Page 25 of 33 FirstFirst ...
15
23
24
25
26
27
... LastLast
  1. #481
    My opinion about GW2.. I have a few things I'd like to adress.

    The leveling process
    It gets a bit too boring for me. Most of the time I spend looking for places where I should go, or just end up doing some WvWvW to get to the correct level for my personal story. As that is the only thing I keep working towards (I dislike the same thing in SWTOR aswell, I just want to keep doing my personal story).
    The Dynamic 'Events' are entertaining to say the least. But get repetetive aswell. I adapted myself to being more of a multitasker on the new characters I have.

    The combat-style
    Oh boy, I live the action-combat. It looks more like an actual fight, instead of the "I stand on the same place, pressing numbers". On my mesmer, for example, I never get hit by regular mobs. Always on the move.
    Another part of the combat is the weapons. Each class can use a certain type of weapons and each weapon has its own unique abilities, just like The Secret World did. I enjoy that in both games. That having a certain weapon comes down to certain abilities. I guess you could say SWTOR has that aswell, to limiting each class to basicly only 1 weapon, some 2 (not counting dual-wielding).

    Dungeons
    I like and dislike the way dungeons work. I like the part of having a story-mode and an exploration-mode. It keeps it interesting to revisit an old dungeon.
    The part of not having a dedicated tank and healer sometimes work. But when it's just a repetetive burst-Boss.. I'd like to have a simple tank and healer. Although it's mostly just "Kill the boss as fast as you can while keeping yourself alive".

    Overall, I enjoy the game and walking through it. RP is also quite enjoyable thanks to the locations. The cities provide enough place and houses to enter. It's a HUGE world, which I enjoy. Sadly enough, it is something I can't play for too long. I expected the game to be more like how we expect TESO to be now (so, let's hope that game won't let us down!).

  2. #482
    I like some aspects of a trinity. Personally, I thought dungeons in GW2 were miserable without one. The rest of the game I think does just fine without one for the most part, unless you happen to be that unfortunate individual who gets focused by an event champion you can't shake -- incidentally, such things really make me wish that all classes had some sort of aggro dump.

    However, I love hybrids too much for a strict trinity, which is what happened with WoW. You basically traded off hybrid utility to compete with "pure" classes. Tera was like that too, although, it never gave you the option to be anything but what you were. The classes were too distinct to the point that I felt pigeonholed into the equivalent of one of WoW's talent trees.

    I'd say if anything the thing I miss is being able to "save" people in GW2. I can't taunt a mob off someone nor can I typically heal them (even when I can it's not enough to matter). People complain about the lack of team work required in GW2, well, it's basically designed that way. Many of my alts have no good way to assist others, so that makes it all about me and everyone else is on their own.

  3. #483
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelesti View Post
    Not really. Most fights from a tank's point of view are "Pick up adds (if relevant). Interrupt this thing. Move out of things. Said things will either Cleave or they will Saber Lash, and sometimes you have to kite".

    Cool. Now pick a DPS. Do your full damage rotation. You will either be doing it to a single target or occasionally groups. Also occasionally you will swap targets. Continue doing full damage rotation, when required incorporating movement to either avoid damage mechanics or occasionally pick up a rare beneficial element. Repeat.


    Go ahead and try to describe fights to me with elements outside of this.
    I use a similar strategy to point this out, but I just go with the less "confrontational" route of saying: Look I only raided during TBC/WotLK pick a random fight and explain it by saying p1 is like pX of boss Y. I bet this isn't even hard...

  4. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by Meledelion View Post
    I use a similar strategy to point this out, but I just go with the less "confrontational" route of saying: Look I only raided during TBC/WotLK pick a random fight and explain it by saying p1 is like pX of boss Y. I bet this isn't even hard...
    Ah, yes. This is an excellent way of looking at things. But I am nothing if not confrontational
    ~Former Priest/Guild Wars 2 Moderator~
    Now TESTING: ArcheAge (Alpha)
    Now PLAYING: MonoRed Burn (MtG Standard)
    Twitter: @KelestiMMO come say hi!
    ~When you speak, I hear silence. Every word a defiance~

  5. #485
    No Holy Trinity is another way of saying 4 Berserk Warriors + 1 Mesmer > Anything else.

    I've tried and tried in my guild, but with 4 "skilled" Warriors ( I use this word loosly, since playing Warrior in GW2 is one of the least demanding things I've tried recently ) and 1 Mesmer for timewrap thingy, nothing else can compare. Could remove 1 Warrior for 1 Hammer Guardian, but that's it.

    I'd perfer the Holy Trinity back over this or force ArenaNet to make other classes worthwhile in PvE.

    Yes you can make something like Necro + Necro + Engineer + Ranger + Thief work, but it's more time consuming and demand more skill to pull off.
    Last edited by Bonkbonk100; 2013-04-17 at 08:38 PM.

  6. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonkbonk100 View Post
    No Holy Trinity is another way of saying 4 Berserk Warriors + 1 Mesmer > Anything else.

    I've tried and tried in my guild, but with 4 "skilled" Warriors ( I use this word loosly, since playing Warrior in GW2 is one of the least demanding things I've tried recently ) and 1 Mesmer for timewrap thingy, nothing else can compare. Could remove 1 Warrior for 1 Hammer Guardian, but that's it.

    I'd perfer the Holy Trinity back over this or force ArenaNet to make other classes worthwhile in PvE.

    Yes you can make something like Necro + Necro + Engineer + Ranger + Thief work, but it's more time consuming and demand more skill to pull off.
    It doesn't require more skill at all. Just because something takes longer doesn't mean it's harder.

    And FYI zerg war is one of the harder "classes" to pull off since warriors don't have any character bound immunities apart from endure pain.
    Necro has deathshroud 3armors and one of the strongest heals ingame, thief has teleports/invis, dagger 3 bow 3, roll for ini, engineer has elixir+shield+toolkit+ massive heals, ele has massive heals/bubbles (cantrips), mesmer has sword 2, teleport, invis, distortion, guardian has a gazillion regen/prot/aegis, ranger has signet of stone, lightning reflex, gs auto, sword 2 dagger 4(technically 1), lightning reflexes.

    You can ofcourse say "but wars have shield too" yup wars do, zerker wars however don't.

  7. #487
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by Lane View Post
    I'd say if anything the thing I miss is being able to "save" people in GW2. I can't taunt a mob off someone nor can I typically heal them (even when I can it's not enough to matter). People complain about the lack of team work required in GW2, well, it's basically designed that way. Many of my alts have no good way to assist others, so that makes it all about me and everyone else is on their own.
    That's not something I'd agree with. You cannot taunt mobs off someone, but there plenty of ways to keep mobs from hitting players, anyway. You can disable mobs through knockbacks, knockdowns, stuns, and dazes; you can apply blindness to prevent them from hitting or put Aegis on an ally to prevent them from being hit.

    Likewise, you can heal people; you can't spam-heal them, but a lot of classes do have group heals/cleansing abilities. Also, do not underestimate the benefits of Protection and Weakness in mitigating incoming damage.

    Obviously, some classes are better at being defensive support than others, and builds can also make a considerable difference. But you can definitely play defensive support if you want to. You can most clearly see this by how in large groups it becomes ever safer to just stand in melee range of an otherwise nasty Champion; perma-Weakness/Protection/Regeneration do a ton to blunt the effectiveness of even attacks that can take out most of your healthbar with one hit (not to forget a couple of Guardians who know to spread Aegis around).

    Now, if you want to talk specifically about Champions with Unshakable, then I'll agree that Unshakable could use some major improvement because how it renders CC too useless. Similarly, not being able to see the healthbars of players you are not partied with unless you mouse over them can be frustrating in open world PvE.

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-18 at 05:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonkbonk100 View Post
    No Holy Trinity is another way of saying 4 Berserk Warriors + 1 Mesmer > Anything else.
    Not really. 4 Warriors + 1 Mesmer is a side effect of content that does not require defensive support combined with a desire for speed runs and a system that allows very nice trade-offs of defense for offense. You can see similar issues arising in trinity systems; the classical case was late WotLK, when hardly anyone bothered with having a healer in the group outside of the ICC heroics. But a similar effect also occurred with current challenge dungeons in WoW: the first few gold runs were done without healers or with healers only temporarily switching from a DPS role for a few fights where that was unavoidable. Instead, soft CC (stuns, etc.) and/or a fast burn were used in lieu of healing, pretty much the same what you can see in GW2 speed runs.

    I would be more worried about how some people think that one or two guardians become mandatory for high level fractals.

  8. #488
    Titan Kelimbror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Tír na nÓg
    Posts
    13,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvanie View Post
    Not really. 4 Warriors + 1 Mesmer is a side effect of content that does not require defensive support combined with a desire for speed runs and a system that allows very nice trade-offs of defense for offense. You can see similar issues arising in trinity systems
    And that's really the crux of a design flaw in MMO encounters as a whole, which you have hinted at with this statement. There's only so many ways you can design things in regards to offense and defense. You either require lots of defense or lots of offense, but other than imposing time constraints (whether mandated by the game or the player) you have to follow the design.

    What I mean is, they can make it so that people are forced to take damage, which requires healing or defense of some variety...or they can make it so that doesn't matter and you just need to burn something fast enough. Now there's a breaking point where the need for defense is gamed by increasing the relative offense, or v/v. It's not a problem inherently present in GW2, but it is reinforced through the lack of defined roles...which is why I think no trinity is actually bad in a way.

    If there were traditional roles, people wouldn't have felt the need to stack 4 warriors 1 mes in order to maximize damage output and speed. They would hve been following a set pattern where damage will happen, healing will be needed at least a little to overcome that damage, and then whoever is left will dps as quickly as they can. Sometimes 'anything goes' yields less acceptable situations than refining the avenues to pursue.

    I'll stop rambling now.
    BAD WOLF

  9. #489
    Kitty, I'd say that's more a matter of execution than design intent. It's an interesting issue: constraints are what makes things interesting. One of my favorite authors has made some Laws of Magic, which, honestly, can be applied to a lot more than just magic, especially the second one: Limitations > Power. I think that one is especially important in game design; for instance, it applies directly to the changes to trait design during the betas. I have a sense of it applying to the issue of roles, but I need to put some more thought into applying it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryngo Blackratchet View Post
    Yeah, Rhandric is right, as usual.

  10. #490
    Well, they could have fights that are more involved without having a role trinity. Such as... Guild Wars 1.

    GW1 only had one hard defined role in the Monk. Which wasn't expressly a healer as one could take 8 damage skills to a dungeon/mission. Still one could run missions/dungeons fully without a healer/monk or means of direct heals. And there were no consumables in GW1 either.

    It was all about composition, the puzzle and execution.

    Where GW2 fails in it's variant on GW1's no trinity dynamic is lack of the "puzzle" part.

    Most fights with bosses in GW2 are indistinguishable from mundane mobs. Most encounters are the same; kite, CC, damage, damage, damage. This is compounded by more limited class choices, interaction and input compared to Guild Wars 1.

    In GW1 almost anything was possible within the gameplay systems. Almost everything was open to players, allowing for creative solutions to very complex encounters. Which did take in the common axis between damage in | damage out. But also added things like protection, timing, binary choices, environmental interaction, time constraints, alternate paths and so on.

    The sort of problem with GW2 combat in fractals/dungeons/open world is that it's badly designed. IMO, natch.

    No trinity is totes fine... if you can pull it off.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2013-04-18 at 06:09 PM.

  11. #491
    encounter design is the issue, not the combat and/or roles

  12. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by Doozerjun View Post
    encounter design is the issue, not the combat and/or roles
    Yea, basically what this guy said more elegantly.

  13. #493
    Exactly, Doozer

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryngo Blackratchet View Post
    Yeah, Rhandric is right, as usual.

  14. #494
    Titan Kelimbror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Tír na nÓg
    Posts
    13,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Doozerjun View Post
    encounter design is the issue, not the combat and/or roles
    Well...yeah, basically.

    I've never quite been happy with GW2's mob encounters from early on though. There really shouldn't be anything in the game that can kill you through attrition. Like...you do everything perfectly, but you don't have the tools to do anything but damage and minor healing. If the mob does more damage than you can dodge perfectly and heal through, then you go downed state.

    I also think downed state is a larger problem of class design that rolls into mob/encounter design. I don't think things would be so frustrating if when you died, you really died...because the mobs would have to be tuned differently. Behind the scenes aggro is incredibly annoying as well. As a shortbow ranger let's say, my pet has done a marvelous job at keeping aggro until 'now'. I can't even explain when 'now' began, but nothing sticks to my pet anymore. It doesn't matter how I approach the scenarios, mobs are just on top of me.

    This results in slow kills from having to jump circles around the universe, while my pet frantically tries to be in melee range to even hit something one time. To me, this is the epitome of bad design. Whether it's the weapon that needs to be strafed/behind to do proper damage, or just the fact that aggro is always in my face, it's completely unfun. And in a game where one of the unique features is the range of weapons you can use, they shouldn't funnel you into one specific set of weapons either.

    I'm sure a lot of classes feel that is a problem though, it's why I quit playing my engineer in the first place as I had to run around like a madman, switching weapons left and right, while still having marathon battles with any one mob I pulled. They felt overcomplicated, but underpowered.
    BAD WOLF

  15. #495
    High Overlord Zahadem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    121
    This thread has been quite a nice read as im looking to buy a new laptop and a few games including gw2 from my next paycheck.

  16. #496
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyvicious View Post
    What I mean is, they can make it so that people are forced to take damage, which requires healing or defense of some variety...or they can make it so that doesn't matter and you just need to burn something fast enough. Now there's a breaking point where the need for defense is gamed by increasing the relative offense, or v/v. It's not a problem inherently present in GW2, but it is reinforced through the lack of defined roles...which is why I think no trinity is actually bad in a way.
    I'm not agreeing entirely. For example, the biggest problem with Yogg-0 was really how many balls you had to juggle at a time, not just raw numbers. A lot of this comes down to encounter design (more on that later). Of course, mobs do need to provide an appropriate level of threat so that you can't ignore the encounter mechanics.

    I don't think that any problems that GW2 has are related to the trinity as such. They are:

    (1) Dungeons are balanced for players at their level in blues; most players run them at level 80 in exotics. High-level fractals, I note, do not necessarily have that problem (though they can have others).
    (2) Encounter mechanics for dungeon bosses generally aren't very complicated (with few exceptions) and thus comparatively easy to master.
    (3) Gear stats allow for too much difference between offense and defense and you can't keep an encounter balanced while keeping it doable for players at both ends (or even balanced between the middle ground and the pure offensive setup). WoW in particular normalizes both offensive and defensive numbers pretty rigorously; while that's not GW2's style, I think GW2 could have benefited greatly from not having the extremes so far apart.
    (4) A unified defensive mechanic (dodge). I like the reactive defense aspect, but not that it tends to be all rolled into one button. If reactive defenses were part of weapon and utility skills, you'd gain two benefits: People could not pick their skills SO focused on pure offense; and because it wouldn't be just one skill, reactive defenses wouldn't have to be quite so twitchy (because you'd have to go through a small decision process as to which one to pick rather than it being pure reflex).

    I don't think that any of these points are very critical, assuming ArenaNet wants to keep creating interesting PvE encounters. (1) and (3) can be largely addressed through scalable dungeon difficulty. And both (2) and (4) can be resolved through better encounter mechanics (there are plenty of established encounter mechanics that do not rely on avoiding an effect).

    And I don't see how a mandatory healer would change much in that regard. WoW DPS players do not see an increased need for defense -- if anything, the opposite is true; they do not wear gear with parry on it or use defensive talents (insofar as that is even possible anymore these days). If anything, they are even more hyperspecialized in their role than berserker warriors because they can completely outsource the defense part to the tank and healer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyvicious View Post
    If there were traditional roles, people wouldn't have felt the need to stack 4 warriors 1 mes in order to maximize damage output and speed. They would hve been following a set pattern where damage will happen, healing will be needed at least a little to overcome that damage, and then whoever is left will dps as quickly as they can. Sometimes 'anything goes' yields less acceptable situations than refining the avenues to pursue.
    I'm not sure I'm following you. Because it's not really any different in WoW or Rift. As soon as the gear levels allow it, people will cut down on defensive measures. Tank will start using some (if not entirely) DPS gear, raids will use fewer healers, dungeon runs may dispense with healers entirely. Heroic Dragon Soul was done by a raid of 25 DKs (they only needed healers for dispelling on Spine, as I recall). I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but there were MoP dungeon bosses that could be soloed by a tank in blues; if we do a heroic in raid gear these days, we generally bring a tank, three DPS and a hybrid class (mostly to top people off between fights and to switch to heals for the occasional fight where it's actually needed). And the tank is starting to feel borderline optional; I mean, Armsmaster Harlan will not even get close to his first Blades of Light; he'll live 30 seconds, tops (probably less, but I've never timed it); I haven't seen him getting one off in ages. It's the exact same principle that's used in GW2 speedruns; i.e., fast burns can negate mechanics entirely (or reduce exposure to them) and thus negate the need for healing or other forms of defense.

  17. #497
    Titan Kelimbror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Tír na nÓg
    Posts
    13,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvanie View Post
    I'm not sure I'm following you. Because it's not really any different in WoW or Rift. As soon as the gear levels allow it, people will cut down on defensive measures. Tank will start using some (if not entirely) DPS gear, raids will use fewer healers, dungeon runs may dispense with healers entirely.
    Content becoming less challenging over time has nothing to do with the equation at all. They aren't even remotely related concepts to what we're talking about in GW2. Especially things like 25 DKs to do certain things, or 25 priests, isn't what anyone is doing to fresh instances or for raid progression.

    What you are comparing is a game where there is no gear cap, that has encounters designed for specific gear levels...ie, there's nothing to compare in that specific line of thinking.

    Me saying 'anything goes' actually limits design is true. They have to make encounters that can cover such a wide variety of bases, like you pointed out in the first part of your post, that it winds up being rather single minded in terms of how to defeat it. Unlike other games, where roles are specifically defined, and the encounters are free to use anything creative to remove players from the field temporarily, alter their abilities, do damage, require specific types of movement....the only reason they can go to such extremes are because they have limited rules with how those can be overcome. Tanks, healers, dps.

    It's even more interesting because they can push classes into new roles, like warlock tanks, just through design. GW2 has none of that freedom since the players themselves have so much control over how to play, yet little options of specific refinement.

    Edit:

    Think of it like this. GW2 classes and how they work inside of an encounter is the equivalent of an open field race track, where players choose a type of vehicle to race to the finish line. Regardless of what they want to drive, eventually the group is going to prefer 5 people in drag cars blasting to the finish in seconds.

    As compared to

    An obstacle course, where people are suited for specific concepts like strength or mental challenges. Now the creator of the race can choose to create many different concepts together, like a puzzle that must be solved mentally controlling aspects of a strength challenge, where each person together uses their own abilities to creatively engage the course to completion....instead of just derping in a straight line to the end.
    Last edited by Kelimbror; 2013-04-18 at 09:03 PM.
    BAD WOLF

  18. #498
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyvicious View Post
    Content becoming less challenging over time has nothing to do with the equation at all. They aren't even remotely related concepts to what we're talking about in GW2. Especially things like 25 DKs to do certain things, or 25 priests, isn't what anyone is doing to fresh instances or for raid progression.

    What you are comparing is a game where there is no gear cap, that has encounters designed for specific gear levels...ie, there's nothing to compare in that specific line of thinking.
    Except that's largely what's happening here (as one of several contributing factors). The 4 Warrior + 1 Mesmer group work because dungeons are balanced around players in blues (at the appropriate level, i.e. in some cases not even fully traited), not exotics. Nor is there a unified gear level, because stat choices make a vast difference, and the content also has to work for people with balanced gear. There is no such thing as a uniform gear level that GW2 can be balanced around. In short, overgearing is indeed a part of the problem, except that it's overgearing that's there from the start.

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-19 at 12:23 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyvicious View Post
    Me saying 'anything goes' actually limits design is true. They have to make encounters that can cover such a wide variety of bases, like you pointed out in the first part of your post, that it winds up being rather single minded in terms of how to defeat it. Unlike other games, where roles are specifically defined, and the encounters are free to use anything creative to remove players from the field temporarily, alter their abilities, do damage, require specific types of movement....the only reason they can go to such extremes are because they have limited rules with how those can be overcome. Tanks, healers, dps.
    I'm not following you here at all. In particular, I'm not seeing the interesting mechanics that the trinity enables. There are very few encounter mechanics that modify how healing works, and in general, they have not been Blizzard's more ... beloved ones. You'll see a lot of tank switching mechanics, but they are more there to provide job security for a second tank in a single boss encounter than to actually add to the fight.

    What can occasionally be interesting is controllable aggro, but that's part of tanking, not its entirety (you can have controllable aggro with and without tanking). And controllable aggro is a two-edged sword: it facilitates some mechanics (in particular, where mobs need to be positioned precisely), but makes others impossible. And obviously, you can add controllable aggro to any encounter, just as you can take it away (e.g., environmental weapon: Staff of Incitement). Blizzard has added artificial controllable aggro on several encounters themselves (e.g., Netherspite, indirectly on Alysrazor for the hatchlings, because tank DPS from Imprint is so massive). It's nothing new or difficult. However, taking away aggro from the tanks in a trinity system means that you have to find other, sometimes artificial roles for tanks (e.g., damage soakers, add management).

    Similarly, there's no real difference in terms what you can do in encounter mechanics that's dictated by healing. Example: On Nefarian, you had to pace DPS so that the next Electrocute didn't happen before people were sufficiently healed up. But that's no different in GW2: Whether you have a group of dedicated healers or everyone heals themselves does not really make a difference. There are encounters that modify healing mechanics in potentially interesting ways (e.g., Valithria Dreamwalker, Baleroc), but if you can modify healing mechanics in WoW, you can do it in GW2, too.

    It's even more interesting because they can push classes into new roles, like warlock tanks, just through design. GW2 has none of that freedom since the players themselves have so much control over how to play, yet little options of specific refinement.
    Not sure how pushing a warlock in a tanking role is interesting; tanking and DPSing are not so fundamentally different roles, especially when you tank at range and don't have to worry about positioning. The warlock will still DPS (the warlock may have to gear differently, which is probably part of why Blizzard may have largely abolished this particular mechanic along with resistance gear fights), just with a slightly different rotation for threat. But in principle, he or she won't do much different than what would have happened in a DPS role. It does not really alter decision making or add complications to the fight; it's a resource management question for the raid, i.e. find a warlock, gear them up. You have the equivalent of warlock tanking every day in GW2: You have aggro? Congratulations, you just got promoted to tank. Now deal with having aggro with the tools that you have. It can happen to any class.

    An obstacle course, where people are suited for specific concepts like strength or mental challenges. Now the creator of the race can choose to create many different concepts together, like a puzzle that must be solved mentally controlling aspects of a strength challenge, where each person together uses their own abilities to creatively engage the course to completion....instead of just derping in a straight line to the end.
    I think you may not realize that you can have encounter-specific roles without having them predefined through the class system. E.g., you have a hammer carrier role in the cliffside fractal (which gets switched around during the encounter, too). You could, here and now, adopt Valithria Dreamwalker to GW2 mechanics: make any self-heal within range X heal her, too; leave the encounter mechanics pretty much intact otherwise. I.e., floating around in the Dream/Nightmare gives you the +damage/+healing buff. You'd assign 1-2 players to playing the "healer" role for this encounter by visiting the Dream/Nightmare, with the rest on add duty. You get instant encounter roles without having them predefined (except that the "healers" would also take part in dispatching adds outside the portal phase).

    There are very few WoW raid encounters that couldn't be translated into GW2 mechanics from a purely mechanical perspective; the problem would generally be that balancing them would be far more difficult because GW2 gear and specs aren't even remotely as normalized (quite a few may also require more than five players). But that's not a trinity problem.

    That's not to say that ArenaNet would actually ever do that; my impression is that ArenaNet likes their combat to be a bit more chaotic, as opposed to Blizzard's more strategic, neatly choreographed style.

  19. #499
    Titan Kelimbror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Tír na nÓg
    Posts
    13,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvanie View Post
    Nor is there a unified gear level, because stat choices make a vast difference, and the content also has to work for people with balanced gear.
    If you can't understand the difference between an unlimited gear ceiling and gear in GW2, I have nothing further to really discuss with you. That's such a fundamentally simple difference to understand. And I don't mean this to be hostile, just a straightforward statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvanie View Post
    Not sure how pushing a warlock in a tanking role is interesting; tanking and DPSing are not so fundamentally different roles.
    It's interesting to the warlock. The rest of your post is really veering into direct game comparison, grasping at straws by saying things like WoW encounters 'could' work in GW2... I give a big whatever to that line of thinking. They certainly wouldn't work without making all of the enemies hit like wet noodles or do nothing interesting.

    I'm someone who likes both games, but once again if anything even remotely resembling an argument that one design is better someone has to jump in and say nuh uh, this is just as good or so much better or it could accomplish the same thing. No, it can't. What you call 'chaotic' is simply worse design, which is conceived out of a poor implementation of no defined roles. Could there be a better design with no roles? Probably so. Does it really exist in GW2? no.

    It's fine to prefer one or the other, but they are not even close to the same level of difficulty or require the same amount of user input/thinking, regardless of your stance that raiding is just choreography. We'll just have to agree to beyond completely disagree.
    BAD WOLF

  20. #500
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyvicious View Post
    If you can't understand the difference between an unlimited gear ceiling and gear in GW2, I have nothing further to really discuss with you. That's such a fundamentally simple difference to understand. And I don't mean this to be hostile, just a straightforward statement.
    There is a difference in the origin of the stat gap, but the stat gap between what the encounter is balanced around and what gear it's actually played with is there regardless; whether the stat gap comes from unlimited gear progression or fixed gear progression (blue -> exotic) and more variety in gear choices is irrelevant for balance purposes. X% better damage stats will improve your offensive output by a commensurate amount, whether the X% come from a new raid tier or from exotic vs. blue gear or from Berserker's vs. Cleric's gear. Note also that within an expansion, gear progression is not actually unlimited, but fixed, and the phenomenon can usually be observed pretty early in an expansion.

    It's interesting to the warlock.
    It's interesting to the warlock because a DPS role is constrained in what it can do and tanking is a break from what they normally do. A necromancer in GW2 (as the closest equivalent) can tank every day if they want.

    I'm someone who likes both games, but once again if anything even remotely resembling an argument that one design is better someone has to jump in and say nuh uh, this is just as good or so much better or it could accomplish the same thing. No, it can't. What you call 'chaotic' is simply worse design, which is conceived out of a poor implementation of no defined roles. Could there be a better design with no roles? Probably so. Does it really exist in GW2? no.
    Like you, I play and enjoy both games. What you're misunderstanding is that I don't think that GW2 is better (or that WoW is better). I think both have their strengths and their weaknesses (plus, the whole different strokes for different folks thing). However, I think a lot of people attribute several of GW2's weaknesses to the lack of a trinity model, even though they have nothing to do with it. I have been trying to explain why I think that GW2's weaknesses have other reasons and are unrelated to the absence of a trinity. Feel free to disagree, but if you misconstrue my line of argument to mean that I hate WoW, that disagreement is indeed irreconcilable. I'm not spending multiple nights a week playing and organizing raids in a game I hate.

    It's fine to prefer one or the other, but they are not even close to the same level of difficulty or require the same amount of user input/thinking, regardless of your stance that raiding is just choreography. We'll just have to agree to beyond completely disagree.
    You are misunderstanding again. Being someone who enjoys ballroom dancing, "neatly choreographed" was a compliment; a well-executed raid encounter is something that I enjoy in good part for that reason. Differently put, WoW encounters (and many of the underlying mechanics) tend to rely on strategic elements, while GW2 favors reactive, twitchy elements.
    Last edited by Sylvanie; 2013-04-19 at 12:21 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •