Guild Wars 2

Bradley.4075:

@Aecilia
More bias opinions! That’s like me saying a warrior takes more skill to play than a necromancer, or a mesmer takes more skill to play than a guardian. Totally biased. You also added some ignorance in, great – I specifically said that guardians are to protect allies from damage, while healers are to heal players after they are damaged. Your last statement is a mix of ignorance and bias, and I will not bother answering such a question.

You ignored every one of my questions and points, blanketing it under the misnomers of “ignorance” and “biased opinion”. You clearly are not here to have a discussion on the matter and any attempts to have a discussion will go nowhere.

If you are to make a suggestion, you should take in all criticism into consideration. If it is to go into implementation, it is going to effect every single player in this game’s player base. A change of this magnitude, especially one that goes against the game’s fundamental design, should not be made just because of your whim. Especially if you can not defend your suggestion with concrete examples and counter points to the ones I, and others, have brought up.

As other users have stated, there are plenty of games out there that have healing classes that would cater to your desires.

Bradley.4075:

@Aecelia
Once again, completely biased response. First of all, you can’t have proactive without reactive. Secondly, not having a healer profession encourages players to not play skillfully at all! With healers, much more skill will be needed to protect ally healers and to put a stop to enemy healers. Instead of this, you are left running from battle as soon as your health drops 200hp.

1. You mention a biased response but I gave a really specific example in terms of using a shield vs. using a heal. Can you give me a counter example to this to which that heal requires more skill than using the shield?

2. Can you explain to me what you mean by “can’t have proactive without reactive”? Going from my example of proactive play (protection) vs. reactive play (heal), you can clearly have shields and damage mitigation without any type of heal. Again, revisiting my example: A shield that blocks 300 damage and a heal that heals for 300 damage, if both used correctly, will leave the user at the same state. The difference is the window of opportunity of use and the necessary skill and judgment associated with exploiting that window of opportunity.

3. You mention the skill required to protect and go after enemy healers. The skill you use to protect your own healer can similarly be applied to protecting any single one of your party members really. As for running away at 200 HP: even if you had a healer, would you not disengage to a safe spot so that your healer can heal you? Does it require more skill to prevent ever hitting 200 HP, or does it require more skill to bring an ally up from 200 HP?

Bradley.4075:

@Rise
As I previously mentioned, none of the professions can compare to a healer. Guardians are for protecting allies before they are damaged, while healers are for healing allies after they are damaged. Does it make any sense to have one profession and not the other?

Yes, it can make sense to have one and not the other. Healing is reactive where as protection is proactive. Healing promotes a very passive type of gameplay and is less punishing of bad play, especially if you shove all of that responsibility onto one player.

When everyone has a self heal and there is a no dedicated healing class, then everyone is in charge of their own well being. If you die, then chances are your death was a direct result of your own actions and/or negligence.

By putting an emphasis on protection and damage mitigation instead of heals, you’re encouraging players to play more skillfully. It takes a lot more player skill to use a block with a 3 second window than to use a heal with an infinite window.

This suggestion is for addressing two complaints I’ve been reading on various forums:
-Incentives to visit zones other than Orr once you hit 80
-Certain zones feeling empty

So previously in other games, the primary form to encourage content exploration was done through daily quests that would require you to visit x zone to do y task or slay z NPC. Taking ideas from what GW2 has done so far, what if we were to take the concept of daily quests one step further?

The overarching plot for GW2 is that we have these elder dragons who are corrupting the existing races and creatures of Tyria and slowly expanding their territory and waging war against all life as we know it. Yet aside from certain zones and personal story steps, you never really feel this.

At the end of BWE2, Anet did a farewell event which turned the entirety of Plains of ashford into a warzone against Branded. Players had to work together to free waypoints which were crystalized as well as slay monsters.

What I’m suggesting is that every day, or on a less frequent time cycle, a different zone is under assault from an elder dragon’s forces. Participating in fighting in this zone during the event’s time period guarantees that the drops will always be on level.

I understand that there would be technical as well as lore hurdles (how would the already existing NPC’s, hearts, DE’s, etc. interact with this invasion event?) that would have to be over come; but if it could be done, I think it’d be a great way to encourage people visiting other zones and to alleviate the pressure that some people feel in regards to being ‘required’ to do Orr for level 80 drops.

So I just finished the third path for CoF with my guild and overall I found it to be a fun and challenging experience.

My favorites were the first encounter with the torches because I felt it was a good test of individual skill (having to be able to 1v3 your own adds) as well as group communication and coordination (figuring who is better suited to which mob type, making sure the adds are downed and the torches are pulled at the same time) as well as the exploding gauntlet.

There were several parts about this path that I felt like were missed opportunities, all of them related to the bosses hp vs. their mechanics. The siege commander and pet drake ended up feeling like glorified punching bags and more of a time sink than anything else. Why not give them some more interesting mechanics?

If the guy is a siege commander, perhaps have him bombard the area during the fight (simple stay out of the bad stuff mechanic)?

As for the drake, a method for spicing up that fight would be he naturally takes greatly reduced damage due to a thick skinned buff. But when he opens his mouth to breathe fire, you can throw in a bomb/explosive flaming rock (environmental weapon) into his mouth to temporarily make him vulnerable to more damage.

And finally, the last boss. The mechanics to this fight are already interesting and fun, but his pool size just makes the fight seem to drag on. Once you’ve mastered dodging his wave as well as his swings, you’ve pretty much got the fight in the bag. One thing that could make the fight more interesting would be at different health marks, the stadium starts to shrink so that you have less room for mistakes. Where at 100% a knockback from the center of the arena, at best, will send you to the edge of the arena, at 50% it’s a guaranteed lava dunk.

Anyways, just my two cents on this path. Like I mentioned earlier, overall I really enjoy your dungeons but I feel like the boss encounters could use some more interesting mechanics given the size of their health pools. As it stands, the most memorable parts of a dungeon are really the puzzle sections, gauntlets, and trash as opposed to the bosses.

Hey, if you’re interested in a small-ish, mature, and casual-semi PvX guild on Yak’s Bend, we (Call of the Void [Void]) are currently looking for more members. Our members actively do world events, dungeon progression and farming, and participate in sPvP and WvW as well.