Guild Wars 2

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

The design philosophy around the GW2 system vs the GW1 system was to lower the number of possible builds while simultaneously raising the number of viable builds. If you look back to GW1 and the popular builds used, there weren’t really all that many per class. Some had more than others.

Sure there were mathematically far more permutations, but an Echo Mending warrior is pretty terribad.

You must be talking about the GW pvp meta. PvE had tons of “viable” builds, if you could grasp playing outside the pvxwiki box.

Longbow Ranger is perfectly viable here. Bring one to a meta function.. and you will be shown the door based solely on weapon equipped.

Meta perception and actual viability in the big game are night and day. In any game.

Yes, I never got asked to leave a party because I wasn’t using the build of the month in PvE in Guild Wars 1…oh wait.

There were tons of players that required absolutely specific builds to participate in runs of almost all end game content, from voltaic spear farms, to the Underworld to DOA. Looking for an imbagon paragron. Looking for IWAY. These things existed. I ran into them all the time, because I enjoyed making my own builds.

Just a question here…

If you didn’t like the meta crowd in GW1, why did you bother trying to party with them?

I didn’t myself. I finished Proph with hench, solo. Finished Factions, NF and EoTN and Legendary Vanq with Hero/Hench. Finished DoA and other stuff with 7 Mercs. That did not mean I was unaware of LFG chat, speed clear LFG chat, and idiot statements like “show stones”. And I’ve had 12 years of mmo and min/maxer meta experience and observation.

ah.. oops. wasn’t addressed to me. oh bother.

But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.

Ha ha. See 8 pack of mercenaries. And so, I did, with 7 heroes. Old news as well.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Mercenary_Hero

Mercenaries weren’t introduced until rather late in the game’s life, long after I’d stopped playing seriously. By the time they came out I already had 50/50 and GWAMM. And even when they first came out, you could still only take three of them.

Now the game as changed, persumably because of lower population, that you can take 7 heroes. In the old days you could take only three heroes, and henchmen couldn’t enter elite areas.

Uh, they came in like 3 years ago at least. Long before the launch of this game. You could buy 8 from day one of the introduction of mercs, they were never limited to 3.

7 hero update was Oct 2010. Apparently you didn’t do WiK, WoC, Hearts of the North either.

Study harder next time before inferring that I’m a liar.

First of all the word is implying, not inferring. You’re inferring something I never implied.

You could always buy an 8 mercenary pack from the moment they came out> They worked jsut like heroes. You could have 8 mercenaries butyou could only pick 3 of them. I know this because I bought the 8 mercenary pack when it came out. You could only use 3 until the 7 hero update.

I did all the content in Guild Wars 1, including WiK, Hearts of the North and Winds of Change.

kitten Vayne, Merc pack released AFTER 7 Hero update. 7 heroes Oct 2010, mercs march 2011. There was NEVER a 3 mercenary limit. You got the number you paid for and could use 7 from the day they were introduced.

If you did all that.. at the dates they released, how did you not know about 7 heroes at least for Winds of Change in July 2011?

SMH

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

kitten Vayne, Merc pack released AFTER 7 Hero update. 7 heroes Oct 2010, mercs march 2011. There was NEVER a 3 mercenary limit. You got the number you paid for and could use 7 from the day they were introduced.

If you did all that.. at the dates they released, how did you not know about 7 heroes at least for Winds of Change in July 2011?

SMH

Because it was like years ago? You didn’t need the merc pack to use 7 heroes then. But I was done with the game, and everything in it except Guild Wars Beyond.

In other words, I’d already done FoW, the Underworld, DOA, The Deep, Urgoz’s Warren before the 7 hero update. That’s how I wouldn’t remember.

I also played a lot of the newer content with my guild at the time, so there were usually at least two people.

Merc pack simply allowed more of specific classes, particularly Necro and Mesmer.
This allowed group builds that the stock heroes did not.
Razah also became a multi profession hero.

I can run with 5 mez heroes if I feel like it. 5 necro heroes if I want to go that way.

I havent played GW1 so i cant compare the build diversity but I will say that every class has quite a few ways of playing them. Your effectiveness with each style depends on your own skill with it.

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

The design philosophy around the GW2 system vs the GW1 system was to lower the number of possible builds while simultaneously raising the number of viable builds. If you look back to GW1 and the popular builds used, there weren’t really all that many per class. Some had more than others.

Sure there were mathematically far more permutations, but an Echo Mending warrior is pretty terribad.

You must be talking about the GW pvp meta. PvE had tons of “viable” builds, if you could grasp playing outside the pvxwiki box.

Longbow Ranger is perfectly viable here. Bring one to a meta function.. and you will be shown the door based solely on weapon equipped.

Meta perception and actual viability in the big game are night and day. In any game.

Yes, I never got asked to leave a party because I wasn’t using the build of the month in PvE in Guild Wars 1…oh wait.

There were tons of players that required absolutely specific builds to participate in runs of almost all end game content, from voltaic spear farms, to the Underworld to DOA. Looking for an imbagon paragron. Looking for IWAY. These things existed. I ran into them all the time, because I enjoyed making my own builds.

Just a question here…

If you didn’t like the meta crowd in GW1, why did you bother trying to party with them?

I didn’t myself. I finished Proph with hench, solo. Finished Factions, NF and EoTN and Legendary Vanq with Hero/Hench. Finished DoA and other stuff with 7 Mercs. That did not mean I was unaware of LFG chat, speed clear LFG chat, and idiot statements like “show stones”. And I’ve had 12 years of mmo and min/maxer meta experience and observation.

ah.. oops. wasn’t addressed to me. oh bother.

But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.

Vayne I still play Guild Wars and you can have 7 heroes now, been that way about a year or two before GW2 came out.

Im Mudbone.1437:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

The design philosophy around the GW2 system vs the GW1 system was to lower the number of possible builds while simultaneously raising the number of viable builds. If you look back to GW1 and the popular builds used, there weren’t really all that many per class. Some had more than others.

Sure there were mathematically far more permutations, but an Echo Mending warrior is pretty terribad.

You must be talking about the GW pvp meta. PvE had tons of “viable” builds, if you could grasp playing outside the pvxwiki box.

Longbow Ranger is perfectly viable here. Bring one to a meta function.. and you will be shown the door based solely on weapon equipped.

Meta perception and actual viability in the big game are night and day. In any game.

Yes, I never got asked to leave a party because I wasn’t using the build of the month in PvE in Guild Wars 1…oh wait.

There were tons of players that required absolutely specific builds to participate in runs of almost all end game content, from voltaic spear farms, to the Underworld to DOA. Looking for an imbagon paragron. Looking for IWAY. These things existed. I ran into them all the time, because I enjoyed making my own builds.

Just a question here…

If you didn’t like the meta crowd in GW1, why did you bother trying to party with them?

I didn’t myself. I finished Proph with hench, solo. Finished Factions, NF and EoTN and Legendary Vanq with Hero/Hench. Finished DoA and other stuff with 7 Mercs. That did not mean I was unaware of LFG chat, speed clear LFG chat, and idiot statements like “show stones”. And I’ve had 12 years of mmo and min/maxer meta experience and observation.

ah.. oops. wasn’t addressed to me. oh bother.

But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.

Vayne I still play Guild Wars and you can have 7 heroes now, been that way about a year or two before GW2 came out.

Yes, thank you I know that. Let’s put it in perspective. Guild Wars 1 came out eight years ago. For the last couple of years, after most people had done everything. after they annouced Guild Wars 2 and introduced the Hall of Monuments, they added the 7 hero thing. By then most people the bulk of the early playerbase had been playing for five years.

Yes, at the end of the life of the game, they made it so you could use 7 heroes. I’m not sure how that helped me during the five years I was playing. I still had all the problems I said.

I’m not sure what you guys are arguing with me for here. They introduced 7 heroes at a time when the Guild Wars 1 population was getting so low it was much harder to find parties for stuff. I know, because I was there.

Vayne.8563:

Because I live in Australia and the amount of people doing content when I was awake was limited. I had little choice but to accept the meta or never do end game instanced stuff. Not like you can take your heroes and do the Deep or Urgoz’s warren, or even the Underworld. You need a party. Finding one was really hard during off hours.5

Not to sound crass, but I don’t think that’s a good enough reason for accepting the meta. The point of GW was to do it with friends and/or guildies. It wasn’t ever meant to be a single-player experience, there’s other games for that. Nor was it meant to be a “meta” build game, although it kind of did turn into that. The blame was both with ANet’s skill creep, title hunting, and skin farming, and the community in general.

If a pseudo-MMO like GW didn’t have the population you needed to do content the way you needed to, then you have to find one that does. But dumbing down a game known for its higher learning curve and competitive pvp to better serve a casual player base is not the right answer. Just make a new game if you’re going to do that.

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Because I live in Australia and the amount of people doing content when I was awake was limited. I had little choice but to accept the meta or never do end game instanced stuff. Not like you can take your heroes and do the Deep or Urgoz’s warren, or even the Underworld. You need a party. Finding one was really hard during off hours.5

Not to sound crass, but I don’t think that’s a good enough reason for accepting the meta. The point of GW was to do it with friends and/or guildies. It wasn’t ever meant to be a single-player experience, there’s other games for that. Nor was it meant to be a “meta” build game, although it kind of did turn into that. The blame was both with ANet’s skill creep, title hunting, and skin farming, and the community in general.

If a pseudo-MMO like GW didn’t have the population you needed to do content the way you needed to, then you have to find one that does. But dumbing down a game known for its higher learning curve and competitive pvp to better serve a casual player base is not the right answer. Just make a new game if you’re going to do that.

A good enough reason for accepting the meta? LMAO! What is this some sort of great moral dilemma of the times. I hadn’t been able to complete UW on my own. I wanted to see it. It was worth accepting the meta to see it after months of trying to find people to do it without the meta. I don’t need an excuse. I don’t need to justify my actions.

I wanted to do the content, it was the only way to get the content done. So I did it. I promise you I didn’t lose a wink of sleep over it.

Dumbing down the game wasn’t so that I’d have people to play with. It’s eight years later. These games are much more expensive to make. They’re on a much larger scale. You need more players to play them to even break even.

That’s the business reality. It’s sad that it’s the business reality but it’s like Hollywood adding more starring female roles in Lord of the Rings to attact female viewers. We don’t get to pick and choose the situation in which companies exist. If they want to make games today, any sort of ambitious MMO, you need to bank roll it, and that means you need a business plan. You have to sell that plan to investors.

What Guild Wars 2 did is what WoW did. They simplified the genre to reach a bigger target audience. In some ways Anet was remarkably successful. In some ways it was a dismal failure. But I’m not convince you’ll find anyone willing to risk a huge investment in time and money for a smaller audience.

It doesn’t have to be that way. I mean look at Star Citizen. Robertson’s initial goal was what, 500k in crowdfunding? It’s now at about 50 million. And space sims aren’t exactly mainstream.

All I’m saying is there are ways around the “meta” for bankrolling these games. I have no idea if SC will be any good, but the amount of people willing to throw money at a game that doesn’t(seem to) cater to greedy investors should tell you something.

There’s always a choice, even if that choice is don’t play any of them.

Vayne.8563:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Because I live in Australia and the amount of people doing content when I was awake was limited. I had little choice but to accept the meta or never do end game instanced stuff. Not like you can take your heroes and do the Deep or Urgoz’s warren, or even the Underworld. You need a party. Finding one was really hard during off hours.5

Not to sound crass, but I don’t think that’s a good enough reason for accepting the meta. The point of GW was to do it with friends and/or guildies. It wasn’t ever meant to be a single-player experience, there’s other games for that. Nor was it meant to be a “meta” build game, although it kind of did turn into that. The blame was both with ANet’s skill creep, title hunting, and skin farming, and the community in general.

If a pseudo-MMO like GW didn’t have the population you needed to do content the way you needed to, then you have to find one that does. But dumbing down a game known for its higher learning curve and competitive pvp to better serve a casual player base is not the right answer. Just make a new game if you’re going to do that.

A good enough reason for accepting the meta? LMAO! What is this some sort of great moral dilemma of the times. I hadn’t been able to complete UW on my own. I wanted to see it. It was worth accepting the meta to see it after months of trying to find people to do it without the meta. I don’t need an excuse. I don’t need to justify my actions.

I wanted to do the content, it was the only way to get the content done. So I did it. I promise you I didn’t lose a wink of sleep over it.

While most of my pug ‘metabreakers’ were solved with Monk henchies (and after NF, Mom heroed), a huge issue with GW1 was the lack of a proper LFG feature. Finding people to play with meant standing still in an outpost, not playing the game. And you needed 8 people for a huge majority of it.

A global party finder would’ve helped the game tremendously. The only saving grace the game has is that you can at least experience all of PvE solo.

Dumbing down the game wasn’t so that I’d have people to play with. It’s eight years later. These games are much more expensive to make. They’re on a much larger scale. You need more players to play them to even break even.

That’s the business reality. It’s sad that it’s the business reality but it’s like Hollywood adding more starring female roles in Lord of the Rings to attact female viewers. We don’t get to pick and choose the situation in which companies exist. If they want to make games today, any sort of ambitious MMO, you need to bank roll it, and that means you need a business plan. You have to sell that plan to investors.

What Guild Wars 2 did is what WoW did. They simplified the genre to reach a bigger target audience. In some ways Anet was remarkably successful. In some ways it was a dismal failure. But I’m not convince you’ll find anyone willing to risk a huge investment in time and money for a smaller audience.

Not one thing is wrong with streamlining the game, and making it more accessible is always a plus. It’s when that results in a loss of depth thats the problem. They have the potential to increase it tenfold throughout the game’s lifespan and I’m sure at some point they will, but all I can do is wait.

Obsidian.1328:

It doesn’t have to be that way. I mean look at Star Citizen. Robertson’s initial goal was what, 500k in crowdfunding? It’s now at about 50 million. And space sims aren’t exactly mainstream.

All I’m saying is there are ways around the “meta” for bankrolling these games. I have no idea if SC will be any good, but the amount of people willing to throw money at a game that doesn’t(seem to) cater to greedy investors should tell you something.

There’s always a choice, even if that choice is don’t play any of them.

There’s not always a choice. That guy found a way to invest. He’s doing something that no one else is really doing. More power to him. What he’s not doing is making an MMORPG. It’s a very different product. And the risk he’s taking is massively extreme. There’s no guarantee it will go over well.

Anet didn’t really have that luxury. They weren’t making a space flight simulator. They were making a fantasy MMO. I’m not sure it’s the same situation.

In order for us to get REALLY good games, you’d have to convince the average Joe to stop buying mediocre games. Good luck with that.

Well…to be fair it technically is an MMORPG, it’s a persistent ‘verse. But that’s neither here nor there.

I’d say the way to get us REALLY good games, is rather to convince the average Joe to start buying great games. The trick is to prove you have a great game for ’em.

Obsidian.1328:

Well…to be fair it technically is an MMORPG, it’s a persistent ‘verse. But that’s neither here nor there.

I’d say the way to get us REALLY good games, is rather to convince the average Joe to start buying great games. The trick is to prove you have a great game for ’em.

It’s not an RPG it’s a space flight sim with some RPG elements. No one is doing it. The guy is absolutely famous because of previous games he’s designed for Origin. It’s like saying Learner and Lowe could get someone to invest in their musical. Hardly a standard situation.

Vayne.8563:

Im Mudbone.1437:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

The design philosophy around the GW2 system vs the GW1 system was to lower the number of possible builds while simultaneously raising the number of viable builds. If you look back to GW1 and the popular builds used, there weren’t really all that many per class. Some had more than others.

Sure there were mathematically far more permutations, but an Echo Mending warrior is pretty terribad.

You must be talking about the GW pvp meta. PvE had tons of “viable” builds, if you could grasp playing outside the pvxwiki box.

Longbow Ranger is perfectly viable here. Bring one to a meta function.. and you will be shown the door based solely on weapon equipped.

Meta perception and actual viability in the big game are night and day. In any game.

Yes, I never got asked to leave a party because I wasn’t using the build of the month in PvE in Guild Wars 1…oh wait.

There were tons of players that required absolutely specific builds to participate in runs of almost all end game content, from voltaic spear farms, to the Underworld to DOA. Looking for an imbagon paragron. Looking for IWAY. These things existed. I ran into them all the time, because I enjoyed making my own builds.

Just a question here…

If you didn’t like the meta crowd in GW1, why did you bother trying to party with them?

I didn’t myself. I finished Proph with hench, solo. Finished Factions, NF and EoTN and Legendary Vanq with Hero/Hench. Finished DoA and other stuff with 7 Mercs. That did not mean I was unaware of LFG chat, speed clear LFG chat, and idiot statements like “show stones”. And I’ve had 12 years of mmo and min/maxer meta experience and observation.

ah.. oops. wasn’t addressed to me. oh bother.

But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.

Vayne I still play Guild Wars and you can have 7 heroes now, been that way about a year or two before GW2 came out.

Yes, thank you I know that. Let’s put it in perspective. Guild Wars 1 came out eight years ago. For the last couple of years, after most people had done everything. after they annouced Guild Wars 2 and introduced the Hall of Monuments, they added the 7 hero thing. By then most people the bulk of the early playerbase had been playing for five years.

Yes, at the end of the life of the game, they made it so you could use 7 heroes. I’m not sure how that helped me during the five years I was playing. I still had all the problems I said.

I’m not sure what you guys are arguing with me for here. They introduced 7 heroes at a time when the Guild Wars 1 population was getting so low it was much harder to find parties for stuff. I know, because I was there.

Stop pronouncing the game Dead. Also, I corrected you, again, because what you spout off about your knowledge of GW isn’t correct, again. And as always, when caught showing your lack of knowledge, you backpedal, twist words, and scramble.

You know. You were there. Ah, OK. And didn’t know you could have 7 heroes till today. riiiight. Quote, from you, 12 hrs ago:

“But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.”

And that was just the beginning of a litany of mistakes. “you could only have 3 mercs, I know, I bought them”. Wrong again.

And you are still spinning it. You Know..You were there!
Really? I’ll insert your stock answer now. “I did things with my guild so didn’t notice anything”

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Vayne.8563:

Im Mudbone.1437:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

The design philosophy around the GW2 system vs the GW1 system was to lower the number of possible builds while simultaneously raising the number of viable builds. If you look back to GW1 and the popular builds used, there weren’t really all that many per class. Some had more than others.

Sure there were mathematically far more permutations, but an Echo Mending warrior is pretty terribad.

You must be talking about the GW pvp meta. PvE had tons of “viable” builds, if you could grasp playing outside the pvxwiki box.

Longbow Ranger is perfectly viable here. Bring one to a meta function.. and you will be shown the door based solely on weapon equipped.

Meta perception and actual viability in the big game are night and day. In any game.

Yes, I never got asked to leave a party because I wasn’t using the build of the month in PvE in Guild Wars 1…oh wait.

There were tons of players that required absolutely specific builds to participate in runs of almost all end game content, from voltaic spear farms, to the Underworld to DOA. Looking for an imbagon paragron. Looking for IWAY. These things existed. I ran into them all the time, because I enjoyed making my own builds.

Just a question here…

If you didn’t like the meta crowd in GW1, why did you bother trying to party with them?

I didn’t myself. I finished Proph with hench, solo. Finished Factions, NF and EoTN and Legendary Vanq with Hero/Hench. Finished DoA and other stuff with 7 Mercs. That did not mean I was unaware of LFG chat, speed clear LFG chat, and idiot statements like “show stones”. And I’ve had 12 years of mmo and min/maxer meta experience and observation.

ah.. oops. wasn’t addressed to me. oh bother.

But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.

Vayne I still play Guild Wars and you can have 7 heroes now, been that way about a year or two before GW2 came out.

Yes, thank you I know that. Let’s put it in perspective. Guild Wars 1 came out eight years ago. For the last couple of years, after most people had done everything. after they annouced Guild Wars 2 and introduced the Hall of Monuments, they added the 7 hero thing. By then most people the bulk of the early playerbase had been playing for five years.

Yes, at the end of the life of the game, they made it so you could use 7 heroes. I’m not sure how that helped me during the five years I was playing. I still had all the problems I said.

I’m not sure what you guys are arguing with me for here. They introduced 7 heroes at a time when the Guild Wars 1 population was getting so low it was much harder to find parties for stuff. I know, because I was there.

Stop pronouncing the game Dead. Also, I corrected you, again, because what you spout off about your knowledge of GW isn’t correct, again. And as always, when caught showing your lack of knowledge, you backpedal, twist words, and scramble.

You know. You were there. Ah, OK. And didn’t know you could have 7 heroes till today. riiiight. Quote, from you, 12 hrs ago:

“But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.”

That doesn’t mean I didn’t know. If you want to log into Guild Wars and see my eight mercenaries, I’ll be happy to introduce you to them. I just assumed you were one of the people who did that stuff when the rest of us did it, not when the game was sliding into oblivion.

You can say anything you want about the game being or not being dead. If it was alive, Anet wouldn’t have put it on life support. No upgrades except bug fixes isn’t a living game.

Nerelith.7360:

Mesket.5728:

in GW1, any useless skill, COMPLETELY useless skill, could be the next FOTM without any balance patch just because someone put some thought and find a combo with the least thought class combination and made it the most OP build ever. Given the amount of skills, class combinations and runes, it was theoricrafters dreamland and the best (at least for pvp) there was no meta because every meta was always countered… in GW2 pvp metas get nerfed because there aren’t enough tools ingame for the players to counter them,

All I’m saying is that if this game wants to be GW sequel, its needs a ton load of more skills and let us choose between different weapon skills as well, not just the same 5 for any build with the same weapon.

GW2 meta builds are a kinda of a joke when compared… “I equipped reflect wall, I’m now the party reflector, that’s my role”, “hey I have time warp, I must be the party buffer!”..

THIS. It is amazing how synergy had so much to do with the earlier game’s popularity. All it took is saying " hmmm…this skill teleports me over and heals me, but..I get extra healing if it also happens to be poisoned… what causes it to be Poisoned? and that other one makes it bleed,… but this skill will cripple it if it happsn to be bleeding.,…so do i want extra heals from it being poisoned? or cripple it if it’s bleeding? Now I need to figure out…where do i put my points ?"

Now… for ME that used to be interesting, and could keep me playing on, and on, and on,. and on.

I could take builds into GvG, and enjoy it, and this…coming from someone that detests PvP.

I think that many players that currently enjoy gw2, have latched onto the idea that " Guild wars was filled with useless skills" to accept that gw2 has so few of them. It’s Like they feel the sheer " uselessness" of Guild Wars was a problem that a Lot fewer weapon locked skills were the answer to.

Guild wars wasn’t filled with useless skills, Guild Wars was filled wit tons of situational skills, that rocked in the right situation. Guild Wars was filled with synergistic skills, that would rock, if used with other skills that played off them….

Personally I think Guild Wars was a Theorycrafter’s heaven. And what we are seeing boils down to " Am I a Theorycrafter at heart? If I am I would probably love Guild Wars. If I am not…not so Much."

And how come no one has even mentioned sub-classes? Added diversity ^2, from having 1 of 9 possible sub-classes for each main class. That is…

90 possible combinations, without even looking at skill selections, and elites. If you Bought Prophesies, Factions and Nightfall.

56 if you owned any 2 of the 3.

30 if you only owned one.

And yes Monk/mesmer played very differently from monk/necromancer

No.. The skills weren’t useless, they were situational, which meant they were powerful In the situation they were made for, and useless In the one they weren’t.

Holy Water, Powerful against Vampires, useless against Robots.

All I can add to this is… Amen

Obsidian.1328:

Xenon.4537:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

The design philosophy around the GW2 system vs the GW1 system was to lower the number of possible builds while simultaneously raising the number of viable builds. If you look back to GW1 and the popular builds used, there weren’t really all that many per class. Some had more than others.

Sure there were mathematically far more permutations, but an Echo Mending warrior is pretty terribad.

You must be talking about the GW pvp meta. PvE had tons of “viable” builds, if you could grasp playing outside the pvxwiki box.

Longbow Ranger is perfectly viable here. Bring one to a meta function.. and you will be shown the door based solely on weapon equipped.

Meta perception and actual viability in the big game are night and day. In any game.

Yes, I never got asked to leave a party because I wasn’t using the build of the month in PvE in Guild Wars 1…oh wait.

There were tons of players that required absolutely specific builds to participate in runs of almost all end game content, from voltaic spear farms, to the Underworld to DOA. Looking for an imbagon paragron. Looking for IWAY. These things existed. I ran into them all the time, because I enjoyed making my own builds.

Just a question here…

If you didn’t like the meta crowd in GW1, why did you bother trying to party with them?

Did any other types of party ever exist? IIRC it was either Meta or henchmen.

Then they added heroes and the game became single player…

How did I find non-meta parties all the time then? o.O

Granted it took some patience, and having a good guild helped. But it sure beat the rampant /ragequitting that came along with speed clears that took 2.9 secs longer than optimal. Those guys were kittens and I smiled inside every time they flipped out over a failed dungeon.

Lol… Does that remind you of any other games? :P

Vayne.8563:

Obsidian.1328:

Well…to be fair it technically is an MMORPG, it’s a persistent ‘verse. But that’s neither here nor there.

I’d say the way to get us REALLY good games, is rather to convince the average Joe to start buying great games. The trick is to prove you have a great game for ’em.

It’s not an RPG it’s a space flight sim with some RPG elements. No one is doing it. The guy is absolutely famous because of previous games he’s designed for Origin. It’s like saying Learner and Lowe could get someone to invest in their musical. Hardly a standard situation.

It’s still an mmorpg, you’re playing a role in a persistent world. The space sim part is simply the platform its presented on.

At any rate, you’re missing the point. By accepting a “least common denominator” mentality for these games you’re indirectly supporting shallow development. Like I said, if you don’t want to support that kind of mentality, don’t play them anymore.

Vayne.8563:

Anet didn’t really have that luxury. They weren’t making a space flight simulator. They were making a fantasy MMO. I’m not sure it’s the same situation.

I would think that A-Net had that luxury after what they did with GW. A-net proved themselves by working “outside” the box with GW. If A-Net hadn’t proven themselves then NCSoft wouldn’t have bankrolled GW2.

Vayne.8563:

Nerelith.7360:

Vayne.8563:

I don’t think saying these things is insulting to anyone. Put it this way. In order to really get the most out of Guild Wars 1, you really had to think about what you were doing. It meant familiarizing yourself with a lot of skills. But skills kept changing and the meta kept changing and the build of the month kept changing. You could go away for a couple of weeks, and have to learn things all over sometimes. That’s great for people who play every day, not so good for people to come and visit. It’s not an insult. It’s a fact of life.

Even less insulting is the comments on balancing. Anet bit off more than they could chew with the old system. There were always problems trying to balance it. They’ve admitted as much themselves. How is agreeing with them insulting?

I actually agree with you. I think they went too far. Anet has a habit of over-reacting to things in my opinion. The complains about Prophecies was that the pace was too slow and it took forever. So they came out with Factions. Where the pace was too fast and you could breeze through the game in a weekend. It was an overcompensation. They did pacing somewhat better in Nightfall, which was somewhat between the two. It was like a pendulum swinging.

I sort of expect the same thing to happen here. We’ve seen the swing to too simple and there’ll be an update at some point (maybe the first expansion), where the pendulum swings the other way. It might be one of those “big” projects they’re working on.

But I don’t think being honest about the limitations of the old game to appeal to a wider audience due to complexity is particularly insulting. Not everyone is looking for complexity.

The topic under discussion is… Guild Wars is it more diverse. The implication raised was that no, it wasn’t more diverse, which to many of us Guild Wars veterans seems to be an interesting position.

Now the OP tries to say that because BOTH have " as many optimal builds" that Gw2 is as diverse as Guild Wars.

To me this is nonsense. I have explained why. Now you want to derail the issue to " Gw2 made the game less diverse than Guild Wars, and had awesome reasons."

That is not the topic of this thread.

Someone that feels Gw2 is as diverse has basically said that the game many of us enjoyed playing was " full of useless skills." And that that is why gw2 is “as diverse” because it has the same number of " optimal " builds.

As I said…Nonsense. If one defines " Optimal" as" The absolute best for a given situation" then they obviously have the same number of “optimal” builds..since that = " the best build for a given situation" and that will be 1. By the definition of “Optimal”

MY position has always been that Guild Wars had more viable alternate builds that lent themselves to play…where content could be experienced, without having to play “the meta”.

THAT is the topic. Does Guild Wars having more viable alternate builds, that could be enjoyed " for fun" without having to " do the meta" or " only do the optimal"
provide more divergence in playstyles , so that If you have 2 Necromancers, could you have each play a totally different playstyle and still be viable? I say that since each necromancer had anywhere from 5 to 9 sub-classes, and each combination had hundreds of skills, and 9 " trait" lines…. THIS meant that each necromancer could play totally differently from one another and STILL be viable. STILL complete content.

Not whether the devs had reasons for making gw2 less diverse.

Seems that you agree with me, Gw2 is less diverse. WHY it’s less diverse is a topic for another thread.

Well according to that logic this thread should have been closed. Guild Wars 1 had more build diversity. Discussing why it’s a good idea to or not to have that is perfectly on topic, or close the thread. Those are pretty much the only options.

I agree. Close the thread.

is this even a question? GW1 had way more build diversity and way more skill depth. Not just the # of skills but the range of things that skills could affect, and be affected by, was so much larger.

Most classes in this game have very poor build diversity. Worse than your standard MMO, e.g. Rift, WOW. It has always been the weakest aspect of this game and frankly, not much effort has been invested to change this. It’s sad.

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Vayne.8563:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Over the past couple of years (ever since build templates were added to the game), I have saved around ~500 builds in my template folder, 90% of which are monk builds.
And I am a pvp player first.

Fact is GW has a gozzilion builds you can opt for (though admittedly, you were/are more restricted in pvp, depending on your team and their general level of skill and playing habits, yet the diversity was still insane on both micro and macro level), and more you could create from scratch when feeling inspired or just wanted to farm a certain zone/mob group/bossie.

Out of curiosity how many of those builds are still viable?

From a pve standpoint all of my builds in GW are still viable for what I built them to do.
I have 320 builds. Some are single situation builds. Some are idiot proofed for Heroes.
Some are enemy specific, ie destroyers. Some are for solo.. some for VQ, some for VQ in 4 member group areas. I have NM builds for goofing off, and HM builds. RoJ is awesome in NM, in HM.. not so. Meteor the same.

I have builds simply for DoA to synergize with LB skills. Builds changing up 2nd profession. on and on.

And I have idiot builds so I can run 8 heroes with pets, because it is amusing. Not optimal at all.

If you want to blather about Meta only, well Meta is Meta, in all games, and always restrictive and undiversified.

I cannot see how anyone can shrug off the fact that GW has far more builds and variety.

That’s odd, because when I cleaned out my build folder I found about 80% of my builds, while perhaps viable, where no longer optimal due to changes that had been made in the skill sets. Of course, no changes have been made for a couple of years now, but prior to that, I had to adjust builds and after I did I found the old builds to be far more meh.

Just because your builds stop being effective after a while does not mean that others have the same issues. Your experience though relevant for you, doesn’t answer the question of the thread. Did Guild Wars’ game mechanics lead to broader build diversity.

Players prove over and over and over to you that " yes it did." and each time they do, you try and find some excuse to say " well, that didn’t count." Now it’s " Well, My experience doesn’t match yours so your experience doesn’t count."

I think your posts are saying more about you, and your willingness to actually conduct a dialogue with an open mind, than about Guild Wars or Gw2.

Galphar.3901:

Mada.5319:

The build diversity is the same in both games.
GW1 had more skills, sure, but the majority were underpowered and never even used in the first place.
GW2 has less skills, but makes up for it with traits and expanded gear compared to gw1. If two builds used the same skills/utilities but had different traits/gear, those two builds would be played very differently.

Additionally, gw1 and gw2 were made by completely different people. Don’t let the ArenaNet name fool you. Almost everyone who set the foundations of GW1 had left the company by the time GW2 got into the picture.

Uhm, no. In GW I could choose to use my pet or not, choose to run traps or not, I could even choose which skills I used to DPS. GW was waaaaay more diverse in builds than GW2, and that’s just Ranger. Each profession had 5-10 builds they could run and still do well(even in HA/TA/RA). Yes there were “prefered” builds for PvP but you still had 3-4x the builds you could choose from.

Technically you are right, but you also forget that, while GW1 probably has around 500 skills, AT LEAST 60% of those were complete garbage, and some classes (Paragons, to be more specific) had ONLY 2 or 3 viable builds.

Sure, I miss scythe rangers/assassins, E/Mo Ether Renewal healers, splinter barrage ranger, crit barrage assassins, healer necromancers, etc.

but, like it’s been said, GW2 makes up for it due to traits and that every single skill is useable (good is debateable)

vi·a·ble
?v??b?l/
adjective
adjective: viable

capable of working successfully; feasible.

op·ti·mal
?äpt?m?l/
adjective
adjective: optimal

best or most favorable; optimum

Glov.5342:

Galphar.3901:

Mada.5319:

The build diversity is the same in both games.
GW1 had more skills, sure, but the majority were underpowered and never even used in the first place.
GW2 has less skills, but makes up for it with traits and expanded gear compared to gw1. If two builds used the same skills/utilities but had different traits/gear, those two builds would be played very differently.

Additionally, gw1 and gw2 were made by completely different people. Don’t let the ArenaNet name fool you. Almost everyone who set the foundations of GW1 had left the company by the time GW2 got into the picture.

Uhm, no. In GW I could choose to use my pet or not, choose to run traps or not, I could even choose which skills I used to DPS. GW was waaaaay more diverse in builds than GW2, and that’s just Ranger. Each profession had 5-10 builds they could run and still do well(even in HA/TA/RA). Yes there were “prefered” builds for PvP but you still had 3-4x the builds you could choose from.

Technically you are right, but you also forget that, while GW1 probably has around 500 skills, AT LEAST 60% of those were complete garbage, and some classes (Paragons, to be more specific) had ONLY 2 or 3 viable builds.

Sure, I miss scythe rangers/assassins, E/Mo Ether Renewal healers, splinter barrage ranger, crit barrage assassins, healer necromancers, etc.

but, like it’s been said, GW2 makes up for it due to traits and that every single skill is useable (good is debateable)

60 % were complete garbage in your opinion.

Maybe because they were situational, and you did Not Know what situation to use them in?

Maybe because you did Not Know what other skills synergized with them? Guild Wars more than gw2 was a game about synergy.

Maybe you were just less effective? I do not say this to be insulting. I had no problems with the skills in Guild Wars. And the fact is, that I do not remember “60 % being complete garbage.” I Just remember 80 to 90 % of skills being situational.

Situational is not useless. Just useless is the wrong situation.
Guild wars required players to do more homework. Either online or by studying what skills said they did, and How they worked with other skills..and builds.

I can see How that might be a turn off for some players. I can also see How that may discourage some players from ever exploring the situation when skills would be effective.

That doesn’t mean that the skills are garbage, just garbage for players that don’t know when and how to use them.

Glov.5342:

GW2 makes up for it due to traits

I think many would say GW2 traits/talent trees are the weak point of the design – as a whole they’re not nearly as impactful as in other games. E.g. check out a sample Rift talent tree for a mage: http://www.rifthead.com/stc/zcNla, then consider that that’s only 3 of 10 trait trees that a mage can choose from.

and that every single skill is useable (good is debateable)

Are you sure you’re playing this game? I’d ballpark the number of useless/filler skills in this game in the vicinity of 20-30% (IMO about the industry standard). There’s really only a handful of weapons that don’t have a useless/problematic skill. Granted some % of thee are situationally useful skills, but there are plenty of truly useless skills as well, eg: ele sceptre water #2.

I don’t have problem with useless/lacklustre skills – all games have them – but what is disappointing is the reluctance/slowness/lack of care we’ve seen in almost 2 years.

I note that skill uselessness in most cases is not really a matter of my opinion, the same skills/utilities have been complained about on the forums since release in many cases.

Frozen Soil is an example of “situational”. For most of the pve game it wasn’t worth having on a bar. You just shut down the few rezzers encountered.

Wik HM it was a must for me. White Mantle groups had a LOT of rezzers, lots of sigs. Rezzers in Slavers as well.

Edge of Extinction as well. Junk, except for when it was absolutely Golden.. Glints Challenge for one.

There were indeed tons of situational and conditional skills. Was always fun to find that “niche” skill you ignored and never bought was the perfect solution to a problem.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Frozen Soil is an example of “situational”. For most of the pve game it wasn’t worth having on a bar. You just shut down the few rezzers encountered.

Wik HM it was a must for me. White Mantle groups had a LOT of rezzers, lots of sigs. Rezzers in Slavers as well.

Edge of Extinction as well. Junk, except for when it was absolutely Golden.. Glints Challenge for one.

There were indeed tons of situational and conditional skills. Was always fun to find that “niche” skill you ignored and never bought was the perfect solution to a problem.

EXACTLY.

The issue is that some people wish to define 60% of Guild wars skills as “useless” and have the rest of us Just go along. Because then they can justify their acceptance of a game mechanic that has too simple a solution to a problem.

The Problem was never " too many useless skills".

The problem was " Too many situational skills that too many players today may NOT know the situation in which to use them."

This is Not a problem with the skills, this is not even a problem with Anet. I mean Anet is only giving players what players show they want.

Too many of today’s players want a simple game… that allows them to ONLY have to think about 2 builds and 3 or 4 weapons…

A simple game that is easy to play and doesn’t require much research. Can’t blame Anet for providing it.

If a Player demands bread and water, he isn’t getting Veal Marsala and Spumanti.

It’s all about skill diversity….GW2 doesn’t have that at all

I can’t mix and match and come up with different builds because once I pick a weapon, thats it. Im stuck with those 5 skills.

Something that would open up diversity is allowing the freedom of skill selection between two weaponsets you have equipped

Example. Staff + GS.. 10 total skills… now let me select whatever 5 skills from the pool of 10 I want in my first loadout than on swap, I have the other configuration… this kind of diversity would be incredible but obviously its too late for this kind of customization as it requires reworking the entire combat system core in GW2 but you get the point…. It’s an incredibly simple skill system we have in GW2 that offers limited customization

What could be possible to do is add additional skills to unlock in each weaponset and than letting me pick and choose what I want in my loadout…that’s something that shouldn’t be difficult to implement

Galphar.3901:

Vayne.8563:

Anet didn’t really have that luxury. They weren’t making a space flight simulator. They were making a fantasy MMO. I’m not sure it’s the same situation.

I would think that A-Net had that luxury after what they did with GW. A-net proved themselves by working “outside” the box with GW. If A-Net hadn’t proven themselves then NCSoft wouldn’t have bankrolled GW2.

But, then “they” tried to fix what wasn’t broken and only ended up breaking it. -LOL

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Vayne.8563:

Im Mudbone.1437:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

The design philosophy around the GW2 system vs the GW1 system was to lower the number of possible builds while simultaneously raising the number of viable builds. If you look back to GW1 and the popular builds used, there weren’t really all that many per class. Some had more than others.

Sure there were mathematically far more permutations, but an Echo Mending warrior is pretty terribad.

You must be talking about the GW pvp meta. PvE had tons of “viable” builds, if you could grasp playing outside the pvxwiki box.

Longbow Ranger is perfectly viable here. Bring one to a meta function.. and you will be shown the door based solely on weapon equipped.

Meta perception and actual viability in the big game are night and day. In any game.

Yes, I never got asked to leave a party because I wasn’t using the build of the month in PvE in Guild Wars 1…oh wait.

There were tons of players that required absolutely specific builds to participate in runs of almost all end game content, from voltaic spear farms, to the Underworld to DOA. Looking for an imbagon paragron. Looking for IWAY. These things existed. I ran into them all the time, because I enjoyed making my own builds.

Just a question here…

If you didn’t like the meta crowd in GW1, why did you bother trying to party with them?

I didn’t myself. I finished Proph with hench, solo. Finished Factions, NF and EoTN and Legendary Vanq with Hero/Hench. Finished DoA and other stuff with 7 Mercs. That did not mean I was unaware of LFG chat, speed clear LFG chat, and idiot statements like “show stones”. And I’ve had 12 years of mmo and min/maxer meta experience and observation.

ah.. oops. wasn’t addressed to me. oh bother.

But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.

Vayne I still play Guild Wars and you can have 7 heroes now, been that way about a year or two before GW2 came out.

Yes, thank you I know that. Let’s put it in perspective. Guild Wars 1 came out eight years ago. For the last couple of years, after most people had done everything. after they annouced Guild Wars 2 and introduced the Hall of Monuments, they added the 7 hero thing. By then most people the bulk of the early playerbase had been playing for five years.

Yes, at the end of the life of the game, they made it so you could use 7 heroes. I’m not sure how that helped me during the five years I was playing. I still had all the problems I said.

I’m not sure what you guys are arguing with me for here. They introduced 7 heroes at a time when the Guild Wars 1 population was getting so low it was much harder to find parties for stuff. I know, because I was there.

Stop pronouncing the game Dead. Also, I corrected you, again, because what you spout off about your knowledge of GW isn’t correct, again. And as always, when caught showing your lack of knowledge, you backpedal, twist words, and scramble.

You know. You were there. Ah, OK. And didn’t know you could have 7 heroes till today. riiiight. Quote, from you, 12 hrs ago:

“But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.”

That doesn’t mean I didn’t know. If you want to log into Guild Wars and see my eight mercenaries, I’ll be happy to introduce you to them. I just assumed you were one of the people who did that stuff when the rest of us did it, not when the game was sliding into oblivion.

You can say anything you want about the game being or not being dead. If it was alive, Anet wouldn’t have put it on life support. No upgrades except bug fixes isn’t a living game.

You said

But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period.

Sounds like you like to spin, and spin. You are selling but finally, no one is buying. If you are gonna make stuff up…might be a good idea to make it up where you won’t be corrected, and shown to be ignorant… followed by you back-pedalling, temporizing, explaining, you said " 3 heroes, period." as in " End of discussion. "

Except you can play with 7.

Vayne.8563:

You can say anything you want about the game being or not being dead. If it was alive, Anet wouldn’t have put it on life support. No upgrades except bug fixes isn’t a living game.

Just wanted to focus on this a moment. The way to tell if a game is dead is a simple one. Are the servers up?

City of Heroes as much as I loved it, is dead. The servers were shut down. Star Wars Galaxies, as Much as I loved that game, is dead. The servers are shut down.

That is the definition of a dead MMO, the servers are shut down.

This is How Business works. Anyone with even a little business knowledge understands. An MMO is dead the moment that continued operations cannot be justified by the level of profit attained…and said operation expences can be seen to lead to greater profit if invested in some other business vehicle.

If the investors look at Guild Wars, and decide that continuing to invest in the operation of the game, as little as it is… is not justified by the poor profits realized by it, and the only decision that makes business sense is to shut down the servers…then it is dead.

Until then it’s alive. How do we know Guild Wars is alive? the Servers are up. Whether or not it is THRIVING, can be debated. Whether or not it is FLOURISHING, can be debated. Whether or not it is in decline….can be debated.

But you cannot say it is dead.

Anyone with a business education, can tell you that if they know of a way to use the money invested to operate Guild Wars that would realize greater profits, the only correct business decision is to shut down the Guild Wars servers, and re-invest the assets elsewhere.

As long as we see The Guild Wars servers up and running, we know the game is not dead.

Business 101.

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Obsidian.1328:

Well…to be fair it technically is an MMORPG, it’s a persistent ‘verse. But that’s neither here nor there.

I’d say the way to get us REALLY good games, is rather to convince the average Joe to start buying great games. The trick is to prove you have a great game for ’em.

It’s not an RPG it’s a space flight sim with some RPG elements. No one is doing it. The guy is absolutely famous because of previous games he’s designed for Origin. It’s like saying Learner and Lowe could get someone to invest in their musical. Hardly a standard situation.

It’s still an mmorpg, you’re playing a role in a persistent world. The space sim part is simply the platform its presented on.

At any rate, you’re missing the point. By accepting a “least common denominator” mentality for these games you’re indirectly supporting shallow development. Like I said, if you don’t want to support that kind of mentality, don’t play them anymore.

Only works if the bulk of people do the same thing, that’s my point. If I don’t play any games and only wait for the one super uber best game ever to come out, I’ll not have any games.

Nerelith.7360:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Vayne.8563:

Im Mudbone.1437:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

The design philosophy around the GW2 system vs the GW1 system was to lower the number of possible builds while simultaneously raising the number of viable builds. If you look back to GW1 and the popular builds used, there weren’t really all that many per class. Some had more than others.

Sure there were mathematically far more permutations, but an Echo Mending warrior is pretty terribad.

You must be talking about the GW pvp meta. PvE had tons of “viable” builds, if you could grasp playing outside the pvxwiki box.

Longbow Ranger is perfectly viable here. Bring one to a meta function.. and you will be shown the door based solely on weapon equipped.

Meta perception and actual viability in the big game are night and day. In any game.

Yes, I never got asked to leave a party because I wasn’t using the build of the month in PvE in Guild Wars 1…oh wait.

There were tons of players that required absolutely specific builds to participate in runs of almost all end game content, from voltaic spear farms, to the Underworld to DOA. Looking for an imbagon paragron. Looking for IWAY. These things existed. I ran into them all the time, because I enjoyed making my own builds.

Just a question here…

If you didn’t like the meta crowd in GW1, why did you bother trying to party with them?

I didn’t myself. I finished Proph with hench, solo. Finished Factions, NF and EoTN and Legendary Vanq with Hero/Hench. Finished DoA and other stuff with 7 Mercs. That did not mean I was unaware of LFG chat, speed clear LFG chat, and idiot statements like “show stones”. And I’ve had 12 years of mmo and min/maxer meta experience and observation.

ah.. oops. wasn’t addressed to me. oh bother.

But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.

Vayne I still play Guild Wars and you can have 7 heroes now, been that way about a year or two before GW2 came out.

Yes, thank you I know that. Let’s put it in perspective. Guild Wars 1 came out eight years ago. For the last couple of years, after most people had done everything. after they annouced Guild Wars 2 and introduced the Hall of Monuments, they added the 7 hero thing. By then most people the bulk of the early playerbase had been playing for five years.

Yes, at the end of the life of the game, they made it so you could use 7 heroes. I’m not sure how that helped me during the five years I was playing. I still had all the problems I said.

I’m not sure what you guys are arguing with me for here. They introduced 7 heroes at a time when the Guild Wars 1 population was getting so low it was much harder to find parties for stuff. I know, because I was there.

Stop pronouncing the game Dead. Also, I corrected you, again, because what you spout off about your knowledge of GW isn’t correct, again. And as always, when caught showing your lack of knowledge, you backpedal, twist words, and scramble.

You know. You were there. Ah, OK. And didn’t know you could have 7 heroes till today. riiiight. Quote, from you, 12 hrs ago:

“But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period. No way you can convince me you soloed end game content with 3 heroes.”

That doesn’t mean I didn’t know. If you want to log into Guild Wars and see my eight mercenaries, I’ll be happy to introduce you to them. I just assumed you were one of the people who did that stuff when the rest of us did it, not when the game was sliding into oblivion.

You can say anything you want about the game being or not being dead. If it was alive, Anet wouldn’t have put it on life support. No upgrades except bug fixes isn’t a living game.

You said

But when I played Guild Wars 1, you could only bring 3 heroes, period.

Sounds like you like to spin, and spin. You are selling but finally, no one is buying. If you are gonna make stuff up…might be a good idea to make it up where you won’t be corrected, and shown to be ignorant… followed by you back-pedalling, temporizing, explaining, you said " 3 heroes, period." as in " End of discussion. "

Except you can play with 7.

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

Im Mudbone.1437:

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

And the game changed. the thing is, Just because Vayne knows How the game was at a particular point, and refers to that time, but doesn’t seem to recognize that later on there were more mercs added. It Kind of seems as if he is not fully cognizant of the game as it is now. I can say " I know How the game is today…I remember when all you could have was 3 heroes and 4 henchmen"

That doesn’t demonstrate any current or recent knowledge, it does show knowledge of the game , at the time when his information was current.

But it also shows that he seems to have a tendency to spin, and temporize, and back-peddle, and explain..when caught on a point where he shows ignorance, he says " well, I wasn’t REALLY ignorant., I just chose to NOT discuss what you are talking about."

Does Not quite show knowledge, although it DOES seem to show a tendency to cover up what might be ignorance.

Or maybe he Just updates his knowledge from what he reads others post?

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

And the game changed. the thing is, Just because Vayne knows How the game was at a particular point, and refers to that time, but doesn’t seem to recognize that later on there were more mercs added. It Kind of seems as if he is not fully cognizant of the game as it is now. I can say " I know How the game is today…I remember when all you could have was 3 heroes and 4 henchmen"

That doesn’t demonstrate any current or recent knowledge, it does show knowledge of the game , at the time when his information was current.

But it also shows that he seems to have a tendency to spin, and temporize, and back-peddle, and explain..when caught on a point where he shows ignorance, he says " well, I wasn’t REALLY ignorant., I just chose to NOT discuss what you are talking about."

Does Not quite show knowledge, although it DOES seem to show a tendency to cover up what might be ignorance.

Or maybe he Just updates his knowledge from what he reads others post?

So, I assume you still play GW? I still do, best game made, better than GW2 anyway, in so many ways IMO.

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

And the game changed. the thing is, Just because Vayne knows How the game was at a particular point, and refers to that time, but doesn’t seem to recognize that later on there were more mercs added. It Kind of seems as if he is not fully cognizant of the game as it is now. I can say " I know How the game is today…I remember when all you could have was 3 heroes and 4 henchmen"

That doesn’t demonstrate any current or recent knowledge, it does show knowledge of the game , at the time when his information was current.

But it also shows that he seems to have a tendency to spin, and temporize, and back-peddle, and explain..when caught on a point where he shows ignorance, he says " well, I wasn’t REALLY ignorant., I just chose to NOT discuss what you are talking about."

Does Not quite show knowledge, although it DOES seem to show a tendency to cover up what might be ignorance.

Or maybe he Just updates his knowledge from what he reads others post?

I’m sorry this wasn’t a small point in time. It was most of the game’s life. Put it this way. Prophecies was released. During the time of it’s release there were no heroes at all. They didn’t exist. You could only have henchmen. Henchmen couldn’t go into the Fissure of Woe or the Underworld.

A year later, Factions was released. Factions itself had no heroes. Again you could only take henchmen who now couldn’t go into FoW the Underworld, The Deep and Urgoz’s Warren. You had to have a group of players.

Six months later Nightfall came out, and finally heroes were introduced. That means for the first 1.5 years the game existed there were no heroes at all, and only now could you bring three heroes with you.

Now follow this logic. The patch that allowed an all hero party to be used came out on March 3, 2011. 1.5 years later Guild Wars 2 came out.

Guild Wars 2 came out roughly 7 years after Guild Wars 1. For 5.5 of those years you could only have 3 heroes. Are you really suggesting I should have waited 5.5 years to do the Underworld? That I should have predicted that we’d get 7 heroes at some point?

The change was made 1.5 years before Guild Wars 2 came out, because the population of Guild Wars 1 had dropped off. Places like Spamadan went from five or six zones to two or three zones. There were less people playing. It was harder to find groups.

That’s why they added the island in the mists as an outpost for people and made 7 hero parties. They were preparing for a Guild Wars 2 future.

Vayne.8563:

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

And the game changed. the thing is, Just because Vayne knows How the game was at a particular point, and refers to that time, but doesn’t seem to recognize that later on there were more mercs added. It Kind of seems as if he is not fully cognizant of the game as it is now. I can say " I know How the game is today…I remember when all you could have was 3 heroes and 4 henchmen"

That doesn’t demonstrate any current or recent knowledge, it does show knowledge of the game , at the time when his information was current.

But it also shows that he seems to have a tendency to spin, and temporize, and back-peddle, and explain..when caught on a point where he shows ignorance, he says " well, I wasn’t REALLY ignorant., I just chose to NOT discuss what you are talking about."

Does Not quite show knowledge, although it DOES seem to show a tendency to cover up what might be ignorance.

Or maybe he Just updates his knowledge from what he reads others post?

I’m sorry this wasn’t a small point in time. It was most of the game’s life. Put it this way. Prophecies was released. During the time of it’s release there were no heroes at all. They didn’t exist. You could only have henchmen. Henchmen couldn’t go into the Fissure of Woe or the Underworld.

A year later, Factions was released. Factions itself had no heroes. Again you could only take henchmen who now couldn’t go into FoW the Underworld, The Deep and Urgoz’s Warren. You had to have a group of players.

Six months later Nightfall came out, and finally heroes were introduced. That means for the first 1.5 years the game existed there were no heroes at all, and only now could you bring three heroes with you.

Now follow this logic. The patch that allowed an all hero party to be used came out on March 3, 2011. 1.5 years later Guild Wars 2 came out.

Guild Wars 2 came out roughly 7 years after Guild Wars 1. For 5.5 of those years you could only have 3 heroes. Are you really suggesting I should have waited 5.5 years to do the Underworld? That I should have predicted that we’d get 7 heroes at some point?

The change was made 1.5 years before Guild Wars 2 came out, because the population of Guild Wars 1 had dropped off. Places like Spamadan went from five or six zones to two or three zones. There were less people playing. It was harder to find groups.

That’s why they added the island in the mists as an outpost for people and made 7 hero parties. They were preparing for a Guild Wars 2 future.

Funny you mention Spamadan, that’s where I’m at right now selling a few things and at this time there are 2 American/English districts along with the EU/Asian/Inter. districts.

Im Mudbone.1437:

Vayne.8563:

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

And the game changed. the thing is, Just because Vayne knows How the game was at a particular point, and refers to that time, but doesn’t seem to recognize that later on there were more mercs added. It Kind of seems as if he is not fully cognizant of the game as it is now. I can say " I know How the game is today…I remember when all you could have was 3 heroes and 4 henchmen"

That doesn’t demonstrate any current or recent knowledge, it does show knowledge of the game , at the time when his information was current.

But it also shows that he seems to have a tendency to spin, and temporize, and back-peddle, and explain..when caught on a point where he shows ignorance, he says " well, I wasn’t REALLY ignorant., I just chose to NOT discuss what you are talking about."

Does Not quite show knowledge, although it DOES seem to show a tendency to cover up what might be ignorance.

Or maybe he Just updates his knowledge from what he reads others post?

I’m sorry this wasn’t a small point in time. It was most of the game’s life. Put it this way. Prophecies was released. During the time of it’s release there were no heroes at all. They didn’t exist. You could only have henchmen. Henchmen couldn’t go into the Fissure of Woe or the Underworld.

A year later, Factions was released. Factions itself had no heroes. Again you could only take henchmen who now couldn’t go into FoW the Underworld, The Deep and Urgoz’s Warren. You had to have a group of players.

Six months later Nightfall came out, and finally heroes were introduced. That means for the first 1.5 years the game existed there were no heroes at all, and only now could you bring three heroes with you.

Now follow this logic. The patch that allowed an all hero party to be used came out on March 3, 2011. 1.5 years later Guild Wars 2 came out.

Guild Wars 2 came out roughly 7 years after Guild Wars 1. For 5.5 of those years you could only have 3 heroes. Are you really suggesting I should have waited 5.5 years to do the Underworld? That I should have predicted that we’d get 7 heroes at some point?

The change was made 1.5 years before Guild Wars 2 came out, because the population of Guild Wars 1 had dropped off. Places like Spamadan went from five or six zones to two or three zones. There were less people playing. It was harder to find groups.

That’s why they added the island in the mists as an outpost for people and made 7 hero parties. They were preparing for a Guild Wars 2 future.

Funny you mention Spamadan, that’s where I’m at right now selling a few things and at this time there are 2 American/English districts along with the EU/Asian/Inter. districts.

I know. I’ve been in the game. There are often 2 districtions in Spamadan even now. But I remember when there were 5 or 6.

Im Mudbone.1437:

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

And the game changed. the thing is, Just because Vayne knows How the game was at a particular point, and refers to that time, but doesn’t seem to recognize that later on there were more mercs added. It Kind of seems as if he is not fully cognizant of the game as it is now. I can say " I know How the game is today…I remember when all you could have was 3 heroes and 4 henchmen"

That doesn’t demonstrate any current or recent knowledge, it does show knowledge of the game , at the time when his information was current.

But it also shows that he seems to have a tendency to spin, and temporize, and back-peddle, and explain..when caught on a point where he shows ignorance, he says " well, I wasn’t REALLY ignorant., I just chose to NOT discuss what you are talking about."

Does Not quite show knowledge, although it DOES seem to show a tendency to cover up what might be ignorance.

Or maybe he Just updates his knowledge from what he reads others post?

So, I assume you still play GW? I still do, best game made, better than GW2 anyway, in so many ways IMO.

I decided to go back to playing Guild Wars yes. I don’t own the Most recent expansion at the moment No. But I do enjoy that I can theorycraft to My heart’s content.

Sometimes I play well, sometimes it takes some rethinking. But while Gw2, may have tried to simplify the game to appeal to a more casual playerbase, I believe they went too far.

As I have said, Guild wars may have been 3d chess on an 8×8×8 grid, but Gw2 is tic-tac-toe.

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

And the game changed. the thing is, Just because Vayne knows How the game was at a particular point, and refers to that time, but doesn’t seem to recognize that later on there were more mercs added. It Kind of seems as if he is not fully cognizant of the game as it is now. I can say " I know How the game is today…I remember when all you could have was 3 heroes and 4 henchmen"

That doesn’t demonstrate any current or recent knowledge, it does show knowledge of the game , at the time when his information was current.

But it also shows that he seems to have a tendency to spin, and temporize, and back-peddle, and explain..when caught on a point where he shows ignorance, he says " well, I wasn’t REALLY ignorant., I just chose to NOT discuss what you are talking about."

Does Not quite show knowledge, although it DOES seem to show a tendency to cover up what might be ignorance.

Or maybe he Just updates his knowledge from what he reads others post?

So, I assume you still play GW? I still do, best game made, better than GW2 anyway, in so many ways IMO.

I decided to go back to playing Guild Wars yes. I don’t own the Most recent expansion at the moment No. But I do enjoy that I can theorycraft to My heart’s content.

Sometimes I play well, sometimes it takes some rethinking. But while Gw2, may have tried to simplify the game to appeal to a more casual playerbase, I believe they went too far.

As I have said, Guild wars may have been 3d chess on an 8×8×8 grid, but Gw2 is tic-tac-toe.

I agree with you. I think they went too far too. But I think it will change over time. Anet is never fast with those types of changes.

Vayne.8563:

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

And the game changed. the thing is, Just because Vayne knows How the game was at a particular point, and refers to that time, but doesn’t seem to recognize that later on there were more mercs added. It Kind of seems as if he is not fully cognizant of the game as it is now. I can say " I know How the game is today…I remember when all you could have was 3 heroes and 4 henchmen"

That doesn’t demonstrate any current or recent knowledge, it does show knowledge of the game , at the time when his information was current.

But it also shows that he seems to have a tendency to spin, and temporize, and back-peddle, and explain..when caught on a point where he shows ignorance, he says " well, I wasn’t REALLY ignorant., I just chose to NOT discuss what you are talking about."

Does Not quite show knowledge, although it DOES seem to show a tendency to cover up what might be ignorance.

Or maybe he Just updates his knowledge from what he reads others post?

So, I assume you still play GW? I still do, best game made, better than GW2 anyway, in so many ways IMO.

I decided to go back to playing Guild Wars yes. I don’t own the Most recent expansion at the moment No. But I do enjoy that I can theorycraft to My heart’s content.

Sometimes I play well, sometimes it takes some rethinking. But while Gw2, may have tried to simplify the game to appeal to a more casual playerbase, I believe they went too far.

As I have said, Guild wars may have been 3d chess on an 8×8×8 grid, but Gw2 is tic-tac-toe.

I agree with you. I think they went too far too. But I think it will change over time. Anet is never fast with those types of changes.

I will be honest with you. It is my hope, that Anet realizes that this game is too simple. It is insulting to casual gamers to say that they had to simplify the trait system, so that the casual gamers would not make themselves sub-par.

In most endeavors there is an understanding that the new player will not be great, but that greatness is possible as time passes, and experience is attained. The bar is not lowered so that this player feels good about himself, the bar is supposed t remain as is, and then you give them the tools to improve, or help them improve. Then when achievements are attained they are real, and concrete.

I remember there used to be a TV show in Puerto Rico when i was growing up… it was a kid’s tv show. And the host would at one point have some kind of race between 2 children from the audience. After the race, he would raise the hand of the winner and annouce…" The Winner!" and then raise the hand of the Kid that came in second, in a field of 2. He would announce " The almost winner."

I am Not saying that if you cannot theorycraft that makes you a loser. I am saying that if you cannot theorycraft you should be allowed to die, until you improve or give up.

What should not be done, is have the game simplified so that you do not feel bad about dieing, because suddenly nothing poses a challenge.

I Am not saying gw2 should be " For the hardcore!" ( Sorry, The Blood elf in me demanded it:P) but Neither should it be a game that is so simplified where one has to STRIVE hard and work to make a crappy build.

Yes, Bicycles have training wheels, but if you never remove them you never learn to ride a bicycle, yoiu Just always know how to ride a tricycle.

Anet has given everyone trycicles, so that those that cannot ride without the training wheels off don’t feel bad.

If I were the casual players that these decisions were made to accomodate, I would feel insulted. Then again..chances are the casual that this game was simplified for, probably thinks Anet did them a favor.

Nerelith.7360:

Vayne.8563:

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

Nerelith.7360:

Im Mudbone.1437:

There was a time all you could have were 3 heroes and then add 4 henchmen, PERIOD.

snip

But it also shows that he seems to have a tendency to spin, and temporize, and back-peddle, and explain..when caught on a point where he shows ignorance, he says " well, I wasn’t REALLY ignorant., I just chose to NOT discuss what you are talking about."

Does Not quite show knowledge, although it DOES seem to show a tendency to cover up what might be ignorance.

Or maybe he Just updates his knowledge from what he reads others post?

So, I assume you still play GW? I still do, best game made, better than GW2 anyway, in so many ways IMO.

I decided to go back to playing Guild Wars yes. I don’t own the Most recent expansion at the moment No. But I do enjoy that I can theorycraft to My heart’s content.

Sometimes I play well, sometimes it takes some rethinking. But while Gw2, may have tried to simplify the game to appeal to a more casual playerbase, I believe they went too far.

As I have said, Guild wars may have been 3d chess on an 8×8×8 grid, but Gw2 is tic-tac-toe.

I agree with you. I think they went too far too. But I think it will change over time. Anet is never fast with those types of changes.

I will be honest with you. It is my hope, that Anet realizes that this game is too simple. It is insulting to casual gamers to say that they had to simplify the trait system, so that the casual gamers would not make themselves sub-par.

In most endeavors there is an understanding that the new player will not be great, but that greatness is possible as time passes, and experience is attained. The bar is not lowered so that this player feels good about himself, the bar is supposed t remain as is, and then you give them the tools to improve, or help them improve. Then when achievements are attained they are real, and concrete.

I remember there used to be a TV show in Puerto Rico when i was growing up… it was a kid’s tv show. And the host would at one point have some kind of race between 2 children from the audience. After the race, he would raise the hand of the winner and annouce…" The Winner!" and then raise the hand of the Kid that came in second, in a field of 2. He would announce " The almost winner."

I am Not saying that if you cannot theorycraft that makes you a loser. I am saying that if you cannot theorycraft you should be allowed to die, until you improve or give up.

What should not be done, is have the game simplified so that you do not feel bad about dieing, because suddenly nothing poses a challenge.

I Am not saying gw2 should be " For the hardcore!" ( Sorry, The Blood elf in me demanded it:P) but Neither should it be a game that is so simplified where one has to STRIVE hard and work to make a crappy build.

Yes, Bicycles have training wheels, but if you never remove them you never learn to ride a bicycle, yoiu Just always know how to ride a tricycle.

Anet has given everyone trycicles, so that those that cannot ride without the training wheels off don’t feel bad.

If I were the casual players that these decisions were made to accomodate, I would feel insulted. Then again..chances are the casual that this game was simplified for, probably thinks Anet did them a favor.

I think you’d have to be very thin-skinned to be insulted by a company making content for what they see as the majority. If you are competent and casual than obviously the decision wasn’t made for you. You’ve have to be insecure about it in order to be offended.

The game does offer some stuff for people who want more of a challenge. Even the newer content has more challenging mobs. AI has been improved. You can’t say the Marionette fight was hand holding. Nor can you say it about the great wurm.

The bulk of the content is for basically everyone and as content gets harder, less and less people do it. There are plenty of people in my guild who don’t run Arah, have never run Arah, but they do other dungeons. There are people who never did the Aetherpath of TA, or high level Fractals.

But stuff in the open world, almost by definition, has to be made for the lowest common denominator. If anyone can really be insulted by that, I’d say the problem is theirs.

Business decisions aren’t personal and aren’t made for one person.

^ I don’t disagree with this, as long as there is enough diversity so that different playstyles CAN be generally valid alongside each other. For example:

You have a Warrior. You have a myriad of weapons (swords, hammers, axes, maces etc.), mechanics (shouts, stances, banners) and builds (DPS, condition, tank) available to you. A good game that encourages diversity means that no matter what TYPE of build you go for, you will still be effective in the game.

A bad game that stifles diversity means that, through myriad factors like enemy composition, skill synergy, and the need (or lack thereof) for different roles, one type of build is inarguably better than the others, leading to the dominance of that one build across one or more game modes. It could be as general as “No need for defense when you can simply kill the enemy so fast that defense is irrelevant”, or as specific as one weapon or mechanic being so underpowered that nobody ever uses it.

It’s fine when you have bad builds that are a result of “If you want to use Traps, trait for it and not pick a weird mishmash of traits with Spirits and Pets instead”. It’s not fine when you have a game environment that just says “Traps are bad. Never use them.” or “Traps are too weak compared to Signets. Never use them.”

The limited skill set encourages dismissal of certain weapons simply because everyone knows the Set. They see my longbow and assume I’m going to knockback every time the skill comes up, regardless of whether I do or not. The assumption is made that If the skill is there, it’s gonna be used, and perhaps they rightly don’t want it around for a lot of content.

I HATE knockback rangers on my War, kicking mobs out of contact constantly. I never use it with my Ranger when melee is locking the mob up. People see longbow and expect the worse, cause the skill is always there.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

The limited skill set encourages dismissal of certain weapons simply because everyone knows the Set. They see my longbow and assume I’m going to knockback every time the skill comes up, regardless of whether I do or not. The assumption is made that If the skill is there, it’s gonna be used, and perhaps they rightly don’t want it around for a lot of content.

I HATE knockback rangers on my War, kicking mobs out of contact constantly. I never use it with my Ranger when melee is locking the mob up. People see longbow and expect the worse, cause the skill is always there.

This is true. Just like in Guild Wars 1 when you saw a W/Mo and you thought, great, here’s another one. They ended up with a bad bad reputation.

It happens in all games. People will always judge you based on what you look like. If you wore CoF armor for a long time, people would judge you. It’s meaningless, because it’s what people do.

sorudo.9054:

weapons do decide builds, it changes your skill bar thus changing your build.
if it changes your role it would change the traits along with it, that’s the difference.
snip..

Build is a subset of role but role is the superset. If you change role you’ll obviously change your build but if you change your build you will not necessarily change your role.

sorudo.9054:

lol, you’re talking as if a necro needs 2-3 skills for energy management,snip..

I wasnt talking exclusively about necros, I was talking in general, I’ve used ele builds that had 3 skills devoted entirely to energy management.

sorudo.9054:

and here you already start to show signs you didn’t read my post correctly, i already said dead shroud is fine this way.

Then I missunderstood you, throught you said you had an issue with it sorry.

sorudo.9054:

some is the key word, there are plenty, plenty of skills with double functions.
just to show a few:snip…

double functions? These have one function with some damage added in. You’re not going to use Chilblains specifically for damaging deal, you’re going to use it to remove enchantments the damage is just a bonus. Defile_Echantments does only damage and Enfeebling_touch same thing the idea is to inflict weakness, damage is just a bonus. Now compare that to Chilblains in Gw2. You ckittene it to inflict poison with some damage bonus as well. You ckittene it as a snare so allies in trouble can escape. You ckittene it as a snare to keep enemies in AOE area. You ckittene it as a snare to prevent enemies from escaping. In Gw1 skills are far more situation and dont have near the same amount of uses in different situations.

sorudo.9054:

for one it depends on traits and two you’re talking BS, you can do the exact same thing in GW with the same build.
advice: learn your profession

No it doesnt depend on traits, you can leave your traits unset you still get the same flexibility. My gw2 necro main build allows me to heal myself, my allies, my minions, to help allies escape, shield allies from damage, directly damage multiple enemies, directly damage a single enemy, slow enemies, remove boons from them, spread my conditions to multiple enemies, spread allied conditions to multiple enemies, transfer my condition onto enemies, have enemies run away from me, teleport to an enemy, have damage done to me reflected also on an enemy, set minions on them, have a 2nd health bar so to speak (death shroud) boost my health (lich form), push enemies away + interrupt them, reduce damage enemies do on me, minions and my allies. Increase the damage my friends do, remove conditions from allies. please share with me a gw1 necro build that will allow me to do all this. Sure you can achieve all of this with multiple builds which is why I do consider Gw1 to be an awesome game as compared to other MMOs it gives you a ton of flexibility but Gw2 gives you that flexibility all of the time and not while building your build so to speak which is why I like that approach better.

sorudo.9054:

aaaaaand another sign you didn’t read my post, hard to take someone serious if (s)he doesn’t even think to read a post first.weapon swap.snip..

I did read your post but you really didnt explain this well, even now I am not following what you’re trying to say. How is using a kit any different then switching a weapon? And you still didnt explain why its a problem specifically. Like I said every bonus needs to be countered with a disadvantage and making that disadvantage conditional would simply negate that disadvantage.

sorudo.9054:

and before you’re gonna compare the engi with the ele, the ele actually has allot more freedom because it doesn’t need to depend on skills to get a weapon swap.snip..

That we cant use and swap all weapons at once hinders freedom too. That we cannot access all utility skills at the same time is also a disadvantage but they’re disadvantages that make sense. Why is it okey for ele to have no ability to swap but not okey for engineer? doesnt the same argument apply to both? The real only difference between Ele and Engineer is essentially if you choose kits the utility skill you’ll have access to are chosen for you. As a plus though even if you choose a regular utility you’ll get access to an extra skill.

In anycase should every class work exactly the same and offer the same exact benefits and costs? I Feel it makes the game a lot more interesting when each class has its own way to do things. Its impossible for every class to make everyone happy even if they’re exact copies of each other mechanic wise. Just like you might skip a class cause it doesnt fit your play style whats wrong with skipping a class because you dont like its mechanics?

Just like someone else’s said here already, two different teams under the name “ArenaNet” created GW1 and GW2.

The times when the MMO games were complex, diversified and demanding are over, I’m afraid. The sooner you realise that, the better for you. To mention a few, Lineage 2, Guild Wars 1 and WoW ( at the beginning ).

Nowadays, it’s all about simplicity and addressing the widest group of customers possible ( hence GW2’s lack of diversity, few skills, worthless elite skills and other things you complain about ). Especially when we talk about non-sub fee games as still, some of the sub-based games, do have a tiny bit of “eloquence”, e.g. WildStar which is more demanding than GW2, but the graphics make it unbearable for me.

Cheers

Forcing players to cut skills from their build and make choices neither strips diversity nor creates simplicity. Developers streamlining abilities into fewer core choices for each profession eliminates redundancy.

There’s still a ton of complexity and diversity that players fail to recognize.