Guild Wars 2

Dinks.2478:

Cyninja.2954:

Arkblue.6129:

Cyninja.2954:

Arkblue.6129:

Dinks.2478:

Arkblue.6129:

Dinks.2478:

Anybody that has ever looked at one of the meta builds should know right away that it isn’t about raw damage, it is about bringing the most to the party while still doing a lot of damage.

There is nothing wrong in caring only about damage, but still, you are only caring about damage. It’s ok, it’s the gw2 trademark, but it’s also a quite disappointing experience.

I’ve already pointed out that it isn’t about raw damage. To deny reality and live in your own world where you’re right is childish and wrong.

A grand example is Phalanx Strength warriors. Prior to June 23rd they did way less damage than pure DPS warriors. But they were still preferred because they were better for the party as a whole. Instead of more selfish direct damage utilities they’d bring banners, they’d bring might, they’d bring vulnerability.

It isn’t about raw damage it is about the party.

It’s about party damage. You aren’t talking about weakness, blinds, stuns, or controls.
They are not needed.
You aren’t talking about regeneration, aegis, or stability.
They are not needed (except for skips, maybe).

You are talking about:
Party Damage.
PS= party damage.
DPS =personal damage.

currently it’s the least common multiplier of the game.

And I’m ok with them not being needed, I’m less ok with them not having a place in PvE because things dies before they are useful. i.e. before stamina is drained, healing skills are on cd, and personal blocks have been used.

Do you even understand what you suggest?

Increasing the length and/or lethality of combat in GW2 to the point that all the support skills are required (and no, relfects are not taken along only for damage, least not in high level fractals. stop arguing from noob dungeons that are 3 year old content) and your personal skills are required to survive an encounter, would up the demand for very select classes by a LOT.

Certain classes would not get taken a long at all any more.

Your right, none of the defensive skills are needed. Now please go run a fractal 50 without a guardian providing aegis, without an elementalist/thief providing aoe blind, without reflects from mesmer or guardians.

Compare that to a group bringing all those things. Then come and tell me none of those are very useful. True, they aren’t required in dungeons or most open world content, because that content is way outdated. They aren’t required as in the run that takes 45 minutes with them, turns into 1.5-2 hours without them.

high level fractals only prolong the inevitable because most people are new to them, but since the core mechanics are the same as in dungeons, even there people will reach the point where they can just use some utility skills and dive in full zerker, simply because it’s the enemy AI that doesn’t require that kind of approach.

Increasing lethality is not the way go. Increasing complexity is the way to go.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Fractals_of_the_Mists

- added in November 16th, 2012
- Fractured update in November 26th 2013

Fractals have been almost as long in the game as dungeons. They are certainly not new content.

Yes, fractals even at 50 are run in full zerker gear (at least I do on my guardian/mesmer). Especially due to that all the defensive skills are even more important. A solid soft trinity and classes that provide proper utility and group skills are a huge boon to every ones nerves and sanity.

I agree on the complexity part. It’s almost like how most enemys and bosses in fractals get new skills every 10 levels (that’s new skills, not only agony)?

I really hope anet makes some of the new content on par with fractal 50 difficulty (or even harder since this is on farm for people) but my guess is the resonance in the majority of players would be to ignore those aspects of pve or start complaining over the high difficulty.

No, they need to stop trying to cater to both types of players with the same content. You can’t have content that appeals to players that like high difficulty content and players that like casual content at the same time. They need to introduce hard mode. So that less organized or just less hardcore players can enjoy the casual modes and then hardcore or just more organized groups can do the hard modes and get better rewards for their effort.

That I can agree with. My last point was more aimed at people thinking they will suddenly thrive in hard content simply because anet changes around stats a bit.

Dinks.2478:

No, they need to stop trying to cater to both types of players with the same content. You can’t have content that appeals to players that like high difficulty content and players that like casual content at the same time. They need to introduce hard mode. So that less organized or just less hardcore players can enjoy the casual modes and then hardcore or just more organized groups can do the hard modes and get better rewards for their effort.

And no one is barred from experiencing a certain kind of content just because of difficulty. It works quite well in other games, the only problem is that the experience often become dull because of gear threadmill, while in GW2 once you mastered a content with a profession, you are (more or less) aware enough of how to tackle something with other professions. God bless the exotics.

Thaddeus.4891:

Harper.4173:

Nil – the question you should be asking yourself is this :

Were the full meta groups much easier and faster because they were full meta or because people knew what they were doing and you were running with good players?

Well the rally system is abused in zerker group. It should be harder in zerker group and it is. As long as it’s against 1 single boss. The moment there is thrash mobs, rally make zerker group so much easier.

So is rally a gear problem or a game design choice?
Rally was put in this game so that the average player can have a better chance at not failing.
A side-effect is that it makes it very easy to stay alive regardless of gear if you have a coordinated team.

Harper.4173:

Thaddeus.4891:

Harper.4173:

Nil – the question you should be asking yourself is this :

Were the full meta groups much easier and faster because they were full meta or because people knew what they were doing and you were running with good players?

Well the rally system is abused in zerker group. It should be harder in zerker group and it is. As long as it’s against 1 single boss. The moment there is thrash mobs, rally make zerker group so much easier.

So is rally a gear problem or a game design choice?
Rally was put in this game so that the average player can have a better chance at not failing.
A side-effect is that it makes it very easy to stay alive regardless of gear if you have a coordinated team.

Have you watched the WP Video about skulls and Dungoen & PvE difficulty in general?

Arkblue.6129:

From Software developed Dark Souls 1 and 2.
Dark Souls had better weapon collision and hitboxes than Dark Souls 2.
Either the company decided to make a worse product out of spite, or they simply decide to not waste their resources on the fixing of that issues.
Which is what I think Anet did with GW2 and AoE. They weren’t ignorant of that, they said “you know what? It’s not worth our efforts”.
Rounding up mobs for clearing them with AoE is one thing, always stacking because of a 600 range on EVERY party buffs is another thing.
Currently, the game rewards stacking, but also punishes everything else. If you think they purposefully did that, then I don’t know what to say.

I’m saying that regardless of what you might think the developers were aware of what was going to happen and considered that state of the game desirable since they did not bother to change it.
So I don’t see a lot of validity in arguments that go " The devs wanted this or that" or “the devs never intended this or that”.

The devs knew exactly what was happening every step of the way. The fact that we’re here today proves all those “the devs didn’t want or didn’t know” arguments wrong.

They might say “oh we never wanted or intended for this or that” in fancy PR talks but anyone with a bit of reason can see what I’m trying to say here.

Harper.4173:

Arkblue.6129:

From Software developed Dark Souls 1 and 2.
Dark Souls had better weapon collision and hitboxes than Dark Souls 2.
Either the company decided to make a worse product out of spite, or they simply decide to not waste their resources on the fixing of that issues.
Which is what I think Anet did with GW2 and AoE. They weren’t ignorant of that, they said “you know what? It’s not worth our efforts”.
Rounding up mobs for clearing them with AoE is one thing, always stacking because of a 600 range on EVERY party buffs is another thing.
Currently, the game rewards stacking, but also punishes everything else. If you think they purposefully did that, then I don’t know what to say.

I’m saying that regardless of what you might think the developers were aware of what was going to happen and considered that state of the game desirable since they did not bother to change it.
So I don’t see a lot of validity in arguments that go " The devs wanted this or that" or “the devs never intended this or that”.

The devs knew exactly what was happening every step of the way. The fact that we’re here today proves all those “the devs didn’t want or didn’t know” arguments wrong.

They might say “oh we never wanted or intended for this or that” in fancy PR talks but anyone with a bit of reason can see what I’m trying to say here.

So you’re saying that, IDK, assassin’s creed bugs were intended by Ubisoft instead of the result of poor attention on their part?

Arkblue.6129:

Dinks.2478:

Arkblue.6129:

Harper.4173:

It’s the players – not necessarily the encounter that push this.

No, it’s the encounter.
The game was never built around a required healer/tank, but the devs intended to built it around a required soft trinity were at least a player was supposed to stand there dodging/mitigating/blocking/kiting the damage. Stacking was never meant to be META. In that scenario regenerations and heals would have proven more useful because it would have been harder to avoid all damage, but still they wouldn’t be needed.
TL;DR= the encounters are designed around not needing dedicated tanks, healers, or anything but dps weapons.

I feel like you’ve never done a dungeon or something. There is a soft trinity. Every single META build accounts for various forms of control and support. Reflects, blinds, vulnerability, weakness, blocks, dodges, buffs, etc. Every single build accounts for this.

Stacking is a thing that is used in literally every single game since the beginning of time. Without stacking we’d all look like we were chickens with our heads cut off running in circles.

Well, reflects are usually brought because they increase dps. Aegis and dodges are used, but I rarely see Warriors bringing hammers or maces to apply weakness. Usually the utility spells offer enough utility to clear content easily. And at that point, why bringing a utility weapon when you can go full DPS, clear faster and avoid even more damage?

Stacking has been around since the beginning of time because that’s how gw works in general, both for weapon cleaves and party buffs, and I can’t say that’s a good thing.
http://gruulchant.ytmnd.com/

Reflects are usually brought because they keep you alive.
Weakness is applied not via weapons but via consumables(http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Skale_Venom_) If defiant weren’t a thing CC would be much more relevant in this game.

Utility skills are designed to bring utility – are you arguing they are bringing TOO MUCH utility?

Also “utility weapon” ? wow.

You might not think stacking is a good thing but the fact is that we’ve had it in this franchise forever at least proves it’s not unintended.

Thaddeus.4891:

Ya but Phalanx is still about raw damage. It’s party wide damage over personnal damage.

GW2 have a huge place for support, but it’s underused. You can have enough support from a full dps build to do any content if you are a half decent player. You never really need protection, weakness. You only see sigil of energy in solo run. You never hear someone asking for vigor. Mesmer and Guardian sacrifice some trait to gain more reflect, but that’s pretty much it. If the content would be more challeging, we would have a more wide variety of build between DPS and Support. If they made CC important, then you have the true soft trinity that Anet talked about from the beginning. DPS, Support and CC.

That’s exactly what support is.
In a sense even healing is damage. It keeps the DPS people alive so technically you are trading mana or skill cooldowns for more damage. It’s just that it’s other people that are doing the damage.
Same as with the PS warrior.

Lhos.1643:

I don’t particularly care if any kind of a trinity ever appears in GW2, but if dungeon fights could require more organization than “stand in a heap and press 1”, that’d be greeeeeeat.

Fully agreed. Stack and spin really isn’t any more enjoyable, and for some classes that lack group utility, they’re even more boring to play than in a typical MMO.

Why can’t a DPS class summon a phatasm or set off a distracting charge that pull the boss or mobs off to the side momentarily? Why can’t one class have a time slow mechanic and another massive damage that needs to charge for use? Why can’t there be more variety in what we get? Every fight is relentless damage from mobs and bosses, waiting on mitigation procs, and spamming attacks. So many of the fights don’t even require enjoyable mechanics.

The lack of trinity here really isn’t all that it can be.

Harper.4173:

Arkblue.6129:

Dinks.2478:

Arkblue.6129:

Harper.4173:

It’s the players – not necessarily the encounter that push this.

No, it’s the encounter.
The game was never built around a required healer/tank, but the devs intended to built it around a required soft trinity were at least a player was supposed to stand there dodging/mitigating/blocking/kiting the damage. Stacking was never meant to be META. In that scenario regenerations and heals would have proven more useful because it would have been harder to avoid all damage, but still they wouldn’t be needed.
TL;DR= the encounters are designed around not needing dedicated tanks, healers, or anything but dps weapons.

I feel like you’ve never done a dungeon or something. There is a soft trinity. Every single META build accounts for various forms of control and support. Reflects, blinds, vulnerability, weakness, blocks, dodges, buffs, etc. Every single build accounts for this.

Stacking is a thing that is used in literally every single game since the beginning of time. Without stacking we’d all look like we were chickens with our heads cut off running in circles.

Well, reflects are usually brought because they increase dps. Aegis and dodges are used, but I rarely see Warriors bringing hammers or maces to apply weakness. Usually the utility spells offer enough utility to clear content easily. And at that point, why bringing a utility weapon when you can go full DPS, clear faster and avoid even more damage?

Stacking has been around since the beginning of time because that’s how gw works in general, both for weapon cleaves and party buffs, and I can’t say that’s a good thing.
http://gruulchant.ytmnd.com/

Reflects are usually brought because they keep you alive.
Weakness is applied not via weapons but via consumables(http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Skale_Venom_) If defiant weren’t a thing CC would be much more relevant in this game.

Utility skills are designed to bring utility – are you arguing they are bringing TOO MUCH utility?

Also “utility weapon” ? wow.

You might not think stacking is a good thing but the fact is that we’ve had it in this franchise forever at least proves it’s not unintended.

yes. Utility weapons. If 2 weapons differ in terms of damage output and cc output, what’s wrong in calling it an utility weapon?
Also, you do know the venom might bounce back on your allies with things like Mirror Blade or Winds of Chaos?
And what’s wrong about more CC in the game?
Of course there is a threshold were CC is too important, but we are at the opposite side of the spectrum here.

Arkblue.6129:

Harper.4173:

Thaddeus.4891:

Harper.4173:

Nil – the question you should be asking yourself is this :

Were the full meta groups much easier and faster because they were full meta or because people knew what they were doing and you were running with good players?

Well the rally system is abused in zerker group. It should be harder in zerker group and it is. As long as it’s against 1 single boss. The moment there is thrash mobs, rally make zerker group so much easier.

So is rally a gear problem or a game design choice?
Rally was put in this game so that the average player can have a better chance at not failing.
A side-effect is that it makes it very easy to stay alive regardless of gear if you have a coordinated team.

Have you watched the WP Video about skulls and Dungoen & PvE difficulty in general?

Yes and I disagree with his idea of skulls for multiple reasons that I posted in a thread about the video.
Also his idea of difficulty cannot be implemented for some of the reasons I posted there.

Arkblue.6129:

Harper.4173:

Arkblue.6129:

From Software developed Dark Souls 1 and 2.
Dark Souls had better weapon collision and hitboxes than Dark Souls 2.
Either the company decided to make a worse product out of spite, or they simply decide to not waste their resources on the fixing of that issues.
Which is what I think Anet did with GW2 and AoE. They weren’t ignorant of that, they said “you know what? It’s not worth our efforts”.
Rounding up mobs for clearing them with AoE is one thing, always stacking because of a 600 range on EVERY party buffs is another thing.
Currently, the game rewards stacking, but also punishes everything else. If you think they purposefully did that, then I don’t know what to say.

I’m saying that regardless of what you might think the developers were aware of what was going to happen and considered that state of the game desirable since they did not bother to change it.
So I don’t see a lot of validity in arguments that go " The devs wanted this or that" or “the devs never intended this or that”.

The devs knew exactly what was happening every step of the way. The fact that we’re here today proves all those “the devs didn’t want or didn’t know” arguments wrong.

They might say “oh we never wanted or intended for this or that” in fancy PR talks but anyone with a bit of reason can see what I’m trying to say here.

So you’re saying that, IDK, assassin’s creed bugs were intended by Ubisoft instead of the result of poor attention on their part?

There is a difference. A bug is a bug.

An AI behavior that players have been using for advantage for years in your old game that you do not bother to correct in your new game – you can’t call that an oversight.

A bug can be overlooked – you can know it’s not there.

Speed clears, stacking, skipping – all these things have been with the franchise since GW1. The fact that we have them in GW2 is not evidence of oversight – they knew these things existed.

Harper.4173:

Thaddeus.4891:

Ya but Phalanx is still about raw damage. It’s party wide damage over personnal damage.

GW2 have a huge place for support, but it’s underused. You can have enough support from a full dps build to do any content if you are a half decent player. You never really need protection, weakness. You only see sigil of energy in solo run. You never hear someone asking for vigor. Mesmer and Guardian sacrifice some trait to gain more reflect, but that’s pretty much it. If the content would be more challeging, we would have a more wide variety of build between DPS and Support. If they made CC important, then you have the true soft trinity that Anet talked about from the beginning. DPS, Support and CC.

That’s exactly what support is.
In a sense even healing is damage. It keeps the DPS people alive so technically you are trading mana or skill cooldowns for more damage. It’s just that it’s other people that are doing the damage.
Same as with the PS warrior.

When was the last time you played a MMORPG that wasn’t GW2 and didn’t suck?

Arkblue.6129:

Harper.4173:

Arkblue.6129:

Dinks.2478:

Arkblue.6129:

Harper.4173:

It’s the players – not necessarily the encounter that push this.

No, it’s the encounter.
The game was never built around a required healer/tank, but the devs intended to built it around a required soft trinity were at least a player was supposed to stand there dodging/mitigating/blocking/kiting the damage. Stacking was never meant to be META. In that scenario regenerations and heals would have proven more useful because it would have been harder to avoid all damage, but still they wouldn’t be needed.
TL;DR= the encounters are designed around not needing dedicated tanks, healers, or anything but dps weapons.

I feel like you’ve never done a dungeon or something. There is a soft trinity. Every single META build accounts for various forms of control and support. Reflects, blinds, vulnerability, weakness, blocks, dodges, buffs, etc. Every single build accounts for this.

Stacking is a thing that is used in literally every single game since the beginning of time. Without stacking we’d all look like we were chickens with our heads cut off running in circles.

Well, reflects are usually brought because they increase dps. Aegis and dodges are used, but I rarely see Warriors bringing hammers or maces to apply weakness. Usually the utility spells offer enough utility to clear content easily. And at that point, why bringing a utility weapon when you can go full DPS, clear faster and avoid even more damage?

Stacking has been around since the beginning of time because that’s how gw works in general, both for weapon cleaves and party buffs, and I can’t say that’s a good thing.
http://gruulchant.ytmnd.com/

Reflects are usually brought because they keep you alive.
Weakness is applied not via weapons but via consumables(http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Skale_Venom_) If defiant weren’t a thing CC would be much more relevant in this game.

Utility skills are designed to bring utility – are you arguing they are bringing TOO MUCH utility?

Also “utility weapon” ? wow.

You might not think stacking is a good thing but the fact is that we’ve had it in this franchise forever at least proves it’s not unintended.

yes. Utility weapons. If 2 weapons differ in terms of damage output and cc output, what’s wrong in calling it an utility weapon?
Also, you do know the venom might bounce back on your allies with things like Mirror Blade or Winds of Chaos?
And what’s wrong about more CC in the game?
Of course there is a threshold were CC is too important, but we are at the opposite side of the spectrum here.

I have nothing against CC. Anet does and that’s why they gave us Defiant that made most CC useless. They’re going to fix that now.

What I have something against is people claiming “zerker” to be the problem when in fact the problem is completely different, multifaceted and player generated.

Harper.4173:

Arkblue.6129:

Harper.4173:

Arkblue.6129:

From Software developed Dark Souls 1 and 2.
Dark Souls had better weapon collision and hitboxes than Dark Souls 2.
Either the company decided to make a worse product out of spite, or they simply decide to not waste their resources on the fixing of that issues.
Which is what I think Anet did with GW2 and AoE. They weren’t ignorant of that, they said “you know what? It’s not worth our efforts”.
Rounding up mobs for clearing them with AoE is one thing, always stacking because of a 600 range on EVERY party buffs is another thing.
Currently, the game rewards stacking, but also punishes everything else. If you think they purposefully did that, then I don’t know what to say.

I’m saying that regardless of what you might think the developers were aware of what was going to happen and considered that state of the game desirable since they did not bother to change it.
So I don’t see a lot of validity in arguments that go " The devs wanted this or that" or “the devs never intended this or that”.

The devs knew exactly what was happening every step of the way. The fact that we’re here today proves all those “the devs didn’t want or didn’t know” arguments wrong.

They might say “oh we never wanted or intended for this or that” in fancy PR talks but anyone with a bit of reason can see what I’m trying to say here.

So you’re saying that, IDK, assassin’s creed bugs were intended by Ubisoft instead of the result of poor attention on their part?

There is a difference. A bug is a bug.

An AI behavior that players have been using for advantage for years in your old game that you do not bother to correct in your new game – you can’t call that an oversight.

A bug can be overlooked – you can know it’s not there.

Speed clears, stacking, skipping – all these things have been with the franchise since GW1. The fact that we have them in GW2 is not evidence of oversight – they knew these things existed.

Most devs know of cheap mechanics, they don’t always fix it.
Let put this under another perspective.
Remember PVE Thug life guy? he might have exagerated, but if you were to make a promo video for gw2, would you put there gameplay footage with dungeons and stackings? Because I wouldn’t.

Arkblue.6129:

Harper.4173:

Arkblue.6129:

Harper.4173:

Arkblue.6129:

From Software developed Dark Souls 1 and 2.
Dark Souls had better weapon collision and hitboxes than Dark Souls 2.
Either the company decided to make a worse product out of spite, or they simply decide to not waste their resources on the fixing of that issues.
Which is what I think Anet did with GW2 and AoE. They weren’t ignorant of that, they said “you know what? It’s not worth our efforts”.
Rounding up mobs for clearing them with AoE is one thing, always stacking because of a 600 range on EVERY party buffs is another thing.
Currently, the game rewards stacking, but also punishes everything else. If you think they purposefully did that, then I don’t know what to say.

I’m saying that regardless of what you might think the developers were aware of what was going to happen and considered that state of the game desirable since they did not bother to change it.
So I don’t see a lot of validity in arguments that go " The devs wanted this or that" or “the devs never intended this or that”.

The devs knew exactly what was happening every step of the way. The fact that we’re here today proves all those “the devs didn’t want or didn’t know” arguments wrong.

They might say “oh we never wanted or intended for this or that” in fancy PR talks but anyone with a bit of reason can see what I’m trying to say here.

So you’re saying that, IDK, assassin’s creed bugs were intended by Ubisoft instead of the result of poor attention on their part?

There is a difference. A bug is a bug.

An AI behavior that players have been using for advantage for years in your old game that you do not bother to correct in your new game – you can’t call that an oversight.

A bug can be overlooked – you can know it’s not there.

Speed clears, stacking, skipping – all these things have been with the franchise since GW1. The fact that we have them in GW2 is not evidence of oversight – they knew these things existed.

Most devs know of cheap mechanics, they don’t always fix it.
Let put this under another perspective.
Remember PVE Thug life guy? he might have exagerated, but if you were to make a promo video for gw2, would you put there gameplay footage with dungeons and stackings? Because I wouldn’t.

Yes I would, because its a perfectly valid method of pulling things together.

I want to make correction of some people saying that trinity roles can not do anything without complete trinity party.

In trinity each role (tank, healer. damage) share similar ‘attribute’ of each roles. Example:

A tank can heal and do damage but not better than the healer and damage role)
A healer can tank and do damage but not better than the tank and damage role)
A damage can tank and heal but not better than the healer and tank tole)

It is not like ‘you have to wait for the complete trinity’, you can roam and solo but require more effort, more hard work, more risk and more challenge)

Buffs:

Buffs (food etc…) help each role to accomplish it. Example: if i am a tank or want to team up with a damager but do not have a healer: we can use buffs including our limited shared mechanic to help us to complete our goal. Also do not forget, our skills and mechanic can work together: skill chain, etc…

In the end again, because we do not have a healer, it require us to spend alot on buffs and to take higher risk with better strategy.
———————————————————————————

I want to share a plan to bring Trinity to Guild Wars 2: it will require alot of sacrifice (nerfs) Oppinion

-Solution-

Step 1. Chose the professions that fit Trinity role
Step 2. Scale all the professions ‘attributes’ in line with their Trinity roles
Step 3. Disable runes and sigils ‘attributes’ that are not in line with their Trinity roles

Examples:

1. Warrior- Tank> Responsible for taking high damage by doing less damage.
2. Power, Precision, Ferocity, Condition, Critical Chance, Critical Damage and Condition Duration will all be adjusted and be in line with tank role. ( No more high damages, No More high healing ) Toughness and Vitality will be adjusted and be in line with tank role. ( Higher Defense )
3. Mobility will be adjusted and be in line with their role ( No more high mobility )
4. Restrict Runes and Sigils to only buff warrior toughness and vitality.
5. Food buffs etc,,, will not be restricted.
6. Weapons will be in line with their role ( No more high damage, Restrict any buffs that is not in line with their role ( *No more speed buffs )

Again, this is the only way i think Arena net can do to bring Trinity: by scaling each profession to their roles including making some adjustments to their weapons, armors etc,,

Yes! it is a very big sacrifice.

What do you think?

(sorry for my english, I’m trying alot with help )

On the OPs original point, nobody should tell you to GTFO if you mention those roles, but it DOES need to be pointed out that attempting to play the game using them is completely unnecessary and frankly kind of ignorant of the games mechanics.

Now if your comments lean toward wanting the game CHANGED to support or require those roles, then I have no problem with the GTFO responses…if you want those roles, there are other games that use them. Can you seriously blame long time players that DO NOT want to see this game altered into a poor imitation of some other game?

Harper.4173:

So is rally a gear problem or a game design choice?
Rally was put in this game so that the average player can have a better chance at not failing.
A side-effect is that it makes it very easy to stay alive regardless of gear if you have a coordinated team.

It’s game design choice to make the cause more casual and it cause some problem in my opinion. I don’t think that removing it would be a great idea because it’s a nice mechanic in a lot of situation. But for me harder content shouldn’t have the rally system.

Harper.4173:

That’s exactly what support is.
In a sense even healing is damage. It keeps the DPS people alive so technically you are trading mana or skill cooldowns for more damage. It’s just that it’s other people that are doing the damage.
Same as with the PS warrior.

What?? You can see the difference between offensive and defensive support right. They are not the same thing. The point was DPS (including offensive support) have a huge place, while the game is so easy that it need a very limited amount of defensive support.