Warrior and Guardion tanking????

[Kreslin.6832]

I just don't understand one thing. If some weakling in a robe can survive in a front line... why do we have characters with heavy armor in the first place? I'm not talking about gameplay with specific skills. I'm talking about the concept in general. 

 

What makes heavy armored character different from character in robes?  Heavy armored character can stay in front line and absorb damage. That's why he wears heavy armor. The character in robes can't stay in front line. His robes can't protect him. That's how it works.  

 

But, if mesmer, a wizard/illusionist in robes can tank, stay in front line, and thus guardian and warrior don't need to do this job anymore... 

Why do we have medieval setting with knights in the first place? Why don't we have, I don't know, a Victorian Era, only with magic? Where everyone wear clothes. 

 

Okay, it is a concept thing. About the gameplay... Well... As I said,  Anet removed the holly trinity, but didn't bring the true alternative. Every class can do every role, which might sounds good, but what do we have in reality? We don't have individuality. What's the difference between warrior and elementalist for example? Both of them can survive, both of them can deal massive aoe damage. 

 

You know, for me a good alternative to holly trinity is a moba game. But GW2... well, while I like this game, I keep asking myself - what do we have instead of the holly trinity? And I can't find the answer. All I can see is unfinished, and thus, shallow system.  But imho this game has completely wrong concept, where squishy can do the same thing heavy armored guy does.

 

That's why we have such thing like Chronomancer being top "tank", while we have a "protector" Guardian. 

[Tehologist.5841]

The holy trinity is ancient, I started playing ancient anguish in 1994, it was a mud. Text based mmo, we had tanks, bashers and support. The tank would have skills to allow them to soak damage, either a pet (necro, ranger) or strong damage absorption (thief, paladin, cleric). High dps were usually fighters and support was mages (haste). The tank would have a command to rescue and take all the aggro. Everquest just copied the design as did wow and everything after. The only thing that mattered was dps as we were looking to kill as much per hour to maximize loot and xp. Speed runs meant memorizing boss mechanics and routes to hit high xp targets on the way to various towns, selling loot and buying consumables as fast as possible, we would drop as many heals as possible in the room before the fight. High level targets would be worth about 8k experience, many of the bosses could nearly one shot if messed up and people were pulling 1 million xp an hour. The point is, the holy trinity and that type of game play is ancient, I am glad we have more options in party composition.

[RedShark.9548]

> @"Tehologist.5841" said:

> The holy trinity is ancient, I started playing ancient anguish in 1994, it was a mud. Text based mmo, we had tanks, bashers and support. The tank would have skills to allow them to soak damage, either a pet (necro, ranger) or strong damage absorption (thief, paladin, cleric). High dps were usually fighters and support was mages (haste). The tank would have a command to rescue and take all the aggro. Everquest just copied the design as did wow and everything after. The only thing that mattered was dps as we were looking to kill as much per hour to maximize loot and xp. Speed runs meant memorizing boss mechanics and routes to hit high xp targets on the way to various towns, selling loot and buying consumables as fast as possible, we would drop as many heals as possible in the room before the fight. High level targets would be worth about 8k experience, many of the bosses could nearly one shot if messed up and people were pulling 1 million xp an hour. The point is, the holy trinity and that type of game play is ancient, I am glad we have more options in party composition.

 

it still isnt rly the topic here...op is questioning why we have heavy/medium/light armor when it doesnt mean kitten what you wear. its not rly logical to wear heay armor when you could also wear lighter stuff but tank just as much.

 

as to that, in wvw the frontline actually consists almost pureley out of guardians and warriors.

 

also heavy armor just looks cooler. its fashion wars 2 after all

[Eramonster.2718]

If a light amor character can tank in the game, I believe any heavy amor character can do the same. If the heavy amor character is having difficulties tanking, it would be another underlying cause. As for why a chrono is preferred, cause it's the META. The "tank" duty in GW2 is just to position the boss and in order to do so; to survive. By that, any class profession can "tank".

 

As for the rest, can be answered together with "Why must a warrior/guardian or any heavy amor class be the main tank?". The fixation idea of other games?

 

[Aigleborgne.2981]

> @"Kreslin.6832" said:

> I just don't understand one thing. If some weakling in a robe can survive in a front line... why do we have characters with heavy armor in the first place? I'm not talking about gameplay with specific skills. I'm talking about the concept in general. 

>

> What makes heavy armored character different from character in robes?  Heavy armored character can stay in front line and absorb damage. That's why he wears heavy armor. The character in robes can't stay in front line. His robes can't protect him. That's how it works.  

>

> But, if mesmer, a wizard/illusionist in robes can tank, stay in front line, and thus guardian and warrior don't need to do this job anymore... 

> Why do we have medieval setting with knights in the first place? Why don't we have, I don't know, a Victorian Era, only with magic? Where everyone wear clothes. 

>

> Okay, it is a concept thing. About the gameplay... Well... As I said,  Anet removed the holly trinity, but didn't bring the true alternative. Every class can do every role, which might sounds good, but what do we have in reality? We don't have individuality. What's the difference between warrior and elementalist for example? Both of them can survive, both of them can deal massive aoe damage. 

>

> You know, for me a good alternative to holly trinity is a moba game. But GW2... well, while I like this game, I keep asking myself - what do we have instead of the holly trinity? And I can't find the answer. All I can see is unfinished, and thus, shallow system.  But imho this game has completely wrong concept, where squishy can do the same thing heavy armored guy does.

>

> That's why we have such thing like Chronomancer being top "tank", while we have a "protector" Guardian. 

 

Heavy armor is mostly a cosmetic thing, especially vs bosses. It only helps a bit vs normal mobs or players. Difference in armor between light and heavy is not that important and toughness can quickly feel the gap.

My warrior feels fragile without toughness when I get hit. But with some toughness, I really feel the difference. Like beeing able to survive a big hit that would have downed me without that toughness.

 

Gw2 went for a simple system but it isnt good for armors. Armor should provide a separate damage reduction multiplier and then, you apply another with toughness. Something like 20, 30, and 40%. Heavy would be twice more efficient than light.

 

Hopefully for me, I really like heavy design and not much medium/light. Therefore, I accepted the fact that heavy doesnt provide much and that I need to use some toughness trinkets.

I couldn't play a chrono for the sole reason of light armor.

[Tehologist.5841]

Guild wars 1 the best tanks in the games were assassins and monks. They could literally negate all damage. Monks could also play bond builds to reduce damage significantly for other tanks. To tank a class simply needs to be able to reduce or evade damage. Heavy armor classes can just reduce more with no investment in additional skills. All classes have access to increased toughness though. Knights vs berserker stats for instance. Taking no damage through evasion is always superior though.

[TotallyNotJazzie.1493]

If there was more mechanics that were blockable but not evadeable you would see more Warr/ Guard tanking.

 

As it stands, evasion is king in all forms. In that sense, Thief’s ‘Death Blossom’ is a better tanking skill than Guard focus 5 in all but the most niche of content.

[Aigleborgne.2981]

> @"Tehologist.5841" said:

> Guild wars 1 the best tanks in the games were assassins and monks. They could literally negate all damage. Monks could also play bond builds to reduce damage significantly for other tanks. To tank a class simply needs to be able to reduce or evade damage. Heavy armor classes can just reduce more with no investment in additional skills. All classes have access to increased toughness though. Knights vs berserker stats for instance. Taking no damage through evasion is always superior though.

 

Assassins and monks had a weakness with enchant removals.

Warriors with defy pain (with 16 strength) and a shield were almost invulnerable.

[Diak Atoli.2085]

> @"Aigleborgne.2981" said:

> > @"Tehologist.5841" said:

> > Guild wars 1 the best tanks in the games were assassins and monks. They could literally negate all damage. Monks could also play bond builds to reduce damage significantly for other tanks. To tank a class simply needs to be able to reduce or evade damage. Heavy armor classes can just reduce more with no investment in additional skills. All classes have access to increased toughness though. Knights vs berserker stats for instance. Taking no damage through evasion is always superior though.

>

> Assassins and monks had a weakness with enchant removals.

> Warriors with defy pain (with 16 strength) and a shield were almost invulnerable.

 

There's also the fact that the only 'tank' builds were solo builds. Parties just used Prot Monks or ST Rits.

[Tehologist.5841]

My favorite was paragons with the gain 100 armor shout, made the entire party very hard to kill. I hope they give warriors spear and a shout elite spec, I miss paragons.

[Belishine.7493]

you say in thierie that any class can tank but a few classes cant tank at all so it goes out the window for ex. a rev sounds like it should be able to tank but it turns out to just heal and dps but not tank so well or ranger when in druid form can tank but due to the nerf to it it cant tank. so the idea that any class can tank is just rong now. i still have the issue with mes being the tank becouse of this main reson what is making it tank for ex in eq if i play a enchanter normaly i cant tank but if i use the right spells i can tank but mes in gw2 is like im king at all so i barly try to tank and i can do supper were is the balance of this. i also have a issue were i have a war or a guardion and they have heavy armor and yet they can die like a ele so were is the point in haveing a war or any heavy class at all if the armor does jack for them. with all this being stated i think they messed up some stuff like this for ex. if i have a heavy toon i should naturaly have a higher resistence to stuff but i dont just like a mage should be more reseistante to magic. this is were i see the big issue in this game its like a huge fisher for me in this game. this is not just becosue i am used to the holly trinity of this typ it just simple logic.from what i can tell is eq a mutch older game has the war as a tank or they can be dps with no issue but when you come to gw2 to me almost all the classes fell the same its just not right.

[Lily.1935]

Anet would need to make some system changes to how tanking works, Nerf Chrono into the ground or Buff warrior and guardian support to warrant them over a chrono tank. And I'm with you on wanting to see more professions able to tank because its been Chrono tank since HoT. Of course it didn't start that way. Guardians were at first but then people realized pretty quickly how busted Chronomancer was as a tank. And even with all the nerfs they've received they are still light years ahead of the next closest thing. Now if they made it so that Taunt would actually break a bosses aggro and have them focus you that would be something that could help. But now I'm just suggesting stuff that other games have done before.

 

But I think the problem is far more complex from a design stand point. I really think Anet put themselves into a corner with Chronomancer.

[Dadnir.5038]

> @"steki.1478" said:

>

> That's because old content is a joke. Bosses would die in 20 seconds at most, without you taking any damage. It also had minimal build diversity since conditions builds were most of the time useless (they barely existed) and not all classes have access to aoe buffs or high burst.

 

You know, new players struggle hard in this joke of an old content. This content is only a joke when you've grown accustomed to it and know the optimal way to beat it.

 

And this is also what tend to happen to raids, a part of the community grew accustomed to them and every now and then they ask anet to make them more challenging because "the difficulty is a joke, look we can 5 man this boss!" or "we've done it without even wearing armor, to easy!". This is a matter of perspective, the more you are used to a content the easier it feel.

 

 

[LucianTheAngelic.7054]

> @"Belishine.7493" said:

> you say in thierie that any class can tank but a few classes cant tank at all so it goes out the window for ex. a rev sounds like it should be able to tank but it turns out to just heal and dps but not tank

 

Revenant can tank and it can tank well; I’ve done it personally on every boss. The issue is not that it can’t tank (same with Firebrand) but the role compression that Mesmer provides makes Mesmer the easier (for building a group) and slightly better choice for speed clear meta strats. There are other tanks besides Mesmer that can do the job well, this is a fact. My raid/fractal group nearly always runs off-meta with a Firebrand heal tank, and honestly, it works better for our group most of the time simply due to how much extra defense and healing it can output while maintaining 100% quickness. This means that several of our members with Australian Ping are more easily covered when they make mistakes.

[Diak Atoli.2085]

> @"LucianTheAngelic.7054" said:

> > @"Belishine.7493" said:

> > you say in thierie that any class can tank but a few classes cant tank at all so it goes out the window for ex. a rev sounds like it should be able to tank but it turns out to just heal and dps but not tank

>

> Revenant can tank and it can tank well; I’ve done it personally on every boss. The issue is not that it can’t tank (same with Firebrand) but the role compression that Mesmer provides makes Mesmer the easier (for building a group) and slightly better choice for speed clear meta strats. There are other tanks besides Mesmer that can do the job well, this is a fact. My raid/fractal group nearly always runs off-meta with a Firebrand heal tank, and honestly, it works better for our group most of the time simply due to how much extra defense and healing it can output while maintaining 100% quickness. This means that several of our members with Australian Ping are more easily covered when they make mistakes.

 

Bu-b-but that's not META! Only META is allowed in Guild Wars 2!

 

On a serious note: Any class can 'tank' in Guild Wars 2. What everyone focuses on isn't how well a Chronomancer 'tanks', but what it does in addition to 'tanking'.

[Kreslin.6832]

> @"Aigleborgne.2981" said:

> > @"Kreslin.6832" said:

> > I just don't understand one thing. If some weakling in a robe can survive in a front line... why do we have characters with heavy armor in the first place? I'm not talking about gameplay with specific skills. I'm talking about the concept in general. 

> >

> > What makes heavy armored character different from character in robes?  Heavy armored character can stay in front line and absorb damage. That's why he wears heavy armor. The character in robes can't stay in front line. His robes can't protect him. That's how it works.  

> >

> > But, if mesmer, a wizard/illusionist in robes can tank, stay in front line, and thus guardian and warrior don't need to do this job anymore... 

> > Why do we have medieval setting with knights in the first place? Why don't we have, I don't know, a Victorian Era, only with magic? Where everyone wear clothes. 

> >

> > Okay, it is a concept thing. About the gameplay... Well... As I said,  Anet removed the holly trinity, but didn't bring the true alternative. Every class can do every role, which might sounds good, but what do we have in reality? We don't have individuality. What's the difference between warrior and elementalist for example? Both of them can survive, both of them can deal massive aoe damage. 

> >

> > You know, for me a good alternative to holly trinity is a moba game. But GW2... well, while I like this game, I keep asking myself - what do we have instead of the holly trinity? And I can't find the answer. All I can see is unfinished, and thus, shallow system.  But imho this game has completely wrong concept, where squishy can do the same thing heavy armored guy does.

> >

> > That's why we have such thing like Chronomancer being top "tank", while we have a "protector" Guardian. 

>

> Heavy armor is mostly a cosmetic thing, especially vs bosses. It only helps a bit vs normal mobs or players. Difference in armor between light and heavy is not that important and toughness can quickly feel the gap.

> My warrior feels fragile without toughness when I get hit. But with some toughness, I really feel the difference. Like beeing able to survive a big hit that would have downed me without that toughness.

>

> Gw2 went for a simple system but it isnt good for armors. Armor should provide a separate damage reduction multiplier and then, you apply another with toughness. Something like 20, 30, and 40%. Heavy would be twice more efficient than light.

>

> Hopefully for me, I really like heavy design and not much medium/light. Therefore, I accepted the fact that heavy doesnt provide much and that I need to use some toughness trinkets.

> I couldn't play a chrono for the sole reason of light armor.

 

At least they could make toughness only for heavy characters. For medium and light characters, something different, which would suit them more than toughness and would make their "surviving" play style different form "tanking".

Shame, cause I don't find playing heavy armored character only for "fashion style" sufficient. I want to feel being heavy warrior/guardian.

 

This game is definitely not for me. :\

[Diak Atoli.2085]

> @"Kreslin.6832" said:

> > @"Aigleborgne.2981" said:

> > > @"Kreslin.6832" said:

> > > I just don't understand one thing. If some weakling in a robe can survive in a front line... why do we have characters with heavy armor in the first place? I'm not talking about gameplay with specific skills. I'm talking about the concept in general. 

> > >

> > > What makes heavy armored character different from character in robes?  Heavy armored character can stay in front line and absorb damage. That's why he wears heavy armor. The character in robes can't stay in front line. His robes can't protect him. That's how it works.  

> > >

> > > But, if mesmer, a wizard/illusionist in robes can tank, stay in front line, and thus guardian and warrior don't need to do this job anymore... 

> > > Why do we have medieval setting with knights in the first place? Why don't we have, I don't know, a Victorian Era, only with magic? Where everyone wear clothes. 

> > >

> > > Okay, it is a concept thing. About the gameplay... Well... As I said,  Anet removed the holly trinity, but didn't bring the true alternative. Every class can do every role, which might sounds good, but what do we have in reality? We don't have individuality. What's the difference between warrior and elementalist for example? Both of them can survive, both of them can deal massive aoe damage. 

> > >

> > > You know, for me a good alternative to holly trinity is a moba game. But GW2... well, while I like this game, I keep asking myself - what do we have instead of the holly trinity? And I can't find the answer. All I can see is unfinished, and thus, shallow system.  But imho this game has completely wrong concept, where squishy can do the same thing heavy armored guy does.

> > >

> > > That's why we have such thing like Chronomancer being top "tank", while we have a "protector" Guardian. 

> >

> > Heavy armor is mostly a cosmetic thing, especially vs bosses. It only helps a bit vs normal mobs or players. Difference in armor between light and heavy is not that important and toughness can quickly feel the gap.

> > My warrior feels fragile without toughness when I get hit. But with some toughness, I really feel the difference. Like beeing able to survive a big hit that would have downed me without that toughness.

> >

> > Gw2 went for a simple system but it isnt good for armors. Armor should provide a separate damage reduction multiplier and then, you apply another with toughness. Something like 20, 30, and 40%. Heavy would be twice more efficient than light.

> >

> > Hopefully for me, I really like heavy design and not much medium/light. Therefore, I accepted the fact that heavy doesnt provide much and that I need to use some toughness trinkets.

> > I couldn't play a chrono for the sole reason of light armor.

>

> At least they could make toughness only for heavy characters. For medium and light characters, something different, which would suit them more than toughness and would make their "surviving" play style different form "tanking".

> Shame, cause I don't find playing heavy armored character only for "fashion style" sufficient. I want to feel being heavy warrior/guardian.

>

> This game is definitely not for me. :\

 

I'm sorry you don't feel like Guild Wars 2 is for you.

 

As for your complaint, making a Guardian, Warrior, or Revenant feel like a heavily armored profession is simple. You make it one.

 

Build your gear towards toughness and vitality (Zealot's being the absolute bunker set.), run the defensive traitlines and utilities, use the defensive weapon sets.

 

Example: Marauder's/Soldier's Guardian running Hammer + x/Shield, using Zeal/Honor/x. A very bunkered build that does not-inconsiderable damage.

[Sigfodr.9576]

> @"Kreslin.6832" said:

> I just don't understand one thing. If some weakling in a robe can survive in a front line... why do we have characters with heavy armor in the first place? I'm not talking about gameplay with specific skills. I'm talking about the concept in general. 

 

Something alot of people that complain about "light armor" classes as tanks seems to not notice/misunderstand is that gw2 have 2 "concepts" of armor. Thoughness and armor.

 

As base, all classes have 1000 thoughness. But the armor will differ, light classes have 1888 armor, medium classes have 2029 armor and heavy classes have 2167 armor. Thoughness is generally what attract agro from raid bosses (and even some mobs in open PvE/Fractals). So the more thoughness = more agro. And armor make you more tanky, as armor will reduse the damage you take from direct damage (only direct damage, not condition damage).

 

Any thoughness you gain (after the first 1000 base thoughness) will also give you armor, in the ratio of 1 to 1.

 

Now, here is the thing, the main job for a chrono in raids is to give boon to the party. And to be able to do this, they need boon duration, and to get this they use some armor/tinket stats that give this boon duration. As a SIDEEFFECT they also get some thoughness as this also is included in the stat combination. The meta build for full damage chrono therefore automaticly give 1418 thoughness --> 2385 armor and they are thereby also more tanky then any of the heavy armor classes.

 

Now the heavy armor classes on the other hand do not need any thoughness in thier meta builds.

 

 

[Gregious.8903]

Actually, there is a slight inaccuracy. The reason warriors don't tank is not because they'd lose too much dps. Remember the chrono actually only does like 10k dps with chaos tank and banner warrior is 26k. You could make warrior able to tank and still bring banners, do more dps than chrono, and even bring support shout heals. The real issue is how overpowered chrono boonshare is and that mesmers don't have a build between their dps and support builds that can cover the boonshare while doing 26k. That means no class other than druid and chrono can tank because chrono is always mandatory and nothing can replace its support and it can't match the damage of any other class but druid. Druid usually doesnt tank because of other issues. The only way another class could tank is if a combination of 3 or less dps classes can share alacrity and quickness in a subgroup with the same uptime as chrono, which is 100% atm, without losing the dps between the tank and them that the chrono\tank swap slot gains.

 

Meta Raid

Sub with tank and banner warrior

Chrono (10k)

Warrior (26k)

Dps 1

Dps 2

Druid

 

Warrior tank

Same sub

Warrior' (12k?)

Dps 1'

Dps 2'

Dps 3

Druid

 

There are two things needed for warrior to tank:

1. Dps 3 => (Dps 1 - Dps 1') + (Dps 2 - Dps 2') + (Warrior - Warrior')

2. Dps 1' Dps 2' and Dps 3 combined must have same boon uptime of alacrity and quickness as chrono could

 

Realistically if dps 3 has 30k and tank warrior is around 12k then dps 1' and dps 2' would need to lose no more than 4k combined dps while helping dps 3 with alacrity and quickness uptime.

[Kreslin.6832]

> @"Diak Atoli.2085" said:

> > @"Kreslin.6832" said:

> > > @"Aigleborgne.2981" said:

> > > > @"Kreslin.6832" said:

> > > > I just don't understand one thing. If some weakling in a robe can survive in a front line... why do we have characters with heavy armor in the first place? I'm not talking about gameplay with specific skills. I'm talking about the concept in general. 

> > > >

> > > > What makes heavy armored character different from character in robes?  Heavy armored character can stay in front line and absorb damage. That's why he wears heavy armor. The character in robes can't stay in front line. His robes can't protect him. That's how it works.  

> > > >

> > > > But, if mesmer, a wizard/illusionist in robes can tank, stay in front line, and thus guardian and warrior don't need to do this job anymore... 

> > > > Why do we have medieval setting with knights in the first place? Why don't we have, I don't know, a Victorian Era, only with magic? Where everyone wear clothes. 

> > > >

> > > > Okay, it is a concept thing. About the gameplay... Well... As I said,  Anet removed the holly trinity, but didn't bring the true alternative. Every class can do every role, which might sounds good, but what do we have in reality? We don't have individuality. What's the difference between warrior and elementalist for example? Both of them can survive, both of them can deal massive aoe damage. 

> > > >

> > > > You know, for me a good alternative to holly trinity is a moba game. But GW2... well, while I like this game, I keep asking myself - what do we have instead of the holly trinity? And I can't find the answer. All I can see is unfinished, and thus, shallow system.  But imho this game has completely wrong concept, where squishy can do the same thing heavy armored guy does.

> > > >

> > > > That's why we have such thing like Chronomancer being top "tank", while we have a "protector" Guardian. 

> > >

> > > Heavy armor is mostly a cosmetic thing, especially vs bosses. It only helps a bit vs normal mobs or players. Difference in armor between light and heavy is not that important and toughness can quickly feel the gap.

> > > My warrior feels fragile without toughness when I get hit. But with some toughness, I really feel the difference. Like beeing able to survive a big hit that would have downed me without that toughness.

> > >

> > > Gw2 went for a simple system but it isnt good for armors. Armor should provide a separate damage reduction multiplier and then, you apply another with toughness. Something like 20, 30, and 40%. Heavy would be twice more efficient than light.

> > >

> > > Hopefully for me, I really like heavy design and not much medium/light. Therefore, I accepted the fact that heavy doesnt provide much and that I need to use some toughness trinkets.

> > > I couldn't play a chrono for the sole reason of light armor.

> >

> > At least they could make toughness only for heavy characters. For medium and light characters, something different, which would suit them more than toughness and would make their "surviving" play style different form "tanking".

> > Shame, cause I don't find playing heavy armored character only for "fashion style" sufficient. I want to feel being heavy warrior/guardian.

> >

> > This game is definitely not for me. :\

>

> I'm sorry you don't feel like Guild Wars 2 is for you.

>

> As for your complaint, making a Guardian, Warrior, or Revenant feel like a heavily armored profession is simple. You make it one.

>

> Build your gear towards toughness and vitality (Zealot's being the absolute bunker set.), run the defensive traitlines and utilities, use the defensive weapon sets.

>

> Example: Marauder's/Soldier's Guardian running Hammer + x/Shield, using Zeal/Honor/x. A very bunkered build that does not-inconsiderable damage.

 

Unless I can use toughness based builds with my Guardian... let's say, in Fractals, I'd be happy. But such builds are useless in this game unfortunately. As to the solo play... I can feel being a heavy warrior while playing solo. I just can't feel this in party content, which is the main content, since it's an mmo, not a single rpg. :(

 

 

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"Kreslin.6832" said:

> I just don't understand one thing. If some weakling in a robe can survive in a front line... why do we have characters with heavy armor in the first place? I'm not talking about gameplay with specific skills. I'm talking about the concept in general. 

>

> What makes heavy armored character different from character in robes?  Heavy armored character can stay in front line and absorb damage. That's why he wears heavy armor. The character in robes can't stay in front line. His robes can't protect him. That's how it works.  

>

> But, if mesmer, a wizard/illusionist in robes can tank, stay in front line, and thus guardian and warrior don't need to do this job anymore... 

> Why do we have medieval setting with knights in the first place? Why don't we have, I don't know, a Victorian Era, only with magic? Where everyone wear clothes. 

>

> Okay, it is a concept thing. About the gameplay... Well... As I said,  Anet removed the holly trinity, but didn't bring the true alternative. Every class can do every role, which might sounds good, but what do we have in reality? We don't have individuality. What's the difference between warrior and elementalist for example? Both of them can survive, both of them can deal massive aoe damage. 

>

> You know, for me a good alternative to holly trinity is a moba game. But GW2... well, while I like this game, I keep asking myself - what do we have instead of the holly trinity? And I can't find the answer. All I can see is unfinished, and thus, shallow system.  But imho this game has completely wrong concept, where squishy can do the same thing heavy armored guy does.

>

> That's why we have such thing like Chronomancer being top "tank", while we have a "protector" Guardian. 

 

If you just look at the damage mechanics and our stat system, the answer is glaringly obvious as to why this works. Every Class has the same Baseline stat performance at Max level, with the armor only creating a 20% span between light and heavy, and scales fairly linearly with difference in armor value. So in all cases, armor only accounts for roughly Half of the baseline defense value of a character, since we all have 1000 Toughness. That make the effective defense value difference only 10%, and scales much faster with additional toughness (which we can add), but no way of adding more armor.

 

Most of the older MMOs used class defined stat disparities to emphasize each class's design philosophy; a hold over from its D&D roots, where classes have a min stat requirement to even choose, and creating a performance floor in the process. Warriors and Mages would have huge disparities in their physical durability, as Warriors would have defense values loaded almost entirely in their equipment, and their HP coming from a combination of CON and larger Hit Die per level. But Mages have a similar opportunity when it comes to Magic Resistance gained from enchantment spells and artifacts, and bonuses derived from INT and WIS.

 

If we translated these mechanics in to GW2's design frame work, it actually respects D&D's mechanical flexibility a lot more then even the best RPG games based on the rule set. Even if a Warrior has 3 Con, they still get all that HP from their Hit Dice. With a Con of 15 they have bonus hit dice or a flat HP bonus (depending on edition). Or they could put all their points into DEX and STR, ride on the large hit dice for HP, and train in defense proficiency and reaction based defenses to improve their AC without having to invest in heavier armor. A choice of Active defenses that can be counters or dismantled, or passive defenses that often come with functional trade offs.

In fact, the whole "Light/Med/Heavy" armor distinction is derived primarily on the idea that heavy armor is awkward, and negatively effects fine movement and motor skills.... which is why Spell heavy classes favor light armor, since spells tend to involve gestures, the preparation of objects, and concentration. Clerics wear medium armor because they're actually a front line class, and (mechanically) their spells are easier to invoke then Mages.... so med is a good mix of protection and mobility to let them navigate a battlefield. Rouge type classes use Med for similar reasons.... better protection then light, but doesn't hamper movement as much. But either could easily forego armor, and invest more into other defenses to get similar levels of protection- its just a lot more risky should those defenses fail, and requires more effort to maintain them.

 

 

But another thing to consider is that D&D respects things like natural law, social behavior, and a tangible universe. Compare that to old MMORPGs, which stripped out anything that couldn't be expressed in simple mathematics, and streamlined heavily toward combat related math. Consider "I take a rope and tie it to a rock, then swing it around like a weapon". A P&P RPG has rules to deal with that, and still has the GM to resolve things the rules can't. For a video game that is the second hardest thing to do, right behind the physics simulation itself.... so instead it just cheats, and predefines a bunch of things about "rock + rope". But that has to be built BEFORE it can be used, and is no less work then designing a weapon skill or magic attack.

[Belishine.7493]

wow you though about this a bit but a cleric is a heavy armor user not a mid and the spells they cast are not easyer to cast but are of devin origen. so you are rong thare and as for the rogue going for mid armor is for the mobility and the fact that they dont make as mutch noise when you try to sneak or hide. so your info is off by a bit but i know what your talking about. still its sooo odd that war and guard never get chosen for raiding even though they are to be able to tank realy good but are only wanted for the dps they can do and nothing else. for ex i can play a war and but my points into str and do a lot more damage with heavy armor but its a little harder to tank or i could put stuff into the con and dex so i can tank a little bit more but with heavy armor the dex is pointless. now when you say the gw2 is more flexible like in dnd i have to say no its not. for the reson that in dnd i can play a war that can go with light or mid armor if i want and get a higher dex but in gw2 im stuck with heavy armor and i cant do anything about that so the flexabilty is not thare. now for stats yes its fleable but no becouse as a war being in heavy armor i need to have something that make me stand out from a light and in this game thare is nothing at all that make the war differ from a ele or mes. this is just stat wis with completly differnt armors. i want to see some realy big changes to this game if im ever going to come back becouse they have locked themself in a corner and have the holly trinity for raiding but they say they dont want the holly trinity but as the same time they do so they have no idea on were to go or how to fix thare game in. i think untill they fix this complet issue the game is going to be in this stat of not knowing were to go.