So I figure we could have kind of a broad discussion about the Guardian as it stands right now and where we see it going. There’s both the issue of the “what did Anet Promise about classes being able to fill all roles,” and well, constant cries for Guardian balance. I think these are sides of the same coin, but that poor coin has many many sides.
What’s at issue is both the intention of having fun (a balanced environment where people can interact at equal levels), and a game-based system built to support competitive and creative gameplay. The first problem is that of the “Everyone can do everything” idea. It was bold and a good goal, but is it impossible to achieve? I mean, they did on most levels but let’s look at it simply. What’s at the crux of all gameplay: Taking Damage and Mitigating Damage. Even without the trinity, that’s how it goes. Now that shifts, but if ANet is right, classes should perform equal at all levels.
If you think about the idea, that classes can be broken down to HP, Mitigation, and Damage at all phases of the game, the big problem comes from two instances:
1. Guardians have HIGH mitigation, which is the most frustrating thing to handle for opposing players.
2. Their damage is very situational.
Notice that MOST of the time, when it comes to people who aren’t going overboard, people complain because they “can’t kill the guardian.” But that’s the idea, Guardians are supposed to have ACCESS to high damage BECAUSE they can mitigate it well. They don’t do burst, so they don’t reach their potential for high damage until the battle has gone on longer. Most of the guardian nerfs, and game nerfs, have been difficult to manage this balance. Think about the Thief, they have low mitigation, low HP, but very high damage. They are built to do high damage and get out. The shorter the battle, the better for Thieves.
There was a quote somewhere during the early reports where they talked about balance issues and not being able to kill something, and that’s troubling. If you can kill the guardian easily, then HOW does he access high damage?
For instance, the Warrior has less mitigation options, but far higher HP, They can build for both, More mitigation and less damage, to mimic a guardian in winning a war of attrition, OR build for higher damage with less Mitigation. While their HP won’t shift much, it will still allow them to take damage simply because the pool is so large. But in the end, Players don’t like high mitigation, they don’t like NOT killing foes, even if the foe cannot kill them. Guardians have to keep this in mind in terms of Anet’s decision, but they must also keep that in mind, If they shift our gameplay too much, we’ll just be low-hp warriors without the versatility.
Now, this isn’t a “Guardian is Underpowered” post, this is a “Let’s be careful about how we treat guardians because of the mechanics.” I’ve said it before, I fear the Paragon effect here, being nerfed into oblivion and then forgotten. The Paragon’s mechanics were bad for GW1 and how it worked. And it was a sad sad sight. I think we are hovering around that for GW2. A mobiel environment? Give guardians static skills.
The other big issue right now is a lack of damage options, AKA, the Range issue in WvWvW and the balance of rewards. Guardians really have O access to long range options, utility or not, out fo the box. And EVEN traited, our options are extremely low and situational. They don’t need a lot, but they need a viable build. OR the reward tagging needs to be shifted significantly, The change to Retaliation in today’s patch, although a good direction, was a big nerf to Guardian utility in WvWvW. It doesn’t help that ourn traits are very underwhelming for the most part (see the Searing Flames thread).
But it is all supposed to be fun, to work within the system, and to be balanced. Are we there yet? Maybe, but we’re under threat depending on how ANet shifts the mechanics.