(edited by Devata.6589)
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).
So we got this one ‘tactic’ all over the place. You see thats why people complain about combat being sort of dull. PvE at least and WvW is very similar.
In GW1 and most other trinity games, we also had one tactic all over the place: ball and spike. Or, tank and spank, how ever you want to call it. For some reason, this was better?
“As for everything being based on DPS. This has been the same concept in every game ever.” There is a difference between DPS being the focus everywhere or DPS always having a role in every game. And then no it’s not always a focus. If we take the holy trinity example it’s very much tank, heal and DPS. That are 3 different roles that are equally important to the game. The tactic depends on the content but always needs those 3 roles. There is no focus on DPS there. No good healer means you are not likely to complete, same for tank and DPS. You need them all and so tactics resolve around them all.
And yet, you still fail to realize that the only reasons tankers and healers existed in trinity games was to maximize DPS. They existed to keep aggro from the DPSers and heal them up if need be, or heal the tanks, whatever, so the DPSers had an easier time to DPS things down. Those 3 different roles were all equally important to maximize DPS. The focus was still DPS, just in another disguise.
While not a great fan of how Tequatl is set up (because it’s in the open map and so hard to organize, but thats another topic) there are multiple roles. The stack and DPS is there but only for those hitting the toe of Tequatl. Turrets have a complete different role (yes part of there role also exist within the stack and DPS ’tactic) especially if you also take the defending of the turrets into consideration.
Guess what the turrents and defending of it ultimately results into? Increasing DPS. I was going to link you to the Hardened Scales page on wiki, because I mistakenly thought that for every stack he took less damage, but the idea still stands. If he gets 20 stacks, he becomes invulnerable. The turrents exist to 1. keep the boss vulnerable 2. keep the players alive by taking out poison fields. Both of these mechanics ensure an upkeep of DPS. It’s again in a little disguise, but it all boils down to the same idea.
I did even see some other examples in dungeons that where interesting however they where extremely simple (beginning of dredge fractal in FotM) or in the end the easiest way to beat it was again DPS.
The cage in Dredge is actually a really good example of a mechanic in game that isn’t based on DPS. DPS isn’t going to help you there much, since you’ll have to take out some dredge, but can’t kill them all, since they’ll respawn if you do. Same goes for the turret and bomb event, no DPS focus there either. But they’re more an exception than the rule.
I don’t mind mechanics like dredge that don’t let you focus on DPS, given that they’re interesting and engaging (things the dredge events aren’t all that much in my eyes, even after the changes). But, in the end, you can’t design an entire dungeon without encounters that exist of “do damage to X until it dies”. There might be mechanics in place you need to use to enhance the damage done (Bjarl for example), but in the end, it’s all the same idea: “make sure X dies”.
All you are saying here is. “you need damage to kill the enemy” and act as if that means the focus is always on DPS. That is not true.
“The cage in Dredge is actually a really good example of a mechanic in game that isn’t based on DPS.” That is what I said. That was the good example (but really easy one). You see how it does not always have to resolve around DPS.
“But they’re more an exception than the rule.” Thats the point I am trying to make.
“(things the dredge events aren’t all that much in my eyes, even after the changes)” indeed, to easy but a good example of other forms of tactics.
""do damage to X until it dies". ~ “make sure X dies”" Yeah thats what I say. You act as if ‘you need damage to kill somebody’ is the same as focusing on DPS. Thats not the case.
we need players and we need players who buy gold from you anet!!
No thats the worse. Then you support this cash-shop focus that has slowly been killing this game. We need layers who buy expansions.. whenever they would come.
Anyway, it all has nothing to do with the rate people are talking about here.
I don’t want expansions.
I will continue to support the cash shop. I don’t think the cash shop is "killing " the game.
If you don’t want expansions you should have gone for a F2P game not a B2P game. But your in luck. This game turned more into a cash-shop (F2P) game then a B2P game.
You may support the cash-shop focus. thats all up to your but it’s did already effect the game in many negative ways. Maybe not for your game-play but for sure for many other.
There is nothing to fix because nothing is broken.
You can still get the same 1600 gems for $20 that you could when the game launched.
First of all, thats not playing the game. That is supporting the downfall of the game.
Secondly, those 20 dollar get you much more gold now. That is a problem.
Thats a problem? rewarding people who support the game? how is giving the company money supporting its downfall? are you insane? do you think about these things before you wright them?
Yes and I am saying that for over a year now.
Spending money on gems is supporting it’s downfall. It’s not supporting the game.
How is it better for the quality of a game to have haircuts available in a cash-shop then having a barber in the game?
How is having this endless boring gold-grind any good for the game?
How is having ‘cool’ items mainly bing in the cash-shop in stead of mainly in the game a positive?
How is having instruments in a cash-shop better then having a musician craft in the game.
How is it better to not being able to hunt down mini’s in the game-world as game-play but having most mini’s in the cash-shop (more gold-grind) or cash.
All that stuff it not better for the game. It’s taking elements out of the game, it has made the game a big gold-grind and so has only made the game worse. By buying gems that is exactly what you are supporting so yes that is bad for the game.
Wrote a whole topic about it: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/A-focus-on-micro-transactions/page/3#post3593248 Have a read.
Seriously guys, how is this supposed to get fixed?
Gold-gem ratio has reached around 12g, last time I remember it was around 9g and even that was pretty high because further before it was around 5g.I’m seriously concerned about this, it can’t be overlooked by Anet.
The option to get gems with gold is one of the key differences that set GW2 apart from most games with in-game shops, but if the price keep raising, we could reach even 20g or 30g for 100 gems at this point, and not so far in the future.This would completely kill the reason this feature was added, and then, would somehow “force” players to actually spend real money on the game because otherwise the alternative would be farm big amounts of gold (for the average player 20g is huge, don’t forget this is a casual players game). The choice to farm or spend would just become illusory and fake then.
I’m perfectly aware that Anet is trying to solve the problem by encouraging players to spend real money on gems to balance the exchange ratio, but this system has shown its problem: if there are no more buyers than converters, the ratio doesn’t drop (correct me if I guessed wrong).
So how do we solve this?
I proposed some time ago to set a gold cap for conversions, something like 10g for 100 gems, so for buying let’s say a piece of armor, you would still have to spend 80g, which is not that low (and not everybody are flippers).
Of course I don’t know if it’s a good solution, but at least it’s a proposition.Everything you get on the gem store is cosmetic and has no real in-game value, anet does not care if you have it or not, and nor should they. People who spend real money on gems and support this game should have cool stuff that people who dont pay cant get. The fact that you want to be rewarded for giving anet nothing confounds me, the fact that they allow you to buy gems in the first place is already extremely generous, dont push for more.
Buying gems and so supporting that focus on the cash-shop has been destroying this game. Not helping it.
So those ‘cool’ items are more items of shame.
And what is “ingame value?”. You do not need anything and value well an item you earn by killing a boss indeed has a ingame value, an item you buy not. If then the item you buy looks better there is something really wrong. But the game would be much better if people could earn all those items ingame. By having them in a cash-shop that element of the game is gone reducing the quality of the game.
Also not spending money on gems to prevent supporting bad behavior does not mean no willingness to spend money on the game or no willingness to support the game, in fact if you want to support the game you better don’t spend a dime on gems. Let them release good expansions in stead and those same people might be willing to spend there money on that to in fact support the game.
~
“The explanation that less players are spending RL cash for gems to convert to gold is the simplest explanation that matches the observable facts.”
Just as simple as that with the nerfing of gold-grinding it should have gone the other way. And there is nothing else really going on. So then the question is why people are suddenly out of nothing did stop buying gems.
Assuming Anets about how it works is true then yes this is the most likely so not only explanation. Thats why I did mention it. But taking that assumption out of the equation that it’s a good runner up, not the best anymore.
“As time passes, this is more and more likely to occur.” This suggest a slow rate change, not a sudden drop. “There is no evidence that the player-base is increasing substantially,” To keep the rate steady it does not have to increase. In fact increasing or decreasing has nothing to do with it as long as the gem to gold and gold to gem converters ratio stays the same. You make a logical error here. Yes more players might mean more gems to gold converters but also more gold to gems converters.
“Once people get the items they want gold to be able to buy, they don’t need to buy more gold.” So you are saying we are now suddenly at a point where people don’t need gold anymore because they have anything they need. Why would that moment be reached just now. You are talking about evidence but using assumptions yourself as well. Obviously because it’s all we got.
“Since the game has not added much of anything that requires gold to buy, this means less people need gold.” In game there has not been added much that has also been steady for a long time. Pretty much everything is based on gold. But adding things ingame that cost gold and you can’t buy with gems that has not changed a lot for over a long time.
“You think this because your analysis of peoples’ motivations and economics is colored by your hatred of the way GW2 is monetized.” If it was colored I did not give both both sides didn’t I? I said there are two possible reasons, x and y. You think it’s Y because you base it on the assumption that Anet is telling the truth (what is possible). I think it’s X based on the fact that nothing special really happened what easily could explain the sudden rate change.
Usually I don’t really monitor the rate, it was just that it came up in that other topic. Also there another person did come up with that same suggestion based on logical thinking (that you should start getting more gems for gold, and he said that defending the grind nerf). So no, it’s not just a colored view. Then I would only look at one side ignoring the other. I don’t do that.
“But you said there is no tactics going on ”
No I don’t really consider that tactics. However by definition he is right it is a tactic thats true. Thats also what I said before, I do not consider that a tactic (there is a reason I choose my words like that and I don’t just say thats by definition not a tactic). Because it’s so basic and all the same.
“So, you’re saying that stacking buffs, using terrain to your advantage, proper use of utilities in order to mitigate damage, etc, are not tactics? ” Thats a very nice way of explaining stack and DPS. Very well done. Still it does not make it any more interesting when using it. Again, yes by definition that is a tactic but it’s a easy boring tactic and it’s the same one almost all over the game. So we got this one ‘tactic’ all over the place. You see thats why people complain about combat being sort of dull. PvE at least and WvW is very similar.
“As for everything being based on DPS. This has been the same concept in every game ever.” There is a difference between DPS being the focus everywhere or DPS always having a role in every game. And then no it’s not always a focus. If we take the holy trinity example it’s very much tank, heal and DPS. That are 3 different roles that are equally important to the game. The tactic depends on the content but always needs those 3 roles. There is no focus on DPS there. No good healer means you are not likely to complete, same for tank and DPS. You need them all and so tactics resolve around them all.
I am not familiar with your examples so I have no idea if those do all resolved about DPS as much as stuff does in GW2. However it’s untrue that thats the case in every game. Let me also give some good examples in GW2 if it comes to tactics. While not a great fan of how Tequatl is set up (because it’s in the open map and so hard to organize, but thats another topic) there are multiple roles. The stack and DPS is there but only for those hitting the toe of Tequatl. Turrets have a complete different role (yes part of there role also exist within the stack and DPS ’tactic) especially if you also take the defending of the turrets into consideration.
Also with Wintersday the PvP mini-game had different roles with there own abilities that did allow for different tactics. Some classes where better for defending, other better for attacks and other better for running the present to your base. People work together using there own abilities. I did even see some other examples in dungeons that where interesting however they where extremely simple (beginning of dredge fractal in FotM) or in the end the easiest way to beat it was again DPS.
we need players and we need players who buy gold from you anet!!
No thats the worse. Then you support this cash-shop focus that has slowly been killing this game. We need layers who buy expansions.. whenever they would come.
Anyway, it all has nothing to do with the rate people are talking about here.
There is nothing to fix because nothing is broken.
You can still get the same 1600 gems for $20 that you could when the game launched.
First of all, thats not playing the game. That is supporting the downfall of the game.
Secondly, those 20 dollar get you much more gold now. That is a problem.
I’d like to add, do people know what stacking is?
Stacking is using LoS to get the mob to go where you want it to go and staying close together to utilize the short range boon sharing.
dictionarytac·tics [tak-tiks] Show IPA
noun
1.
( usually used with a singular verb ) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
2.
( used with a plural verb ) the maneuvers themselves.
3.
( used with a singular verb ) any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.So we’re using LoS to get mobs to move to where we want, using a procedure to gain an advantage, maneuvering ourselves to force the maneuvering of our enemies.
It may not be what some people want, but stacking IS a tactic.
Well yeah and focusing on DPS is as well a tactic. But if thats all thats to it, it’s not a very interesting tactic. Also if that seems to be the only tactic or at least for 90% of the content it also does not make for very tactical game-play overall because ones you understand this one very boring ‘tactic’ thats about it.
You see thats where the complains are coming from.
I play the game but there is no real tactics going on. I just do what everybody does. Have a zerker set (and s knigth’s set mainly for WvW). And when playing with a group it is mainly stack and DPS. I don’t consider that tactic but not doing that will result in a lot of negative reactions. What is sort of understandable as thats how it works in this game. But no I do not consider that tactics so if it comes to tactics I do the same as everybody.. nothing really because there is no requirement for tactics it’s just stack and DPS.
So, what you’re really saying is that you have no idea how tactics work and why they work, because you “just do what everybody does”.
Because, when I play the game, I know what I’m doing (or at least, I usually do), and why I’m executing the tactics. It’s not just “stack and DPS”, it’s pulling, might stacking, blind spamming, timed Aegis and condi cleanse, proper use of CC, proper DPS rotations…
Oow I understand just fine how and why that works. I also explained that multiple time in this thread I think. And one of main the reasons it works is because everything is so much based on DPS, the stacking is indeed for the buffing. And thats basically how you can defeat 90% of the content in this game. And thats what people are complaining about if they say it’s all about DPS. It does not make that any better if you understand why it works.
I do but does that make the combat more interesting because I do? Does it make teamwork more interesting because you understand why it works? Does it make the fight more intense because you know it works? Does it make the content more fun because you know why it works? No sorry it doesn’t.
“If i need stealth i….” The point is that the main thing you always need is DPS. Would be really great if you could mix it with some toughness.
It’s all about DPS and it would be nice to also bring some toughness around.
that is however what seems to be the main requirement in the game, DPS and some toughness if possible
Grammar. It suggested wishful thinking, correcting yourself after the 4th time is a bit too late, but whatever. At least now i understand what you meant. It’s pug perception, they want heavy classes mostly, because they are dumb and want to ensure a good run, since those two classes have more room for error.
With this and your above mentioned questions about your own class it’s truly obvious you never had a proper good run as a ranger and most likely you get kicked thanks to your class anyway. No offense. Am i right? I can count on my one hand how many proper SSS ranger i’ve met in pugs.
Strawman at it’s finest. I could say the same about your Wolfenstein example. Medic can heal, yeah, but who cares, you just shoot the enemy anyway and the whole game is about pew pew. See? I can dumb it down too if i wanted to.
To your latest post.
Tactics solved months ago =/= non-existent tactics. Think about it. If you run the content for a gazillion of times, it becomes so trivial, your muscle memory will solve it.
The only thing we would both agree i guess, is the nerf of FGS. It’s such a powerful tool in the hands of the most dumbest player too, it ain’t fun anymore.I still can’t see why your examples are better, especially Pokemon with it’s rock-paper-scissor mechanics.
~
It just says what it is supposed to say. Did not ‘correct’ anything.
The game requires mainly DPS and it would be great to also have some extra toughness.
And was that not clear in the first sentence it should have been clear the second time. Especially because I said I did think you misunderstood me. The part you conveniently left out when quoting me.
I think you misunderstood my comment and the reaction is sort of funny. As what I talked about is how it is in GW2. And what I dislike about it. It’s all about DPS and it would be nice to also bring some toughness around. Thats basically how it works in GW2.
So if it was still not clear this second time it are really no my grammar skills but your reading skills that seem to be the problem. or you are just trolling. That is also possible.
“It suggested wishful thinking” That is correct. Players do not seem to demand the toughness thats more of an extra. Wishful thinking somebody could also bring that into the mix. Aka preferring for example a warrior over a ranger.
Anyway enough about this.
“you never had a proper good run as a ranger and most likely you get kicked thanks to your class anyway. No offense. Am i right?” I have had many successful runs and was never kicked. Of-course it helps if you never run with pugs but always with your guild.
However when trying multiple tactics it turns out that in the end it always just boils down to as much as DPS as possible. It’s also where the whole stack and DPS approach in this game has come from. It simply almost allays is the best working approach. That is nothing to do with pugs or noobs or whatever. In fact if you do not want to do that you are considered a noob. What sort of makes sense looking at if from a stand-point that a ‘noob’ had not yet discovered that that indeed is the best way. Stacking basically is for the buffs and the rest all just comes down to as much as DPS as possible.
“See? I can dumb it down too if i wanted to.” Yeah but it would not be accurate while for GW2 it is very accurate.
“I still can’t see why your examples are better, especially Pokemon with it’s rock-paper-scissor mechanics.” Well lets take that rock paper scissor tactic and converting it to GW2 it simply means that different bosses have different specialties and different classes have all different specialties that might be good to counter those abilities the boss has.
If you would play Pokemon and go into a arena with a mixed group of enemies and you only take fire Pokemon with you, you will not be very likely to be victorious. But a mixed group might be victorious using every Pokemon’s special ability. You seem to be looking at that from a 1 to 1 match but I am talking about team-play all the time.
- What level of player skill is required for this end game? (low skill end game, mid skill end game, high skill end game)
Pretty much what IndigoSundown says.
You can have some activities that require some hard skills but a specific easy to kill mob (or group of mobs) can also have a drop people like. Just put specific rare rewards behind all sorts of content. Easy content and hard content and there is something for ‘everybody’ to do. If it comes to end-game.
And to laboriously get back on topic before I clock out of this, the few questions for others:
- If they decided to add something similar to the Elite Areas in GW1, what’s the threshold for “properly rewarding”? I think the answer on whether “just” skins and gold is okay has just been established in the last few exchanges I made (it is). Where can it be set where it’s rewarding enough, but not enough where it unbalances things in favor of those who farm it for the gain?
Let’s keep it on a rare chance (not extremely extremley rare, but rare!) for that ‘skin’. However I would rather not name it skin because it can also be a mini or a special recipe or who knows in the future a mount or something for your home or guild hall.
Then if you manage to get the item you can always sell that if you want the gold. Meanwhile you can keep the token system as an extra to get armor set based on that content. But that should be more of a side thing, not the focus.
The gem for gold exchange is represented as a self-regulating economic system. If the amount of gold needed to purchase gems is increasing, that means that more players want to pay gold to get gems than want to pay gems to get gold.
The OP proposes imposing an external control.
You really think it is a self-regulating economic system? Funny enough in another topic this came up when people talked about the farm nerf. Someone also said.. well the positive is that if you look at the gold > gem, gem > gold rate. What makes sense. Less easy to grind gold so less gold in the game and less gold being converted to gems should mean the rate should change so you get more gems for your gold or less gold for your gems.
Except for that change there is nothing else going on in the game that should really change it however exactly the opposite of what you could expect happened.
It’s also not the first time. How much gold people earn has been stable for a long time but the gold > gem rate has been going down all the time. Only other explanation would be less and less people are playing / willing to buy gems (to convert to gold).
What would not be that bad really as then Anet would finally get forced to rethink the hole cash-shop focus. However in the last few weeks nothing happened that would suggest this drop while the rate did drop. So I do think they are imposing external control on it.
@Dual
Ahh, that makes more sense now. Can you show me a proper example of your idea? Another game is fine too and youtube link is appreciated.@Devata
If you aren’t “zerging and DPSing” what do you do personally? Stand still? I’m pretty sure you deal damage thus DPSing. But lets step aside from that.
If you aren’t “zerging” you already wear a more tanky gear set and based on your comments you don’t play a meta build either so, where is the tactic? Ranging? Hahh, no. Melee in immortal tanky builds? What? What do you do exactly? Use this editor, i’m seriously curious.I don’t do anything as there is nothing to do. Thats the whole point. Isn’t is. So strange question.
My main is a ranger so how can I make use of my (as ranger) specialties to help the group in tactical play. What is my specialty that the team likes to make use of?
Ranged is any required ‘tactic’ in this game. It could be depending on how you design bosses and content but it isn’t.
Going back to the Wolfenstein ET example. Yeah obviously everybody does damage but you also have your own specialties the group needs. The engineer helps to clear the route to the target by blowing up walls or other blockades. Sometimes even blowing up the target. The Field Ops makes sure everybody has enough ammo and also gives support fire (letting a plane drop some bombs). The medic helps people up and get the to 100% HP again. The soldier is there to support in your heavy fire also useful to attack enemy vehicles or clearing an area (flame thrower). Lastly there is Covert Ops who is for your more precise attacks. Using a sniper or steal an enemy identity letting you inside enemy building without having to blow up the entrance.
Of course there are many more examples of other games. Another good example is commandos (1 – 3) there also every class has it’s obvious specialties / role. Now that makes teamwork interesting. So again there is not problem in doing something else as the holy trinity as that reduces the whole combat to 3 roles… Oow and also then there are many classes (what some people now here try to sell as roles but really isn’t) but basically there are 3 roles. Healer, Tank and DPS.
So you bashing the game without playing it? Great. You can leave my internetz now.
ps: Comparing a multiplayer option of an FPS to a instanced PvE content of a MMO is genius Sir. Play the game and you will see the roles and what is the job of every class and build. I’m sure a purehearted lovely person would invite you to a more organized party to show how the game works outside of the pug meta.
pps: Ranger is a great class and have great tools to help at the encounters, but you obviously aren’t familiar with them. Reflects, various buffs and utlities with pets if needed, a blast finisher, aoe swiftness, pure DPS boosts with Spotter and Frost spirit, beastly burst potantial thanks to Signet of Wild, 12 second of invulnerability if needed, nice mobility, a fairly long firefield for prestacking, etc.
“So you bashing the game without playing it? Great. You can leave my internetz now.” So you ask me what tactic I use. I say I do nothing as there is nothing to do. obviously talking about the tactics as thats what you ask me. And then you turn that into I do not play the game.
I play the game but there is no real tactics going on. I just do what everybody does. Have a zerker set (and s knigth’s set mainly for WvW). And when playing with a group it is mainly stack and DPS. I don’t consider that tactic but not doing that will result in a lot of negative reactions. What is sort of understandable as thats how it works in this game. But no I do not consider that tactics so if it comes to tactics I do the same as everybody.. nothing really because there is no requirement for tactics it’s just stack and DPS.
And if it comes to roles the Wolfenstein ET example works just fine. I added that (and commando’s) to add some flavor as the most obvious other example is the holy trinity and I want to make clear that it’s not like I just want to go back to that. In addition I also gave the Pokemon example what is a RPG and would work fine as an MMO.
And yes a Ranger is a great class and I am very familiar with it. It’s also great for solo play. However again when you get into team-play it still burns down to DPS. Nobody is going to ask me for my range or pet ability (the two most obvious things that make a ranger, a ranger.).
If running organized zerker tactics is so easy, why do people always complain about zerkers being dead? I don’t get it, people always claim 2 things: 1. zerker takes no skill and there is no risk/reward 2. zerkers are always dead. It can be one, or the other, but it can’t be both. Unless it actually does have risk/reward and bad players can’t pull it off.
Also, running in organized groups isn’t mindless zerging. It’s spamming blinds, timing Aegis, stacking might, keeping vuln up, keeping the proper buffs on your group, etc.
Just because it doesn’t happen in PUG groups doesn’t mean that everybody plays as unorganized as you do.
I always play very organized and tactical in games, it’s what I like. However this game simply does not ask for that making it dull combat and thats what the many complains are about. Try to ignore it as you want. Try to tell yourself that people who say that are just stupid pugs noobs who don’t know how to play the game. (you are superior, the others or bad) But it does not do much for the facts.
Yes when doing the brainless zerging there is also buffing and so on going on. Thats what the whole stacking is based on. But you really want to consider that tactical game-play? And then that same ‘tactic’ pretty much for the whole game. Really who are you trying to fool here?
“If i need stealth i….” The point is that the main thing you always need is DPS. Would be really great if you could mix it with some toughness.
It’s all about DPS and it would be nice to also bring some toughness around.
that is however what seems to be the main requirement in the game, DPS and some toughness if possible.
There you go.
I assumed, because …
1. Nothing stop you from using a toughness based build and satisfy your obsession with higher armor numbers.
2a. Therefore you are bothered of the fact that “your playstyle” isn’t accepted OR
2b. You want the same killing speed as full offensive builds.As i said, you still can’t see it. There are roles which can be filled with various tools (read: skills by weapons, utilites or traits). And tell me an MMO where the fights aren’t based around damage thus killing your opponent thus boiling down to go full DPS after every buff, utility and defense is covered.
You are quoting my complains about how it currently works in the game and then say thats what I want. Why would I want that if it’s what I say is wrong with the game?
That makes no sense at all.
The whole game is about DPS DPS and some extra toughness is also welcome (thats why guardian and warrior (Heavy armor) are so much liked).
There I said it again.. How I do NOT like that it only revolves about this.
“As i said, you still can’t see it. There are roles which can be filled with various tools (read: skills by weapons, utilites or traits).”
Still those little difference in the game don’t make real roles, in the end it’s just all about DPS. You know like how Holy Trinity games also have many more classes with also all there own skills and utilities but it boils down to 3 roles (Tank, Healer and DPS).
(edited by Moderator)
@Dual
Ahh, that makes more sense now. Can you show me a proper example of your idea? Another game is fine too and youtube link is appreciated.@Devata
If you aren’t “zerging and DPSing” what do you do personally? Stand still? I’m pretty sure you deal damage thus DPSing. But lets step aside from that.
If you aren’t “zerging” you already wear a more tanky gear set and based on your comments you don’t play a meta build either so, where is the tactic? Ranging? Hahh, no. Melee in immortal tanky builds? What? What do you do exactly? Use this editor, i’m seriously curious.
I don’t do anything as there is nothing to do. Thats the whole point. Isn’t is. So strange question.
My main is a ranger so how can I make use of my (as ranger) specialties to help the group in tactical play. What is my specialty that the team likes to make use of?
Range isn’t any required ‘tactic’ in this game. It could be depending on how you design bosses and content but it isn’t in GW2.
Going back to the Wolfenstein ET example. Yeah obviously everybody does damage but you also have your own specialties the group needs. The engineer helps to clear the route to the target by blowing up walls or other blockades. Sometimes even blowing up the target. The Field Ops makes sure everybody has enough ammo and also gives support fire (letting a plane drop some bombs). The medic helps people up and get the to 100% HP again. The soldier is there to support in your heavy fire also useful to attack enemy vehicles or clearing an area (flame thrower). Lastly there is Covert Ops who is for your more precise attacks. Using a sniper or steal an enemy identity letting you inside enemy building without having to blow up the entrance.
Together you get the job done.
Of course there are many more examples of other games. Another good example is commandos (1 – 3) there also every class has it’s obvious specialties / role. Now that makes teamwork interesting. So again there is no problem in doing something else as the holy trinity as that reduces the whole combat to 3 roles… Oow and also then there are many classes (what some people now here try to sell as roles but really isn’t) but basically there are 3 roles. Healer, Tank and DPS.
(edited by Devata.6589)
True IndigoSundown you can play for fun
If it is not required to use tactics and team-play what is the fun of doing it. Lets be all tactical and trying to use different roles.. of course he will also just die if we DPS the hell out of him. There is no fun in teamplay (making use of different roles) if it’s useless. It’s fun of that teamplay is the reason you are being victorious.
But who decides what is fun. Each player has a different idea of what’s fun for them and what type of team play is fun.
Well obviously everybody complaining about the fact that it’s all so heavily focused on DPS in stead of some good team-play and different roles, does not consider stack and DPS to be fun. But sure there will also be people whole like just ‘brainless’ zerging and DPSing. Others like fights that require some more tactics.
(edited by Devata.6589)
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.
Devata is obsiously a troll and should get reported, but i bite it.
Why do you want to get toughness? What keeps out of doing it? Why do you want the same killing speed as a berserker geared character? Why you can’t leave this gear issue and realize your build is more reliant on weapon, trait and skill choices?
Why? Why? Why?Lol naming me a troll based on nothing and then coming with a troll post. Where did I say I want toughness? Where did I say I want the same killing speed as berserker? Where, where where? I did not, that is however what seems to be the main requirement in the game, DPS and some toughness if possible.
I want more focus on roles.
Rigth in this post and previously in a few others.
I assumed you want that, because otherwise it’s just pointless complain from your side.
There there there.Roles exist, you just can’t see. Not our problem, just yours.
@Bezagron
Please post 1 shot skills from bosses.
“Rigth in this post” Quote it!
“I assumed” thats where you go wrong all the time.
“Roles exist, you just can’t see. Not our problem, just yours.” Not really, classes (professions) exist but your ‘role’ in a fight boils mainly down to DPS.
I am not comparing it to GW1. But I do see some much better reward-system in some other games thats for sure. Like I said, the currency grind is just boring to me.
The reasons why the loot system is bad in this game as compared to others, to you anyway, is because the goal of the company is to make it so you can run pretty much anywhere and still get loot. It’s an experiential game. So you can get anything doing pretty much anything. That’s the ideal for the game.
The idea that you have to do X hard content to get better rewards is against the philosophy of the game over all. If you make something so rewarding that people have to do it, then the rest of the game gets ignored.
So those who play FOR rewards are unhappy.
People like me who enjoy rewards but don’t play for them, are happier. I don’t want to have to run content X to get what I want. I want a chance to get it anywhere.
If they make certain hard content more worth it, then people will feel they have to do that content. If they make it so that rewards across the board are raised, nothing with have value and everything will be inflated.
There really are no easy answers.
All I said was that items (unique rare loot) should be linked to specific content. I did never say (not that I disagree!) that only the hardest content should be rewarding the ‘best’ (define best?) items. It would make sense that very hard content would give you a more flashy skin then easier content but there can even be a group of easy filler mobs in the PvE world that can drop a great looking skin (so no hard content at all).
As long as specific content has specific rewards.
In addition I also said most items should just be traidable (not account-bound) so if you really do not want or are not able to do that content you would still be able to get the item. Likely harder then now because items would hold more value then they do now but it’s still possible.
What would mainly change is that not everything is so much based on currencies as now. Many items you can now only get in a reasonable way by grinding gold. That is boring imho and turning the content into a gold-grins is also boring imho.
So no I did not suggest anything that would (on a large scale) make items unreachable for people who would not like to do part of the content.
True IndigoSundown you can play for fun
If it is not required to use tactics and team-play what is the fun of doing it. Lets be all tactical and trying to use different roles.. of course he will also just die if we DPS the hell out of him. There is no fun in teamplay (making use of different roles) if it’s useless. It’s fun of that teamplay is the reason you are being victorious.
Devata is obsiously a troll and should get reported, but i bite it.
Why do you want to get toughness? What keeps out of doing it? Why do you want the same killing speed as a berserker geared character? Why you can’t leave this gear issue and realize your build is more reliant on weapon, trait and skill choices?
Why? Why? Why?
Lol naming me a troll based on nothing and then coming with a troll post. Where did I say I want toughness? Where did I say I want the same killing speed as berserker? Where, where where? I did not, that is however what seems to be the main requirement in the game, DPS and some toughness if possible.
I want more focus on roles.
I am not comparing it to GW1. But I do see some much better reward-system in some other games thats for sure. Like I said, the currency grind is just boring to me.
“There is nothing forcing you to buy through the cash store.”
Yet the game is heavily negatively influenced by the fact that Anet tries to get you to buy stuff of there. But you are correct, you are not forced to buy anything.
No I dont think the devs looked at it and decided it would be hard to implement I think they looked at it and decided it doesnt attract enough people because lets face it you could play Gw1 casually and enjoy FoW, UW and DoA, you needed some commitment to play said content. Where they wrong? Well numbers dont think so because player activity is much larger in Gw2 then it ever was in the original GW.
You really think the game sold better because they did not focus on these sort of elements? Well then you are plain wrong. GW1 was new game and then created a name for itself. However it was not a real open world and so less attractive to many people.
When GW2 came it had a big name and was a real MMO. They also made much more publicity for it. Basically it’s a bigger franchise that’s why it has more players. Not because of anything like what you suggest. That is even stuff people don’t know untill they play it.
How can you tell? Also how can Gw2 have a bigger name then Gw1 when thats where its name comes from? You could potentially argue now it has a bigger name but at launch?
In anycase we’re not talking about how many people bought gw2 compared to gw1, we’re talking about how many people play gw2 compared to gw1 . Obviously its not one factor and I never claimed it was any one factor anyway. Buy saying Anet made all the wrong choice when transitioning gw1 to gw2 is obviously not true because gw2 has been a lot more successful for them.
That is also not what I am saying. I did not like GW1. Going for a true open world (well sort of, the instance maps don’t make it a true open world) and more an MMO then GW1 was, was a big positive that also mend the game was interesting for more people. (because mmo’s are a popular genre)
And when you have more people buying the game you usually also have more people playing. If it’s more successful as GW1 (not my comparison btw, I only said that your idea that those things we talked about basically must have been good because GW2 is bigger as GW1) you should see how many of the people that did buy the game at release still play it after 1 year and compare that percentage with GW2. Anyway that was not my point.
DevataWait, before there where here people arguing that the whole ‘no roles’ argument was just something bad players came up with because they did not know how to play different roles so all went DPS (and rushed true all content.. bud bad players none the less). Now you basically say DPS is only for good players.
The roles exist within the DPS role.
There is a survival->DPS tradeoff that is a personal choice of the player.
THen there is the utility and role that is defined by the traits/weapons/skills chosen for the given profession.
Good players choose the more DPS rather than more survival whenever they are allowed (which is most cases as the true defense of the game is active defense, not passive survivability).
That doesn’t in any way change the fact that they also spec themselves to fill a certain role. Do you need might? ok, go with a Scepter build for Ele. Need projectile defense, then use a focus for air4 (i think it is, kinda newbish at ele myself). Encountering a lot of trash mobs? Lightning Hammer auto blinds which is flipping amazing. Have adds that have devistating multi hit attacks that can’t be dodged? shocking aura on dagger air3.
You bring the right tool for the job, but you also try to make sure that you’re set up for as much damage as you can, while still not falling over dead all the time.
However DPS seem to always be the biggest factor and that is what so many people mean when they say combat is dull and it’s all about dps dps dps.
Ok, so fire works better against water. What bosses? And wouldn’t that just leave Ele working better in different attuenments? Who else uses water? How would you actually apply this idea to GW2?
Thieves are huge on stealth, but you don’t have to build your spec into it IF your team is coordinated. if you’re highly coordinated they can even do as little as using pistol5 and having the team blast it quickly and move on. And what’s the point of speed when you’re leaving your group behind? How would you apply your ideas to GW2? In what way would they be used?
You’re right though, it doesn’t make sense why we’re discussing the DPS aspect because it’s a constant throughout every MMO i’ve played. You get enough defense, and once that is covered you go all offense. It’s a very simple concept.
Again it was just an example and I also said you had to work on the content and on the classes. So if you would make a change like that (water is stronger against fire) then it also makes sense you implement roles more based on those elements. In the current state there would indeed not be much to go with as only elementelist has water as far as I know and it has also fire so it would not even be a specific role.
“Thieves are huge on stealth, but you don’t have to build your spec into it IF your team is coordinated. " So again you agree that the’role’ is not so very important. All I say is to make roles more important and DPS less important. I did also give concrete examples in this thread. (see what I talked about with TheDaiBish)
Your example with the Mesmer portal. That’s where I got that from. The only other professions with self-teleports are, as far as I know, Thief, Guardian, Elementalist and Necro (providing you’ve either put the worm out of the area or got enough time to). Unless you make the actual attack unavoidable / countered with Stability or escapable with Leaps, if you’re a Warrior, Engineer or Ranger in that situation, bad luck.
Or the thief makes everybody invisible? And remember the Take Root? That also makes you invulnerable. Ranger can have pets that drop weapons including Elixir of Heroes what also makes you invulnerable. Again there are possible ways it’s just up to you imagination (or lack of that). But indeed not everybody might have something for it. That’s the whole point of focusing more on roles. You are depending on each other when you get in the situation where you need the skills from another player / role. That what makes team-play important.
So it’s not a problem where you require specific classes otherwise you can’t do the content? Sorry, but I’ll have to disagree on that one. If you can be smart and build your character to be effective in a role, you should be able to. You shouldn’t be restricted by your class. The content should bring the player, not the class.
The definition of ‘role’ is your purpose in the group. If you need to Immobilise an enemy at certain points, that shouldn’t be restricted to 2 or 3 classes.
“If you can be smart and build your character to be effective in a role” Effective in a role thats never really needed because everybody can take your plays always. I can’t even define that as a role anymore. No it’s no problem if you can’t do content if you are not able to provide in a few specific roles required for that content. Some roles might be available for 2 or even 3 classes of course.
And yes a role is also depending on the content. But it’s also based on your skills. See your own example. Immobilize an enemy. Then you need the ability to immobilize or a role based around that. But you also need an enemy that required to be immobilized. You need both.
I disagree. Builds have a lot to do with what your character can bring to the fight, moreso than class. Class is more of how they can handle specific things. For example, Incoming Conditions in respect to helping team-mates, most of the ways are either removing, drawing or converting conditions:
I was talking about the armor not the full build. Mistake. But even then a build should only help to help you specialize in one of the roles as a class can likely have multiple roles or to tweak it a little to your liking. It should not make your role completely (so that without a build everybody is the same)
2/2
I think this game is too easy and need more challenge. I would love for hardcore difficult dungeon. I still don’t agree that there is no roles. But I understand that we don’t have the same definition of role for GW2.
Well they could do that in two ways. Putting more focus on the specific roles and so requiring better teamwork where everybody uses his special ability and together you get the task done. (also a result of better AI or / and more versatile game-play)
Or they could higher the Damage and HP of the encounter. I think the last one would be kinda boring. However the first one would mean you will need / have more specific roles. What you seem not to want. Or you do but you just don’t know that thats what you want because you are so focused on "everybody should be able to take almost everybody’s place”.
Yup. The main focus is always DPS and active defense. And that’s what make that game so awesome for me. If you want more bigger, important, different and obligatory roles, there is plenty of those in other games.
Didn’t you start of saying that it was very much about roles? Anyway it’s nice to see that we finally agree. It’s mainly about DPS.
Exactly the opposite of what was said in Robechef’s post that you referred to as a ‘excellent answer’ in your first comment here. What he said is that only noobs did think it was all about DPS but in fact it was much more about skills (referring to the roles). They just did not get it and so only did see the DPS (as if those people where only observers not players).
Anyway, you may like it thats it’s so much focused on DPS. But thats exactly what so many people dislike. They want more interesting battles that do work more on the roles then the DPS and so require more tactics and more tactics then mainly brainless DPS.
1/2
Toughness already have a role for learning or easy ride when you lack the skills to survive without it. Can you find something that toughness could bring other than aggro or personnal surviability? (AKA Tank). No thank i don’t want that. Good for me, apparently Anet have the same opinions as myself on that.
I think you misunderstood my comment and the reaction is sort of funny. As what I talked about is how it is in GW2. And what I dislike about it. It’s all about DPS and it would be nice to also bring some toughness around. Thats basically how it works in GW2.
So I agree with you that is not so great. Sadly Anet did design it to be that way.
I said complete right? You saw that right? Anybody can complete anything with any build. It will take them 8 hours, but they will complete it eventually. It can be ppl in super tanky stuff that press 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 or it can be noobs in full dps gear that don’t get how the game work and will be dead and wp every 5 sec the result is the same. They will eventually finish it if they want too. Its will just take a really long time.
They so it really fast. The whole DPS gear seems to be the fastest of them all.
Anyway, as you can see how everybody can easily complete it this way. Then is it really so strange people complain that this way the combat is dull and does not require a lot of teamwork and roles (the two go hand in hand).
Good player will survive in a meta full zerker build wihtout much problem, that’s why we said that the game lack some challenge sometimes. But a lot of ppl are casuals or a bit bad and can’t use that kind of build. They need some passive defense because they lack the knowledge of the encounter or how to best use the strength of your profession so survive even if you have zero defense stats.
Wait, before there where here people arguing that the whole ‘no roles’ argument was just something bad players came up with because they did not know how to play different roles so all went DPS (and rushed true all content.. bud bad players none the less). Now you basically say DPS is only for good players.
Role in GW2 are optional. Meaning that you can complete encounter is different ways. Ya of course there is a general thread that is always the same, but I’ll play different way depending on my profession. You want role that are more different from one another and you want that these role to be important enough that they can’t be replace. I don’t mind the first, I would hate the second.
Well if all roles can replace all other roles (or close to that) that the roles would still be pretty much the same. So now I would not want that. However maybe some roles can indeed take in each other places.
(edited by Devata.6589)
“That’s the thing, there are no hairdressers or plumbers in this game, just a bunch of handymen who specialize in different areas.” So it’s all more of the same. Everybody can do anything making nobody excel in anything and then it turns out that the content is mainly tackled in one way.. with the handyman’s favourite tool, the hammer.
Making it sort of boring for many people. That’s the complain you do hear from many people.
“You know Frank is a great plumber, but he’s busy so you call Ralph who can get the job done as well though specializes more in electrical.” Or you can call another plumber or John who is a plumber and a electrical but just don’t excels in the two. Now if you have an electrical problem be sure to get Ralph.
But now it’s more like.. yeah just call any handyman. They can all do the job. Oow and make sure they bring there hammer.“DPS is high because we all wear zerk gear” There is your ‘hammer’ and proof of what people are saying. It’s all DPS. Does not matter who you are as long as you DPS! So you have all these roles but the overall tactic is DPS.
“And if one person is missing then we’re not going to run as smoothly.” Many people don’t have the feeling of having there roles. It’s mainly DPS (just as in your group). Sure they all have there own skills they use but in the end it boils down more to DPS then to tactics and everybody using the things he excels in..Stop foir a second and think. If I need projectile walls, I can call a mesmer who does it best, a guardian who does it next best, then a thief or ele can do it in a pinch as well. But warrior, no go.
There is that specialization that you seem to want, just it’s more subtle than you want it to be as there are more options than you seem to want.
You’re simply demonstrating your lack of understanding for the full mechanics of the game. Yes, I go as much dps as I can, but I do that in every game. You only need so much defense, and once that’s covered you go all offense. Just so happens that I can cover the full defense needed while still wearing full dps gear. That’s thanks to this being a skill based game where active defense is king.
When I need that wall. But then again, people can also all DPS the hell out of the enemy. I understand the game perfectly, I just wish those specialties would be some more valuable then they are now.
Care to elaborate and give some examples of what you’re thinking? I see those utilities as extremely important so…
That’s not really specific examples as it pertains to GW2 though.
And with that you’re taking a game that sounds like a trinity in wolfenstein. And a game that has a Rock paper scissors system that is Pokemon. Quite different situations.
GW2 I do take a thief for stealth as it makes the skips much quicker and safer.
I do take a mesmer/guard so I can faceroll bloomhunger without worrying about projectiles.
I do take a warrior for their DPS support, not their DPS (if they didn’t provide dps support we wouldn’t use them).
I choose the professions for their utility, but I spec all my characters gear to be DPS zerk/assassin gear, with strength/scholar/ranger runes and perception/bloodlust/force/night/undead/accuracy/energy sigils. Then my Weapon/trait/skill choices determine the utility I bring.
But again, if you have some good ideas, lets hear them as they apply to gw2. Saying “make it more like gameX” doesn’t really say much.
Wolfenstein a trinity? Lol. Also the Rock paper scissors system is not completely accurate but. Also the pokemon system could work great. In fact I have always found it sort of stupid that you can fight a fire boss with fire just as easily as with water. Making that sot of things depended on each other would also help to define roles and have more interesting game-play / team-play.
I also don’t say make it more as game X, I just show some examples.
Again I don’t say there are no difference I just say that the main point is DPS. You always need DPS and the rest is more an extra. Thats the whole point and you are confirming that the whole time so I’m not even sure why we are in discussion about it.
Well I pointed to those things as examples and I also gave an example how to translate that to GW2. With the fire against fire. Make water against fire work better would be an interesting move. Make the invisibility of a thief (in a dungeon) more interesting then the DPS is. Let him build on invisibility and or speed and or steeling and or taking the identity of the enemy. That sort of things. Make that more of a focus then the DPS with some profession own skills to the side.
“That’s the thing, there are no hairdressers or plumbers in this game, just a bunch of handymen who specialize in different areas.” So it’s all more of the same. Everybody can do anything making nobody excel in anything and then it turns out that the content is mainly tackled in one way.. with the handyman’s favourite tool, the hammer.
Making it sort of boring for many people. That’s the complain you do hear from many people.
“You know Frank is a great plumber, but he’s busy so you call Ralph who can get the job done as well though specializes more in electrical.” Or you can call another plumber or John who is a plumber and a electrical but just don’t excels in the two. Now if you have an electrical problem be sure to get Ralph.
But now it’s more like.. yeah just call any handyman. They can all do the job. Oow and make sure they bring there hammer.“DPS is high because we all wear zerk gear” There is your ‘hammer’ and proof of what people are saying. It’s all DPS. Does not matter who you are as long as you DPS! So you have all these roles but the overall tactic is DPS.
“And if one person is missing then we’re not going to run as smoothly.” Many people don’t have the feeling of having there roles. It’s mainly DPS (just as in your group). Sure they all have there own skills they use but in the end it boils down more to DPS then to tactics and everybody using the things he excels in..Stop foir a second and think. If I need projectile walls, I can call a mesmer who does it best, a guardian who does it next best, then a thief or ele can do it in a pinch as well. But warrior, no go.
There is that specialization that you seem to want, just it’s more subtle than you want it to be as there are more options than you seem to want.
You’re simply demonstrating your lack of understanding for the full mechanics of the game. Yes, I go as much dps as I can, but I do that in every game. You only need so much defense, and once that’s covered you go all offense. Just so happens that I can cover the full defense needed while still wearing full dps gear. That’s thanks to this being a skill based game where active defense is king.
When I need that wall. But then again, people can also all DPS the hell out of the enemy. I understand the game perfectly, I just wish those specialties would be some more valuable then they are now.
Care to elaborate and give some examples of what you’re thinking? I see those utilities as extremely important so…
Based on my personal experience I see how people complete most content just fine and even complain about stuff not being challenging. And they mainly do that using mainly DPS.
Than you have good pugs or friends, who can beat the content without support or control. Good for you.
It’s not about tanking a mob to dead. It’s about using your brain, think of tactics and.. there it is.. Use your special abilities in the best possible way for the fight you have.
Tactics developed months ago, so it’s very natural, easy and dumb for most of us. It happens in every game. Define special abilites. In my opinion every non-auto attack is a special ability, so i guess there are some difference in the use of these terms.
Again, if you have such a pro pug or friends, that can beat the content without zero support (boons, reflects, cleanse, etc) and control (be it soft or hard CC), good for you, but the majority don’t play that way.However it usually boils down to.. Do as much DPS as possible and we get the job done in the most optimal way.
Which happens in every other MMO. Your tanks and healers are well geared and can handle the encounters? Dump 1-2 and get another dps dude.
Also it does not seem that ‘the new gamer generation’ thinks you should not have to use tactics (at least not the PC-gamers) because else we would not see so many topics like this.
OP just want a (bad) solution to a non-existent problem, because he lacks game knowledge.
But it’s always a nice excuse.. Everything is fine and everybody who says it’s not just sucks at the game.
Nope, the game has issues i admit it, but the average player, which mades up the vast majority of the playerbase, is extremely dumb to my other experiences in MMO games.
Oow and about you not talking about DPS..
“Thats a great post Ropechef and exactly thats why people should get ignored who starts their complain with “but dungz ned only deepz!”
I don’t post as b8. The way you think people post something just as b8 says more about your reason for posting then mine I guess.Read it again before go full troll mode.
“Good for you. ”
It’s not about if it’s good for me or not. It’s about that roles are not so special / needed in this game and that can make content (team content) more dull.
“Tactics developed months ago, so it’s very natural, easy and dumb for most of us. It happens in every game.” Did you see me talking about Wolfenstein ET before. That game is 11 years old but I can still have fun.. Now that’s of course also because the enemy is a person, not AI but good roles for sure help a lot.
I read it again.
(edited by Devata.6589)
“That’s the thing, there are no hairdressers or plumbers in this game, just a bunch of handymen who specialize in different areas.” So it’s all more of the same. Everybody can do anything making nobody excel in anything and then it turns out that the content is mainly tackled in one way.. with the handyman’s favourite tool, the hammer.
Making it sort of boring for many people. That’s the complain you do hear from many people.
“You know Frank is a great plumber, but he’s busy so you call Ralph who can get the job done as well though specializes more in electrical.” Or you can call another plumber or John who is a plumber and a electrical but just don’t excels in the two. Now if you have an electrical problem be sure to get Ralph.
But now it’s more like.. yeah just call any handyman. They can all do the job. Oow and make sure they bring there hammer.“DPS is high because we all wear zerk gear” There is your ‘hammer’ and proof of what people are saying. It’s all DPS. Does not matter who you are as long as you DPS! So you have all these roles but the overall tactic is DPS.
“And if one person is missing then we’re not going to run as smoothly.” Many people don’t have the feeling of having there roles. It’s mainly DPS (just as in your group). Sure they all have there own skills they use but in the end it boils down more to DPS then to tactics and everybody using the things he excels in..Stop foir a second and think. If I need projectile walls, I can call a mesmer who does it best, a guardian who does it next best, then a thief or ele can do it in a pinch as well. But warrior, no go.
There is that specialization that you seem to want, just it’s more subtle than you want it to be as there are more options than you seem to want.
You’re simply demonstrating your lack of understanding for the full mechanics of the game. Yes, I go as much dps as I can, but I do that in every game. You only need so much defense, and once that’s covered you go all offense. Just so happens that I can cover the full defense needed while still wearing full dps gear. That’s thanks to this being a skill based game where active defense is king.
When I need that wall. But then again, people can also all DPS the hell out of the enemy. I understand the game perfectly, I just wish those specialties would be some more valuable then they are now.
Ropechef did not give a good answer to that. It was basically somebody telling he was great and other people suck. You don’t need or have really roles in this game. You can imagine a lot of roles but if your plumbing is broken you also don’t call the hairdresser to come and fix it (because you know she might be able to fix it). These predefined roles sure can be used in multiple ways but it is also what makes everybody ‘special’ or useful in the group and what makes team-play more interesting. You can start screaming that everybody just don’t get it and it are all noobs but all those noobs just complete the content with not problem focusing on dps. That proofs here are no real roles and that makes combat less interesting (when using teams).
Also “Stealth if you’re doing content that benefits more from Stealth than a 3rd FGSer or 2nd Reflector. ”. Nice if but content is hardly designed that way.
What are you taking about. He listed what each profession can do the best. What each profession can bring to a party. What do you want more? I just don’t get your point. I don’t call a warrior if i need some damage mitigation i’ll call a guardian, If i need stealth i won’t ask for a necro i’ll ask a thief, if i need more dmg booster i’ll ask a warrior or ranger, etc. Each profession can bring something different to the party, but they are all optional so you can bring whatever party composition you want.
‘’You can start screaming that everybody just don’t get it and it are all noobs but all those noobs just complete the content with not problem focusing on dps. That proofs here are no real roles and that makes combat less interesting (when using teams).’’
Ok. English is not my first language and I hope that’s the case for you too, because I can hardly understand your point here.
- I can scream that everybody just don’t get it and they are all noobs, but these noobs can complete content without problem while focusing on DPS? I get it right? Still don’t understand. Yup, noobs can complete dungeon with DPS build. What’s your point?
- That prove that there is no role and that make combat less interesting? I think i get that. DPS is not the only things that exist in GW2 btw. Warrior will focus on Offensive support, Mesmer on utilities, Guardian on defensive support, etc. Ya we talked a lot about full DPS build. That’s not totally true. DPS is always the major focus of a good build. But a lot of good build also sacrifice some of their personal DPS in order to get more party support. For me, that make the combat super interesting. We can both have our opinions. For me Anet should improve the current system that is already good. For you the system is broken and not that interesting. Maybe the game is not right for you?
“If i need stealth i….” The point is that the main thing you always need is DPS. Would be really great if you could mix it with some toughness.
“Yup, noobs can complete dungeon with DPS build. What’s your point? ”
It proofs that roles are not important.
Also it shows the claim that somebody just is a noob or just don’t get it (when they say you don’t rally have roles) is invalid. Because those same people complete the content without any problem. So there is no need for teamwork where everybody uses his speciality. Proving their point.
Maybe it’s not the game for anybody who says combat is to easy, that there are no challenges and there are no roles. But then Anet would have a problem.
Anyway I think you summarized it perfectly here: “That’s not totally true. DPS is always the major focus of a good build. But a lot of good build also sacrifice some of their personal DPS in order to get more party support. ”
So it’s mainly DPS.. I am not saying every class is exactly the same. Everybody has it’s own skills. The problem is that that all is just more of a side note “sacrifice some” while it mainly boils down to one thing “*DPS* is always the major focus”.
It would be better the other way around.
So I have seen plenty of “Warr/Guard OP” “Only ever need 1 Ele” “Ranger/Engi are trash” types of posts.
It got me thinking about profession balance, and the perceived lack thereof. What if you could take some aspects of the Holy Trinity, but still create variation between the professions?
Warr/Guard are OP
Only ever need 1 Ele
Ranger/Engi are trashThat’s three post from ppl that don’t know how the game work. You don’t base modification of your game on ppl that don’t know how it work. Variation between the professions?
Robechef already gave a excellent answer to that.
Ropechef did not give a good answer to that. It was basically somebody telling he was great and other people suck. You don’t need or have really roles in this game. You can imagine a lot of roles but if your plumbing is broken you also don’t call the hairdresser to come and fix it (because you know she might be able to fix it). These predefined roles sure can be used in multiple ways but it is also what makes everybody ‘special’ or useful in the group and what makes team-play more interesting. You can start screaming that everybody just don’t get it and it are all noobs but all those noobs just complete the content with not problem focusing on dps. That proofs here are no real roles and that makes combat less interesting (when using teams).
Also “Stealth if you’re doing content that benefits more from Stealth than a 3rd FGSer or 2nd Reflector. ”. Nice if but content is hardly designed that way.
That’s the thing, there are no hairdressers or plumbers in this game, just a bunch of handymen who specialize in different areas. You know Frank is a great plumber, but he’s busy so you call Ralph who can get the job done as well though specializes more in electrical.
Content is actually very friendly to Stealth. THe out of combat time in dungeons is just as much as the in combat time or at least pretty close, more in some dungeons less in others. Having a Thief in most dungeons is quite nice making skips much easier, meaning a faster dungeon… same benefit as higher dps.
My group generally goes with War, Thief, Guard, Mesmer, Ele as our ideal group because it covers everything. Skips are easy thanks to the thief/mesmer. DPS is high because we all wear zerk gear and have ele conjures and war banners + quickness from guard/mesmer. All the utility is covered as far as reflects and pulls/pushes for position by the Guard/mesmer. Then stability and condition removal covered by guard/mesmer as well. Then CC is mostly handled by the mesmer/thief/war, using the thief/mesmer to strip defiance stacks if needed.
Everyone has their job to do. Everyone has their areas of expertise. And if one person is missing then we’re not going to run as smoothly. But at the same time we’re not dependent on a single person for anything. If DPS were really all that mattered we’d just be running war + 4 ele, or something like that but doing that we’d lose so much it’s just not as good in most situations.
“That’s the thing, there are no hairdressers or plumbers in this game, just a bunch of handymen who specialize in different areas.” So it’s all more of the same. Everybody can do anything making nobody excel in anything and then it turns out that the content is mainly tackled in one way.. with the handyman’s favourite tool, the hammer.
Making it sort of boring for many people. That’s the complain you do hear from many people.
“You know Frank is a great plumber, but he’s busy so you call Ralph who can get the job done as well though specializes more in electrical.” Or you can call another plumber or John who is a plumber and a electrical but just don’t excels in the two. Now if you have an electrical problem be sure to get Ralph.
But now it’s more like.. yeah just call any handyman. They can all do the job. Oow and make sure they bring there hammer.
“DPS is high because we all wear zerk gear” There is your ‘hammer’ and proof of what people are saying. It’s all DPS. Does not matter who you are as long as you DPS! So you have all these roles but the overall tactic is DPS.
“And if one person is missing then we’re not going to run as smoothly.” Many people don’t have the feeling of having there roles. It’s mainly DPS (just as in your group). Sure they all have there own skills they use but in the end it boils down more to DPS then to tactics and everybody using the things he excels in..
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.
Thats a great post Ropechef and exactly thats why people should get ignored who starts their complain with “but dungz ned only deepz!”. No. Absolutely not. You can blame Anet for not implementing for not making a “proper tutorial” OR blame yourself you get used to mechanics spoonfed to you.
Most people focus on DPS and it works just fine for them. But of course it’s not the fault of the Anet.. No it’s the players fault for.. yeah for what really?
For using mechanics they get spoonfed on?. Those mechanics (you talk abour.. dps dps dps) do not work if you really have multiple required! classes.
Based on my personal experience, no. Players come in tanky gear and expect to clear content as a full offensive, optimized group. And please, why on earth it bothers you that dealing damage makes you able to go trough a dungeon? You want to tank mobs to death? Or heal them until they overwhelmed from love and die?
You need a bigger b8 m8. I didn’t speak about dps dps dps, exactly the opposite. Players, like you, live in a delusional state and spread misinformation how the game only need just dps, stand in one spot and just spam 1, meanwhile it couldn’t be far from the truth.
My point was mechanics like combo fields, blinds, build synergy, CC and so on, aren’t explained by the game itself in a foolproof way as a lot of players want it. Simple logic would solve this thing (combo finisher + combo field -> use them -> do stuff -> yay), but sadly the new gamer generation expect to get every info in their faces and do little to no research about the game or it’s mechanics.
Based on my personal experience I see how people complete most content just fine and even complain about stuff not being challenging. And they mainly do that using mainly DPS.
It’s not about tanking a mob to dead. It’s about using your brain, think of tactics and.. there it is.. Use your special abilities in the best possible way for the fight you have. However it usually boils down to.. Do as much DPS as possible and we get the job done in the most optimal way.
Also it does not seem that ‘the new gamer generation’ thinks you should not have to use tactics (at least not the PC-gamers) because else we would not see so many topics like this.
But it’s always a nice excuse.. Everything is fine and everybody who says it’s not just sucks at the game.
Oow and about you not talking about DPS..
“Thats a great post Ropechef and exactly thats why people should get ignored who starts their complain with “but dungz ned only deepz!”
I don’t post as b8. The way you think people post something just as b8 says more about your reason for posting then mine I guess.
(edited by Devata.6589)
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.
So I have seen plenty of “Warr/Guard OP” “Only ever need 1 Ele” “Ranger/Engi are trash” types of posts.
It got me thinking about profession balance, and the perceived lack thereof. What if you could take some aspects of the Holy Trinity, but still create variation between the professions?
Warr/Guard are OP
Only ever need 1 Ele
Ranger/Engi are trashThat’s three post from ppl that don’t know how the game work. You don’t base modification of your game on ppl that don’t know how it work. Variation between the professions?
Robechef already gave a excellent answer to that.
Ropechef did not give a good answer to that. It was basically somebody telling he was great and other people suck. You don’t need or have really roles in this game. You can imagine a lot of roles but if your plumbing is broken you also don’t call the hairdresser to come and fix it (because you know she might be able to fix it). These predefined roles sure can be used in multiple ways but it is also what makes everybody ‘special’ or useful in the group and what makes team-play more interesting. You can start screaming that everybody just don’t get it and it are all noobs but all those noobs just complete the content with no problem focusing on dps. That proofs here are no real roles and that makes combat less interesting (when using teams).
Also “Stealth if you’re doing content that benefits more from Stealth than a 3rd FGSer or 2nd Reflector. ”. Nice if but content is hardly designed that way.
(edited by Devata.6589)
I mean put in a boss that damages all enemies in the room and he does huge damage but the damage does get spread over all enemies. Then a class with minions becomes required. There is also no content that requires portals or invisibility. Adding such mechanics and AI tactics would already help a lot.
If you give rangers more control over pets (stay) then you can have a 5 man dungeon with 6 levers you need to stand on requiring a ranger that puts his pet on the 6th lever.
While this is a cheap example. Putting in AI tactics and attacks that requires roles is more interesting. (like the damage spread out over enemies). Or an enemy that teleports everybody to one place and then traps everybody there and then drop a hammer on them killing everybody instantly. How to get out of that situation? Memsmer drops a portal before the attacks comes and when being teleportet by the boss people can teleport to safety. So there are for sure many content improvements that could help a lot. But then still I do find roles are not defined specific enough.
Sorry, but that’s a terrible idea. While you might feel it’s interesting, I’d find it quite boring if I only had one way of doing content with no room for experimentation. The only way this could possibly be a good idea is if the dungeon had adaptable mechanics based on group composition.
Having mechanics that require you to bring a specific profession and a specific skill? That just removes all depth. Why? Because the player can’t choose how to approach and tackle the content. It removes all player agency. You want to run the piece of content with 5 friends and no-one has a Mesmer or Ranger? Well, can’t run the content then.
However, what you’re saying – having enemies that require roles – is exactly what I’m saying. I’m just saying the role isn’t dependant on class, but on build, since the role is provided by the encounter, and not a pre-defined [class] is a [role].
Taking your levers example. As well as a Ranger pet being able to trigger it, Blast Finishers can also trigger it. Or maybe you passed some rocks that you could place on it.
“if I only had one way of doing content with no room for experimentation.” Where did I say you only have room for 1 way of doing anything? I just gave examples how you can make attacks or dungeons that give value to a specific property of a role and that is what you need. That does not mean there are multiple ways to solve a problem.
If you can’t find more ways that has more to do with lack of your imagination.
For example the spreading our of damage over enemies. Roles that have many minions have an obvious advantage there. A ranger has only 1 pet so less likely however if you have multiple ranger it might still work. Or you use the Silvary ability Take Root that puts down multiple turrets that also count as an enemy. So there are still multiple options. But you do make roles more specific and build the content in a way that every role can make more use of it’s own advantages.
“You want to run the piece of content with 5 friends and no-one has a Mesmer or Ranger? Well, can’t run the content then. ” That however can indeed happen and no that’s no problem. That also means those roles have there real use in stead of how it is now. Just all do as much DPS as possible and so the class that is best in that is the best overall class or how it worked out in this game, the armor that provides that the best is the best overall armor.
Trying to make everything work for everybody is what was the cause for the way roles and content is designed and is what is the core of the problem being talked about here.
“I’m just saying the role isn’t dependant on class, but on build, since the role is provided by the encounter, and not a pre-defined [class] is a [role]. ”
I say it’s both. The encounter decides what roles you need and the classes (and / or build) makes the role for the player. You then need to match the two (what the encounter requires and what roles are available) for the best outcome of the fight. That does not mean that 1 class can not have multiple roles. However I do feel classes have more to do with the roles then builds. Builds is playing a little with stats while the classes are about the skills and abilities and that’s what makes the role of a player. So as an example. There is a encounter that really requires a healer then you brind somebody with a healer class to fill his role in the encounter.
Thats a great post Ropechef and exactly thats why people should get ignored who starts their complain with “but dungz ned only deepz!”. No. Absolutely not. You can blame Anet for not implementing for not making a “proper tutorial” OR blame yourself you get used to mechanics spoonfed to you.
Most people focus on DPS and it works just fine for them. But of course it’s not the fault of the game / Anet.. No it’s the players fault for.. yeah for what really?
For using mechanics they get spoonfed on?. Those mechanics (you talk abour.. dps dps dps) do not work if you really have multiple required! classes.
(edited by Devata.6589)
The problem mainly is the lack of real defined roles.
I don’t even think this is much of an issue.
I think the main problem is that content doesn’t require people to do anything other than damage.
Look at a game with defined class roles a la the Trinity. If the content in that game didn’t require someone to constantly be healing, or for someone to draw aggro and soak damage, then it could have all the class roles in the world, people wouldn’t bother playing the roles that aren’t needed.
What content needs to do is replace the class roles by adding roles unique to that encounter. With an open system like GW2, the content needs to get people to think “What can I bring to this fight that will get us past it?”. Content designed as such adds much more depth than having defined, required roles.
Imagine the Lover’s basic mechanic of needing to keep them away from each other (forget the actual implementation).
One group might decide to take one heavy control + sustain to keep the one busy, another with control and damage to join 3 other DPS to burst the other down as quick as possible. Another group might split into 2 equal groups and tackle both of them at the same time, while another is dedicated to taking down adds.
Even a fight as basic as the Effigy in CoF can have roles, even if everyone is DPS. One person’s role is to wipe the crystals out, while the others attack the Effigy. Tweak the crystals slightly that add a stacking debuff (say, a DoT that can’t be cleansed. Increases in intensity), and then you have a fight where a small amount of co-ordination is needed (swapping from the role of damaging the boss to crystal-clearing duty).
Yeah obviously it’s a combination of both. With my Wolfenstein ET example the engineer would be completely useless in maps that did not have anything for his class (there where a few of those levels). You need a combination. But I don’t feel that in GW2 the roles are already fine it’s just the content that is lacking. It’s both indeed the content is a bigger problem.
I mean put in a boss that damages all enemies in the room and he does huge damage but the damage does get spread over all enemies. Then a class with minions becomes required. There is also no content that requires portals or invisibility. Adding such mechanics and AI tactics would already help a lot.
If you give rangers more control over pets (stay) then you can have a 5 man dungeon with 6 levers you need to stand on requiring a ranger that puts his pet on the 6th lever.
While this is a cheap example. Putting in AI tactics and attacks that requires roles is more interesting. (like the damage spread out over enemies). Or an enemy that teleports everybody to one place and then traps everybody there and then drop a hammer on them killing everybody instantly. How to get out of that situation? Memsmer drops a portal before the attacks comes and when being teleportet by the boss people can teleport to safety. So there are for sure many content improvements that could help a lot. But then still I do find roles are not defined specific enough.
No I dont think the devs looked at it and decided it would be hard to implement I think they looked at it and decided it doesnt attract enough people because lets face it you could play Gw1 casually and enjoy FoW, UW and DoA, you needed some commitment to play said content. Where they wrong? Well numbers dont think so because player activity is much larger in Gw2 then it ever was in the original GW.
You really think the game sold better because they did not focus on these sort of elements? Well then you are plain wrong. GW1 was new game and then created a name for itself. However it was not a real open world and so less attractive to many people.
When GW2 came it had a big name and was a real MMO. They also made much more publicity for it. Basically it’s a bigger franchise that’s why it has more players. Not because of anything like what you suggest. That is even stuff people don’t know untill they play it.
The problem mainly is the lack of real defined roles. While getting rid of the holy trinity (and not really replacing it with anything else) was the cause it’s not so that you need the holy trinity. Have a look at Wolfenstein ET. That is so much fun because of all the roles and btw still allows for pug groups.
They had a ‘ammo’ role while also being DPS (Field Ops). In an MMO that would mean boosting yourself and others I guess, it had a healer (medic), it had a spy-like class that could take the identity of the enemy (and so also get into enemy bases), an engineer who had special task he could complete in a mission (blowing something up or fixing something) and the soldier who was all about special weapons (in an MMO this could be multiple classes).
So here you have a system with multiple classes / roles that really mater and help to improve the game-play. While it’s no trinity it does not even have a tank.
Another good example would be Pokemon where you have multiple classes like fire, water, rock, ice, plants, flight and so on. All with it’s own strength and weaknesses. But also no trinity this one does have tank classes but no heal classes.
It just comes to prove that in fact you can make useful roles in many different ways and it does not have to be the holy trinity, also not in an MMO. However with GW2 they removed the holy trinity (for the sake of being different) but then did not replace it very well with other useful required roles. So it became a sort of DPS only. Sure there are some flavours but when it comes to it there are not really special roles that all have there own useful tasks that you need to, together complete your mission.
Tokens is yet another currency (so boring) so while nice to have as an extra there should also be some unique drops in there you would really want to go for.
As opposed to tokens, which make me feel Like I am clocking in, and clocking out… Like a job.
Well, you see, there’s a reason I go to Tokens as a means of determining loot, or even a chest item you can open and choose your reward out of (a la Weapon/Armor boxes). It’s because I’ve, in the past, been burned by RNG or even the choice of random rolls, heck even DKP systems which are supposed to be fairly adjudicated have been broken due to corrupt methods of accounting them by guild leaders.
Heck, most of my dungeon loot in Eye of the North would be diamonds, uncommon rare items (with useless stats), and maybe some onyx. Saurian Scythe? Emerald Blade? Amythest Shield? Please, I had to pay people to get those if I wanted them. Pretty big collection of stuff I’d never use though. (At least it raised my Wisdom track.)
Tokens or otherwise is a fair choice, it’s guaranteed to be useful instead of “yay, two greens and a blue”™, and it’s less like the Precursor Lottery.
It is also maybe boring, maybe not exciting to go “what’s in the box?!” but . . . show of hands . . . how many people really expect to get the awesome-and-useful end of the loot spectrum opening loot bags or end-area chests?
best method would probably incorporate both, so you get the lucky drop, or you end up working toward it, either way your happy.
Another method might be a gold ticket you can exchange for a random roll, or a token.
I don’t think you should do that with exactly the same item however SAB had a system where you basically had both. I think you should do it for other items. Like a dungeon can have it’s own dungeon set you can get for tokens. however there are also 1 or 2 or 3 very special drops you can get. A special mini or weapon or mount or something for housing (whenever they introduce anything like that). There is still the possibility to go for that with grinding gold if that’s really what you prefer.