What's your opinion on roles?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Algreg.3629" said:

> > @"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.

You miss the part where anet simply followed what _players_ thought up first. And that they tried to break the meta several times, but it just always resulted in sometning new. (but equally rigid) taking its place.

 

Anet's not the one forcing anything on players. It's players that started minmaxing the kitten out of it, and arrived at optimal builds.

 

hint: for a first few weeks of VG, players were experimenting with many different tanks and healers, and chrono support wasn't codified yet. It took a while for the 4-4-2 comp to emerge. Which, by the way, included only one chrono then. All of that was done by players. Anet didn't know how all that was going to shape up, and there are some indications that they _weren't_ expecting such level codification of raid compositions.

 

And the current comp is a result of Anet _trying_ to stop that. More than once, btw.

[Algreg.3629]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Algreg.3629" said:

> > > @"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.

> You miss the part where anet simply followed what _players_ thought up first. And that they tried to break the meta several times, but it just always resulted in sometning new. (but equally rigid) taking its place.

>

> Anet's not the one forcing anything on players. It's players that started minmaxing the kitten out of it, and arrived at optimal builds.

>

> hint: for a first few weeks of VG, players were experimenting with many different tanks and healers, and chrono support wasn't codified yet. It took a while for the 4-4-2 comp to emerge. Which, by the way, included only one chrono then. All of that was done by players. Anet didn't know how all that was going to shape up, and there are some indications that they _weren't_ expecting such level codification of raid compositions.

>

> And the current comp is a result of Anet _trying_ to stop that. More than once, btw.

 

Oh, your condescending "teaching" tone is unjustified and unasked for. People will of cause always min/max and for good reason. There will always be a best approach to an encounter. And people will find that. Unless Anet will find perfect balance - something very much unattainable - there will always be a "meta".

[Tails.9372]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Anet's not the one forcing anything on players.

As I've shown in the example given before: they do. They're just not as vocal about it.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> Condi tends to be stronger than direct damage unless the fight is very, very short, which isn't a great meta to have.

You really aren't following the current meta. That's no longer the case - power is overwhelmingly dominating on almost all raid encounters (with maybe 2 exceptions, and VG requiring some condi for red guardian).

 

> 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.

I already explained to you in that other thread you started why i don't think it's possible within constrains of gw2. It's not that they are _tuned_ wrongly. The problem is much, much deeper than that and impossible to solve without rebuilding and redesigning whole combat engine from ground up.

 

> @"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

The same is true for the trinity model. In fact, the trinity model is itself a way to maximize damage output by shuffling some roles on limited number of players, allowing all the rest do dps with impunity.

There's no practical difference between this model, and the GW2 one - they are just a result of the same way of thinking and the same type of optimization, just for a different environment.

 

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Anet's not the one forcing anything on players.

> As I've shown in the example given before: they do. They're just not as vocal about it.

 

You're attributing a will to what i see mostly as a result of inherent (but still unintentional) design flaws and just being not so good at balancing.

 

[Tails.9372]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > Anet's not the one forcing anything on players.

> > As I've shown in the example given before: they do. They're just not as vocal about it.

>

> You're attributing a will to what i see mostly as a result of inherent (but still unintentional) design flaws and just being not so good at balancing.

So you're implying that they don't put much thought in their class design? Interesting and it would make sense on some level but I have to disagree here, there's no way they turn an e-spec which should have been based on long range sniping into a "hide and seek" spec by accident. I don't think they're that incompetent.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"man zonder schaduw.9721" said:

> > @"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 :)

 

I see where you're trying to go with this, but it would simply be another attempt to introduce class roles without actually introducing them. The problem being that you still can't manipulate threat, thus making defensive stats useful only for personal defense. In this scenario, you want the boss to hit you so that you can take the damage in place of other players, but you still have no means of forcing it to do so.

 

The only way passive defense stats are going to be viable is if they are more or less required for survival on all classes. Currently, if an attack can kill, it's supposed to be avoided. If the attack pattern is designed to both kill and be impossible to avoid, then passive defense has a place. This is how trinity games work. The tank is necessary because non-tanks can't survive without them. Take away the tank's ability to manipulate threat and non-tanks now have to find a way to survive using passive defenses the way tanks do. If passive defenses aren't required, we go back to the action combat design where the attacks are intended to be avoided. Do you see any way around this?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > Anet's not the one forcing anything on players.

> > > As I've shown in the example given before: they do. They're just not as vocal about it.

> >

> > You're attributing a will to what i see mostly as a result of inherent (but still unintentional) design flaws and just being not so good at balancing.

> So you're implying that they don't put much thought in their class design? Interesting and it would make sense on some level but I have to disagree here, there's no way they turn an e-spec which should have been based on long range sniping into a "hide and seek" spec by accident. I don't think they're that incompetent.

 

Yes, the history of confusion changes for PvE, for example, are definitely a result of so much deep thinking.

 

No, i don't think they did that by accident. I just don't think they fully considered all the consequences... and i have reasons to think they didn't really consider rifle to be a primary DE weapon at that point. Just as they balance the weaver around staff now, not around sword. And just like they have long forgotten that DH was to be a range class (mostly abandoned by now longbow as a primary weapon, remember?). But it's not like they force the changes. They balance around the changes that are already happening, and already existing playstyles. And so it happens that in pvp modes, stealth _is_ a primary thief mechanic. So, they balanced around that. Completely forgetting it doesn't really fit the rifle.

 

Offhand, there was only one case when they really tried to force a certain playstyle over the players that decided otherwise. That would be reaper, when they decided to kill the prevalent condi option because they envisioned reaper as a power spec. And yes, that one was badly done. And didn't even really succeed, because they are _really_ bad at balancing.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > Condi tends to be stronger than direct damage unless the fight is very, very short, which isn't a great meta to have.

> You really aren't following the current meta. That's no longer the case - power is overwhelmingly dominating on almost all raid encounters (with maybe 2 exceptions, and VG requiring some condi for red guardian).

>

> > 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.

> I already explained to you in that other thread you started why i don't think it's possible within constrains of gw2. It's not that they are _tuned_ wrongly. The problem is much, much deeper than that and impossible to solve without rebuilding and redesigning whole combat engine from ground up.

>

> > @"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

> The same is true for the trinity model. In fact, the trinity model is itself a way to maximize damage output by shuffling some roles on limited number of players, allowing all the rest do dps with impunity.

> There's no practical difference between this model, and the GW2 one - they are just a result of the same way of thinking and the same type of optimization, just for a different environment.

>

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > Anet's not the one forcing anything on players.

> > As I've shown in the example given before: they do. They're just not as vocal about it.

>

> You're attributing a will to what i see mostly as a result of inherent (but still unintentional) design flaws and just being not so good at balancing.

>

 

Your "explanation" is merely your own interpretation. I absolutely think it's possible to retune the game in ways that make defensive stats less worthless, and don't even think it would be that hard to do. They just don't, because, as you said, they aren't good at balancing. They really need to have some fresh leadership on that team.

[perilisk.1874]

In terms of traditional roles, DPS is obviously in a good place.

 

For support, one issue is there is an inherent competition for those roles due to the limitations on boons (same as used to be a big issue for condi DPS), which doesn't apply to DPS. If you already have support from a profession that is good at it, then another profession providing support is a waste.

 

For defensive support and healing, there are a couple of issues:

1. PvE damage tends to be mostly big power-based hits rather than many small hits or conditions. This makes counters to big hits (aegis, blind, dodge, etc.) overpowered in PvE, and makes counters to sustained DPS less useful, whereas in PvP they are both useful.

2. Everyone has a decent bit of mitigation and healing built-in, in the form of a heal and two dodges, but the worst offender is the downed state, since it turns everyone into a healer regardless of build or stats. The healer role is already mostly filled by default, so a healer needs to bring a lot extra to the table to be worth losing DPS or support.

3. Most damage sources have a health bar attached, so killing it is often the most effective mitigation strategy. It isn't always true, though (e.g. Mai Trin fractal)

 

For control, the issue that enemies tend to either be weak-hitting, low-HP garbage that is most effectively "controlled" through death, or else they're heavy hitting boss types who have defiance bars. Don't get me wrong, defiance is better than giving bosses CC immunity or letting players perma-stun them. But it also eliminates most of the nuances of CC and reduces it to a secondary form of DPS.

 

The better solution is to reduce the number of bosses in the first place, and set up most encounters so that enemies have roles, and are dumber but somewhat more powerful than players, but use the same sorts of tools (e.g., using stab instead of defiance, using dodges, boons, condis, faster attacks with some big moves, downed state and reviving), and have health pools that are not more than a couple of times those of players. It might be wasted on OW, but for instanced content, it seems like the best approach.

 

As for tanking (which is technically a subset of control), I think ArenaNet has the design chops to do something interesting and engaging with aggro management and work it into the overall paradigm of combat. They can add +/- aggro to skills (scaled to Toughness or some other stat), give Taunt and Fear opposing aggro effects, and give enemies varied but consistent behaviors that fit their role or theme (e.g. a defender type may focus on whoever is messing with their squishies rather than themselves, or some enemy may be terrified of fire and reduce aggro on enemies that output burning stacks). While basic aggro mechanics can't apply to players, they can still track applications and trigger Fear or Taunt if they stack high enough from a single source. They can also do more with positional shareable defenses (like guardian/druid walls). However, I'd rather have no tanking than "inexplicably focus on the guy with the most defense" BS, if it comes down to it.

 

Dodging also needs to be reined in a bit and more closely linked to mobility, IMO. I think if it the game looked at the dodge trajectory, and only applied the evasion effect if the that trajectory puts you out of range of the attack at some point, it would be a little less OP and more sensible. It wouldn't just be an invincibility button, it would require thoughtful re-positioning (which could be a drawback, versus using a block) and large AoEs would act as a counter to dodges, same way that unblockable does for blocks.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> 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?

 

I think they could have made raids work without using tanking, yes. I think they added more consistent aggro-holding mechanics to raids because people asked for it, not because it was necessary. In the same way, ANet made condition damage desirable in some encounters, largely to counter the perception that direct damage was the be-all and end-all.

 

Healing others was always an available option in the game. Making content that would be seen as harder creates the possibility that there would be a need for healing. One of the big drawbacks of the quasi-action approach is that attacks that require negation defenses look easier to players after they learn the encounters. So what if boss X has a one-hit-kill attack, just dodge or block. That means that harder encounters will eventually be criticized for being too easy by some segment of the hardcore players.

 

One alternative to that is to use unavoidable damage. That could be attacks that cannot be blocked or dodged, or pacing attacks in such a way that active defenses cannot stop all of them. Once you go the unavoidable damage route, healing was going to be seen as necessary as long as there was enough unavoidable damage to overwhelm whatever personal sustain a maxed DPS build could hope to have.

[Halandir.3609]

> @"man zonder schaduw.9721" said:

> Hi Guild Wars players,

>

> I am struggling to keep playing guild wars at the moment.

> And i think i know why that is. I love to play healer/tank/support.

 

Dear OP. Assuming you spent 10 minutes looking at GW2 before you bought it, I have to ask: Whatever possessed you to play (and pay for) a game that was, clearly, designed with NOT having what you obviously crave, as a design goal?

This kind of idiocy (people wanting GW2 to implement all the usual run of the mill genre-staples) carries a cost. Everytime Anet flips direction and doubt their original thoughts they turn away original fans.

 

It's not like there is a lack of healer/tank/(dps or support) games out there - This one will just keep losing, trying to play catch-up on the other games homefield.

 

[Ephemiel.5694]

I hate that they were added.

 

One of the big points of GW2 was that there was no role system, everyone could DPS, tank and support themselves and the mechanics of the game actively reflected that. I truly have no idea why they started to add actual roles into the game with Specs like Druids.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> I hate that they were added.

>

> One of the big points of GW2 was that there was no role system, everyone could DPS, tank and support themselves and the mechanics of the game actively reflected that. I truly have no idea why they started to add actual roles into the game with Specs like Druids.

 

For raids. Then, they could pull in that MMO crowd that wasn't playing GW2. IMO

[Ephemiel.5694]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > I hate that they were added.

> >

> > One of the big points of GW2 was that there was no role system, everyone could DPS, tank and support themselves and the mechanics of the game actively reflected that. I truly have no idea why they started to add actual roles into the game with Specs like Druids.

>

> For raids. Then, they could pull in that MMO crowd that wasn't playing GW2. IMO

 

I would maybe understand that if this game didn't have a bunch of dungeons from the start, but it did and they worked fine without roles.

[Gehenna.3625]

Not having roles was an interesting approach but it makes for less interesting boss fights. It's just big hp slug fests and lots of dodges, running around like a headless chicken. At least that's how it feels to me. It'd be more fun if mobs had a lot less hit points. But with roles you can do things that you cannot do without with regards to mechanics.

 

I get that people hate the necessity of certain roles in group play in other games because it sucks to have to wait for tanks or healers and that's the downside of having specific roles. But I do prefer it for group content because it gives people different roles that aren't just DPS oriented.

 

It's also something I miss because I like to play a healer and when soloing I generally like something like a cleric or priest that does decent combat but also has heals. I'm just not a fan of just going on for what feels like half an hour (an exaggeration but that's how it feels) and that's what this game has too much of. Now in group content it's one thing but even the story bosses feel like they take forever and that's because they have a ton of HP and the mechanics are very limited. Just lots of them but after a minute or two it's like pfff still on 71% and then they do this thing where you have to almost kill them and then they escape (or kill you and you have come back for another slug fest).

 

So it's just a bit confusing to me how they figured out the baseline experience but it all feels very much the same and when that's the case they should really make it less annoying. It's basically constantly dodging stuff on the floor and trying to DPS as much as you can while you run around. I am sort of impressed that people can do this for such a long time. I only manage a couple of months at a time. I know it has downsides to have specific trinity roles, but at the same time I wish they hadn't just thrown everything on a universal dodge and defensive effects that last 2 seconds. I dunno I just miss some dimensions in combat here and it could be in part at least because of the lack of such roles.

 

[Rauderi.8706]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> I'm not sure where the "Control" role is today...

 

Highly important to what should have been in the design, but isn't. Control skills now just muddle with breakbars. Valuable, but the way breakbars are treated is killing the flexibility of encounter design.

 

Some bosses should be treated differently, but with Defiance, it's all-or-nothing CC. Instead, some bosses should take *some* CC and divert the rest to Defiance.

For example, a painful melee enemy *should* allow Cripple/Immobilize to permit better kiting, which would not drain its Defiance. Then as an added quirk, halfway through the fight, it 'enrages', no longer allowing players to cripple/immobilize, but it does drain Defiance. Or, to prevent a coordinated team from utterly locking it down, if it has been immobile for more than 3 seconds, it diverts up to the next 10 seconds to Defiance.

Yes, it'd be a bit more to code and test, but it would also give players control and counter-play to work from, rather than these fights to crush the blue bar and avoid red death fields.

[Halandir.3609]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > I hate that they were added.

> >

> > One of the big points of GW2 was that there was no role system, everyone could DPS, tank and support themselves and the mechanics of the game actively reflected that. I truly have no idea why they started to add actual roles into the game with Specs like Druids.

>

> For raids. Then, they could pull in that MMO crowd that wasn't playing GW2. IMO

 

I agree - Confused direction though - It's not like GW2 raids turned the other raid-based/-supporting games into wastelands with "all" the players they "pulled" :-)

 

[Memoko.5670]

Personally I like the fact that there's more than one healer class and how some content doesn't require you to always have a healer. It lets the players be able to play what they want without having someone sacrifice what they want to play just so the group can have a healer. And if you want to play a healer or tank then so be it. Everyone's happy.

[Ephemiel.5694]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> Not having roles was an interesting approach but it makes for less interesting boss fights. It's just big hp slug fests and lots of dodges, running around like a headless chicken. At least that's how it feels to me. It'd be more fun if mobs had a lot less hit points. But with roles you can do things that you cannot do without with regards to mechanics.

>

> I get that people hate the necessity of certain roles in group play in other games because it sucks to have to wait for tanks or healers and that's the downside of having specific roles. But I do prefer it for group content because it gives people different roles that aren't just DPS oriented.

>

> It's also something I miss because I like to play a healer and when soloing I generally like something like a cleric or priest that does decent combat but also has heals. I'm just not a fan of just going on for what feels like half an hour (an exaggeration but that's how it feels) and that's what this game has too much of. Now in group content it's one thing but even the story bosses feel like they take forever and that's because they have a ton of HP and the mechanics are very limited. Just lots of them but after a minute or two it's like pfff still on 71% and then they do this thing where you have to almost kill them and then they escape (or kill you and you have come back for another slug fest).

>

> So it's just a bit confusing to me how they figured out the baseline experience but it all feels very much the same and when that's the case they should really make it less annoying. It's basically constantly dodging stuff on the floor and trying to DPS as much as you can while you run around. I am sort of impressed that people can do this for such a long time. I only manage a couple of months at a time. I know it has downsides to have specific trinity roles, but at the same time I wish they hadn't just thrown everything on a universal dodge and defensive effects that last 2 seconds. I dunno I just miss some dimensions in combat here and it could be in part at least because of the lack of such roles.

>

 

Problem is that it changes the game into what it is right now, certain classes being wanted more or hated more because they can't tank/support/heal as well.

 

Before, YOU were in charge on whether or not you survived, you didn't have to depend on someone with a healing spec to keep you up so you can continue to facetank everything. Now, it's the same as other MMOs, the tanks sits there eating hits, the heals desperately try to heal them + the bad players and the DPS just don't care about mechanics.

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > Not having roles was an interesting approach but it makes for less interesting boss fights. It's just big hp slug fests and lots of dodges, running around like a headless chicken. At least that's how it feels to me. It'd be more fun if mobs had a lot less hit points. But with roles you can do things that you cannot do without with regards to mechanics.

> >

> > I get that people hate the necessity of certain roles in group play in other games because it sucks to have to wait for tanks or healers and that's the downside of having specific roles. But I do prefer it for group content because it gives people different roles that aren't just DPS oriented.

> >

> > It's also something I miss because I like to play a healer and when soloing I generally like something like a cleric or priest that does decent combat but also has heals. I'm just not a fan of just going on for what feels like half an hour (an exaggeration but that's how it feels) and that's what this game has too much of. Now in group content it's one thing but even the story bosses feel like they take forever and that's because they have a ton of HP and the mechanics are very limited. Just lots of them but after a minute or two it's like pfff still on 71% and then they do this thing where you have to almost kill them and then they escape (or kill you and you have come back for another slug fest).

> >

> > So it's just a bit confusing to me how they figured out the baseline experience but it all feels very much the same and when that's the case they should really make it less annoying. It's basically constantly dodging stuff on the floor and trying to DPS as much as you can while you run around. I am sort of impressed that people can do this for such a long time. I only manage a couple of months at a time. I know it has downsides to have specific trinity roles, but at the same time I wish they hadn't just thrown everything on a universal dodge and defensive effects that last 2 seconds. I dunno I just miss some dimensions in combat here and it could be in part at least because of the lack of such roles.

> >

>

> Problem is that it changes the game into what it is right now, certain classes being wanted more or hated more because they can't tank/support/heal as well.

>

> Before, YOU were in charge on whether or not you survived, you didn't have to depend on someone with a healing spec to keep you up so you can continue to facetank everything. Now, it's the same as other MMOs, the tanks sits there eating hits, the heals desperately try to heal them + the bad players and the DPS just don't care about mechanics.

 

Well, that's what made it team work instead of a group of individuals doing their own thing together.

[Halandir.3609]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > Not having roles was an interesting approach but it makes for less interesting boss fights. It's just big hp slug fests and lots of dodges, running around like a headless chicken. At least that's how it feels to me. It'd be more fun if mobs had a lot less hit points. But with roles you can do things that you cannot do without with regards to mechanics.

> > >

> > > I get that people hate the necessity of certain roles in group play in other games because it sucks to have to wait for tanks or healers and that's the downside of having specific roles. But I do prefer it for group content because it gives people different roles that aren't just DPS oriented.

> > >

> > > It's also something I miss because I like to play a healer and when soloing I generally like something like a cleric or priest that does decent combat but also has heals. I'm just not a fan of just going on for what feels like half an hour (an exaggeration but that's how it feels) and that's what this game has too much of. Now in group content it's one thing but even the story bosses feel like they take forever and that's because they have a ton of HP and the mechanics are very limited. Just lots of them but after a minute or two it's like pfff still on 71% and then they do this thing where you have to almost kill them and then they escape (or kill you and you have come back for another slug fest).

> > >

> > > So it's just a bit confusing to me how they figured out the baseline experience but it all feels very much the same and when that's the case they should really make it less annoying. It's basically constantly dodging stuff on the floor and trying to DPS as much as you can while you run around. I am sort of impressed that people can do this for such a long time. I only manage a couple of months at a time. I know it has downsides to have specific trinity roles, but at the same time I wish they hadn't just thrown everything on a universal dodge and defensive effects that last 2 seconds. I dunno I just miss some dimensions in combat here and it could be in part at least because of the lack of such roles.

> > >

> >

> > Problem is that it changes the game into what it is right now, certain classes being wanted more or hated more because they can't tank/support/heal as well.

> >

> > Before, YOU were in charge on whether or not you survived, you didn't have to depend on someone with a healing spec to keep you up so you can continue to facetank everything. Now, it's the same as other MMOs, the tanks sits there eating hits, the heals desperately try to heal them + the bad players and the DPS just don't care about mechanics.

>

> Well, that's what made it team work instead of a group of individuals doing their own thing together.

 

Probably true. I guess it really paid off instead of sticking to plan A.

[Rhyse.8179]

Roles (aka Holy Trinity) are weak game design and make for lazy gameplay. Unfortunately Anet replaced them with no control or support at all (until HOT, which finally added support, but there's still no control builds), so I don't think GW2 is any real improvement.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> Your "explanation" is merely your own interpretation. I absolutely think it's possible to retune the game in ways that make defensive stats less worthless, and don't even think it would be that hard to do.

Remember, that now there _is_ a parity between defence and offence. It's just achieved by matching offensive stats against defensive stats _and active defences_. It means they can't just make the stats "less worthless", without disrupting that balance. Doing that, would create unbalanced, unkillable builds that would be more OP than the infamous cleric auramancer tempest from first season of SPvP league. And the only way to avoid that would be through significantly nerfing active defences. Which would, by the way, _require_ bunker builds for practically anything of aboveaverage difficulty. Or some heavy changes to boss behaviour to allow for tanks that intercept damage and prevent it from getting to other party members.

 

So, we're back to the point i made before. In order to do what you wish, they'd have to change the core paradigms of their combat system.

 

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> Roles (aka Holy Trinity) are weak game design and make for lazy gameplay. Unfortunately Anet replaced them with no control or support at all (until HOT, which finally added support, but there's still no control builds), so I don't think GW2 is any real improvement.

 

Care to elaborate? How is it lazy? What is a "control" role exactly? How is a "support" role any different from buffers/debuffers, which in both GW2 and trinity games are just DPS+?

[Rhyse.8179]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> > Roles (aka Holy Trinity) are weak game design and make for lazy gameplay. Unfortunately Anet replaced them with no control or support at all (until HOT, which finally added support, but there's still no control builds), so I don't think GW2 is any real improvement.

>

> Care to elaborate? How is it lazy? What is a "control" role exactly? How is a "support" role any different from buffers/debuffers, which in both GW2 and trinity games are just DPS+?

 

A control role is the player that controls and directs the fight. In the Trinity, this is the Tank, occassionally helped by hard CC (aka polymorph). It's not the only way though. In EQ (remember back that far?) the core group was not 3, but 4: Tank, Healer, DPS, and Controller. The controller abilities included hard cc, soft cc like roots, aggro radius reductions, charming foes to fight for you, shifting or wiping aggro, massive debuffs, interrupts, and so on.

 

Designing a game to only use a tank as it's control is ridiculously simple in comparison - it's one class manipulating a single number in the AI (aggro). Lazy to design and lazy to play. Sometimes that's good, don't get me wrong - nobody'y going to chill with a beer and shoot the shizzle with their buds in a GW2 raid, they have to be on the ball. It's a different playstyle and has it's place in the scheme of things, but it's certainly not a challenge.

 

GW2 removed ALL of that; they originally promised to replace it with a better system, but actually did the opposite. Not only is GW2 CC a mockery of the term, lasting only a second here and there, but "Defiance" was a buff on bosses that made them immune to all CC. Until HOT replaced it with a breakbar, which isn't so much control but rather just a timing test, there was nothing at all. Control of PVE encounters was literally not possible.

 

Bottom line is that GW2 is an action game, not strategic game like old school MMO's are. The whole discussion about roles in GW2 is moot because it's undercut by the games basic design. This is why PVE encounters are either mechanics literacy tests or trivial, with very little in between. AI being what it is, mechanics is the only type of challenge the game can provide. If your group knows the mechanics, they win. If they don't they don't. Yay.