Guild Wars 2

Take the first example. Ok so you need something with pets. I as a guardian can swap in my Sword pet and have it sit on the node for that part, then swap back to my full DPS setup. Doesn’t really change much other htan add a gimmick to pass.

Second idea, more pets more spread out damage, again, doesn’t force me to change my gear/traits at all. I pull out all my spirit weapons and let the mitigation happen. Still max DPS setups, just a gimmick to pass by changing my skills.

Third one, control. Ok, so I choose a weapon with immobilizes or other CC I may want, maybe change a trait or two, handle that and back to my DPS setup. Again, gimmick that doesn’t change builds just makes people play differently in one situation.

Personally I like gimmicks though, they can be very fun, but they don’t have me changing build in general just possibly a little tweak for that gimmick then back to my DPS focused standard setup.

These ideas don’t make tanky/control/pet/whatever builds more useful, they just create gimmicks to pass.

Why would you balance a game around statements from people who don’t have a clue?

From a PvE perspective the only character that could use some love is necro, the rest are perfectly fine.

haviz.1340:

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

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.

except might, fury and passive modifiers are support

just because it’s completely braindead how a phalanx warrior can literally press 2 to 25 might the party doesnt mean it isnt support

Passive modifiers are now support? You seem to jest. I guess food and potions are also support.

Jerus.4350:

Take the first example. Ok so you need something with pets. I as a guardian can swap in my Sword pet and have it sit on the node for that part, then swap back to my full DPS setup. Doesn’t really change much other htan add a gimmick to pass.

Second idea, more pets more spread out damage, again, doesn’t force me to change my gear/traits at all. I pull out all my spirit weapons and let the mitigation happen. Still max DPS setups, just a gimmick to pass by changing my skills.

Third one, control. Ok, so I choose a weapon with immobilizes or other CC I may want, maybe change a trait or two, handle that and back to my DPS setup. Again, gimmick that doesn’t change builds just makes people play differently in one situation.

Personally I like gimmicks though, they can be very fun, but they don’t have me changing build in general just possibly a little tweak for that gimmick then back to my DPS focused standard setup.

These ideas don’t make tanky/control/pet/whatever builds more useful, they just create gimmicks to pass.

I don’t think a floating hammer / spell counts as a minion and so will not activate the lever. In addition it might b a problem to keep other ‘minions’ in one place. So it’s not as easy as you make it. That’s also why I said such a minion class should get some work to it for that to work. However it is true that in GW2 almost every class has some sort of minions what sort of reduces the use of a real minion class.
But that’s then also why it’s just an example.

Also your basic CC skills might not be enough, however the real CC guy might have the edge you need but does then not have the DPS you need. In your examples you basically work with what we have while I said also the roles (so the classes) needed some rework. That also means increasing a role power and decreasing another role and that can be based on choices (build) you make or class.

Let’s say you want to have a ranged role you obviously going make that available for that role but take it away for another role. In your example everybody still has everything and then indeed does not work. That’s how it is now.

IndigoSundown.5419:

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.

This is a great point and what I think could be the heart of this issue for these roles/builds/gear at high end game play for certain players IndigoSundown.

IndigoSundown.5419:

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.

But I don’t think these other roles are really about passive play.

• What type of game play is more engaging?
• What type of game play has a higher skill ceiling for mastery?

Passive or Active

I believe most would agree it’s active. And it’s this active game play that causes the problems, now not the active game play but the balance.

No matter when talking about roles/builds/gear or game play at the heart of it all they can only be one of two favours. Offensive or Defensive.

Damage, Control & Support will actually fall into one of these two favours. And it’s these favours – Offensive & Defensive that seems to have issues. I find little complaints with roles/builds/gear from offensive minded players, but defensive minded players are another matter.

Active defence is truly a core component of GW2 combat, but available active defence is independent of game play focus (Offensive/Defensive).

So even with a holy trinity or some other required dedicated roles for high end play. I don’t see defensive focused roles/builds/gear in most high end PvE in GW2 until defensive focused roles/builds/gear can improve active game play to the same level as offensive focused roles/builds/gear.

So to finish up. Unless encounters can excess the base active defence available, defensive focused roles/builds/gear will be less desired or excluded at these high level of play.

IndigoSundown.5419:

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.

It actually has a lot of sense. You see, when Anet tried to balance active and passive gameplay, they failed. They failed, because both types concentrate on different things. Offence is mostly passive, with some active elements. On the other hand, passive defence is completely irrelevant when compared to active one – and active elements are not dependant on stats. That means it’s entirely possible to maximize both offense and defense.

Which is why the passive effects like Empower Allies are disliked by lot of people – they feed even more into the dps monoculture. People that ask about more roles do not ask for that kind of support. They want viable roles that do not concentrate on increasing the damage output.

haviz.1340:

Passive modifiers are now support? You seem to jest. I guess food and potions are also support.

sigh.

passive, party-wide modifiers.

Devata.6589:

It’s again not like no mounts is some trademark, in fact in the lore there are mounts and GW1 had mounts.

Where exactly did GW1 have mounts? I seem to remember playing that game for 3 years and there were no mounts in it.

This is exactly what i’ve been trying to explain to you – you hold very dearly to your own opinions but most of the times they’re based on things that are wrong/false.

Devata.6589:

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.

Again the “many people” hypothesis. However even in the minority that’s represented on the forums
Anet released numbers at one point – and said they had around 460.000 players playing at one time.
I doubt we have even 30.000 registered users on these forums that are actively posting. But even if we had 100.000 ( which is clearly not the case – since it’s pretty much evident to anyone using the forums) they would still be a minority compared to those playing the game.

If they’re playing it means they like the game. If this could be less true at launch – 2 years after you can be pretty sure that if a player is playing he likes the game.

So these people who consider the combat boring and bland are a minority( some of those posting on the forums) of a minority ( those who post on the forums are just a few of those playing the game).

• So should defensive focused roles/builds/gear be excluded from high end game play?

• Does defensive focused only mean passive play as active defence is just something we bring and doesn’t matter what favour we focus on (Offensive/Defensive).

Harper.4173:

Where exactly did GW1 have mounts? I seem to remember playing that game for 3 years and there were no mounts in it.

Groooaaaaaaaaaan.

Junundu Wurms and Siege Devourers. If you state yourself that you’ve played it for 3 years, when the game itself has been around for much longer than that, and has had two new campaigns (one of which introduced the Junundu Wurm) and one expansion (which introduced the siege devourer), how can you state that the game didn’t have mounts?

maha.7902:

sigh.

passive, party-wide modifiers.

I have 5 potions I send to 4 other party members. Support?

People want defensive support to be used more commonly. That means the game has to be much harder and less solo-able. It should require from your team to support you so the lone person is no longer able to complete the group content. Make mobs strong enough that you need defensive support and resilient enough that you can’t just burst them.

haviz.1340:

I have 5 potions I send to 4 other party members. Support?

People want defensive support to be used more commonly. That means the game has to be much harder and less solo-able. It should require from your team to support you so the lone person is no longer able to complete the group content. Make mobs strong enough that you need defensive support and resilient enough that you can’t just burst them.

It doesn’t change really the game. I would like to see more hard content. But you know what would happen? They wouldn’t change their build, or just a little bit. There would be more hammer guardian for protection, there would be more skale venom for weakness, you could see more blind, more aegis, more reflect, etc. That would be the kind of support that you would see more. But ppl would still be whining because the game is still dps oriented, zerker is still the best gear, toughness/vitality/healing is still kitten, etc.

The game being harder, mean more active defense, more damage mitigation, more support. But not the same thing of support and defense that the ppl whining want. They just want to play with their soldier and knight gear or bring their healing profession because that’s the kind of ppl that want to be part of the high end gameplay, while have a high survivability because they die too easy.

I have 5 potions I send to 4 other party members. Support?

Yes. Next?

People want defensive support to be used more commonly. That means the game has to be much harder and less solo-able. It should require from your team to support you so the lone person is no longer able to complete the group content. Make mobs strong enough that you need defensive support and resilient enough that you can’t just burst them.

Fractals of the Mists. You can still solo/duo some of them despite the HP and damage being throttled up at higher levels.

Bezagron.7352:

• So should defensive focused roles/builds/gear be excluded from high end game play?

• Does defensive focused only mean passive play as active defence is just something we bring and doesn’t matter what favour we focus on (Offensive/Defensive).

Defensive gear should be excluded ya. But not defensive role/build/skills.

You just need to be smart and follow a couple of simple rules.
- Good defense/support is party wide. If it only help you, that’s shouldn’t be focus on.
- Good defense/support should prevent your party from being damage, not repair the damage after. Its always better to prevent a problem, then try to fix it after.
- DPS should still be your main focus and you should only bring the defense/support you need to the content. As a guardian, when I go in Fractal, I usually bring protection from my hammer, superior Aria for more shout and master of consecration for reflect and condi removal. But I never bring those in dungeon like CoF or CoE because they are not needed there.

Things like aegis, blind, reflect, block, protection, vigor, weakness, etc are really good defense/support. Condi removal is also good, but you don’t need that much in PvE except in some specific situation.

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

It’s again not like no mounts is some trademark, in fact in the lore there are mounts and GW1 had mounts.

Where exactly did GW1 have mounts? I seem to remember playing that game for 3 years and there were no mounts in it.

This is exactly what i’ve been trying to explain to you – you hold very dearly to your own opinions but most of the times they’re based on things that are wrong/false.

Devata.6589:

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.

Again the “many people” hypothesis. However even in the minority that’s represented on the forums
Anet released numbers at one point – and said they had around 460.000 players playing at one time.
I doubt we have even 30.000 registered users on these forums that are actively posting. But even if we had 100.000 ( which is clearly not the case – since it’s pretty much evident to anyone using the forums) they would still be a minority compared to those playing the game.

If they’re playing it means they like the game. If this could be less true at launch – 2 years after you can be pretty sure that if a player is playing he likes the game.

So these people who consider the combat boring and bland are a minority( some of those posting on the forums) of a minority ( those who post on the forums are just a few of those playing the game).

Nice try to change what your said about how a vocal minority wanted the change to how a minority of players are on the forums.

And you throw in a new ’ fact’ I see “If they’re playing it means they like the game.” meanwhile still ignoring possible players who already left. Also your logical reasoning gets worse with every comment.

Many is still not as a specific number like minority and majority what you use. That’s why I use the word ‘many’. But like I said we can talk about the subject of the thread. I will not go into this debate anymore I already said all about it that there was to say about it. Oow and bold text still does not mean it’s true.

maha.7902:

Yes. Next?

One dimensional thinking. Greatsword autoattack applies vulnerability which means it’s also support. It’s really troublesome to define something that’s not support then. By definition, being supportive means to be actively concerned for the success of your own team.

Fractals of the Mists. You can still solo/duo some of them despite the HP and damage being throttled up at higher levels.

That’s why people have done scale 80 with no changes to their playstyle and builds? Like every single boss in fractals was soloed.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Harper.4173:

Where exactly did GW1 have mounts? I seem to remember playing that game for 3 years and there were no mounts in it.

Groooaaaaaaaaaan.

Junundu Wurms and Siege Devourers. If you state yourself that you’ve played it for 3 years, when the game itself has been around for much longer than that, and has had two new campaigns (one of which introduced the Junundu Wurm) and one expansion (which introduced the siege devourer), how can you state that the game didn’t have mounts?

Those were situational mounts and you were actually the Wurm, not a player on the Wurm. Those were not mounts in the classic term. The Siege Devourer was a weapon not a mount – you could only take it so far and it disappeared.

Thaddeus.4891:

It doesn’t change really the game. I would like to see more hard content. But you know what would happen? They wouldn’t change their build, or just a little bit. There would be more hammer guardian for protection, there would be more skale venom for weakness, you could see more blind, more aegis, more reflect, etc. That would be the kind of support that you would see more. But ppl would still be whining because the game is still dps oriented, zerker is still the best gear, toughness/vitality/healing is still kitten, etc.

The game being harder, mean more active defense, more damage mitigation, more support. But not the same thing of support and defense that the ppl whining want. They just want to play with their soldier and knight gear or bring their healing profession because that’s the kind of ppl that want to be part of the high end gameplay, while have a high survivability because they die too easy.

Why do you fight completely different in pvp then?

haviz.1340:

Thaddeus.4891:

It doesn’t change really the game. I would like to see more hard content. But you know what would happen? They wouldn’t change their build, or just a little bit. There would be more hammer guardian for protection, there would be more skale venom for weakness, you could see more blind, more aegis, more reflect, etc. That would be the kind of support that you would see more. But ppl would still be whining because the game is still dps oriented, zerker is still the best gear, toughness/vitality/healing is still kitten, etc.

The game being harder, mean more active defense, more damage mitigation, more support. But not the same thing of support and defense that the ppl whining want. They just want to play with their soldier and knight gear or bring their healing profession because that’s the kind of ppl that want to be part of the high end gameplay, while have a high survivability because they die too easy.

Why do you fight completely different in pvp then?

1) Because sPvP is not the same as PvE and WvW. The skill and stats don’t give you the same advantages and disadvantages.
2) Because Mobs and the path is predictable. Better AI would change that a bit, not not completely. Mobs even with better AI will still predictable, just more fun fight. It will take several decades before we can have unpredictable AI and will take even more decades before you can put that kind of AI into a games that can be played on commercial PC. But even there, the path of the dungeon is predictable, you can make your build accordingly because you know what is going to happen. In PvP, you don’t know. At one time you can be 3 on someone and you don’t need any defence, the other second you have 3 ppl on you and you need as much defence as possible to survive and keep the point while your team come to help you.
3) In WvW, there is just too much going on at the same time to keep track of everything. At some point, you will see that there is 4 Necro wells under your feet and if you don’t have enough defence to survive that peak of dmg, then you’ll be dead.

PvP is not ’’harder’’ than PvE. Its unpredictable. And the only reason to bring passive defense is unpredictability.

Oh you can put that into PvE. But that doesn’t mean that it will be a good game. Right now the technology don’t allow us to do much real unpredictability. Mobs need to be overpower, hit so fast that you can’t react, have random trap that can kill you, or kitten like that to make PvE ’’unpredictable’’. It can be nice in some game, but most of the time, that just kitten people off. That kind of game are usually not main stream and are only a niche market (rogue like, etc).

So harder PvE would be nice, but would not make it unpredictable. So you would still be better with active defence.

Thaddeus.4891:

1) Because sPvP is not the same as PvE and WvW. The skill and stats don’t give you the same advantages and disadvantages.
2) Because Mobs and the path is predictable. Better AI would change that a bit, not not completely. Mobs even with better AI will still predictable, just more fun fight. It will take several decades before we can have unpredictable AI and will take even more decades before you can put that kind of AI into a games that can be played on commercial PC. But even there, the path of the dungeon is predictable, you can make your build accordingly because you know what is going to happen. In PvP, you don’t know. At one time you can be 3 on someone and you don’t need any defence, the other second you have 3 ppl on you and you need as much defence as possible to survive and keep the point while your team come to help you.
3) In WvW, there is just too much going on at the same time to keep track of everything. At some point, you will see that there is 4 Necro wells under your feet and if you don’t have enough defence to survive that peak of dmg, then you’ll be dead.

PvP is not ’’harder’’ than PvE. Its unpredictable. And the only reason to bring passive defense is unpredictability.

Oh you can put that into PvE. But that doesn’t mean that it will be a good game. Right now the technology don’t allow us to do much real unpredictability. Mobs need to be overpower, hit so fast that you can’t react, have random trap that can kill you, or kitten like that to make PvE ’’unpredictable’’. It can be nice in some game, but most of the time, that just kitten people off. That kind of game are usually not main stream and are only a niche market (rogue like, etc).

So harder PvE would be nice, but would not make it unpredictable. So you would still be better with active defence.

Unpredictable means you have to adapt. For me, that means it’s harder and even if you are the best dueler or teamfighter you still need to know how to rotate. PvE is completely linear in comparison.

Mobs check their scripts about every 2 second. Compare a player playing a thief with novices in cliffside fractal. The difference is night and day. One black powder is enough to stop 100% damage.

Active defense are main counters against mythical one-shots. Mobs should pressure you more steadily and should be less vulnerable to burst to avoid brute forcing through the content.

The game is really stale when even average pugs caught up with speedclear guilds. Changes are definitely needed.

Thaddeus.4891:

Bezagron.7352:

• So should defensive focused roles/builds/gear be excluded from high end game play?

• Does defensive focused only mean passive play as active defence is just something we bring and doesn’t matter what favour we focus on (Offensive/Defensive).

Defensive gear should be excluded ya. But not defensive role/build/skills.

You just need to be smart and follow a couple of simple rules.
- Good defense/support is party wide. If it only help you, that’s shouldn’t be focus on.
- Good defense/support should prevent your party from being damage, not repair the damage after. Its always better to prevent a problem, then try to fix it after.
- DPS should still be your main focus and you should only bring the defense/support you need to the content. As a guardian, when I go in Fractal, I usually bring protection from my hammer, superior Aria for more shout and master of consecration for reflect and condi removal. But I never bring those in dungeon like CoF or CoE because they are not needed there.

Things like aegis, blind, reflect, block, protection, vigor, weakness, etc are really good defense/support. Condi removal is also good, but you don’t need that much in PvE except in some specific situation.

The problem is that, however it might sound like hyperbole, people don’t WANT their defenses to be party-wide, because then that means responsibility is shared. They don’t want to be the guardian who uses a hammer to reduce all incoming damage to the party by 33%, because then EVERYONE gets that defense buff, including the DPS. That in turn means that they’re no longer “the tank” which means they have no special excuse not to contribute. If on the other hand they’re the ONLY one taking 33% less damage, they can sit at the front, not even attack, and go “well I’m not doing any damage but I’m still doing my part by taking hits that would down the rest of you.” Whether that’s true or not is irrelevant, the important thing is that you have an excuse to feel like you’re contributing.

Like I’ve said before in the other thread, it’s not the inability to play non-DPS roles that people take issue with, but the fact that non-dedicated DPS is still required to DPS. It’s easy to mask it behind the “trinity = more roles = more diversity” but what you’re actually asking for is reducing the number of roles by locking people into playing ONLY DPS, support, or tank, etc. rather than encouraging hybrid roles, which is what the game does currently.

Guanglai Kangyi.4318:

The problem is that, however it might sound like hyperbole, people don’t WANT their defenses to be party-wide, because then that means responsibility is shared. They don’t want to be the guardian who uses a hammer to reduce all incoming damage to the party by 33%, because then EVERYONE gets that defense buff, including the DPS. That in turn means that they’re no longer “the tank” which means they have no special excuse not to contribute. […]

Speak for yourself! Guardian is one of the professions I play and for sometime have exclusively ran with a hammer as the primary weapon, because I enjoy knowing the build I run is maintaining permanent 33% damage protection to PuGs while still pushing out reasonable damage/vulnerability stacks. I find it satisfying noticing the distinct damage reduction which becomes all too noticeable when playing on my other professions in PuGs without a hammer guardian.

Having skimmed read this forum thread, I personally feel some posters here need a reality check on thinking they know what the majority of the player base wants. While the forum maybe a litmus test of players’ reactions, it is just that, a litmus test that can still give a false positive.

haviz.1340:

The game is really stale when even average pugs caught up with speedclear guilds. Changes are definitely needed.

Oh boy that … thats just …. my sides.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Harper.4173:

Where exactly did GW1 have mounts? I seem to remember playing that game for 3 years and there were no mounts in it.

Groooaaaaaaaaaan.

Junundu Wurms and Siege Devourers. If you state yourself that you’ve played it for 3 years, when the game itself has been around for much longer than that, and has had two new campaigns (one of which introduced the Junundu Wurm) and one expansion (which introduced the siege devourer), how can you state that the game didn’t have mounts?

Those were situational mounts and you were actually the Wurm, not a player on the Wurm. Those were not mounts in the classic term. The Siege Devourer was a weapon not a mount – you could only take it so far and it disappeared.

GW1 was not an MMO in the classic term. But it pretty much was there version of mounts. It was indeed those thinks I was referring to but also the Zombie Horseman. Anyway lets not wonder off to the mount discussion.

The point was that there is a difference between wanting a change / improvement or seeing a problem and wanting the game to be turned into another game.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Harper.4173:

Where exactly did GW1 have mounts? I seem to remember playing that game for 3 years and there were no mounts in it.

Groooaaaaaaaaaan.

Junundu Wurms and Siege Devourers. If you state yourself that you’ve played it for 3 years, when the game itself has been around for much longer than that, and has had two new campaigns (one of which introduced the Junundu Wurm) and one expansion (which introduced the siege devourer), how can you state that the game didn’t have mounts?

Those were not mounts. They were game mechanics that transformed you – they gave you completely other skills.

Where you could use them * was also very limited* – you couldn’t have them all over the game – just in a few specific areas where they were used to bypass certain threats (Wurms).

They weren’t mounts in the sense that people are asking for them here. They were not vanity items, nor could you use them to get around anywhere.

If that’s the case GW2 also has mounts – Mechanical Devourers in EOTM!

Devata.6589:

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

It’s again not like no mounts is some trademark, in fact in the lore there are mounts and GW1 had mounts.

Where exactly did GW1 have mounts? I seem to remember playing that game for 3 years and there were no mounts in it.

This is exactly what i’ve been trying to explain to you – you hold very dearly to your own opinions but most of the times they’re based on things that are wrong/false.

Devata.6589:

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.

Again the “many people” hypothesis. However even in the minority that’s represented on the forums
Anet released numbers at one point – and said they had around 460.000 players playing at one time.
I doubt we have even 30.000 registered users on these forums that are actively posting. But even if we had 100.000 ( which is clearly not the case – since it’s pretty much evident to anyone using the forums) they would still be a minority compared to those playing the game.

If they’re playing it means they like the game. If this could be less true at launch – 2 years after you can be pretty sure that if a player is playing he likes the game.

So these people who consider the combat boring and bland are a minority( some of those posting on the forums) of a minority ( those who post on the forums are just a few of those playing the game).

Nice try to change what your said about how a vocal minority wanted the change to how a minority of players are on the forums.

And you throw in a new ’ fact’ I see “If they’re playing it means they like the game.” meanwhile still ignoring possible players who already left. Also your logical reasoning gets worse with every comment.

Many is still not as a specific number like minority and majority what you use. That’s why I use the word ‘many’. But like I said we can talk about the subject of the thread. I will not go into this debate anymore I already said all about it that there was to say about it. Oow and bold text still does not mean it’s true.

Actually I think you’re missing my points. I’ve been trying to make you understand that all along. Glad you finally did get it.

A minority are on the forums. Of that minority an even smaller one wants these changes. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.

Again the players who have already left are of no consequence – if they left that means they didn’t like the game.
GW2 should focus on those that are here playing and supporting the game via the gem store rather than try to appease those who left.

Players who left are on the same importance level as players who never played imo. Worse even since a player who left tried it and didn’t like it. A player who has never played has a chance to like it and stick around.

Why would you cater your game to the “leavers” instead of those who are sticking with the game and supporting it?

Also I don’t think my reasoning is getting worse – I actually believe you don’t fully get what I’m trying to convey and that makes this very confusing.

Bold text is used to facilitate easier reading and ensure that people at least get the highlights of the post.

haviz.1340:

The game is really stale when even average pugs caught up with speedclear guilds. Changes are definitely needed.

Where exactly has that happened?

Also – the game is stale because there’s been no new content in almost 2 years.
You bet most players are finding dungeons easy now, they’ve had 2 years to do them and get good at them. The content isn’t the issue. It’s the same it’s always been.

Changes won’t “fix” the content – they’ll just anger the player base.

If I have 7 dungeons – and 4 of them are farmable – do you think taking those 4 dungeons, changing them and making them harder will make the playerbase go " wow sure glad they made this dungeon harder – I was getting loot too easy here".

No – it will anger the players that feel they are being “driven out” and “forced to grind” because “Anet nerfs every farm”.
Do you remember how the players felt about CoF P1 being nerfed?

Players don’t like easy loot being taken away. And while you might complain on the forum that the combat is stale and that the game needs this and that I’m pretty sure for each and every one of us discussing this in this thread there are at least 4-5 players happily farming CoF and AC and enjoying the rewards. Because there’s nothing else enjoyable about the same content being played over and over for nearly 2 years.

The solution is for more content to be added – content that caters to hardcore players that want more challenge and more corresponding rewards.
I cannot stress enough how much rewards have to be factored in if the game is to have more challenging content because if the rewards aren’t there there’s no reason to not just do it once and never touch it again ( see Aetherblade path of TA).

Harper.4173:

Where exactly has that happened?

Also – the game is stale because there’s been no new content in almost 2 years.
You bet most players are finding dungeons easy now, they’ve had 2 years to do them and get good at them. The content isn’t the issue. It’s the same it’s always been.

Changes won’t “fix” the content – they’ll just anger the player base.

If I have 7 dungeons – and 4 of them are farmable – do you think taking those 4 dungeons, changing them and making them harder will make the playerbase go " wow sure glad they made this dungeon harder – I was getting loot too easy here".

No – it will anger the players that feel they are being “driven out” and “forced to grind” because “Anet nerfs every farm”.
Do you remember how the players felt about CoF P1 being nerfed?

Players don’t like easy loot being taken away. And while you might complain on the forum that the combat is stale and that the game needs this and that I’m pretty sure for each and every one of us discussing this in this thread there are at least 4-5 players happily farming CoF and AC and enjoying the rewards. Because there’s nothing else enjoyable about the same content being played over and over for nearly 2 years.

The solution is for more content to be added – content that caters to hardcore players that want more challenge and more corresponding rewards.
I cannot stress enough how much rewards have to be factored in if the game is to have more challenging content because if the rewards aren’t there there’s no reason to not just do it once and never touch it again ( see Aetherblade path of TA).

Maybe my imaginable pugs are better than average ones then. Who knows. Anyway, you can achieve relatively high rate of faceroll if you play with either a lot of warriors/guardians or abuse fgs. PvE needs to start giving more attention to things like boon hate. For example, in ascalon fractal it’s more efficient to use perma protection and weakness (which you can get almost passively) than to strip or steal might stacks ascalonian monks give to other mobs. More active gameplay has less reward and efficiency and that shouldn’t be the case.

Thaddeus.4891:

Defensive gear should be excluded ya. But not defensive role/build/skills.

You just need to be smart and follow a couple of simple rules.
- Good defense/support is party wide. If it only help you, that’s shouldn’t be focus on.
- Good defense/support should prevent your party from being damage, not repair the damage after. Its always better to prevent a problem, then try to fix it after.
- DPS should still be your main focus and you should only bring the defense/support you need to the content. As a guardian, when I go in Fractal, I usually bring protection from my hammer, superior Aria for more shout and master of consecration for reflect and condi removal. But I never bring those in dungeon like CoF or CoE because they are not needed there.

Things like aegis, blind, reflect, block, protection, vigor, weakness, etc are really good defense/support. Condi removal is also good, but you don’t need that much in PvE except in some specific situation.

Ok slightly confused Thaddeus, you say defensive roles/builds/skills should be included in high end play but not defensive gear?

How is the role or build defensively focused if not using defensive gear? Isn’t this just an offensive focused role or build that brings the required defences. In my mind that would be offensive defence not defensive focused.

A note on skills when talking offensive minded or defensive minded and how rewarding they feel. To clarify when talking about skill(s) I’m talking about active skills. Skills that require you to activate them.

At the moment building offensive feels very rewarding in regard to skills. As you almost always feel improvement with the skill. But building defensively is more passive in design and as such with regard to skills feels a lot less rewarding. So many defensive skill don’t seem to have an improved effect when building defensive. These defensive skills feel the same no matter if offensive or defensive.

It just feels that the defensive focused player in GW2 are relegated to passive play. Everything but active defence for a defensive focused player feels passive. And active defence is independent of your focus. So a defensive focused player is unable to improve the effects/skills of their active play (active defence). Defensive focused play feel less rewarding then offensive focused play.

I believe the reason you don’t see more complex mechanics like “boon hate” or stuff like – " instead of applying this maybe I should strip that or do that to the enemy" is because GW2 is again designed so even the bad players can do alright in it.

How many players do you think would be able to understand and work around these complex combat mechanics when the Queen’s Pavilion has shown us they can’t even not zerg and listen properly.

Harper.4173:

Also – the game is stale because there’s been no new content in almost 2 years.
…

You bet most players are finding dungeons easy now, they’ve had 2 years to do them and get good at them. The content isn’t the issue. It’s the same it’s always been.

The solution is for more content to be added – content that caters to hardcore players that want more challenge and more corresponding rewards.

Challenging content for higher skilled players is definitely something that’s needed. These players have had the time to master most, if not all of the existing highly skilled content.

But on more corresponding rewards I think this roles problem could be part of it.
I guessing when you say more corresponding rewards you mean rewards that feel worthwhile and rewarding for high end players.

So there’s new shiny skins/items but how rewarding will this reward feel if it has defensive stats or focus?

So already even if added these’s will feel less rewarding or even worthless. In a way if there was a 50/50 balance between offensive gear/items & defence gear/items this would mean that over half of the rewards are not wanted by these players. So for these players it’s as if these rewards might as well not even exist.

On a whole I think this desire for more roles comes down to the type of player or how the player wants to play this character.

• Are you offensive minded or defensive minded.
• Is this character your building offensive minded or defensive minded.

At the heart all roles/builds/gear can be aligned in favour to either offensive or defensive. So talking GW2 overall roles (Damage, Control & Support)

• Defensive damage – Punishing skills can have defensive favour and is typically the only type of damage I could consider as defensive damage. (Eg. Retal, Reflects, Confusion, punishing the attacker for attacking you)
• Offensive focused damage – All other damage skills & punishing skills not defensive focused.
• Defensive control – Control used in a defensive way.
• Offensive control – Control used in a offensive way.

• Defensive support – support the improves your’s or allies defence and/or survivability (Eg. Healing, damage migration/avoidance)
• Offensive support – support the improves your’s or allies offence (Eg. Improves damage output)

So lastly at the moment in GW2 PvE being defensive focused leaves you undesired and most likely excluded from most high end PvE game play. Now I only say defensive focused as there is defensive play.

Harper.4173:

I believe the reason you don’t see more complex mechanics like “boon hate” or stuff like – " instead of applying this maybe I should strip that or do that to the enemy" is because GW2 is again designed so even the bad players can do alright in it.

How many players do you think would be able to understand and work around these complex combat mechanics when the Queen’s Pavilion has shown us they can’t even not zerg and listen properly.

So why are you asking for challenging content? How exactly would it be challenging when even bad players can do alright in it?

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

It’s again not like no mounts is some trademark, in fact in the lore there are mounts and GW1 had mounts.

Where exactly did GW1 have mounts? I seem to remember playing that game for 3 years and there were no mounts in it.

This is exactly what i’ve been trying to explain to you – you hold very dearly to your own opinions but most of the times they’re based on things that are wrong/false.

Devata.6589:

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.

Again the “many people” hypothesis. However even in the minority that’s represented on the forums
Anet released numbers at one point – and said they had around 460.000 players playing at one time.
I doubt we have even 30.000 registered users on these forums that are actively posting. But even if we had 100.000 ( which is clearly not the case – since it’s pretty much evident to anyone using the forums) they would still be a minority compared to those playing the game.

If they’re playing it means they like the game. If this could be less true at launch – 2 years after you can be pretty sure that if a player is playing he likes the game.

So these people who consider the combat boring and bland are a minority( some of those posting on the forums) of a minority ( those who post on the forums are just a few of those playing the game).

Nice try to change what your said about how a vocal minority wanted the change to how a minority of players are on the forums.

And you throw in a new ’ fact’ I see “If they’re playing it means they like the game.” meanwhile still ignoring possible players who already left. Also your logical reasoning gets worse with every comment.

Many is still not as a specific number like minority and majority what you use. That’s why I use the word ‘many’. But like I said we can talk about the subject of the thread. I will not go into this debate anymore I already said all about it that there was to say about it. Oow and bold text still does not mean it’s true.

Actually I think you’re missing my points. I’ve been trying to make you understand that all along. Glad you finally did get it.

A minority are on the forums. Of that minority an even smaller one wants these changes. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.

Again the players who have already left are of no consequence – if they left that means they didn’t like the game.
GW2 should focus on those that are here playing and supporting the game via the gem store rather than try to appease those who left.

Players who left are on the same importance level as players who never played imo. Worse even since a player who left tried it and didn’t like it. A player who has never played has a chance to like it and stick around.

Why would you cater your game to the “leavers” instead of those who are sticking with the game and supporting it?

Also I don’t think my reasoning is getting worse – I actually believe you don’t fully get what I’m trying to convey and that makes this very confusing.

Bold text is used to facilitate easier reading and ensure that people at least get the highlights of the post.

No you you where not only talking about the fact that a minority of the people are on the forums.

I said:
“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.”

on what you answered:
“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”. ”

So you said the people who don’t like it are just a minority of complaining people. It had nothing to do with how many people where on the forums.

And why you should care about people who left and indeed also on possible future people! Because else your player-base only shrinks. That is also why there are billions and billions of dollars used every year on attracting new (and old) customizes. Also known as advertising. So you might think it’s not important but it seems to be very import. And yes you also need to cater your current customers. But implementing roles would not suddenly mean most of them leave.

About possible new customers. If there are a lot of people who did play the game and consider combat dull then you will see the same with new customers so also to being able to hold them you should look at the complains.

“Bold text is used to facilitate easier reading and ensure that people at least get the highlights of the post ”
Indeed, so use it that way in stead of using it to highlight your own truths in a statement.

Harper.4173:

I believe the reason you don’t see more complex mechanics like “boon hate” or stuff like – " instead of applying this maybe I should strip that or do that to the enemy" is because GW2 is again designed so even the bad players can do alright in it.

How many players do you think would be able to understand and work around these complex combat mechanics when the Queen’s Pavilion has shown us they can’t even not zerg and listen properly.

There is a difference between not being able to and not wanting. You see this whole thread is about how dull combat is and what is the command people get in ’Queen’s Pavilion’ (per boss) stack and DPS. That’s pretty much is. A few have some minor mechanic but that’s about it.

So it’s not about lack of skills, it’s the ‘skills’ you need are stack and DPS. As to why you see the complains about dull combat.

Bezagron.7352:

Ok slightly confused Thaddeus, you say defensive roles/builds/skills should be included in high end play but not defensive gear? .

No i’m not confuse. Defensive gear only give you selfish passive surviability at the expense of a massive amount of DPS.

’’SOME’’ defensive trait on the other end give you party wide active or passive survivability at the expense of only a small amount of DPS.

Bezagron.7352:

How is the role or build defensively focused if not using defensive gear? Isn’t this just an offensive focused role or build that brings the required defences. In my mind that would be offensive defence not defensive focused.

Well you’re right there. Maybe I wasn’t clear on that. I know the guys asked if Defence focused build/gear/roles needed to be excluded from high end content and I should have said YES. Defence focused build should be excluded. But like I said, defence roles/build shouldn’t be excluded. I said it clearly, Offensive should always be your main focus, but it doesn’t mean that some defensive support should be excluded when they are needed. When you do a speed run, there is NO reason whatsoever to bring a guardian except for his defensive capabilities. You need offensive support? Warrior and Ranger. You need DPS? Elementalist. Need reflect, aegis, blind? Guardian. That guardian will still be DPS oriented, but it will bring specific defence support to help the team.

Bezagron.7352:

At the moment building offensive feels very rewarding in regard to skills. As you almost always feel improvement with the skill. But building defensively is more passive in design and as such with regard to skills feels a lot less rewarding. So many defensive skill don’t seem to have an improved effect when building defensive. These defensive skills feel the same no matter if offensive or defensive.

It just feels that the defensive focused player in GW2 are relegated to passive play. Everything but active defence for a defensive focused player feels passive. And active defence is independent of your focus. So a defensive focused player is unable to improve the effects/skills of their active play (active defence). Defensive focused play feel less rewarding then offensive focused play.

Your right again. Defensive focused play style feel less rewarding. The only play where a defensive focused play style was rewarding in the history of video game was in the form of a Tank. Your suppose to kill your enemy, and you are not doing that be receiving a couple hit on the face. Your winning by killing your ennemy with dmg. Even in the Holy Trinity, you had 3/5 of your team PURELY focusing on damage, while the other 2/5 were defence focusing but were still doing dmg.

You said defensive focused ppl feel unrewarded? Well, on my guardian my main focus while i’m playing is defence and it feel amazing. Don’t get me wrong, my build is mainly offensive (Zerker gear, meta build and all of that) and I do my share of DPS. But the dps I do feel on the background since I just do my DPS rotation and that’s all. But i’m always looking at my party and at the enemy. Oh he gonna do a big hit, does my party have aegis? Can I blind the guys. Ok, i’ll need to put my wall there. Ok swap to stability for this stage. Oh kitten the warrior and ele have condition i’ll clear it, etc.

You want defence that feel rewarding? There it is right there. What is fun, efficient or rewarding in passive defensive stats like vitality or toughness?? And why would I want those stats to be fun, efficient or rewarding?

Do I would want more good defensive options? Ya of course. I would like to have some gear that give you a good amount of boon duration so you can give protection, vigor, etc. I would want the game to have more focus on Weakness, because now its pretty rare except for venom skale and necro. I would want to condition duration gear for player specialised in Vulnerability or Weakness.

But that’s just small addition. For me the core game should stay the same. DPS oriented for everyone, with the Defence support needed.

Increased complexity can create engaging and challenge mechanics, or increase it can just increase frustration with unnecessary complexity. A system does not have to be complex to require skill and be engaging.

GW2’s active defence is quite simple on the whole but I find engaging and skillful but bar this active defence that is independent of focus (Offensive/Defensive).When creating defensive focused builds in GW2 you are a passive build at heart that just also get to use active defence. You can’t increase the effect of this active defence but a offensive focus build can increase there active offence.

Could defensive focused roles/builds/gear somehow increase active defence without taking away from offensive focused roles/builds/gear’s existing available active defence improving active defensive game play?

I’m not looking at.. Oo if you don’t spec defensively active defence is pointless but looking at differentiating offensive active defensive from defensive in a way that you feel like your getting something more then just increasing passives if defensive focused.

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

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

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

Thanks Thaddeus I’m not say there’s not defensive game play and I agree the active defensive game play is there. For me this defensive game play feels so much more rewarding and satisfying then some other games I’ve played.

But this defence is independent of build favour. Take Guardian I feel no difference in this defence if I’m offensive focused or defensive focus if anything I feel like I’m holding the group back when defensive focused. I really like GW2 active defence, I just wish defensive focused didn’t mean passive play as active defence is amazing.

Isn’t there some way to differentiating the active defence between offensive focused and defensive focus players. Some way that building and using defensive items & gear could improve active defence. Not only would this open up high level play for these players if skilled but it will now also make defensive item & gear more rewarding on a whole.

It all basically comes down to, for a defensive focused role/build/gear to be wanted encounters need to excess the available active defences available if offensively focused.

What I’m looking for is defensive focused players are desired and wanted. We’re talking about group play, should defensive focused be excluded or for 1 or 2 spot could they be wanted. Or are we only wanting offensive focused players to fill all 5 spots.

In a way I guess I’m saying make it harder for a purely 5 man offensive focused party to be able to complete this high end content but is it right that only this type of game play focus has access to this level of play. So yes I would welcome this but also if the 5 man offensive focused players are near perfect they can still complete this content. But if there not on their game they will fail.

I see what you mean Bezagron. Whatever your build as a Guardian you can pretty much do the same TYPE of active defence. You will still do Protection, Aegis, Reflect, etc. There is the F1 Blind spam that really change your gameplay, but that the one of the only rare exception. Most of the time, whatever your build is, the defence capabilities of your profession and your skills don’t really change much.

I personally, don’t think that a big problem. Of course, more good Defence capabilities would be awesome. Your idea for an improve Aegis or Blind is nice. They don’t simply improve the duration of cooldown, they change the nature of it.

A simpler version of your idea would be to make a Trait that allow you to stack Aegis or Blind. So you don’t simply add duration to the aegis or blind when you put several of them back to back, you add up stack. For example, I use retreat and virtue of courage right after. That put 2 stack of aegis on my team, so that will block the next 2 attack. You can also have a trait that double the number of stack of aegis that you put. So retreat would give your team 2 stack of aegis each time you use it.

The problem with that is. Would it be worth it? Content is not that hard for a good team. If thing are harder like in high level fractal or arah, you simply bring a dps guardian with some support and that’s pretty much all you need. Right now, support it worth it only if that don’t decrease too much your DPS. Hammer protection is good because Writ of Persistence also boost your dmg to the top. F1 Blind spam is good because it also give vulnerability and is in the middle of one of the best dps trait line for the guardian. If you put some nice powerful trait to boost aegis, but for that you need to sacrifice some damage modifier in radiance or zeal, then why someone would do that? We gonna need more good defensive support AND harder content if you want a more defence oriented role/build.

Thaddeus.4891:

The problem with that is. Would it be worth it?

That is exactly it.

The only reason defensive capabilities aren’t desireable right now is because it doesn’t make things faster, and for many people speed is all that matters.

So how would adding these defensive capabilities increase speed? It’d increase ease of play sure. But, Defensive gear already does that. So wouldn’t the proposition of upgrading that just be making the game easier for those that didn’t care about speed?

Jerus.4350:

Thaddeus.4891:

The problem with that is. Would it be worth it?

That is exactly it.

The only reason defensive capabilities aren’t desireable right now is because it doesn’t make things faster, and for many people speed is all that matters.

So how would adding these defensive capabilities increase speed?

I can’t really understand this logical approach. Is this a thing for people or it is just me who can’t get it?

It’d increase ease of play sure. But, Defensive gear already does that. So wouldn’t the proposition of upgrading that just be making the game easier for those that didn’t care about speed?

This here. And this is what defensive gear and builds should do and actually doing it right now. There is no logical reason for making the killing time of a full defensive build even comperable to a full offensive one.
Defensive approach of combat reduce the risk or actually completely remove it and “punish” you with slow kills. Is it fair? Hell yes. You want to finish content faster becase [reasons]? Get better in offensive builds until you can do it without any passive defense.

Bezagron.7352:

Harper.4173:

Also – the game is stale because there’s been no new content in almost 2 years.
…

You bet most players are finding dungeons easy now, they’ve had 2 years to do them and get good at them. The content isn’t the issue. It’s the same it’s always been.

The solution is for more content to be added – content that caters to hardcore players that want more challenge and more corresponding rewards.

Challenging content for higher skilled players is definitely something that’s needed. These players have had the time to master most, if not all of the existing highly skilled content.

But on more corresponding rewards I think this roles problem could be part of it.
I guessing when you say more corresponding rewards you mean rewards that feel worthwhile and rewarding for high end players.

So there’s new shiny skins/items but how rewarding will this reward feel if it has defensive stats or focus?

So already even if added these’s will feel less rewarding or even worthless. In a way if there was a 50/50 balance between offensive gear/items & defence gear/items this would mean that over half of the rewards are not wanted by these players. So for these players it’s as if these rewards might as well not even exist.

On a whole I think this desire for more roles comes down to the type of player or how the player wants to play this character.

• Are you offensive minded or defensive minded.
• Is this character your building offensive minded or defensive minded.

The rewards I’m talking about should be skins.
Items aren’t a good reward since you might not get the type of gear you want. Not necessarily defensive vs offensive but just not what you want.
Gold isn’t that great either since it just adds gold out of thin air into the game and improves inflation.

Skins are the perfect solution – a motivation to do it, a unique look and bragging rights all in one.

haviz.1340:

Harper.4173:

I believe the reason you don’t see more complex mechanics like “boon hate” or stuff like – " instead of applying this maybe I should strip that or do that to the enemy" is because GW2 is again designed so even the bad players can do alright in it.

How many players do you think would be able to understand and work around these complex combat mechanics when the Queen’s Pavilion has shown us they can’t even not zerg and listen properly.

So why are you asking for challenging content? How exactly would it be challenging when even bad players can do alright in it?

I’m asking for the content in the game to be left alone and more challenging content added on top of it so that the challenge loving players have something to play while the rest of the game is still as permissive to the casuals and not so good players.

Devata.6589:

Harper.4173:

I believe the reason you don’t see more complex mechanics like “boon hate” or stuff like – " instead of applying this maybe I should strip that or do that to the enemy" is because GW2 is again designed so even the bad players can do alright in it.

How many players do you think would be able to understand and work around these complex combat mechanics when the Queen’s Pavilion has shown us they can’t even not zerg and listen properly.

There is a difference between not being able to and not wanting. You see this whole thread is about how dull combat is and what is the command people get in ’Queen’s Pavilion’ (per boss) stack and DPS. That’s pretty much is. A few have some minor mechanic but that’s about it.

So it’s not about lack of skills, it’s the ‘skills’ you need are stack and DPS. As to why you see the complains about dull combat.

Actually the mechanics are quite rrelevant – and stack and DPS doesn’t work for the Pavilion.
Remember Boom Boom? The Turret boss? That boss isn’t just stack and dps. And because it wasn’t just stack and dps randoms couldn’t do it. So much so that it had to be nerfed.

People weren’t complaining about stack and dps in the case of that fight- they were complaining that the fight wasn’t stack and dps.

Also the whole ““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”. ”” – another poster posted that – not me – check your facts.

Also I’m just trying to point out how much of a minority these people are. I’ve come to terms you’re not going to understand what I wanted to explain but I hope others will.

IndigoSundown.5419:

ANEt is trying to make “one size fits all” content in GW2. The problem there is either: those seeking harder content are left begging; or the content is made difficult but there is no accessibility for those whose skills aren’t up to it. ANet want to not “split the player-base.” They also want to not create segregated rewards. This is a choice. However, the result of that choice is going to frustrate highly skilled players. Content is either too easy or unskilled play becomes a part of the challenge that the skilled cannot control.

I feel this is wrong.
We already have high-level FOTM where the average player can’t exactly go in and do well. It requires both skill and an investment into Agony Resist.

It also gives good rewards in the form of FOTM crafting mats, Ascended chests and most importantly Fractal Weapon Skins.

The approach is there – there just needs to be more content like this for the hardcore players.

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

Harper.4173:

I believe the reason you don’t see more complex mechanics like “boon hate” or stuff like – " instead of applying this maybe I should strip that or do that to the enemy" is because GW2 is again designed so even the bad players can do alright in it.

How many players do you think would be able to understand and work around these complex combat mechanics when the Queen’s Pavilion has shown us they can’t even not zerg and listen properly.

There is a difference between not being able to and not wanting. You see this whole thread is about how dull combat is and what is the command people get in ’Queen’s Pavilion’ (per boss) stack and DPS. That’s pretty much is. A few have some minor mechanic but that’s about it.

So it’s not about lack of skills, it’s the ‘skills’ you need are stack and DPS. As to why you see the complains about dull combat.

Actually the mechanics are quite rrelevant – and stack and DPS doesn’t work for the Pavilion.
Remember Boom Boom? The Turret boss? That boss isn’t just stack and dps. And because it wasn’t just stack and dps randoms couldn’t do it. So much so that it had to be nerfed.

People weren’t complaining about stack and dps in the case of that fight- they were complaining that the fight wasn’t stack and dps.

Also the whole ““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”. ”” – another poster posted that – not me – check your facts.

Also I’m just trying to point out how much of a minority these people are. I’ve come to terms you’re not going to understand what I wanted to explain but I hope others will.

I was searching for minority but you talked about majority (what make the other group a minority). By saying that you pretty much suggest the majority is just fine with it.

About the Pavilion, we did see that also with the Jungle work. However that has a complete different reason. You have a event with many people that required organization. Then you throw that in the open world where it is hard to organize it. In fact it’s a world where people are doing other things and running into it. It’s not like a shooter where there are also many people running around in a open map because they all have the same goal. And in fact they tent to still get more obvious indications what to do. But here you have a huge bunch of people who just bumb into this or have other personal preference how to solve the problem.

So then your organization will be a problem and stack and DPS is then at least doable. Hard content that require serious organization (for smaller or bigger groups) should be in special maps or private instances like dungeons or in other games raids.

So there the complains are more related to hard content that required organization in a place where organization is hard to achive. Not the fact that there is content that is harder and required more then just stack and DPS.

The problem is not the lack of roles, as already stated, in organized team each member needs to have a specific role to be the most effective.
It is true, you can run whatever profession or build you like, in PvE, you will succeed. Not as effectively, not as fast, but you will succeed.
But unbalance between professions exist, because you can say here whatever you want, in game, in real you won’t even choose an Engi over an Ele, War, Thief etc. Not even if the engi is on meta build, perfectly geared and uber experienced, most of people would pick anything but it. Why? Lack of balance. I run engi, full zerker, full ruby orbs, full ascended trinkets, meta-dps build, not even with 25 stacks of might, fury, whatever empower it will crit as much as war or ele. No matter how zerker your necro is, it will not crit half as much as the warrior.
You won’t choose an engi over a guardian or a mesmer, engi can reflect too, with toolbelt skill of elixir U, because 1 the wall of reflection that will spawn with 50% chance on a mere rng base will last only 3 seconds (while Guardian’s lasts 10) 2 high chance to get only smoke screens out of it with no reflect, only block 3 huge slice of playerbase has no idea engi has this utility.
I absolutely accept the fact that to run dungeons I should use a meta-build that I might not like, I have about 99% more content where to use the build I like to “play the way I want” without slowing down, damaging nor wasting time for anyone. The thing I despise is that, on meta build, same armors, trinkets, weapons stats, same sigils and runes 1 profession will do heavily better than another.
Moving to PvP (average, no elite pro stuff) and obvious unfair unbalance. Necro’s DS. Traited it becomes like a whole secondary hp pool, and a good amount of invulnerability, since damage won’t affect real hp. On equal damage/resilience/players skill, the necro will very likely win on a 1v1. Necro can carry the orb in Spirit watch under DS without losing it.warrior, berserker’s stance+endure pain. I do not think I need to say much about this, invulnerability that while up, still gives warrior access to all of its skills. (Elixir S locks every skill while under its effect and guess what? You can’t carry the orb when under its effect.) warrior and thief have movement skills (1h sword skill 2, dagger skill 2) which gives a big advantage when carrying the orb, as well as gs skills 3 and 5 for warrior. With mesmer, when using scepter’s skill 2, the block skill, since when struck sliiiiiightly moves you to replace you with clone (like 3 cm -.-) it causes the orb to fall. Same if using f4 or trying to blink. Just very simple examples that to me prove how deeply unbalanced professions are.

Um, engie works just fine when you’re in a situation where:

1) You need both high burst and sustained DPS in a fight that can’t be FGS’d.
2) You don’t need stealth as long as the thief’s.
3) You don’t need as much reflect uptime as a mesmer or guardian.

Of course you CAN take a thief for Arah skips or a mesmer for the SE golems, but you don’t really need that much uptime on stealth/reflect in either case and you’re just losing out on DPS, doubly so if you’re taking both a thief and guardian’mesmer instead of just one engineer.

The title of this thread is ridiculous (though I prefer ignorant/stupid).

The professions ARE varied via THE BUILD SYSTEM!

/topic over