Guild Wars 2

For the record, play how you want refers to being able to do content of your choosing and still be rewarded for it, not that you should be able to run defensive builds and get dungeon clear times on par with glass cannons.

In a game with prolific access to skills such as aegis, blind spamming, damage immunities, blocks, evades ( both natural from the endurance bar, and built into weapon skills) in combination with perma vigor, and to a lesser extent protection, i cannot think of a game where armor has less significance. especially considering that heavy classes,, enjoy the luxury of that nice little “cusion” that armor provides, yet have heavy (no pun intended) access to aforementioned mitigation abilities.

And yes, for pve, berserker meta is the result to this…

In a better balanced system, the mitigation skills would be spread more among the lesser armored classes, while high armored classes either have less access to them, or less access to endurance (but not both).

So the current system doesn’t make any sense to me.

I’m not saying these issues are easy to solve. We’re talking about the foundation of the game’s combat system here, and a lot of stuff rests on it.

Why doesn’t the effectiveness of those skills relate to the armor that you are wearing? The sheer number of active defenses in the game make passive defenses a bit pointless. And there’s nothing wrong with having active defenses, it fits the action oriented game play of GW2. But why even have armor, if you can avoid damage just as effectively without it? Don’t you see a problem with the way the majority of the players seem to have migrated towards full DPS? Isn’t that something that should make alarm bells start ringing?

Because armor adds visual flavor. Because armor is there as an option if for some reason you can’t manage the active defense.
The fact that more players are moving towards full dps means that the player base has become more accustomed to the content and now can navigate it in said gear.

Quite frankly the game design is all over the place, so I have no answer for you there.

Because I feel that this is where they wanted the game to be. They’ve simply underestimated how good people would get at the game and how farm-oriented players would be.
Just like they underestimated how fast we’d get exotic gear and had to drop ascended.

It’s a matter of implementation. In GW1 playing a tank still required active play. If the designers want the other gear to have a purpose, maybe they should not only look to make that gear more effective, but also look on how to make playing with that gear more involved. I don’t believe that allowing for a defensive play style equals what you describe by default.

Again misinforming people.
GW1 tanking had active play because in GW1 you would tank using your skill and not your gear.
The most effective tank in GW1 wore light armor and was the assassins running a permasin build – where he would tank anything by taking no damage but all of this was active because he was tanking using his skills.

If allowing for a defensive style of play through armor rating doesn’t look like what I described above I would kindly ask you to describe how you see it in writing.
A short post detailing how combat would work with “active defensive play brought about by higher armor”.

That last phrase is the misconception. You seem to be under the presumption that the only alternative to actively dodging, is sitting on your butt and taking a brutal beating in the face, while making some coffee.

And what other alternatives do you have?
You either dodge/block/blind the attack or it hits you – if you’re in close range.
Alternatively you can kite from 1200 range away but why wear any armor if you’re going to do that?

Please enlighten me and show me the answer I’ve been missing – what is the other alternative to actively dodging that’s not being hit?

That’s not what they meant with no trinity. What they meant is that there would no longer be “LFG MONK” spamming for everything. But they didn’t say they would completely eliminate the concept of tanking, or healing.

What they meant is that people would no longer need other people to complete content – that you would have a much higher degree of independence.

Also the concept of tanking has not been “completely eliminated” you can stack all the toughness in the world and still do dungeons and fractals and world bosses and everything in the game just fine.
How has that eliminated this particular play style?
How does being able to complete any form of content with a tanky character equal this play style being completely eliminated?

That is not what this is about. It’s not about the rewards, it’s about balance. Each gear set should have a place and purpose, and not be blown out of the water by another.

It is about rewards because if you want people to obtain rewards easier you’re basically giving them out free loot.
Balance in PVE ultimately boils down to two things : who gets the rewards and how fast they get them.

Interclass distribution and content clearing speed. These are the two main things you look at when you want to balance PVE.

What you’re suggesting works on the second – content clearing speed – you want less risky gear to clear content faster than they currently do so that you can consider it “viable” – because apparently being able to complete content isn’t enough anymore – you have to also clear it fast even though you’re not willing to work towards it.

Also It’d be interesting to see just how much the other gear sets are “blown out of the water” by zerker.
I have a feeling for each zerker in the game there are at least 2-3 people in different gear.
The only reason zerker is being pointed at so much is because ultimately it’s good, it works – and people always hate that one thing that’s on top and that works for others.

How do you know what my idea is? Or why do you assume this is about rewards? It’s not. It’s about balance.

Even if balance had no relation with rewards ( which it does) and existed by itself – your “balance” has the side effect of putting better and more rewards in the hands of players without them having to work for them or improve themselves.

How is that good from a rewards point of view? You’re making an already easy game even easier.

I like how you’ve turned it around to “not about rewards” but ultimately all PVE is about rewards – so any form of “PVE balance” involves rewards in one way or another.

Balance done for the sake of balance will still affect the community and distribution of rewards.

When someone posts a huge reply to your post, big enough to hit the character limit, and they have to split it into two posts…. then I think this is a pretty unfair thing to say.

I take that back -but you still could make the effort to respond to that.

Also – did you read what Wethospu posted?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

In a better balanced system, the mitigation skills would be spread more among the lesser armored classes, while high armored classes either have less access to them, or less access to endurance (but not both).

So the current system doesn’t make any sense to me.

I’m not saying these issues are easy to solve. We’re talking about the foundation of the game’s combat system here, and a lot of stuff rests on it.

There are a lot of other things that don’t make sense in this game.
Not going to list all but in no particular order.

-Instance owner leaving instances destroys the instance and all progress is lost.
-Legendary weapons can be bought on the trading post with 0 effort put in.
-WvW is required for PVE map completion.
- Their undying dream of making GW2 an eSport even though it’s obvious it’ll never happen.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

No. I’m complaining that the game unfairly favors DPS over other strategies. Defense should matter more. Right now the balance is skewed.

What balance are you talking about? Defense does matter a lot in GW2 — and I’m talking about passive defense, not active. However, you still have to use the active defense.

Are you talking about volume of reward? It’s pretty clear that a defensive character can clear anything the game offers, and can get the same rewards. They won’t do it as quickly. Are you asking for defensive builds to clear content as quickly as offensive builds? That seems off, in relation to every game out there. Speed clear players in every game look to max their damage once any “other requirements” have been satisfied (e.g., healer, aggro-holder).

Are you talking about adding tanks as required roles for group content? That also seems off. If not, I’d be interested to hear what you’re actually proposing beyond just, “The balance is skewed.”

edit:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

In a better balanced system, the mitigation skills would be spread more among the lesser armored classes, while high armored classes either have less access to them, or less access to endurance (but not both).

So the current system doesn’t make any sense to me.

See, to me this sounds like you want heavy armor to provide more passive defense and hinder the use of active defense. GW2 offers the opportunity to spec to be either bulk or glass. You can trade damage for passive mitigation, you can even trade damage for more active mitigation. Since you can do that now, I wonder if what you’re asking for is to be able to do that and get into speed clears when the only way anyone has ever figured out how to make such players take a defensive character is to require a tank.

Harper.4173:

Again misinforming people.
GW1 tanking had active play because in GW1 you would tank using your skill and not your gear.

It was a combination of both. Armor statistics definitely had an impact on your overall tankiness, but build crafting was most important of all.

Harper.4173:

The most effective tank in GW1 wore light armor and was the assassins running a permasin build – where he would tank anything by taking no damage but all of this was active because he was tanking using his skills.

That was actually an unintended side effect of Anet’s fixation on adding invulnerability skills, and it broke the game, allowing people in ShadowForm to skip everything. I don’t believe this was ever intended. It was the next big thing after Ursan Blessing.

Harper.4173:

If allowing for a defensive style of play through armor rating doesn’t look like what I described above I would kindly ask you to describe how you see it in writing. A short post detailing how combat would work with “active defensive play brought about by higher armor”.

Well one way is aggro control, something that seems to be lacking in the game at the moment. Another is bodyblocking. Both concepts existed in GW1, and were a very important aspect of tanking.

Harper.4173:

And what other alternatives do you have?

None at the moment. And that’s the problem in my opinion.

Harper.4173:

Please enlighten me and show me the answer I’ve been missing – what is the other alternative to actively dodging that’s not being hit?

See my example of aggro control and bodyblocking above.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Are you asking for defensive builds to clear content as quickly as offensive builds? That seems off, in relation to every game out there. Speed clear players in every game look to max their damage once any “other requirements” have been satisfied (e.g., healer, aggro-holder).

Are you talking about adding tanks as required roles for group content? That also seems off. If not, I’d be interested to hear what you’re actually proposing beyond just, “The balance is skewed.”

Why would that seem off? That in my opinion is the core problem of the game right now. It doesn’t make any requirements for diversity of gear. Everyone can load up berzerker and be just fine and dandy. Ideally, the game should demand a mixed group, where one or two people are zerkers, for the DPS, and one other is a tank, for holding aggro, and others are support. Currently however the game is way too easy on players, demanding no diversity of gear set ups what so ever.

The game could still hold true to the no trinity concept, but that doesn’t mean it can’t demand any roles what so ever. In fact, it should.

Harper.4173:

I take that back -but you still could make the effort to respond to that.

Also – did you read what Wethospu posted?

I try to pick a few points to respond to, in order to keep this discussion from turning into an ever growing wall of text. That way, other people can still follow the discussion and chime in. But I’ll get to those points in due time, unless the discussion has moved beyond that.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Are you asking for defensive builds to clear content as quickly as offensive builds? That seems off, in relation to every game out there. Speed clear players in every game look to max their damage once any “other requirements” have been satisfied (e.g., healer, aggro-holder).

Are you talking about adding tanks as required roles for group content? That also seems off. If not, I’d be interested to hear what you’re actually proposing beyond just, “The balance is skewed.”

Why would that seem off? That in my opinion is the core problem of the game right now. It doesn’t make any requirements for diversity of gear. Everyone can load up berzerker and be just fine and dandy. Ideally, the game should demand a mixed group, where one or two people are zerkers, for the DPS, and one other is a tank, for holding aggro, and others are support. Currently however the game is way too easy on players, demanding no diversity of gear set ups what so ever.

The game could still hold true to the no trinity concept, but that doesn’t mean it can’t demand any roles what so ever. In fact, it should.[/quote]

In GW2 sPvP, players gear for defense either if they are planning to hold a point or if their skill level is insufficient to survive in glass cannon gear. In neither case can they reasonably expect to do as much damage as someone in a glass set-up. Bunker builds are a big part of that game mode only because of the point capture mechanic. In WvW, people either go glass or go with more bulk based on whether they can survive and on what they plan to do in WvW. In either mode, a post asking for a bunker build to be able to do as much damage as a glass build would be considered ludicrous.

Both the italicized and bold sections above are describing mechanics from trinity game play. So, how do you plan to require trinity requirements from players without adding trinity mechanics to mobs?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Harper.4173:

If allowing for a defensive style of play through armor rating doesn’t look like what I described above I would kindly ask you to describe how you see it in writing. A short post detailing how combat would work with “active defensive play brought about by higher armor”.

Well one way is aggro control, something that seems to be lacking in the game at the moment. Another is bodyblocking. Both concepts existed in GW1, and were a very important aspect of tanking.

So, what you’re asking for is body-blocking and more manipulable aggro mechanics?

I like collision. MMO’s don’t, especially MMO’s where the developers expect large groups of people, at least some of them melee, to fight bosses with finite-sized hit boxes. I don’t ever expect to see body-blocking in GW2. In GW, LoS pulls often accompanied and allowed for body-blocking. There are still LoS pulls in GW2, but you will never see collision in this game.

Aggro control is another matter. Some people in some groups seem to manage it better than other people or in different groups. Could GW2 have more transparency on what it takes to hold aggro? Maybe, but would that require people to use those mechanics?

Frankly I don’t see how either body-blocking or aggro control require greater differences in the armor Defense stat. As Harper points out, once GW got past Prophecies, the best tanks were not the heavy armor classes except in very specific instances. The skills on the bar made for the tank, not the armor value.

Its funny how the anti-armor weight diversity posters are warriors. Just noticed. Can there be a warrior who is open minded and agree with this magnificent idea?

I’m actually a programmer, not a warrior. But pretty close guess!

On the contrary, since the heavy armor classes are in the best positions in the game as a whole, and they constantly say its not a big difference, why not just remove the difference? I mean it’s negligible as is, so just remove it entirely.

i would be okay with that

I’m just going to throw this out there while it’s fresh in my mind, what if they added a second type of active defense called “Bracing” (as in absorbing a blow)? Have armors provide two inherent stats, defense and load . Currently, we use endurance to dodge attacks but what if we had an active defense that used up significantly less endurance for reducing damage taken by a certain percentage (determined by the ‘defense’ stat) but gain back endurance slowly (rate determined by the “load” of the armor) and you are unable to use skills while “bracing”. Thus heavier armored players could remain in position and absorb more consecutive blows (as opposed to largely being limited to two dodges) but not able to unfairly capitalize on it because they would not be able to use a skill while bracing. From there I would open up all armor types to all classes and let people mix and match, choose how they want to defend, and open up a lot more playstyles within various classes.

#plsbegentle

StickerHappy.8052:

Its funny how the anti-armor weight diversity posters are warriors. Just noticed. Can there be a warrior who is open minded and agree with this magnificent idea?

This magnificent idea?
Can’t you see all people are trying to do here is kill the innovation in this game while at the same time bring back the trinity system?
Of course – if you’re in that camp I can see why you’d like it.

Well one way is aggro control, something that seems to be lacking in the game at the moment. Another is bodyblocking. Both concepts existed in GW1, and were a very important aspect of tanking.

And both concepts worked there because GW1 was a trinity game with trinity game rules. The same rules don’t apply to a game that has no holy trinity.

Aggro in this game works just fine – it just doesn’t stick to one player because once again we have no tank roles in GW2. You can play a tanky character but you can’t make a boss hit you and only you and that’s a good thing.
Because it promotes active play. Because you can’t hide behind your tank and know the boss will never target you.
Because it isn’t one person’s job to handle the boss while the others only focus on their damage or healing.

It’s a team effort where everyone has to play the “tank role” and have aggro every now and again – keeping the combat engaging.

None at the moment. And that’s the problem in my opinion.

Great – you first pointed out that I said we only have the two situations : dodge or get hit. You said that I was wrong for presenting the “getting hit” as the only alternative yet now you agree with me that it’s the only other one.

I would also like to ask you – since you’re so good at identifying the problem to give me a third option. A third situation.
Right now as you’ve well said ( even though initially you contradicted me) we have the following : active defense or get hit.

What might I ask would be a third option? In your opinion what would fill that third spot?
Could you perhaps pioneer a new third innovative option for us? I’d be interested to see what you can come up with.

See my example of aggro control and bodyblocking above.

Again – trinity concept games in a non trinity game.
This game was designed around the idea of active combat – where everyone has to dodge and hold aggro for a while.

If one player can just aggro the boss or body block mobs into an area while the others have no concerns other than hitting stuff how does that add to the game?
How is that more challenging and interesting?

Why would that seem off? That in my opinion is the core problem of the game right now. It doesn’t make any requirements for diversity of gear. Everyone can load up berzerker and be just fine and dandy. Ideally, the game should demand a mixed group, where one or two people are zerkers, for the DPS, and one other is a tank, for holding aggro, and others are support. Currently however the game is way too easy on players, demanding no diversity of gear set ups what so ever.
The game could still hold true to the no trinity concept, but that doesn’t mean it can’t demand any roles what so ever. In fact, it should.

And sadly ladies and gents we finally have the core of the problem.

You want a trinity game inside GW2’s non-trinity approach.
Which will not and should not happen. Ever. There are plenty of games that cater to this style of play and people are more than free to go pick them up if they feel that this one is lacking in that regard.

Your “ideal situation” does nothing more than force people into predetermined roles if the content was changed in order for the optimal clear time to require that players build for specific roles.

The classes that did X role the best would be forever forced by the meta to play that role and classes that did none of them particularly well would be left completely out of the loop.

Enjoy playing a non-support guardian in a game that requires a support for optimal clear times.

Roles the way you defined them are exactly the trinity and I don’t see why this game should change to cater to a few players demanding this style of play.

Under the pretense of “roles” you’re basically asking that the optimal set-up for content becomes a trinity or trinity like system.

This I believe goes against the very spirit of the game and what it tried to accomplish. And I’m completely opposed to this idea.

Lostwingman.5034:

I’m just going to throw this out there while it’s fresh in my mind, what if they added a second type of active defense called “Bracing” (as in absorbing a blow)? Have armors provide two inherent stats, defense and load . Currently, we use endurance to dodge attacks but what if we had an active defense that used up significantly less endurance for reducing damage taken by a certain percentage (determined by the ‘defense’ stat) but gain back endurance slowly (rate determined by the “load” of the armor) and you are unable to use skills while “bracing”. Thus heavier armored players could remain in position and absorb more consecutive blows (as opposed to largely being limited to two dodges) but not able to unfairly capitalize on it because they would not be able to use a skill while bracing. From there I would open up all armor types to all classes and let people mix and match, choose how they want to defend, and open up a lot more playstyles within various classes.

#plsbegentle

When you play an MMO and are in a fight there are two things you’re focusing on.

1. staying alive.
2. killing what’s trying to kill you.

Why would you brace if you dealt no damage while doing it? What would be the point?
Sure you’re absorbing damage but not taking damage is far better especially if you can still deal damage while not taking it.

Ultimately the goal of any encounter is to kill whatever you’re facing as quickly as possible so that you’re getting your rewards as fast as possible.

Why would anyone bother to “brace”?

Sure you could put this in the game but any serious player would stay far away from it.

I think that what he meant to say was Block.
It costs significantly less Endurance than a dodge roll and prevents skill usage while being used.

Also, I think Blocking and Attacking was meant to be more of a duelist type game, if you look at the Claypool Heart in Human Starting Zone.

Harper.4173:

Lostwingman.5034:

I’m just going to throw this out there while it’s fresh in my mind, what if they added a second type of active defense called “Bracing” (as in absorbing a blow)? Have armors provide two inherent stats, defense and load . Currently, we use endurance to dodge attacks but what if we had an active defense that used up significantly less endurance for reducing damage taken by a certain percentage (determined by the ‘defense’ stat) but gain back endurance slowly (rate determined by the “load” of the armor) and you are unable to use skills while “bracing”. Thus heavier armored players could remain in position and absorb more consecutive blows (as opposed to largely being limited to two dodges) but not able to unfairly capitalize on it because they would not be able to use a skill while bracing. From there I would open up all armor types to all classes and let people mix and match, choose how they want to defend, and open up a lot more playstyles within various classes.

#plsbegentle

When you play an MMO and are in a fight there are two things you’re focusing on.

1. staying alive.
2. killing what’s trying to kill you.

Why would you brace if you dealt no damage while doing it? What would be the point?
Sure you’re absorbing damage but not taking damage is far better especially if you can still deal damage while not taking it.

Ultimately the goal of any encounter is to kill whatever you’re facing as quickly as possible so that you’re getting your rewards as fast as possible.

Why would anyone bother to “brace”?

Sure you could put this in the game but any serious player would stay far away from it.

I believe Lostwingman is advocating an alternative to dodging for heavy armor. NW does this — squishies dodge and bulkies “block.” It works in that game because the window for damage avoidance works differently than in GW2. Here, the “evaded” proc is very short. To be able to stand in AoE would in fact require a character who “braces” to hold his brace longer. This would not fit in well with GW2’s mechanic. Now, if that AoE is that damaging to begin with, getting out of it seems smarter to me.

At this point, it may be better if Anet just made all gear become Celestial in PvE (via global transformative effect). There’s only one way to be good at PvE in this game anyways so it’s not a huge loss. It’d end this whole Zerk = skilled, everything else = unskilled crap, and it’d add some skill back to combat. True running Glasscannon in this game is risky, but there comes a point where damage can become so out of control that even active defense becomes unnecissary. (See that FGS thread)
Combat in this game should be as much about surviving as it is attacking, otherwise they may as well replace all the enemies in the game with Ambient mobs.

You mean like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OefEpdItXeM

Harper.4173:

Well one way is aggro control, something that seems to be lacking in the game at the moment. Another is bodyblocking. Both concepts existed in GW1, and were a very important aspect of tanking.

And both concepts worked there because GW1 was a trinity game with trinity game rules. The same rules don’t apply to a game that has no holy trinity.

Damage, control, support. The game DOES have a trinity, just not “THE” trinity.

Harper.4173:

Aggro in this game works just fine – it just doesn’t stick to one player

That’s just another way of saying that it is completely random.

Harper.4173:

It’s a team effort where everyone has to play the “tank role” and have aggro every now and again – keeping the combat engaging.

You could also say that it is a mess. There’s no reliable way to control who gets attacked, and who doesn’t, which defeats the point of playing defensively. You can’t play a back liner, when the game constantly selects targets at random.

Harper.4173:

What might I ask would be a third option? In your opinion what would fill that third spot?

Poise. In Dark Souls they have a statistic called poise. Basically, the heavier your character is armored, the more resilient he is to being knocked off his feet. Enemies in Dark Souls have the ability to drive players back with heavy hitting attacks (something that GW2 could definitely use, with all the corner stacking). Poise would allow for a player to build defensively, and stay on his feet, while lighter zerker builds could easily be knocked back by enemies. This would allow for bosses to defend themselves against DPS cheesing.

Harper.4173:

Again – trinity concept games in a non trinity game.

Aggro control and bodyblocking is not a trinity concept. It is a basic concept for any roleplaying combat system.

Harper.4173:

If one player can just aggro the boss or body block mobs into an area while the others have no concerns other than hitting stuff how does that add to the game?

For one, it allows players to actually control who the boss is attacking, and it allows for any player to build a tank, and play a tanky role. It also allows for area control, something that is severely missing in the game. One of the key reasons why everyone just stacks in a corner in the game, is because there is no bodyblocking. You can just spam everything on top of the boss, and he’ll stand in it. Tell me, how does THAT add to the game?

Harper.4173:

You want a trinity game inside GW2’s non-trinity approach.

No, I want roles. Not a hard trinity, but purpose to the builds that people play. The game shouldn’t be a simple matter of DPS-DPS-DPS- MAX DPS. There should be variation in the build composition of any given party. And not everyone in zerker gear.

Harper.4173:

Your “ideal situation” does nothing more than force people into predetermined roles

NO. There are no predetermined roles. It just means that “someone”, any class, should not go full DPS, and someone might want to go support. It doesn’t mean you are stuck in a trinity where you are standing around yelling LFG Monks. Anyone can play a support role, and anyone can play a tank. But right now the game does not encourage players for group variation. And that dumbs the game down. You need to have some roles in a roleplaying game.

Harper.4173:

The classes that did X role the best would be forever forced by the meta to play that role and classes that did none of them particularly well would be left completely out of the loop.

Right now we have the same situation. Everything is about DPS, and several classes suck at DPS. Heck, my necromancer doesn’t even have cleave.

Harper.4173:

Why would you brace if you dealt no damage while doing it? What would be the point?
Sure you’re absorbing damage but not taking damage is far better especially if you can still deal damage while not taking it.

You dismiss the idea way too easily, but it was a really good suggestion. You seem too stuck in the way of how combat in GW2 works now, that you can’t imagine what it could be like if they implemented some better combat mechanics.

Harper.4173:

Ultimately the goal of any encounter is to kill whatever you’re facing as quickly as possible so that you’re getting your rewards as fast as possible.

That is not what the only goal ‘should’ be. If that’s all there is to your encounters, you need to rethink your encounters.

Harper.4173:

Why would anyone bother to “brace”?

I can think of a reason. If bracing protected your allies from a heavy area attack, it would definitely have a purpose. Maybe bracing protects your party from attacks that would otherwise knock your whole party away, and put them flat on their backs (see my example of poise in the post above).

Rather than spamming protection on the whole party with a click of a button, you would have to actively time your bracing move, and absorb the right attack to protect your allies. That would promote active play, while playing a tank.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I believe Lostwingman is advocating an alternative to dodging for heavy armor. NW does this — squishies dodge and bulkies “block.” It works in that game because the window for damage avoidance works differently than in GW2. Here, the “evaded” proc is very short. To be able to stand in AoE would in fact require a character who “braces” to hold his brace longer. This would not fit in well with GW2’s mechanic. Now, if that AoE is that damaging to begin with, getting out of it seems smarter to me.

If bracing prevents the attack from hitting to begin with, it would definitely provide an alternative to just dodging everything. In Dark Souls they have a great stamina management system, where the player saves his stamina to brace himself for a heavy hitting attack (stamina which would otherwise be wasted on an attack). In Dark Souls, it’s not all about spamming attacks. Of course that’s a singleplayer game (mostly), but if you were to apply this to a multiplayer game, then bracing for impact would have to protect your allies as well.

Dual.8953:

At this point, it may be better if Anet just made all gear become Celestial in PvE (via global transformative effect). There’s only one way to be good at PvE in this game anyways so it’s not a huge loss. It’d end this whole Zerk = skilled, everything else = unskilled crap, and it’d add some skill back to combat. True running Glasscannon in this game is risky, but there comes a point where damage can become so out of control that even active defense becomes unnecissary. (See that FGS thread)
Combat in this game should be as much about surviving as it is attacking, otherwise they may as well replace all the enemies in the game with Ambient mobs.

So because a skill is broken and overpowered instead of fixing it we should change an entire gear set that people have put time and effort into building at that is ultimately working fine.

It’s just that some people dislike how it’s working. Which is entirely subjective.

And combat in this game ( and every game) is equally about surviving and attacking because if you’re not alive you can’t attack.

Damage, control, support. The game DOES have a trinity, just not “THE” trinity.

Great – so how is adding in a concept form games with that trinity help this game?
Damage is in the game.
Support is in the game.
Control is in the game but is worthless because of Defiant, lack of cast bars and most importantly meaning.

A mob can knock me off a cliff and kill me just fine. I can’t do the same to it. Because reasons.

That’s just another way of saying that it is completely random.

That’s wrong and you’re either purposefully trying to mislead people or very out of the loop.

The aggro is not random – it takes into account variables like : proximity to boss, damage dealt and toughness in order to prioritize targets. However it’s not permanently fixed and while a high toughness character can hold aggro for longer than a low toughness one ( I’ve tested this and it works just fine so long as you’re the highest toughness in the party) there will still be moments when the boss engages other targets just to make sure they haven’t fallen asleep completely.

That’s very far from random – but even if it was random it would still be better and more realistic than the boss sticking to one guy and ignoring everyone else around.

You could also say that it is a mess. There’s no reliable way to control who gets attacked, and who doesn’t, which defeats the point of playing defensively. You can’t play a back liner, when the game constantly selects targets at random.

That’s the whole point -there are no clear cut lines here – you can’t say – “I’m a back liner and won’t get hit because the tank has it” in this game.
Everyone has to be alert, on their toes and actively fighting to keep themselves alive.
That’s what makes the combat in this game great and unique – the fact that you can’t rely on other to carry you through content to such a degree as it happens in other games.

If you could control all aspects of combat ( specifically aggro) we might as well be playing excel wars 2.0 since it wouldn’t matter what the others do except run their rotations.
They wouldn’t even need to look at the screen since nothing would be attacking them.

Poise. In Dark Souls they have a statistic called poise. Basically, the heavier your character is armored, the more resilient he is to being knocked off his feet. Enemies in Dark Souls have the ability to drive players back with heavy hitting attacks (something that GW2 could definitely use, with all the corner stacking). Poise would allow for a player to build defensively, and stay on his feet, while lighter zerker builds could easily be knocked back by enemies. This would allow for bosses to defend themselves against DPS cheesing.

This isn’t going to work – not only is it going to frustrate and infuriate people – overhauling the game to make it more like Dark Souls isn’t exactly a good idea. Because GW2’s players are casual at heart.

Also – consider the following – getting knocked back and coming back to deal damage would still be better than going defensive and eating the damage.
Again you’re trying to enforce passive play – where players just eat damage instead of mitigating it actively.

“DPS cheesing” is your preferred term for actually playing effectively I take it. Why is it dps cheesing ? because you’re doing the maximum damage that you can?
You do that in every setting – even with a trinity – you’re still trying to do the maximum amount of damage you can.

Again – solutions that reward passive play and discourage active combat or skill.

Aggro control and bodyblocking is not a trinity concept. It is a basic concept for any roleplaying combat system.

And we have aggro control in GW2 as well. You just haven’t seemed to figure out how it works since you called it random earlier.

And I would dare to say it’s more realistic and interactive than what you see in other games where the boss sticks to one guy and that’s it.

For one, it allows players to actually control who the boss is attacking, and it allows for any player to build a tank, and play a tanky role. It also allows for area control, something that is severely missing in the game. One of the key reasons why everyone just stacks in a corner in the game, is because there is no bodyblocking. You can just spam everything on top of the boss, and he’ll stand in it. Tell me, how does THAT add to the game?

Bodyblocking and 1 person aggro aren’t the only way you can control a mob.
Control does exist in the game in the form of soft-CC : cripple and chill which work great on bosses if you need to kite them since they don’t trigger Defiant.
For reasons stated above defiant murders the possibility of stuns knocbacks and knockdowns in this game.

Also the no bodyblocking is a better solution than having it in the game.
With no BB the boss can at least get to you and engage – I could see a million ways to cheese content where the boss doesn’t even reach the party and you can safe every boss if body blocking was in the game.

You can’t rework the whole game just because some things could potentially be done better ( although I doubt they would work better).

No, I want roles. Not a hard trinity, but purpose to the builds that people play. The game shouldn’t be a simple matter of DPS-DPS-DPS- MAX DPS. There should be variation in the build composition of any given party. And not everyone in zerker gear.

And the moment you enforce that people will go right back to the trinity – just like I pointed out above we’ll be forced into these roles and we’re not going to get out of them.

Nobody will care your ele can also heal since you’re supposed to do damage.
Nobody will care that you want to play a dps guardian since your job is support.

I would dare to say that in most parties in the game there’s actually a lot of variation – I don’t really see that many people playing full zerker successfully in the game.

Perhaps I’m wrong – but I’m actually curious what the numbers are.

And the game isn’t a “simple matter” – it becomes a “simple matter of dps” once the player has reached mastery of his class, his build, his timing and the content in order to be able to run as full dps.
I wouldn’t call that “simple” since it takes hundreds of hours put in the game.

If it was simple a 1 week old player could do it – and that doesn’t really happen.

Anyone can play a support role, and anyone can play a tank. But right now the game does not encourage players for group variation. And that dumbs the game down. You need to have some roles in a roleplaying game.

We already have roles in the game. Encouraging group variation is another way of saying “forcing a certain composition” which will mean forcing people into roles.
Again – if roles are requires the class that best suits a role would be stuck on it.

Also you’re wrong on RPG – A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting.

The “role playing game” wording actually refers to “pretending to be a certain character in a fictional setting” and not to the roles in combat.
It’s more about playing pretend than what roles you have in combat.

Again – not sure if you’re doing this on purpose or just didn’t know it.

Right now we have the same situation. Everything is about DPS, and several classes suck at DPS. Heck, my necromancer doesn’t even have cleave.

Again wrong – if it was all about dps you’d have parties of 5 eles with FGS clearing all content – but you don’t have that do you?

Support is part of the game – both through keeping allies alive ( active damage mitigation and healing) and buffing their damage output.

Control is also part of the game since you need to kite bosses and cripple and chill them.
An example of control is the Dredge fractal’s final boss. But again – it’s the entire party that has to control not just the tank.

Also – necro’s issues have everything to do with the current implementation of conditions – which should be improved.

You dismiss the idea way too easily, but it was a really good suggestion. You seem too stuck in the way of how combat in GW2 works now, that you can’t imagine what it could be like if they implemented some better combat mechanics.

So making fights drag out longer is now better. I see.

That is not what the only goal ‘should’ be. If that’s all there is to your encounters, you need to rethink your encounters.

I’d very much like it if people accepted that I have a right to play the game the way I see fit. Me – and most other speed runners by the very nature of what we’re doing agree that this is the point, goal or whatever you want to call it.

It has nothing to do with encounter design or gear – it has everything to do with how we see the game.

It’s basically do whatever you have to do to get your reward as fast as possible. In a game where the enemy tries to kill you and you kill it that “whatever you have to do” becomes “kill it as fast as you possibly can and don’t die”.

I can think of a reason. If bracing protected your allies from a heavy area attack, it would definitely have a purpose. Maybe bracing protects your party from attacks that would otherwise knock your whole party away, and put them flat on their backs (see my example of poise in the post above).
Rather than spamming protection on the whole party with a click of a button, you would have to actively time your bracing move, and absorb the right attack to protect your allies. That would promote active play, while playing a tank.

Brilliant – but this game doesn’t want or need tanks.
The party members should be able to avoid the damage themselves since GW2 is an individual centered game.

And if the attack is unavoidable and the only way to survive it is if your " tank " braces – then congratulations you’ve just brought back that level of player interdependency that plagues trinity games and that they wanted to do away with in the first place.

It wouldn’t be “LFG monk” it would be “LFG expert bracer” on the LFG tool. How does that improve the game?

There’s a reason everyone can manage their own damage input through blocks blinds and dodges.
There’s a reason everyone has their own heal skill. Soon you’ll want some support class to be able to heal people even better than you can do it today.

Also the references to Dark Souls make me understand how you see things but Dark Souls is a difficult game for a completely different crowd of players.
It has nothing to do with GW2’s casual approach to gaming.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

You dismiss the idea way too easily, but it was a really good suggestion. You seem too stuck in the way of how combat in GW2 works now, that you can’t imagine what it could be like if they implemented some better combat mechanics.

All this talk about what is essentially referred to as ‘the trinity’.. Guild Wars has innovated that system, to my personal liking. If it is not to your liking, then you should ask yourself if this is the game for you? I mean sure, you can try to suggest things to improve the game, but this all seems like you think the core of the game is broken, in which case you should ask yourself prementioned question.

You say there are ‘better combat mechanics’, but most people who play GW2 play it because of those mechanics.

The trinity actually somewhat exists in this game in PvP.

Cygnus.6903:

All this talk about what is essentially referred to as ‘the trinity’.. Guild Wars has innovated that system,

I know that that was their intention, but they haven’t innovated it at all. The game is not as deep as for example GW1, and the combat feels stale and monotonous. The only thing they’ve managed to do, is get rid of the LFG Monk spam that was all over GW1. But in doing so, they’ve actually simplified the game too much. The mechanics are way too simplistic, and there’s no interclass dependency.

Cygnus.6903:

If it is not to your liking, then you should ask yourself if this is the game for you?

I think the core combat is shallow, and that a lot of mechanics in the game are neglected due to poor balance, and poor design choices in the content. That doesn’t mean I think all of the game is bad.

Harper.4173:

Great – so how is adding in a concept from games with that trinity help this game?
Damage is in the game.
Support is in the game.
Control is in the game but is worthless because of Defiant, lack of cast bars and most importantly meaning.

And both support and control could definitely use some love.

Harper.4173:

A mob can knock me off a cliff and kill me just fine. I can’t do the same to it. Because reasons.

They should change that. They should also get rid of mobs turning invulnerable when they can’t reach you, which defeats the purpose of higher ground or ranged weapons.

Harper.4173:

That’s wrong and you’re either purposefully trying to mislead people or very out of the loop.

I despise suggestions that I’m purposefully trying to mislead people, just because you do not agree with my points. Stop it.

Harper.4173:

The aggro is not random – it takes into account variables like : proximity to boss, damage dealt and toughness in order to prioritize targets. However it’s not permanently fixed and while a high toughness character can hold aggro for longer than a low toughness one

I know how it works, and it sucks. Because it’s not a transparent system. This makes it near impossible for players to form a decent strategy to manage aggro.

Harper.4173:

That’s very far from random – but even if it was random it would still be better and more realistic than the boss sticking to one guy and ignoring everyone else around.

There are alternatives that aren’t that black and white.

Harper.4173:

That’s what makes the combat in this game great and unique

That’s what makes it an incoherent mess. And further more, the aggro rules don’t even make sense. Rather than bosses going after the players that hurt them the most, they go after the players that pack the most defense… thus negating the point of armor, again. That’s bad design.

Harper.4173:

- the fact that you can’t rely on other to carry you through content to such a degree as it happens in other games.

You keep bringing that up. I sense a severe dislike of anyone that doesn’t play the way you think they should. As if all other players are inferior, because they don’t accept the zerker meta. As if anyone building a tank is automatically not carrying his weight, and not worthy of the same rewards as DPS-focused players.

Harper.4173:

If you could control all aspects of combat ( specifically aggro) we might as well be playing excel wars 2.0 since it wouldn’t matter what the others do except run their rotations.

If we could control aggro, we might be able to use more strategy. Which means bosses could be tougher, and wouldn’t just lie down if a bunch of zerkers gang up on them.

Harper.4173:

This isn’t going to work – not only is it going to frustrate and infuriate people – overhauling the game to make it more like Dark Souls isn’t exactly a good idea. Because GW2’s players are casual at heart.

Why wouldn’t it work?

Harper.4173:

Also – consider the following – getting knocked back and coming back to deal damage would still be better than going defensive and eating the damage.

The point is that bosses need a way to keep players from ganging up on them.

Harper.4173:

Again you’re trying to enforce passive play – where players just eat damage instead of mitigating it actively.

I’m trying to allow it, or at least give it a purpose.

Harper.4173:

“DPS cheesing” is your preferred term for actually playing effectively I take it. Why is it dps cheesing ? because you’re doing the maximum damage that you can?

Because you all gang up on the boss, and obliterate him in mere seconds, without him having any defense against it. Thus pretty much negating the boss fight entirely.

Harper.4173:

Also you’re wrong on RPG – A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting.

I know what it means.

Harper.4173:

Again – not sure if you’re doing this on purpose or just didn’t know it.

I know what it means, but in a videogame it means more than just that. It’s a genre description, and refers less to actually playing a character, and more to playing a class. This isn’t DnD after all. We’re not all sitting around a table throwing dice. And classes should have roles. They need not be fixed roles however, which I assume is what GW2 was trying to do. They wanted to get rid of fixed roles, but not of roles entirely.

Harper.4173:

Again wrong – if it was all about dps you’d have parties of 5 eles with FGS clearing all content – but you don’t have that do you?

No, I believe you are wrong. Certain classes are definitely being shunned from groups due to their bad DPS. Rangers and necromancers specifically. And Eles are indeed all over dungeons, spamming their FGS. We’re just not seeing full ele parties (yet). I do see a lot of almost full warrior parties.

Rangers are being shunned because most rangers in PvE are bearbow and don’t bring much to the table. If you run a Greatsword/Sword+Warhorn Ranger with Frost Spirit and Spotter, you bring a significant damage boost to the party, but you have decent dps yourself.

If you bring a bear and a bow, you don’t bring much damage or utility and will probably die if something gets to you.

I know that that was their intention, but they haven’t innovated it at all. The game is not as deep as for example GW1, and the combat feels stale and monotonous. The only thing they’ve managed to do, is get rid of the LFG Monk spam that was all over GW1. But in doing so, they’ve actually simplified the game too much. The mechanics are way too simplistic, and there’s no interclass dependency.

Again I’d like to point out that GW2 didn’t aim to be as deep as GW1. Nor did it intend to cater to the same crowd of players.
GW2’s shift towards the more casual player is the reason the game is simpler. It’s been simplified “too much” by your standards or mine – but for the average mass of players the game is just right.

And you can easily deduce they don’t really want to force these players outside their comfort zones because there’s nothing punishing you for playing badly in GW2.

Also the lack of interclass dependency is one of the reasons we came to this game.
It’s one of the main reasons I and many other love it.

Because some guy in my party doing badly doesn’t drag me down too. And I can compensate for other people being slow/inexperienced/bad.

That’s what makes this game great – 4/5 of my party can be dead or dying but if i’m bringing my A game i’ll probably clear that boss.

I think the core combat is shallow, and that a lot of mechanics in the game are neglected due to poor balance, and poor design choices in the content. That doesn’t mean I think all of the game is bad.

Shallow is an opinion – subjective.
I feel the game is fine where it is – I’ve always believed that if you like a game – play it – if you don’t move on.

I despise suggestions that I’m purposefully trying to mislead people, just because you do not agree with my points. Stop it.

That’s because you’re posting things that are objectively not true. I’m not sure why you’re doing it but I dislike that you’re doing it too.

I know how it works, and it sucks. Because it’s not a transparent system. This makes it near impossible for players to form a decent strategy to manage aggro.

Again – subjective.
You think it sucks?
Well I think it doesn’t suck – I think it makes combat fun and keeps players on their toes because they can’t prepare pre-fight for every situation.

That’s what makes it an incoherent mess. And further more, the aggro rules don’t even make sense. Rather than bosses going after the players that hurt them the most, they go after the players that pack the most defense… thus negating the point of armor, again. That’s bad design.

So let me get this straight – bosses going after the guy with most defense doesn’t make sense but the concept of tanking does and further more it makes sense that we’d have tank and they’d be able to hold aggro.
You’re just contradicting yourself.

What you call incoherent mess people actually like because it feels more lifelike than a standard trinity where 1 guy holds the boss and does his act while the others hit him with not a care in the world.

You keep bringing that up. I sense a severe dislike of anyone that doesn’t play the way you think they should. As if all other players are inferior, because they don’t accept the zerker meta. As if anyone building a tank is automatically not carrying his weight, and not worthy of the same rewards as DPS-focused players.

I have a moderate dislike for people who are trying to change a game to suit them.
Instead of putting in effort to get better and adapt to the game they’re putting in the effort to try to change the game to suit them and I can’t really accept that.

If someone is actively mitigating his damage he’ll put in more effort/work into playing during an encounter. If someone is just taking the damage and passively mitigating it he’s doing less.
So why should players doing less be rewarded more? Because they equipped heavier armor?

This is what I disagree with.

Also if someone is going tanky doesn’t mean they can’t hold their own – they can because they can clear content – but that doesn’t mean they’re working just as hard or exposing themselves to the same risk someone running full glass – so why should they be rewarded better for doing less and risking less?

If we could control aggro, we might be able to use more strategy. Which means bosses could be tougher, and wouldn’t just lie down if a bunch of zerkers gang up on them.

So make fights even more predictable and take away any element that’s not completely under player control. Makes perfect sense.

Also bosses don’t lie down if a group of zerkers gets on top of them. Usually if the zerkers make a mistake they die.

Why wouldn’t it work?

Because Dark souls is a hardcore game aimed at hardcore players that take punishment and come right back for more because that’s what they love.

Guild Wars 2 is a casual game for casual players – and if they leave they leave with their gem store money.

I’m trying to allow it, or at least give it a purpose.

Trying to allow it by making it mandatory?

It is allowed to go full tanky in a dungeon. Or full healing gear – or whatever you want to go.
How is it not allowed? You can go in dressed in whatever gear and complete – how is that not being allowed to do it?

Also if by “giving a purpose” you mean "forcing players to accept your style of play as the right one " then yes -you’re doing a great job.

Because you all gang up on the boss, and obliterate him in mere seconds, without him having any defense against it. Thus pretty much negating the boss fight entirely.

You do realize that this has less to do with zerker than it has to do with FGS #4 right?

And that the risks for this are there and real right?

I know what it means, but in a videogame it means more than just that. It’s a genre description, and refers less to actually playing a character, and more to playing a class. This isn’t DnD after all. We’re not all sitting around a table throwing dice. And classes should have roles. They need not be fixed roles however, which I assume is what GW2 was trying to do. They wanted to get rid of fixed roles, but not of roles entirely.

Guild Wars 2 does have roles.
You’re just not feeling forced enough to play them and that’s what upsets you.
Nobody is stopping anybody from playing any role and succeeding.

Is there any content you weren’t able to do on your Knight’s equipped character?

Because if the answer is no – it means your view is skewed.

No, I believe you are wrong. Certain classes are definitely being shunned from groups due to their bad DPS. Rangers and necromancers specifically. And Eles are indeed all over dungeons, spamming their FGS. We’re just not seeing full ele parties (yet). I do see a lot of almost full warrior parties.

Again misinformed.
Rangers are being shunned not because of their “bad DPS” ( a full zerker ranger actually does equal if not better damage than a full zerker warrior and we all know that warriors are sought after in PUGS) but the catch is the ranger never has a chance.

Do you know why? Because of the mentality that’s been created around rangers as a whole.

Why?
Because in turn of the mentality of players who play ranger – they want to play like “omg gonna snipe from afar with my 1337 bow and run away if trouble – I’ll also use my bear”usually resulting in them not bringing party buffs and caring about anything really.

The most aloof players I’ve seen in game have been rangers.

A good ranger will boost your party dps significantly but a bad ranger who can’t control his pet will ruin your runs like there’s no tomorrow and I think a lot ( over 50% off the top of my head) of rangers have issues with controlling their pets.

One mistake in controlling the pet and you’re in for a world of pain- so personally until there’s an option to stow pets I’m going to stay away from rangers. Both from playing them and from playing with them unless I know them personally beforehand.

Necromancers – I can sympathize with – condition caps have really hurt them – but again the problem doesn’t like with the dps meta – but with the fact that the necro’s strong points are being negated by an in game mechanic.

Also you see all warrior parties because of the myth that " warrior has the best dps in the game " that persists to this day.
Because people see 1 hit on their screen for 2000 damage and forget about it by the time they’ve hit their next attack.

But when they see the 100b damage going for 20k or more they think " wow that’s something else" not realizing that autoattacking on some classes deals more damage than that.
Because the numbers aren’t added up for them.

More than 1 warrior in your party is hurting your dps so those “5 man warrior parties” are neither part nor a result of the speed clear meta.
If those people were with the meta they’d know this and have other classes in there. The fact that they’re 5 warrior just proves how outside the loop they are.

I also remember a situation where in a 4 warrior party they voted and kicked the 5th man – an ele – in order to get another warrior for “more damage”.

If 5 man warrior parties are an indication of something – they’re an indication of how out of touch with the game most players are.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

I know what it means, but in a videogame it means more than just that. It’s a genre description, and refers less to actually playing a character, and more to playing a class. This isn’t DnD after all. We’re not all sitting around a table throwing dice. And classes should have roles. They need not be fixed roles however, which I assume is what GW2 was trying to do. They wanted to get rid of fixed roles, but not of roles entirely.

D&D did have class roles, whether one played the vanilla game, AD&D, or 3rd Edition. 4th… we won’t go there. Yes, GW2 professions do not have defined roles in the same way. Roles in GW2 are a matter of choice by the player. They are not fixed, they are flexible and can change from encounter to encounter — and even within encounters.

Do you remember all of the complaints about 5-signer warriors back around launch? I do. They were reviled because they were not varying their utility skills to do what was needful in content, such as buffing the party.

When I look at GW2 I see roles in use all the time. What I don’t see are specialists — players adopting a role and sticking with it throughout a dungeon. I don’t see roles being defined by gear (at least in PvE). I get that you’d rather than roles be tied to gear more, and that you’d prefer more profession-based differences. What you’re asking for, though, would require a radical revision of the entire game. You’d basically be generating a game that’s more like Wildstar, which is kind of a hybrid between GW2 and a WoW clone with respect to party roles.

I have no problem with your asking, but I want to be clear that it isn’t something I want — nor do I believe that ANet will tear the game down to its roots and start over. That is, after all, what it would take to give you what you want.