To be fair, the designers probably didn’t know what they were getting into when they decided to do “active combat.”
They clearly didnt. Despite the fact that they added jumping and dodging and swimming, this game is still based too much around skills to be considered “action” combat.
Now all we have is a poor excuse for either.
In your opinion. I actually quite like the combat.
Some people prefer shallow easy combat. That, however, is not something for a developer to be proud of.
The fact that’s it’s shallow is ALSO your opinion. I don’t particularly find the combat shallow. And I think Anet has made a game to be proud of. Of course that’s also just an opinion.
Nope, wrong again. By definition the combat is shallow. Maybe you should read up on that.
i think it is shallow if you don’t make use of combo fields and all the other abilities extra effects, our definition of shallow is very different, and thats what it comes down to, not facts, opinions.
There are a few fields that do interesting things when comboed, the rest simply do the same old boons and conditions in larger amounts.
Combos rarely add depth to the game as they are very seldom more beneficial than just auto attacking. As a side effect they are certainly cool, but purposely setting up a combo for its effects is very useless 9/10 times compared to just auto attacking.
are we talking PvE here because i sure as hell view them as beneficial, i can have 80-90% chaos armor uptime, projectiles for extra damage, confusion stacking (more pvp as not very good in pve), retaliation on distortion for big attacks…..
i’m sorry but i don’t think there seldom beneficial at all i think they are extremely beneficial, granted i do more pvp and wvw than anything but ask anyone in this setting worth there salt and they will say your not playing optimally and not nearly as effectively as you can be and should be.
all this talk about Facts and opinions is making me chuckle, you say some things are facts some of you yet there is no data to back up your facts, really its just your opinion but as you stated it was a fact and when asked to provide the proper information as to how and why it is a fact, all you have is an opinion, so not fact at all, really, just like my paragraphs above, there opinions, not facts as to why there not seldom beneficial.
however i could argue the point that it is fact because it happens in the game and is hard coded to it, theres a loose reason and data as to why there beneficial and the truth is they give extra damage etc, so you aren’t playing optimally….
see what i mean?
Give me specific examples, in PvE (which is what we are talking about), about what you think is better than direct damage, and I will do the math to prove you wrong.
Math is good for stuff like that.
I’m not saying anything about what I want. I’m saying they are the same thing.
As an aside, auto-attacks, whether it is the 1 skill or not, are relatively boring. So are the other skills that basically just add +dmg or +conditions to the skill bar.
No you are just saying what you want and what you want to believe is false, accept it.
They are not the same thing, at all.And about the last part of your nonsense, you know many skills in other games that don’t just add +dmg or +conditions? 99% of GW1 skills did this, or you forgot about that? Maybe they are also ALL auto-attacks, they just have cooldowns? So all the skills in GW1 were just autoattacks with cooldowns according to your logic?
Ok, I’m going to step back from this conversation. I have no idea what you are saying and why you are putting words in my mouth.
It just so happens that when I push “1” in GW2 it is amazingly similar to what happens when I push “spacebar” in GW1. So much so, that I fail to see the difference other than one is listed as a skill in the UI and one isn’t.
And to me it so happens that when I push “1” in GW2 it is amazingly different to what happens when I push “spacebar” in GW1, see two can play this game. I explained already why they are different, you called it playing with semantics, you couldn’t find the proper words I see, and I use your own logic that the vast majority of skills in GW1 are similar to auto-attacks, excpet they have cooldown. How different is Fireball between the two games, or Immolate with Scepter1? They are NOT different at all.
And I ask again, would you like the silly alternative, of having all the skills with a cooldown so at some time you wouldn’t be able to use any of your skills? Like what could EASILY happen in Guild Wars 1?
Oh I completely agree that most skills in GW2 are like auto attack skills in that they provide very little interesting mechanics and don’t really do anythinguch different than the 1 skill. That’s kinda why the combat is so shallow.
Now I see what you’re saying.
So most skills in GW1 are also the same because they follow the same formula, so every game in existance according to you have uninteresting mechanics and aren’t different to skill1 and also have shallow combat. Great now I understand you more. All games have shallow combat yay! I wish someday a game without shallow combat will be released and you will be happy.
I didn’t realize that bull’s stike, interrupts, protection, healing, lot and lots of hexes were the same as what we have now?
Face it, you are arguing for argument’s sake. If you don’t think that the 1 skill in GW2 and the auto-attack in GW1 are similar, then clearly you have left the planet Earth.
I’m not saying anything about what I want. I’m saying they are the same thing.
As an aside, auto-attacks, whether it is the 1 skill or not, are relatively boring. So are the other skills that basically just add +dmg or +conditions to the skill bar.
No you are just saying what you want and what you want to believe is false, accept it.
They are not the same thing, at all.And about the last part of your nonsense, you know many skills in other games that don’t just add +dmg or +conditions? 99% of GW1 skills did this, or you forgot about that? Maybe they are also ALL auto-attacks, they just have cooldowns? So all the skills in GW1 were just autoattacks with cooldowns according to your logic?
Ok, I’m going to step back from this conversation. I have no idea what you are saying and why you are putting words in my mouth.
It just so happens that when I push “1” in GW2 it is amazingly similar to what happens when I push “spacebar” in GW1. So much so, that I fail to see the difference other than one is listed as a skill in the UI and one isn’t.
And to me it so happens that when I push “1” in GW2 it is amazingly different to what happens when I push “spacebar” in GW1, see two can play this game. I explained already why they are different, you called it playing with semantics, you couldn’t find the proper words I see, and I use your own logic that the vast majority of skills in GW1 are similar to auto-attacks, excpet they have cooldown. How different is Fireball between the two games, or Immolate with Scepter1? They are NOT different at all.
And I ask again, would you like the silly alternative, of having all the skills with a cooldown so at some time you wouldn’t be able to use any of your skills? Like what could EASILY happen in Guild Wars 1?
Oh I completely agree that most skills in GW2 are like auto attack skills in that they provide very little interesting mechanics and don’t really do anythinguch different than the 1 skill. That’s kinda why the combat is so shallow.
Now I see what you’re saying.
Strange, didn’t know they removed the blogs. Maybe to prevent people from digging up old ‘promises’ they made in some of them (such as account-wide dyes).
I’d go with this theory until someone proves otherwise.
Because it’s easier to go with a completely unproven theory than to not judge. Says tons.
Have you read some of those blog posts? It’s pretty obvious why they pulled them. Much more kitten than the “manifesto” compared to what we have.
I’ve read all of the blog posts. Every single one of them. It’s not obvious why they pulled them. It’s your opinion why. Some of the blog posts are years old though and probably not relevant to an evolving game.
No, it’s pretty clear as to why. There are lots of things they made definitive stands against that now appear in the game. Some things specifically contrary to what you continue to say.
It’s only clear to you, and maybe a couple of guys like you. As you get older, you start seeing more shades of gray and less black and white. I hope you remember some of these conversations when you’re my age.
Odd, my experience is the opposite. As people age they become more set in their ways, resulting in more black and white thinking (also known as their way or the highway).
Actually, a lot of people when they’re in their 20s are young and idealististic. They think they’re going to change the world. This is right and this is wrong. They campaign actively for things quite a lot.
And some keep doing it, but many move on. Look for the lyrics of the Billy Joel song the Angry you Man. It talks about this. And it’s not uncommon.
It is exactly those people that have changed the world. Because, unlike older people, they have little to lose and a lot to gain.
Right, young guys change the world. No old people ever do anything. I’m pretty sure they guys who formed the USA and broke away from England weren’t “young guys”. I’m pretty sure John Adams was in his 40s when he signed the Declaration of Independence.
Many people don’t really make a huge difference until they’re older. The world has changed, grasshopper.
I don’t believe I said “no old people ever do anything”. Can you point to that post?
I do believe you said that “Actually, a lot of people when they’re in their 20s are young and idealististic. They think they’re going to change the world.”
I was just saying that, yes, they have changed the world – often for the better. Although, I guess that would an opinion too.
Strange, didn’t know they removed the blogs. Maybe to prevent people from digging up old ‘promises’ they made in some of them (such as account-wide dyes).
I’d go with this theory until someone proves otherwise.
Because it’s easier to go with a completely unproven theory than to not judge. Says tons.
Have you read some of those blog posts? It’s pretty obvious why they pulled them. Much more kitten than the “manifesto” compared to what we have.
I’ve read all of the blog posts. Every single one of them. It’s not obvious why they pulled them. It’s your opinion why. Some of the blog posts are years old though and probably not relevant to an evolving game.
No, it’s pretty clear as to why. There are lots of things they made definitive stands against that now appear in the game. Some things specifically contrary to what you continue to say.
It’s only clear to you, and maybe a couple of guys like you. As you get older, you start seeing more shades of gray and less black and white. I hope you remember some of these conversations when you’re my age.
Odd, my experience is the opposite. As people age they become more set in their ways, resulting in more black and white thinking (also known as their way or the highway).
Actually, a lot of people when they’re in their 20s are young and idealististic. They think they’re going to change the world. This is right and this is wrong. They campaign actively for things quite a lot.
And some keep doing it, but many move on. Look for the lyrics of the Billy Joel song the Angry you Man. It talks about this. And it’s not uncommon.
It is exactly those people that have changed the world. Because, unlike older people, they have little to lose and a lot to gain.
Strange, didn’t know they removed the blogs. Maybe to prevent people from digging up old ‘promises’ they made in some of them (such as account-wide dyes).
I’d go with this theory until someone proves otherwise.
Because it’s easier to go with a completely unproven theory than to not judge. Says tons.
Have you read some of those blog posts? It’s pretty obvious why they pulled them. Much more kitten than the “manifesto” compared to what we have.
I’ve read all of the blog posts. Every single one of them. It’s not obvious why they pulled them. It’s your opinion why. Some of the blog posts are years old though and probably not relevant to an evolving game.
No, it’s pretty clear as to why. There are lots of things they made definitive stands against that now appear in the game. Some things specifically contrary to what you continue to say.
To be fair, the designers probably didn’t know what they were getting into when they decided to do “active combat.”
They clearly didnt. Despite the fact that they added jumping and dodging and swimming, this game is still based too much around skills to be considered “action” combat.
Now all we have is a poor excuse for either.
In your opinion. I actually quite like the combat.
Some people prefer shallow easy combat. That, however, is not something for a developer to be proud of.
The fact that’s it’s shallow is ALSO your opinion. I don’t particularly find the combat shallow. And I think Anet has made a game to be proud of. Of course that’s also just an opinion.
Nope, wrong again. By definition the combat is shallow. Maybe you should read up on that.
Actually, first you’d have to find an acceptable definition of shallow that we can both agree on. Then from there we could discuss whether or not this combat is shallow.
I actually think combat in Guild Wars 1 was more shallow than this. Builds were not. Combat itself was.
No, I don’t need to find a definition we both agree on. I need to find a definition that experts agree on. I think we can consider the Penny Arcade people to have more expertise in this field than us? What about Ensign? He has a character named after him in GW1 and has provided more insight into both games than either of us – should we consider his word to hold merit?
There are WAY more people with expertise in this kind of thing that agree this game’s combat is very shallow than agree with you. I can reference them all if you like, again. But, usually when I reference these kinds of things, you just leave the argument and forget about it the next time.
To be fair, the designers probably didn’t know what they were getting into when they decided to do “active combat.”
They clearly didnt. Despite the fact that they added jumping and dodging and swimming, this game is still based too much around skills to be considered “action” combat.
Now all we have is a poor excuse for either.
In your opinion. I actually quite like the combat.
Some people prefer shallow easy combat. That, however, is not something for a developer to be proud of.
The fact that’s it’s shallow is ALSO your opinion. I don’t particularly find the combat shallow. And I think Anet has made a game to be proud of. Of course that’s also just an opinion.
Nope, wrong again. By definition the combat is shallow. Maybe you should read up on that.
i think it is shallow if you don’t make use of combo fields and all the other abilities extra effects, our definition of shallow is very different, and thats what it comes down to, not facts, opinions.
There are a few fields that do interesting things when comboed, the rest simply do the same old boons and conditions in larger amounts.
Combos rarely add depth to the game as they are very seldom more beneficial than just auto attacking. As a side effect they are certainly cool, but purposely setting up a combo for its effects is very useless 9/10 times compared to just auto attacking.
To be fair, the designers probably didn’t know what they were getting into when they decided to do “active combat.”
They clearly didnt. Despite the fact that they added jumping and dodging and swimming, this game is still based too much around skills to be considered “action” combat.
Now all we have is a poor excuse for either.
In your opinion. I actually quite like the combat.
Some people prefer shallow easy combat. That, however, is not something for a developer to be proud of.
The fact that’s it’s shallow is ALSO your opinion. I don’t particularly find the combat shallow. And I think Anet has made a game to be proud of. Of course that’s also just an opinion.
Nope, wrong again. By definition the combat is shallow. Maybe you should read up on that.
To be fair, the designers probably didn’t know what they were getting into when they decided to do “active combat.”
They clearly didnt. Despite the fact that they added jumping and dodging and swimming, this game is still based too much around skills to be considered “action” combat.
Now all we have is a poor excuse for either.
In your opinion. I actually quite like the combat.
Some people prefer shallow easy combat. That, however, is not something for a developer to be proud of.