Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

Anyway it’s the current system is obviously not bothering you but I do hope you understand where they are coming from. And not thats not just because they are all just bad players. However, if thats what you like to believe thats of course also fine.

Oh, there are mistakes with the system, I will agree to that, but it’s just that people make a problem out of the wrong thing.

Also, the solution this thread proposes is hardly a solution. The problem isn’t lack of roles, or the game being a DPS race, it’s lack of AI

And pigeonholing people into set roles isn’t going to solve anything, it’s only going to make things worse.

As always, clueless people are complaining about the wrong things to Anet.

Increasing AI is indeed one of the ways to improve it. I think I even mentioned that before in this thread. That would also force people to use more teamwork. I however do think it has to come from two sides. Only increasing AI is not going to make a big enough difference I think because the difference between classes (there specialities) are not big enough.

BTW, isn’t increasing AI then also a way of “pigeonholing people into set roles”. It’s just how you choose your words I guess.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

Well, for all intents and purposes, instead of a trinity with three options we have one option: zerker.

so wait… the 3 other sets for my necromancer, the 3 other sets for my warrior, 2 extra for thief, the extra sets for my Ele, Ranger, Engie, Gaurd, Mes…..

all were for nothing???

i have been doing it wrong it seems…. pity, i was having fun.

Funny reaction knowing it was you who was basically saying everybody was doing it wrong (or did not get it). And now you act as if people say you are doing it wrong suggesting it’s a nosecone argument.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Michael Walker.8150

Michael Walker.8150

I don’t think people care as much about the trinity as one might think. Players want fun gameplay and variety. It just happens that the “holy trinity” adds another layer of complexity and offers players something else than just hitting monsters, as you can also “reverse hit” players.

Yes, most games can be broken down into fighting which can be broken down into making the HP bar go in one or the other direction which can be broken down into clicking and pressing buttons which can be broken down into using your eyes/brain and hands to coordinate an action which makes your character do so. The higher up on this ladder the player perceives him/herself, the better the game probably is.

Anet recognized that many trinity games_at that time_had a boring LFhealer aspect and rooted, tab targetting combat.
Sure, not moving and relying on one class only that only does one thing (dedicated healer) sounds like a bad idea. It’s just bad design however, not inherently an argument against the concept of trinity.

All the active defenses are nice and such but other games can have that AND have the complexity of an underlying trinity system, I think that’s the main point.
Anet needs to work twice as hard as other developers to make it right, because they don’t have the vast experience of every other rpg and thus also have the chance to create something vastly different/superior.

In the end_it really doesn’t matter_if there is a trinity as long as the gameplay is more fun than other games.

Anet want to make a game without the trinity mechanics, great, it’s something different and new, but it’s still 1.0 though and it doesn’t work as intended.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

Not that I would also mind different mechanics where you do not need to kill a boss but transport somebody or something from one place to another.

for the record, the NPCs you have to drag around in GW2 (agent spire, hodgins, detha, varra) are like, universally despised. you’re on your own on wanting this buddy.

What matters is that the way it now works in GW2 is what many people consider dull and the way with more roles (what you also consider a focus on DPS) is what they see as less dull.

actually it’s just a vocal minority who just want to endlessly complain, and then if a “problem” is “fixed” they’ll just move on to complaining about the next “problem”.

I was more talking about other mechanics where you for example have to take an item from one place to another to open a door and so on.

Who know, maybe you belong to the vocal minority and there is a majority who finds the combat dull.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

Or how about we don’t go trinity-lite and let people play exactly how they want? Why are people so insistent on imposing restrictions on classes? Do you not enjoy freedom? Do you not enjoy the fact that you can go balls deep min-max or play a completely atrocious, random build and yet still clear content?

It’s not imposing restrictions, it’s giving additional abilities to excel in.

Also I did not see anybody here ask for the holy trinity.

Of course it’s imposing restrictions. “guardians can tank but warriors suck at conditions” is restrictions. We don’t need that.

Well if that is a restriction then you should give every class exactly the same or really you would not have different classes any-more only different races.. of course without skills based on the race. That might be what you like but most people like some more tactics and teamwork to be involved.

yes, if an encounter will require players fulfilling important specific roles, then every class need to be able to do so. Their approach to the problem might be different, but in the end no class should ever be excluded.

That is a whole other discussion. If every class should be able to have any role. I think it should not be to also have some more flavor in classes. But again, that’s a complete different discussion.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

Lastly I also know multiple people who already left the game because of this problem (no roles, dull combat, all DPS), not all complaining on the forum. GW2 might be able to get some of them back. Not all however, for that it’s to late. You should be happy with the people that put up that information on the forum.

THIS PROBLEM DON’T EXIST DUDE. Stop already. Its a different gameplay, if it don’t fit your need, find another game and leave GW2 alone. For good sake. If i don’t like the core gameplay of a game I don’t whine on forum how if we change everything in the game then it would be such an awesome game. NO i just find another game and move on with my live. I’ll complain and try to find solution to some specific change : Oh they should fix the issue of condition dmg in PvE Settings group, or oh i would like that they give more active support gear option like condition duration or boons duration, or Oh i would like they make AI more active for better fight, etc.

Constructive criticize to improve a game that you like VS whining about a game that you don’t like.

You already said that. Everybody who has a problem with the game should just leave. You fail to see how that is a problem by itself if that are many people.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

this guy actually thinks heavy armour makes a difference of any relevance

You think it doesn’t. Then why did Anet design different armor weights. Or are you saying Anet failed in making different armor weights that in fact make a difference?

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Smith.1826

Smith.1826

At this point, “roles” are something I can do without. Not to mention, the game was designed without having any in mind: Suddenly making the gameplay require certain roles in GW2 would be as big a shift as WoW going trinity-less.

What I really want is the insane amount of options my GW1 warrior had compared to my GW2 one.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Thaddeus.4891

Thaddeus.4891

Complaining about a lack of roles is not the same as saying it has to be the same as another game. GW2 did try a lot of new things. Some things worked out some not so well. I don’t think them dropping the Holy Trinity was bad. However I do think them not really replacing it with something else (they did try that but it didn’t really worked out that way) is bad. Some people might be asking for the HT because that’s what they know but when talking about a lack of roles this argument is not really valid.

I understand your point of view about roles. But I still don’t think that replacing Holy Trinity by something else would be good. The point of getting rid of the Holy Trinity was to remove those static role. You want role like in the Holy Trinity (but different). But that’s exactly those role that provoke those problem with the Trinity. If you concentrate role in specific build, then you get the same problem.

Let say, Anet did their own trinity of Damage, cc and support and you can’t do all of these thing in the same time. Each profession can go into only 1 of those branch. Then, let say Anet made CC important. Then you gonna have LF Support Guardian or LF CC engineer and that would lead to the same problem with LF Healer or LF tank in a Trinity game.

Now, the current system do the great job of making everybody do a bit of everything. Whatever the setup you have you can complete the content and you don’t have to wait for anything. You can use a guardian to reflect, if you don’t have a guardian, then you can use a mesmer or don’t use reflect at all and take another solution. All profession can bring something different but lacking something in particular won’t equal in the impossibility of doing a portion of content.

Even if I think they got the essence of that right, they still have several things wrong. I say it several times. Some are just bad design :
- Condition is bad in group PvE content because of a technical problem that they still didn’t fix or try out a way around.
- CC is super limited in PvE because is would be too much powerful. And when they should have fixed that, they simply slap defiant in there for an easy fix before launch.
- Gear is only for survivability or DPS. Nothing to help support, CC or any other profession mechanics.

That’s not where you get roles or profession variation. That’s where you get more diversity. But they don’t change the mentality or core concept of the game. DPS is, should, and will always be the main focus of any build. No role should be limited to a profession or a build so you won’t be limited by the player you have or don’t have in your group.

Thaddeauz [xQCx]- QC GUILD

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419

IndigoSundown.5419

this guy actually thinks heavy armour makes a difference of any relevance

It certainly doesn’t if one plays with a reasonable amount of skill. However, if one is a marginal player, who has trouble surviving in easy paths in a glass-only group, then one might “need” that wee bit of extra defense. To put it in perspective, the 306 points of defense Heavy Ascended has over Light Ascended would be the rough equivalent of trading most of your Berserker armor pieces for Knight’s. The “only” costs would be the loss of roughly 20% of base damage on crit by dropping Ferocity and the loss in Power from the major to minor stat.

This could explain the presence of “Heavy Only” groups in the LFG.

Where Devata’s point falters is that if the extra defense is “necessary” for certain players, then they’re accepting limited support and utility (all heavies) for slightly better survivability, rather than trading base Ferocity and lower Power but keeping the optimal support and utility options.

That’s certainly not easily and quickly completing paths, unless one’s standards are set low.

(edited by IndigoSundown.5419)

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Rauderi.8706

Rauderi.8706

I think the biggest thing is attitude the meta has created. The PvE scene has gone from a situation where player skill = skill to where player build = skill. If you aren’t meta, you’re considered unskilled and second rate. Just because of your build.

And it’s that attitude a LOT of people are sick of. :\
Acting like practiced dungeon runs are skill because of selected stack-and-spank tactics is incorrect.

Unfortunately, without more variable dungeons and a divergence from a dps-heavy encounter set, we’re not likely to see that go away.

And it won’t entirely, to be honest. High damage is optimal. Shorter kill times mean shorter times to potentially get KO’d in a fight. It also means faster rewards. So, even if they change the dungeons around, there will be teams that dps-only. Because that’s how GW2 works.

Many alts; handle it!
“I’m finding companies should sell access to forums,
it seems many like them better than the games they comment on.” -Horrorscope.7632

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Harper.4173

Harper.4173

So it does not even matter if I consider it not a DPS focus and you do. What matters is that the way it now works in GW2 is what many people consider dull and the way with more roles (what you also consider a focus on DPS) is what they see as less dull.

And where exactly did you get this many number?

All I’ve seen is half a dozen players at most complaining that the combat is “dull”. That’s their opinion but the fact of the matter is they are a minority.

Compared to the people who actually play and enjoy the game – forum posters are a minority. So a very small group of those forum posters are very few compared to the people who like GW2 for what it is.

You mentioned the LS and how people didn’t like the temporary aspect of it – that was a completely different issue that had to do with The amount of content in the game and player’s access to it.
Of course they reworked that model, it didn’t add anything to the game in terms of content for over a year and some months.

But to say that the number of people supporting what you want in the game with the number of people complaining about the LS is…off.

If here they fall they shall live on when ever you cry “For Ascalon!”

(edited by Harper.4173)

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Harper.4173

Harper.4173

Or how about we don’t go trinity-lite and let people play exactly how they want? Why are people so insistent on imposing restrictions on classes? Do you not enjoy freedom? Do you not enjoy the fact that you can go balls deep min-max or play a completely atrocious, random build and yet still clear content?

It’s not imposing restrictions, it’s giving additional abilities to excel in.

Also I did not see anybody here ask for the holy trinity.

Of course it’s imposing restrictions. “guardians can tank but warriors suck at conditions” is restrictions. We don’t need that.

Well if that is a restriction then you should give every class exactly the same or really you would not have different classes any-more only different races.. of course without skills based on the race. That might be what you like but most people like some more tactics and teamwork to be involved.

yes, if an encounter will require players fulfilling important specific roles, then every class need to be able to do so. Their approach to the problem might be different, but in the end no class should ever be excluded.

If a you need to accomplish tasks a b and c in a dungeon.

Why take any other classes than the classes that are the best at a, the best at b and the best at c in the numbers that gives you the fastest clear time.

If here they fall they shall live on when ever you cry “For Ascalon!”

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Harper.4173

Harper.4173

Well those terrible players who have no idea how to properly play are doing just fine completing everything very easily and fast.

Anyway it’s the current system is obviously not bothering you but I do hope you understand where they are coming from. And not thats not just because they are all just bad players. However, if thats what you like to believe thats of course also fine.

“Very easily and fast”. Right.

They are coming from a game that they’re used to.

They want to make this game into the game they’re used to rather than play it for what it is. Even though there’s more players that would rather play GW2 for what it is than there are players who want to make it WoW 2.0 or whatever else variation on this theme they can come up with.

This happens in every game.

Some Call of Duty fans want to turn Battlefield into Call of Duty. There’s always going to be people that want to take an experience and make it more like what they want disregarding what others want.
It’s happened before and will happen again.

I wish it didn’t, but it does and will again.
Eventually they’ll move on.

Complaining about a lack of roles is not the same as saying it has to be the same as another game. GW2 did try a lot of new things. Some things worked out some not so well. I don’t think them dropping the Holy Trinity was bad. However I do think them not really replacing it with something else (they did try that but it didn’t really worked out that way) is bad. Some people might be asking for the HT because that’s what they know but when talking about a lack of roles this argument is not really valid.

There is no lack of roles, just people who refuse to see them and keep asking for something that is already in the game.

If here they fall they shall live on when ever you cry “For Ascalon!”

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Astralporing.1957

Astralporing.1957

Or how about we don’t go trinity-lite and let people play exactly how they want? Why are people so insistent on imposing restrictions on classes? Do you not enjoy freedom? Do you not enjoy the fact that you can go balls deep min-max or play a completely atrocious, random build and yet still clear content?

It’s not imposing restrictions, it’s giving additional abilities to excel in.

Also I did not see anybody here ask for the holy trinity.

Of course it’s imposing restrictions. “guardians can tank but warriors suck at conditions” is restrictions. We don’t need that.

Well if that is a restriction then you should give every class exactly the same or really you would not have different classes any-more only different races.. of course without skills based on the race. That might be what you like but most people like some more tactics and teamwork to be involved.

yes, if an encounter will require players fulfilling important specific roles, then every class need to be able to do so. Their approach to the problem might be different, but in the end no class should ever be excluded.

That is a whole other discussion. If every class should be able to have any role. I think it should not be to also have some more flavor in classes. But again, that’s a complete different discussion.

No, this is this very discussion. The OP wants to vary roles of professions in this game, not merely introduce more than one role in combat. While i generally agree with the second (not dedicated healers, though, please), i am strongly against the first.

If a you need to accomplish tasks a b and c in a dungeon.

Why take any other classes than the classes that are the best at a, the best at b and the best at c in the numbers that gives you the fastest clear time.

Exactly. Therefore no class should be best at a, b or c. Well, at least not intentionally – of course real equality can never be reached without making all classes homogenous, but we can strive to be as close to it as possible, so the class (dis)advantages are too small to matter practically.

Actions, not words.
Remember, remember, 15th of November

(edited by Astralporing.1957)

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: VOLTCIEAGE.3029

VOLTCIEAGE.3029

people dont want trinity but right now we even dont have trinity its just dps sad but true , pve sucks in this game really bad . whole skill is based on stacking in the corner with 1 guard,2 ele,2 warriors

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Ropechef.6192

Ropechef.6192

Well, for all intents and purposes, instead of a trinity with three options we have one option: zerker.

so wait… the 3 other sets for my necromancer, the 3 other sets for my warrior, 2 extra for thief, the extra sets for my Ele, Ranger, Engie, Gaurd, Mes…..

all were for nothing???

i have been doing it wrong it seems…. pity, i was having fun.

Funny reaction knowing it was you who was basically saying everybody was doing it wrong (or did not get it). And now you act as if people say you are doing it wrong suggesting it’s a nosecone argument.

I actually do have that many sets of armour on my people. And i use them all

Based upon the role I am trying to/supposed to, fill within the context of what I am doing.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Jerus.4350

Jerus.4350

Well, for all intents and purposes, instead of a trinity with three options we have one option: zerker.

so wait… the 3 other sets for my necromancer, the 3 other sets for my warrior, 2 extra for thief, the extra sets for my Ele, Ranger, Engie, Gaurd, Mes…..

all were for nothing???

i have been doing it wrong it seems…. pity, i was having fun.

Funny reaction knowing it was you who was basically saying everybody was doing it wrong (or did not get it). And now you act as if people say you are doing it wrong suggesting it’s a nosecone argument.

I actually do have that many sets of armour on my people. And i use them all

Based upon the role I am trying to/supposed to, fill within the context of what I am doing.

Just to take a few guesses.

Condi gear for GJW condi group/Soloing/WvW Roaming.

PVT for non crit situations like Teq

Zerk/Assassin for dungeons.

Clerics for WvW Zerging/Funsies.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: DargorV.8571

DargorV.8571

There’s no real support role in this game outside pushing your cleanse/stability button on cooldown.

Everything PvE is designed with the idea of full berserker > dodge out of circle.

Its that boring. Really they should just add healing and go 50/50 between the insta gib red cricles and having a dedicated healer in the back or some hybrid.

Variety, you know that thing they kept pretending they had at launch before everybody realised its the complete opposite where everyone is just another dps.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Wanderer.3248

Wanderer.3248

A warrior built entirely around shout healing can probably out heal most other classes. You can max out at around 3000 heal per shout which you can practically spam if you take the right traits. Add a war horn and a war banner and you become a support machine.

Then get kicked for not bringing banners, just like they’d kick a venom Thief for not being a dps/stealth thief.

I’m not saying you should do it, I’m just saying that warriors can be awesome healers.

You’d get kicked because the game doesn’t really need awesome healers.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

At this point, “roles” are something I can do without. Not to mention, the game was designed without having any in mind: Suddenly making the gameplay require certain roles in GW2 would be as big a shift as WoW going trinity-less.

What I really want is the insane amount of options my GW1 warrior had compared to my GW2 one.

That’s wrong. The game was designed with roles in mind. I also did not know that to later. When they said the trinity would go I figured there would be more roles based on the classes. So basically having the opposite of what we have now. Not only have a tank and a healer but also other roles then the rest all being DPS (as in the holy trinity). It turned out to be all DPS but they wanted to have 3 different roles. If I remember correctly it was Damage (DPS), Control, and Support. But in reality that did not really work out as we all know. So they should rethink that. Anyway it’s untrue they had no roles in mind.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

Complaining about a lack of roles is not the same as saying it has to be the same as another game. GW2 did try a lot of new things. Some things worked out some not so well. I don’t think them dropping the Holy Trinity was bad. However I do think them not really replacing it with something else (they did try that but it didn’t really worked out that way) is bad. Some people might be asking for the HT because that’s what they know but when talking about a lack of roles this argument is not really valid.

I understand your point of view about roles. But I still don’t think that replacing Holy Trinity by something else would be good. The point of getting rid of the Holy Trinity was to remove those static role. You want role like in the Holy Trinity (but different). But that’s exactly those role that provoke those problem with the Trinity. If you concentrate role in specific build, then you get the same problem.

Let say, Anet did their own trinity of Damage, cc and support and you can’t do all of these thing in the same time. Each profession can go into only 1 of those branch. Then, let say Anet made CC important. Then you gonna have LF Support Guardian or LF CC engineer and that would lead to the same problem with LF Healer or LF tank in a Trinity game.

Now, the current system do the great job of making everybody do a bit of everything. Whatever the setup you have you can complete the content and you don’t have to wait for anything. You can use a guardian to reflect, if you don’t have a guardian, then you can use a mesmer or don’t use reflect at all and take another solution. All profession can bring something different but lacking something in particular won’t equal in the impossibility of doing a portion of content.

Even if I think they got the essence of that right, they still have several things wrong. I say it several times. Some are just bad design :
- Condition is bad in group PvE content because of a technical problem that they still didn’t fix or try out a way around.
- CC is super limited in PvE because is would be too much powerful. And when they should have fixed that, they simply slap defiant in there for an easy fix before launch.
- Gear is only for survivability or DPS. Nothing to help support, CC or any other profession mechanics.

That’s not where you get roles or profession variation. That’s where you get more diversity. But they don’t change the mentality or core concept of the game. DPS is, should, and will always be the main focus of any build. No role should be limited to a profession or a build so you won’t be limited by the player you have or don’t have in your group.

About the problem that you might stay with the problem of looking for a … (while personally I never had that problem in other games, but that has more to do with my play-style. I just entered the LFG list and went on with my PvE. But I do understand this is enjoying if you want to just do dungeons.)
That is correct. Or could be correct. I am just not sure no real roles is the solution. Maybe the question should be why people are always looking for a tank or a healer. Aren’t there enough of them? If so why? Personally I don’t know why it works that way. I like all 3 the roles. Also there should be just as many classes for every role. I do think it has to do with levelling and solo play where healing and tank are not so great. So then find a solution for that in stead of having no roles. But that’s how I feel about it.

About the idea that DPS should always be the main focus. Well I guess we have to agree to disagree about that here.

It is linked to the previous paragraph. When playing solo you always need DPS I think (or do you?.. thinking out of the box) so maybe the solution is to give everybody DPS (no thinking out of the box) but have DPS being the least focus of your build / role and there are no DPS roles in the game or we have a DPS role but it is equal to the other roles (in a HT game you usually need 1 tank, 1 healer and the rest DPS so that’s also not a equal role).

So I do think about that exactly opposite of how you think about it. In the end we can only agree to disagree because it’s not that there is a factual true or false where you like to focus on the on or the other. There is however a problem in the game when enough people find combat dull.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

this guy actually thinks heavy armour makes a difference of any relevance

It certainly doesn’t if one plays with a reasonable amount of skill. However, if one is a marginal player, who has trouble surviving in easy paths in a glass-only group, then one might “need” that wee bit of extra defense. To put it in perspective, the 306 points of defense Heavy Ascended has over Light Ascended would be the rough equivalent of trading most of your Berserker armor pieces for Knight’s. The “only” costs would be the loss of roughly 20% of base damage on crit by dropping Ferocity and the loss in Power from the major to minor stat.

This could explain the presence of “Heavy Only” groups in the LFG.

Where Devata’s point falters is that if the extra defense is “necessary” for certain players, then they’re accepting limited support and utility (all heavies) for slightly better survivability, rather than trading base Ferocity and lower Power but keeping the optimal support and utility options.

That’s certainly not easily and quickly completing paths, unless one’s standards are set low.

But isn’t that the whole point I am trying to make? It’s all about DPS (your Ferocity and Power..) and the extra toughness is welcome. All the other options are not really important because you can just DPS everything to destruction and that’s the fastest way to do it.

You say that’s easily and quickly completing paths. But it’s what I see all the speed-runners do. So this comes down to the “they are noobs and don’t play the game correctly” argument but I disagree there simply looking at the game.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Bezagron.7352

Bezagron.7352

So back on active defence & it’s effect on the non offensive focused roles, builds & gear.

Either encounters & content needs to be created that requires these roles, builds & gear at high end play or these roles, builds & gear need to improve active defence above the active defence avilable to offensive focused role, build & gear. Although different in application these two things achieve the same results.

At the moment there is just so much better game play reward when building offensively with stats, as almost all of it improves your offensive active game play.

Were building defensively feels very passive and unrewarding when looking at active game play and comparing to building offensively. This is because active defence can not be improved through stats and that they are basically independent of stats.

No were better highlights this then high end PvE. As most high end PvE encounters can be learnt and mastered with only using available active defences.

Why these non offensive focus roles, builds & gear find place in high end sPvP & WvW is encounters against enemy players typically excessed player’s available active defences and as such these roles, builds & gear are required to survive at this level of play.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

So it does not even matter if I consider it not a DPS focus and you do. What matters is that the way it now works in GW2 is what many people consider dull and the way with more roles (what you also consider a focus on DPS) is what they see as less dull.

And where exactly did you get this many number?

All I’ve seen is half a dozen players at most complaining that the combat is “dull”. That’s their opinion but the fact of the matter is they are a minority.

Compared to the people who actually play and enjoy the game – forum posters are a minority. So a very small group of those forum posters are very few compared to the people who like GW2 for what it is.

You mentioned the LS and how people didn’t like the temporary aspect of it – that was a completely different issue that had to do with The amount of content in the game and player’s access to it.
Of course they reworked that model, it didn’t add anything to the game in terms of content for over a year and some months.

But to say that the number of people supporting what you want in the game with the number of people complaining about the LS is…off.

You might consider that a completely different issue and it is. However the matter-of-fact is that also in the threads about that subject (I take that because it was a subject I was also talking about) this same exact response was also giving. It’s just a vocal minority. The forums do not give a correct view. I do not hear anybody complaining about temporary content.

Well eventually Anet had to change it meaning also they did see it was not just a vocal minority. Meaning all those excuses on those thread where 100% invalid. In addition it was did never help the discussion in any way.

I talk about many (I don’t talk about the majority because I don’t have those numbers) because I’s a topic that keeps popping up (just as the temporary content topic did). I did say it’s many because I did see multiple guild-members leave to other games because they considered combat in GW2 boring (and asking why it basically came down to no roles, just a bunch of DPS). I come also to the conclusion that it are many because we did see multiple attempts of Anet to give more viability to other things then just DPS. However they failed because they never really made sure there are different roles.

So that’s why I say it are many. In the end it is also not useful for the discussion because we both don’t have the exact number. In fact even Anet doesn’t because nobody knows how many people find the combat dull (and leave for that reason) and how many of them (and other new players) would be playing if there where real roles.

So I told you how I got the ‘many people’.

You say “That’s their opinion but the fact of the matter is they are a minority.”
A minority so it are <50% of the people who could be playing the game (not who are playing because you should take those who left and who never came because of this reason also into account).

So how do you get this pretty exact ‘number’ (<50%)? It’s a fact you even say.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Harper.4173

Harper.4173

You might consider that a completely different issue and it is. However the matter-of-fact is that also in the threads about that subject (I take that because it was a subject I was also talking about) this same exact response was also giving. It’s just a vocal minority. The forums do not give a correct view. I do not hear anybody complaining about temporary content.

Well eventually Anet had to change it meaning also they did see it was not just a vocal minority. Meaning all those excuses on those thread where 100% invalid. In addition it was did never help the discussion in any way.

I talk about many (I don’t talk about the majority because I don’t have those numbers) because I’s a topic that keeps popping up (just as the temporary content topic did). I did say it’s many because I did see multiple guild-members leave to other games because they considered combat in GW2 boring (and asking why it basically came down to no roles, just a bunch of DPS). I come also to the conclusion that it are many because we did see multiple attempts of Anet to give more viability to other things then just DPS. However they failed because they never really made sure there are different roles.

So that’s why I say it are many. In the end it is also not useful for the discussion because we both don’t have the exact number. In fact even Anet doesn’t because nobody knows how many people find the combat dull (and leave for that reason) and how many of them (and other new players) would be playing if there where real roles.

So I told you how I got the ‘many people’.

You say “That’s their opinion but the fact of the matter is they are a minority.”
A minority so it are <50% of the people who could be playing the game (not who are playing because you should take those who left and who never came because of this reason also into account).

So how do you get this pretty exact ‘number’ (<50%)? It’s a fact you even say.

1. Your argument that just because you see these threads often it means a lot of people support this idea is false.
If me and a few others start making thread after thread about ele survival ability being OP and them needing to be squishier – just because we make tons of threads doesn’t mean there’s a lot of us who want this.

If your logic was applied then stealth would have been deleted from the game not even 3-4 months after release.

Also you said a lot of your guildmates left – there’s a problem with that too. For one – we have to take your word for it. Second – if they left then their opinion no longer matters because they’re not really part of GW2 anymore are they?. Three – it’s not always as clear as “they left because of this” you’re just trying to support your point of view and skewing things in that direction.

2. At the beginning of your post you’ve made a logical fallacy. What you did is akin to this :

A logical fallacy associated with this format of argument is referred to as affirming the consequent, which would look like this:
If P then Q
Q
therefore P
This is a fallacy because it does not take into account other possibilities. To illustrate this more clearly, substitute the letters with premises.
If it rains, the street will be wet
The street is wet.
Therefore it rained.

There were a great big number of reasons the LS format was changed – you can’t just say it was changed because there were a lot of threads and that means a lot of players wanted it.

Yes a lot of players wanted the LS to change but number of threads is not really a reliable indicator.
You can’t use it for reasons I explained above.

3.Anet have made no steps to make DPS less viable -even when crit damage was changed they assured the players that " full berserker gear would still be the highest damage".
It was a clean, all across the board damage nerf – but it affected all builds so the relative desirability between builds remained the same.

If you were right and they wanted to just "get rid of dps " they could have just nerfed most damage sets and buffed boss damage. forcing players to get more defensive because they can’t do the content.

It would have been easy but they * DID NOT DO THAT* because that’s not what they want.

4.Saying what you said about not knowing is a two sided aspect. We also don’t know how many players would leave if we had forced roles and how many would still be playing.

If here they fall they shall live on when ever you cry “For Ascalon!”

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Bezagron.7352

Bezagron.7352

3.Anet have made no steps to make DPS less viable -even when crit damage was changed they assured the players that " full berserker gear would still be the highest damage".
It was a clean, all across the board damage nerf – but it affected all builds so the relative desirability between builds remained the same.

But to note with the critical damage chance Arenanet also mentions that is was a step needed before they improve control & supportive game play (not sure if defensive play was mentioned).

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

~

“if they left then their opinion no longer matters because they’re not really part of GW2 any-more are they? ” Yes they very much are because they are possible GW2 players. If this is the thing that pushed them away it is also what can get them back. In addition if it’s what pushed them away already it might keep pushing away other people in the future. Ignoring that is the worse a company can do. You should know that.

“they left because of this” In this case it was very clear. You can ignore it by saying I am just saying that (or basically, making it up) because I want to support my viewpoint. But that’s factually untrue. It’s a fact that people (including the ones I talked about) did leave because of that. You ignoring that with ‘you’re just trying to support your point.’ is exactly what you have to to to support your point of view. If you have to ignore facts to get your right you are probably wrong. Now I can understand it if you take is as information not as a fact because you can’t check it. But ignoring it is not very smart.

“There were a great big number of reasons the LS format was changed – you can’t just say it was changed because there were a lot of threads and that means a lot of players wanted it.” That was not my point. My point was that people complaining about the temporary nature also got the same none argument that it’s just a vocal minority. In a try to end the discussion without going into the problems at hand.

However the fact that Anet did change it does show that also Anet did see it as a problem in that indeed in fact many people had problems with it. If it’s a minor problem just a few people had a problem with why would Anet care. But the point was that it’s an non argument that is not valid. It was used there to try and end the discussion acting as if nothing was wrong and it’s used here now by you. Still just as valid here as it was there.

“Yes a lot of players wanted the LS to change but number of threads is not really a reliable indicator.
You can’t use it for reasons I explained above.”
I never did not use the number of thread as a reason. I used the many people complaining about it as a reason. Then when asking how you know it are many people, then number of threads does give an indication. Yeah it could be played with and so we can ignore all the information we have (like you seem to do) but it’s very valid to use it as an indication.

“If you were right and they wanted to just "get rid of dps " “ For me to be right with that I would first have to have said it and I didn’t.

You try to ignore all the information meanwhile you keep making up stuff. How does that contribute to the discussion about the possible lack of roles. OR better how there are players that think there are a lock of roles and /or find combat dull because of that?

“Saying what you said about not knowing is a two sided aspect.” Indeed that was my point. You first say it’s invalid to say there are ‘many’ people who complain about it. Even when I point to the reasons why I say it are many. (you try to ignore all those sources as if they do not matter) and then you make the claim that for a fact it’s just a minority.

You are doing exactingly what I see some people do in all threads. Trying to ignore all the information we have based on the argument “we don’t have factual numbers”. (sometimes meanwhile making claims of factual numbers them-self.) And then trying to end a discussion based on only that.
It does not add anything to the discussion and your idea that it’s a minority (that you put down as a fact) can’t be proven. Neater can I prove it’s a majority. But information seems to point towards many people so that’s what I say.

Oow btw, bold and caps do make something more or less valid.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: maha.7902

maha.7902

“if they left then their opinion no longer matters because they’re not really part of GW2 any-more are they? ” Yes they very much are because they are possible GW2 players. If this is the thing that pushed them away it is also what can get them back

And it will push others like me away if they introduce moronic forced “roles” in to the game.

They have to think of both sides, and personally I think it makes more sense to cater to your happy/content population than catering to whiners who will be satisfied with a “fix” and then carry on whining about the next new thing.

Serah Mahariel – Death and Taxes

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Smith.1826

Smith.1826

At this point, “roles” are something I can do without. Not to mention, the game was designed without having any in mind: Suddenly making the gameplay require certain roles in GW2 would be as big a shift as WoW going trinity-less.

What I really want is the insane amount of options my GW1 warrior had compared to my GW2 one.

That’s wrong. The game was designed with roles in mind. I also did not know that to later. When they said the trinity would go I figured there would be more roles based on the classes. So basically having the opposite of what we have now. Not only have a tank and a healer but also other roles then the rest all being DPS (as in the holy trinity). It turned out to be all DPS but they wanted to have 3 different roles. If I remember correctly it was Damage (DPS), Control, and Support. But in reality that did not really work out as we all know. So they should rethink that. Anyway it’s untrue they had no roles in mind.

At the least, that’s what PvE ended up being. And in that respect, I’m not too disappointed. There is a large amount of freedom and relief in just only needing to find four other people for a dungeon, regardless of their class and build, and moving away from that in a game where the balance is already suspect is dangerous.

A higher skill ceiling and more viable options (i.e. Fix the condition cap) are the two main areas I want them to work on for PvE.

(edited by Smith.1826)

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Tree.3916

Tree.3916

Supposed problem is lack of build variety.

Proposed solution is a trinity system with professions locked into specific builds.

This community.

DnT Apply today if you think you can hang with the best of the best
http://www.twitch.tv/tree_dnt || https://twitter.com/Tree_DnT
The meta is changing at an alarming rate!

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: spoj.9672

spoj.9672

The vast majority of players who are fine/dont mind the current system have no reason to come to the forums. Forum is always a vocal minority.

The game is currently in a position where there is a lot of diversity and many playstyles are viable. The complaints come from people wanting their other playstyles to be just as efficient as someone who sacrifices passive defence for damage. Which is of course ridiculous. The roles are not locked into certain builds which is a good thing. You can simply change weapons and utilities without altering your core build to get more access to one of the other roles. This is a very good build system. Its the content which is too old and too easy. This is the problem, not the build system or lack of trinity.

(edited by spoj.9672)

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Dusty Moon.4382

Dusty Moon.4382

this guy actually thinks heavy armour makes a difference of any relevance

Conditions ignore armor – so it doesn’t matter light or heavy the damage from conditions is the same.

The Trinity would make this game dull and boring like all other games with the trinity. If you want the trinity, go play a game with the trinity.

(edited by Dusty Moon.4382)

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: gosferano.8614

gosferano.8614

That table is not really accurate. Engi can put a lot more condis than thief.

l80 Asuran Thief – Universal assassin l80 Charr (?!) Necro – Deadly melee ranger
l80 Human Engineer – Expert of explosions l80 Sylvari Mesmer – Phantasmal Assassin

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: maha.7902

maha.7902

this guy actually thinks heavy armour makes a difference of any relevance

Conditions ignore armor – so it doesn’t matter light or heavy the damage from conditions is the same.

The Trinity would make this game dull and boring like all other games with the trinity. If you want the trinity, go play a game with the trinity.

i dont think you realise i am agreeing with you

Serah Mahariel – Death and Taxes

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Dalanor.5387

Dalanor.5387

Guys, why you still feed the troll? Stahp!

-summons an almighty god, Thread closer the mod-

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

At this point, “roles” are something I can do without. Not to mention, the game was designed without having any in mind: Suddenly making the gameplay require certain roles in GW2 would be as big a shift as WoW going trinity-less.

What I really want is the insane amount of options my GW1 warrior had compared to my GW2 one.

That’s wrong. The game was designed with roles in mind. I also did not know that to later. When they said the trinity would go I figured there would be more roles based on the classes. So basically having the opposite of what we have now. Not only have a tank and a healer but also other roles then the rest all being DPS (as in the holy trinity). It turned out to be all DPS but they wanted to have 3 different roles. If I remember correctly it was Damage (DPS), Control, and Support. But in reality that did not really work out as we all know. So they should rethink that. Anyway it’s untrue they had no roles in mind.

At the least, that’s what PvE ended up being. And in that respect, I’m not too disappointed. There is a large amount of freedom and relief in just only needing to find four other people for a dungeon, regardless of their class and build, and moving away from that in a game where the balance is already suspect is dangerous.

A higher skill ceiling and more viable options (i.e. Fix the condition cap) are the two main areas I want them to work on for PvE.

And the people complaining about that are disappointed in that. It’s fine that you are satisfied. Just wanted to let you know they had roles in mind as you did seem to think this lack of roles was what they had in mind from the start. So it’s not like those people are asking to change the game from no roles to roles but more from not working roles to working roles.

(not that they may not ask for a real change but this is more like asking for a fix.)

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

“if they left then their opinion no longer matters because they’re not really part of GW2 any-more are they? ” Yes they very much are because they are possible GW2 players. If this is the thing that pushed them away it is also what can get them back

And it will push others like me away if they introduce moronic forced “roles” in to the game.

They have to think of both sides, and personally I think it makes more sense to cater to your happy/content population than catering to whiners who will be satisfied with a “fix” and then carry on whining about the next new thing.

Well nobody says is has to be done in a moronic way. And maybe a problem is that the game in it current state does cater to people it was not trying focus on?

You hear similar things in cash-shop related threads. The game was focusing on people who like cosmetics and stuff. But with the cash-shop it negatively effects mainly this part of the game by monetizing that. So people liking to hunt down cosmetics and stuff dislike how it works while those who don’t care about that stuff are fine with how it works.

If it comes to roles the games never focused on being pure DPS, just not the trinity but other roles. It worked out into no roles and everything being mainly DPS.

An element they did manage to change successfully is not having to wait for a specific role. So maybe they can find a way to have real roles while not having long waiting times to find a specific role (by making them all equal popular?). In addition they can still have one DPS role. Then also the happy players should not suddenly be unhappy and start whining I think. They have the DPS they might like. They don’t have the waiting time they don’t like. There are just also other roles in the mix. But yeah you are depending on them. That will stay.

By suggesting the people complaining now would start whining about the next thing you basically say to ignore complainers and seem to say that the happy players just people who accept everything. Because if you complain you will also complain about the next thing.

So you might simply want to ignore people with complains (why are you then here?) but I think that’s not smart to do.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

The Trinity would make this game dull and boring like all other games with the trinity. If you want the trinity, go play a game with the trinity.

Not sure if true but then again, I did not see many people here ask for the trinity.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Jerus.4350

Jerus.4350

I can’t speak for Maha but everytime I post here it’s in hope of stopping what I think is a poorly thought out idea that goes against what I feel GW2 set out to do. That is to make a game where you can play literally anything you want and still get things done. A game without required roles, but instead more subtle roles, certain roles can make things easier for a given situation but there are always different options as to how you handle it.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Harper.4173

Harper.4173

stuff

What pushes some people away keeps others in the game. That’s the trade-off.

The game has been running for 2+ years – a lot of people are with it so it’s safe to assume they more or less like the game the way it is. There are ways to improve but drastic changes will make a lot of them leave with no guarantee others these changes were designed to cater to will come back.
maha makes a very good point of this.

What you say cannot be taken as fact and I won’t do that. I understand what you’re saying and won’t ignore it but i fear the scope you’re giving it is exaggerated.

In case of the LS it was not a vocal minority. It was most players. It also made sense to have a format in which you can sell the living story after to new players. You know, more profit and that stuff.

Just because an argument was used in a context and wasn’t true – doesn’t make it untrue in this context.
You are comparing apples and oranges and calling them the same.

If here they fall they shall live on when ever you cry “For Ascalon!”

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419

IndigoSundown.5419

But isn’t that the whole point I am trying to make? It’s all about DPS (your Ferocity and Power..) and the extra toughness is welcome. All the other options are not really important because you can just DPS everything to destruction and that’s the fastest way to do it.

You say that’s easily and quickly completing paths. But it’s what I see all the speed-runners do. So this comes down to the “they are noobs and don’t play the game correctly” argument but I disagree there simply looking at the game.

What are you on about? “…the extra toughness is welcome.” “… because you can just DPS everything…” If you’re welcoming extra toughness (technically Defense if you’re talking about heavy armor versus medium or light), then you aren’t maxing your potential DPS, ergo everything is not just DPS. So, what is your point?

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

I can’t speak for Maha but everytime I post here it’s in hope of stopping what I think is a poorly thought out idea that goes against what I feel GW2 set out to do. That is to make a game where you can play literally anything you want and still get things done. A game without required roles, but instead more subtle roles, certain roles can make things easier for a given situation but there are always different options as to how you handle it.

There is a difference between giving an opposite opinion and trying to ignore a group. And when you say people who have a complain are whiners who also will complain after the fix and so should not be catered to then you just say they should be ignored.

About changing the game of what GW2 is supposed to be. Well thats the same as Harper’s example of Battlefield. And of course you have people who want that. I also do see it when talking about Battlefield to take his example. People who say they like the more closed combat maps because all the cars and stuff is not good and should be removed. Yes then Battlefield is not your game. The whole idea about Battlefield is to be on the see, in the see, in vehicles, on foot and in the air. Thats also why they named it Battlefield and the game became big doing that.

And when somebody ask to make GW2 a sub-based game they are doing that and I guess that if people are asking for the Holy Trinity they might be doing the same.

However that is not the case for every complain.

First of all, many things GW2 did where new and some of them work but some of them will and did fail. Then it’s not bad to look at other games how they fixed it.

Now if somebody asks for roles (or to be not all focused on DPS) it’s not like he ask for another game. GW2 was supposed to have roles and it was never advertised as the game where everything is about DPS. Same argument you see in mount threads. As if no mounts is some GW2 trademark. The game did not get released with mounts and the developers said there would not be mounts at release. It’s again not like no mounts is some trademark, in fact in the lore there are mounts and GW1 had mounts. Same for cash-shop threads. When people say to not focus on the cash-shop you also get this argument that GW2 is a F2P game and so uses the cash-shop and thats how it’s suppose to be wanting to change that means you want to change the core of the game. Again invalid, in fact GW2’s trademark was a B2P model and seeing how GW1 did it, it was mainly by selling additions to the game (expansion) no heavy cash-shop focus.

Now this are just some threads I was active in and you see them in all those. So you likely see them in almost all threads. And for sure sometimes it is a valid argument. Other times it’s not.

If somebody asks for the Holy Trinity it can be a valid argument, however it can also that he just seems to think the current implementation did fail or have it;s problems (as to being dull) and so looks how other games did it. Then I feel the argument is less valid. If he just wants the Holy Trinity because thats what he likes from another game and it does not really matter what is in GW2 and if it works, he just wants the Holy Trinity then the a argument like yours would be completely valid.

However if people ask for more specific roles because the current implementation does not seem to work for them (for many people) then I don’t think it’s a valid argument.

Also trying to and a discussion is not good. Tell why you feel different. Don’t try to end a topic because you disagree. Thats trying to implement censorship.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

stuff

What pushes some people away keeps others in the game. That’s the trade-off.

The game has been running for 2+ years – a lot of people are with it so it’s safe to assume they more or less like the game the way it is. There are ways to improve but drastic changes will make a lot of them leave with no guarantee others these changes were designed to cater to will come back.
maha makes a very good point of this.

What you say cannot be taken as fact and I won’t do that. I understand what you’re saying and won’t ignore it but i fear the scope you’re giving it is exaggerated.

In case of the LS it was not a vocal minority. It was most players. It also made sense to have a format in which you can sell the living story after to new players. You know, more profit and that stuff.

Just because an argument was used in a context and wasn’t true – doesn’t make it untrue in this context.
You are comparing apples and oranges and calling them the same.

Now you say in the case of LS (you mean the temporary content?) it was a majority. Also for that you have no evidence (while probably true) but in threads about that there where people like you saying exactly the same as you do now. You people are a vocal minority.

Also if you where right with what you said in the beginning “The game has been running for 2+ years – a lot of people are with it so it’s safe to assume they more or less like the game the way it is. There are ways to improve but drastic changes” the temporary content change (pretty big change the way the solved it) should also not have been done.

Also if the number of current players is healthy is also not sure. So you come up with a lot of things that you also have no reason to back up. Basically what you said I did while I never put it so precise (many people as I say vs minority what you say) and did tell where I got my idea’s from.

Doesn’t make it untrue in this context. No it doesn’t. It also does not make it true. Just proofs that that argument by itself does not have to be true.

“You are comparing apples and oranges and calling them the same.” If I would in fact do what you say I do. Saying the argument is invalid because it was invalid there. But thats not what I do. I just say the argument does not have to be valid, pointing to that other thread but we both don’t have actual numbers. So debating about this (if it’s a vocal minority or if it’s a majority) is useless.

So with this I also want to end this discussion about that. It’s an invalid (that does not mean it’s true or untrue) argument because nobody knows if it’s a minority or a majority even tho you do throw those things around as if they are facts.

I do say it are many people based on what I see and you can see thats all not interesting because the people I see leave are no information for you and the many threads about this subject are also no indication it are many people for you. Thats all possible but it does do nothing for the discussion about roles.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

But isn’t that the whole point I am trying to make? It’s all about DPS (your Ferocity and Power..) and the extra toughness is welcome. All the other options are not really important because you can just DPS everything to destruction and that’s the fastest way to do it.

You say that’s easily and quickly completing paths. But it’s what I see all the speed-runners do. So this comes down to the “they are noobs and don’t play the game correctly” argument but I disagree there simply looking at the game.

What are you on about? “…the extra toughness is welcome.” “… because you can just DPS everything…” If you’re welcoming extra toughness (technically Defense if you’re talking about heavy armor versus medium or light), then you aren’t maxing your potential DPS, ergo everything is not just DPS. So, what is your point?

My point is that it’s basically all about DPS with toughness on a possible second place.
All the rest does not really matter that much. Thats the point.

And thats the point of the many people you see complain about dull combat, DPS DPs DPS, 1,1,1,1, stack and DPS. You know those same thinks you see keep popping up everywhere.

So thats what I wanted to make clear there. Guess it did not make it clear enough.

And whether you agree or not, it’s how many people feel about the combat.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: maha.7902

maha.7902

thats because almost everyone in this game is completely ignorant on how the combat works and gets carried by the one competent player in the party while they sit there mashing keys hoping everything dies

and then when told that there’s more to combat than “just dps” they attribute support to “doing more dps” which is exactly what applies in trinity games (tank holds aggro so ppl can do more dps), or they say "well thats not depth its just uninteresting (a.k.a they dislike it)

this will go around in circles

and neither side will agree

my tip is

if you dislike the combat, stop playing the game

if you like it, carry on

Serah Mahariel – Death and Taxes

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Jerus.4350

Jerus.4350

Devata it really seems like you’re trying to win this debate based on simply the Word Count.

As for the battlefield example. Sure people debate it. But you know what I did? I don’t like the vehicles, so I stopped playing battlefield and stuck to call of duty…

But, either way lets stick on topic and not debate whether or not someone’s opinion matters, you spending multiple paragraphs and posts about it doesn’t do anything for the topic.

I’d still like to hear how you would apply this role idea to the game, specifically. Take a dungeon and talk about the changes they could make to create the vision you have for the game. Then sum up the changes they’d need to make.

Then before you post, take a second. Think about it. THink about all the changes they’d have to make to create your vision. And ask yourself this question, “is this a reasonable suggestion for them to actually carry through this late into the development of this game?” If you feel yes, then post it and lets get back on the actual topic.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: haviz.1340

haviz.1340

thats because almost everyone in this game is completely ignorant on how the combat works and gets carried by the one competent player in the party while they sit there mashing keys hoping everything dies

and then when told that there’s more to combat than “just dps” they attribute support to “doing more dps” which is exactly what applies in trinity games (tank holds aggro so ppl can do more dps), or they say "well thats not depth its just uninteresting (a.k.a they dislike it)

this will go around in circles

and neither side will agree

my tip is

if you dislike the combat, stop playing the game

if you like it, carry on

They aren’t exactly ignorant. You can complete a large portion of the content with full warriors team that bring nothing except dps since fgj and banners are not support. Heck, you can solo “end-game” arah p2 with nothing except dps. So how’s that not “just dps”?

This game could really use some changes, like increasing pressure on players so they actually have to think about survivability and a teamwork that could come with it. Even condition pressure or increased cc from enemy side could be nice addition.

Conclusion: mobs need to be more diverse and less vulnerable to burst.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419

IndigoSundown.5419

and then when told that there’s more to combat than “just dps” they attribute support to “doing more dps” which is exactly what applies in trinity games (tank holds aggro so ppl can do more dps), or they say "well thats not depth its just uninteresting (a.k.a they dislike it)

GW2 is a game that tried to balance active play (dodge, defensive procs, timing buffs, controls and cleanses, etc.) with passive play (damage, damage reduction, etc. from stats, passive traits, signets, etc.). The dislike seems to be based largely on which elements of roles ANet made passive and which they made active.

ANet designed the support and control roles largely around active play. DPS is both passive and active. Advocates of dedicated roles are asking for more passive play in the form of roles oriented around gear. Meanwhile the same people bash passive support (e.g., a warrior traits into Tactics, a support/survivability line, to take Empower Allies, a passive trait that boosts DPS. This player has sacrificed some personal damage to enhance the whole groups, but that’s invalid support). This makes no sense.

So, yeah, you’re right. At least some of the advocates of dedicated roles seem to dislike the active aspects of GW2 play.

Not full Holy Trinity, but vary proffs?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Devata.6589

Devata.6589

Devata it really seems like you’re trying to win this debate based on simply the Word Count.

As for the battlefield example. Sure people debate it. But you know what I did? I don’t like the vehicles, so I stopped playing battlefield and stuck to call of duty…

But, either way lets stick on topic and not debate whether or not someone’s opinion matters, you spending multiple paragraphs and posts about it doesn’t do anything for the topic.

I’d still like to hear how you would apply this role idea to the game, specifically. Take a dungeon and talk about the changes they could make to create the vision you have for the game. Then sum up the changes they’d need to make.

Then before you post, take a second. Think about it. THink about all the changes they’d have to make to create your vision. And ask yourself this question, “is this a reasonable suggestion for them to actually carry through this late into the development of this game?” If you feel yes, then post it and lets get back on the actual topic.

I am not trying to win anything. And the hight ‘world count’ is there because I substantiating arguments and also go thinking a few steps again.

For the Battlefield example. Indeed I just say not every complain is similar to that Battlefield example.

And no, whether or not someone’s opinion matters is not add anything. It’s also something I rather don’t talk about. But if somebody is trying to tackle any argument by basically saying we should ignore those opinions I do have to go into that I think.

I don’t have very specific ‘demands’ as of how it should be. I have specific examples and in fact I did give some before but I can repeat or add some. In addition I also said there are multiple ways.. AI and combat ways and more gimmick ways.

So lets say you want to have a minion / pet roles. First you have to so something to the role itself. For example give more control over the minions.

Then in a 5 man dungeon you can put 6 levers that need to be stand on, meaning that minion role can do it’s part by having one of the minions stand on one of the levers. This is a very basic, boring and gimmick way but you can go much further with it, it’s just an example.

You can also have a boss who charges by players health and does a room damage that is equal to 100% of all the HP of the players and spreads out over all enemies in the room. So normally that would mean everybody dies. However if you have more enemies in the room the damage gets spread out over more so you don’t all die. Thats means minions come in handy but also things like turrets and so on.

Maybe you can also design maps where you need to not kill an enemy boss but lure him towards something so that while he tries to kill you he destroys a gate. Now a control role becomes more important.

We can also have some more mission like dungeons that are not all about kill kill but complete a task and where the killing is just a side issue. Also that would give room for many new idea’s.

Of course Anet might want to first think there roles over because what they had (CC, damage, support) did not work so far. Can they get it to work or do they need to rethink the roles.

Hope these are enough examples, you can let your imagination go on.

Yeah I think it would be a thing they can still add. I guess we will get new dungeons and other content so they can at least do that in new dungeons.