Is SWTOR being too strict by sticking to the holy trinity?

[marukale]

If by "support" you mean "mindless buff bots" then sure. I never said the community doesn't ask for things. I said that Blizzard made things that way intentionally, not as a side effect of players using the mechanics they designed in the wrong way..



Yeah, that pretty much is just elaborating on my point.[COLOR=red]

[SIZE=1]

No. As has been explained to you one hundred times. No.



The only thing that switch would do is give him a very short Daze ability as opposed to a Knockback. It wouldn't give him the ability to lock anyone down or taunt them by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, in that instance, he may be better off with the Greatsword. He would basically just be switching from having an Immobilization skill and a Knockback skill, to having two Dazes. Be careful, your ignorance is showing.



So he is specializing in "control" by switching from having two control abilities to having... another two control abilities. Interesting.



That game had the trinity. In fact, it even had the trinity in PvP. The result was that they had to homogenize and homogenize, exactly like you have been saying the trinity does not cause. Thanks for the example.

---------- Post added 2011-07-14 at 03:56 PM ----------



Really? Have you been playing WoW? Honestly? Only a fool or someone being intentionally dishonest would deny the tank-healer shortage.



Yeah, I just did. The example you gave was totally ridiculous. Switching from Greatsword to Sword and Shield doesn't give you anymore control. In fact, it kinda gives you less. It really just changes the flavor of your control.

Look, this has been explained to you, over and over, by multiple people, but you just flatly REFUSE to listen: Go to the Guild Wars 2 wiki. Go look at the abilities. If you take ten minutes to do that, it's very obvious that you are wrong.



Different weapon kits do NOT have DRAMATICALLY more control or support than others. You don't switch from 5 damage abilities to 5 support or 5 control abilities.



Go to the God damn Wiki, as you've been told to 500 times. Jesus, how lazy are you? You want to was poetic about this game for hours but you won't do the thirty seconds of research required. Show ME how I'm wrong, how about that?

---------- Post added 2011-07-14 at 04:08 PM ----------

By the way, there is only ONE CC ability in the ENTIRE GAME that fully removes control from an enemy, and that's Fear, which is only available to one class (Necromancers) and even then it's only available sometimes, AND it only lasts 2-5 seconds in PvE.

I've been in a raiding guild in WoW since mid way through burning crusades, we have never had a shortage of tanks or healers applying to the guild. Currently we have too many healers and are missing some dependable dps.

I like how me choosing the wrong weapons proves i'm wrong that people change weapon to suit which ever role they are taking on. Do you not understand how that proves that people do have to change weapons as the fight requires different things from them?

WATER attunement forgoes the raw damage of air and fire, in favor of controlling an opponent's movement. By creating slippery ice or freezing foes solid, water attunement ensures that the battle is always fought on the elementalist's terms. Nearby allies receive continuous healing from an elementalist who is attuned to water.

[http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-gam...elementalist/]

A warrior can easily switch between his two active weapon sets in combat as needed, but swapping weapons triggers a cool-down that prevents warriors from constantly flip-flopping between weapons.

[http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-gam...ions/warrior/]

Turrets
Rifle Turret
Thumper Turret
Net Turret
Flame Turret
Healing Turret

[http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-gam...ons/engineer/]
Previously it sates only one turret can be active at a time

I have specifically stated that you don't do significantly more control/support/damage depending on your weapon/element/etc or that you have definitive roles. All I said was:
Some abilities require changing weapon/kit/element which has a cooldown timer (ie like switching forms for a druid but with a cooldown)
You abilities change when you switch weapon/kit/element (ie like talent specs switching when you change form)
At different points in a fight different amounts of people will need to be more concerned with control and support than at other times (ie like having different number of forms active at different times)

Those quotes backup what I said, so why don't you try and provide evidence which I have been asking for for many pages?

[Drakhar]

The moronic close-mindedness on these last few pages is astounding. Marukale, while at first I thought you actually wanted to have a discussion about GW2's mechanics, you have just proven that you are either retarded or trolling. NineSpine is explaining everything to the finest detail but your responses are "Nuh uh I'm right because I said so." Stop imposing the trinity on things. If you think it's there, you'll see it, even when it's blatantly fucking obvious that it isn't. Confirmation bias, yo. Think of the combat more like a multiplayer action game, not your standard MMORPG trinity. Which, by the way, has worked 9000+ times over in other games, so creating imaginary problems that have no basis is just as stupid.

Guild Wars 2 is less about having and filling a roll and more about playing a Profession with a wide range of abilities that hampers your enemies and augments your allies. It's less of "Okay all I'm going to be doing in this dungeon is snaring enemies or buffing allies," and more of "Alright that guy's targeting the Ranger so I'll drop a glue bomb there and, shit, the necro's low on health so I'll drop a heal turret there. Now okay that skale's low so I'll just finish him off now." You need to damage, you need to control, and you need to support, but you're not a damager, controller, or supporter. You're the profession that you chose from the beginning of the game. Nothing else.

Sums it up perfectly. You're doing everything at once, and how you utilize just one ability can contribute to damaging the enemy/supporting your allies/controlling the enemy. It can't even be considered "switching between roles."

I think the easiest way to view it if you come from WoW is:
Imagine that resto druids used exactly the same gear as feral dps and feral tank druids
Tree form is back to how it was pre cata
Your spec changes when you change form rather than having to do it manually outside of combat
You go into a dungeon with 5 druids
There is a 20 second cooldown on changing forms

With this kind of mindset you will not be able to understand until you actually get some hands-on experience. To put it simply: you should not and can not impose these kinds of comparisons. The trinity was a mechanism enforced by EQ and transferred to WoW, (along with many other things) and now it seems new competitors think it's the only way to do things. One of the many reasons this genre has become painfully stale. Get some new ideas, guys (suppose that could also be said for the video game market at large).

[NineSpine]

I've been in a raiding guild in WoW since mid way through burning crusades, we have never had a shortage of tanks or healers applying to the guild. Currently we have too many healers and are missing some dependable dps.

How often do you see the Dungeon Finder awarding DPS because they are lacking? The shortage is a problem that Blizzard themselves has addressed repeatedly, especially when it comes to tanks.

I like how me choosing the wrong weapons proves i'm wrong that people change weapon to suit which ever role they are taking on. Do you not understand how that proves that people do have to change weapons as the fight requires different things from them?

No, your example shows that your understanding of the game is shallow at best. The difference between a high "control" set and a low "control" set is usually only one more "control" ability, but virtually every type of control is situational. There are a ton of different types of control so these vary wildly based on circumstances. Knockbacks are great for melee, but nearly worthless against ranged, for example. Freeze is nice against melee, but if they can charge or have a speed boost, it is easily negated.

It's not like WoW. You aren't going to switch to a weapon set that suddenly gives you a 10 second lockdown. It doesn't exist. The difference between weapon sets (aside from ranged vs melee sets) is usually mostly flavor. They pretty much all have some control or support. In fact, most Warriors are probably going to have to carry a ranged set and a melee set.

WATER attunement forgoes the raw damage of air and fire, in favor of controlling an opponent's movement. By creating slippery ice or freezing foes solid, water attunement ensures that the battle is always fought on the elementalist's terms. Nearby allies receive continuous healing from an elementalist who is attuned to water.

[http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-gam...elementalist/]

Let's say the Elementalist has a staff equipped. By switching to Ice, all they gain is one stun (only if fully charged and traited) and an AoE slow (on a 45 second cooldown). On top of that, they provide a very, very small amount of AoE healing. That's your example of switching to a strict "control" or "support" role?

A warrior can easily switch between his two active weapon sets in combat as needed, but swapping weapons triggers a cool-down that prevents warriors from constantly flip-flopping between weapons.

[http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-gam...ions/warrior/]

As I said, most of the time this is going to be a ranged set and a melee set. Furthermore, even the most high control weapon set is only marginally more "controlling" than the lower control sets.

Turrets
Rifle Turret
Thumper Turret
Net Turret
Flame Turret
Healing Turret

[http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-gam...ons/engineer/]
Previously it states only one turret can be active at a time

I don't really understand what point you are trying to make with this. Turrets take up a slot. It's not like you can carry 6 of them with you. It's highly unlikely anyone will carry more than one or two.

I have specifically stated that you don't do significantly more control/support/damage depending on your weapon/element/etc or that you have definitive roles. All I said was:
Some abilities require changing weapon/kit/element which has a cooldown timer (ie like switching forms for a druid but with a cooldown)

No, switching forms is a dramatic, dramatic change in the role you are playing, and all druid forms are extremely limited in what they are capable of doing. The druid forms have HARD roles that are very specific and very limited.

You abilities change when you switch weapon/kit/element (ie like talent specs switching when you change form)

Only if you are talking about the difference between something like a Fire Mage and a Frost Mage, but not if you are talking about the difference between a Resto Druid and a Feral Druid.

At different points in a fight different amounts of people will need to be more concerned with control and support than at other times (ie like having different number of forms active at different times)

No, because the forms are very strict and hard roles. Every one has a very specific and single-minded purpose.

Those quotes backup what I said, so why don't you try and provide evidence which I have been asking for for many pages?

Those quotes do not back up what you said. I have provided you with example after example and you just refuse to listen. YOU are the one incapable of providing evidence. You have not given a SINGLE detailed example of what you are talking about. I have talked about actual abilities and actual weapon sets and actual examples of what happens in combat. All you have done is tried to selectively quote things as best you can to make yourself appear right.

[lunaspike]

Did you play Warcraft 1? Well then World of Warcraft must be an RTS! Oh wait...

Actually I did. Yet comparing it to world of warcraft would be bad, but we can compare it to warcraft 2, or starcraft. That would be more accurate.

Also I don't think you played GW or you would know what I'm talking about. There was no "tank" exactly, but there was an agro radius. When I was playing a "tank" I would run in and get a few of the mobs onto me, allowing my group to come in. Sure I wasn't a tank, I was a warrior that used a sword/shield combo but the point was for me to get their attention so that we could kill them. Now my question for you is, isn't that what a tank is?

[NineSpine]

Actually I did. Yet comparing it to world of warcraft would be bad, but we can compare it to warcraft 2, or starcraft. That would be more accurate.

Also I don't think you played GW or you would know what I'm talking about. There was no "tank" exactly, but there was an agro radius. When I was playing a "tank" I would run in and get a few of the mobs onto me, allowing my group to come in. Sure I wasn't a tank, I was a warrior that used a sword/shield combo but the point was for me to get their attention so that we could kill them. Now my question for you is, isn't that what a tank is?

I think you missed the point. You can't assume GW2 is going to have the same mechanics as GW1. There's no reason to make that assumption. It's a pretty radically different game. I have played GW1, but I've also played GW2 at conventions. The aggro mechanics are significantly more complex. Different enemies use different strategies to attack you. Some go after casters, some hit whoever is closest, some attack whoever does the most damage, some go for the person with the lowest health, etc. etc. etc..

[lunaspike]

I think you missed the point. You can't assume GW2 is going to have the same mechanics as GW1. There's no reason to make that assumption. It's a pretty radically different game. I have played GW1, but I've also played GW2 at conventions. The aggro mechanics are significantly more complex. Different enemies use different strategies to attack you. Some go after casters, some hit whoever is closest, some attack whoever does the most damage, some go for the person with the lowest health, etc. etc. etc..

I wasn't trying to say they were the same mechanics. I was trying to point out that GW1 didn't use the standard trinity system, but it still had a cool system in place. Stop thinking that I'm attacking Guild Wars. I'm not, I loved the game. I loved how the system used ai to attack certain targets. What I'm trying to explain is how even though I wasn't a tank by the traditional definition, I could fill a similar role.

Tanks in WoW/RIFT are meat shields that do little damage. In GW though I was a "tank" but still put out significant damage, and I was still able to help with support. All while making mobs attack me at first. It was different, but it was really fun also.

The ai in gw1 wasn't that different. They would prioritize targets with lower health often. That's why a "tank" would need lower health, but it worked because you could do some amazing damage. It was just an interesting system, and I am looking forward to playing GW2 very much.

[Puremallace]

Tanks in WoW/RIFT are meat shields that do little damage. In GW though I was a "tank" but still put out significant damage, and I was still able to help with support. All while making mobs attack me at first. It was different, but it was really fun also.

The ai in gw1 wasn't that different. They would prioritize targets with lower health often. That's why a "tank" would need lower health, but it worked because you could do some amazing damage. It was just an interesting system, and I am looking forward to playing GW2 very much.

Aand you see nothing wrong with a high mitigation tank build that puts out high dps? seriously? Like I keep saying. Just release GW2 already and stop the stupid hype.

[NineSpine]

I wasn't trying to say they were the same mechanics. I was trying to point out that GW1 didn't use the standard trinity system, but it still had a cool system in place. Stop thinking that I'm attacking Guild Wars. I'm not, I loved the game. I loved how the system used ai to attack certain targets. What I'm trying to explain is how even though I wasn't a tank by the traditional definition, I could fill a similar role.

Tanks in WoW/RIFT are meat shields that do little damage. In GW though I was a "tank" but still put out significant damage, and I was still able to help with support. All while making mobs attack me at first. It was different, but it was really fun also.

The ai in gw1 wasn't that different. They would prioritize targets with lower health often. That's why a "tank" would need lower health, but it worked because you could do some amazing damage. It was just an interesting system, and I am looking forward to playing GW2 very much.

GW1 has a very hack-and-slash feel to it when running missions. It's somewhere between your average MMO and a game play Diablo. That's one of the reasons I like it, and seems to be one of the reasons you do too. GW2 will have a similar feel, but taken to a much more complex level because of the increased amount of utility and synergy everyone will have. You can still play a class that will get beaten on more if you want. Warrior or Guardian, or even Necromancer specced the right way, all work great for that.

[Blznsmri]

Aand you see nothing wrong with a high mitigation tank build that puts out high dps? seriously? Like I keep saying. Just release GW2 already and stop the stupid hype.

Just... just please. Stop talking about shit you don't know. Seriously, you look like a dumb ass.

[Drakhar]

Aand you see nothing wrong with a high mitigation tank build that puts out high dps? seriously? Like I keep saying. Just release GW2 already and stop the stupid hype.

Nice job proving (once again) that you're an idiot and possess neither knowledge about GW2 nor the ability to read posts not even 1 page back.

[marukale]

How often do you see the Dungeon Finder awarding DPS because they are lacking? The shortage is a problem that Blizzard themselves has addressed repeatedly, especially when it comes to tanks.

My original quote was:
As far as I am aware the only real information on healers and tanks is that they are hard to find for PuGs. I've never seen any reputable report that they are missing from the game.
You claim that I am lying so I explain that I have never had a problem finding tanks and healers in the guilds I have been in and then you start talking about PuGs which I already said were missing tanks and healers. Either you are not reading what I type or intentionally trolling. FYI there was a blue post saying they might allow rewards at lower levels where you can often be waiting on DPS, it isn't because there is a shortage of DPS it is that there is a shortage of DPS using the Dungeon Finder

No, your example shows that your understanding of the game is shallow at best. The difference between a high "control" set and a low "control" set is usually only one more "control" ability, but virtually every type of control is situational. There are a ton of different types of control so these vary wildly based on circumstances. Knockbacks are great for melee, but nearly worthless against ranged, for example. Freeze is nice against melee, but if they can charge or have a speed boost, it is easily negated.

It's not like WoW. You aren't going to switch to a weapon set that suddenly gives you a 10 second lockdown. It doesn't exist. The difference between weapon sets (aside from ranged vs melee sets) is usually mostly flavor. They pretty much all have some control or support. In fact, most Warriors are probably going to have to carry a ranged set and a melee set.
[I]


Let's say the Elementalist has a staff equipped. By switching to Ice, all they gain is one stun (only if fully charged and traited) and an AoE slow (on a 45 second cooldown). On top of that, they provide a very, very small amount of AoE healing. That's your example of switching to a strict "control" or "support" role?
[I]

I never said it made a significant difference and I didn't say anything about a strict role. Your priorities shift and you change your weapon sets appropriately to deal with it.

As I said, most of the time this is going to be a ranged set and a melee set. Furthermore, even the most high control weapon set is only marginally more "controlling" than the lower control sets.
[I]


I don't really understand what point you are trying to make with this. Turrets take up a slot. It's not like you can carry 6 of them with you. It's highly unlikely anyone will carry more than one or two.

The point I was making is that some setup before a fight dictates how well you will do at different aspects of the fight.

No, switching forms is a dramatic, dramatic change in the role you are playing, and all druid forms are extremely limited in what they are capable of doing. The druid forms have HARD roles that are very specific and very limited.

Only if you are talking about the difference between something like a Fire Mage and a Frost Mage, but not if you are talking about the difference between a Resto Druid and a Feral Druid.

No, because the forms are very strict and hard roles. Every one has a very specific and single-minded purpose.

I was using the example of druid forms as that is the easiest for people to relate with when something about the character in battle causes a change in their abilities to cope with something. If you want me to use mages then it could easily be said to be:
When you equip a staff you become a frost mage
When you equip a dagger you become a fire mage
When you equip a sword you become an arcane mage
Depending on what is happening you equip a different weapon to gain a slight advantage in what you are doing.

Those quotes do not back up what you said. I have provided you with example after example and you just refuse to listen. YOU are the one incapable of providing evidence. You have not given a SINGLE detailed example of what you are talking about. I have talked about actual abilities and actual weapon sets and actual examples of what happens in combat. All you have done is tried to selectively quote things as best you can to make yourself appear right.

To be honest I have lost faith that you even know what I am saying, nearly all your example support my point of view and then you claim that it shows that you don't have "strict" roles or "dedicated" roles which is not what I am saying.

Are you saying that at no point in any fight in GW2 are you going to be in the situation where one mob needs to be slowed and in response someone isn't going to change something about their character so they can slow it more effectively?

That is the essence of what I am saying. There are things that need to be done outside of damage and some people are going to be willing to do them, some will refuse and some will really want to do them. I'm not saying that it is bad or the game will fail because of it yet you are getting very defensive about it.

---------- Post added 2011-07-14 at 09:51 PM ----------

The moronic close-mindedness on these last few pages is astounding. Marukale, while at first I thought you actually wanted to have a discussion about GW2's mechanics, you have just proven that you are either retarded or trolling. NineSpine is explaining everything to the finest detail but your responses are "Nuh uh I'm right because I said so." Stop imposing the trinity on things. If you think it's there, you'll see it, even when it's blatantly fucking obvious that it isn't. Confirmation bias, yo. Think of the combat more like a multiplayer action game, not your standard MMORPG trinity. Which, by the way, has worked 9000+ times over in other games, so creating imaginary problems that have no basis is just as stupid.

Sums it up perfectly. You're doing everything at once, and how you utilize just one ability can contribute to damaging the enemy/supporting your allies/controlling the enemy. It can't even be considered "switching between roles."

With this kind of mindset you will not be able to understand until you actually get some hands-on experience. To put it simply: you should not and can not impose these kinds of comparisons. The trinity was a mechanism enforced by EQ and transferred to WoW, (along with many other things) and now it seems new competitors think it's the only way to do things. One of the many reasons this genre has become painfully stale. Get some new ideas, guys (suppose that could also be said for the video game market at large).

I'm not close-minded, I am very open to people pointing me at information that shows my perspective is wrong. For some reason people don't seem to want to or try to argue something I have never said is wrong. The developers have admitted they have a trinity, it is very different to the one used by WoW and it is very diluted with everyone being able to do everything and pretty much everyone having to do everything during the fight. There will be minor ways you can min-max for a role before a fight and during a fight you can change you character via things like switching weapons to make you slightly better at one specific aspect.

What specifically do you think is wrong with that statement?

[NineSpine]

My original quote was:
As far as I am aware the only real information on healers and tanks is that they are hard to find for PuGs. I've never seen any reputable report that they are missing from the game.
You claim that I am lying so I explain that I have never had a problem finding tanks and healers in the guilds I have been in and then you start talking about PuGs which I already said were missing tanks and healers. Either you are not reading what I type or intentionally trolling. FYI there was a blue post saying they might allow rewards at lower levels where you can often be waiting on DPS, it isn't because there is a shortage of DPS it is that there is a shortage of DPS using the Dungeon Finder



I never said it made a significant difference and I didn't say anything about a strict role. Your priorities shift and you change your weapon sets appropriately to deal with it.


The point I was making is that some setup before a fight dictates how well you will do at different aspects of the fight.


I was using the example of druid forms as that is the easiest for people to relate with when something about the character in battle causes a change in their abilities to cope with something. If you want me to use mages then it could easily be said to be:
When you equip a staff you become a frost mage
When you equip a dagger you become a fire mage
When you equip a sword you become an arcane mage
Depending on what is happening you equip a different weapon to gain a slight advantage in what you are doing.



To be honest I have lost faith that you even know what I am saying, nearly all your example support my point of view and then you claim that it shows that you don't have "strict" roles or "dedicated" roles which is not what I am saying.

Are you saying that at no point in any fight in GW2 are you going to be in the situation where one mob needs to be slowed and in response someone isn't going to change something about their character so they can slow it more effectively?

That is the essence of what I am saying. There are things that need to be done outside of damage and some people are going to be willing to do them, some will refuse and some will really want to do them. I'm not saying that it is bad or the game will fail because of it yet you are getting very defensive about it.

---------- Post added 2011-07-14 at 09:51 PM ----------



I'm not close-minded, I am very open to people pointing me at information that shows my perspective is wrong. For some reason people don't seem to want to or try to argue something I have never said is wrong. The developers have admitted they have a trinity, it is very different to the one used by WoW and it is very diluted with everyone being able to do everything and pretty much everyone having to do everything during the fight. There will be minor ways you can min-max for a role before a fight and during a fight you can change you character via things like switching weapons to make you slightly better at one specific aspect.

What specifically do you think is wrong with that statement?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when your arrogance and ignorance are both so profound and run so deep that you would rather pretend you were making a different argument the whole time than simply admit you were wrong. I rest my case.

[marukale]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when your arrogance and ignorance are both so profound and run so deep that you would rather pretend you were making a different argument the whole time than simply admit you were wrong. I rest my case.

Unfortunatly I can show you my entire argument to show you that it has never changed:

Post #358 2011-07-12 03:34PM

GW2 has roles, they are set up before the fight starts, people can take over another role but will perform sub-optimally at it. (same as WoW especially in 5 man content although some classes can't do some roles)

Everyone needs to be aware of what everyone is doing in the fight to do well (same as wow when looking at competitive end game content)

GW2 has slightly different roles and is more fluid in how many you need of each role but that doesn't seem like a significant difference.

#369 2011-07-12 05:23PM

The developers of GW2 say that there is a control role, that role may be split between multiple people, it may also be only one part of what a person does but it is required. So if you have a group of 5 people non of which want to do any controlling, in the same way that you can get 5 WoW players and non of which want to heal, you can't do a dungeon.

#373 2011-07-12 05:30PM

I understand what you are saying, I'm just saying it is not a radically different style to a game such as rift, you still have roles, people need to fulfill those roles (I'm not saying a person has only 1 role or the role stays constant throughout the fight).

#432 2011-07-13 4:02AM

1) there are roles that need to be fulfilled (damage, control and support)
1a) damage is similar to dps
1b) support is similar to healing
1c) control is similar to tanking although achieved through different mechanisms
2) a role can be fulfilled by multiple people at a given time
3) a character will not be doing one role or at least not the same role throughout the entire fight (with possible exception of people being able to stay damage for the entire fight - if they are particularly lazy)
4) a character will be specialised for a specific role based on things they cannot change during a fight
5) a character not specialised for a specific role can do that role adequately in most cases
6) class does not limit the ability to do a role

#495 2011-07-13 05:00PM

So there is some min/maxing before a fight. Once the fight starts you can do whichever role is required but obviously you are optimally suited for the one you have maxed for. Its a much more fluid version of roles than you have in WoW where probably the closest you get are things like druid forms or maybe shadow form for priests and in WoW there is a much harsher penalty for doing the role you are not specced for.

---

I never said anything about GW2 having dedicated roles (I did talk a bit about how people like dedicated roles)
I specifically said that people would be doing multiple roles throughout a fight and at the same time
I specifically said that there would be minor differences to how well people can perform roles based on their specialization which can't be changed during a fight
I specifically said that if someone wasn't specialised for a role that they could still perform it and probably will

So how is it when I state:
The developers have admitted they have a trinity, it is very different to the one used by WoW and it is very diluted with everyone being able to do everything and pretty much everyone having to do everything during the fight. There will be minor ways you can min-max for a role before a fight and during a fight you can change you character via things like switching weapons to make you slightly better at one specific aspect.

You think that I have changed my argument? It is exactly the same argument I have been stating the whole time. Which is why each time you have given an example which backs up my point I have tried to explain it again but each time you got preoccupied with ideas about strict roles and predefined leaders and all sorts of other nonsense.

[Blznsmri]

1) there are roles that need to be fulfilled (damage, control and support)

But there isn't...

Here, read this.

Guild Wars 2 is less about having and filling a roll and more about playing a Profession with a wide range of abilities that hampers your enemies and augments your allies. It's less of "Okay all I'm going to be doing in this dungeon is snaring enemies or buffing allies," and more of "Alright that guy's targeting the Ranger so I'll drop a glue bomb there and, shit, the necro's low on health so I'll drop a heal turret there. Now okay that skale's low so I'll just finish him off now." You need to damage, you need to control, and you need to support, but you're not a damager, controller, or supporter. You're the profession that you chose from the beginning of the game. Nothing else.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Relente]

GW2 is all about using the right skills in order to keep your party alive, while still dealing damage out to the enemies. Damage skills don't cost much, while defensive skills cost a lot and are not spammable. It is all going to be about knowing what to use in the situation.

There are no tanks and healers because you can't be using defensive skills the whole time or you will be out of energy. Also, people aren't suppose to be just sitting there taking damage like most MMOs. There is dodging, and some professions have barrier, reflect, and deflect skills.

There are damage dealers, and yes there will be people who will just damage instead of helping out the group, but they will quickly learn they can't do that. Everyone essentially is every role (support, control, damage) because everyone has the skills / weapons sets to fulfill all those roles at any given time. There is no tank, healer, or damage marks over player icons telling people what they are suppose to be doing, they should be acting accordingly to what is happening during the fights.

[Myrrar]

We already warned about fighting back and forth over nothing and insults.

Closing.