Roles should be defined for each class, exclusivity should be promoted for certain roles. — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Professions

Roles should be defined for each class, exclusivity should be promoted for certain roles.

Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited December 15, 2020 in Professions

@someone in the forums said:

Other professions, have a (this) role, (that) role, etc.
Except (blank).

It is this sentiment, and the fact that devs respond to it that is probably ruining this game's ability to be balanced.

Every class should NOT be able to do every role.

As a matter of fact, there should be roles that each class is explicitly excluded from to eliminate confusion.

Edit: Furthermore, reduce roles for each class to 2 max, depending on game mode it can be slightly more flexible at a dear cost to efficacy.

Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) nom nom nom🥔
Fun Daredevil

Comments

  • HnRkLnXqZ.1870HnRkLnXqZ.1870 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2020

    The role-thinking is a raid-only issue. That content got discontinued. The remaining instanced-content can be played with assigned roles as well, but it is an overkill and in most cases completely unnecessary. The flexible classes which can do different jobs are better fit for this content, because they are less stiff and can adapt to challenges and problems better. If your healer laggs in a role-run, your group is dead. In a real party, that is not much of a problem and definitely not a reason for a full wipe.

  • Yasai.3549Yasai.3549 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I agree but, only for Elite Specs.

    I would like all Professions to be able to explore all aspects, yes, but what I do not want is some Professions which can double down on multiple aspects with a single build.

    What I'm talking about are things like Firebrand, which can not only output decent damage, but can apply offensive boons as well as provide some durability to their allies.
    When this sort of build becomes available, all metas will be dominated by that single profession due to how efficient it is at filling multiple roles, and be the best at filling those said roles.

    Simply put : For Core, all Professions should be able to "do it all" to some small extent. (We already have this, but some Profession could use more brushing up)
    But when it comes to Elite Specializations which "mold" and "define" a certain playstyle, Elite Specs should ABSOLUTELY NOT be able to "do it all"

    If I play a stupid build, I deserve to die.
    If I beat people on a stupid build, I deserve to get away with it.

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @kharmin.7683 said:
    I disagree. Not having a set trinity system or specifically designated "roles" for professions is what makes GW2 unique in the genre. I would not like to be pushed into a small sub-set of professions just to clear content.

    I understand that you disagree, but you have not validated your point of how this (what we have) is better.

    If you want to be an assassin, play the assassin classes. If you want to be tank/damage, play the tank damage classes. If you want to be a healer/support, play the healer/supoort classes.

    Devs should not cater to "you" meaning all the "yous" that want their assassin class to be the tank/support.

    When they try to balance for "screaming and whining" for players like this, we get GW2, or as the MMO world has come to know (not know) as GWWho?

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) nom nom nom🥔
    Fun Daredevil

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2020

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:
    I disagree. Not having a set trinity system or specifically designated "roles" for professions is what makes GW2 unique in the genre. I would not like to be pushed into a small sub-set of professions just to clear content.

    I understand that you disagree, but you have not validated your point of how this (what we have) is better.

    If you want to be an assassin, play the assassin classes. If you want to be tank/damage, play the tank damage classes. If you want to be a healer/support, play the healer/supoort classes.

    Devs should not cater to "you" meaning all the "yous" that want their assassin class to be the tank/support.

    When they try to balance for "screaming and whining" for players like this, we get GW2, or as the MMO world has come to know (not know) as GWWho?

    The problem with your proposal is that we don't have 'roles' .. or if you say we do because of the similarity of skills in a class, those 'roles' don't impact the design of content NOR is there a relationship between 'roles' and balance in the first place.

    And it's irrelevant if what Kharmin says is better or not ... Something being better isn't a reason to change what we have now. Imposing a 'role' based system in an 8 YO MMO with the premise of 'better for balance' requires ALOT more than 4 sentences to explain what you are trying to do and why it should be done.

    The fact is that people who are playing this game value their flexibility to play what they want when they want how they want. You literally want to throw that away because of some unfounded hypothesis that it's the best (or maybe only?) path to balance ... that seems pretty irrelevant to me considering we have been just fine the way it is for the last 8 years.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @RUNICBLACK.7630 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:
    I disagree. Not having a set trinity system or specifically designated "roles" for professions is what makes GW2 unique in the genre. I would not like to be pushed into a small sub-set of professions just to clear content.

    I understand that you disagree, but you have not validated your point of how this (what we have) is better.

    And nowhere in your argument have you validated your point of view either, you have just expressed your opinion as if it were fact .
    Just to let you know texting "As a matter of fact " doesn't make your following statement a fact it is still just a turn of phrase if you have no supporting Data to go with it and please refrain from using circular logic to support your statements.

    Yeah, stay on topic please.

    You are not contributing to the discussion just attacking me.

    And that is a "matter of fact", I quoted you to prove it.

    I said the system is probably why it is so hard for devs to balance the game.

    I also said, in my response, that if you want to play a certain way, then play the class that plays it.

    Honestly, if every class should be able to do everything, then we should really only have one class and you can spec and build up to play like that on one class....

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) nom nom nom🥔
    Fun Daredevil

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @someone in the forums said:

    Other professions, have a (this) role, (that) role, etc.
    Except (blank).

    It is this sentiment, and the fact that devs respond to it that is probably ruining this game's ability to be balanced.

    Every class should NOT be able to do every role.

    As a matter of fact, there should be roles that each class is explicitly excluded from to eliminate confusion.

    Edit: Furthermore, reduce roles for each class to 2 max, depending on game mode it can be slightly more flexible at a dear cost to efficacy.

    So what roles would you assign to each profession? And what especs would you change to fit those new profession roles? Give us a nice list to think about.

  • Mungo Zen.9364Mungo Zen.9364 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2020

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:
    Honestly, if every class should be able to do everything, then we should really only have one class and you can spec and build up to play like that on one class....

    I really don't feel this is an accurate statement for the way the game is today, yesterday or in the future. Not all professions can do all things equally well.

    I would suggest that every Profession has areas they are stronger or weaker, and that is where the roles are defined. Can your profession CC? Can they Group Buff? Can they Condi Cleanse? These and more are the areas where Profession division occurs, not at Tank, DPS or Heals.

    If you look at Meta for T4 Fractals and Raids/Strikes, the balance is derived by who can bring what based upon the toolset of each Profession. The Meta is built around what each profession excels in context to each other in a group setting.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2020

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:
    ... if every class should be able to do everything, then we should really only have one class and you can spec and build up to play like that on one class....

    Except that kind of thinking completely discounts any reason people have to choose a class that isn't related to what the class does. You may not understand it, but people have many reasons they pick classes to play and because of how this game is designed, what those classes do is just not that relevant of a factor to consider for choosing one.

    See, no matter how you want to cut it ... people playing how they want, with the classes they like and where they want to use those classes is a MASSIVE selling point for this game. Your suggestion completely destroys that fundamental aspect of the game; an aspect that this game is designed around.

    Is introducing roles good or bad? Doesn't matter. Almost NONE of the content in this game is based on role-specific play ... so you aren't really accomplishing anything with your idea other than removing players' choices. Forcing classes into roles doesn't work without a complete overhaul of it's skills as well as a whole wack of content designed around the roles that are being imposed. Your approach has nothing to offer in the current gamestate, would require TONS of work from Anet and diminishes the game for many people ... it's probably one of the worst ideas I've heard on these forums yet.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It's not up to us to prove you're wrong. You're the one who wants to completely overhaul the balance of the game, it's up to you to prove that your reasoning is justified.

    The promise right at the start of GW2 is that every profession had the capability to fulfill every role, they just did so differently. That's been watered down a bit as time goes on, since there are some profession/role combinations that have yet to be covered, but that was the general promise. I'd also note that having strict roles for professions would get really awkward in the open world. I really wouldn't want to be stuck trying to play something like a GW1 Monk in any GW2 solo content without a party to heal. (Heck, even in GW1, playing a monk with a hench/hero party is a bit awkward, however fun it could be playing a monk in a party of real players).

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    I agree but, only for Elite Specs.

    I would like all Professions to be able to explore all aspects, yes, but what I do not want is some Professions which can double down on multiple aspects with a single build.

    What I'm talking about are things like Firebrand, which can not only output decent damage, but can apply offensive boons as well as provide some durability to their allies.
    When this sort of build becomes available, all metas will be dominated by that single profession due to how efficient it is at filling multiple roles, and be the best at filling those said roles.

    Simply put : For Core, all Professions should be able to "do it all" to some small extent. (We already have this, but some Profession could use more brushing up)
    But when it comes to Elite Specializations which "mold" and "define" a certain playstyle, Elite Specs should ABSOLUTELY NOT be able to "do it all"

    You DO realise those are different builds, right?

    Healbrands aren't exactly known for their damage output. Quickbrands are a compromise, and give up about 13% of their damage output compared to pure DPS condition firebrands - and they're far from being the top benchmark in DPS in the game even considering Ashes of the Just on allies. Outside of having the healbrand build, firebrand is similar to berserker - you can provide quickness and have about the same DPS as a bannerslave, or if that's covered, you can go pure DPS and have about the same damage (slightly less, in fact) as a pure DPS berserker.

  • Yasai.3549Yasai.3549 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2020

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    You DO realise those are different builds, right?

    Healbrands aren't exactly known for their damage output. Quickbrands are a compromise, and give up about 13% of their damage output compared to pure DPS condition firebrands - and they're far from being the top benchmark in DPS in the game even considering Ashes of the Just on allies. Outside of having the healbrand build, firebrand is similar to berserker - you can provide quickness and have about the same DPS as a bannerslave, or if that's covered, you can go pure DPS and have about the same damage (slightly less, in fact) as a pure DPS berserker.

    Quickbrands are exactly the one build I'm talking about.
    They give up some dps, but still do consistently better dps than other supports.

    They give Might, and they give Quickness on Aegis, they give Quickness on Stability, all of which are boons which boost Offensive capabilities and durabilities.

    I have not mentioned anything about healing at all.

    If I play a stupid build, I deserve to die.
    If I beat people on a stupid build, I deserve to get away with it.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    And as I noted, Quickbrand benches about what bannerslave warrior does, and quickbrand doesn't have the guaranteed slot that bannerslave does.

    Compared to chrono, quickbrand doesn't provide alacrity, so you need a second hybrid to make up the difference. As it happens, there are hybrid chrono builds that also primarily provide quickness, and the higher DPS variants of these builds bench about the same DPS as quickbrand does.

    And that seems to be the broad balance for builds that aren't pure DPS. You can provide one support function, such as providing Quickness or banners, and still have a DPS benchmark that's decent but not at the level that a pure DPS build can achieve. Or you can have two support functions, such as quickness and alacrity or healing and a significant buff, at the price of giving up most of your DPS.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It's worth noting that back in the day, what we normally call 'tanking' was also slotted under the banner of 'control'. Essentially, the roles were dealing damage, supporting your allies while they dealt damage, or controlling the enemy's ability to deal damage. Getting the enemy to hit you (while having the appropriate skills and/or stats to survive those hits) was regarded as a form of control just as much as more direct forms such as stuns.

  • Noh.5092Noh.5092 Member ✭✭

    Honestly I feel like while the lack of trinity is part of what makes GW2 what it is, it's also it's most glaring flaw. I think this path ultimately stunted the popularity of GW2.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Noh.5092 said:
    Honestly I feel like while the lack of trinity is part of what makes GW2 what it is, it's also it's most glaring flaw. I think this path ultimately stunted the popularity of GW2.

    Hard to say. A lot of MMOs that did have trinities failed. In the MMO space, you need to have something that distinguishes your game from WoW, or WoW is just going to beat you with Blizzard's greater resources. Taking a different approach might well have attracted just as many players who don't like the idea of classes being strictly limited to roles as people it turned away who do like strict roles.

    Keeping in mind, of course, that after HoT at least roles certainly exist, it's just that it's generally a matter of your choice of build within your profession, rather than monks always being support and so on.

  • Spook.5847Spook.5847 Member ✭✭
    edited December 17, 2020

    @dodgerrule.8739 said:
    Sorry but I don’t think that should be done. That would be putting limits on play and not having freedom to choose.

    Every class should be able to perform most roles. The fact atm is that there’s only like 2-3 builds for tanks. Without more expansion there will never be diversity in endgame content.

    If you ever played a game that had real classes that were properly formed around a role, you'd know how extremely limited and weak the design of GW2 actually is (weapon swap mechanic being the lone exception). I think EQ1 had the very best examples of pure classes, as well as hybrids that sacrificed power in chosen traits for versatility as the OP is discussing. Now that the guy pushing this restrictive "vision" has left the building, it might be worth lobbying for some changes that actually help the game.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 17, 2020

    @Spook.5847 said:

    @dodgerrule.8739 said:
    Sorry but I don’t think that should be done. That would be putting limits on play and not having freedom to choose.

    Every class should be able to perform most roles. The fact atm is that there’s only like 2-3 builds for tanks. Without more expansion there will never be diversity in endgame content.

    If you ever played a game that had real classes that were properly formed around a role, you'd know how extremely limited and weak the design of GW2 actually is (weapon swap mechanic being the lone exception). I think EQ1 had the very best examples of pure classes, as well as hybrids that sacrificed power in chosen traits for versatility as the OP is discussing. Now that the guy pushing this restrictive "vision" has left the building, it might be worth lobbying for some changes that actually help the game.

    Let's not be too assumptive here ... what 'change' is being lobbied here and how do you think it helps the game? Certainly NOT the change of imposing roles on classes that the game is NOT designed around ... Not sure how people playing how they want, what they want, when they want is 'restrictive' in your opinion ... but the game is built around it so affecting classes 'roles' is at best a big nothing, at worst, ruining the reason most people play this game.

    Imagine this ... for argument sake, Anet decides to change Firebrand to ... healer ... and likewise for other specs ... and then what? You have a bunch of specs in the game so specific to a role that their skills are mostly useless in the content that exists ... yeah ... really 'helpful' to the game.

    The OP has it completely wrong because the game is not designed around whatever 'roles' he imagines classes have that he claims they need to be excluded from in the first place. He's borrowing his idea from SWTOR... except SWTOR is about as holy trinity of a game as you can get. GW2 is the OPPOSITE of that. It's absurd to think some imposition of 'roles rules' on GW2 somehow fixes ... whatever he thinks is broken.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Veprovina.4876Veprovina.4876 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 17, 2020

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:
    I disagree. Not having a set trinity system or specifically designated "roles" for professions is what makes GW2 unique in the genre. I would not like to be pushed into a small sub-set of professions just to clear content.

    I understand that you disagree, but you have not validated your point of how this (what we have) is better.

    If you want to be an assassin, play the assassin classes. If you want to be tank/damage, play the tank damage classes. If you want to be a healer/support, play the healer/supoort classes.

    Devs should not cater to "you" meaning all the "yous" that want their assassin class to be the tank/support.

    When they try to balance for "screaming and whining" for players like this, we get GW2, or as the MMO world has come to know (not know) as GWWho?

    That wouldn't work in GW2 because there isn't a "tank class" nor should it be - the game is balanced around gear so there is "tank gear", "dps gear" and simmilar. Actually making classes have roles with the current gear system would be even harder to balance.

    With the current system, your "role" largely depends on your gear. Some are more suited for a "role" than others, but you can switch the "role" by just switching the gear.
    In order for a class to have a role defined from the get go - all gear would need to be the same, and classes would have to have predefined stats. That would of course get really boring really soon as you can't just switch from your support build on your main to a dps build by just using different gear.

    And since Anet surely won't change how gear works, any attempt at making class specific roles via trait and skill changes will inevitabley fail, and they know that.

    Ultimately, GW2 is unique because there's no trinity, because there's no roles, it's unique because your "role" is defined by what gear you use and what utility skills you slot for a certain encounter. The game is balanced around that fact. Predetermined class roles wouldn't work.

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Spook.5847 said:

    @dodgerrule.8739 said:
    Sorry but I don’t think that should be done. That would be putting limits on play and not having freedom to choose.

    Every class should be able to perform most roles. The fact atm is that there’s only like 2-3 builds for tanks. Without more expansion there will never be diversity in endgame content.

    If you ever played a game that had real classes that were properly formed around a role, you'd know how extremely limited and weak the design of GW2 actually is (weapon swap mechanic being the lone exception). I think EQ1 had the very best examples of pure classes, as well as hybrids that sacrificed power in chosen traits for versatility as the OP is discussing. Now that the guy pushing this restrictive "vision" has left the building, it might be worth lobbying for some changes that actually help the game.

    Let's not be too assumptive here ... what 'change' is being lobbied here and how do you think it helps the game? Certainly NOT the change of imposing roles on classes that the game is NOT designed around ... Not sure how people playing how they want, what they want, when they want is 'restrictive' in your opinion ... but the game is built around it so affecting classes 'roles' is at best a big nothing, at worst, ruining the reason most people play this game.

    Imagine this ... for argument sake, Anet decides to change Firebrand to ... healer ... and likewise for other specs ... and then what? You have a bunch of specs in the game so specific to a role that their skills are mostly useless in the content that exists ... yeah ... really 'helpful' to the game.

    The OP has it completely wrong because the game is not designed around whatever 'roles' he imagines classes have that he claims they need to be excluded from in the first place. He's borrowing his idea from SWTOR... except SWTOR is about as holy trinity of a game as you can get. GW2 is the OPPOSITE of that. It's absurd to think some imposition of 'roles rules' on GW2 somehow fixes ... whatever he thinks is broken.

    Exactly. The classes are balanced around gear use, and have different utility skills for different uses that all synergize with certain stats. Forcing a class into a certain role means that they're forced to use one type of gear, and that other utility skills will be useless.

    Moreover, if they suddenly decide to change their whole philosophy regarding classes, scrap all gear, make it all the same and lock stats to each class (let's say, berserker's for warriors, minstrel's for firebrands etc.), and scrap all the utility skills that aren't meant for the stat combo they locked...

    Well it would be REALLY boring and i'd stop playing. :tongue:
    I like the fact that i can use Minstrel's Chrono for WvW support, and then switch to Condi Mirage for PvE content.
    If i was locked into just one role that a Mesmer would occupy, i wouldn't play the game.

  • The Boz.2038The Boz.2038 Member ✭✭✭

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:
    Every class should NOT be able to do every role.

    As a matter of fact, there should be roles that each class is explicitly excluded from to eliminate confusion.

    Edit: Furthermore, reduce roles for each class to 2 max, depending on game mode it can be slightly more flexible at a dear cost to efficacy.

    No. Please leave.

  • Right now, every class does not fill a role. I haven't seen s healing Warrior or Thief build yet. I think ANet was on to something for trying to avoid the Holy Trinity. In fact the initial GW wasn't a Holy Trinity system either. Necros and Mesmers always brought their own flavor of support to the game, by turning boons into conditions and making attacks self inflicting.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    Right now, every class does not fill a role. I haven't seen s healing Warrior or Thief build yet. I think ANet was on to something for trying to avoid the Holy Trinity. In fact the initial GW wasn't a Holy Trinity system either. Necros and Mesmers always brought their own flavor of support to the game, by turning boons into conditions and making attacks self inflicting.

    Healbreaker has become a thing in sPvP, oddly enough, but that's largely due to other support builds being nerfed pretty much out of existence. With a new round of elite specialisations coming, though, there's the opportunity for those professions that don't have a support-oriented elite specialisation to get one.

  • Infusion.7149Infusion.7149 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 21, 2020

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    Right now, every class does not fill a role. I haven't seen s healing Warrior or Thief build yet. I think ANet was on to something for trying to avoid the Holy Trinity. In fact the initial GW wasn't a Holy Trinity system either. Necros and Mesmers always brought their own flavor of support to the game, by turning boons into conditions and making attacks self inflicting.

    To expand on this : Just because a build doesn't exist now doesn't mean it never existed , especially when you account for competitive modes and not just PvE.

    Minstrel chrono with wells/mantras (for heal output and not just boons) and minstrel warrior with shouts (WvW) existed. Paladin amulet shouts spellbreaker still is in use to a lesser extent in PvP.
    Cele dagger/dagger ele existed in core days.
    There's been very offmeta heal thiefs using stealth for heals.

    Mesmers do provide boon rip and interrupts , it's just not exclusive to mesmers.


    Warrior: power, condi, support all accounted for (although full heal type support is not common, banner is technically support as is any might generating tactics warrior running empower allies)
    Guardian: power, condi, support all accounted for
    Revenant: power, condi, support all accounted for

    Ranger: power, condi, support all accounted for
    Engineer: power, condi, support all accounted for (although condi isn't as user friendly ; heal scrapper with med kit common in WvW)
    Thief: power, condi is pretty much meme after deadly ambition nerfs , support is gimmicky except in boon thief

    Mesmer: power, condi, support all accounted for (although healing is lackluster, boon chrono remains a staple)
    Elementalist: power, condi, support all accounted for
    Necromancer: power, condi, support all accounted for


    That's not even counting any future elite specs. To shoehorn people into one class for each role is a terrible idea. More options is better , even if some are slightly worse in some aspects.

    For example, you generally don't use heal scourge or heal tempest but some people use them for ease and ignoring mechanics (because transfusion is on low cooldown and rebound stops down state).

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Infusion.7149 It amuses me that for the rest you've used the profession title, but you've used 'Tempest' for Elementalist.

    In part because it's not wrong - Tempest can do all of those things, although Weaver can sometimes edge it out in DPS roles and in bunkering.

  • Noh.5092Noh.5092 Member ✭✭

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    @Noh.5092 said:
    Honestly I feel like while the lack of trinity is part of what makes GW2 what it is, it's also it's most glaring flaw. I think this path ultimately stunted the popularity of GW2.

    Hard to say. A lot of MMOs that did have trinities failed. In the MMO space, you need to have something that distinguishes your game from WoW, or WoW is just going to beat you with Blizzard's greater resources. Taking a different approach might well have attracted just as many players who don't like the idea of classes being strictly limited to roles as people it turned away who do like strict roles.

    Keeping in mind, of course, that after HoT at least roles certainly exist, it's just that it's generally a matter of your choice of build within your profession, rather than monks always being support and so on.

    Not really tho...

    FF14, WOW, DOFUS, even EVE in a weird fleet logi way all are doing well. Experimental games like GW2, Wakfu aren't. Wakfu is in fact joked as a single player mmo now, that's how low pop it is, I know that it's rough to hear the opinion that GW2 isn't doing well but hear me out, it's not thriving;

    It's neglected, it's obvious they realized the lack of trinity didn't work/appeal to most and so they went for a best of both merge, and that's smart but the issue is that it's also trying too hard to be both.
    The game has got glaring issues in the support side of the game, bloat, currency bloat, bugs, an incredibly toxic spvp scene and i'm not even going to start on the hackers, or how asking to report them universally gets a "but that won't do anything" reply from both teams, which is in no way or world a good thing.

    An absolute total lack of modern features, quality of life features, like group finding is so archaic compared to other said mmo's being able to queue to find people. A skeleton crew of devs, balance issues left and right, people who love classes quitting them for others because they get nerfed in a way that rips the fun out, people trying to make whole builds viable but ending in frustration, let's be real now.

    FF14 & wow are much more alive and thriving, and those are expansion bought + sub games, this is a game with a f2p core and no sub game, getting people shouldn't be hard with that, the gw2 game state is dire tho, you got people arguing openly in /m, you got people debunking on reddit the gw2 community is so nice reputation, essentially it's strongest strength is old data.

    Balance has messed up the low level experience too, low level dungeons are way harder than at release due to the changes made, still not yet addressed.

    I'm not a fan of wow, but Blizzard's greater resources? that's an excuse, you know it is, they earned it and they invested in it. It's also not THE mmo people are trying to beat, that's an excuse communities of mmo's use instead of looking at the glaring issues of said mmo, at the time there were other mmo's doing absolutely fine, isometric ones, sidescrolling ones, turn based ones, but WOW had the marketing & that's the one thing they did amazingly, nothing stops any other dev of GW's size from doing the same. The ton's of money people spend on cosmetics in this game do you really think that they invest those back into the game at the same level as some other devs? come on...

    Archeage thrived till the devs released a patch that was so controversial mass quitting happened, I've never seen a server feel smoother in real time in my life outside that experience.
    Any south korean mmo? they usually are cash grabs and the korean audience likes p2w where as we hate it, that's gonna not work over here, it's the truth.
    Terra? Still going strong, even with the huge controversy early on and the bad look it's players receive due to it.

    The worst part as a fan of GW2, is I have absolutely no faith in GW2's early game experience keeping people, the game's best things right now are all later, all 80+, the leveling experience is dead, I just leveled up an alt and it was like... every mob had 800 to 1k+ bonus exp, I met a single group whom I had fun with & a single guy who was level 70 and didn't know a single thing about his class, he was asking about where to spend his points, what gear to use, I asked him about joining a guild to help him and he said no one would answer him etc.

    Trinity based mmo's have one thing so good going for them, you know exactly what you need and where you going, you a healer? better healing, you dying too fast, better survivability, you a dps? get more damage etc.

    I absolutely adore Path of fire tho, and that's the shame, outside a 80 boost you gotta go through a massive turn off to get to the good stuff, and even then most the area's of PoF are somewhat dead. Yet to this day I still see people wanting a healer class lol, yet the pseudo healers don't do it, aren't viable in x content or y content, druid in spvp for example is a joke.

    I do love the idea of the lack of a trinity for this game, it was a good theory, it ultimately appeals to few and pushes away more, and it doesn't help that in practice it's not doing what it says, it's an illusion that bogs down the potential of teamwork and gameplay, as you can look at how it works in reality and look at say raids and see that there is basically a non trinity trinity going on, you still need guardians, you still need druids, you still need x, y, z for A, B or C content.

    Basically, this non trinity thing is shallow, lacks depth, buff providing isn't something unique to this game, and when so many classes have moves almost identical through them it makes identity shallow.

    GW2 is a fun game, but if you are going to compare it to giants, please remember that those giants earned their title and there's absolutely no reason GW2 couldn't have done so too.

  • Infusion.7149Infusion.7149 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @draxynnic.3719 said:
    @Infusion.7149 It amuses me that for the rest you've used the profession title, but you've used 'Tempest' for Elementalist.

    In part because it's not wrong - Tempest can do all of those things, although Weaver can sometimes edge it out in DPS roles and in bunkering.

    Well to be honest the number of weaver players that do a good job is low. Fixed the post though.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Noh.5092 said:

    FF14, WOW, DOFUS, even EVE in a weird fleet logi way all are doing well. Experimental games like GW2, Wakfu aren't. Wakfu is in fact joked as a single player mmo now, that's how low pop it is, I know that it's rough to hear the opinion that GW2 isn't doing well but hear me out, it's not thriving;

    So you can name a few that survived. If I went through my memory, though, I could name a few that didn't, some with significant resources and IP behind them, and there are probably even more that I've forgotten. Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 maintain a fairly strong core that don't drift to those other MMOs because of the things that the franchise does differently.

    As for Guild Wars 2 not doing so well at the moment... I don't have the figures to hand, but I'm pretty sure a large part of that has to do with the lack of real updates, not due to the lack of a trinity structure. There was a pretty strong feeling going around that Guild Wars 2 was going to be abandoned at the end of Season 4, and as it turns out, that feeling was justified - Season 4 had the strong ending it did largely because ArenaNet wanted to end on a high note if that was going to be the end, and the decision to continue didn't come until afterwards. Nothing kills an MMO faster than the perception that the developers have or soon will abandon it.

    With respect to WoW - you can say Blizzard earned it, because their war chest was built by the successes of Diablo and the RTS games, but the truth of the matter is that Blizzard went into WoW with more resources to throw at the project than any other MMO developer. Part of the way they use that is that if another MMO comes up with something that can be incorporated into WoW, that's what Blizzard does, often iterated to a better state than the developer who came up with the idea could achieve. The only way to survive is to offer something that WoW doesn't. EVE, for instance, has a very different setting based around spaceships, and while it may have a trinity-like mechanic, it has a very different gameplay to WoW.

  • Opopanax.1803Opopanax.1803 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Noh.5092 said:
    Honestly I feel like while the lack of trinity is part of what makes GW2 what it is, it's also it's most glaring flaw. I think this path ultimately stunted the popularity of GW2.

    I would do more instanced content if I could SEE IT. The particle effect make instanced content hard to see mechanics through all the effects. Not worth it.

    Sadly, this is a hard coding issue of the engine and will not be fixed.

  • Noh.5092Noh.5092 Member ✭✭

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    @Noh.5092 said:

    FF14, WOW, DOFUS, even EVE in a weird fleet logi way all are doing well. Experimental games like GW2, Wakfu aren't. Wakfu is in fact joked as a single player mmo now, that's how low pop it is, I know that it's rough to hear the opinion that GW2 isn't doing well but hear me out, it's not thriving;

    So you can name a few that survived. If I went through my memory, though, I could name a few that didn't, some with significant resources and IP behind them, and there are probably even more that I've forgotten. Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 maintain a fairly strong core that don't drift to those other MMOs because of the things that the franchise does differently.

    As for Guild Wars 2 not doing so well at the moment... I don't have the figures to hand, but I'm pretty sure a large part of that has to do with the lack of real updates, not due to the lack of a trinity structure. There was a pretty strong feeling going around that Guild Wars 2 was going to be abandoned at the end of Season 4, and as it turns out, that feeling was justified - Season 4 had the strong ending it did largely because ArenaNet wanted to end on a high note if that was going to be the end, and the decision to continue didn't come until afterwards. Nothing kills an MMO faster than the perception that the developers have or soon will abandon it.

    With respect to WoW - you can say Blizzard earned it, because their war chest was built by the successes of Diablo and the RTS games, but the truth of the matter is that Blizzard went into WoW with more resources to throw at the project than any other MMO developer. Part of the way they use that is that if another MMO comes up with something that can be incorporated into WoW, that's what Blizzard does, often iterated to a better state than the developer who came up with the idea could achieve. The only way to survive is to offer something that WoW doesn't. EVE, for instance, has a very different setting based around spaceships, and while it may have a trinity-like mechanic, it has a very different gameplay to WoW.

    I mean it's clear you want to cherry pick hard no matter the counter view, but the audience for mmo's isn't that big, not all of them can thrive, the fact that the biggest ones that have thrived for so many years, like we are talking 15 years+, we are talking as old as GW1, while facing competition from so many similar clones etc speaks depths of my point and how ridiculous your approach against it is, outside like one of them which is unique and has no competition to be fair (dofus).

    In fact, Dofus was the first game by it's developer, It cost not a fifth of what GW2 got in development fees even tho every single map was hand made in flash, it at it's time was revolutionary, nothing has been made before or since, this developer then went on to improve, change, evolve and thrive. They are at the stage where they have another mmo which failed (for trying something different, which ultimately failed, players govern nations by voting a leader, economy is 100% player maintained, level up skills by using them, stuff that sounds cool in theory but in practice killed it). they are making another mmo that's based on an old arena version of dofus gameplay wise, they have two side single player games, a physical board game which uses statues, an anime, yeah, an anime and we aren't talking made by japanese we are talking french made, as in they made their own animation studio to make anime, they have movies in the work.

    So money is your argument? because that's a objective, factual, example of something that contradicts the very foundation of what you are saying.

    GW2 tried to do things different, has no competition, still spent half the amount on it that wow did to be made and quite frankly half is still an incredible amount, to talk of success like it's down to how much money you put into it initially is naive as can be, there are mmo's that failed so hard that spent more.

    Cannibalizing GW1's population by making an IP that plays vastly different and splitting the pop between both was never going to be smart either.

    NC has a history of neglecting their mmo's, it's not funding it's just simply decision making most the time, nevermind the controversies like stolen code etc but there's always a theme with these games, they get thrown out, earn, then neglected outside minimal support, usually in form of either closing the game down like wildstar, or just releasing an expansion every few years like gw2.

    This isn't a money issue, it's a philosophy on how they want to make money. In the end of the day I can't blame them they are a business. but stop making excuses for them and trying your best to spin your perspective into something that protects a fragile image that in the end of the day doesn't help you one bit. Because outside of comparing to other mmo's, you can just ignore that and compare it to it's previous IP and the issues are glaring still.

    And in a genre that was over saturated, and the only one's thriving are the one's who are following the trinity, that means something. that means something huge and glaring, it means the trinity is the unfortunate tried and true thing that people want or don't want, but definitely need in an mmo.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 22, 2020

    @Noh.5092 said:
    And in a genre that was over saturated, and the only one's thriving are the one's who are following the trinity, that means something. that means something huge and glaring, it means the trinity is the unfortunate tried and true thing that people want or don't want, but definitely need in an mmo.

    Even if that's true (which is debatable) ... there isn't a sensible business case for Anet to convert GW2 to trinity. ... and no, you can't conclude trinity is NEEDED in an MMO. That's absurd. In fact, GW2 shows you DON'T.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    They need to start removing boons from classes.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Lucio.4190Lucio.4190 Member ✭✭✭

    Thinking about if all classes should be able to have a support, attack and defense role. That could be core roles for all.
    Then depending on specialization, some may have scouting and others may be better at tanking, defending or adding support and buffs to the team.
    Also, depending on playstyle you get different kinds of attacking with high damage etc.
    Is that the kind of roles you are asking for?

  • Noh.5092Noh.5092 Member ✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Noh.5092 said:
    And in a genre that was over saturated, and the only one's thriving are the one's who are following the trinity, that means something. that means something huge and glaring, it means the trinity is the unfortunate tried and true thing that people want or don't want, but definitely need in an mmo.

    Even if that's true (which is debatable) ... there isn't a sensible business case for Anet to convert GW2 to trinity. ... and no, you can't conclude trinity is NEEDED in an MMO. That's absurd. In fact, GW2 shows you DON'T.

    Seems what I meant went over your head or you just decided to skip it to go straight to the "GW2 is perfect" notion even tho there are so many glaring issues, What I was saying isn't that GW2 needs to go for the trinity, I'm saying it would have been better off if it had from the start. The game has so much going for it, the lack of the trinity is NOT one of them, it's a half truth that there is no trinity in this because in the end of the day we still try to half in half out the roles that trinity does, we still have tanks, we still dps, we still have support. sounds awfully similar to the trinity doesn't it? and that's what I mean, they knew it wasn't working for most people, they tried to make it more, brought in things we requested from other games like raids etc.

    I mean what's the point in healing Armour, tanking Armour? no trinity right? have you seen games like ff14 and wow, you want to go healer? you can dps still in solo, but you chose a role because that's what you like. this game you go for a class and you usually have to build some specific way that's absolutely made to fit a certain role, you got stuff like "hey you build this because this is the best way for a raid or whatever to get x boon" and so basically you become a boon bot, like a heal bot, but more boring.

    do you see the irony in this? this game is less flexible than modern trinity games in that sense, and yes I know you can bring some mediocre build but most of the time in reality you'll be told nah, see you guys have the view point of someone whose got a bubble where everything just right, bonds made over years etc, but I'm thinking the big picture, especially the new player experience, which is terrible. Empty world, difficulty balance disrupted by changes never addressed, having relevelled a new char recently it was such a horrible experience, like no one doing the dungeons, no queue, no people wanting to do stuff together, hearts are so archaic, exploration is yikes, all the fun of the game at this point is lvl 80+ and when I'm running around at lvl 70 on my alt and I meet a warrior and he doesn't know what he's doing, have no idea about specs, and he looks stuff up that has him so confused. and he's so clearly lost and that's before level 80 where your options explode open?

    That's a kitten shame because at that stage, you are looking at an empty map with no one there except one person in a blue moon running past you, and I would never blame that guy for quitting right there, which is a shame because the game has some amazing things, mainly later on due to lack of qol features but whatever.

    I'd rather they go through the whole game, removing/merge a ton of currencies, fix the balance, make the classes good at what they should be and make build versatility an actual thing for other classes than a couple, like mesmer in fractals oh my god... than release a new expansion.

    and the focus on boon "trinities of a sort" is so counter to that promise of a lack of trinity, like it doesn't help that some specialisations are basically "hey you can take the stuff from this other class that's meant to be their thing but hey whatever right?" like what happened to being special? DH? rangers traps? FB's mesmer mantra's?

    Yay, let's trample on the identity of other classes, which begs the question, why not just get rid of classes then lol. there's so much contradictory design philosophy in this game, and you want to defend that?

    adding quality of life features like a queue for dungeons, etc you know, it's not like it's 2020 or anything.

    I like talking about this stuff but acknowledging the issues would be good because it isn't an affront to what you like, these issues fixed would be best for the game, because otherwise it's this awkward endless conversation about how this game isn't the wonderful rose tinted bubble you believe it to be because you are lvl 80 in a guild with friends thinking the community is wonderful but meanwhile the reality is for the lonely new players, especially those who hit up spvp it's a whole different story. And that while your perspective is that of someone who loves the game, do know that for most new players the lifeblood of the future, as old players do trickle away, this game is requires dedication before getting to the good stuff and then it's usually worth staying for a pocket of players that you run content with all the time. which tbh you can find on almost any mmo nowadays. just because there's a loud vocal minority praising this game doesn't mean that experience translate well to those it's being praised to.

    GW2 isn't a supreme success story, it's a interesting idea that's gotten way out of hand and has an identity crisis, with some horrible aspects like the spvp hacking and toxic side of the community, insane amounts of bloat, a complete and utter lack of stream lining or clean up after years of patches leading to horrible experiences for some.

    It's so fustrating, because there's this huge amount of potential, but one foot is in the new the other in the old, and the small vocal side of the dedicated community is absolutely not helping by pretending this game doesn't have glaring issues.

    One look at sPVP's hacking issues and sPVP's community, like, seriously?

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 25, 2020

    @Noh.5092 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Noh.5092 said:
    And in a genre that was over saturated, and the only one's thriving are the one's who are following the trinity, that means something. that means something huge and glaring, it means the trinity is the unfortunate tried and true thing that people want or don't want, but definitely need in an mmo.

    Even if that's true (which is debatable) ... there isn't a sensible business case for Anet to convert GW2 to trinity. ... and no, you can't conclude trinity is NEEDED in an MMO. That's absurd. In fact, GW2 shows you DON'T.

    What I was saying isn't that GW2 needs to go for the trinity, I'm saying it would have been better off if it had from the start.

    No no ... you said:

    the trinity is the unfortunate tried and true thing that people want or don't want, but definitely need in an mmo

    You don't know that. GW2 "maybe could have been better if it had trinity" is definitely NOT proof MMO's NEED trinity.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The primary argument isn't money, it's that in a saturated market, you need to do something different to your competition to stand out, or it's just going to be a question of having one that comes out on top and gobbles up the rest, especially since MMOs have a strong 'having a high existing player base helps get new players' factor. That's what's happened - any MMO that didn't have some distinguishing factor to WoW, eventually lost to WoW.

    I did a bit of a spot of research into FF14, although it's not really one I've heard about much, and one thing that stuck out to me in that research was that it was stated that characters could swap roles pretty much freely - while its equivalent of classes were limited to specific roles, the character could swap freely between them, and is never limited to just being able to fulfill a similar role. In my mind, this is not all that different to the GW2 principle of professions being able to fulfill multiple roles, but needing to switch builds within the profession to fulfill different roles. The Final Fantasy system avoids the situation where you're blocked out of doing a particular piece of content with a particular character because you have the wrong class by allowing you to switch class. EVE, from memory, also allows for relatively simple role-switching by changing your ship.

    GW2, while it's not perfect at this, aims to achieve this by giving each profession a high degree of versatility between different builds. It falls short of the 'every profession can fulfill any role' goal, but that's what it's aiming towards. One thing it does succeed at is that all professions can do reasonably well in open world. One of the problems with traditional 'strict trinity, characters are locked to their class and therefore their position in the trinity' systems is that the Designated Support Class is usually in high demand in group play, but a right PITA to level solo. The OP's proposal would pretty much put GW2 in this situation, and given how much of GW2's content is open world or otherwise intended to be played without needing an organised group, I think it would be more likely to kill GW2 than to 'fix' it.

    Roles exist, but you're supposed to be able to switch roles by switching builds. Roles are determined by build, not by profession. The problem is that this is a principle that hasn't been fully realised yet - there are some professions (guardian, mesmer, ranger, and revenant in particular) where this is true, and others that struggle to achieve anything other than DPS.

  • Infusion.7149Infusion.7149 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 25, 2020

    @Noh.5092 said:
    Seems what I meant went over your head or you just decided to skip it to go straight to the "GW2 is perfect" notion even tho there are so many glaring issues, What I was saying isn't that GW2 needs to go for the trinity, I'm saying it would have been better off if it had from the start. The game has so much going for it, the lack of the trinity is NOT one of them, it's a half truth that there is no trinity in this because in the end of the day we still try to half in half out the roles that trinity does, we still have tanks, we still dps, we still have support. sounds awfully similar to the trinity doesn't it? and that's what I mean, they knew it wasn't working for most people, they tried to make it more, brought in things we requested from other games like raids etc.

    I mean what's the point in healing Armour, tanking Armour? no trinity right? have you seen games like ff14 and wow, you want to go healer? you can dps still in solo, but you chose a role because that's what you like. this game you go for a class and you usually have to build some specific way that's absolutely made to fit a certain role, you got stuff like "hey you build this because this is the best way for a raid or whatever to get x boon" and so basically you become a boon bot, like a heal bot, but more boring.

    do you see the irony in this? this game is less flexible than modern trinity games in that sense, and yes I know you can bring some mediocre build but most of the time in reality you'll be told nah, see you guys have the view point of someone whose got a bubble where everything just right, bonds made over years etc, but I'm thinking the big picture, especially the new player experience, which is terrible. Empty world, difficulty balance disrupted by changes never addressed, having relevelled a new char recently it was such a horrible experience, like no one doing the dungeons, no queue, no people wanting to do stuff together, hearts are so archaic, exploration is yikes, all the fun of the game at this point is lvl 80+ and when I'm running around at lvl 70 on my alt and I meet a warrior and he doesn't know what he's doing, have no idea about specs, and he looks stuff up that has him so confused. and he's so clearly lost and that's before level 80 where your options explode open?

    That's a kitten shame because at that stage, you are looking at an empty map with no one there except one person in a blue moon running past you, and I would never blame that guy for quitting right there, which is a shame because the game has some amazing things, mainly later on due to lack of qol features but whatever.

    I'd rather they go through the whole game, removing/merge a ton of currencies, fix the balance, make the classes good at what they should be and make build versatility an actual thing for other classes than a couple, like mesmer in fractals oh my god... than release a new expansion.

    and the focus on boon "trinities of a sort" is so counter to that promise of a lack of trinity, like it doesn't help that some specialisations are basically "hey you can take the stuff from this other class that's meant to be their thing but hey whatever right?" like what happened to being special? DH? rangers traps? FB's mesmer mantra's?

    Yay, let's trample on the identity of other classes, which begs the question, why not just get rid of classes then lol. there's so much contradictory design philosophy in this game, and you want to defend that?

    adding quality of life features like a queue for dungeons, etc you know, it's not like it's 2020 or anything.

    I like talking about this stuff but acknowledging the issues would be good because it isn't an affront to what you like, these issues fixed would be best for the game, because otherwise it's this awkward endless conversation about how this game isn't the wonderful rose tinted bubble you believe it to be because you are lvl 80 in a guild with friends thinking the community is wonderful but meanwhile the reality is for the lonely new players, especially those who hit up spvp it's a whole different story. And that while your perspective is that of someone who loves the game, do know that for most new players the lifeblood of the future, as old players do trickle away, this game is requires dedication before getting to the good stuff and then it's usually worth staying for a pocket of players that you run content with all the time. which tbh you can find on almost any mmo nowadays. just because there's a loud vocal minority praising this game doesn't mean that experience translate well to those it's being praised to.

    GW2 isn't a supreme success story, it's a interesting idea that's gotten way out of hand and has an identity crisis, with some horrible aspects like the spvp hacking and toxic side of the community, insane amounts of bloat, a complete and utter lack of stream lining or clean up after years of patches leading to horrible experiences for some.

    It's so fustrating, because there's this huge amount of potential, but one foot is in the new the other in the old, and the small vocal side of the dedicated community is absolutely not helping by pretending this game doesn't have glaring issues.

    One look at sPVP's hacking issues and sPVP's community, like, seriously?

    One look at the PVP part of gw2efficiency shows that the ROI isn't there for them to throw massive amounts of funds into PVP or into this idea of moving to a trinity. The esports dream died a while ago despite being able to compete on even footing instantly (short of ranked which requires rank 20) being conducive to competitive play (see ATs where people use alts).

    If anyone is a vocal minority it's the smallest portions of the community which includes raids and PVP. There's been so many threads about imbalance and I guarantee you there will continue to be more because you can never please everyone.

    Also I'm not sure why you're saying "have to build some specific way that's absolutely made to fit a certain role". There's only a handful of cases where that's true , especially outside of a raid environment. You could play suboptimal and nonmeta setups when with your own guild even in raid. There's nothing stopping you from running zero alacrity in your party composition elsewhere for example and once you eliminate that along with quickness then it's basically asking for a heal support if needed which means you have just about every class to pick from whether it is firebrand (or even core guard with mace +shield and staff + symbols), druid, tempest, scourge, renegade, scrapper, offmeta shouts warrior or even heavily nerfed mantra + wells chrono where there is a really low heal demand. There's even been healing thief attempts but generally not accepted as decently playable.

    In fractals it's even common to run healer-less in lower tiers and in highly skilled groups it's the preferred way to go about things. In the early days of GW2 it was elementalists and warriors only for LFG in dungeons.

    Why should what people run in openworld matter at all? It seems you're mostly concerned about endgame content (so "achiever") than the exploration aspect of the leveling experience, which is fine. On the Bartle taxonomy , we have explorers (people that like living story and RPG aspects), "killers" (PVP players / WVW roamers gankers), achievers (speedclear people , TP flippers, people that repeat raid after one set per tier of legendary armor, etc), and socializers (so people in town that spend all day spamming chat would fit and so would people that organize events for guilds).

    When this game hits steam as announced I expect an influx of players to be honest. The episodic nature of content is appealing to the single player RPG crowds and explorer types. With an expansion imminent and a steam announcement , only the most pessimistic would say there would be no new players or returning players.

    P.S. the highlight of the whole franchise was you can put it down to attend to life matters and pick it up again any time.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Infusion.7149 said:
    P.S. the highlight of the whole franchise was you can put it down to attend to life matters and pick it up again any time.

    So much this. Had so many arguments back on the day with people who wanted Guild Wars or GW2 to have a traditional gear treadmill. To which my response was generally "if that's what you want, play a game that has it, and let the people who don't enjoy that have their game too."

    Because personally, I get bored of gear treadmill games REALLY quickly once you get to the stage where you're just grinding to bump up your numbers so you can grind the content that requires those higher numbers.

  • Axl.8924Axl.8924 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Noh.5092 said:

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    @Noh.5092 said:

    FF14, WOW, DOFUS, even EVE in a weird fleet logi way all are doing well. Experimental games like GW2, Wakfu aren't. Wakfu is in fact joked as a single player mmo now, that's how low pop it is, I know that it's rough to hear the opinion that GW2 isn't doing well but hear me out, it's not thriving;

    So you can name a few that survived. If I went through my memory, though, I could name a few that didn't, some with significant resources and IP behind them, and there are probably even more that I've forgotten. Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 maintain a fairly strong core that don't drift to those other MMOs because of the things that the franchise does differently.

    As for Guild Wars 2 not doing so well at the moment... I don't have the figures to hand, but I'm pretty sure a large part of that has to do with the lack of real updates, not due to the lack of a trinity structure. There was a pretty strong feeling going around that Guild Wars 2 was going to be abandoned at the end of Season 4, and as it turns out, that feeling was justified - Season 4 had the strong ending it did largely because ArenaNet wanted to end on a high note if that was going to be the end, and the decision to continue didn't come until afterwards. Nothing kills an MMO faster than the perception that the developers have or soon will abandon it.

    With respect to WoW - you can say Blizzard earned it, because their war chest was built by the successes of Diablo and the RTS games, but the truth of the matter is that Blizzard went into WoW with more resources to throw at the project than any other MMO developer. Part of the way they use that is that if another MMO comes up with something that can be incorporated into WoW, that's what Blizzard does, often iterated to a better state than the developer who came up with the idea could achieve. The only way to survive is to offer something that WoW doesn't. EVE, for instance, has a very different setting based around spaceships, and while it may have a trinity-like mechanic, it has a very different gameplay to WoW.

    I mean it's clear you want to cherry pick hard no matter the counter view, but the audience for mmo's isn't that big, not all of them can thrive, the fact that the biggest ones that have thrived for so many years, like we are talking 15 years+, we are talking as old as GW1, while facing competition from so many similar clones etc speaks depths of my point and how ridiculous your approach against it is, outside like one of them which is unique and has no competition to be fair (dofus).

    In fact, Dofus was the first game by it's developer, It cost not a fifth of what GW2 got in development fees even tho every single map was hand made in flash, it at it's time was revolutionary, nothing has been made before or since, this developer then went on to improve, change, evolve and thrive. They are at the stage where they have another mmo which failed (for trying something different, which ultimately failed, players govern nations by voting a leader, economy is 100% player maintained, level up skills by using them, stuff that sounds cool in theory but in practice killed it). they are making another mmo that's based on an old arena version of dofus gameplay wise, they have two side single player games, a physical board game which uses statues, an anime, yeah, an anime and we aren't talking made by japanese we are talking french made, as in they made their own animation studio to make anime, they have movies in the work.

    So money is your argument? because that's a objective, factual, example of something that contradicts the very foundation of what you are saying.

    GW2 tried to do things different, has no competition, still spent half the amount on it that wow did to be made and quite frankly half is still an incredible amount, to talk of success like it's down to how much money you put into it initially is naive as can be, there are mmo's that failed so hard that spent more.

    Cannibalizing GW1's population by making an IP that plays vastly different and splitting the pop between both was never going to be smart either.

    NC has a history of neglecting their mmo's, it's not funding it's just simply decision making most the time, nevermind the controversies like stolen code etc but there's always a theme with these games, they get thrown out, earn, then neglected outside minimal support, usually in form of either closing the game down like wildstar, or just releasing an expansion every few years like gw2.

    This isn't a money issue, it's a philosophy on how they want to make money. In the end of the day I can't blame them they are a business. but stop making excuses for them and trying your best to spin your perspective into something that protects a fragile image that in the end of the day doesn't help you one bit. Because outside of comparing to other mmo's, you can just ignore that and compare it to it's previous IP and the issues are glaring still.

    And in a genre that was over saturated, and the only one's thriving are the one's who are following the trinity, that means something. that means something huge and glaring, it means the trinity is the unfortunate tried and true thing that people want or don't want, but definitely need in an mmo.

    What about ultimas online and everquest?

    Ultima online was made by ea at the time origins was still alive and bought recently at that time by EA and even though U8 and U9 were disasters UO came out to be ok.

    Sure its old but its got its loyal fanbase.

    Everquest has its fanbase and it too took quite a fall but continued to survive. It had millions before wow existed.

    Here is my list of characters i got so far:

    Elementalist 80 with tempest:Talman nul
    Necromancer 80 with reaper:Zex vokar
    Mesmer level 80 no chrono yet:Klanga voosh.
    Level 80 Ranger with druid spec Jedkhan.

  • Axl.8924Axl.8924 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Noh.5092 said:

    @Axl.8924 said:

    @Noh.5092 said:

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    @Noh.5092 said:

    FF14, WOW, DOFUS, even EVE in a weird fleet logi way all are doing well. Experimental games like GW2, Wakfu aren't. Wakfu is in fact joked as a single player mmo now, that's how low pop it is, I know that it's rough to hear the opinion that GW2 isn't doing well but hear me out, it's not thriving;

    So you can name a few that survived. If I went through my memory, though, I could name a few that didn't, some with significant resources and IP behind them, and there are probably even more that I've forgotten. Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 maintain a fairly strong core that don't drift to those other MMOs because of the things that the franchise does differently.

    As for Guild Wars 2 not doing so well at the moment... I don't have the figures to hand, but I'm pretty sure a large part of that has to do with the lack of real updates, not due to the lack of a trinity structure. There was a pretty strong feeling going around that Guild Wars 2 was going to be abandoned at the end of Season 4, and as it turns out, that feeling was justified - Season 4 had the strong ending it did largely because ArenaNet wanted to end on a high note if that was going to be the end, and the decision to continue didn't come until afterwards. Nothing kills an MMO faster than the perception that the developers have or soon will abandon it.

    With respect to WoW - you can say Blizzard earned it, because their war chest was built by the successes of Diablo and the RTS games, but the truth of the matter is that Blizzard went into WoW with more resources to throw at the project than any other MMO developer. Part of the way they use that is that if another MMO comes up with something that can be incorporated into WoW, that's what Blizzard does, often iterated to a better state than the developer who came up with the idea could achieve. The only way to survive is to offer something that WoW doesn't. EVE, for instance, has a very different setting based around spaceships, and while it may have a trinity-like mechanic, it has a very different gameplay to WoW.

    I mean it's clear you want to cherry pick hard no matter the counter view, but the audience for mmo's isn't that big, not all of them can thrive, the fact that the biggest ones that have thrived for so many years, like we are talking 15 years+, we are talking as old as GW1, while facing competition from so many similar clones etc speaks depths of my point and how ridiculous your approach against it is, outside like one of them which is unique and has no competition to be fair (dofus).

    In fact, Dofus was the first game by it's developer, It cost not a fifth of what GW2 got in development fees even tho every single map was hand made in flash, it at it's time was revolutionary, nothing has been made before or since, this developer then went on to improve, change, evolve and thrive. They are at the stage where they have another mmo which failed (for trying something different, which ultimately failed, players govern nations by voting a leader, economy is 100% player maintained, level up skills by using them, stuff that sounds cool in theory but in practice killed it). they are making another mmo that's based on an old arena version of dofus gameplay wise, they have two side single player games, a physical board game which uses statues, an anime, yeah, an anime and we aren't talking made by japanese we are talking french made, as in they made their own animation studio to make anime, they have movies in the work.

    So money is your argument? because that's a objective, factual, example of something that contradicts the very foundation of what you are saying.

    GW2 tried to do things different, has no competition, still spent half the amount on it that wow did to be made and quite frankly half is still an incredible amount, to talk of success like it's down to how much money you put into it initially is naive as can be, there are mmo's that failed so hard that spent more.

    Cannibalizing GW1's population by making an IP that plays vastly different and splitting the pop between both was never going to be smart either.

    NC has a history of neglecting their mmo's, it's not funding it's just simply decision making most the time, nevermind the controversies like stolen code etc but there's always a theme with these games, they get thrown out, earn, then neglected outside minimal support, usually in form of either closing the game down like wildstar, or just releasing an expansion every few years like gw2.

    This isn't a money issue, it's a philosophy on how they want to make money. In the end of the day I can't blame them they are a business. but stop making excuses for them and trying your best to spin your perspective into something that protects a fragile image that in the end of the day doesn't help you one bit. Because outside of comparing to other mmo's, you can just ignore that and compare it to it's previous IP and the issues are glaring still.

    And in a genre that was over saturated, and the only one's thriving are the one's who are following the trinity, that means something. that means something huge and glaring, it means the trinity is the unfortunate tried and true thing that people want or don't want, but definitely need in an mmo.

    What about ultimas online and everquest?

    Ultima online was made by ea at the time origins was still alive and bought recently at that time by EA and even though U8 and U9 were disasters UO came out to be ok.

    Sure its old but its got its loyal fanbase.

    Everquest has its fanbase and it too took quite a fall but continued to survive. It had millions before wow existed.

    Yeah but like, every mmo has a solid fanbase, that doesn't mean it's got a strong fanbase or that it did things perfectly or thrived, human beings are weird in that way, that doesn't show a case of validity to anything... this topic is about the new player experience and it's not that good tbh.

    Just like the guy who saying wow had more money is just trying to find an excuse to be in denial about issues, after all wow had 60 people working on it when this game had 140, in 2012 they had half what gw2, in fact this game has had more people working on it than wow did outside a year after hot where wow had 15 people more.

    Then this game dropped a lot of people, and it shows, go on reddit right now, you'll see someone complaining about a bug that he's reported again and again, go into spvp and talk about reporting someone, last time I asked enemy team to report an active afker everyone on my team and theirs said it won't do anything.

    I don't care about people saying excuses, reaching for whatever thread they can bring to hide any criticism of a game that they love because they can't hear it.
    Because I know only when the criticism is addressed can a game thrive but I really don't know if that's the goal here.
    If a community supporting the game means success why did they close down City of Heroes, Wildstar?

    I don't care about ultima or everquest, I care about a neglected game that's a mess, that gets an expansion every few years while bugs are still there, spvp is wild and barely looked after, to the neglect of the spvp scene, this is a game that could thrive so much more and be such a better experience, if only these devs fixed the bugs, streamlined the early game experience. there is as much love for the game as their is frustration. And i'm sorry we as a community aren't as wonderful as made out to be, we don't all fart roses and sing each others praise.

    Also Ultima and everquest were giants of their time, literally grandfathers to modern mmo's, what a thing to compare to they are literally nostalgia driven gods.

    Personally point to take away is, both did something and succeeded.

    1 went the path of creating succesful trio of roles, actually there is more than 3 there is tank DPS offensive support defensive support healer crowd controller and puller.

    and ultima well they created a unique feel compared to other mmos that its more whats the right word here laid back.

    If EQ and Ultima can create their own feel why cant GW2 find a way to have classes and their unique type of support work?

    Why can't they allow i dunno thieves way of supporting be really effective at giving boosts?

    Personally i think the biggest takeaway here is that ANET messed up with elites with basically more powercreep and support combined, which makes other classes less desireable.

    Here is my list of characters i got so far:

    Elementalist 80 with tempest:Talman nul
    Necromancer 80 with reaper:Zex vokar
    Mesmer level 80 no chrono yet:Klanga voosh.
    Level 80 Ranger with druid spec Jedkhan.