Strict rotations? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Strict rotations?

First of, i really dislike classes with strict rotations..
Now i have been playing my sword/dagger weaver for some time
And guess what, i am on a semi/strict rotation..
Even the cc is part of my rotation..

Yes offcourse there is water, which i use when i need healing...

I was so hoping this class wouldn’t require a good rotation
But would allow for a more reactional kind of gameplay..

Maybe i should move to engineer to find what i want?
Reactional combat...

Comments

  • In my experience rotations on engineer are even more strict than on elementalist.
    Well, for both professions there are only 2 reasons to break away from your dps rotation.
    1. To apply cc to a breakbar.
    2. To heal yourself when lowlife.

    If you have a good healer in your raid-squad or whatever you're doing, you won't even run into situation 2. Depending on the encounter you might not even run into situation 1. This can make the rotations feel very strict.

    No skin should be exclusive to gem-store rng boxes.
    What really happened with mount skins

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Every class will have a strict rotation if you want to make the maximum out of it. It's just math. And conversely, if you don't care about being optimal, you can play every class "reactional".

  • What Feanor says holds true for raid and top level fractal runs. Rotations are usually optimal for optimized runs. When the stakes are less (say, low level fractals and dungeons), people won't mind if you play suboptimal and you'll have more room to add variation to your playstyle. If you're running with pugs, and things go wrong occasionally, you'll find that you'll use rotations less because ele has a ton of options outside damage that can help salvage a losing fight.

    The main reason for the rotation is simply because the fights themselves have little to react to. If you really want a reactional playstyle, you might wanna play healer instead.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ThiBash.5634 said:
    What Feanor says holds true for raid and top level fractal runs. Rotations are usually optimal for optimized runs. When the stakes are less (say, low level fractals and dungeons), people won't mind if you play suboptimal and you'll have more room to add variation to your playstyle. If you're running with pugs, and things go wrong occasionally, you'll find that you'll use rotations less because ele has a ton of options outside damage that can help salvage a losing fight.

    The main reason for the rotation is simply because the fights themselves have little to react to. If you really want a reactional playstyle, you might wanna play healer instead.

    When salvaging a fight you'll still likely use "rotations" - meaning the same skill sequences that are the most effective in the situation. There is always a most effective sequence, that's what I'm saying. Good healers, too, follow their rotations, be it for healing, buffing, CC or a combination of those.

  • ThiBash.5634ThiBash.5634 Member ✭✭
    edited September 9, 2018

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    When salvaging a fight you'll still likely use "rotations" - meaning the same skill sequences that are the most effective in the situation.

    Like you say, it's a sequence, not a rotation. A rotation is something cyclical. Reacting to something that happens (say, a breakbar at 50%) with a non-repetitive sequence of CC skills isn't a rotation. It is, as you say, a sequence.

    There is always a most effective sequence, that's what I'm saying.

    Likely, but depending on your level of skill and the situation, it could just be a random reaction. When you want to rezz someone with geyser for example, you could either run over and press 'F', switch to Water and cast it from a distance, or both because you need them rezzed asap and don't mind them both being on cooldown. One of those will be optimal, but I wouldn't call it (part of) a rotation.

    Good healers, too, follow their rotations, be it for healing, buffing, CC or a combination of those.

    My point was that healer gameplay is more reactive than dps. You're correct when you say that healer gameplay has some sequences too. There's a place for rotations in healing builds, but I'd argue that good healers react (or prepare for) fight mechanics, whereas poor healers do nothing but blindly following a rotation.

    My presumption is that the OP would have less objections to skill combinations and sequences of skills than a constant rotation of the same skill sequence. I think we agree mostly, except the definition of the term 'rotation'. :-)

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ThiBash.5634 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    When salvaging a fight you'll still likely use "rotations" - meaning the same skill sequences that are the most effective in the situation.

    Like you say, it's a sequence, not a rotation. A rotation is something cyclical. Reacting to something that happens (say, a breakbar at 50%) with a non-repetitive sequence of CC skills isn't a rotation. It is, as you say, a sequence.

    There is always a most effective sequence, that's what I'm saying.

    Likely, but depending on your level of skill and the situation, it could just be a random reaction. When you want to rezz someone with geyser for example, you could either run over and press 'F', switch to Water and cast it from a distance, or both because you need them rezzed asap and don't mind them both being on cooldown. One of those will be optimal, but I wouldn't call it (part of) a rotation.

    Good healers, too, follow their rotations, be it for healing, buffing, CC or a combination of those.

    My point was that healer gameplay is more reactive than dps. You're correct when you say that healer gameplay has some sequences too. There's a place for rotations in healing builds, but I'd argue that good healers react (or prepare for) fight mechanics, whereas poor healers do nothing but blindly following a rotation.

    My presumption is that the OP would have less objections to skill combinations and sequences of skills than a constant rotation of the same skill sequence. I think we agree mostly, except the definition of the term 'rotation'. :-)

    You talk a lot about reactions. The thing is, reacting to the fight is something you only do either when learning a fight, or playing in inexperienced group. In a good group there really isn't much to react to. Sure, sometimes someone makes a mistake so you rush to res. Or the team takes take too long to kill a projection on KC, you get a fixation and need to move away to prevent a merge. Or any number of things. The point is, these are incidental only. The vast majority of the time it all goes smoothly. Everyone knows which skills to use and when. Call it "sequences" or "rotations", doesn't make any difference. Many times I wouldn't actually even finish my rotation, as the boss will phase before I reach the point where the rotation loops.

  • @Feanor.2358 said:

    @ThiBash.5634 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    When salvaging a fight you'll still likely use "rotations" - meaning the same skill sequences that are the most effective in the situation.

    Like you say, it's a sequence, not a rotation. A rotation is something cyclical. Reacting to something that happens (say, a breakbar at 50%) with a non-repetitive sequence of CC skills isn't a rotation. It is, as you say, a sequence.

    There is always a most effective sequence, that's what I'm saying.

    Likely, but depending on your level of skill and the situation, it could just be a random reaction. When you want to rezz someone with geyser for example, you could either run over and press 'F', switch to Water and cast it from a distance, or both because you need them rezzed asap and don't mind them both being on cooldown. One of those will be optimal, but I wouldn't call it (part of) a rotation.

    Good healers, too, follow their rotations, be it for healing, buffing, CC or a combination of those.

    My point was that healer gameplay is more reactive than dps. You're correct when you say that healer gameplay has some sequences too. There's a place for rotations in healing builds, but I'd argue that good healers react (or prepare for) fight mechanics, whereas poor healers do nothing but blindly following a rotation.

    My presumption is that the OP would have less objections to skill combinations and sequences of skills than a constant rotation of the same skill sequence. I think we agree mostly, except the definition of the term 'rotation'. :-)

    You talk a lot about reactions. The thing is, reacting to the fight is something you only do either when learning a fight, or playing in inexperienced group. In a good group there really isn't much to react to. Sure, sometimes someone makes a mistake so you rush to res. Or the team takes take too long to kill a projection on KC, you get a fixation and need to move away to prevent a merge. Or any number of things. The point is, these are incidental only. The vast majority of the time it all goes smoothly. Everyone knows which skills to use and when. Call it "sequences" or "rotations", doesn't make any difference. Many times I wouldn't actually even finish my rotation, as the boss will phase before I reach the point where the rotation loops.

    So i hope you agree with me, that that sounds really dull... like some kind of math program..

  • lLobo.7960lLobo.7960 Member ✭✭✭

    @lordbachus.6091 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @ThiBash.5634 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    When salvaging a fight you'll still likely use "rotations" - meaning the same skill sequences that are the most effective in the situation.

    Like you say, it's a sequence, not a rotation. A rotation is something cyclical. Reacting to something that happens (say, a breakbar at 50%) with a non-repetitive sequence of CC skills isn't a rotation. It is, as you say, a sequence.

    There is always a most effective sequence, that's what I'm saying.

    Likely, but depending on your level of skill and the situation, it could just be a random reaction. When you want to rezz someone with geyser for example, you could either run over and press 'F', switch to Water and cast it from a distance, or both because you need them rezzed asap and don't mind them both being on cooldown. One of those will be optimal, but I wouldn't call it (part of) a rotation.

    Good healers, too, follow their rotations, be it for healing, buffing, CC or a combination of those.

    My point was that healer gameplay is more reactive than dps. You're correct when you say that healer gameplay has some sequences too. There's a place for rotations in healing builds, but I'd argue that good healers react (or prepare for) fight mechanics, whereas poor healers do nothing but blindly following a rotation.

    My presumption is that the OP would have less objections to skill combinations and sequences of skills than a constant rotation of the same skill sequence. I think we agree mostly, except the definition of the term 'rotation'. :-)

    You talk a lot about reactions. The thing is, reacting to the fight is something you only do either when learning a fight, or playing in inexperienced group. In a good group there really isn't much to react to. Sure, sometimes someone makes a mistake so you rush to res. Or the team takes take too long to kill a projection on KC, you get a fixation and need to move away to prevent a merge. Or any number of things. The point is, these are incidental only. The vast majority of the time it all goes smoothly. Everyone knows which skills to use and when. Call it "sequences" or "rotations", doesn't make any difference. Many times I wouldn't actually even finish my rotation, as the boss will phase before I reach the point where the rotation loops.

    So i hope you agree with me, that that sounds really dull... like some kind of math program..

    Depends on what you enjoy.
    The reaction part of dps gameplay on high end pve is mostly based on knowing the fight to time your burst to CC phases instead of just mindlesly repeating the rotation.

    A good example is the Thaumatova Reactor Fractal when you fight Subject 6. You don't start the fight with your burst like you would on many other encounters. You wait for it to block, CC it, then burst.

    Many bosses have small things like this that if you know about it, as an ele, you can use it to improve your dps.
    Many skills and rotations also have small details like that. On Sw/D weaver for instance, its better to use GoS in air if a boss is CCed (as the power dmg is increased by the diasbled), but if the boss is not CCed, GoS on fire will be better as it applies burns on top of the dmg.

    So yes, you can and you should adapt and react to the fight, but the effects are not as big as you might like to call it reactive combat...

    Or you can play thief and just mindlesly backstab and auto attack for better dps.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lordbachus.6091 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @ThiBash.5634 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    When salvaging a fight you'll still likely use "rotations" - meaning the same skill sequences that are the most effective in the situation.

    Like you say, it's a sequence, not a rotation. A rotation is something cyclical. Reacting to something that happens (say, a breakbar at 50%) with a non-repetitive sequence of CC skills isn't a rotation. It is, as you say, a sequence.

    There is always a most effective sequence, that's what I'm saying.

    Likely, but depending on your level of skill and the situation, it could just be a random reaction. When you want to rezz someone with geyser for example, you could either run over and press 'F', switch to Water and cast it from a distance, or both because you need them rezzed asap and don't mind them both being on cooldown. One of those will be optimal, but I wouldn't call it (part of) a rotation.

    Good healers, too, follow their rotations, be it for healing, buffing, CC or a combination of those.

    My point was that healer gameplay is more reactive than dps. You're correct when you say that healer gameplay has some sequences too. There's a place for rotations in healing builds, but I'd argue that good healers react (or prepare for) fight mechanics, whereas poor healers do nothing but blindly following a rotation.

    My presumption is that the OP would have less objections to skill combinations and sequences of skills than a constant rotation of the same skill sequence. I think we agree mostly, except the definition of the term 'rotation'. :-)

    You talk a lot about reactions. The thing is, reacting to the fight is something you only do either when learning a fight, or playing in inexperienced group. In a good group there really isn't much to react to. Sure, sometimes someone makes a mistake so you rush to res. Or the team takes take too long to kill a projection on KC, you get a fixation and need to move away to prevent a merge. Or any number of things. The point is, these are incidental only. The vast majority of the time it all goes smoothly. Everyone knows which skills to use and when. Call it "sequences" or "rotations", doesn't make any difference. Many times I wouldn't actually even finish my rotation, as the boss will phase before I reach the point where the rotation loops.

    So i hope you agree with me, that that sounds really dull... like some kind of math program..

    I do not. I enjoy it, the same way I enjoy driving on the same circuit I know. Every lap is more or less the same as the last, but there's great satisfaction in that. To me.

  • ThiBash.5634ThiBash.5634 Member ✭✭
    edited September 10, 2018

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    Call it "sequences" or "rotations", doesn't make any difference. Many times I wouldn't actually even finish my rotation, as the boss will phase before I reach the point where the rotation loops.

    Like I said, I think it's mostly a matter of definitions and not actually disagreeing. :-)

    You talk a lot about reactions. The thing is, reacting to the fight is something you only do either when learning a fight, or playing in inexperienced group. In a good >group there really isn't much to react to. Sure, sometimes someone makes a mistake so you rush to res. Or the team takes take too long to kill a projection on KC, >you get a fixation and need to move away to prevent a merge. Or any number of things. The point is, these are incidental only.

    It's not about healing having NO sequences. I agreed with you on that.

    Because it's in part reactional gameplay, and in part dependent on your party, it has bigger potential for being less rotation dependent (which I believe the OP was looking for). Because healing is often stronger than required, and because druids often get assigned to pick up additional roles like kiting or fight mechanics (and have a swiss army knife pet), I find that overall the role is less predictable and less boring than a generic dps build.

    Just trying to help the OP find a playstyle that he likes...

  • @ThiBash.5634 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    Call it "sequences" or "rotations", doesn't make any difference. Many times I wouldn't actually even finish my rotation, as the boss will phase before I reach the point where the rotation loops.

    Like I said, I think it's mostly a matter of definitions and not actually disagreeing. :-)

    You talk a lot about reactions. The thing is, reacting to the fight is something you only do either when learning a fight, or playing in inexperienced group. In a good >group there really isn't much to react to. Sure, sometimes someone makes a mistake so you rush to res. Or the team takes take too long to kill a projection on KC, >you get a fixation and need to move away to prevent a merge. Or any number of things. The point is, these are incidental only.

    It's not about healing having NO sequences. I agreed with you on that.

    Because it's in part reactional gameplay, and in part dependent on your party, it has bigger potential for being less rotation dependent (which I believe the OP was looking for). Because healing is often stronger than required, and because druids often get assigned to pick up additional roles like kiting or fight mechanics (and have a swiss army knife pet), I find that overall the role is less predictable and less boring than a generic dps build.

    Just trying to help the OP find a playstyle that he likes...

    I would define it as such when dealing with reactive play - with a pve raiding dps style mindset you will aim to maximise your rotation to fit into whatever situation you are in, its all about the dps and smoothness. Rotation is key. With true reactive play the job is instead to burst and recover to counter to your opponents play. Rotation is not key. The former is driven primarily by a large health pool on a scripted creature that is burnt down in time x. The latter is primarily against real people where the job is to create a fatal advantage against an opponent that is trying to do the same to you.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • starlinvf.1358starlinvf.1358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lordbachus.6091 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @ThiBash.5634 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    When salvaging a fight you'll still likely use "rotations" - meaning the same skill sequences that are the most effective in the situation.

    Like you say, it's a sequence, not a rotation. A rotation is something cyclical. Reacting to something that happens (say, a breakbar at 50%) with a non-repetitive sequence of CC skills isn't a rotation. It is, as you say, a sequence.

    There is always a most effective sequence, that's what I'm saying.

    Likely, but depending on your level of skill and the situation, it could just be a random reaction. When you want to rezz someone with geyser for example, you could either run over and press 'F', switch to Water and cast it from a distance, or both because you need them rezzed asap and don't mind them both being on cooldown. One of those will be optimal, but I wouldn't call it (part of) a rotation.

    Good healers, too, follow their rotations, be it for healing, buffing, CC or a combination of those.

    My point was that healer gameplay is more reactive than dps. You're correct when you say that healer gameplay has some sequences too. There's a place for rotations in healing builds, but I'd argue that good healers react (or prepare for) fight mechanics, whereas poor healers do nothing but blindly following a rotation.

    My presumption is that the OP would have less objections to skill combinations and sequences of skills than a constant rotation of the same skill sequence. I think we agree mostly, except the definition of the term 'rotation'. :-)

    You talk a lot about reactions. The thing is, reacting to the fight is something you only do either when learning a fight, or playing in inexperienced group. In a good group there really isn't much to react to. Sure, sometimes someone makes a mistake so you rush to res. Or the team takes take too long to kill a projection on KC, you get a fixation and need to move away to prevent a merge. Or any number of things. The point is, these are incidental only. The vast majority of the time it all goes smoothly. Everyone knows which skills to use and when. Call it "sequences" or "rotations", doesn't make any difference. Many times I wouldn't actually even finish my rotation, as the boss will phase before I reach the point where the rotation loops.

    So i hope you agree with me, that that sounds really dull... like some kind of math program..

    You do realize any game with any kind of resource system (which includes HP) is "fundamentally" a math program..... And this is on top of all programs being math to begin with. Rotations and sequences are a side effect of a system based cool down timers and damage multipliers, and a stronger emphasis on skill effects rather then effect delivery. Compare that to most shooters, which have less user facing damage models (its all back end math), being much easier to understand by players.

    Since physics tends to be ignored in fantasy RPG set ups, and rules modeled largely after old school D&D, players can focus more heavily on intricate details of the skill effects and related mechanics when attempting to optimize. A contrast to this is Fighting games, where despite having combos at high level play, is still more concerned with ensuring attacks connect, rather then raw theoretical damage. This happens because delivery of an attack is not 99% reliable, and players have a lot of agency in that area of game play.

    Its something that has been pointed out repeatedly about this game since its open beta...... the game's overall design most heavily rewards, and thus revolves around damage output, things that change damage output (be it constructive or destructive), and things that can negate damage output. Where GW2 differs from most other MMOs (which almost universally center around damage) is the comparatively large number of damage negation techniques, most of which are common mechanics shared by every class. In most respects, combat is closer to that of Fighting games... but is heavily altered by the resource systems (cool downs), tab-targeting, and free movement.

    The game's design could realistically deviate further from a Damage centrtic model; but doing so requires redesigning all the enemies to use various forms of defense strategies to give players something to tackle.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2018

    @starlinvf.1358 said:

    @lordbachus.6091 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @ThiBash.5634 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    When salvaging a fight you'll still likely use "rotations" - meaning the same skill sequences that are the most effective in the situation.

    Like you say, it's a sequence, not a rotation. A rotation is something cyclical. Reacting to something that happens (say, a breakbar at 50%) with a non-repetitive sequence of CC skills isn't a rotation. It is, as you say, a sequence.

    There is always a most effective sequence, that's what I'm saying.

    Likely, but depending on your level of skill and the situation, it could just be a random reaction. When you want to rezz someone with geyser for example, you could either run over and press 'F', switch to Water and cast it from a distance, or both because you need them rezzed asap and don't mind them both being on cooldown. One of those will be optimal, but I wouldn't call it (part of) a rotation.

    Good healers, too, follow their rotations, be it for healing, buffing, CC or a combination of those.

    My point was that healer gameplay is more reactive than dps. You're correct when you say that healer gameplay has some sequences too. There's a place for rotations in healing builds, but I'd argue that good healers react (or prepare for) fight mechanics, whereas poor healers do nothing but blindly following a rotation.

    My presumption is that the OP would have less objections to skill combinations and sequences of skills than a constant rotation of the same skill sequence. I think we agree mostly, except the definition of the term 'rotation'. :-)

    You talk a lot about reactions. The thing is, reacting to the fight is something you only do either when learning a fight, or playing in inexperienced group. In a good group there really isn't much to react to. Sure, sometimes someone makes a mistake so you rush to res. Or the team takes take too long to kill a projection on KC, you get a fixation and need to move away to prevent a merge. Or any number of things. The point is, these are incidental only. The vast majority of the time it all goes smoothly. Everyone knows which skills to use and when. Call it "sequences" or "rotations", doesn't make any difference. Many times I wouldn't actually even finish my rotation, as the boss will phase before I reach the point where the rotation loops.

    So i hope you agree with me, that that sounds really dull... like some kind of math program..

    You do realize any game with any kind of resource system (which includes HP) is "fundamentally" a math program..... And this is on top of all programs being math to begin with. Rotations and sequences are a side effect of a system based cool down timers and damage multipliers, and a stronger emphasis on skill effects rather then effect delivery. Compare that to most shooters, which have less user facing damage models (its all back end math), being much easier to understand by players.

    Since physics tends to be ignored in fantasy RPG set ups, and rules modeled largely after old school D&D, players can focus more heavily on intricate details of the skill effects and related mechanics when attempting to optimize. A contrast to this is Fighting games, where despite having combos at high level play, is still more concerned with ensuring attacks connect, rather then raw theoretical damage. This happens because delivery of an attack is not 99% reliable, and players have a lot of agency in that area of game play.

    Its something that has been pointed out repeatedly about this game since its open beta...... the game's overall design most heavily rewards, and thus revolves around damage output, things that change damage output (be it constructive or destructive), and things that can negate damage output. Where GW2 differs from most other MMOs (which almost universally center around damage) is the comparatively large number of damage negation techniques, most of which are common mechanics shared by every class. In most respects, combat is closer to that of Fighting games... but is heavily altered by the resource systems (cool downs), tab-targeting, and free movement.

    The game's design could realistically deviate further from a Damage centrtic model; but doing so requires redesigning all the enemies to use various forms of defense strategies to give players something to tackle.

    Ye a lot of the classes are heavily skewed towards damage mitigation and buffs and bruiser type play, which is healthy but a certain types of thinking has certainly bled into the game where its all about the dps and rotations (the latter of which is a poison for diverse gameplay and skills).

    You could adjust aggro calculations drastically to kill off the tank n spank/ heavily managed/scripted/follow a single strategy fight, meaning all classes would have to be far more self sufficient - that would shake things up a great deal. This would however massively raise the skill ceiling as players could no longer just rely on rote memorisation of key press rotations and positioning in a fight.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.