Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Should each Profession have a more unique role / identity?


EremiteAngel.9765

Recommended Posts

I was reading the Wiki Professions Page and they describe the theme/flavor of each class.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Professionhttps://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Soldierhttps://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Adventurerhttps://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Scholar

Also it seems like there was a form of blueprint for the various classes with Scholar (light armor) being back-line, Adventurer (medium armor) being mid-line and Soldier (heavy armor) being front-line.

However with every elite spec, these distinctions get more and more blur.There are a lot more overlapping roles and at times, their more efficient build is totally opposite to the roles they were generally designed for.

Everyone can DPS, Support and Control.Everyone can back-line, mid-line or front-line effectively.Every class can be built to fill almost any role.

Many weapons and categories of utilities overlap across all the classes.There isn't much uniqueness separating each class.

Should there be a sharper contrast in terms of role and identity for each class, or are things fine as they are now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Profession and armour weight descriptions have always been a lie. A Guardian (heavy) is often most useful as a DPS, while a Mesmer (light) handles frontline boon support while facetanking enemy attacks. A thief isn't allowed to stealth and can hardly hold its own in a duel.

That said, I do think each class/spec should have something different going for it. I don't like the idea that "every class/build should be able to group/self mightstack because Warrior can do it", or that "Glyph of Empowerment is OP because it's a unique buff I can't use on my healing Ele"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should there be a sharper contrast in terms of role and identity for each class,Why?

It's generally a mistake in any game to read too much into the official description. For starters, it's just flavor text; it's not a blueprint for the actual plans. Second, plans evolve over time while the official descriptions almost never change.

Besides which, restricting each prof to just one role seems arbitrary. I'd rather have a dozen or two potential options for DPS than just a few.


In games that owe most of their combat mechanics to AD&D, in games based on the Traditional Trinity (Tanks etc), then sure, it helps to simplify by associating each class with a role. In other games, such as GW2, there's no need. The flexibility is part of what makes things fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mesmers: If whatever I think is happening is happening, it better not beRevenants: Turn to page 349 in your history texts and use it to smack the person next to youEngineers: Hit it until it works; that's not rust, that's characterWarriors: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGuardians: AAAAAAAAAAA GET BEHIND ME AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARangers: Get off my lawn and don't ever talk to my cat againThieves: Nothing personal, cubNecromancers: Hey, want to see my dead bird collection?Elementalists: I could paint with all the colors of the wind, but I'd rather just break your neck with it

I don't know, I feel like the classes have the same vibe despite the new specs rolled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always in favor of my variety and player options! =) I don’t think choosing a profession should force you to play a certain role or vice versa. And playing support, for instance, with different professions had different strengths and utility and different feel to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O god yes its out right silly to call some of the classes in this game Soldier when most of there attks seem way more magic base then most Scholar. And you have some Scholar base classes more agl then what anet called Adventurer. Armor class is pointless as a defining means to calling what class architect type is and its only getting worst as they add in more elite spec.

At best the game is base off of animation more then in game effects to define your class mages effect look like mages effect all thought they may have nothing that acts like magic at all (not being able to hit though armor). In this game we have fire that dose not burn we have ice that dose not chill we have lighting that dose not shock and we have earth that dose not impeded or bind. Its all a trick of animation having nothing to do with real uniqueness of a roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classes are okay, but those categories are incorrect: for me, elementalist/necromant/mesmer/guardian/revenant and ranger are scholar. Engieneer/thief are explorer. Finally warrior for soldier.Imo, if using any kind of magic it's scholar. If nothing apart weapons, soldier.Without using magic many classes would be useless, only engie, ranger, thief, soldier would survive.

The major point is classes balance, it's always the same classes that feel strong or weak. Some need a fix or rework for sure. (dragonhunter bow)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is true that classes can play pretty much every role, they cannot do so at all times. For example, a core ranger will not be able to be a healer unless he has the druid spec on. Different specs give different roles. As far as I know, feel free to correct me, I am not aware of a build that allows you to tank, heal and DPS (all effectively) at the same time. So I think we are exaggerating when we say that there is no diversity.

Having said that, I do wish that they were more distinction between the classes. Give players a reason to start a new class other than different skills. Then again, the game content does not require specific roles to be played other than raids I guess....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things Anet really wanted to avoid as much as possible with GW2 is players needing a specific combination of professions to complete content. That's what "play the way you want" originally referred to: you might need to adjust your builds and equipment but any combination of professions could complete any content, so no one would be pressured into playing something they didn't like because it's what their friends needed for their party and no one would be stuck waiting for ages because they need a specific profession to complete something. (Play the way you want also referred to the separation between PvE, PvP and WvW - in most games you have to level up and get equipment in PvE even if you only ever want to play PvP.)

I think that was changed slightly in raids, which require specific combinations of mechanics. It's not nearly as strict as 'hard trinity' games where for example only 1 or 2 classes can heal, they can only be healers and you will not survive without at least 1 of them, but my understanding is raids are designed to require a variety of professions - you probably couldn't complete them with all warriors or all mesmers for example.

So I don't think you're wrong that there is a lot of cross-over and profession roles aren't as clear as they are in other games. But I don't see it as a problem, firstly because it provides that flexibility and secondly because it's never stopped players having favourite professions and some players insisting that certain combinations of professions are better than others, or even claiming that only one specific combination of professions - each with a specific build - is acceptable.

I don't have any doubt that my warrior can do everything my ranger does, and could even use a lot of the same mechanics, but I still don't enjoy playing a warrior as much as a ranger because the theme and style of the profession is very different, even when the role they're filling is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Game of Bones.8975" said:That was one of the problems with GW1, if you weren't playing "the correct" profession you didn't get in a PUG.

Yeah, that is pretty sad. One of my old alliance members claimed to me that rangers weren’t viable for playing solo with heroes (and he was talking about playing through story :tongue:). I said I completed WoC HM on all professions with only heroes and no cons. He then changed his wording to say rangers weren’t as good as other professions and it’s much harder playing a ranger with heroes. I told him even during WoC HM, it was not harder on my ranger compared to other professions since I played to each profession’s strengths (I actually found ranger easier than some due to their flexibility). He got mad at me. :disappointed:

Another alliance member said that warriors were the worst profession in the game. This was before, when he needed help with WoC HM, I always helped him on my warrior. :tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly I just wish that combo fields and finishers had a bigger effect. Back in the olden days, blasting in a fire or water field was actually a strategy. Classes were defined as either field placers or finishers. This was also back when quickness was only for 5 seconds every 60 seconds, and capping might was really difficult to do.

Nowadays, you can just ignore all of the combo field/finisher stuff, since most classes have baked in abilities that better. If we restored combos to relevance, we might see class identity emerge again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should of never tried to remove the trinity, Classes having specific roles to fill makes them easier to balance. (Warrior being a more tanky bruiser means it has little burst but sustained damage with tools to mitigate damage. Ele being damage/support means it has tons of tolls to do damage and support allies; Meaning while being harder to remain in prolonged fights with classes like a warrior it can absolutely dominate with squishy dps targets. Thieves being the mage killer, Necromancer being our light armor bruiser? Yes please.)

Really all the classes are the same with different colors/flavors; No reason to play more than one outside of simply wanting X theme over X theme. Necromancer is an embarrassment to the entire mythos/Idea of being a necromancer. It has little to no curses, hexes, blood magic where? Minions are trash. Yet it players like a slower warrior, especially with reaper? All this was done to shave corners and make it so they didn't have to design things in unique ways; prime example is how elite specs just closes the distance between classes. Eventually they will all be the same, Everyone is a dps and everyone can support but when it comes to tanks we have ONE real tank designed for tanking which is chrono.

Kinda wish they would just make everything 100% like warrior because its the one class that never has sucked, its always been good at least in functionality and performance while other classes have suffered. And when said classes shine just a bit the community explodes into rage and demands nerfs, despite the fact that ONE build from ONE spec and specific set up actually functions well. (Rev power herald with either sword/sword + Staff or Hammer. Without that build Rev would fall off of any competitive pvp because its just too good not to use. It has nothing else to really work well in those environments and its easy to avoid, easy to fight against and if you know anything from fighting it you know once it uses sword five +Mist assault and you burn through glints utilities you can basically bum rush it. A good warrior will shit stomp a rev, same with necro.)

Game is watered down, the sooner you appreciate what little we have the better. It won't change and hasn't changed since the game came out, only has grown more and more apparent over time. Thats why this game is a theme-park mmo just like wow; You come back for the expansions to see whats new and then you dip out and wait for the next release. There is no need to devote large amounts of time to it, the story while decent now was horrible back then and will only hold you as long as it has something (Like skyscale) To work toward. Play the game like this and it gets 100% more enjoyable, its not meant to be played like an rpg by any means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"EremiteAngel.9765" said:However with every elite spec, these distinctions get more and more blur.There are a lot more overlapping roles and at times, their more efficient build is totally opposite to the roles they were generally designed for.

Everyone can DPS, Support and Control.Everyone can back-line, mid-line or front-line effectively.Every class can be built to fill almost any role.

Many weapons and categories of utilities overlap across all the classes.There isn't much uniqueness separating each class.

Should there be a sharper contrast in terms of role and identity for each class, or are things fine as they are now?

What you are criticizing is the very structure of the game design. It has always been flexible save for closed content which actually falls back on the "Holy Trinity" in builds, not classes per se.

You will need a healer build, a tank build, and a dps/condi damage build for specific content. Because of this need, there are classes that cover these roles better than others.

With that said, I think there should be more options for flexibility, not less. That's just one of the many things we lost from the pre-expac days: flexibility. Now everyone must have a Mesmer for something. That's the dev's favorite class. It is arguably the most flexible of all classes.

What we need is for all the classes to be as flexible as that class. Long story short, you want a Holy Trinity of classes, you picked the wrong game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There certainly is more room for flexibility and viable improvement at end game for some classes. IF every class was as flexible and effective as for example mesmer is currently in the roles it can play then the game would be ideally perfect as far as this particular subject goes.

To say "No" nothing should change and everything is good as is in my opinion a way of saying one of the following more than likely.

1 i dont want something to stand on equal ground as me because the thing i like to play has been best at it for a while2 i dont want the thing i like the most to change for better or worse because there is a good chance it will get worse while other things get better3 i dont play any end game content or don't understand that some classes are not as flexible and viable as they could/should be4 i dont play other classes in general so it does not matter because what i do play is already perfect and viable

As far as identities go they are already there but some identities shine more than others in certain game modes.Ideally more flexibility that is viable at end game and accepted by the community would be ideal ;)

With that said yes i think alot of things could change for the better. Not saying that everything should change but most certainly not going to say No nothing should change and that each profession is fine as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, armor weight was always a joke. It's only 7% dammage reduction between each weight.

Alright, Yes, professions need to have a more defined identity and to a certain extend, role.

Right now, everyone is DPS.

Different class? You'll just be another DPS with different appearance and sometimes, animations.

Everyone are the same, except in raid whic mesmer is a tank (which is extremely absurd anyway)

The game should allow people to make more^^effective^^ builds that goes in line with the identity of their class.

Soldiers => more physical dammage and defense/sustain

Adventurer => more speed

Scholar => more physical dammage and conditions.

You should not be forced to represent your identity, but have the possibility to be effective at it (Ex: Warrior can't tank, Thief aren't allowed to stealth, Elementalist lacks conditions.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a big believer that classes should be built around themes that can do a lot of things and not around specific, restrictive mechanics. I enjoy when classes have overlap in roles and can't stand when you get pigeonholed into a very specific role based on your class choice. This is one of the major reasons I like GW2 over other MMOs.

An example of how stupid this gets is how hunter melee kept getting nerfed in WoW to make hunters "the ranged class" even though the concept of a hunter can (and should) easily incorporate proficiency with melee weapons (because the theme of the hunter is "wilderness survivalist" not "archer"). People became too preocuppied with trying to define the class through restrictive mechanics to make it feel unique instead of through a broader theme that still makes it feel unique but also allows for a lot of freedom in how it's played.

They finally realized that trying to define hunters in this way was silly and retrofitted Survival to turn it back into a melee spec. Cue the "oh nooo hunters are too close to warriors now" melodrama. Who cares? The two classes are still very, very different in both immersion factors and play styles.

So, no, I don't think any major changes are needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classes don't need "identity" in the sense of role IMO- actually one of the things i hate about a lot of MMOs is that i'd have to spend forever leveling a second character if i ever wanted to play more than one role.That every class is a viable dps makes this game great, and they've made a lot of progress in making more and more classes able to take a viable support role- which is fantastic! To my knowledge all professions have good builds for condition and power, there's a few that need help to make them not useless at ranged, but it's pretty good.

They do have identity in theme both in aesthetic and easy access to some element of combat. This "easy access" gives them things each profession shouldmaster lest they struggle.

For example, if a guardian doesn't make use of their aegis and does not know their sources of aegis, they will die quickly because of the low hp pool- yet guardian is praised for it's ability to bring group aegis which when used correctly can allow groups to get past some mechanics easier. Thief is quite squishy as a class, but if a theif can use their stealth and mobility correctly they should not find themselves recieving too much damage anyway- this is why theif is claimed to be both an easy class and a hard class- it is simple to use, but a theif cannot be lax in terms of their dodges and if they do not utilise their mobility they will be finding fights much harder. Elementalist gets little in terms of defence if they're trying to deal damage- notably it's defences lie in water and for some weapons earth and air, attached to the weapon skills, where it is difficult to get a given defence on demand (reflects, regen, CC come to mind immediately) as few utlities will provide anything for it- so an elementalist must be absolutely on point in combat but get a big payoff in damage (this has gone down recently with nerfs though....) if they succeed.

A few classes could do with more identity, but this is only for those that don't really get a niche. I never understood what's unique about revenant, and i dunno what warrior has aside easy access to CC....Warriors appeal is usally something along the lines of "bulky" so maybe it's lack of a niche IS it's niche? And i know revenant has the whole legends thing going, but i'm not sure what makes it different aside in flavour from other professions. Maybe at a stretch, it's stances allow for multiple niches when used?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...