.

>

> I do like that you can play any character in PVE yes. but every class has got 3 specs now if a healer has a dmg spec for pve it would be fine too.

>

 

U can take a healing guard and trivialise encounters in low tier content.

[Einlanzer.1627]

The hard trinity is outdated, and I really like Arenanet's attempt at simulating a better, more fluid role system, but it needs a lot of work still, which it never gets in the quarterly "balance" updates.

 

The "support" role is too dominated by Druid and Chrono due mostly to excessive boon sharing, which is something that has persisted without balance updates for far too long. Many other professions have support-heavy loadouts but they're all very mediocre at it in comparison. Banner warriors, Heralds, core Guardians/Firebrands, Suport engis, and Water Eles should all be better at the support role than they are (or, rather, Druid and Chrono probably need nerfing).

 

The "control" role should be a thing but basically doesn't exist. Defiance is an overly simple mechanic that doesn't do a good job of making control a build-able or interesting role. I get that it's tough to design this well for boss encounters, but things should be designed in a way where a control-focused character can control the battlefield effectively with weaker enemies, which should probably be more present with boss encounters than they usually are. There are ways to do it, and Anet is just not doing a great job of exploring it.

 

For DPS, I think the Power/Condi balance isn't as good as it should be. Fights should generally favor a mix of both when most fights heavily favor one or the other. Condi tends to be stronger than direct damage outside of short fights and specialized mechanics to purge or resist condi, which I think is problematic design. As I've said numerous times, I really think power and condi should be balanced primarily through armor ratings and not through fight length (condi should have short duration and moderate damage application.)

 

Lastly, I don't think you need to have a hard tank role, but the "defender" role is currently severely lacking and basically as nonexistent as the control role is. It shouldn't be like it is in WoW where one player single-handedly holds the front line and takes all the damage, but players should be able to gear in such a way that they can manipulate threat to some degree to take attacks from weaker characters. They need to rethink the implementation of and mechanics surrounding Vitality, Toughness, HP, and threat manipulation.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> I really like Arenanet's attempt at simulating a role system without a hard trinity, although the execution does need a bit more iteration (as others have stated, chrono and druid are too dominant mostly because of their over-the-top boon sharing, which is something that has persisted without balance updates for far too long.)

>

> In particular, Elementalist, Engineer, Guardian, and Revenant all have heavy support themes built into their profession but are pretty mediocre in that role compared to druid and chrono, which is something that needs to be re-balanced.

>

> I also think that the Power/Condi balance isn't as good as it should be. Fights should generally favor a mix of both when most fights heavily favor one or the other. Condi tends to be stronger than direct damage unless the fight is very, very short, which isn't a great meta to have. As I've said many times, armor rating should be the primary determinant of whether direct or condition damage is better.

>

> Lastly, I don't think you need to have a hard "tank role", and it's actually better if you don't, however, defensive stats are not tuned the right way especially in PvE. They need to rethink the implementation of and mechanics surrounding Vitality and Toughness.

 

Here's the problem with this thinking. If you have no "hard" tank role, as you say, what do you have? Without meaningful threat manipulation you can't force enemies to attack your tank. This means that there has to be some way for non-tanks to survive boss damage. So now your pseudo-tank not only can't protect other players, but has no significant advantage over non-tanks defensively. In other words, your tank in this scenario is just a DPS role that can't deal damage effectively.

 

You propose balancing stats like vitality/toughness, but without introducing meaningful threat manipulation that would ultimately facilitate a hard tanking role. How? First, it goes against the entire design paradigm of action combat. You're supposed to avoid damage, not tank it. And if you make these stats required for survival without adding in some means of a tanky character protecting non-tanky characters, then everyone ends up having to use these stats and we're back to square one.

 

Which brings us back to the current system. The only roles we have are healers, support, and DPS. A trinity of sorts, but it lacks depth compared to a traditional trinity system because it's an intentional failure to commit to fully developed roles. Conceptually I don't see how this is an improvement over the trinity and, in practice, my opinion is that it definitely isn't.

[joneirikb.7506]

Originally the game had the three soft roles "Damage, Support, Control". Where Control was basically taking the role of the "tank" traditionally. By using control effects, CC, and stuff to limit their movement, positioning and actions (anything from cripple, slow, chill, imob, stun, daze, line of warding, Banish etc). But some mobs was immune to this (champions mostly), and later with the breakbar being added to anything of champion or higher, and even a few veteran's and elite's as well.

 

I'm not sure where the "Control" role is today, kind of feel it would be described more as Support than anything. But Support was originally more based on giving out boons, condi removal, and small heals. Not breaking breakbars...

 

Another thing was that all of these 3 "soft roles" where built into each class, so every class could do some of each, and often at the same time. But no one could focus only on a single one of them (well, except damage, kinda). So in a 5 man group content, each player had to contribute to all: Damage, Support, Control. And that is a great idea/system.

 

Unfortunately, 5x pure dmg speck seems to work on everything these days :(

 

I think that is something that should be worked/fixed on, not adding hard roles. The problem with that, is how the heck to add this into an action combat system, where you can have better defenses in Zerk than Soldier stats?

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"man zonder schaduw.9721" said:

> > @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > Considering GW2 was designed not to use those roles, I find it strange to say they've killed them. They're not actually supposed to exist to begin with.

>

> I personally dislike the fact they aren't existing that's why i wanted to start the discussion.

> I know people do like it, because most people play dps.

> But there's this small group of healer/support/tank players who are being pushed to dps.

 

If there's a small group of healer/support/tank players that are being pushed to dps, why did they even start playing this game in the first place? When it was advertised heavily to not rely on the trinity, that every player would be able to do every thing...no one would be pigeonholed into performing one particular role. That was a godsend, it meant you didn't need to rely on other players to do content, not unless you wanted to, it meant the players could be "truly" free to do what they wanted when they wanted with who ever they wanted.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

>

> Is the AI really smarter in a non-trinity system? Or is it simply designed to be inscrutable to the player such that it precludes the possibility of threat manipulation (i.e. "tanking")? Where threat manipulation is part of the tank-DPS group dynamic, here there is nothing. You can see this has limited encounter design when they introduce pseudo-tanking into raid encounters, thus creating a pale shadow of trinity gameplay by necessity.

 

If it's attacking the people doing the most damage, it may not be smarter, but that behavior is at least understandable. Yeah, the people who demanded roles for instanced content may have thought they would prevail when ANet designed toughness-based aggro. What happened, though, is that while they (probably) wanted the whole ball of wax, ANet tried a split between trinity roles and the original soft roles of DPS, Support and Control. That approach was going to fail to please some people -- though it seems there are some who've embraced it.

 

> The same can be said of healing, which mostly consists of spamming area effects onto a stack of players. In a trinity game, there are several different types of healers and mechanics inherent to healing gameplay that are missing here. A druid is in GW2 is simply a dumbed down version of a trinity healer precisely because they wished to avoid the healing role, yet found it difficult to design compelling group encounters without them.

 

So, it is -- at least in part, and at least for you -- the non-targeted nature of healing that limits the healing "role" in GW2. Frankly, you could say the same thing about buffs, and even to some extent attacks in GW2. There are a lot of AoE skills in this game. My take is that this is largely because it takes real skill to land a single target attack versus a target that never stops moving.

 

As to "compelling group encounters" in trinity games, that's an opinion, not a fact. Whether someone likes trinity encounters or not is going to vary from individual to individual. You find them compelling. I find GW2 encounters to be no more compelling, but certainly no less so -- than the hard trinity games I played. That was not so true with explorable dungeons at first, but that was in part due (imo) to the game launching before they were ready, which meant there were too many bags of health which did nothing but stand there and execute their three moves in sequence until dead.

 

> @"man zonder schaduw.9721" said:

>

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" so you're saying that the new age of support is buffing and removing condi's from the dps?

> and dealing damage in the meantime.

 

I don't think it's that simple.

 

> It feels weird to me that enemies veterans or elites for example deal only a little more damage then others.

> tanks were designed to deal with the high damage these enemies should deal. healers to take care of the tanks and then dps to kill it, THAT is team effort.

 

So, there are two players in a group playing a specialized role that enables the DPS -- for the most part, barring mechanics compliance and moving out of fire -- to sit back and run through their rotations with impunity. By contrast, GW2 buffers/healers/controllers use their buffs, heals and control when needed, and also do damage. That's team effort too, it's just with team mechanics that are different.

 

> like it is now (elite and veteran deal only a bit more damage and got like 5 times normal health or) its just a buttonclicker game.

> Well it feels to me so.

 

I hear that a lot, which neither makes that opinion right, or wrong, just relatively common.

 

> As @""AliamRationem.5172" says the tread system is a cool way to make it a challange to keep aggro as a tank. I think Anet should think about how to implement roles into the game but not as hard requirements. but hey whats fun about raiding or doing dungeons without roles? we got enough elite specs to let classes play different roles.

> if roles were starting today the ques would be hours because we all be waiting for a druid or chrono. but what if there were like 3 healer classes 3 tank classes and probz a lot more dps classes. It will go faster. It will bring joy for all types of players.

 

ANet keeps trying to open the accepted tank/healer roles to other professions, and that so far seems to have not worked. As far as tank/healer roles as soft requirements, that's what seems to be going on in Fractals at the moment. The fact is, unless ANet were to make those roles to be hard requirements -- as we see to some extent in raids -- players will not use them.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> >

> > Is the AI really smarter in a non-trinity system? Or is it simply designed to be inscrutable to the player such that it precludes the possibility of threat manipulation (i.e. "tanking")? Where threat manipulation is part of the tank-DPS group dynamic, here there is nothing. You can see this has limited encounter design when they introduce pseudo-tanking into raid encounters, thus creating a pale shadow of trinity gameplay by necessity.

>

> If it's attacking the people doing the most damage, it may not be smarter, but that behavior is at least understandable. Yeah, the people who demanded roles for instanced content may have thought they would prevail when ANet designed toughness-based aggro. What happened, though, is that while they (probably) wanted the whole ball of wax, ANet tried a split between trinity roles and the original soft roles of DPS, Support and Control. That approach was going to fail to please some people -- though it seems there are some who've embraced it.

>

> > The same can be said of healing, which mostly consists of spamming area effects onto a stack of players. In a trinity game, there are several different types of healers and mechanics inherent to healing gameplay that are missing here. A druid is in GW2 is simply a dumbed down version of a trinity healer precisely because they wished to avoid the healing role, yet found it difficult to design compelling group encounters without them.

>

> So, it is -- at least in part, and at least for you -- the non-targeted nature of healing that limits the healing "role" in GW2. Frankly, you could say the same thing about buffs, and even to some extent attacks in GW2. There are a lot of AoE skills in this game. My take is that this is largely because it takes real skill to land a single target attack versus a target that never stops moving.

>

> As to "compelling group encounters" in trinity games, that's an opinion, not a fact. Whether someone likes trinity encounters or not is going to vary from individual to individual. You find them compelling. I find GW2 encounters to be no more compelling, but certainly no less so -- than the hard trinity games I played. That was not so true with explorable dungeons at first, but that was in part due (imo) to the game launching before they were ready, which meant there were too many bags of health which did nothing but stand there and execute their three moves in sequence until dead.

>

> > @"man zonder schaduw.9721" said:

> >

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" so you're saying that the new age of support is buffing and removing condi's from the dps?

> > and dealing damage in the meantime.

>

> I don't think it's that simple.

>

> > It feels weird to me that enemies veterans or elites for example deal only a little more damage then others.

> > tanks were designed to deal with the high damage these enemies should deal. healers to take care of the tanks and then dps to kill it, THAT is team effort.

>

> So, there are two players in a group playing a specialized role that enables the DPS -- for the most part, barring mechanics compliance and moving out of fire -- to sit back and run through their rotations with impunity. By contrast, GW2 buffers/healers/controllers use their buffs, heals and control when needed, and also do damage. That's team effort too, it's just with team mechanics that are different.

>

> > like it is now (elite and veteran deal only a bit more damage and got like 5 times normal health or) its just a buttonclicker game.

> > Well it feels to me so.

>

> I hear that a lot, which neither makes that opinion right, or wrong, just relatively common.

>

> > As @""AliamRationem.5172" says the tread system is a cool way to make it a challange to keep aggro as a tank. I think Anet should think about how to implement roles into the game but not as hard requirements. but hey whats fun about raiding or doing dungeons without roles? we got enough elite specs to let classes play different roles.

> > if roles were starting today the ques would be hours because we all be waiting for a druid or chrono. but what if there were like 3 healer classes 3 tank classes and probz a lot more dps classes. It will go faster. It will bring joy for all types of players.

>

> ANet keeps trying to open the accepted tank/healer roles to other professions, and that so far seems to have not worked. As far as tank/healer roles as soft requirements, that's what seems to be going on in Fractals at the moment. The fact is, unless ANet were to make those roles to be hard requirements -- as we see to some extent in raids -- players will not use them.

 

You can embrace these "soft" roles if you like, but the fact is support is only worthwhile in this game insofar as it increases damage output, for the same reasons that toughness/vitality are not valued stats in group content. Druid is probably not even strictly the best healer either, but it can heal while increasing group damage more than other classes can. How much do you really need a healer in a game designed without tanking? What is "support" in that scenario but a means of increasing damage output for the group? As I said, it lacks depth compared to a trinity system.

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

>

> You can embrace these "soft" roles if you like, but the fact is support is only worthwhile in this game insofar as it increases damage output, for the same reasons that toughness/vitality are not valued stats in group content. Druid is probably not even strictly the best healer either, but it can heal while increasing group damage more than other classes can. How much do you really need a healer in a game designed without tanking? What is "support" in that scenario but a means of increasing damage output for the group? As I said, it lacks depth compared to a trinity system.

>

 

It isn't that I am embracing the soft roles, it's that I don't find them to be any worse than trinity roles. My opinion, if I were to be frank, is that instanced PvE, whether GW2 style or old school, is stilted, with scripted encounters against AI opponents that are trivialized by the practice effect. I don't mind the soft roles as much as I minded the hard roles elsewhere, that's all.

 

That said, I don't put much stock in the, "It's all just about DPS." comments. The goal behind tanking and healing in trinity play is also to maximize group damage output. This is inevitable because the goal of the encounter is to kill the boss. There's just a different slant to it.

 

The difference between the two systems, to me , is all about the perspective of the tank and healer. In trinity, they are doing something different and thus special. From the perspective of the DPS, trinity DPS players are just doing damage either way, barring things like moving out of fire and following mechanics, which are substantially the same in either system. In soft role, there is a potential that all players will do DPS and something else, though the execution of that is spotty, at best.

 

As to what need is there for a healer in GW2? Well, if the group is taking more damage than the players can mitigate, the healer keeps them up. It's the same thing as keeping the tank up -- fail in that task and the group can wipe. The notable exception as far as perception goes, and I suspect it's a big one for some, is that the healer can't target his allies. Heck, as I said before, I think the prevalence of point blank and ground targeted AoE's can negatively impact player perception of engagement in GW2. Then again, it could be that I tend to think people conflate one thing with another all the time.

 

By the way, I'm not trying to change your mind on what you like. That would be futile.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> >

> > You can embrace these "soft" roles if you like, but the fact is support is only worthwhile in this game insofar as it increases damage output, for the same reasons that toughness/vitality are not valued stats in group content. Druid is probably not even strictly the best healer either, but it can heal while increasing group damage more than other classes can. How much do you really need a healer in a game designed without tanking? What is "support" in that scenario but a means of increasing damage output for the group? As I said, it lacks depth compared to a trinity system.

> >

>

> It isn't that I am embracing the soft roles, it's that I don't find them to be any worse than trinity roles. My opinion, if I were to be frank, is that instanced PvE, whether GW2 style or old school, is stilted, with scripted encounters against AI opponents that are trivialized by the practice effect. I don't mind the soft roles as much as I minded the hard roles elsewhere, that's all.

>

> That said, I don't put much stock in the, "It's all just about DPS." comments. The goal behind tanking and healing in trinity play is also to maximize group damage output. This is inevitable because the goal of the encounter is to kill the boss. There's just a different slant to it.

>

> The difference between the two systems, to me , is all about the perspective of the tank and healer. In trinity, they are doing something different and thus special. From the perspective of the DPS, trinity DPS players are just doing damage either way, barring things like moving out of fire and following mechanics, which are substantially the same in either system. In soft role, there is a potential that all players will do DPS and something else, though the execution of that is spotty, at best.

>

> As to what need is there for a healer in GW2? Well, if the group is taking more damage than the players can mitigate, the healer keeps them up. It's the same thing as keeping the tank up -- fail in that task and the group can wipe. The notable exception as far as perception goes, and I suspect it's a big one for some, is that the healer can't target his allies. Heck, as I said before, I think the prevalence of point blank and ground targeted AoE's can negatively impact player perception of engagement in GW2. Then again, it could be that I tend to think people conflate one thing with another all the time.

>

> By the way, I'm not trying to change your mind on what you like. That would be futile.

 

Yes, spamming area effects is much more simplistic than the variety of healers present in systems designed with actual healing roles. Just as tanking in trinity games is about more than just passively soaking damage. And it definitely does feel as if all classes in this non-trinity system are essentially DPS+ - not really any different from DPS roles in trinity games, except that here we are lacking the variety of true tanking and healing roles.

 

Is it simply poor execution? Perhaps. But I struggle to imagine a way in which these issues could be resolved and it seems the devs do, too. Why else do we have half-baked attempts to introduce these missing roles coinciding with the introduction of raid content? If they could have made it work without them, don't you think they would have?

[man zonder schaduw.9721]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > >

> > > You can embrace these "soft" roles if you like, but the fact is support is only worthwhile in this game insofar as it increases damage output, for the same reasons that toughness/vitality are not valued stats in group content. Druid is probably not even strictly the best healer either, but it can heal while increasing group damage more than other classes can. How much do you really need a healer in a game designed without tanking? What is "support" in that scenario but a means of increasing damage output for the group? As I said, it lacks depth compared to a trinity system.

> > >

> >

> > It isn't that I am embracing the soft roles, it's that I don't find them to be any worse than trinity roles. My opinion, if I were to be frank, is that instanced PvE, whether GW2 style or old school, is stilted, with scripted encounters against AI opponents that are trivialized by the practice effect. I don't mind the soft roles as much as I minded the hard roles elsewhere, that's all.

> >

> > That said, I don't put much stock in the, "It's all just about DPS." comments. The goal behind tanking and healing in trinity play is also to maximize group damage output. This is inevitable because the goal of the encounter is to kill the boss. There's just a different slant to it.

> >

> > The difference between the two systems, to me , is all about the perspective of the tank and healer. In trinity, they are doing something different and thus special. From the perspective of the DPS, trinity DPS players are just doing damage either way, barring things like moving out of fire and following mechanics, which are substantially the same in either system. In soft role, there is a potential that all players will do DPS and something else, though the execution of that is spotty, at best.

> >

> > As to what need is there for a healer in GW2? Well, if the group is taking more damage than the players can mitigate, the healer keeps them up. It's the same thing as keeping the tank up -- fail in that task and the group can wipe. The notable exception as far as perception goes, and I suspect it's a big one for some, is that the healer can't target his allies. Heck, as I said before, I think the prevalence of point blank and ground targeted AoE's can negatively impact player perception of engagement in GW2. Then again, it could be that I tend to think people conflate one thing with another all the time.

> >

> > By the way, I'm not trying to change your mind on what you like. That would be futile.

>

> Yes, spamming area effects is much more simplistic than the variety of healers present in systems designed with actual healing roles. Just as tanking in trinity games is about more than just passively soaking damage. And it definitely does feel as if all classes in this non-trinity system are essentially DPS+ - not really any different from DPS roles in trinity games, except that here we are lacking the variety of true tanking and healing roles.

>

> Is it simply poor execution? Perhaps. But I struggle to imagine a way in which these issues could be resolved and it seems the devs do, too. Why else do we have half-baked attempts to introduce these missing roles coinciding with the introduction of raid content? If they could have made it work without them, don't you think they would have?

 

"You can embrace these "soft" roles if you like, but the fact is support is only worthwhile in this game insofar as it increases damage output, for the same reasons that toughness/vitality are not valued stats in group content. Druid is probably not even strictly the best healer either, but it can heal while increasing group damage more than other classes can. How much do you really need a healer in a game designed without tanking? What is "support" in that scenario but a means of increasing damage output for the group? As I said, it lacks depth compared to a trinity system."

 

Since i like people commenting on my post i been thinking about how i would improve the "role" system

I think this is the whole point i'm struggling with playing GW2. I dont need real tanks or real healers to come back.

But i would like to see a "fighter" class/spec, a class/spec which is there to deal with high damage bosses and elite, champions should bring on our heads.

not real trinity roles, but more balanced as in soft roles as it is now but then you want people to choose between stats.

Now nearly everyone picks zerker or anything which goes with dps.

 

What i would like to see (which sounds awesome to me, and also sounds like the gw2 system) is.

Make people choose different stats for armor runes etc.

an example: when i started playing this game i picked guardian, because it sounded like a paragon with a hammer instead of a spear.

i thought is was supposed to guard my allies, personally i think it will be cool if you cant guard using zerker stats.

I would like to see Anet make people choose between stats. So as a fighter you want to have power/toughness/vitality as support power/expertise/(something new?)

maybe even replace power on caster to spellpower or so.

as it is now and the trading post says it all, if you go to armor runes on the trading post all expensive runes are damage based.

maybe this is a way to put in some depth to "gw2 roles"

 

I would really like to hear a dev on this subject :)