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

[Crab Fear.1624]

@"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.

[dodgerrule.8739]

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.

[kharmin.7683]

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.

[HnRkLnXqZ.1870]

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.

[Obtena.7952]

@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.

There is ZERO correlation between class balance and having roles, directly assigned (like holy trinity games do) or intuitively categorized based on the grouping of a classes skills. In fact, game content designed around specific 'roles' encourages UNBALANCE because classes are necessary in content based on factors NOT related to their performance. Roles are the ILLUSION of balance; classes being needed in content based on roles and being used can't lead anyone to the conclusion of a balanced game. It's artificial.

[Yasai.3549]

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"

[Crab Fear.1624]

@"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?

[kharmin.7683]

Better? How can I define "better"? It's so subjective. The way things are in GW2 are better for me than any other MMO. I prefer to play a character, not a role. My ranger can be either of the available builds (core/soulbeast/druid) and I can choose how I want to play her given whatever content with which I choose to engage. For me, that versatility is better than being hard-coded into a set, defined role.

[RUNICBLACK.7630]

@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.

[Obtena.7952]

@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.

[Crab Fear.1624]

@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....

[Swagger.1459]

@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.9364]

@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.7952]

@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.

[draxynnic.3719]

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.3549]

@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.

[draxynnic.3719]

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.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

When GW2 started part of their design was for every class to be able to fill any role. During that time there really was no group healing outside of blasting water fields and warrior shouts, which back then did not have an ammo system. All the classes are designed around this with the roles as they were defined in 2013 being Damage, Control, Support. Damage was either condi or power, Control was whatever hard CC and soft CC a class has, and Support was more amorphic since support from a thief was more about team stealth and venom sharing while for a warrior it was shouts, might sharing, and banners.

So what you are proposing here @Crab Fear.1624 is against the very nature of the game. E-specs can further define specific roles (damage e.g. Berserker, control e.g. Spellbreaker, support e.g. the new EoD spec?), but because the are still 2 core traitlines to pick even the e-specs can still be any role.

[draxynnic.3719]

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.5092]

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.3719]

@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.

[kharmin.7683]

@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.

Perhaps, but I know for my small group we are all in GW2 and not other MMOs because of this.

[Spook.5847]

@"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.7952]

@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.

[Veprovina.4876]

@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.