My Criticisms, Issues and Ideas

[Animism.7530]

I'll just dive straight into some ideas, constructive criticism and issues that I've thought about regarding the current state of the game.

It may come across as being blunt, though my intentions are naturally for the betterment of the game.

 

This game benefits from having an ability to change builds quickly

-- Yet there are no build templates and load/saving as in GW1?

Surely 3rd-party versions are not acceptable to Arenanet?

 

The game follows the holy trinity (Healer, Tank, Damage)

-- Why can the Monk not be reintroduced as a profession, in a game where acolytes of the gods are prevalent. Thematically, it fits perfectly. The only profession from the original 6 of guild wars which is not in the game, with strong ties to one particular god.

(Poor Dwayna..) (Melandru-Ranger, Dwayna-Monk, Grenth-Necromancer, Lyssa-Mesmer, Balthazar-Warrior, Combo Dwayna/Balthazar/Lyssa/Melandru-Elementalist.

A few skills with ties to the old Monk are in the game. But that is not a reason against introducing Monks. From one angle that I've thought up on the spot - some professions in GW2 take traits of the GW1 Monk. A GW2 Monk could priortize healing through traits and skills, with some level of retaliatory damage, taking on warrior melee traits (everyone loved that idea in GW1) and could even take traits from (either or all) ritualists, dervish and paragons. The Protection skill element of GW1 monks is only in GW2 in very minor ways, one example could be a warrior's defiant stance, which mimics the effects of Mark of Protection in GW1.

Ray of Judgement - Guardian (elite monk skill).

 

I can think of another reason for giving monks tank and/or healing roles.

Chronomancer currently occupies a permeneant support buff class, a potential dps, a tank, and even in some cases enough healing.

No other class has this much versatility.

Take away the chronomancer's meta of being a tank, and give it to a brand new Monk profession. Make the monk profession a low-scoring raid dps'er, but reasonable damage in some open world contexts through retaliatory means, so it is versatile enough for other contexts.

Did someone say... protective spirit spirit bond monk tank?... YES PLEASE!!!

 

5-man Squads?

The benefits of having a command-able party I think speaks for itself, and I can think of no real reason against it.

 

Raids with a 'training' level to bolster playability and combat the rather high arbitrary pricing of raid selling?

Simultaneously allows players to explore that content. Compare T1 - T4 fractal difficulty and rewards.

 

Raids seem to have two main issues.

One, it's playability - that some players feel they don't have the time, ability or interest to learn the raid.

Two, liquid gold rewards are comparatively low. Compare dungeon rewards prior to the gold nerf, with say, the reward for the first Raid boss. The time and effort taken to learn it, even if you proceed to kill every boss the first time each following attempt, offers a comparatively low amount of gold relative to time.

Factoring in the 'value' and 'need' for gold in the current version of the game, comparatively to the dungeon-era prior to HoT, the potential feeling of a lack of reward can be exacerbated, quite dramatically. This is just from one, potentially long-term bias opinion. The gold-per-hour reward can be taken from almost any area and compared to the reward and time taken to complete raids/bosses.

 

That's the end of my post for now.

[derd.6413]

i'm kinda lazy but the tldr iirc

 

templates wont happen because UI and spagetti code

 

monk class won't happen because:

* new classes won't happen, that's what elite specs are for.

* monk doesn't make sense on non-human characters and if you retool it to make sense on other classes you'd end up with guardian (with a diffrent armor weight)

* soft trinity, not holy and even then not everywhere. and ppl don't like the fact that druid and chrono are must haves in raid encounters

 

5-man squad: make a party

 

easy raids:

* raids are already patheticly easy (compared to other games)

* most ppl in this game are terrible at it (because the game doesn't tell you how to play)

* it's more work so raid releases will slow down even more

* couple of other reasons but i forgot and am lazy

[Animism.7530]

> templates wont happen because UI and spagetti code

Surely Arenanet can find a way... How was this overlooked in development?

 

> monk class won't happen because:

> * new classes won't happen, that's what elite specs are for.

Introducing only a monk with the next release, could delay the need for excessive amounts of Elite specialisation releases. Having 6 dead specialisations out of the meta is counter-productive. I don't think we need elite specialisations every release, and I would rather they focus on bridging this gap as well as focusing more on lore and story cut-scenes.

 

> * monk doesn't make sense on non-human characters and if you retool it to make sense on other classes you'd end up with guardian (with a diffrent armor weight)

It's easy to bypass the human-element of monks from GW1. To take it somewhat out of context - even in the main story, Rytlock and others meet Balthazar. Seems to me you wouldn't need to be human to worship said gods which would now be obviously present and real to all races. If the Olmakhan had a few lines about praising Dwayna for their solitude (they have a comparable tribal element), it wouldn't strike as out of place.

 

> * soft trinity, not holy and even then not everywhere. and ppl don't like the fact that druid and chrono are must haves in raid encounters

Those requirements are practically enforced by Arenanet themselves via balancing. At least my option of Monk could potentially offer a different way of tackling both healing and tanking, both of which were strengths of the monk in GW1.

 

> easy raids:

> * raids are already patheticly easy (compared to other games)

I agree that they are reasonably easy. However, some people do feel that learning the raid is either tedious or counter-intuitive, which I also agree with.

Adding a training level does not alter the difficulty, reward or lower the amount of players doing the 'normal' difficulty - on the contrary it should increase it over time.

 

> * most ppl in this game are terrible at it (because the game doesn't tell you how to play)

This is more a reason in favour of a training level.

 

> * it's more work so raid releases will slow down even more

This can be appropriated by Arenanet, and is not necessarily true.

 

 

 

[derd.6413]

expected these i'm not gonna answer the "but perhaps" answers

 

> @"Animism.7530" said:

> > monk class won't happen because:

> > * new classes won't happen, that's what elite specs are for.

> Introducing only a monk with the next release, could delay the need for excessive amounts of Elite specialisation releases. Having 6 dead specialisations out of the meta is counter-productive. I don't think we need elite specialisations every release, and I would rather they focus on bridging this gap as well as focusing more on lore and story cut-scenes.

 

making a new class is harder then an elite spec to make and maintain and do you really think ppl are gonna like a class that's less then others or do you want monk to release with 2 e specs that are out of the meta.

 

> > * monk doesn't make sense on non-human characters and if you retool it to make sense on other classes you'd end up with guardian (with a diffrent armor weight)

> It's easy to bypass the human-element of monks from GW1. To take it somewhat out of context - even in the main story, Rytlock and others meet Balthazar. Seems to me you wouldn't need to be human to worship said gods which would now be obviously present and real to all races. If the Olmakhan had a few lines about praising Dwayna for their solitude (they have a comparable tribal element), it wouldn't strike as out of place.

 

all the races believed the human gods existed they just never saw them as baings to be worrhip since they're the human gods, just really strong mist beings. charr actively prosecute religious ppl in their society and you're not playing a oaklaman charr, you're playing a black citadel charr and it would be very out of place for oaklaman to worship dwayna because why the flying sand charr would they since they would have no history with dwayna.

 

> > * soft trinity, not holy and even then not everywhere. and ppl don't like the fact that druid and chrono are must haves in raid encounters

> Those requirements are practically enforced by Arenanet themselves via balancing. At least my option of Monk could potentially offer a different way of tackling both healing and tanking, both of which were strengths of the monk in GW1.

 

correct, but the solution isn't to doubble down it's to fix the balancing issues

 

> > easy raids:

> > * raids are already patheticly easy (compared to other games)

> I agree that they are reasonably easy. However, some people do feel that learning the raid is either tedious or counter-intuitive, which I also agree with.

> Adding a training level does not alter the difficulty, reward or lower the amount of players doing the 'normal' difficulty - on the contrary it should increase it over time.

 

you have too look at it from a effort/reward standpoint not just rewards . either ppl will complain that the rewards in easy are bad because some raid rewards are difficulty gated and the easy raids will be abbandoned or easy mode will be the defacto way to play because you get the same rewards for less effort.

 

most ppl don't want to practice they just want the rewards.

 

> > * most ppl in this game are terrible at it (because the game doesn't tell you how to play)

> This is more a reason in favour of a training level.

no because you need to learn to walk before you run

 

 

[Animism.7530]

> making a new class is harder then an elite spec to make and maintain and do you really think ppl are gonna like a class that's less then others or do you want monk to release with 2 e specs that are out of the meta.

 

Are you proposing Arenanet only create things based on difficulty to do so? Enough said.

I think people would be fine if a Monk were released as 'core', with no additional elite specialisations. Or maybe it could have one. By your logic, if they are making the Monk, one specialisation to create for it shouldn't be much issue.

 

> all the races believed the human gods existed they just never saw them as baings to be worrhip since they're the human gods, just really strong mist beings. charr actively prosecute religious ppl in their society and you're not playing a oaklaman charr, you're playing a black citadel charr and it would be very out of place for oaklaman to worship dwayna because why the flying sand charr would they since they would have no history with dwayna.

 

Rytlock constantly went against the Black Citadels orders. I feel I need to say little more to explain how it would be possible as a playable character from the Black Citadel, who is the hero, etc etc, to get away with being a monk.

 

> the solution isn't to doubble down it's to fix the balancing issues

I don't think it can be fixed. Not without making classes rehashed copies of each other. There should be minor differences, but not 1 profession potentially taking all available roles, bar the ability to produce banners. I still think the Monk path is a perfect idea for both our ideas here. It's a minor change, but one I think would be in the right direction at least.

 

 

> you have too look at it from a effort/reward standpoint not just rewards . either ppl will complain that the rewards in easy are bad because some raid rewards are difficulty gated and the easy raids will be abbandoned or easy mode will be the defacto way to play because you get the same rewards for less effort.

 

I think the focus of a practice raid would be entirely on practising boss mechanics which are slowed (and potentially even more pronounced). It could offer very minor rewards, perhaps a token of a Legendary insight/divination, similar to the writ of experience/tome of knowledge, which makes it reward **something**, but doesn't make it a reasonable source of anything but the opportunity to practice mechanics. If I made it a crude amount of these tokens to legendary insights, would that make it acceptable? Say 1 token per 'training' boss completed. It takes 24 for a legendary insight. Not at all a viable source for legendary armour.

Saying things are difficulty gated is a moot point from anyone - that's how games work and is not a reasonable argument. Saying things are too hard or too easy is different.

I wouldn't expect the training mode to be used heavily, particularly in the older raids. That does not mean that it wouldn't help the current raid situation and multiple issues surrounding it though.

> most ppl don't want to practice they just want the rewards.

There would be much less pressure on an individual player who needs to train to join an experienced team - training runs are rare. There is reason to suspect that a lot of the people diving into experienced runs with no experience, do so because of sheer convenience.

 

> > > * most ppl in this game are terrible at it (because the game doesn't tell you how to play)

> > This is more a reason in favour of a training level.

> no because you need to learn to walk before you run

Running being normal raids, walking being the training run? :)

 

 

[Ralistu.1965]

you getting too far into something that wont happen.

 

some of us have been damn near begging for a dervish... you know what they did... there are dervish NPCs running around instead (and paragon too i might add). deal with it

 

If anything MONK ever happens, its an elite spec for either the elementalist or the guardian and if they did it right, it would come out in the next expansion if we go to cantha. its the only way to tie in the other races to use anything from that class.

[Overlord RainyDay.2084]

> @"Ralistu.1965" said:

> some of us have been kitten near begging for a dervish... you know what they did... there are dervish NPCs running around instead (and paragon too i might add). deal with it

 

Sometimes concepts that show up in LW or expansions, like the mordrem with mounts in HoT or Marjory taking up the greatsword, ends up being given to players in the next expansion. We could still see dervish and/or paragon as especs, though I think the biggest limiting factor is the fact that both "(land) spears" and "scythes" are actually staves mechanically. Unless they introduce proper new weapon types, and if they keep up the trend that especs always pen up a new weapon, they'd need to go to classes that currently don't have that weapon. That would mean if say warriors got dervish as a espec (with the upkeep enchantment mechanic borrowed from revenants maybe), then we'd be stuck with paragon going to the engineer, since those are the only two without staff at this time.

[Animism.7530]

> the biggest limiting factor is the fact that both "(land) spears" and "scythes" are actually staves mechanically. Unless they introduce proper new weapon types, and if they keep up the trend that especs always pen up a new weapon, they'd need to go to classes that currently don't have that weapon.

 

I don't think we need to give every class every weapon, nor keep up the trend of a new respective weapon. Though I do think they can add new weapons, scythes are an obvious one, as are land spears. Whichever classes receive them, even if only one, may be acceptable if done in a certain way.

 

Perhaps Monks get to use scythes. Whilst the other classes get another of the current weapons which they are missing, with maybe even an idea as bold as a new core elite skill.

 

I honestly think a new class, as in Monk, would be the best fit for either a dervish, or ritualist elite specialization. Three birds in one stone! *mouth waters*

 

> If anything MONK ever happens, its an elite spec for either the elementalist or the guardian and if they did it right, it would come out in the next expansion if we go to cantha. its the only way to tie in the other races to use anything from that class.

 

I don't think it would have to come from Cantha. It could be implemented in a number of ways, even with Living Story. Dialogue could be updated on certain NPCs in areas to give it some presence. I would make a comparison here to how Revenant was released.

There is a small potential of having paragon, and monk as an elite guardian specialisation - guardian nowadays has very little to offer in comparison to other classes, though this could be fixed in other ways. I think it is much more fitting for a Monk class to be created with the aforementioned elite specialisations on it. Seems thematically coherent.

[Linken.6345]

Dident the 5 human gods leave so who are the monk supposed to get their power from?

[Animism.7530]

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> Dident the 5 human gods leave so who are the monk supposed to get their power from?

 

I mean it's magic and a fantasy game. There could be a million explanations there, perhaps even Rytlock travelled into the mists and learned it. Rytlock op! :)

Maybe another character from EOTN reappears and teaches the path of the monk...!

 

If we are to infer Monks lost their power, wouldn't the other original professions, also?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Animism.7530" said:

> -- Yet there are no build templates and load/saving as in GW1?

 

This has been discussed, and asked, a billion times. All we got was silence from the developers and loads of speculation as to why by the community. Unfortunately this feature was announced by a PVP developer that is no longer with us, he even asked for our opinions on how the system could work and had a healthy discussion. That happened in 2016 if I recall and nothing ever since. Bringing it up helps to remind the developers but it's no priority so don't get your hopes up. Not that I disagree btw, I'd love to have templates in the game, I've even said (in that thread too) that if items are a problem, they could add templates AT LEAST for skills and traits and leave items for another time. Skills and traits should be easy to implement

 

Edit: even in GW1 items and skills/traits were two separate systems

[Linken.6345]

> @"Animism.7530" said:

> > @"Linken.6345" said:

> > Dident the 5 human gods leave so who are the monk supposed to get their power from?

>

> I mean it's magic and a fantasy game. There could be a million explanations there, perhaps even Rytlock travelled into the mists and learned it. Rytlock op! :)

>

> If we are to infer Monks lost their power, wouldn't the other original professions, also?

 

Why should they?

the pararels you draw from original classes and the gods aint really proof they worshiped them unlike the monk.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> Dident the 5 human gods leave so who are the monk supposed to get their power from?

 

Monks take power from the same place everyone else does, the Bloodstones. Monks don't need the gods to get their powers as much as Elementalists or Necromancers do.

 

> @"Animism.7530" said:

> Maybe another character from EOTN reappears and teaches the path of the monk...!

 

The path of the Monk was combined with Paragon to create Guardian which is why Monks no longer exist alone.

[Animism.7530]

> Bringing it up helps to remind the developers but it's no priority so don't get your hopes up. Not that I disagree btw, I'd love to have templates in the game, I've even said (in that thread too) that if items are a problem, they could add templates AT LEAST for skills and traits and leave items for another time. Skills and traits should be easy to implement

 

Sounds like a good idea, if they had an issue with items. Traits and skills are certainly the main thing, and I certainly believe in prodding them about it!

 

> Why should they?

>the pararels you draw from original classes and the gods aint really proof they worshiped them unlike the monk.

 

Why should Monks lose their power?

And, each of those professions, bar maybe elementalist, did worship and praise the respective god, or at the very least it is heavily inferred.

Quite sure I remember correctly, that in pre-searing of the original guild wars, each trainer and respective class was located very close to a statue of the related god.

[Animism.7530]

> The path of the Monk was combined with Paragon to create Guardian which is why Monks no longer exist alone.

 

I feel a splinter faction of monks... somewhere :) Dervish can still fill this void. Even if we take this to be the whole truth regarding the end of the paragons, we can still have monk-dervish-ritualists. It seems to me that very few elements of the Monk are really used on the guardian, which is hardly surprising given how many skills we had in Guild Wars 1. I would say there's plenty there still to work with.

 

P.S I'm enjoying all of your input.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Animism.7530" said:

> > Bringing it up helps to remind the developers but it's no priority so don't get your hopes up. Not that I disagree btw, I'd love to have templates in the game, I've even said (in that thread too) that if items are a problem, they could add templates AT LEAST for skills and traits and leave items for another time. Skills and traits should be easy to implement

>

> Sounds like a good idea, if they had an issue with items. Traits and skills are certainly the main thing, and I certainly believe in prodding them about it!

>

 

Yeah something about Legendary items was the main problem and I can understand it still is. If they finally say "forget it!" and give us traits/skills everyone should be somewhat happy.

 

> It seems to me that very few elements of the Monk are really used on the guardian, which is hardly surprising given how many skills we had in Guild Wars 1

 

Well if you check PVP, Firebrand is an excellent healer that reminds well of the GW1 Monk, too bad it's overshadowed by others in PVE (mostly Druid) and can't show their true healing potential there. Btw there are more skills in Guild Wars 2 than in Guild Wars 1 at this moment (after Path of Fire)

[Animism.7530]

> Well if you check PVP, Firebrand is an excellent healer that reminds well of the GW1 Monk, too bad it's overshadowed by others in PVE (mostly Druid) and can't show their true healing potential there. Btw there are more skills in Guild Wars 2 than in Guild Wars 1 at this moment (after Path of Fire)

 

I don't play PvP often, though I don't think it stands out any more than a druid with regards to monk-like qualities.

It would be nice if it did, but it needs some class-specific quality, which guardian has been lacking for quite a while, since other classes took away it's aegis iirc. Originally there were only random applications of it aside from Guardian? If it gave **massive** toughness bonuses to the party as part of its traits, you can imagine there would actually be uses for it, synergy. Though it's an extreme example. Mesmer holds alacrity. Ranger has spirits. Warriors have banners. Elementalists have crazy aoe cleave. Thieves have the infinite source of stealth. Necromancers have barrier. Guardian (Revenant and Engineer) has ????

 

Are there really more skills? Interesting.

[starlinvf.1358]

The problem you're overlooking is what Anet's strengths and weaknesses are. Ignoring this makes discussions little more then round about arguments, since talking about what we want is easy.... getting it into code is a lot harder. And what little talent Anet has on staff (or more specifically understaffed) is stretched insanely thin for a game with THIS much content on it. People often like to draw comparisons to other games, but most of the time those comparisons don't sync up due to a substantial difference in Resources, Game Direction and Leadership. Anet has been having problems with all 3 during the entire GW2 life cycle; and every time they've managed to hit a stride, it gets disrupted by something that the community rarely finds out about until its too late to provide input for.

 

This leaves the vast majority of the Feedback as "wish list" type topics at best, and "I hate X" at worst.... and even then, a lot of its marred by a wide spread lack of understanding on overall game development (or even software project management), much less the ever changing state of Anet's team composition, general focus, progress, and technical concerns. Them usually being vague doesn't help this situation either. All we have to go by is their track record..... and even when they've proven capable of something exceptional, its usually surrounded on either side by short falls, delays, mistakes or entire paradigm shifts. Another recent trend in gaming PR is linking specific accomplishments to certain Devs or teams by name, and the game's followers using it as a road map for expectations. Normally thats completely obfuscated in most AAA environments, with maybe a hand full of lead staff being forward facing for branding reasons. Anet has been trying to play both sides of that coin, constantly changing the clarity when they think its to their advantage.... and the result is difficulty in establishing credibility by name. Given the wildly varying degrees of success with goals in each update, the community is desperate to figure out who is responsible for what, so we can know what to expect when they hit.

 

All of this accumulated knowledge, mixed with a lot of speculation, has become our litmus test for Dev feasibility. Anet is not know for consistently pulling off miracles- So in turn, the community is trying to separate ideas between Must Haves, Feasible, and Wish list. Most must have are things that basically have no other option but to get fixed..... and to this day, many have still not be addressed. Feasible are mostly suggestions for fixes or improvements that seem reasonably within Anet's ability to pull off, or doesn't have to fight the engine to make happen..... and again, many have yet to be addressed. Wish list is filled with things we want, but don't trust Anet to get to anytime soon.... mostly QOL improvements and multiple class redesign ideas. Even though we don't take the Dev's responses at face value now, it does provide insight into what Anet is currently looking at. This is especially important when dealing with any response that cites something with the Engine; because that has historically been the biggest hurdle to major mechanical changes, and very often used to shoot down player demands when the tribe gets restless about it. Even their usage of this is inconsistent.

 

But what has been fairly consistent is the Devs description of the engine as being a series of bespoke solutions, interwoven and cobbled together in a way that just sort of works until you change something in it. Spaghetti code is an apt phrase here. Especially when you consider where they've even superseded some features with new code, but the old code is still there, because another system talks to it. Like Outfits go around the Armor feature code, but you can't directly change the properties of armor weight classes, even though Outfits "effectively do this" from the player perspective. And don't even get me started on the Event Scripting in Core Tyria.

 

 

So unless Anet starts getting constant home runs, or finds a way to gut the engine from the inside out without breaking anything, you're gonna see push back from the Community on ideas thats largely been established to be beyond Anet's Ability in the short and med term.. Long term is almost not worth concerning ourselves with, since a long term plan never sticks around long enough to see itself happen. its a crappy situation for everyone involved, but its the reality we live in.... and the hope is keeping the bar at the right level will result in more functionally complete updates, rather then a stack of incomplete features left to rot, and not doing anyone any good.

[Animism.7530]

Great post Starlinvf.

I hope the situation isn't really that bad. Your post does help to understand it from both sides.

If I were to split the things I mentioned into any of those three categories, I would likely place skill/trait templates as a must have, a new profession/elite specialisation(monk/rev/rit) and 5 man squads as feasible, and raid training levels as wish list. Problem is, I'm guessing all of these but the 5-man squads idea, require big code changes.

:(

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Animism.7530" said:

> > -- Yet there are no build templates and load/saving as in GW1?

>

> This has been discussed, and asked, a billion times. All we got was silence from the developers and loads of speculation as to why by the community. Unfortunately this feature was announced by a PVP developer that is no longer with us, he even asked for our opinions on how the system could work and had a healthy discussion. That happened in 2016 if I recall and nothing ever since. Bringing it up helps to remind the developers but it's no priority so don't get your hopes up. Not that I disagree btw, I'd love to have templates in the game, I've even said (in that thread too) that if items are a problem, they could add templates AT LEAST for skills and traits and leave items for another time. Skills and traits should be easy to implement

>

> Edit: even in GW1 items and skills/traits were two separate systems

 

Yet, when Mike Z was made game director he stated himself that he'd like build templates in the game, which means they're on the table, and with the recent changes to the Hero Panel for your skills and traits I think they might be setting the Hero Panel up so that they can do Build Templates...it's probably not easy, but it's also something well within their capabilities.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"Ralistu.1965" said:

> some of us have been kitten near begging for a dervish... you know what they did... there are dervish NPCs running around instead (and paragon too i might add). deal with it

We already have a dervish, they just draw power from generalized legendary figures instead of human-specific gods and call themselves "revenants" now.

[Animism.7530]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @"Ralistu.1965" said:

> > some of us have been kitten near begging for a dervish... you know what they did... there are dervish NPCs running around instead (and paragon too i might add). deal with it

> We already have a dervish, they just draw power from generalized legendary figures instead of human-specific gods and call themselves "revenants" now.

 

I'm not sure I find them any more comparable than Guardian and Monk/Paragon. Minor similarities, but guardian doesn't offer any unique support like paragons did, and likewise with the case of monks. As far as I can tell, the only similarity between Revenant and Dervish, is the worship of figures? Rytlock 'discovered' this in the mists? Thematically, these two aren't even comparable aside from the former point. Combat-wise, I also see no similarities, and I see no reason why Legendary figures need replace the Gods, when the most prominent skills only transform you into an avatar of a god.

 

As a side note - I think most people would agree that it's more enjoyable in a sense, being an avatar of the gods vs an avatar of legendary figures, of whom we know comparatively little.

[Lilith Hellflower.4015]

While old gw1 classes like Assassin and Derwish might happen as e-specs in the future (Assassin much more likely than Derwish - as Derwishs were religious zealots and that is not a theme fit for all races playable in the game) monk will never happen. The reason for that is pretty simple it is astablished lore, which was recently (S4Ep1 LW) confirmed once again (ingame by anet) that during the 250 years between the two games the monk class changed/evolved into the guardian class. Aparently abandoning their prayers to the six gods as the class spread to other races.

 

edit: forgot they said paragon evolved into spellbreaker - so I removed it from the above naming of old classes

[Animism.7530]

> @"Lilith Hellflower.4015" said:

> While old gw1 classes like Assassin and Derwish might happen as e-specs in the future (Assassin much more likely than Derwish - as Derwishs were religious zealots and that is not a theme fit for all races playable in the game) monk will never happen. The reason for that is pretty simple it is astablished lore, which was recently (S4Ep1 LW) confirmed once again (ingame by anet) that during the 250 years between the two games the monk class changed/evolved into the guardian class. Aparently abandoning their prayers to the six gods as the class spread to other races.

>

> edit: forgot they said paragon evolved into spellbreaker - so I removed it from the above naming of old classes

 

On one level, I don't think Assassin is more likely. Thief is one of the few classes that is very close to a previous profession, Assassin. It has practically every element of it.

Ranger-Ranger, Thief-Assassin. Ele-Ele. War-War. Mes-Mes.

 

Ritualists? Dervish? And let us pretend 'half' of Monk and Paragon (reasons in previous comment).

 

Regarding religious zealotry, it could easily be made to fit all races, with little change.

Furthermore - religion, the definition quite literally states belief in something (or faith), without evidence (faith, literally, without proof).

I don't know about you, but if Aries (Balthazar?) suddenly appeared in the world destroying vast areas, you can be damn sure I would believe in him.

Just because they are human entities is a poor reason for other races not to respect or worship them.

 

I think Arenanet have sort of twisted their own leg here.

Paragons, the Sunspears, abandoning their faith in the gods? Kind of incoherent. All the while, there is faith in Joko as being a god?

Splinter factions of Paragons and Dervish running around, yet not as a main profession spread throughout the world?

 

As if ALL Monks would have disappeared, and the unique profession destroyed - especially two of the strongest previous support classes, combined into one of the weakest nowadays. I just do not find any part of this to be coherent.

[derd.6413]

> @"Animism.7530" said:

> > @"Lilith Hellflower.4015" said:

> > While old gw1 classes like Assassin and Derwish might happen as e-specs in the future (Assassin much more likely than Derwish - as Derwishs were religious zealots and that is not a theme fit for all races playable in the game) monk will never happen. The reason for that is pretty simple it is astablished lore, which was recently (S4Ep1 LW) confirmed once again (ingame by anet) that during the 250 years between the two games the monk class changed/evolved into the guardian class. Aparently abandoning their prayers to the six gods as the class spread to other races.

> >

> > edit: forgot they said paragon evolved into spellbreaker - so I removed it from the above naming of old classes

>

> On one level, I don't think Assassin is more likely. Thief is one of the few classes that is very close to a previous profession, Assassin. It has practically every element of it.

> Ranger-Ranger, Thief-Assassin. Ele-Ele. War-War. Mes-Mes.

>

> Ritualists? Dervish? And let us pretend 'half' of Monk and Paragon (reasons in previous comment).

>

> Regarding religious zealotry, it could easily be made to fit all races, with little change.

> Furthermore - religion, the definition quite literally states belief in something (or faith), without evidence (faith, literally, without proof).

> I don't know about you, but if Aries (Balthazar?) suddenly appeared in the world destroying vast areas, you can be kitten sure I would believe in him.

> Just because they are human entities is a poor reason for other races not to respect or worship them.

>

> I think Arenanet have sort of twisted their own leg here.

> Paragons, the Sunspears, abandoning their faith in the gods? Kind of incoherent. All the while, there is faith in Joko as being a god?

> Splinter factions of Paragons and Dervish running around, yet not as a main profession spread throughout the world?

>

> As if ALL Monks would have disappeared, and the unique profession destroyed - especially two of the strongest previous support classes, combined into one of the weakest nowadays. I just do not find any part of this to be coherent.

 

it's less of a "it can't happen" and more "it shouldn't happen" also your understanding of the lore seems a bit off

 

and if you really want monk class back, just change the theme