Guild Wars 2

You can obviously make a case for the lore behind why Guardians have low hp and high durability, since it is currently an implementation in the GW2 universe. All it takes is a bit of creativity and almost any explanation can be feasible. However, I am really just focusing on the archetype of the Guardian, rather than the possible explanations that could exist.

In almost every iteration of the Guardian, almost regardless of the genre, they are seen as durable, “tanky,” and most often have high base HP to supplement their other features. It is not so in GW2, and that is fine because it makes sense in terms of balance; we all know how ridiculous the Guardian would be if it was on par with a Warrior’s base HP.

Answer this though: Did ANet originally design the Guardian with the same amount of HP as the Warrior and then change it later for the sake of keeping balance? The answer is obvious. The original design was high HP. That is enough information for me to make an assumption that ANet believed, as far as lore is concerned, the Guardian was meant to have higher base HP. The only reason their philosophy changed was to keep an even playing field.

It still makes no sense from a lore perspective, and I think ANet would probably agree. If you want to create your own sense for why it is low, that works, but you are reworking the baseline elements of RPGs and it doesn’t mean it should hold true for everyone else.

LameFox.6349:

Seriously though… why, from a lore viewpoint, would any class have more or less innate ‘health’? I’m pretty sure the idea of stats is altogether external to lore.

It is very simple. The classes or professions that are most akin to “tanks,” with a few exceptions, are in the highest bracket of innate HP and durability. That is the way it works in most games because it is just logical.

If you blow it slightly more out of proportion you can see what I mean. Pretend that thieves had the highest HP. Ignoring the glaringly obvious balance issues, would that make any sense in terms of lore? Thieves and casters (typically) have the lowest HP and durability because they are able to make up for it in other areas.

The Guardian, strictly from a lore standpoint, should have HP similar to top tier professions, but in GW2 the balancing issues would be problematic since the Guardian has so many defensive options to support their low HP. That doesn’t mean that traditionally Guardian archetype professions/classes should have low HP. It just happens to work best in GW2 that they do.

ShadowbaneX.6273:

Guardians evolved from Monks & Paragons. Both of which were ‘hang back and stay out of the fight, and if you get involved you’ve got plenty of buffs to keep yourself alive. It makes perfect sense from a Lore standpoint.

Just because they share similar abilities with those professions is in no way indicative of where they currently stand. They wear heavy armor and are suited for front-line combat. Are you trying to tell me that a profession like that should be in the bracket of the lowest innate HP pool?

I understand in terms of balance it isn’t feasible to give the Guardian more HP, but don’t try and say that from a lore standpoint they should have lower HP than more than half of the other professions in this game.

I agree that we don’t really need more HP than we have, for the most part. However, it does feel awkward in terms of lore to have a Guardian with the same base HP as a Thief or Elementalist. I wish there was a solution that solved the lore issue but didn’t provide too much of a buff to the Guardian at the same time.

You should reword your title to most powerful player. The profession matters, but not nearly as much as the skill of the player behind it.

The game is not unbalanced enough where one single profession outplays all the others. There are some that shine with low skill ceilings and some that shine with high skill ceilings.

Also, you may want to specify if you are referring to PvE or PvP or WvW, etc. There are certain professions that do better in one rather than the others, and some that are moderate in all, and some that need a bit of polish in certain areas.

These kinds of questions are best answered by playing the game yourself and discovering what you personally believe to be the “most powerful class.”

mekkanic.4759:

I think that everyone has covered various options to the symbol nerf. You can still rock a greatsword but for the love of the game please weapon swap on the beloved symbol cooldown. Like a scepter and torch. By the time you burn through skill 2, 4 and 5, a a whole minute has passed….lol…..

j/k…but weapons swap…please?

People are weapon swapping. Not the issue at hand even remotely. Please read the thread more carefully and you will see that the Guardian player base is well aware of the ~ key or whatever they have weapon swapping set to.

@ Fabsm

The Hammer, although it can be satisfying in many ways, is simply a boring weapon. All of the things you listed in your rotation, you can do with other weapons. You listed dodge rolling, utility skills, virtues, and auto attacking with the supplement of Mighty Blow here and there.

The Hammer has 3 other abilities which you neglect to mention (unless you meant “Knockback” instead of “Knockdown”, but I assume you were referring to Bane Signet). Simply put, the Hammer really only offers you 1 on demand damage ability in PvE, and the rest of the time you are auto attacking (painfully slowly I might add), or using abilities that are not tied to the Hammer, which again, you can do with any weapon.

With the Greatsword, you had options for on demand damage abilities and each of them could be used when appropriate, or in a priority rotation if the situation called for it. In a typical rotation with the Greatsword, a player would use all 5 of the weapon specific abilities. That is active; that is fun. On top of that, we are also weapon swapping and using our virtues, dodging, and using utilities (shocking, I know).

So if you think the Hammer is fun, good for you and keep playing it, but don’t even try to compare its activity level to the Greatsword. There is no comparison. The Hammer is bland, slow, and incredibly passive. It needs just as much work as the Greatsword. This game is supposed to provide active combat, not passive. The Guardian weapon sets seem very opposed to this view on combat, and don’t think it isn’t a problem. Don’t take it sitting down.

Please note that the above refers solely to PvE content. PvP Hammertime can be quite a blast :-)

They do stack, although I’m not entirely sure that I agree with the 2 conditions per 10 seconds stacking. Purity seems to always be active as long as you have the trait, but SoR goes on and off CD as you use the active, which means that it will recharge and it’s 10 second timer would start at that time, which will be (almost always) independent of Purity’s timer.

So either they are on separate timers that start as soon as combat begins and do remove 2 per 10 seconds until the signet is activated and recharges (removing 1 condition per 10 seconds, per passive), or they are on the same timer and as soon as the signet reactivates it synchronizes to purity’s timer and removes 2 per 10 seconds as it did before the activation of the signet.

I want to thank all of the contributions to this thread, as well as all of the other ardent Guardian’s creating threads who would like to see some dev attention directed to this issue.

Hopefully we will get some sort of answer soon.

Kruunch.3714:

Are you unable to do something now with a GS build that you could do before as a result of the change (other than kill a mob a few seconds faster)? It’s an honest question, because if you answer “yes” then there’s our basis of disagreement. For me, I can do exactly what I did before in the exact same fashion. For me, the only change was that kill speed went down by a few seconds (literally). I can solo what I solo’d before. I can do what I did in a group before. So to that extent, the changes really aren’t much more than an annoyance.

As for the active vs. passive play style preference … for me, I don’t equate having another keystroke per 5 seconds (essentially the difference between the CD changes between SoW and LoF) as creating an active or passive effect in my total play style. GW2 in general promotes an active play style amongst all its classes, and I don’t find that these changes have changed that aspect of the Guardian for me (ymmv of course).

The biggest issue with my play style, is the rearrangement of the perma hot keys. Hence, annoying.

I can’t really argue with you in regards to active vs. passive play if that is your opinion, we simply see the issue in different lights. I equate auto-attacking while waiting for that additional key stroke to passive and almost stagnant; if you do not, I can’t change your mind with an argument.

As far as killing enemies goes, in solo normal enemy fights, you probably won’t see any difference at all, depending on your kill speed and your build. Most fights don’t last much longer than 6-7 seconds (obviously just an estimation) depending on how many enemies you have pulled or aggro’d. That being said, you really cannot measure the performance of a weapon on that scale. Take the Greatsword into a dungeon or a dynamic event and you will feel the difference in a pretty major way (assuming you aren’t just killing normal trash enemies).

So, in essence, short fights will not yield any difference. In PvP or any real PvE encounter on a scale any bigger than just world exploration will yield diminished Combo field usage and lower DPS, notably so.

Kruunch.3714:

Animus.6073:

Kruunch.3714:

Eveningstar.6940:

Conclusion

The Greatsword changes do not reduce your damage at all in shorter fights (i.e, less than, say, 12-15 seconds) and may actually improve it. In longer fights, you will see a modest damage loss from the increased cooldown of Symbol of Wrath, but only in situations where you’re dropping Symbol down every ten seconds, and the enemy is staying inside the radius of Symbol for the entire duration. Furthermore, your only Leap finisher gets a lot better, and Greatsword gets significantly better at Combo Finishers, and your Blind options and Sword/Focus synergy becomes significantly better.

So, a modest if situational, weapon-dependent nerf coupled with a modest, less situational but also weapon dependent buff.

Seems like an okay trade-off. A small overall nerf at worst, but hardly the game breaking, Guardian killing, klaxon activating nerf to the ground you’re painting it to be.

Agree 100%.

The SoW nerf was more annoying than game changing and the shorter cool down on the leap is actually turning out to be more helpful (at least for me).

Those who feel like the SoW nerf wasn’t a major impact either haven’t done the math or don’t play the Greatsword in heavily focused symbol builds. If you fall into either of those categories, the change may have been nothing more than annoyance, but keep in mind that there are many of us who are feeling the impact.

Even if you haven’t done the math and even if you don’t focus on a Symbol build, you should feel a lot less active while doing any PvE content. The 15 second recharge applied to the Leap in no way makes up for the lack of on demand damage and combo fields granted by the Symbol. If you want more active combat, you can find it on other weapon sets (not the Hammer, either, which is also a problem), or another profession. If stagnant and passive play is your style, then stick with the Greatsword; you won’t notice much of a difference.

Obviously the changes are subjective. Some “feel” them harder than others. Yes, I find the increased CD on SoW annoying. No, I don’t find that it diminishes my effectiveness or play style overly. Yes, I play a GS Guardian the vast majority of the time (always have). No, I don’t agree with you.

That doesn’t mean I’m right and you’re wrong (or vice versa) … just our respective opinions.

P.S. – The active/passive play style spin makes no sense to me.

Active meaning you are often using abilities as they come off of relatively short cooldowns, and passive meaning that you are only relying on auto attacking with the occasional insert of an on demand strike ability.

Disagreeing is fine, but I’m curious as to why. How can you claim that your effectiveness or play-style have not changed when a weapon you use frequently has one of its most frequently cast ability’s recharge time cut in half. Especially when that specific ability is our go to Combo field?

Sure, it is still playable, but to claim it is simply an annoyance rather than a drastic change requires some substantiation, I would think.

I don’t think Guardians are complaining about having it worse than other professions in terms of a “tier list.” I’ll be the first to admit that the Guardian is in a very solid situation when it comes to balance and versatility (except our ranged capabilities).

I can’t speak for the entire population, but I can say with confidence that the Guardian’s play-style is simply boring in PvE. Perhaps not with every weapon, but the ones that seem like they should be the most fun are, indeed, the most boring. The Two-Handers (Greatsword and Hammer) are just incredibly passive and boring weapons now. I find myself wanting to move away from utilizing symbols in my builds despite really enjoying that particular mechanic.

So, to answer the OP’s question, I don’t believe a Guardian is ever really complaining that they can’t compete with other professions in PvP (PvE may be another story depending on what facet you are focusing on). The only professions that have ever been able to beat me are skilled Mesmers and Engineers. I would say that I am on par with Warriors and Thieves. I consistently beat Necromancers, Rangers, and Elementalists.

That may simply be the way my build works as opposed to others, but I don’t think any Guardian’s experience should vary too much from this “tier list.”

Kruunch.3714:

Eveningstar.6940:

Conclusion

The Greatsword changes do not reduce your damage at all in shorter fights (i.e, less than, say, 12-15 seconds) and may actually improve it. In longer fights, you will see a modest damage loss from the increased cooldown of Symbol of Wrath, but only in situations where you’re dropping Symbol down every ten seconds, and the enemy is staying inside the radius of Symbol for the entire duration. Furthermore, your only Leap finisher gets a lot better, and Greatsword gets significantly better at Combo Finishers, and your Blind options and Sword/Focus synergy becomes significantly better.

So, a modest if situational, weapon-dependent nerf coupled with a modest, less situational but also weapon dependent buff.

Seems like an okay trade-off. A small overall nerf at worst, but hardly the game breaking, Guardian killing, klaxon activating nerf to the ground you’re painting it to be.

Agree 100%.

The SoW nerf was more annoying than game changing and the shorter cool down on the leap is actually turning out to be more helpful (at least for me).

Those who feel like the SoW nerf wasn’t a major impact either haven’t done the math or don’t play the Greatsword in heavily focused symbol builds. If you fall into either of those categories, the change may have been nothing more than annoyance, but keep in mind that there are many of us who are feeling the impact.

Even if you haven’t done the math and even if you don’t focus on a Symbol build, you should feel a lot less active while doing any PvE content. The 15 second recharge applied to the Leap in no way makes up for the lack of on demand damage and combo fields granted by the Symbol. If you want more active combat, you can find it on other weapon sets (not the Hammer, either, which is also a problem), or another profession. If stagnant and passive play is your style, then stick with the Greatsword; you won’t notice much of a difference.

Unfortunately, at least the last time I checked, Inner Fire is not proc’d by Zealot’s Flame. I think Inner Fire only works if you are actually inflicted with a burning condition.

Gallian.7630:

I tend to agree to some extent with you Animus.

But… just one thing. That manifesto line stuff, that’s business talk to try to convince people to buy a product, it has nothing to do with what they literately will do, or have the intention to do, either right away (during development) or later on via updates. In video games that happen to be supported (by the devs) via multiple patches especially for MMORPGs, or just generally games that are on-line there’s never any guarantee that a class, or a game feature will be or will stay the way it was intended to be, or any guarantee it will stay the way it was in its early (or “Vanilla”) days (or weeks, or months).

There’s always change coming up and when players over time “get used to” specific ways to play according to how the class is built and balanced then inevitably when patches modifies that play style the players themselves find themselves confronted with a forced re-adaptation of particular skills or the whole class (which is more rare, but can happen). It sometimes happen that whatever amount of adaption is needed you still feel convinced that something is wrong, that’s fine, then you point at those aspects of the concerned skills, spells, or class. But more often then not the developers went through that with their testers (I’m not saying it’s always the case, but usually it is) and they actually expect the first waves of reactions to be negative because the players reacting to the changes were not the testers whom had the chance for some time to try out the changes internally.

But… anyway, there are of course situations when you are genuinely certain that something in the patches went wrong, again I’m saying that’s completely fine, so voice your opinions and perhaps offer your own modest solutions as feedback/suggestions to the issues. So while I do agree with most of your points regarding the Guardian changes for the GS I still think that starting to support your own points with that manifesto line was about as cheap of a move as it was cheap to start with from ArenaNet to pretend that the combat in their game would be as dramatically different when compared to other similar games. But in favor of ArenaNet despite me not liking it when companies do that (to try to create hype) I have to say that ultimately they are a business and they need to do their job… I.E. try to sell a product, therefor try to come up with some one liners like that manifesto to make it look like their game (or, in this case the combat… or at least when it comes to swords being swung over and over again) is Oh So Superior to others.

As a player who disagrees on game-play mechanics, or do not like how newly a specific class or particular spells or skills were balanced, changed or modified, then “our job” is to merely point at it/them and explain why it might not be a good thing to do. But quoting one liners when you know as well that it was said prior to the game’s release is cheap, at the very least, but also naive.

Thank you for the honest criticism. I hadn’t intended to come across using a “cheap shot” or like a disgruntled customer that feels like the big bad company wronged me. I genuinely believe that ANet does not want their game to be like other MMO’s and I believe that they have succeeded in many areas. However, I do believe that this is one particular area where they have failed.

It was less apparent when the Symbol was on its original 10 second recharge timer, but it is now obvious to all Greatsword users that there is a problem with the weapon’s “activity level.” Even if the manifesto is simply a marketing tool, it has to stand for something, even if it doesn’t determine ANet’s entire course of development for their game.

Once people realize that ANet hasn’t lived up to its promises, some will definitely feel jaded and move on to other games. While this issue (the current Guardian Greatsword skill set) probably won’t deter people from sticking around and giving ANet the time they need to work on the balancing of their game, it may concern players who actually did look to that manifesto as a sign of what will change in ANet’s version of the MMO.

There are many instances of incorrect information and hype in that video, admittedly, and I chose to focus on this one because it resonated with my frustrations, and the frustrations of many others. I see ANet as a business, but also a fairly sincere business that does want to provide quality for their customers, and does want to maintain as much honesty as possible. I think focusing on making all weapons more “active,” or at least the ones that really need it, would be a huge step in the right direction for the company. It would demonstrate that, perhaps, that manifesto wasn’t purely corporate hype, which I don’t believe it was.

It sounds like fun and kudos to you for making it work for you, but I’m not buying the 3 vs. 30 boast. 3 glass cannons would drop like rocks if even 1 person started AoEing you guys down.

That being said, I think it is awesome that people are trying these builds and making them work. Keep it up!

@ Judge

I think most people would agree that, given the right build, a Hammer can certainly be just as, if not more, effective than the Greatsword for damage output and group utility. The problem most people have with the Hammer is that it is frankly just boring.

In PvP, this isn’t nearly as evident because you are often making great use of your utility skills (3-5) to give yourself an advantage. I love the Hammer for this reason in PvP, but in PvE it is a completely different story.

You spend almost your entire rotation auto attacking, hitting #2 when it comes of CD, or whenever you can line it up with a Combo Field effectively. It is just extremely bland and after the first couple of blasts that give you that “Hulk Smash” feeling, it wears off and becomes a repetitive snooze fest.

“But you have a second weapon to use with the Hammer!” For those who use this argument, I can only agree, but you can say that for any weapon. If you are comfortable using a boring and less active weapon, then go for it, the Hammer will perform well for you. However, if you are like me and want to feel like you have a real rotation or at least a selection of abilities to supplement your damage, the Hammer just falls very short (still referring to PvE, of course).

Frankly, I would like to see the Hammer have as much work done on it as the Greatsword. I think both weapons are lacking in different areas. Prior to the patch, the Greatsword was active and fluid, now it is almost as boring as the Hammer. I’d like to see both weapons be slightly tuned to a more active play-style.

Yes, self-applied boons proc Altruistic Healing, as well. It really is a wonderfully powerful survival tool if paired with the right builds and weapon sets. Hitting #4 on your staff with Altruistic Healing works wonders, especially if you have nearby allies.

I’ve made all the suggestions I can possibly think of in other threads. With this thread, I wasn’t necessarily proposing a change, rather a reason for a change, which I think can be just as constructive if it is handled in the right fashion.

If you would like my opinion on what ANet should do to fix the Symbol, I will reiterate it here. I believe the Symbol should be reverted to its previous recharge rate and (as countless others have suggested) it should provide a different boon. I think most appropriately it should provide Might since the weapon itself is a high damage oriented one.

I would also love to see the Symbol apply a cripple and/or fumble condition to enemies (to appease both PvE and PvP players). It would be interesting if the effect was stronger the closer to the center of the Symbol the opponents are. This would make taking larger Symbols an even more attractive option, as well as adding to the overall versatility of the Greatsword.

However, my expertise in balancing is non-existent so I wouldn’t be able to tell you if that would be too much of a buff or “fix” to the current problem with the Symbol. If other people have suggestions, feel free to post them here, but like I said, this was more of a reason why to make a change rather than a proposal of changes. I would hate to see this thread merged into the infinite mass of Greatsword changes complaints.

@ Eden

Yet again, we are not of the opinion that the Greatsword is useless, does no damage, or doesn’t pair well with many of our other weapons. Some people might think that, but they would be sorely mistaken.

The Greatsword is still capable of the same damage output in the scenario you are referring to because you swap it out after unloading all of its abilities. For PvP, you won’t be hurt all that badly. In PvE, your damage is going to be cut pretty heavily, unless you run a double melee dps weapon setup (which is foolish on the Guardian imo).

Damage aside, considering that isn’t really what the problem is, our synergy with the Honor and Zeal trait lines has been almost entirely broken by this change. You would not be wise to make a build that centered around buffing an ability that was on a 20 second CD.

So for Honor, that means you are either going to want to pick up different traits or use a different weapon. For Zeal, well…it just doesn’t make sense at all. Almost every one of the Minor traits is a Symbol based trait and the Major traits lean heavily in favor of the Greatsword (since it is really the only trait line that does anything for the Greatsword other than Two-Handed Mastery in Honor). However, now your access to a Symbol is contingent on a 20 second CD or if you drop below 25% HP to trigger your Minor trait. If you are running with a heavy Zeal build, you do not want to be spending a whole lot of time around the 25% mark, if you ask me.

It is interesting, though, and I hadn’t really thought of it like this until I read your post. It does seem like PvP is the area where the Greatsword was hurt the least, and PvE was where it was hurt the most. Ironic, considering that ANet’s intention behind the change was to hinder our access to Retaliation, a very PvP-centric boon.

I don’t play a Hammer in PvE because it just flat out the most boring skill set in the game. PvP is an entirely different scenario as abilities 3-5 become useful for more than just a situational “here and there” approach.

With the current GS symbol, I agree, it isn’t getting a whole lot of synergy from the Symbol build. Which is why the build is, so to speak, “dead.” However, playing with GS prior to the patch, it proc’d Altruistic Healing from anyone who stepped inside of it, it lasted longer than the Hammer’s symbol-providing more healing through Traited abilities, and it provided much more active combat.

I use the Hammer in PvP because it is just awesome. Decent burst from what shouldn’t be a bursty profession and amazing control. However, I think I would rather beat my head against a solid brick wall than use the Hammer in PvE.

Thunk…Thunk……………..Thunk>Blast
Thunk…Thunk……………..Thunk>Blast
Vomit.

Unfortunately we don’t see too much difference from that to the current iteration of the GS. They are both fairly passive and boring weapons in PvE now.

As I mentioned in another thread, I haven’t been able to play much since the change, but I would like to consider taking some points out of Honor and dumping them into Zeal to generate that extra symbol with the 5 point passive.

I don’t know if giving up Battle Presence will be worth it though. Since I run in full Clerics gear with a 0/5/30/30/5 setup, it would be a huge drop in effective healing, which isn’t really what I’m going for. It would definitely boost my damage a bit and the extra symbol would be nice, but I would really have to test it first hand before I let the community know if it was a worthwhile change.

I was actually running a 0/5/30/30/5 build with a focus on healing generated through Symbols and Battle Presence. I am in full Clerics. I would love to put points into Zeal but giving up Altruistic Healing from Valor would hurt my ability to “tank” too much to be worth it. The 5 points in Virtues is for more healing through Altruistic Healing and the 5 points in Radiance is for just a bit more crit to proc my Vigor boon for more healing and more dodge rolling (which is also more healing).

The GS and Symbol builds have not been invalidated, but the combo of the two has been. You can run it if you want, but you will be inefficient at what you are trying to accomplish.

PsionicDingo.2065:

Staff wouldn’t help, no, but given the current situation wouldn’t you want to re-assess your weapon sets? Is staff the best compliment for a Greatsword, or do you run it purely because it’s defensive?

If it’s because it’s purely defensive, and you see how much time is spent on CD with Greatsword, maybe it’s not a good combo for the moment. I’m not saying that’s so, because I don’t know how it’s all working out or what ANet’s plan is. As it is now, though, it seems like Staff is handicapping yourself if you’re truly wanting an effective break from auto attack.

It really depends on your build and the situation. There are certain instances where I wouldn’t drop my staff if you paid me. There are others where I would rather be running with a Hammer or potentially a Scepter/OH if I need ranged options. The reason I liked using the Staff pre-nerf was because it provided me with an on demand Symbol, granted swiftness, had 2 healing abilities built into it, and provided a fairly reliable source of might for me and my group.

Honestly, I haven’t played my Guardian too much since the change, but not because of it. I have just been busy with other things. I want to keep using my Greatsword, and I want to keep my build as close to it is as possible, but I’m considering dumping some points into Zeal now to make up for the lost damage and pick up the extra Symbol of Wrath from the 5 point Minor Trait. We’ll see how that works out.

That is exactly what we need. I could not agree with you more. I personally cannot stand the new threads popping up saying, “Our Symbol was OP anyway, guys, get used to it.” I also am a bit dumbfounded that some people are disagreeing with my posts. I’m not normally one to claim that my view on a specific topic is the only valid one, but not a single person has actually provided any evidence to the contrary.

We should all unite under the opinion that this change, this nerf, call it whatever you want, is not putting Guardians anywhere near where they should be. If ANet needs to change the way Retaliation works, go for it, but don’t break builds just to change a simple mechanic and its application.

Most simple solution I can think of, and it has been stated before, is to change Symbol of Wrath to grant a different boon and/or inflict a condition. I would personally love to see it inflict a cripple, but that might be asking for a bit much.

No one is saying ANet broke Symbols. They most certainly broke Symbol builds for the Greatsword. Tell me who is going to select Major Traits around an ability they can only use once every twenty seconds?

As for having other weapons with Symbols, well…yeah, use them. I ran GS and Staff and I loved that I could throw down two symbols at a time if I needed to. With the way I was traited, I was able to actually play the Guardian in melee range with some respectable, not great, but respectable damage, and not worry about getting downed every other mob swing.

It was very active and very fluid. Now it is clunky and ineffective. There are no two ways about that.

Schakal.6091:

Re: Weapon swap. While I’d generally agree this isn’t universally true. Let’s say your other weapon is Staff. You swap, hit Empower, Orb of Light and then? Three or four auto attacks before you can swap over to GS again. Granted, if your other loadout is Hammer or Sword/Torch for example you’ll be fine. But what uf it’s Mace/Focus and all you want is more damage? In those cases auto attack might be more sensible unless you have an awesome on swap Sigil in your backup.

Quoted for absolute truth. If I know I need to pump out a bit more damage by auto-attacking rather than swapping to my Staff, or other defensive set up, weapon swap isn’t exactly going to solve my problem. If you are the sort to run with two very offensive weapon sets, then you have made the conscious decision to use both of them to maximize damage. I highly doubt these people are not weapon swapping if they put the forethought into it.

That is exactly correct. That is what I was saying in my other thread. We are being reduced to, well I don’t want to say carbon copies because that isn’t accurate, but at least counterparts to the Vanilla and even BC Retribution Paladin.

Why I take issue with that now rather than at launch is this. The recent nerf moves us even closer to what Retribution Paladins were. We are now 10 seconds less active than we used to be. We should not be moving closer to what they were. We should be moving further and further away.

It took Blizzard years to fix Retribution, but ANet fortunately has the benefit of seeing the developing arc that Paladins went through in WoW. They have the resources to not make the same choices (I won’t straight up claim they are mistakes because it is their vision, after all) that Blizzard did. I am confident that they will make some good decisions for our community, given some time.

kousei.5914:

You realized only the first paragraph of that post was directed at you right? The other 2 sections were responding to Gisei.

But in response, if you’re weapon swapping and you can effectively “control enemies, tank, heal, and dps”, you’re not using just the GS and you’re actively doing a lot more than waiting on CDs so you’ve just completely refuted your own post about stale combat. And thus this entire thread.

I suppose I should clarify. I was effectively controlling enemies, tanking, healing, and dps’ing (again, not literally, but as much as GW2 allows), and I was doing that all with a Greatsword and a Staff. Occasionally I’d switch out my Greatsword for Mace/Focus and keep my Staff as Secondary. I did this on fights that required more healing through my Symbols and more uptime on my Symbols in general.

Now, I cannot run the same build. The Greatsword simply does not provide nearly enough reliable access to a Symbol to warrant its spot in my dungeon setup. That is my personal experience. Maybe others are making it work for them, but I can assure you that the ones who were running Symbol builds have either moved on or are dying while trying to make it work.

I can see from your response that you are only looking to be confrontational. If you don’t think my thread has a purpose, then don’t post in it. I think many others disagree with you. The Guardian community, or at least the Greatsword Guardian community, should be in unison here, not divided.

I completely agree with you, Daedalus. The majority of posts are simply complaints. However, laced in here and there, you will find some really positive and constructive suggestions. I was trying to call attention to them and to further bolster the morale of Greatsword Guardians. My post, although absent of suggestions, is more of a heads up to others and hopefully to ANet.

I realize everyone is well aware of what is going on, but I really wanted to drive home the concept of what active gameplay should mean and what it should mean for the Guardian. Although GW2 is more active in the sense that you need to actually land your melee attack and not rely on a number generator to get that hit or miss/dodge, it pales in comparison, miserably I should add, to the “on demand strike” quality of other MMO’s (even outside the scope of WoW).

To clarify, I am solely referring to the Guardian, and more specifically, the Greatsword Guardian, when I comment on stale combat. Everyone has cooldowns such as their utilities and elites that add to combat, but why does the Greatsword Guardian, or even the Hammer Guardian, have to be reduced to: auto-attack until strike ability is off CD?

kousei.5914:

@OP: If you think the game play is stale, you haven’t tried a dungeon or any PvP. Up until 70-80, most of the open world PvE is pretty easy. Even at 70-80, it’s usually pretty easy due to the zergs that run around Orr. Try venturing off the beaten path alone or in a single party with just a greatsword though. The Risen zergs in some of those events will wreck you if you just play a greatsword. (I’m pretty sure the zerg learned how to swarm from the risen at this point…)

Gisei.5749:

And anyways, if you’re only using a GS, then you are suppose to have stale gameplay. You get 73 levels to master the weapon swap for a reason.

This is a major reason I think a lot of people are having problems with GW2. They don’t want to learn how to weapon swap. They want to stick with one weapon all the time. Well I’ve said it many times on this forum. GW2 is not built for you to play the weapon you want all the time. It’s built around selecting the right weapon for the job. In some dungeons, I not only use the weapon swap functionality but I’ll switch weapon sets altogether between areas once I know the dungeons well enough.

Gisei.5749:

To be quite frank, I pray Anet avoids this sub-forum for a bit. The idiots are quite vocal at the moment, and the more rational discussion and suggestions are diluted by a tidal wave of stupidity.

I kind of feel the same way. It’s like the entire crowd here asking Anet to change the game because they can’t figure out the class, the combat, etc…

It reminds me of PvXWiki in GW1. There were very few great builds that made it through the rating process. People couldn’t figure out how they worked so they just laughed them off or voted them down.

I’ve got over 400 hours clocked on my Guardian. I have the CoF Greatsword and am currently working towards either Sunrise or Twilight (haven’t decided yet). I run with all kinds of different setups when it comes to weapon swapping, and frankly I’m just downright offended that you would even imply that I don’t take full advantage of that system because believe me, I do.

I don’t know if this will do any good, but my Guardian’s in game name is Khamil and I play on the European server, Gandara (I live in the US, don’t ask why I’m on Gandara; it’s a long story). If any of you have seen me play or run with me in dungeons, you can attest to my knowledge of the Guardian profession and my ability to not only effectively control enemies, “tank”, “heal”, and “dps”. I put those in quotes because obviously GW2 does not allow you to completely devote yourself to any one of the three.

Don’t imply that people don’t understand how to play just because you assume they read the patch notes and think “Oh darn my GS doesn’t do big damage no more.”

Daedalus.3954:

Animus.6073:

Believe me, we will make the best of what we have and I, along with many others, will not be shelving my Guardian or my Greatsword. We will stand fast. We will endure because this is the profession we want to play and the way we want to play it. That does not mean we should stay quiet when we feel something has been wrongfully adjusted. I would encourage people to keep voicing their disquiet and concerns with the Guardian. Stand fast, indeed, but don’t roll over and take it.

I feel you to an extent. I don’t think such a blow has been delivered, at the very least one to warrant our full outright cries. Maybe I’m just not seeing what you are. The recent GS Symbol nerf was not enough, in my eyes, to warrant the level of sincerity I’m getting from your post. Obviously text does not convey feeling very well, but it seems to err on the side of aggression.

I was in no way attempting to convey aggression. Dissatisfaction, I will most certainly give you. A little bit of bitterness is thrown in there, as well, but I cannot admit to not feeling extremely bitter about what happened. That being said, I feel no anger towards ANet, and I firmly believe they knee-jerked their way into this mess and they are remaining so silent because they are mulling over the correct way to fix it.

Remember how fast they jumped on the dungeon difficulty/exploits/DR debacle a couple weeks back. We got responses fast. They knew what their stance was and they were ready to defend it to the masses. I believe we haven’t received any feedback because ANet wants to really deliver when they fix this mess, and yes, I do believe it is a mess.

I have posted why in many other threads so I won’t go into here, but suffice it to say that I truly do not believe the Greatsword wielding Guardian is in the place it belongs right now.

Not that I disagree with you, and I actually do believe that changes will come (for the better), but I can’t help feeling like this post was in response to my thread. As far as Retribution Paladins go, in Vanilla WoW, the only ones that were feared were the ones abusing the Reckoning “bug.” You had to be extremely, and I mean extremely, well geared to be competitive with other classes. If you were that geared, you tore people to pieces and it was awesome. I know because I did it, too (in BC, at least).

However, we are not talking about WoW, we are talking about GW2. I think we are fighting for the same cause. We want more build diversity and more options and more action.

In regards to your theory on “the same can be said now…take what you have, and teak it until you can do what you need to get through to the next batch of nerfs…”, I completely disagree. There is no way to out gear content or opponents in GW2 because the gear treadmill is more like a gear buffet (you have all of the best gear available to you). There is no way to counter our inherent design flaws with outstanding gear, since everyone has outstanding gear.

Believe me, we will make the best of what we have and I, along with many others, will not be shelving my Guardian or my Greatsword. We will stand fast. We will endure because this is the profession we want to play and the way we want to play it. That does not mean we should stay quiet when we feel something has been wrongfully adjusted. I would encourage people to keep voicing their disquiet and concerns with the Guardian. Stand fast, indeed, but don’t roll over and take it.

@ Gisei

Not only have you missed the point entirely, but you have managed to twist my words into something that was never stated. This has nothing to do with ANet as a company, nor am I really tugging at emotional strings…Not sure where you are seeing that. I use strong verbiage and I’m a good writer so my posts might sound compelling, but I think you are reading between the lines when there really isn’t anything there.

My points are presented clearly, and represent only what they say, not what you are inferring from them. So, enlighten me and the rest of the Guardian community. What points do you disagree with? If you can’t find contention with my post in a tangible manner, then take your hate elsewhere. You have not proven anything I’ve said to be incorrect and you are just flat out wrong.

The tidal wave of stupidity that you are referring to is most certainly not echoed by my sentiments.

Making a thread like this is only hurting Guardians. You are one of the many people who refuses to take a good hard look at the actual repercussions of what the nerf actually did. It isn’t the damage or the retaliation we care about. We want our build synergy and active gameplay.

What do you think is more fun out of these options?

1. Longer cooldowns on our on demand damaging abilities.
2. Shorter cooldowns on our on demand damaging abilities.

Considering we only have 2 of them (bearing in mind that leap and BB are situational abilities), I think the choice should be obvious. The Greatsword is now very similar to the Hammer in terms of PvE combat.

Auto Attack and hit the damage ability when it comes off CD… You are literally hitting one button and letting Auto-Cast take care of the rest.

I won’t ever go back to WoW, it has changed too much in ways I completely disagree with, but my god do changes like this make me miss my Retribution Paladin.

@ Diogo

Read up on the various posts and you will see that we are not so much complaining about a loss in DPS or combo synergy. We are complaining that various builds involving Symbols and even an entire trait line have now been reduced to sub standard options. Putting points into Zeal used to be an “OK” choice at best, now it has very, very, very limited viability. Maybe a burning or spirit weapon build, but all the minor traits involving symbols simply go to waste.

As for those of us who used the Greatsword and traited into Honor and Valor, we are now reduced to boring and stale combat with Symbols not even being a viable build anymore. The uptime isn’t prevalent enough to warrant selecting the Symbol oriented traits.

So, we aren’t complaining about being the victims (some of us are, but believe me they do not speak for the majority nor the intelligent portion of us). We aren’t complaining that our numbers are lower or less frequent, we aren’t complaining that other classes “do it better.” We are simply confused why ANet has chosen to diminish our build diversity and our active combat when it comes to playing the Greatsword. Their efforts were to reduce the effectiveness of retaliation, according to the patch notes. So why must all Guardians who want to play the Greatsword suffer in light of ANet’s new stance on a mechanic most of us weren’t even focusing on?

I didn’t play a Paladin in Vanilla WoW because everyone said you had to be a healer or a tank (in some rarer cases). I wanted to be the Zealot. I wanted to be what the Guardian was promised to be in Guild Wars 2. I’m not sure why I chose to level up a Paladin when BC came out, but I gave it a shot (this was before they became the FotM). Does anyone remember what leveling up was like in Vanilla and BC. You used a Two-Handed Sword or Mace and literally auto-attacked, waiting for procs of Seal of Command and your Judgement to cool down. That was all there was to the rotation, unless you wanted to deplete your mana and drop a consecration here and there.

There was no Crusader Strike until level 40. There was no Divine Storm. There was no Templar’s Verdict. There was no active usage of Consecration. There was no other damage comparable Seal until Seal of Blood (Blood Elf only at the time) which you unlocked at level 58 I believe. So that is most of the leveling process and even most of your endgame played completely passively. I did it anyway because I loved the concept of the Paladin (even more so, the Blood Knight – that’s what they called Blood Elf Paladins at the time).

After WotLK came out, all of the above abilities that I mentioned became part of the rotation, even though some of them took a while to be fully implemented. The end result was …this is going to sound kind of crazy…active combat. You went from using Crusader Strike every six seconds and Judgement every 8-10 seconds to using every ability listed in the above paragraph as they came off their respective cooldowns. You had a rotation to learn, to capitalize on, to hit buttons with. You were not just “swinging a sword.”

So then we have the Guardian of Guild Wars 2. You want to use a Greatsword, right? You want to be the Zealous Crusader? The Holy Avenger? The Persecutor of the Wicked? Well get used to auto attacking with 1 or 2 abilities you can hit every so often. It isn’t fun anymore. Hell, it was hardly that much fun when the Symbol was on a 10 second CD.

This is not what was promised. This is not what the player base deserves after waiting this long for such a great game. The Guardian community deserves better than this. We have been reduced to the pre-WotLK Retribution Paladins. I don’t want to be the Lolret of Guild Wars 2. I want my Greatsword to inspire fear in others. I want truly active gameplay. Just because I can dodge does not make it any less apparent that most of the time, I am standing around swinging my sword.

Stand with me if you want to see a change. I know ANet is listening. I know they want better for us.

Animus

“And then when you play the combat in our game. You will say “Wow! That’s incredible, I’ve never seen anything like that before… I swung a sword, I swung a sword again, hey I swung it again – that’s great…No one enjoys that, no one finds it fun. We want to change the way people view combat."

-Line from the GW2 Manifesto.

We’ve all heard it, we all remember it, but is it actually true?

I would say that for some weapon sets and for some professions, ANet has delivered what they promised they would. However, there are a few glaring examples of where the manifesto fell extremely short.

The one I am going to focus on, in light of the recent nerf, is the Guardian Greatsword combat style. Before the nerf, our rotation was fairly passive, mostly waiting on cooldowns to recharge. Symbol, Whirl, Leap, maybe Binding Blade if you had some condition damage or were fighting multiple enemies. Then the downtime was filled by 1 or 2 full chains of auto-attacking. This didn’t really bother me. It wasn’t a very long wait before my Symbol and my Whirl were back up. However, it was still a wait. The downtime between cooldowns was simply inactive and boring. I could sit back and watch if I wanted to.

Like I said, there was nothing really wrong with it, it just wasn’t all that active. It kind of goes against what the manifesto claimed would be changing in Guild Wars 2, but not enough where I would have felt the need to comment on it. Then the nerf happened.

I’m not going into details, the subject has been beaten to death. Longer CD, less build diversity, less active gameplay, more waiting around swinging swords ad nauseam, etc… Changes have been suggested to fix the issue; I’ve suggested a few, others have suggested even more. The community is pouring good ideas through these forums every moment. Are they being heard?

Perhaps this example will resonate with some people, and perhaps make ANet reconsider their change to the Symbol, or at least rework the Greatsword to bring it in line with their very promising manifesto. Does anyone remember our counterparts in Vanilla WoW, even early BC WoW? The Retribution Paladin was one of the most stagnant, clunky, and cooldown based classes you could play. Before people jump on the fact that I mentioned WoW, please take a moment to read what I have to say, and not the simple fact that I am bringing up the “giant.”

We have been making cases for your argument in the Guardian forums; I’m glad you brought it to General where it might actually get some attention. By now I’m sure ANet realizes what they have done to the Greatsword in their efforts to curb retaliation. If nothing else, we should be receiving an answer from them to attempt a justification of the issue.

I just looked at the Warrior’s Greatsword abilities just to get an idea of how their setup differed from ours, and wow… Talk about complete action oriented game play vs. complete stagnation. Even when the Symbol was on a 10 second CD it was still a fairly passive weapon that primarily relied on Whirl and auto attack for damage.

Why does the Guardian Greatsword encourage such passive play? We now have 1 reliable damaging ability with a realistic CD. Whirling Wrath. That is not innovative game design. That is not what I expected from GW2. I sincerely hope a change is on the way-a change for the better.

That is an interesting point regarding Mesmer recharge rates, but coincidentally, those two abilities had their recharge rates changed in this patch as well. Wouldn’t you know it, they didn’t move in the bar. So ANet decided if they were going to reorder the Guardian skills based on the recharge rate model, they should probably bring the Mesmer skills in line as well.

+1 to you for pointing that out, though, I missed it.

The Greatsword is a part of our arsenal, whether you utilize it or not. A lot of people, myself included, used the Greatsword in a very defense oriented build (focusing on Symbols).

Thinking that you are not affected is one way to look at it. The other would be to say “Oh, well I guess it is a good thing I don’t currently have any interest in the Greatsword, but it kind of sucks that I won’t ever find that option really appealing now.”

I find it astonishing that that is really your theory. It is completely based on the recharge rate of the abilities. Look at literally any weapon set in the game (except thieves-I think their system is based on how much initiative each ability costs).

When I was leveling up my Guardian, I unlocked the Symbol first and then Whirling Wrath right after it. It was not confusing to me in the slightest bit how the ability worked. It ticked for damage and granted me the ability to reflect incoming damage back at the source (based on my power). If that is confusing to anyone, they simply are not reading the tool-tip, which is frankly just standard practice in any MMO.

You aren’t doing it wrong, you are doing it more offensively. Guardians have very low base HP, as you know, and taking traits that make us “tankier” is preferable to many other options since we can be burst down so easily otherwise.

If it works for you, then stick with it.

I’m probably going to take a hit or two on this one but I would personally like to see the Hammer ability, Banish, get removed and replaced with a Retaliation boon granting ability. That way, Retaliation building Guardians can use the more defensive two-hander since it requires being hit to proc anyway. I find that Banish has very few practical purposes (other than knocking a person off a node), but if there is another ability on the Hammer that is better suited to grant Retaliation, I’m fine with that, too.

I propose this because if you move Retaliation to the Hammer, it opens up the options of the Greatsword and puts the two two-handers more in line with one another. If you want to be defensive and take some hits, roll with the Hammer; if you want to be offensive and highly mobile, take the Greatsword. The Symbol can be reverted to its old recharge rate since it doesn’t grant Retaliation anymore, and instead should grant might, or perhaps even inflict cripple/fumble on enemies.

@ Gloombot

Yet again, reading comprehension problems. I am not defending anything, nor am I asking you to switch your weapon. I said adapt or switch, which are your only two options. I assume you will adapt. Maybe others think this is just too much to handle (lol?) and they will switch.

I liked the way it was, I was used to it. It is different now and it will take a little bit of time to get used to it. I don’t want to have to, but that is the way it is. If that brands me as a fanboy, then the term really has become obsolete. Anyone who likes the game and can stomach a change even though they disagree with it is a fanboy?

@ Rio

If you can’t get used to it you may have bigger problems than ANet changing the order of some skills. You either have serious motor skill problems or you are portraying yourself as a frustrated little boy venting on a forum. I’m sorry this change has been so rough on your muscle memory.

You really didn’t just call me a fanboy…wow. Maturity is just astounding on these boards. I don’t like the change either and believe me there are plenty of issues I have with it, but seriously, it is 3 abilities that got moved. Adjust or don’t use the Greatsword.

I’m not going to get into an argument over this, I was trying to educate people on why the skills moved, not advocating for the reasoning. Improve your reading comprehension and then reply.

I don’t program or design so if it isn’t coding, then so be it. It is their style. If the skill bar setup of the Greatsword is so ingrained in your muscle memory that it bothers you this much, then you have certainly played enough to realize that ANet will not budge on their stylistic decisions.

Sylvari T1 and T2 mixed sets

I have my gripes with what ANet has done to the Greatsword, but if you are seriously complaining about them reordering the skills, get over it. You will get used to it soon.

Are you wondering why on Earth they would do this? Surely it was just to confuse you, right? Wrong.

Take a good hard look at your skill bar on any weapon set you want. Look at skills 1-5. Look at the recharge rates of each ability. Notice a trend? The longer the recharge is, the higher the skill is listed in your bar.

The reason the skills have been moved is because their recharge rates have been adjusted severely. Should ANet make an exception for Greatsword Guardians in their coding and their theme because people got used to the way it was? No. I had hoped this wouldn’t require an explanation and I know for most people, this isn’t required. For those of you who are or were confused, I sincerely hope this post shed some light on the situation.

Afkjosh.3912:

How does this affect anyone who was working toward GS legendary weaps?

Seems to me like the real problem in actuality, is another deliberate gold sink.

I don’t think so. This was a pretty deliberate attack on retaliation focused PvP Guardians. The change had nothing to do with PvE in its intentions, but it definitely has mitigated the Greatsword’s effectiveness in a PvE scenario. Will it deter people from getting Sunrise or Twilight? I don’t think so. I still plan on making one and I would encourage other Greatsword Guardians to do the same. I really find it hard to believe that this change will stand in its current iteration.

kidbs.8920:

Greatsword damage was good before the nerf, now it’s pretty average and not that great at all. Hammer is better dps now b/c it also generates a symbol after every chain. For PvE dps it looks like we’re going to be pushed to using a Hammer.

Like I said, The Greatsword was probably our go to damage dealing weapon and with the right traits and gear setup, you could dish out some serious hurt. Of course, you would be sacrificing survivability to pull this off, but there is a give and take.

Pre-nerf I would have said the Greatsword was the better PvE weapon and the Hammer was the better PvP weapon. Now I feel like the Hammer is outshining the Greatsword in both areas. Again, build diversity has been seriously impacted by this change to SoW and I hope ANet plans to do something about that.