Guild Wars 2

In away you right Harper it is a side effect. I’m not missing the point but agreeing with the side effect and looking maybe through improvements, but mainly expansion to try and achieve some of those original designs or if players want change some.

The game might of been designed for a low skill level at the start and have a general average skill level for most content but it shouldn’t mean that harder content that this average skill level can’t complete should not be added. If no harder content is added your higher skill players will start to leave. Not only do these players deserve content to match their skills but your average players also like something to aim for.

Like most I guess I’m just searching for this content and in truth if through my Speed, Vanquishing idea or existing dungeons, queens gauntlet (but adding group play), or FOTM a competitive PvE mode could be added I wouldn’t mind if most content was casual focused.

As I could enjoy it for the experience and then get back to competing. Much the same as sPvP.

Offensive play is not a side effect, it is the entire mentality of high end PVE in every MMO. The fact that you can run full zerker is really just proof that ANet accomplished what they set out to do, make everything a possiblity.

I think there are plenty here who would love a more challenging game. Personally I think that’s much easier said than done. How do you make it tougher on zerker armor but not impossible? more unavoidable attacks to slowly dwindle their health down giving them a race of “kill it before it kills us”? What effect would that have? Probably a lot of gear checks in PUGs, or people moving to more defensive gear sets which means slower runs. Are these two effects things people want?

IMO what we need is a new lupicus or such type fight. I feel that if people didn’t like the style of play we currently have then they wouldn’t be here, but they are, so they must like it right? I think it’s just that most content has gotten stale at this point. This is a game built on active defense, if defensive gameplay is what a person is after why would they be playing a game that quite clearly states that it doesn’t have a trinity and there are no tanks/healers?

I think that was an interesting post, Bez.
One quick little clarification; I was saying First Person Shooter games originally had stats/rewards that weren’t nuanced enough and created issues we’re familiar with, not that this game needs stats necessarily. If you’d like to get everybody on the same page, there’s alot of ways you can approach restructuring the reward system for dungeons. If I’m reading you right that doesn’t seem like your cup of tea, though.

Also, I don’t think you’re wrong to try and make sure there are multiple character building options relevant to combat; that just seems natural and expected for an RPG.

Making the game require at least 1 or 2 support characters would mean upping the difficulty past a point where the average casual player could still manage.

I think you might be confusing team composition and difficulty in this sentence.
I’ve seen tons of fights in trinity games that required a support character and yet the combat itself was pretty easy peasy lemon squeezy for all parties involved.

But to address your post more broadly, Harper;
in light of the Tiered rewards we’ve been getting in the Living Story recently, I’m not so comfortable definitively saying higher personal skill and team coordination are being intentionally ignored.

Bezagron.7352:

In away you right Harper it is a side effect. I’m not missing the point but agreeing with the side effect and looking maybe through improvements, but mainly expansion to try and achieve some of those original designs or if players want change some.

The game might of been designed for a low skill level at the start and have a general average skill level for most content but it shouldn’t mean that harder content that this average skill level can’t complete should not be added. If no harder content is added your higher skill players will start to leave. Not only do these players deserve content to match their skills but your average players also like something to aim for.

Everything that the “average” player couldn’t do was complained to death on the forums until it got a nerf.
You can’t have pure hardcore content in a game made for casuals – sooner or later the mass of casuals will bump into that content and when they can’t do it fill the forums with “QQ I can’t do this content pls nerf”.

The high skill players have already left in their majority – or have changed and accepted that the game is what it is.

There is some hard content – but nowhere near the hardness levels you propose.

@Vox – I’m pretty disappointed with the rewards too. It’s become more and more clear who the intended demographic is.

-Cheesy casual story that seems to be tailor made for your average 12-14 year old.
-Insignificant rewards given out by content you can’t fail.
-“get it now before it’s gone forever” only to bring it back at the end of the season
-unique items and skins that are only available “for a limited time” every 2 months or so.
I could go on – but it’s becoming clear.

Jerus.4350:

Offensive play is not a side effect, it is the entire mentality of high end PVE in every MMO. The fact that you can run full zerker is really just proof that ANet accomplished what they set out to do, make everything a possiblity.

I guess I’m not too sure, many MMORPG force a defensive & supportive role for your high end PvE making it impossible for you to complete. That’s easy so you have 1 defensive, 1 supportive and typically maximum damage for the rest. You focus on offensive here because you have no choice, defensive and supportive are already there. Content is not possible without them. Now I don’t want GW2 to become this.

The hardest choice is not to force them. Here it all comes down to mechanics, mob design & content design that decide what play style focuses make it into the acceptable high end play. I still agree on GW2 offensive play as a side effect especially if they want Play how you want. I would take this that content at all levels wasn’t just for one overall play style exclusively.

I think it’s just that most content has gotten stale at this point.

This is very true for the higher skilled players, as in PvE very little content to match their skill level and challenge them has been added. There’s been some seasonal & temporary but not much more.

With this discussion it’s been one of the things I’ve been thinking about. As has be mentioned this game is designed for average skilled players to complete and enjoy. The living story is a great example and I believe for this type of content especially as it’s the story of the game should be targeted at the average skill level (Locking the games stories behind the hardest content have always annoyed me). As this is most likely going to be the majority of the content added what can be done for higher skilled players?

Once content becomes old all your doing is replaying the same content and typically only for rewards. After awhile even the rewards start to become old. So in truth just adding more content is a quick fix. You get the new content then a week, a month later what then.

So I started to think other then rewards why would you play. And the only other main reasons I could think of that also went with repeating existing content over and over was competition. And this is were it clicked for me, competitive play goes hand in hand with high end game play, also competitive content is repeatable by nature (as you want a standard playing field). So I just looked at GW2 then started to focus on sPvP. Your overall content is the same and your just repeating the same content over and over. Now you still want a great reward system as it’s typically what your lower tier players play for but your upper tier typically play for the competitive bragging rights (Okay plus the loot usually associated with those bragging rights).

The basis of a competitive content can be a one off install. Not needing the constant updates associated with purely PvE content. It’s repetitive by nature not becoming as old and stale as fast. Design well and I could see a competitive PvE scene really working. So instead of just adding more content and new rewards which generally aren’t going to target the upper skill tier and are only going to satisfy players for a week or a month lets look at adding a system of rewarding repeatable play to GW2 PvE. For me a competitive in game scene similar to sPvP could work. For an analogy you could compare PvE competition to the Tour de France.

Jerus.4350:

This is a game built on active defense, if defensive gameplay is what a person is after why would they be playing a game that quite clearly states that it doesn’t have a trinity and there are no tanks/healers?

I guess I don’t associate defensive game play with tanks / healers.

Yes active defence..

• Isn’t active defence part of defensive play?
• Isn’t active play usually more enjoyable and requires greater skill?

Defensive game play is in GW2 and it can be really enjoyable but I feel there’s a disconnect between non offensive focuses and offensive focuses in what they can bring to a highly skilled party, their active game play elements & what they sacrifice.

Vox Hollow.2736:

If you’d like to get everybody on the same page, there’s alot of ways you can approach restructuring the reward system for dungeons. If I’m reading you right that doesn’t seem like your cup of tea, though.

No I’m just investigating other option and have kind of locked on too the competitive option at the moment. Your FPS example is a great example for how to include different play style objectives. Really I’m just open to all improvement option as with everyone I agree expansion (new content, rewards) & improvements (existing content, mob AI) are needed for the upper skill level of players in PvE. For me it would be nice for other play style to have access, especially as I get bored playing one favour all the time. But it’s really no lost as I can play WvW, sPvP or other games.

Vox Hollow.2736:

Making the game require at least 1 or 2 support characters would mean upping the difficulty past a point where the average casual player could still manage.

I think you might be confusing team composition and difficulty in this sentence.
I’ve seen tons of fights in trinity games that required a support character and yet the combat itself was pretty easy peasy lemon squeezy for all parties involved.

True team composition and difficult are not associated. I guess what I was looking for was could team composition between different focuses be expanded at this difficult level.

Vox Hollow.2736:

But to address your post more broadly, Harper;
in light of the Tiered rewards we’ve been getting in the Living Story recently, I’m not so comfortable definitively saying higher personal skill and team coordination are being intentionally ignored.

I with all here, I’m just hoping that somewhere under the hood they have more some-things for the higher skilled players a little for solo and more for team coordination.

Harper.4173:

There is some hard content – but nowhere near the hardness levels you propose.

As we could be playing GW2 for years to come I’m just hoping some of this content is added. We the players might again surprise Arenanet again (Dungeons) when this new hardness becomes standard play as we learn and improve.

Okay back onto offensive & non offensive. One of GW2 combat strengths and weaknesses in one I believe is their non offensive play. Bar some skills I see GW2’s non offensive play through their boons, conditions & control effects & skills. And it’s here when compared to the damage system I see problems for non offensive focused.

Damage
To start your damage output is greatly effected by build focus. The different between a offensive focused player and any non offensive focused players is worlds apart. I might like the gap different reduced a bit but we need to remember it’s this gap that helps give you your identity.

Boons, Conditions & Control
When looking at player interaction and favour focus it’s this system I really have problems with. To start increasing duration doesn’t change the feeling of a effect or skill, it just means you can use it or have it longer. Non offensive focuses might have slightly greater availability for some of these then offensive focuses but it’s effect strength that really give you your identity.

And for the Boons, Condition & Control system you are unable to increase the non offensives effect(s) strength. There is no range similar to damage, no improvement because of your favour focus. This is a strength but also a weakness to GW2 combat. This would be a massive change but adding just a small range difference due to favour focus to these effects could help improve non offensive focuses identities.

And it’s really the identities players place on roles, builds, skill & gear that allow players to associate with these chosen play style identity. As offensive focus players have been saying there is support, control & defensive play at this level. But the overall builds used have this overall offensive focus favour that non offensive focused players dislike, add gear to the equation (Zerker) and these players no longer associate these builds with there chosen play style identity. If there was a small range to these non offensive effects strength like similar with damage having a varying range players some of these overall build might not actual change in function but there perceived identity might change.

No. People do not need to spend 1000g+ on another full set of ascended weapons/armor (up to 2000g+ if you spend on infusions) to get “optimal” stats.

Create variety through skills/traits, not through stats on gear.

What we need is harder dungeons, not changes that make them 3x easier like what happened with ferocity and low-level dungeons.

Lamir.6702:

No. People do not need to spend 1000g+ on another full set of ascended weapons/armor (up to 2000g+ if you spend on infusions) to get “optimal” stats.

Create variety through skills/traits, not through stats on gear.

What we need is harder dungeons, not changes that make them 3x easier like what happened with ferocity and low-level dungeons.

Just a note to on gear, passive stats and builds. Why should builds in PvE be locked to one gear set? As passive stats are a large part of what helps your build to perform. This is a problem with build diversity and locks you into designing content only for these gear choices as a large part of your passive stats are locked to gear choice. This aspect doesn’t really come into play for this discussion other then the difficulties it imparts to swapping builds in PvE.

My personal preference is to allow us to unlock all passive stat combinations, sigils, runes & infusions to make it very easy to swap builds in WvW & PvE (Just like in sPvP). But this will have a massive effect on the economy of GW2 as with out these lock passive on gear what other value to they have (Cosmetics have become unlocks). If we go this way like cosmetics what will we have to trade and sell. Now I still want this but what other reason could be created that would still have players trading and sell these items?

Bezagron.7352:

Jerus.4350:

Offensive play is not a side effect, it is the entire mentality of high end PVE in every MMO. The fact that you can run full zerker is really just proof that ANet accomplished what they set out to do, make everything a possiblity.

I guess I’m not too sure, many MMORPG force a defensive & supportive role for your high end PvE making it impossible for you to complete. That’s easy so you have 1 defensive, 1 supportive and typically maximum damage for the rest. You focus on offensive here because you have no choice, defensive and supportive are already there. Content is not possible without them. Now I don’t want GW2 to become this.

ONLY because they have the trinity system in place which makes the game assume you have a tank and assume you have a healer. GW2 doesn’t you have your dodges and your own heals. In DCUO I ran the hardest raid the game ever saw in full DPS gear on a solo healer because I knew I only needed the bare minimum of healing, we needed some of the tools that the healer role provided but the overall healing potency required was very very low. EQ we almost never maximized our tanking because it just wasn’t needed we’d often set our tanks up such that they were competing within the top 10 of the 54 people in a raid for DPS. This is all talking the highest of the high end play of those games.

The mentality is the same. The equivalent of the trinity requirement is what we see with needing a guard/mes for reflect walls and other support skills.

You say 1 defense, 1 support, rest DPS, no that was casual high end. When you got to true min/max meta setups you went beyond that sacrificing support potential and defensive potential for more DPS because you just didn’t need that much support/defense. It wasn’t uncommon to drop a tank when it was an option, or even the healer in the rare case that was an option. It’s much the same here, you bring a guard to everything for a nice casual run, but they don’t need to be in PVT gear, zerker gear works plenty well. If you want to truly maximize DPS you’d be running 3-4 ele’s a warrior and maybe something else, but we don’t do that often as we usually need/want some level of support play but that just doesn’t mean that the support player won’t be in a very DPS focused support build (IE guard bringing Purging flames, Wall of Reflection and retreat rather than the DPS of bane signet or save yourselves, but wearing Zerk gear and using DPS focused weapons over say the mace)

There is a nice balance between dps and support. It’s just not the same as the standard trinity.

Bezagron.7352:

Lamir.6702:

No. People do not need to spend 1000g+ on another full set of ascended weapons/armor (up to 2000g+ if you spend on infusions) to get “optimal” stats.

Create variety through skills/traits, not through stats on gear.

What we need is harder dungeons, not changes that make them 3x easier like what happened with ferocity and low-level dungeons.

Just a note to on gear, passive stats and builds. Why should builds in PvE be locked to one gear set? As passive stats are a large part of what helps your build to perform. This is a problem with build diversity and locks you into designing content only for these gear choices as a large part of your passive stats are locked to gear choice. This aspect doesn’t really come into play for this discussion other then the difficulties it imparts to swapping builds in PvE.

My personal preference is to allow us to unlock all passive stat combinations, sigils, runes & infusions to make it very easy to swap builds in WvW & PvE (Just like in sPvP). But this will have a massive effect on the economy of GW2 as with out these lock passive on gear what other value to they have (Cosmetics have become unlocks). If we go this way like cosmetics what will we have to trade and sell. Now I still want this but what other reason could be created that would still have players trading and sell these items?

PvE builds are not locked to one gear set. You can run any gear stat in your build. Even for optimised builds there isn’t just one gear stat, or one rune, or one infusion type or one sigil, there’s variety even at the highest level.

maha.7902:

Bezagron.7352:

Lamir.6702:

No. People do not need to spend 1000g+ on another full set of ascended weapons/armor (up to 2000g+ if you spend on infusions) to get “optimal” stats.

Create variety through skills/traits, not through stats on gear.

What we need is harder dungeons, not changes that make them 3x easier like what happened with ferocity and low-level dungeons.

Just a note to on gear, passive stats and builds. Why should builds in PvE be locked to one gear set? As passive stats are a large part of what helps your build to perform. This is a problem with build diversity and locks you into designing content only for these gear choices as a large part of your passive stats are locked to gear choice. This aspect doesn’t really come into play for this discussion other then the difficulties it imparts to swapping builds in PvE.

My personal preference is to allow us to unlock all passive stat combinations, sigils, runes & infusions to make it very easy to swap builds in WvW & PvE (Just like in sPvP). But this will have a massive effect on the economy of GW2 as with out these lock passive on gear what other value to they have (Cosmetics have become unlocks). If we go this way like cosmetics what will we have to trade and sell. Now I still want this but what other reason could be created that would still have players trading and sell these items?

PvE builds are not locked to one gear set. You can run any gear stat in your build. Even for optimised builds there isn’t just one gear stat, or one rune, or one infusion type or one sigil, there’s variety even at the highest level.

Care to elaborate on the gear, runes and infusions? All I ever hears is:
For Gear, Assassin’s or Zerk.
for Runes, Scholar or Strength with a couple niche exceptions.
for Infusions, why run anything other that Power+Agony Resist if possible?
(Seriously, I’m curious.)

For gear, I think givers weapons used to be used in old engi builds. Rabid is extremely powerful for soloing heavy armour bosses (superior to berserker). For runes you have scholar, strength, ranger and aristocracy.. Infusions you have power, precision and condition damage as options. Sigils you have force, night, slaying, accuracy, battle, bursting, energy, bloodlust, perception, corruption, frailty all as options dependent on build and whether the dungeons are day or night and whether running power or condition.

maha.7902:

If five offensively built players is calculated to be higher DPS than four offensive and one guy stacking boon power, we’ll still use five offensive builds.

What then?

problem is not that you can do this, its that since active play is dominant, dps sets are the only sets that enhance active play.

IE, yeah you should be able to do that, but you shouldnt be supporting/defending/controlling just as well people who have invested in those roles.

or rather, whether you should, or should not is the question.

As long as most stats are irrelevant to active play except one, no other stat sets will actually be very useful.

maha.7902:

For gear, I think givers weapons used to be used in old engi builds. Rabid is extremely powerful for soloing heavy armour bosses (superior to berserker). For runes you have scholar, strength, ranger and aristocracy.. Infusions you have power, precision and condition damage as options. Sigils you have force, night, slaying, accuracy, battle, bursting, energy, bloodlust, perception, corruption, frailty all as options dependent on build and whether the dungeons are day or night and whether running power or condition.

rabid is basically berserker for condition damage. IE, this is mostly about offensive sets being superior because only active offense is rewarded through stats. active defense/support/control is uneffected by stats.

boon duration is one of the few exceptions to the effectiveness of stats on active skills rule, however, they basically make it really weak because they feel it might be useful. Also, some sets/group set ups negate most of the benefit for it.

Yes, sigils/runes are generally more about build, just as traits are. And can provide interesting choices. Shame the inventory/armor system doesnt encourage experimentation here.

Fact remains though, the actual armor stats, are mostly set up to have various levels of training wheels, rather than choices of how you want to actively play.

Perhaps game would be better if stats didnt exist, but they do, so they should mean more than just your skill level.

phys.7689:

maha.7902:

If five offensively built players is calculated to be higher DPS than four offensive and one guy stacking boon power, we’ll still use five offensive builds.

What then?

problem is not that you can do this, its that since active play is dominant, dps sets are the only sets that enhance active play.

IE, yeah you should be able to do that, but you shouldnt be supporting/defending/controlling just as well people who have invested in those roles.

or rather, whether you should, or should not is the question.

As long as most stats are irrelevant to active play except one, no other stat sets will actually be very useful.

but this is already the case. A strength rune ele gives longer might stacks than a scholar rune one, a warrior with sigil of paralysation does longer CC than one without, a defensively geared and built character can hold a point better than offensively, a Mesmer traiting in to harmonious mantras and halting strike can CC better and do damage while doing so. You see active play as a problem, I don’t.

phys.7689:

maha.7902:

For gear, I think givers weapons used to be used in old engi builds. Rabid is extremely powerful for soloing heavy armour bosses (superior to berserker). For runes you have scholar, strength, ranger and aristocracy.. Infusions you have power, precision and condition damage as options. Sigils you have force, night, slaying, accuracy, battle, bursting, energy, bloodlust, perception, corruption, frailty all as options dependent on build and whether the dungeons are day or night and whether running power or condition.

rabid is basically berserker for condition damage. IE, this is mostly about offensive sets being superior because only active offense is rewarded through stats. active defense/support/control is uneffected by stats.

boon duration is one of the few exceptions to the effectiveness of stats on active skills rule, however, they basically make it really weak because they feel it might be useful. Also, some sets/group set ups negate most of the benefit for it.

Yes, sigils/runes are generally more about build, just as traits are. And can provide interesting choices. Shame the inventory/armor system doesnt encourage experimentation here.

Fact remains though, the actual armor stats, are mostly set up to have various levels of training wheels, rather than choices of how you want to actively play.

Perhaps game would be better if stats didnt exist, but they do, so they should mean more than just your skill level.

Rabid has toughness as a secondary stat, berserker has no defensive stats. Boon duration is actually incredible too, 55% might duration on condition warrior is insane.

I keep coming back to the same conclusions as to “defensive focus” players in “high-end” PvE.

1. GW2 primarily offers defensive gear/specs to players who do not have the skill to run glass. This is true in PvE and PvP. The only exception to this is point defense in sPvP. The reason we see more defensive-focus outside of point defense in PvP is that the skill requirement to get away with playing a glass build is higher than in PvE. When has that not been the case in any game?
2. In most MMO’s, “defensive focus” = tank. That role works only because the game is designed around it. That’s trinity play — which this game is not designed for.
3. You could incorporate something like point defense into PvE. Have specific tasks that work better if one is running a bunker setup. The problem there is that for such a build to be useful in every dungeon encounter, you’d have to design every encounter to incorporate something similar to capture points that need to be held, a need to kite mobs while the rest of the group accomplishes something else, or similar mechanics. While such would be a welcome addition to the tasks required in dungeon encounters, adding something like that to every encounter would force a “one bunker” meta. Since the intent behind dungeon design was/is “any group composition can complete a dungeon,” this would be a step away from ANet’s original design and a step closer to trinity play.
4. You could change the way bosses fight to rely more on pressure than burst. This might be closer to GW2 PvP modes at that point. However, this would not be changing PvE to require a “defensive focus” player. It might change the meta group from 100% glass to 80% glass, or some other ratio. What it might also do is deny that content to players who already use some (or all) defensive gear because they are not as skilled. I’ve no problem with skill-gated content, but ANet might. The FotM are as close as they’ve come, but fractals can be experienced at low levels by anyone. The only benefit to higher level play is better drop rates (supposedly), skins and prestige.

Jerus.4350:

You say 1 defense, 1 support, rest DPS, no that was casual high end.

And in truth it’s the casual high end, the PUG meta I was aiming for.Not the top tier skill level, were it less about player’s skill level and about numbers, min maxing and encounter mechanics. These players already have the skill required, focuses & roles mean nothing as it’s about completion times and bringing what is exactly needed to shave 1 more second off this time either for bragging rights or just to get rewards faster. If non offensive roles / builds are need for that 1 second or all offensive it doesn’t matter you bring what is needed.

maha.7902:

PvE builds are not locked to one gear set. You can run any gear stat in your build.

In a way your right it can be done, but how easy is it to do this at ascended stat level? How many pieces of gear do you need to buy and carry and how long is it going to take to collect them?

In truth builds are not easy to swap in PvE it can cost large sums of gold. Sigils, runes & infusions unless an extractor (gem item) is used you lose the existing ones. Ascended stats are collected through luck (random drops) or a very large time gate (crafting).
How many players complained before the critical damage change and it’s effect on builds and gear.

But with this there are two problems;

1. Economy – what happens to these items trade & sell values as you now only need to collect these once. Values will depend on supply, low massive prices, high next to worthless. Also once a player has them they are no only in the market unless flipping.
2. Future Content Design – If build swapping at the highest level (passive stats, sigils, runes & infusions) is too difficult, you’ve effectively locked players into these builds around the meta. Change the meta and you’ll have all your player base up in arms, as the items and gear they’ve work to are now meaningless in their eyes.
   - The problem here is you will only be able to design content around these builds the longer the life of your game. Meta can’t have large changes that take these items out of meta.
   - All non meta items become less and less rewarding to worthless the longer the life of your game.

WARNING GOLD FARMING RANT
Sadly for me so much of GW2’s PvE has become all about gold farming.

• Dungeons – Players don’t care about the dungeons it’s all about how fast & how much gold can you make. If a event chain somewhere produced greater gold return none of these players would be playing dungeons. Eg. There are no rewards in dungeons that matter for dungeons (titles, dungeon only cosmetics, effects, mini….).
• Legendary Weapons – Are just a cash item (gold again), they don’t show what the player likes to play (WvW, sPvP, PvE, Open world, Dungeons, FOTM, Personal Story….) or that you’ve achieved some great goal. How many players look at legendary’s and go wow that players achieved some thing or where & how to I get that.
• New cosmetics – Almost all new weapons & armour skins are only available through the gem store or require gem store items for a chance at getting them. (gold for gems)

In PvE gold has become king, there are few titles, items that matter that can’t be gotten by just using gold. Now this is not me against the gem store but wondering what’s in game that matters other then gold. I can only dream of more Liadri type items & achievements for all skill levels in game that don’t require gold.

Now I still enjoy GW2 this is just one part that bugs me.

Ack. For a thread that’s only three pages long, this conversation sure does go at a clip. I hate to backtrack, but, just wanted to clear something up;

Harper,
I’m not saying the rewards of the living story are bad. I’m saying the living story introduced a Tiered system of rewards, which formally acknowledges and encourages using the combat system with higher levels of skill/cooperation. This is significant because all previous realizations of varying rewards for levels of play have been social constructs that aren’t explicitly in the game itself (ex; speedrunning).

I think that plus their continued improvements to fight design makes their stance on the topic of skill-level a bit more of a black box than simply examining the dungeon and their rewards in isolation might imply.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I keep coming back to the same conclusions as to “defensive focus” players in “high-end” PvE.

…Snip

This is really the start;

• What does offensive, defensive, supportive & control mean to players?

• What type of game play does each player associate with when thinking of these words?

I should of probably explain my view for each first and I’m sure some players are going to say but it’s there already. And I’ll agree in part but it’s perception and that I feel there’s an unbalance between offensives focuses interaction with active play & non offensive focuses interaction with active play. Which I agree with phys

phys.7689:

problem is not that you can do this, its that since active play is dominant, dps sets are the only sets that enhance active play.

IE, yeah you should be able to do that, but you shouldnt be supporting/defending/controlling just as well people who have invested in those roles.

For me it’s not about the duration of the effect but the strength of the effect.

Okay;

• Offensive – The Berserker. Always attacking, In your Face be it melee or range. Typically does the most damage over the whole encounter.
• Defensive – The Protector. Always guarding. The wall you must go through. I also always thing of them in a group role, defending & guarding their allies. I see through their guarding the other allies being able to perform to their full potential. Typically less damage then the berserker over the whole encounter but not always.
• Supportive – The Enhancer. Always supporting. The party upgrade. This again is always thought of as a group role, enhancing your allies beyond their full potential or reducing your enemy’s full potential. Typically less damage then the berserker over the whole encounter but not always.
• Control – For me it’s not actual a main role but a sub role that falls into either Defensive or Supportive which can become Offensive in the right environment.

Now please remember these view points are at the purest essence of these words meaning for me. Taken straight up is just another focused trinity which I don’t want. But these would be the heart of the feeling of a build the favours I would aim for.

GW2’s combat actual really does a great job but passive stats, gear and active play for non offensive bugs me. I look at offensive and it all feels so fluid with the active play, it’s identity and performance but when I look at non offensive and active play it just doesn’t seem to be a fluid.

@Indigo
I can think of one: League of Legends Tanks.
Tanks and glass cannons mostly end up differentiating in how they approach their given territory on a tactical level, instead of having a difference in difficulty. That’s because unlike a trinity game, survival and killing things are only secondary objectives instead of the win condition itself. How you win a MOBA is reaching a certain position on the field.

Thanks, Vox.

It might not be a bad idea for an avant garde MMO to start thinking in terms of offering more than just “kill the boss,” in PvE, especially for the sake of variety. However, at the moment, that’s what we’ve got in GW2. Your LoL example sounds interesting, though I don’t know that game enough to evaluate how it might apply in GW2.

@ Bezargron

I understand the perception that you have of various roles. What I can’t seem to do is get past the idea that you seem to be asking to trade the flexibility of the current way support and control work in order to have a more dedicated approach to playing a role in a party.

Let’s take the concept of a Protector. So, you’re playing a guardian, and you know in the next encounter there are a lot of knocks, so you build to offer stability. The encounter after that has lots of bleeding attacks by mobs, so you select options to cleanse. The third encounter features really nasty ranged attacks, so you bring reflection. In each case, you’re defending your party. How does wearing defensive gear make you more of a Protector — unless the game gives you some way to make the mobs attack you? The description you offer sounds an awful lot like an MMO tank — or maybe a GW tank, using body blocking (I sure do miss collision in GW2), controls and initial aggro to keep mob attention.

Bezagron.7352:

Jerus.4350:

You say 1 defense, 1 support, rest DPS, no that was casual high end.

And in truth it’s the casual high end, the PUG meta I was aiming for.Not the top tier skill level, were it less about player’s skill level and about numbers, min maxing and encounter mechanics. These players already have the skill required, focuses & roles mean nothing as it’s about completion times and bringing what is exactly needed to shave 1 more second off this time either for bragging rights or just to get rewards faster. If non offensive roles / builds are need for that 1 second or all offensive it doesn’t matter you bring what is needed.

I feel it’s fine in the casual high end.

My group opts to take a guard into everything for the sole reason of support. Most of my buddies run theirs as support guards, we find it useful, personally I run zerker, but we all run hammer because perma prot makes things much easier. Combine that with often opting for more supporty traits like Absolute Resolution. We deviate from the meta to make our lives easier in casual runs. Some people on this forum call it dumb, but we find it quite useful.

We’ll run mesmer ideally (ideal for us is 1 thief, 1 ele, 1 phalanx war, 1 guard, 1 mesmer). That mesmer can be useful, usually the guard has stability but backup for when it’s down is always decent (and it’s not bad to keep mantras up with the 6 in power builds). The reflect uptime is great. Even when things can’t be reflected untraited wardens often prove useful. Temporal Curtain alone is often worth it to us to bring a mesmer just for positioning reasons. Then Quickness, condition cleansing, portals, etc. They are a nice addition for their support.

In the end, sure we wear zerker gear, only sometimes deviating with some of our guys running valkyrie on their Ele’s or Knights/soldier on their guards, but the point is the aspects you seem to want are built into the traits. There are plenty of options to take support and make use of it. The fact that it’s not needed IMO is simply a testament to the fact that many people have mastered the existing content to a point that they feel comfortable running with fully optimized builds. Personally I’m not at that point, we can run them but me and my team just aren’t as consistent with it as we’d like so we prefer running sub optimal builds that play much more on the support side of things.

I think many on the forums are just to the point of mastering the content so well they never need or even want these support options. People who read the forums get caught up thinking they’re just going to play like them, maybe they can, but it doesn’t mean the support doesn’t have power, it just unnecessary at the highest end, much like we see in trinity games, you still have guards running wall of reflection, purging flames, SYG/Hallowed grounds, etc, and other support stuff but only where it’s required.

why would you run a phalanx warrior in a group with an ele

Thanks IndigoSundown and yea when I wrote down those description I was like ouch hard trinity there. I think I want these to be more the ideas of the roles, I don’t want to remove the flexibility and in truth I agree with your example for the protector. GW2 does provides these but..

It’s just I feeling Offensive’s identity, favour, builds, gear have more depth. Each part fits together and feels right for the focus. But when I look at non offensive it doesn’t feel the same and I think it comes down to what both both phys and my post above talked about strength range of effect.

• Damage can be improve and output is greatly effected by build focus.
• Non offensive’s effect strength can not be improved (excluding healing & duration of effects) and is not effected by build focus.

All boons and conditions (excluding damage component) feel the same no matter your build focus. Really the only thing that feels different is your up time of these effects which for me doesn’t improve the active play but the passive.

Looking at it this way it feels odd:

Offensive focus can improve it’s core effects strength (damage, critical damage, condition damage) but Non Offensive can’t improve it’s core effects strengths (All boons, non damaging condition effects).

Now I left control out as it plays & feels right for me but mechanics in PvE make it less enjoyable. Defiance leaves a bitter taste, for example using damage image you had to use 5 damaging skills before 1 damaging skill could apply any damage and straight after using that 1 skill you again have to use 5 more skills before you can cause any damage. How fun would that be? Now this doesn’t even include when there’s totally immunity. But this is a problem with mob interaction with control effects and the ability of players to permanently control a mob.

For me gear is bitter sweet as typically non offensive focuses bring more to the group using what really is considered offensive gear then non offensive but this again goes back to being unable to improve non offensive effect strengths.

And to finish adding a strength range for non offensive effect has been the basis of most of my ideas. The problem here is how, and what I was looking at was adding a small range enough that build focused mattered. To quote myself on a quick example for Aegis & Blind to give an idea of the range different;

Bezagron.7352:

Just small changes like:
(Defensive focus = DF, Offensive focus = OF))

• Aegis (DF version 1) – blocks all attacks for the next 1/2 sec. What I’m looking at is OF aegis block next attack where DF aegis becomes burst defence able to block a channel skill or burst combo. Mobs/bosses could have burst skill chains added to there tricks so using blind or block migrates some of the overall burst enough to survive but not all.
• Aegis (DF version 2) – basically the same as version 1 but instead of blocking all attack for a time in only blocks a number of attacks. Allows different levels of DF so fully DF 4 attacks blocked but a minor DF build has only 2 attacks blocked. For balance after the first attacked blocked the next attacks will only be block if within a time frame.
• Blind (DF) could have the same changes as either aegis versions as it just the same end effect as aegis but a debuff applied to the target.

These are the two easiest I see but could other controls, boons and conditions get similar treatment?

Also you can recheck my ideas back through the posts.

I have many ideas regarding the boon, condition & control system but in regard to offensive & non offensive I would look at offensive having access to the base boons, conditions & controls and the non offensive access to improved boons, conditions and controls much in the same way non offensive has access to damage but offensive has access to improved damage. And if non offensive gear could be tied into these improvements more the better as it would be nice to want to use non offensive gear as something other then a passive buff.

Edit: Added link back to boons, conditions & control ideas already in this thread

Bezagron.7352:

WARNING GOLD FARMING RANT
Sadly for me so much of GW2’s PvE has become all about gold farming.

• Dungeons – Players don’t care about the dungeons it’s all about how fast & how much gold can you make. If a event chain somewhere produced greater gold return none of these players would be playing dungeons. Eg. There are no rewards in dungeons that matter for dungeons (titles, dungeon only cosmetics, effects, mini….).
• Legendary Weapons – Are just a cash item (gold again), they don’t show what the player likes to play (WvW, sPvP, PvE, Open world, Dungeons, FOTM, Personal Story….) or that you’ve achieved some great goal. How many players look at legendary’s and go wow that players achieved some thing or where & how to I get that.
• New cosmetics – Almost all new weapons & armour skins are only available through the gem store or require gem store items for a chance at getting them. (gold for gems)

In PvE gold has become king, there are few titles, items that matter that can’t be gotten by just using gold. Now this is not me against the gem store but wondering what’s in game that matters other then gold. I can only dream of more Liadri type items & achievements for all skill levels in game that don’t require gold.

Now I still enjoy GW2 this is just one part that bugs me.

I agree with you – the game has become very gold-oriented because you just can’t get by in GW2 without a lot of gold.

You are right about the dungeon rewards – a Hard Mode with unique skin rewards would fix this though. It would also fix the fact that new cosmetic items are only implemented through the gem store.

Regarding Legendary Weapons – I also am completely disappointed – making my legendary felt more like ticking things on a to-do excel spreadsheet than anything else.

I bought what I needed and tossed it all together in an anti-climactic forge combination.

The fact that legendary weapons are for sale on the gem store also doesn’t help at all. You can just buy one straight-up without having to do anything else.

Yes- there was a time when people went " wow – a legendary weapon – usually a few months after release – but after that it has all gone down the drain.

@Vox – sorry I misunderstood. Was tired and didn’t really get your idea.

Yes Harper I so wish for a type of hard mode for dungeons and this was the basis of my Speed & Vanquishing ideas.

maha.7902:

why would you run a phalanx warrior in a group with an ele

Because we’re dirty PHIW guys

Really though, it’s just easier than managing fire fields throughout a fight when you have a hammer guard, and hammer guard makes things easy.

My point was support makes things easier. We don’t need it, but it’s just nice to have. I really feel the power of support is fine. The only thing is a lot of people, especially on this forum, have mastered the content so much they don’t need or want it. I don’t think there needs to be any changes to the game other than giving these players some new content so they can have something they haven’t mastered yet.

Bezagron.7352:

All boons and conditions (excluding damage component) feel the same no matter your build focus. Really the only thing that feels different is your up time of these effects which for me doesn’t improve the active play but the passive.

Looking at it this way it feels odd:

Offensive focus can improve it’s core effects strength (damage, critical damage, condition damage) but Non Offensive can’t improve it’s core effects strengths (All boons, non damaging condition effects).

For me gear is bitter sweet as typically non offensive focuses bring more to the group using what really is considered offensive gear then non offensive but this again goes back to being unable to improve non offensive effect strengths.

And to finish adding a strength range for non offensive effect has been the basis of most of my ideas. The problem here is how, and what I was looking at was adding a small range enough that build focused mattered. To quote myself on a quick example for Aegis & Blind to give an idea of the range different;
These are the two easiest I see but could other controls, boons and conditions get similar treatment?

- snip -

I have many ideas regarding the boon, condition & control system but in regard to offensive & non offensive I would look at offensive having access to the base boons, conditions & controls and the non offensive access to improved boons, conditions and controls much in the same way non offensive has access to damage but offensive has access to improved damage. And if non offensive gear could be tied into these improvements more the better as it would be nice to want to use non offensive gear as something other then a passive buff.

Edit: Added link back to boons, conditions & control ideas already in this thread

The thing is that stats on gear are always going to be passive FX. Some runes and sigils provide passive effects that proc when action is taken (e.g., http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Rune_of_Altruism). That’s as close (at least in this game) that gear gets to an active component. While your ideas are interesting, they raise all sorts of balance issues.

Some professions are balanced around the idea that their easy access to boons is balanced by other factors. Engineer trades base damage for versatility. Guardian balances easy access to defensive boons with low base health. The problem with reducing boon strength unless geared for (e.g., protection starting with 25% reduction and scaling up with defensive stats) is that profession balance issues would have to be revisited because profession balance is not on the same balance continuum as gear. If you don’t revise profession balance, you’d be forcing certain professions into specific gear, which would create more balance issues. Taking a lower damage profession (say, Engineer) and “encouraging” it to stat for boon effect at the expense of damage stats would just put it further behind the curve.

I’ll give this issue more thought while at the gym, and if I have any ideas on how to make passive stats play into active defense other than as a choice for those whose skill level makes passive defense a good idea, I’ll post. Right now, I’m stumped.

I get your desire, Bez. But I ultimately agree with Indigo’s concern that approaching it from the stance of efficacy might be problematic. However, I think there’s more options on the table, you just have to approach it from a systems perspective.

Have you ever heard the phrase, ‘only one health point matters; the very last one’?

It’s a statement about triage, but it also underscores something about the mechanic of a healthbar. 99% of a healthbar is just a warning system; it lets you know how well or poorly you’re doing depending on how full or empty it is, and it does this with 99 degrees of sensitivity.

So how often in GW2 would you say your regen or reflect or other group defensive measure involved saving others from death as opposed to just affecting the warning system? Kind of hard to tell, isn’t it? Because our allies heal themselves, and we can’t see their healing skill cooldowns – so we don’t know if those actions were necessary or superfluous.

The conventional wisdom you might employ for judging and understanding defensive gameplay just doesn’t apply in this game. And the only other system of feedback we really have is the Boon/Condi Bar, which is not so much a whole Mechanic as it is a simple Record. It doesn’t outline failure and success, it doesn’t tell me how good or bad I performed, it doesn’t become more or less challenging to work with; it just records what I did regardless of actual impact.

I know you wanted to get off the topic of roles, however, I think you need to explore them at least so far that you can define the following (given that Ally HP bars are off the table):

• How do you succeed doing defensive play?
• How do you fail doing defensive play?
• How does the player know they’ve succeeded or failed. Does it also have enough sensitivity to tell them when they’re doing well and doing poorly?

Basically; figure out what the gameplay actually entails first, then try and come up with ways to specialize in that gameplay and make that gameplay more active. This will probably involve a whole new system element/UI element/aspect of combat. But, if you’re careful, this can focus on responding to a quality of mobs or their behavior, so that other better balanced gamemodes don’t have to be impacted. (See Defiant or Trinity’s Aggro).

Also:

@Vox – sorry I misunderstood. Was tired and didn’t really get your idea.

Happens to the best of us. Also, partly my bad, I could have been clearer.