But really dude…you just don’t get it. These builds are called meta, because the MAJORITY of the profession’s community agrees that they are the most viable atm.
Take this thread as an example 3 out of the 4 people agree upon the same builds. Now, if you were new to a profession would you choose the build that 1 single guy posted or the one that 3 other people said is really good?
The builds are called meta because 3 out of 4 people agree on this thread?
Here I was thinking it meant the builds are the most prolific at a given moment. Prove the builds are that and I’m sold on the notion. Show me the extent of this “profession community” and you might sway me to believe that the builds being meta is probable. Attempt to convince me there’s no alternative to your build choices through argument and maybe change my way of thinking.
As for a passerby or a poster drawing judgment from this thread, why would I care? I offered up some suggestions for the OP. If the stars align just right and I’m browsing the forums while someone else asks for similar advice, I might just post again.
Actually, I said that I think greatsword/longbow(no particular build) is the “best solution” for high end fractals.
Here’s an example.
I know you might have to strain, but the I in “I think” is in bold. That’s because I wanted to emphasize that this is my opinion, as stated in the original post. I did not say it was Tree.3916’s opinion or the entire GW2 community’s opinion.
And no, we don’t have a wiki for it, but we have forums for it. Many of these meta builds come from a guild that runs dungeons daily (DnT). Their builds are shared through the forums by the community. Hence the reason why 3 people, including myself, have stated that these builds are the meta.
Well I think that’s great that DnT has a community amongst a forum somewhere. It’s good that people collaborate and decide on builds they think are best, but that does not make them anywhere close to being meta. Furthermore, that does not mean they’re the only build choices.
I have even more advice to yield. If you want to substantiate that your builds are meta(not that it makes it a certainty for choice or suggestion), you and your friends should follow the model of PvXwiki—a formerly amazing website from the GW1 community. The remnants of it can be found on curse.com. If anything it would make the build conversation more interesting, not that I’m not entirely entertained by this thread.
Have you try a condition build? I finally make one after the patch. I can actually burst much harder and faster than my old power build. I can do 25k damage of burning + bleed in around 5 to 6 sec. Most of them are easy to hit hard to avoid, and on low cooldown. So yeah if you want to do conditional, don’t bother with power, but rather focus on survival.
I’ve been tooling with it in sPvP since release. I don’t know if it has more burst per se than a power build but conditions have the added benefit of ticking away even when you’re not near your opponent and/or can’t strike them. It’s a good build in that, as you said, you have decent damage potential combined with great survivability.
Not to mention the sword/sword + longbow setup has enormous utility. You get blocks, snares, amazing gap closer, ranged aoe, etc.
Sir, can you please stop…you’re just being hypocritical. You’re saying your build is the best and that the ones Tree posted are not.
Really? Where did I say that?
Now, then I’m gonna say this. Meta builds are probably the best way, for someone new to the class, to actually learn how to play the class. So, giving the OP meta builds is actually a great option for someone to do. So, +1 for Tree.
LoL. We don’t even have a proper PvX wiki for vetted community meta builds. Too few people take this game that seriously. Imagine if you had some means of surveying what every warrior in game was running build-wise for high end fractals or, since that can hardly be meta in the general sense, the entire game. I would wager none of the aforementioned builds(mine included), or close variants there of, would show up as the mode.
I don’t think the OP said he was looking for mediocre builds. Usually when people solicit advice they are looking for the best advice. So I linked him to the best builds.
As far as you’re concerned, I would have ignored your bad builds entirely without comment except you threw in obnoxious buzzwords to make them sound entirely better than they really are. If you’re going to say a medicore build is “the best solution” don’t be surprised when people tell you you’re wrong.
Actually, I said that I think greatsword/longbow(no particular build) is the “best solution” for high end fractals. I did not say that my build choices are Tree.3916’s preference for meta warrior builds and that Tree.3916 would say they are his best build choices. It’s also amusing that you think I would care how you feel about said builds, but since you care so much I’ll add that the feeling is mutual.
Also, the OP, did not ask for Tree.3916’s choice of meta warrior builds. I would gather the OP does not care how much of an expert you think you are on the topic and would more or less like to see some suggestions to tool around with.
I don’t think lb makes a good pve weapon for DPS. Its good for the fire field and might stacking in a sense for might stacking it works well. However in terms of PVE dps its not a good choice as a secondary weapon.
It’s not a DPS weapon, it’s a utility weapon and about the only good ranged option for a warrior in any arena. The warrior’s rifle can be fun(i.e. 10k Killshot in sPvP) but it’s a tad too clunky.
The thing is, Tree is right about the meta currently. Those builds are all the current meta builds.
No, the point is the OP is not asking for what some niche group of people think is meta. They’re asking for build suggestions for high level fractals. Now, I realize that the end of the world may arrive if said youtube builds are not used by as many random forum people as humanly possible.. so for the sake humanity, I will stop arguing about this.
Eh? Leave that to the other classes. Bring your axes, zerker gear, scholar runes and banners plx. Nothing more is required from a warrior. Ele will take care of fury/might. Guard will take care of condis.
In an ideal world. Most dungeon pugs and even guild groups cannot be counted on to offer group-wide support, let alone a simple res when things go awry. If you then try to make suggestions on people’s builds, you might find yourself in a strained argument. Either way, I personally wouldn’t use Runes of the Scholar on my warrior in any situation.
I think two investments are important. First, you want Forceful Greatsword since it’s the easiest might proc a warrior has access to. So that’s at least, using the new system, 4 points into Arms. Secondly, you need to invest 6 points into Tactics for the Phalanx Strength trait.
Having 6 points in Tactics is an automatic 30% boon duration boost. This is nicely augmented by Runes of Strength to bring your shared might to 10 seconds, as well as being a good DPS rune choice. If you want to sustain your own might longer as well as provide additional might to allies, equip a Sigil of Strength. Obviously, raw damage stat spreads are best suited for PvE and you’ll want high precision to proc more might for your build.
Everything outside of that is purely user preference. There’s people in this forum talking about Runes of the Scholar and I would assume they don’t invest in the Defense trait line at all. You, on the other hand, may want some additional defense and/or utility. .. or maybe not.
Apology accepted. I tried to be as nice as possible pointing out that your build ideas are bad and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Again, just so we’re all clear, your build suggestions are bad and the fact you gussy them up with adjectives to make them sound good is deceptive and blatant misinformation.
And who I am or am not isn’t relevant if the information I provide is correct and accurate.
Oh wow, and so humble. That’ll win you fans. I’m just curious though, if you act pretentious enough to you start to believe your own spiel?
Awesome thanks. I’ll try a few different ones and see what I like best.
Rune of strength would it be a good choice?
With the update, it’s a solid choice if you’re doing any kind of might stacking. Don’t rely on the rune’s proc alone for might.
These builds are not the meta, or anything close to it. No offense but you don’t really seem to know what you’re talking about so using advertising words like “best solution”, “amazing”, “all important” is misleading to people who don’t know better. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that this thread was for posting builds that random player named ‘Tree’ decides is meta and has youtube links for. LoL.
Actually, I think Rabid is pretty standard(you don’t need much vitality on a warrior). You do indeed want precision for bleed procs, i.e Deep Cuts/Sigil of Earth, as well as to augment any raw damage stats you might have. I try to balance my setup with a bit of zerker gear. Sometimes having initial damage is important to some degree.
I have to LoL about suggestions to run scholar runes and bring no defense, i.e. no means to clear conditions, on warriors.
I believe this is linked to the use of the Deep Strike trait, as it pops up for me when I use it.
Yes, other classes can maintain quite a bit of might on the whole party, but the warrior can now do this passively while DPSing with a greatsword. In addition, the Tactics trait line allows access to Empower Allies as well as traited banners for even more offensive support.
Given that longbow is a strong condition weapon, it’s recommended for any condition warrior specs. Given that longbow is the only way for a warrior to unseat people up on walls and effectively reach recessed siege weapons, it’s a must for warriors in WvW doing anything more than havoc.
My warrior is my main, so I run a bunch of different builds in high level fractals.
If you want the best all around solution I would suggest greatsword/longbow. Something like (0/30/25/0/15) works well as DPS focused or (0/20/20/30/0) for offensive support.
The new Phalanx Strength trait is amazing and the clear way to use it is via greatsword with the all important Forceful Greatsword trait. Throw in Runes of Strength and perhaps even a Sigil of Strength to make it more potent.
I really don’t think axe is up to snuff without going overboard with offensive specs. Greatsword allows for much more utility. However, if you want to go that route you can shun defense and run (30/20/0/0/20). This spread is for Berserker’s Power/Critical Burst/Sharpened Axes.
I don’t see why people are griping about the wardrobe. It’s an addition all the way around.
First off, transmutation charges are slightly cheaper than the stones at 5/150 instead of 5/200. Granted, that may change.
Secondly, if the skin you want is saved in the wardrobe, you don’t have to obtain more of the same and you can apply the skins across your entire account. If it’s cheaper to obtain more instead of buying transmutation charges and they come with the stat spread you want, then get your skins the manual way.
This is an addition to the game no matter how you look at it.
Personally, I found the game stale within the first couple of months after release. I was looking and hoping for similarities to GW1 that simply aren’t there. I’ve had to train myself to take the game as it is.
It’s a decent game and there is plenty of content to last anyone a few years, but the replay value is lacking because of it’s simplistic nature. It needs additional, more varied and deeper content in both PvP and PvE to fill the void.
OP, this is definitely a rehashed issue and I think it’s a valid criticism but the answer seems to be somewhere between Arenanet lacking the development skills to churn out your typical MMORPG instances(those of us from certain other games know there is much more interesting PvE out there) and wanting to appease the casual crowd.
I think you’re right about trash/boss mechanics being negligible but you’re also right about the game play mechanics. There is very little cohesion between classes so the focus must be on the content itself to create challenges.
I think the Aetherblade path is promising in terms of demonstrating that they can potentially make a dungeon path that has a little depth to it. There’s always going to be some 5% guy saying it’s a cakewalk but that person isn’t being realistic about the whole of the player base and is only speaking for themself. However, it’s just one path in one dungeon and I can only hope that’s not indicative of a minority development philosophy.
So there are other games that have made compel shift in there game play type yet still used the old name WoW and the WC games are great example of this. WC 1 to 2 where full RTS WC3 was more of an RTS with a RPG like hero system and WoW is comply apart from the WC system to where its no longer an RTS. How can they hold the name Warcraft? Because the story was the same lines and the world that was being played in the same even though they where very different games.
The difference is WoW is a spin-off that was never intended to be a true “Warcraft” installment. It carries the name and theme but it is not Warcraft 4. If this game had been called Guild Wars: the Dragon Wars etc. instead of part 2, I would feel differently and I would probably be asking where part 2 is. That’s not what it is however, it’s a bonafide sequel carrying the franchise tag.
Final fantasy is another example of holding the same name by mostly though story alone.
Final Fantasy games have different story lines. They are similar in that there are chocobos, a person named Cid, etc. but the story and lore are not shared. The gameplay has evolved considerably since the games have been released over the span of several decades. However, if you compare each game to it’s predecessor/sequel you will find fairly similar gameplay. A better comparison would be GW1 to Final Fantasy VII and GW2 to Final Fantasy Tactics. Tactics was not at all a true FF title and they made that clear, they didn’t try to present it as such. Granted GW1 and GW2 are in roughly the same genre, but still vastly different.
No not at all GW2 is effectually the same game as GW1 i think they even use the same system the different between WoW and WC3 is bigger then the different between GW1 and GW2 by a lot.
Not only is the difference between WoW and WC3 a poor comparison, since WoW is essentially a spin-off and not a sequel, but GW1 and GW2 are so very, very different. We can discuss that if you’d like. I would be happy to highlight the obvious differences as well as the nuances.
And stop acting like GW1 was about pvp only there was a lot of pve in fact most of its “big” life was more about pve then pvp. Yes GW1 started out as pvp but it did not work all that well so it went more into pve.
GW1 offered PvE, but was primarily about the PvP as it continues to be even today. Even at release in 2005, you could play through PvE if that’s what you wanted to do. The PvP thrived and you would realize that if you were actually involved with it. I think it was a surprise to Arenanet, if anything, that players were so keen on farming through the PvE.
In may ways GW1 was missed name by your stander it was an HUB game that happen to have pvp organized by guilds (effectually just teams with the same tag name any game can say there pvp is guild ordinate because you can chose who on your team and more then like to be the ppl in the same guild therefor all pvp is GvG.)
No Jski, GvG was something very specific within the context of GW1. It was a well defined PvP format.
That the thing games are always going to feel different or you would just have the same game. WvW is like a large scale GvG smaller scale GvG but still in the open WvW maps is fond in OS and even smaller and very well even GvG is going to be found in Spvp. The GvG in OS and Spvp are player made atm and it may be best to keep them that way.
Lore aside, call me crazy but I wholeheartedly expected a sequel carrying the Guild Wars namesake to be similar to the original. It is, pretty much, similar in name only. That’s misleading, disappointing and frustrating to some degree. My regard for Arenanet has slipped in recent years as a result.
You have to understand what GvG meant to the GW1 PvP community. Having some kind of makeshift faux GvG within WvW is not even a remotely good consolation to people who played the original GvG.
If someone hacked your account and sent off your gold, wouldn’t it make sense to send all of it?
GvG is any time your fighting another group in the same guild with a group of ppl of your guild. Like saying pvp is when your fighting another player WvW is when your fighting with other ppl from your world vs another world! What your talking about is more on the lines of death match with in a pvp setting or a cap the flag or hold a places your asking for a type of play with in GvG but there is GvG in GW2 just not the mod that your looking for (truth be told i am not sure what type of GvG formant your even looking for).
GvG was a standardized format from GW1 where you organized players/guests/sometimes NPCs from your particular guild to fight against another guild. It was a very well defined format with tournaments and all important bragging rights. The high ladder rank and tournament matches were even recorded and retained for a short period so any player could observe and learn from/be entertained by them.
That’s what people want but I don’t think it would ever be quite the same within the framework of GW2’s game play. I’d really be curious to see it, should it ever be added, but I have my doubts I would enjoy it as much.
Anyone arguing in this thread obviously never played GW1. PvP in GW2 is a disaster, a massive disappointment to all those who played GW1 competitively.
GW1= eSport
GW2= CasualCasual = Money
end of story.
I do miss HA, GvG and even AB which felt a little like WvW does.. even had more organisation and skill in it.
I agree with this to some degree. I like to say that GW2 is a good game but it’s an atrocious sequel. GW1 PvP was fantastic but GW2 PvP isn’t a complete flop. It’s quirky, arcade-ish(like, insert another quarter in this game of luck, fool) and there isn’t much depth to it but it’s still fun in it’s own right.
GW1 was not an MMO – EVEN A.Net said it was a CORPG -look at the FAQ on the Guildwars.com website. It was a Co-Operative RPG, not an MMO and (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game
Actually it stands for “competitive” rather than “cooperative,” but it’s a made up term. It’s just more hair splitting for slight variations in game design, a la MOBA. Note that you will find little reference, if any, to the term “CORPG” outside of Guild Wars discussion.
-which GW2 is but GW1 is not because there was a max of 12 players in your map and every group had their own copy of the map – think a more advanced Diablo 2).
You’re talking about instanced PvE content. It was actually a maximum of 24 players per map if you consider Hall of Heroes 3-way matches and Alliance Battles. In town/outpost districts it was a maximum of 100 players per map.
Now you could argue that it paled in comparison to MMOs with persistent world style maps that accommodated for hundreds and sometimes thousands of players in a single instance. I would agree there but I would counter that with the fact that despite the artificial separation you could still interact with and play alongside or against the many thousands(millions?) of GW1 players who were active during it’s peak years. The design did not isolate players in small social pockets and keep the game from feeling like a much larger, one might say massive, community. It’s at this point in this particular argument that I have a serious doubts the person I’m talking to spent much time playing the game.
I’m pretty sure the powers that be within Arenanet have already mulled over such ideas. I don’t think you need to bring this to their attention.
GW1 was considered a cooperative RPG not an MMO. Max players you could have in an instance (any of the zones, etc. was 12). The Towns and outposts could be considered graphical lobbies to meet and match players.
“Graphical Lobbies”.. cute term but they were in essence persistent worlds where players could interact with each other as well as perform a myriad of town/outpost related tasks common to GW1.
When people say that GW1 wasn’t an MMORPG, I figure they either a. didn’t play it or b. assume that it’s lack of persistent world style content means it’s not an MMO.
Sorry folks, GW1 was an MMORPG, albeit an odd one. None of this has anything to do with GvG, however. I still hold by my sentiment that GW2 GvG simply wouldn’t be the same and to keep expectations in check before you make demands.
I would be curious to see a GvG in GW2, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking it will be anything like GvG in GW1. GW2’s combat system is far too arcade-like to provide for the same sort of tactical battles. Due to positioning restrictions, the monk class, counters for everything and just an overall rhythmic pacing to the game, GW1’s stand fights were drawn out and it took careful execution to make headway. In GW2, stationary fights on the 5v5 or 8v8 scale, would be a clusterkitten and likely end fairly quickly after some unstoppable gank attempt.
Necromancers are excellent in PvP play.
They lack evasion skills/leaps/a solid gap closer so they’re a bit pokey in WvW and this also makes them prime targets when outnumbered in a group fight, but they have very strong CC and some hard hitting offense.
I don’t want to sound like a jerk here, but a necro can hold it’s own, so you’re not doing it right.
Don’t forget its a on/off option, anyone who dislike it just don’t use it. It will still be a challenge for you.
What I mean is that they may feel it is a mandatory part of the challenge to the game, much like you can’t turn off Line-of-Sight.
Some folks at Arenanet may feel having to find maximum range is part of the skill set required to play the game.
They did, after all, implement the Line-of-Sight mechanic since GW1, in which it was not at all needed. LoS does help with 180 directionals like melee cleaves and general skill use without targeting, but mostly, it seems to be an added measure needed to line-up and execute skills.
I don’t like it personally, I think it does little more than promote a figure skating dance which requires constant mouse turning. Similarly, I may not like having to find maximum range for a targeted skill in a hurry, but Arenanet may feel this is part of the challenge.
That’s odd, I’ve always thought single player content was this game’s strength.
Classes and relevant game mechanics are setup so players basically rely on themselves, so this by it’s very nature makes grouping less meaningful. This is an MMO where you are, essentially, having a single player experience where you just so happen to see other players. Numbers mean the most in terms of damage absorbed, damage dealt and some odd utility here and there.. that’s about it.
Beyond that, though, the world itself offers a number of areas to explore with various personal instances, events, mini-dungeons and jumping puzzles. I’ve played several MMOs and frankly I don’t know of an equal in terms of single player PvE content.
I guess this thread just goes to show there’s always going to be one guy asking for more of what you’re likely already leading the industry at as a developer. They even prepared a wall of text for you.
I’m not sure if you play high end spvp extensively… but condition builds don’t do very well. That is a fact. So saying that Confusion is a “lethal player killer” is a bit laughable when placing it in a competitive arena. Control and high burst damage is the name of the game.
Good joke, my friend.
Nevermind if it’s possible. If it was possible to implement a “hard mode” in, for instance, dungeons, then every indication is that we’re talking about foes that move and attack faster with increased attributes across the board. I’ll leave the nightmare mode to the shooters. What this game needs is more cerebral difficulty rather than some trumped up foes to keep us on edge.
Funny, I’m pretty sure Arenanet used this gag in GW1 and people said the exact same thing.
The bunker builds are alright but if you want to contribute damage at all I think raw damage is the way to go for Ranger. For pure condition specs, Ranger is toward the bottom of the pack. So yes, there is such a thing and it’s mildly viable.
It would really help if the shortbow’s range was restored to 1200 or perhaps they added a trait to increase it.
As it’s been said half a dozen times in this thread, removing repair costs is negligible. I always viewed it as some kind of subtle attrition mechanic like the cost of using way points or resetting your trait points. Perhaps they want to put a small, but controlled, drain on your gold stash to keep you farming more or maybe even encourage gem card purchases. This minor drain will now be a thing of the past for armor repairs but you will still have to travel to an NPC or anvil to fix things.
Considering that it’s currently not at all prohibitively expensive, I don’t see how this is going to change much of anything.
We already have unskillful play by the boatload as GW2’s PvE offerings are not particularly challenging. I’m still waiting for an expansion to see if Arenanet plans on improving cooperative PvE content as a whole.
Just seeing the issues Arenanet had finding a use for and balancing the class additions to GW1, I don’t think it would help to add more. If there was anything that detracted from GW1 it was the fluff.. slightly too many classes, slightly too many skills. It’s nice to have variety but if it requires eschewing balance it’s not worth it. It’s also a shame to see some novel class idea not seeing use, i.e. Paragons in casual PvP.
I feel like Arenanet needs to work on more content for both PvP and PvE. More modes for PvP and more team play mechanics. More instanced content for PvE and more sophisticated encounters. I’ll take all of that before a new class. Then again, there is always the possibility that game developers are slightly pretentious and see things in a different light than the rest of us. They may feel some niche role is not being addressed and so it merits a class addition.
No.
There are hints of promise here and there but largely, Living Story has been a bore and this notion that players would enjoy playing in massive cooperative battles(world boss fights) is overblown. I would much rather have more sophisticated encounters with smaller player counts a la instanced content.
On the PvP end of things we need more game modes than Conquest and please, something that promotes more team play. As it is, people basically run dueling builds and in tournament play, solo stalling is a winning tactic.
I suppose the easy answer to this question is the perception that ranger DPS is weak along with poor pet micro on the part of many players. The DPS is actually pretty decent and commensurable to other classes provided you are a. using a 1H sword and are b. using a full set of berserker gear. Pets can be heeled or set to passive to keep them from being where they shouldn’t be. So, both of these issues can be conquered. Lack of acceptance from groups, on the other hand, is not so easy to overcome
I think the Ranger’s problem is actually multifaceted.
Pet AI is too unreliable to use them for most anything except aggro tanking and their damage output is poor even if you trait to max them out. Arenanet has actually stated that Ranger damage as a whole has been balanced to compensate for pet damage. I get the sense that pet damage output is slightly overstated and Arenanet is looking at numbers rather than using a pet in practice. I loved pets in GW1 but they were hokey in that game too, so I’m puzzled as to why it is now a “class mechanic” for the Ranger in GW2.
If you play PvP you might be aware that the Ranger’s condition spec, while better than Guardian’s, is woeful overall. The bread and butter of Rangers in GW1 was condition spam, now it’s more of an augment to raw damage builds. I honestly think, especially with the nerf to it’s range, crossfire should be given unconditional bleeds. They’re short duration as it is so I think it would still be balanced.
The “Jack of all trades” moniker applies well to the Ranger as it’s alright at everything but not good at anything. This makes the Ranger viable for skirmishes in PvP and a formidable 1v1 class. Anywhere the class must specialize to be of use, it mostly fails. Some people feel the class is boring, well it absolutely is boring if you feel ineffective no matter what spec you’re running.
There are some other issues but those are the most prominent for me. I imagine that Arenanet is already looking over possible changes to the class since people have been very vocal about it’s problems.
The idea that GW2 lacks end game content is just non-sense.
There are 9 dungeons, and yes, dungeons are not well suited to under-leveled toons. So in essence you have an end game instance cluster like many other MMORPGs out there. There is gear grind to polish your level 80 characters. The quest for ascended gear or legendary weapons is every bit as grindy as any MMO gear treadmill I’ve ever ridden. There is a plethora of single player content spread about the world in mini dungeons, jumping puzzles and events. This single player content is even scaled to preserve the challenge.
If you’re not a PvE guy or if you just need more variety, there’s structured PvP for those who realize the value of a gear balanced PvP system that does not allow consumables. Granted, they only have one game mode in Conquest but it provides something different to do. There’s also WvW which offers a massive, non-stop persistent world style arena to battle over.
That’s not end game content?
All of that said, however, I will say that GW2’s problem is not lack of content. There’s plenty of that and will only be more in the future. The problem is that the game play itself can be rather drab and lacks the depth found in other, much older, titles. The powers that be at Arenanet simply did not understand what people liked about GW1 and didn’t bother to replicate much of it in GW2. So the core game play itself is a bit on the stale side, discouraging replay value.
That the trick the classes do not fit together but the players do. Its a question do you play as a class or do you play as your hero. A class cant truly changes even GW2 classes have some effects that only that class has but they are open enofe to let the class be less important to the player or the hero your playing as.
That’s easy, you’re playing as a class. This isn’t paper and dice role-playing where you can customize your character as much as you desire. It’s structured and you choose a class that has a specific set of tools to manipulate the game world as designed by the developers. However, the distinction between classes in GW2 is more so particular playing styles(i.e. class mechanics, armor type, weapon selection) than it is set team roles. It has nothing to do with immersion and everything to do with game design.
If you need a wall you can changes your skills to make these walls if you need a tank you can changes your skill to be more tankly etc.. Playing as a hero over a class add soo much more meaning to every thing you do in a game. Some ppl will always fall to the “best” build point of views and think that every one else should think the same way but that not how real life works nor should it work that way in a game. But ppl are bullied into it and that just wrong on many levels.
Certain builds are considered the cream of the crop. People have had success with them, they trust that they work, etc. If you want to play an unorthodox build you need to find people that don’t care or just don’t know. Most pugs won’t even notice that you’re not running the expected builds. However, other players have the right to ask you to bring a particular build, just as you have the right not to participate with those players. If you can’t reach an agreement, one of you(likely whomever isn’t leading) should find another group, because those players should not have to tolerate your build choice. In essence, this problem goes both ways and you need to recognize that.
GW2 is the closest thing I’ve seen to a single player RPG that you happen to play with other people. The classes are fairly self reliant and the team cohesion is basically nil. There’s some shared boons/heals/status effects(but no micro), you can resurrect other players, you can use combo fields and you can work in tandem in general.. but that’s where allied player interaction ends. It’s unique, I’ll give it that, but there is something lost in translation when you simplify game play in this fashion.
I love how so many people are exaggerating. Trinity does not mean HARD trinity… it can take a range of varieties, the one more tolerating, the other more strict. Light trinities are obviously a LOT better than kittenes, but they’re also better than GW2 combat system that is a DPS-only-ty.
Trinity is just a vague term for what is essentially class specialization. Classes in GW2 are somewhat specialized, otherwise there would be little point in having classes. However, it’s a fairly vague specialization and in most cases has more to do with preferred playing style, effectiveness or a particular function(i.e. group stealth, reflect) than anything else. Classes in GW2 don’t fit together in any meaningful way in a team context.
In short, Anet needs to re-evaluate how it challenges the player base.
From the looks of some of the recent additions and even LS’s temporary encounters, it seems Arenanet will be focusing on more specialized boss mechanics and environment interaction. Of course, strong DPS will probably remain a factor for any group composition.
Frankly, I think they need greater and more cerebral challenges overall though—burning through 5 zillion health is getting old fast.
The problem is that the argument is the 3 class system by it self make a game a team game and that simply not true playing a class the way the class should be played dose not make it into a team game communication makes it a team game.
It doesn’t “make a game a team game” but it does add another dynamic. Class specialization, threat mechanics and the like makes forming teams and playing various roles a much more in-depth process. Some folks may not like this kind of structure but it most definitely will make your game more of a team game than it is without.
The trinity is a very ubiquitous concept in the world of MMORPGs so I could understand why people are a bit tired of it. However, it does add a little more structure and organization to team play.
GW1 had defined roles but lacked a threat mechanic so it wasn’t quite as in-depth as some of the WoW-esque titles out there. GW2 has less defined roles but there are still class strengths, i.e. no class can out-support a Guardian. It’s very similar to GW1 except for the fact that classes are designed to be self sustaining instead of relying on dedicated healer classes. I know that per class self heals and defensive utility skills existed in GW1 but it was hardly practical to rely on them in most cases.
If you’re looking for the kind of depth required for sophisticated raiding, I don’t think you’ll ever see it in this game. They may release ~10 man “dungeons” at some point but I suspect it’ll resemble world events/boss fights more than anything.
This issue is just yet another case of style over substance and perhaps fixing something that wasn’t broken(players watching UI). It can be painfully difficult to see animations and there are no skill meters to compensate. They should probably both add meters and reduce the amount of effects on the screen that obfuscate the view, but I expect neither change to come along.