Guild Wars 2

Heey,

I was wondering if anybody knows where Anet put the Pavilion vendors.
They usually put those vendors somewhere else so you have a week or so after a festival to exchange your tokens. Usually they put them in LA near the Piazza but can’t find them there. Also looked around in Dr but can’t find them.

I also checked the patch noted but that does not say a thing about the Pavilion (even not that the pavilion has been removed while it obviously has).

Any idea where to find them. I have my bags filled with tokens so would be nice if I can now spend them.

StinVec.3621:

I think you mean “Taimi”.

You can edit the title if you like by clicking the ‘Edit Topic…’ button underneath the ‘Add Reply/Subscribe’ buttons at the top.

Don’t they also sometimes name here Tiny? Or does it just sounds so similar? Anyway yes I mean Taimi and I changed it.

Galen Grey.4709:

@Devata

You misunderstood what i meant. I didnt mean creating a jumping puzzle takes less time then creating an armor, I said playing through a jumping puzzle takes what 3 – 5mins tops? while crafting an armor set will take a couple of weeks. Ergo if you put the outfit into crafting you suddenly create a couple of weeks of gameplay, if you put it in a jumping puzzle you created 5 minutes of gameplay. Now if it takes them a month to design and model the outfit for all races which content would you put it in? the one where it will provide 5mins gametime for 1 month of effort or 2 weeks of game time for 1 month of effort?

Yes I would rather pay money or play my choice of content for 2-3 months to buy the gems necessary for it then repeat the same jumping puzzle 100 times for it to drop. Sorry I really hate repeating the same stuff over and over and over again am Allergic to it.

Well that depends on how many variety they can shove in a single expansion. Though how many minis would you need so that hunting them down for 11 months – 1year 11 months would not feel grindy? LOTS!

have you considering taking a sandbox approach? I know its not ideal and I am not defending the game for not providing the proper content but if you love minis thats no reason to deny yourself the joy. Here’s my idea maybe you’ll like it. Pick up a mini off TP lets say it costs 2g then decide on what would be worthy content for that mini say the claw of jormag cause its the rare Icebrood Goliath you set your eyes on and it fits the theme. This one being a rare mini costs 5g so it will take some time to earn it. You do the event and when you earn 5g you buy it. I know its not as exciting as having it drop directly not saying it is but it give you a goal and well you can still be excited for those rare drops like say a corrupted core or two that will get you that much closer. or the tooth of frostfang that will destroy your entire mini game as you’d suddenly afford most of the minis but anyhow … its an option! Gw2 gives you freedom and well no reason not make use of that freedom by creating content where its lacking. Try it you might find you enjoy it.

I don’t really do any crafting in this game because it’s boring I have done all JP’s and multiple I did multiple times. If there would be a reward (like the armor is the reward in your crafting example) from that JP it would be yet another reason to do it multiple times.

You completely ignored the fact that as long at the JP’s unique reward would no be account-bound you would still be able to grind gold for it so if you don’t want to you do not have to do the JP multiple times. And if buying items with cash Is what you like that may be so but is irrelevant to the discussion because we are talking about the game, and buying an item with cash is no game-play. So with the JP drop you still have your grind gold option you seem to like so much and there is the JP option. The buy for cash option is then gone.

The sandbox won’t work. Like you say yourself “I know its not as exciting as having it drop directly”. It’s that rush every time of will it drop ad then the eventual rush when it drops that is so much fun. Grinding gold even if it is for the same reward and the with the same content just isn’t as fun. Not to mention that it reduces the game value of the item. And again if it would drop from specific content as long as it would not be account-bound you would still have that same freedom + more.

Not really a story guy but I thought I also had a go at this. So they said there would be many hints hidden in the current patch.

As we know Taimi has no real parents left, I don’t know the circumstances but it might be very traumatic. We then had this instance where her sort of foster father (Braham) told her to “Smile and wave.. just smile and wave”. That was a dead giveaway.

She also told she wanted to be there to see scarlet dead. Lets say she wanted to be at the crime scene. But she is a little disappointed that she “did not have a direct hand in killing scarlet’.

Also she was extremely interested in the serial killer Scarlet. She collected information about here and she did find it very fascinating. Now she is working with the good guys. Nice mask, a nice little girl who can’t walk and so needs a Golem to help here get around.. and I am supposed to believe that???

That are all huge references and point towards Taimi becoming a serial killer, or something like that.

Galen Grey.4709:

~

Mini’s is an example of what they did. Sure could have been other things and we might still get other things in the future. But in the end they need to earn money and when you have a cash-shop you need to do that with ingame stuff (items and mechanics) so it does heavily influences the game.

“So if they make it a reward for a jumping puzzle they’d have to make it a really low drop rate and as much as I love jumping puzzles the last thing I want is having to run the same one 100s of times.” So then there would be a specific rewards from specific content you can earn by doing that content. I would love that. Also if a JP takes less time then armor, OMG then we could have got so many new cool JP’s in stead of all the cash-shop stuff. Really you only make it look better if they would go to expansions.

“Honestly, I’d rather have it in the gem shop instead!”
So you rather grind gold for it or get it by spending money (not playing). Well I would love to see it in a JP like you describe and as long as it’s not account-bound you can still grind gold for it so it does not make a lot of sense if you would not want it the way you described.. from a game-point at least. If you don’t want to play the game but want to buy the items then it would make sense.

“Busy how?” Well kill the bosses, complete the dungeons and then go hunt down those items you like (like those mini’s that would then hopefully be in the game ). Level those fun crafts and so on. Yeah should easily keep you busy in a fun way for a year.

“You said with no gem shop we’d have mini pets given out as rewards for in-game content but that didnt happen in gw1 ” I said they could do that as an example. There are many examples. However there are limitation to what they can do with such examples when using a cash-shop. They need to make money with in-game stuff eventually. That also means they need to make items people want, what means those items don’t make it into the game-world itself. Sure maybe we see more of those items now. Maybe we would have no mini’s without the cash-shop but again it’s only an example.

But I rather have 50% of such items but all ingame then having the number we have now but 80% in the cash-shop. And then there are other things like the gold-grind.

No, things aren’t always black and white. But when I give examples you use them as if I give them as a black or white. In fact I agree. If we would have had expansions I do think there would be mini’s but not as much as we have now. My guesstimate would be the current mini’s minus the second and the third set but with the then now upcoming expansion (1 expansion a year) we would see some new. Still not as many as we have now. However like I said. I rather have less but more fun then a lot that are not fun.

In other mmo’s collecting mini’s was one of the main things I did (together with fun crafting, searching for rare pets for my ranger ans collecting mounts). In GW2 I don’t really care about mini’s anymore because they are simply not fun to collect here. Some might be but if for the other 80% it’s just a boring grind then nevermind. So then it does not matter anymore if we have 250 or 500. In fact please had give me those 250 in a fun way in stead of destroying the fun but have 500 of them available (of what I won’t get most because I don’t care about them anymore).

Galen Grey.4709:

~

“Look thing is ultimately the business model is not such a big deal as you seem to think it is.”
It very much is. Maybe not for you depending on your play-style but I gave multiple examples so will not repeat them again.

However it’s a huge deal for this game.. in a negative way. Whole elements (monthly the ones I prefer) are destroyed in this game because that’s the stuff they monetize with the cash-shop. Sure they also put some items in the world but how fun it is to collect mini’s if you can get a few in the game itself but most from the cash-shop? It’s not and so with that you destroy yet another whole element (collecting mini’s in the game).
So the fact they they also put something in the game does not yet make it right.

Also the LS did not deliver in content what people wanted but in the same time they could have also developed other things. All the small mini instances we all have forgotten by now, all with voice-acting, mob scripting and so on. That could have been multiple dungeons that could be placed in new maps.

And in stead of all the other voice acting we did see in the LS that could have been NPC’s in new maps. So if that time would have not gone into a LS but into an expansion we could have seen content people liked munch more.

“Gems shop might make cool things like the ancestor outfit to end up in the cash shop to finance the game but in an expansion you risk the ancestor outfit not being made at all since the time to make it might be deemed better spend doing another Jumping puzzle” When done right new maps, bossen, crafts and Jumping Puzzles also have new rewards, so we would see new items like that. Maybe a little less that’s possible but then I would be have having a JP in stead. Because that JP would then be fun while grinding for the ancestor outfit is not.

“but expansion might drive the grind up to keep people busy in the time span it takes to create the expansion.” You mean, stretch up time.. That’s not the same as grinding gold. Anyway a good expansion should easily keep people busy for a year.

“the developers that are making the game and its up to them to decide what is good or bad for their game.” That is not how it works. There are monetizing people that have also a say in that and that dies effect the game. Your own examples showed the influence. While you might play down the result is shows you understand perfectly how the one influence the other.

I don’t say they are greedy. If they use the cash-shop model this is what they have to do. If they put the game first, the game will be enjoyable irrespective of business model. Well making a good quality game would mean putting the mini (I keep it to that example) in the game for people to hunt down. That’s fun, that’s new end-content and that makes mini’s more interesting. But if they use a cash-shop they pretty much need to put such things in the cash-shop to earn there money.

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.

Galen Grey.4709:

expansion or no expansion Arenanet havent been sitting , looking around doing nothing these past 2 years. If they decided to go with an expansion model we wouldnt somehow have gotten new zones full with dynamic events in the first year. Modern MMOs take a lot more work to create content for then others. Dynamic Events I have no doubt take more work to create then traditional quests. B2P or not They’re able to deliver their first zones 2 years after release and if they had decided to go with expansions it is unlikely that would have changed anything. If it takes 2 years it takes 2 years. That may have been one of the drivers that made them decide in favor of LS as opposed to expansion cause they knew 2 years with no content would be a really bad idea!

And Vayne is right, since day 1 they’ve been saying that Expansion or LS wouldnt change what content we get. Content type will not vary only the delivery mechanism.

Maybe it takes two year because of all the time that go’s into the LS. Any idea how much worked that must have been. One year should be doable if that was there main focus.

And that would have been ahuge difference for the game because there would have been no need for the heavy focus on the cash-shop. Basically all Nerelith’s examples could have been ingame while not they pretty much had to be in the cash-shop to finance everything.

No need for the gold-grind and so on.

Yeah we do get the same kind of content (a new map for example) but the payment model has a big influence on the game.

So then we had to buy an expansion after a year but we would have gotten a better game for it.

Vayne.8563:

phys.7689:

Vayne.8563:

Devata.6589:

teriyakininja.4698:

I forgot where it was mentioned but Anet did say that there is a full expansion staff that is separate from the living story one — so we will be seeing an expansion eventually. The game has been out for what, a year and a half?

WoW take a good almost 2 years on each of their expansions but man, waiting for new content every 3 or whatever-so months was a pain. And there was no incentive to stay in the game except for the fact that “I better get my gear for the next patch”.

First of all GW2 was supposed to be a B2P game (turned on to be a cash-shop game) and if you earn money with game-sales you need to have an expansion every year. You can not do that every two year like WoW who is a sub-based game so can take 2 years.

Also the game is out for almost 2 years.

In addition to that they never said they had a team working on an expansion, all they said was that they had people working on the background on ‘other things’. I guess thinks like FotM, The Edge of the Mists and the new maps are coming from that team.

About expansion this is what was said “If we do this (LS) right we will never have an expansion.” They then got a lot of complains about that and then they said an expansion was not of the table. (this was over a year ago)

By now we can conclude they did not do the LS right but it seems like in stead of changing there focus to expansions they decided to change the LS and give it another try. Meanwhile for the expansion it is still not off the table. No news there.

You’re remembering what you want to remember. Anet said they were working on the kinds of stuff that would be included in an expansion, and simply haven’t decided on the way they’ll deliver it.

I’ll bet a whole lot of money there will be expansion, but on their schedule, not yours. Their priority was launching in China. It was a big deal.

The Chinese people need time to get through the content, and when that happens, I’m sure they will launch an expansion.

As for as it was supposed to be a buy to play game, it is. There are tons of people who have bought this game, played all the content and never paid a single penny.

I’m seriously convinced you’ve never played a cash shop game to make those kinds of statements.

actually devata is right, for a long time they said no expansion was planned, and currently they still say that. They did say they planned to release expansion like content, but thats pretty vague, since there have been times they released content that seemed expansion like to them, but not to a lot of players.

They currently don’t say that. In an interview with Colin and one of the conventions he said, clearly, that they would be producing the type of content you’d traditionally see in expansions but “they haven’t decided” how they would present it.

It means it could be an expansion. It could be through living story.

In any event, it’s not important what was said now, because NCsoft said at their investor call that an expansion would appear “when it made sense to do so”.

“In an interview with Colin and one of the conventions he said, clearly, that they would be producing the type of content you’d traditionally see in expansions but “they haven’t decided” how they would present it."
So the expansion is not off the table. But no confirmation about an expansion. Thats what I said.

“it’s not important what was said” well you comment on my to say it was wrong (while in fact it wasn’t).

“NCsoft said at their investor call that an expansion would appear” and then Anet was asked about it and gave the talk about it not being of the table and they had expansion-like content but they where not yet sure how to give it to the players bla bla.

Vayne.8563:

Devata.6589:

teriyakininja.4698:

I forgot where it was mentioned but Anet did say that there is a full expansion staff that is separate from the living story one — so we will be seeing an expansion eventually. The game has been out for what, a year and a half?

WoW take a good almost 2 years on each of their expansions but man, waiting for new content every 3 or whatever-so months was a pain. And there was no incentive to stay in the game except for the fact that “I better get my gear for the next patch”.

First of all GW2 was supposed to be a B2P game (turned on to be a cash-shop game) and if you earn money with game-sales you need to have an expansion every year. You can not do that every two year like WoW who is a sub-based game so can take 2 years.

Also the game is out for almost 2 years.

In addition to that they never said they had a team working on an expansion, all they said was that they had people working on the background on ‘other things’. I guess thinks like FotM, The Edge of the Mists and the new maps are coming from that team.

About expansion this is what was said “If we do this (LS) right we will never have an expansion.” They then got a lot of complains about that and then they said an expansion was not of the table. (this was over a year ago)

By now we can conclude they did not do the LS right but it seems like in stead of changing there focus to expansions they decided to change the LS and give it another try. Meanwhile for the expansion it is still not off the table. No news there.

You’re remembering what you want to remember. Anet said they were working on the kinds of stuff that would be included in an expansion, and simply haven’t decided on the way they’ll deliver it.

I’ll bet a whole lot of money there will be expansion, but on their schedule, not yours. Their priority was launching in China. It was a big deal.

The Chinese people need time to get through the content, and when that happens, I’m sure they will launch an expansion.

As for as it was supposed to be a buy to play game, it is. There are tons of people who have bought this game, played all the content and never paid a single penny.

I’m seriously convinced you’ve never played a cash shop game to make those kinds of statements.

“You’re remembering what you want to remember. Anet said they were working on the kinds of stuff that would be included in an expansion, and simply haven’t decided on the way they’ll deliver it.“

No they said it would be the stuff you would usually see in an expansion. Not that it was going to be in an expansion. About expansions they said it was not off the table and they said that if they did the LS right there would not be an expansions. That is what they said. I do not remember any of that wrong.

Does that mean we won’t see an expansion? No it does not, I also did not say that. I just said they where not working on an expansion (according to themselves) like teriyakininja said.

Imho they eventually will have to launch an expansion and imho expansions is the way to go for GW2. But that does not change what Anet did say about expansions.

They should have already had an expansion with the second coming soon but I do think that if they have no expansion by the 3th anniversary (basically if they did not change there focus by that time) it’s to late for GW2.

“I’m seriously convinced you’ve never played a cash shop game to make those kinds of statements.” I did, not a lot of course because I dislike them exactly because of these sort of things. It’s not a B2P game because there payment model (that what we are talking about) is not a focus on game sales (that includes expansions) but it is a focus on the cash-shop. Like F2P games.

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.

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.

teriyakininja.4698:

I forgot where it was mentioned but Anet did say that there is a full expansion staff that is separate from the living story one — so we will be seeing an expansion eventually. The game has been out for what, a year and a half?

WoW take a good almost 2 years on each of their expansions but man, waiting for new content every 3 or whatever-so months was a pain. And there was no incentive to stay in the game except for the fact that “I better get my gear for the next patch”.

First of all GW2 was supposed to be a B2P game (turned on to be a cash-shop game) and if you earn money with game-sales you need to have an expansion every year. You can not do that every two year like WoW who is a sub-based game so can take 2 years.

Also the game is out for almost 2 years.

In addition to that they never said they had a team working on an expansion, all they said was that they had people working on the background on ‘other things’. I guess thinks like FotM, The Edge of the Mists and the new maps are coming from that team.

About expansion this is what was said “If we do this (LS) right we will never have an expansion.” They then got a lot of complains about that and then they said an expansion was not of the table. (this was over a year ago)

By now we can conclude they did not do the LS right but it seems like in stead of changing there focus to expansions they decided to change the LS and give it another try. Meanwhile for the expansion it is still not off the table. No news there.

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.

Nerelith.7360:

Galen Grey.4709:

phys.7689:

Galen Grey.4709:

1. It is always tricky to say what is OP and what is not but one thing I think happens is there is this prevailant believe that GW2 is all about DPS and nothing else. If you try to out DPS a warrior with a necro you’re most certainly going to fail and the warrior will feel OP. Thing is all classes can do a lot but they all have their own strength and weaknesses. If i am facing a warrior with my necro I will try to disrupt him as much as possible while putting in conditions on him for example.

2. no expansion doesnt mean no new classes or no new weapons. They can do that as well and they said it already that expansion or not there will be new weapons and new classes with an emphasis that new weapons would probably come first.

3. gold trading outside of what anet provides is already against the terms and if caught you’ll get banned.

4. mirrors what i said about 1. its not just about DPS, though people seem to ignore there is also the control and support aspect of a class as well. An elementalist and a mesmer can boost the whole party damage by 80% while also disrupting the enemy and removing conditions from allies as well as DPS a bit. that means you get more overall damage then having 5 straight up warriors while also mitigating a good amount of damage recieved by the party. It has its advantages.

5. I wouldnt say crafting is useless. Its a good way to gear up cheaply. A good way to trying to acquire a precursor or one of the rare named weapons. Its a good way to get consumables.

actually its not a good way to gear up, in general most crafting recipes are done at a loss, meaning the materials are worth more. Not really good for consumables except cooking, but a great many cooking recipes are not worth thier price in materials well. Honestly, ill say they did not put crafting in the world well, they built the game in a way so that everyone should craft, i dont think that is a good paradigm.

well thats provided you have the money before hand though. If you just reached 80 its unlikely you’re going to have enough money to buy a full set but if you decided to craft it it will not matter. Granted you could always gather then material sell them and buy the stuff anyway, its an option sure but then you’ll also sacrifcing leveling your crafting and there are a few things that are cheaper to get / maintain with crafting then buying directly.

Did they? how is the game build in a way that everyone should craft? like you just said crafting is entirely optional and if anything not really the best option either in most cases. Think the issue is most likely that crafting gives leveling XP and thus a lot of people use it as a way to level their character up which in turn saturate the market with items that are sold simply to get some of the leveling investment back rather then to make a profit thus having people open to undercutting each other more then they should.

The problem is Crafting is Bland and generic. You make armor? So what,…armor also drops off Mobs. Maybe the skin is different, but it’s the same armot.

You make a sword? or a Bow? Again…so what?

On another game, you can make a mechanical squirrel with engineering. You can make a Motorcycle. You can make a Robot that tanks for you, or an agro magnet that waves it’s hands with a cardboard cut out of a Big breasted woman sporting cleavage with a smile on her face.

The irony for me is…each of these items are items that casual gamers would love to have. Unfortunately Anet places them in the gem shop.

Why Not have crafting create cool items that have zero benefit to combat, but are fun to have? a pet mechanical squirrel that follows you around, Like a Mini-pet but without the need to buy one from the gem store? Or maybe If you don’t want Mounts, you can have a One time use only mechanical tiger that you built from materials you mined, give it X HP… can’t be healed, when it dies it dies. Or give it a time limit.

Why can’t crafting have cool things in it?

Sometimes whe there is little difference between what you can craft, and what the game allows you to loot off Mobs,…. there is little need or use for crafting in and of itself. Crafting just becomes " another source of xp"

The sad part is, seeing the potential of crafting, and Not seeing Anet get even close to it. It’s simply another part of the game that could have been awesome, and is Bland and generic.

100% agree with this.

Oow and sorry for naming you a ‘He’.

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.

Vayne.8563:

First I tend not to badmouth other games. There are exceptions, but I wasn’t badmouthing anything. I was simply stating a truth that without knowing that game, the statement you made was completely meaningless. Your response changes nothing.

This isn’t my first rodeo. I’ve played a LOT of MMOs. And I mean a lot. Lotro, DDO, WoW, Guild Wars (I know it’s not a true MMO), Perfect World, RoM, TSW, AoC and I’ve tried a bunch of others.

I don’t badmouth them. I simply say this game is better for my play style, which remains true. It is. But you can’t compare economies from different games. Well you can, but you shouldn’t.

If you want to say I find gold to come by hard in this game, by all means say that. But another game’s economy doesn’t really tell us anything. What you’re essentially saying is I once played a game and that game had better quests because of whatever.

No one can argue the point unless you name the game and they’ve played it.

I guess what he is saying is that in many other mmo’s you simply work directly towards your items. There is no gold-sink in that. In fact while working towards that you even earn some money.

Then the gold-grind in the game (his example is a flying license) should not be the biggest problem. Sure it might be costly but you do not start to need grinding gold to be able to buy it. So there is no real gold-grind in the game.

Now in GW2 for many items there is already a gold-grind. You can’t work directly towards most items so you are already in need of gold.. well depending on your play-style. I think somebody who does not care for such things and just runs WvW all day will ave plenty of gold.

Then it does not matter if we are talking about 1000 gold or 10 copper but the need for that 1000 gold or 10 copper and the ’ requirement’ to grind gold to get anything.

In his example he has a craft that he does (earning the mats easy in the game by directly working towards them) he then create things and can even earn money with it. In GW2 for many mats (higher tier mats at least) it’s not possible to work directly towards it. So it’s grinding gold to get them. Then in many cases you also need to put in an item you have to buy from a vendor, so more gold and then you have an item you can’t really earn any gold on. So then you craft for the items you might want but that are basically only the legendary weapons and the ascended gear (at lvl 400 and 500). So up until then it’s a complete gold-grind. Not so much playing the game as in the game of his example.

And in that way you can off course with no problem compare games.

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.

Jerus.4350:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerus.4350:

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

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

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

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

However that is not the case for every complain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

I guess we will see a lot of the things which are desert-related in the EotM map since this is / was the perfect testing ground for a new map. Maybe there are those wurm-travel channels.

I’m not sure if it would be fun to run around in huge flat areas with nothing but sand. Not without some kind of mount (like the wurms in GW1) which I suppose won’t make a return.

I do like that sort of maps. True mounts are needed on those maps (also for the effect of a stretched out map that would be gone with way-points) but then I really like those map. You see a settlement or a little house in the distance and go there to check it out.

No way-points, no point of interest and no vista’s (well obviously vista’s but no vista icon and animation) you just explore because your curious of whats that thing there in the distance. That is exploring to me.

Stormcrow.7513:

After the debacle that was LS S1 I am leary of S2.
I will admit that the desert looks cool and hopefully there will be some fun exploration and dungeons in the new zone(s).
For many, including myself this is Anets point of redemption.
After 2 years of beta testing the community, they had better get this right.

Yeah well I personally would also prefer a good expansion with those maps to have Anet earning money that way and so get rid of the cash-shop likely getting a better game for it.

But as long as thats not the case I am at least happy to see a few of these maps.

Deserts, forest, tundra and savanna are the type of maps I really miss. (big open stretched empty maps or the forest that is exactly the opposite of that).

The new trailer seems to suggest we get some desert like map(s). And as it’s Maguum that opens we might in fact also see some (tropical) forests. Who knows.

I just wanted to say that I like the new trailer.

The trailer

The Fractal trailer was also very good.

I looks like there is more destruction on the way. I personally hope this time we will see some more building then destruction but we will see.

Dusty Moon.4382:

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

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

maha.7902:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smith.1826:

Devata.6589:

Smith.1826:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galen Grey.4709:

Devata.6589:

Galen Grey.4709:

even there though nerfing gold income actually helps. the exchange rate between gold and gems is also tied to people’s income directly. If I am a farmer making 15g per hour will I mind paying 10g for 100 gems? no! so I will end buying all the gems I need which will drive the price up even more. Using gw2spidy and sampling various points in time you can clearly see the exchange rate has varied between the period in time gold per hour flactuating between 30 mins – 1 hr worth of income. So even there reducing gold income will actually help by most likely lowering the conversion price as well in the long run.

I wanted to come back to this because it makes a lot of sense and so I already was curious to see if this indeed would happen. Especially since there is nothing else going on that should change much on the gem / gold rate.

Before the nerf for 1 gold you could get about 9 gems. That was a stable number for a long time and before that is was 1 gold for 11 gems for a long time.

At this moment 1 gold will get you 6 gems. Going strait against common sense.

Well thats if the system works like Anet says it works. I would not be surprised if (In fact I think) they change those rate themselves manually. (Then again that might not me legal so I’m not sure how far they are willing to go)

Anything I wanted to add this as it was valuable information for the discussion.

Oow and based on what a lvl 80 earns without farming but by just playing the most ‘fair’ rate would be about 50 gems for 1 gold.

yes unless you factor in june 4th where there was a temporary drop where 1g would get you 11gems once again. I imagine because basically price fell down to a level not seen since march a lot of people took advantage and bought gems driving the price back up. But yes essentially this isnt really something that happens in the short term because people dont just rely on the current income they also have stored income and not just that but not many people would reason out what they can and cannot afford until money actually runs out. IE if you have say 500 gold in the bank and still making 11g per hour you’re not going to worry until that 500g starts falling rather then increasing kinda thing. For the past 2 days we got a downward trend again, we’ll see if it holds but its still a bit early to see meaningful changes probably.

Main question is where that sudden drop comes drop when the patch would suggest the opposite would happen. Sure that would not happen instantly but we we did see a sudden drop. So maybe it does not work exactly as we think.

It was just some information I wanted to add to the topic to show it’s not all that easy. You could see it from both ways. That’s all. Not trying to make a point with it but valid / interesting information I think.

Harper.4173:

~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

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

And where exactly did you get this many number?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IndigoSundown.5419:

maha.7902:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thaddeus.4891:

Devata.6589:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smith.1826:

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

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

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

maha.7902:

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

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

Thaddeus.4891:

Devata.6589:

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

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

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

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

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

maha.7902:

Devata.6589:

maha.7902:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maha.7902:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ropechef.6192:

Traveller.7496:

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

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

all were for nothing???

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

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

Errant.1942:

Devata.6589:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

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

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

“Very easily and fast”. Right.

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

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

This happens in every game.

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

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

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

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

In GW2 is really trying to maximize your DPS output while also staying alive. (thats why toughness is this nice extra people appreciate).

Devata.6589:

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

So which is it?? Is everyone completing everything easily and fast, or are some of them slotting some toughness (and reducing their DPS) to stay alive?

You can’t have it both ways.

Heavy armor.

Harper.4173:

~

“And by everybody complaining you mean the half a dozen people who keep making these threads while the majority of the player base is actually playing the game and not even bothering with the forums.”

Oow this excuse again. How many times I did not see that one coming in the discussion about temporary content. Looks like even Anet eventually had to conclude that it was not just a few people on the forums but in fact many people disliking that.

In addition this one is even more tricky because there might also be people who simply consider combat dull but don’t relate it back to the lack of roles while in fact that might be the difference they need to not have it being dull for them.

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

“The “dull team play” you mention is only dull for people who like to be chained to other people.” Being chained is not the correct way of saying it. But yes it are people who consider teamwork, working to getter to complete the task where everybody uses his own (and required) abilities. So in that way they are depended on each other and other people are depended on them.

“I like GW2 because it allows me to be independent – my party can suck but if I’m good I can carry the fight and not have to rely on bad players.” I love to be independent. But when I want to do some teamwork content (like a dungeon) then I indeed like to do some teamwork. Not being pretty much solo while there are also some other people running around. It’s nice that you like that but that’s what some other people don’t like in teamwork content.

“The game has teamplay and you’ll do much better with an organized team of good players playing together but it doesn’t have the kind of teamplay where you’ll fail of others fail.”
Even in a holy trinity a single fail does not mean a total fail. If a tank go’s down a strong DPSer can tank for a short while while the healer gets the tank back up. But indeed a bad player can be a problem. If bad players don’t effect the game a lot then apparently content is sort of easy and nobody is really important in a fight, it’s not strange people consider it dull.

“You’re not chained together with other people through artificial constructs like tank and healer and that is a GOOD THING.”
I do like it how you choose your words. First with the “GW2’s way is more independent, then the team does not fail because one players fails and now picking a word as chained together through artificial constructions”
It all sounds so beautiful as if the one is a good thing and the other is a bad thing.

Anyway, It would not even have to be artificial you know. There is a reason why in a real army uses many different roles all with it’s own specialities. Same for about everything in life. Not everybody is sort of oke in everything. The reason it would be artificial in GW2 is because it’s a game. Not being ’ chained together’ is just as artificial.

“In GW1 and other “forced role” games what happens is that if the person on role x is bad the whole party will suffer.” Same for the other roles. What makes teamwork more important and gives more value to each player.

“Do you think GW2’s players want a trinity? Hard, soft, whatever? No.” I came up with many many examples. You go in on the trinity example and then you ask if I think if GW2 players want a trinity. No I don’t. I think many players want more specific roles. That’s not the same as a trinity. A trinity is only one way of implementing that.

You see GW2 was promoted as having no trinity, not as having no roles.

“If people want well defined combat roles where everyone has his clear cut job to do there are games that offer that. ”Indeed and if many people leave to those games that’s bad for GW2. So this is even more of a reason to take those complains serious.

“Perhaps people should consider that GW2 isn’t the game for them before they start wanting to change it for everybody else.” Just as the “it’s only a minority” this one is also a much used argument in the forums. But it does not add anything to the discussion. Again the game was not promoted as having no roles (in fact it was promoted as having roles, just not the trinity ones). So it might very well be the game for them if GW2 is the game it should have been.

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

maha.7902:

Except you are focusing on DPS all the time as (for example) a tank because you’re focusing on maximising your party’s damage output by holding aggro in trinity games and then dropping off as much defensive gear as possible yourself so that you can hold aggro and do a little more damage yourself. The whole focus in games is DPS and maximising it.

A tank is not focusing on DPS, a healer is no focusing on DPS. The DPSers are focusing on DPS. Sure in the end it’s damage (from those DPSers) that kills the boss but when you are tanking you have other things on your mind then DPS. In GW2 is really trying to maximize your DPS output while also staying alive. (thats why toughness is this nice extra people appreciate).

A tank only exists to keep the DPS people alive. They’re what matters the most.

So yes – while tanking your are doing DPS. Indirectly – through the people pushing it out while you hold the boss from killing them.

“They’re what matters the most.” How are they what matter the most if they die without a tank and healer? I really see a big difference between everything is based on DPS and having a team with different roles but the boss eventually dies from damage.

Not that I would also mind different mechanics where you do not need to kill a boss but transport somebody or something from one place to another. You can even implement PvP (capture the flag) element into a dungeon. But that might go out of the scope of this thread.

And it’s the same difference the people who make these complains talk about if they say the DPS focus is making combat dull.

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

IndigoSundown.5419:

~

“Your hypothesis includes an additional factor that would add complexity to the situation.”

Using all the information you have is “an additional factor that would add complexity” and so it’s. Also Occam’s razor just says you should use the idea with the least assumptions. You are assuming that Anet’s statement is truth. I take Anets statement as input but am not assuming it’s correct nor that it is false. I just take it as an input. So what more am I assuming? I just try to apply common sense to the information I have.

“*The amount of in-game currency in any online game goes up over time, unless gold sinks are sufficient to balance gold added to the game through play.*”
Thats overtime. The threads now popping up (you might have noticed this is not the only one) is based on a sudden drop. So based on that alone this information seems irrelevant.
In addition there are many gold sinks and gold-income has been steady for many people for a long time. Lastly we did see one change that was nerving gold-grind what should do exactly the opposite. That was the main point of what I said.

“*Games that have such a balance are going to be roundly criticized for making it impossible for players to get ahead with regard to in-game resources.*” ??? What is the relevance of this?

“*Not surprisingly, it is very possible to accumulate gold in GW2, ergo the amount of gold available in GW2 goes up over time.*” This is exactly the same as your first point.

“*New things that require gems to buy are being added to the gem store on a regular basis. ~*”
Also this is the same for a long period while the discussion now pop up because of a sudden drop while the only big change was a nerf to grinding gold. You also forget the gold-grind in the game. That are not only items but also levelling crafting and if it’s about items most people do not have all legendaries yet. Anyway this is more of an explication of your point 1. Not really a new point.

“*The two purchasable goals that would require the most gold are Legendaries and Ascended weapons/armor. These can also be farmed for rather than purchased.*”
That has also not changed recently.

“*Reduction in gold from specific farms has happened many times. These previous nerfs did not result in significant downswings in the conversion rate, so expecting the latest one to do so is a stretch.*” Haven’t seen any big gold-grind nerfs before.

“*Farmers are going to farm. Once Farm A is nerfed, the farmers move on to farm B. There is little evidence that gold gain decreased significantly from any of these nerfs. Meanwhile, there are constant complaints about inflation.*”
If that would be true then there would still not be a reason for the rate to suddenly jump into the other direction. You are assuming they move to the next thing ans there is just as much evidence that the gold gain decreases as that gold gains grows or stays steady. So that’s invalid to try and proof that the nerfe in gold-grind does no do anything.

Your points just try to prove a steady grow in gold and so a slowly change in gold > rate overtime. While ignoring that if there are sufficient gold-sinks that’s not even true because then you would keep a steady rate. They do not in any way point towards a sudden drop that we did see (and triggered these threads).

So that’s similar to what I said. Nothing much changed so you would not expect a sudden drop. In addition the one change that we did see (nerf of gold-grind) by common sense would point towards a the gold > gem rate going in the other direction.

Again there might be other reasons. People suddenly stopping to spend gems for gold. But even then the question is why this happen all of a sudden. What was the trigger for that?

“*So, what have you got?*” Exactly the same as you.. All those things point towards a steady change or just a steady rate (no change.. if gold-sinks are working properly). In addition I got the gold-grind nerf that by common sense would suggest there is less gold in the game and more people in need for gold. However we got the sudden drop. The information that triggered these topics.

“*unless you’re going to claim that the conversion rate is 100% manipulated by Anet*” I did never say that. Looking at what we see it’s mainly based on what they say (gold to gem converts vs gem to gold converts). However sometimes there are these sudden drops that are hard to explain. That’s why I say I would not be surprise that indeed they might sometimes change it.

However, it’s not about if anybody has a subjective viewpoint. It’s just about if the current rate is good or bad for the game. You then stated that it would be bad if Anet manually influence the rate (suggesting they didn’t) on what I said you can’t say for sure they don’t already do so and the current drop might even suggest they do so. Maybe they do, maybe not. That’s not the point of this thread.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

The stated issue is only a problem for people like me, who are unwilling to spend RL cash to buy gems. The higher the gold->gem ratio goes, the better it is for those people willing to spend their hard-earned money to buy gems.

If we want a free-to-play game, we should also accept that the company will make things easier on those willing to spend their hard-earned dollars, pounds, and euros. I am thankful that the gem shop only offers cosmetic & convenience items, and that top-tier gear is available without ever owning a single gem.

Then again ‘we’ well I don’t want a free-to-play game. That is why I got interested in GW2. It not being a F2P game and all. So to prevent exactly this sort of bad stuff in the game.

I have no problem paying. Give me an expansion every year and I pay. So what do you then go for.. A game that uses a B2P payment-model.

“the gem shop only offers cosmetic & convenience items,” Well the fun of an MMO is hunting that sort of items down in the game. Well for many players it is at least. So then you don’t want it in a cash-shop.

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

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

Errant.1942:

Devata.6589:

Errant.1942:

Devata.6589:

maha.7902:

Except you are focusing on DPS all the time as (for example) a tank because you’re focusing on maximising your party’s damage output by holding aggro in trinity games and then dropping off as much defensive gear as possible yourself so that you can hold aggro and do a little more damage yourself. The whole focus in games is DPS and maximising it.

A tank is not focusing on DPS, a healer is no focusing on DPS. The DPSers are focusing on DPS. Sure in the end it’s damage (from those DPSers) that kills the boss but when you are tanking you have other things on your mind then DPS. In GW2 is really trying to maximize your DPS output while also staying alive. (thats why toughness is this nice extra people appreciate).

You seem to forget that dungeons and raids are a team effort. Although your tank and your healer aren’t focusing on DPS, in the end, it’s a means to an end to boost your team DPS. Same goes for current team builds. Many meta builds sacrifice personal DPS in order to boost team DPS for example.

No I did not forget that. In fact the whole discussion was about teamwork. No the team effort is to kill the enemy. Yes that means he needs damage (well thats not always true but usually). But thats still something else as that everybody is focusing on DPS. Damage per Second! In GW2 everybody is just focusing on DPS. In fact there is not much of real team effort going on. Not like it is in the HT example (or one of the many other examples)

People might not have been focusing on DPS, but their purpose in the team was to raise DPS. I don’t see how this is any different from the current situation.

Not to mention, the way GW2 works is a lot more engaging than any trinity game was. Your team utility is spread out over the entire team, everyone has his little purpose: might stacking, fury, blinds, interrupts, aegis, banners, pulling… Those are all little things that go on in organized groups that people focus on besides doing DPS. They’re all things that are meant to boost team DPS, but they’re other things too.

In a trinity game you’d have your healer which was not doing direct damage, but focusing on keeping the tank/team alive in order to keep DPS up. This wasn’t a more interesting design if you ask me. I could play a UA monk in FoW/Deep/Urgoz/DoA while completely kittenfaced drunk. As long as I was able to keep my eyes open, and had the motor functions available to click some skills every now and then, I’d be fine. I could tank drunk as well, but not as drunk as I could still UA. The role was boring as hell. In GW2, you don’t have a boring heal bot. You can play one, but one isn’t mandated by the game.

Same goes for tanking. Although it was by far the most fun role in DoA (since I could do some really funky YOLO stuff, and just goof around in general), if I wasn’t being an idiot while doing so, it was a pretty boring role that existed of pulling and balling mobs. I just made it fun. In GW2, everyone is constantly engaged in combat, which, imo, makes for a far more interesting combat system than a trinity MMO with “designated roles”.

As for not much of a team effort going on, that just proves that you are completely oblivious as to how organized groups work.

No the purpose was to kill the enemy what was NOT only achieved by all focusing on DPS.

“Not to mention, the way GW2 works is a lot more engaging than any trinity game was.” I guess everybody complaining about dull combat and lack of roles and that it’s all DPS, DPS DPS and talking about 1, 1,1,1 is disagreeing with you on that I guess. But it’s nice you like it.

Anyway it’s not so much about trinity. We all know GW2 would not have a trinity in the game. It’s the lack of roles that make team-play combat dull for many people.

“everyone has his little purpose” At least is honest of you to call it ‘little’. As the problem is that everybody’s real purpose is DPS (aka lack of roles).

“In a trinity game you’d have your healer which was not doing direct damage, but focusing on keeping the tank/team alive in order to keep DPS up. This wasn’t a more interesting design if you ask me.” Now thats not honest. As every class in a trinity in addition to it’s role the player belongs to (tank, healer or DPS) also has it’s other little things he can help with. Thats the same as in GW2.

“As for not much of a team effort going on, that just proves that you are completely oblivious as to how organized groups work.” Yeah ‘All stack!! BUFF!!!, DPS!!’ No offense but thats your general ‘organized groups work’. You might consider that heavy team effort. Other people prefer some more then that. But the problem is that in most cases this in fact is the best tactic.

“Bias is not failing to discuss other options. Bias is consistently coming to conclusions that support what you already believe, despite lack of evidence.”

No it’s making your conclusion based on personal preference while evidence is pointing in the other direction. In this case all we have to go on is common sense based on the information and we have multiple reasons for the rate being at it is. But because the only change we do have seems to be one that would do exact the opposite to the rate I come to the conclusion I came at.