Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Let's be honest, other professions are the problem...


JTGuevara.9018

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

That doesn't mean your view of especs is relevant to why they exist. Anet creates things in the game based on their vision, not 'the peoples' vision. The especs offer playstyle flavours ... that's not debatable. That's intended. That's not debateable. 

This part is actually most likely wrong partially. True, they have a vision, but they are making Especs predominantly to increase user engagement and, ideally, monetization. They are a company. Regardless of vision, the end objective of the vision is adoption, not just vision for visions sake as other professions such as a musician or artist would operate under.

In this sense, some degree of unison between developer vision and player vision has to exist. However, to the defense of what I think is your point (forgive me, there’s a lot of posts and I can’t read them all), the need dev vision and player vision unison is across all classes, not just within the community of one profession.

In that sense, Anet developers may be content with warrior being left behind and essentially reducing the complexity of balance by 1/9th. Meanwhile, the other class mains won’t be particularly worried about the lack of warrior’s existence, as it just reduces the number of threats for them by 1/9th as well.

As long as player just adopt another profession or play the weak class and don’t leave, it could be argued there would be content with the classes state on Anets part. 

However, this, as well as everything else in this thread, is mostly conjecture, so w/e. Have a nice night 🙂 

Edited by oscuro.9720
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, oscuro.9720 said:

This part is actually most likely wrong partially. True, they have a vision, but they are making Especs predominantly to increase user engagement and, ideally, monetization. They are a company. Regardless of vision, the end objective of the vision is adoption, not just vision for visions sake as other professions such as a musician or artist would operate under.

In this sense, some degree of unison between developer vision and player vision has to exist. However, to the defense of what I think is your point (forgive me, there’s a lot of posts and I can’t read them all), the need dev vision and player vision unison is across all classes, not just within the community of one profession.

In that sense, Anet developers may be content with warrior being left behind and essentially reducing the complexity of balance by 1/9th. Meanwhile, the other class mains won’t be particularly worried about the lack of warrior’s existence, as it just reduces the number of threats for them by 1/9th as well.

As long as player just adopt another profession or play the weak class and don’t leave, it could be argued there would be content with the classes state on Anets part. 

However, this, as well as everything else in this thread, is mostly conjecture, so w/e. Have a nice night 🙂 

I would actually prolly say most from a PvP point of few would be happy if warriors got suddenly made overpowered. 

The staleness of Necromancer, revenant thief and engineer dominance of the meta currently is boring. 

We have side noders afking on points to prevent thief decapping. Stale team fights of never dying core necros and thiefs spamming back and fourth to try take points. 

It's honestly a horrific state. And anything that could possibly throw this meta on its head imho would be a positive. Even if just to change the order of what's OP and what sucks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 12:59 AM, Obtena.7952 said:

Yet it's true because it's a difference in playstyle ... which requires a person to play it properly to see that difference.

Sorry, but there's currently only 1 class that falls under "different playstyle" if it comes to it's core and e-speces and that is Necromancer, everything else is just core+ at most with the same playstyles in long run.
In case of Warriors: Berserker is core+, because all it does is smashing F1 to do the same as core; Spellbreaker is also core+, because it have exactly same F1 skill, but it does fancy F2, but has the playstyle changed? No, it didn't in the slightest, it's just core+ with fancy evadeblock skill and that's it.
The playstyle for Berserker should be completely losing it's capability to "burst" and maybe work as some sort of transform skill like Rampage, which would be tuned via traits to how it should behave, like 1 trait would change what range you have in it (if picked x trait then it would gain 900 range attacks that would be some fancy air pressure that burns; if picked y it would be melee range that heavily punches enemies to death or whatever; if picked z then it would some fancy slashes that reach 300~600 brackets, etc.).
The playstyle for Spellbreakers should be also losing it's capability to "burst", in exchange for that warrior would gain new F1-F3 skills (still using Adrenaline as energy for usage) that would also be tuned by traits. Let's say that F1 would tether x enemies to you (taunting and same tether mechanics as current one), apply some condies (burn and slow) and remove boons from them while connected, F2 could do some fancy restoration (hp, skill cd) to you and allies within 180 radius , F3 could create some static Light field of 360? radius that would remove boons from enemies and conditions from allies. These could furher be changed via traits, like: "remove 1 additional boon from enemies thethered to you whenever you apply burn to them" or "you increase boon duration of allies when casting F2" or something like that.
But no, A-net went super lazy way to just do the same "S M A S H  F1" theme for warriors and that goes for pretty much all classes. There's no "different" playstyle in the slightest, the same kitten just with more buttons to press...

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrollingDemigod.3041 said:

In case of Warriors: Berserker is core+, because all it does is smashing F1 to do the same as core

No? Berserkers can no longer SMASH F1 on demand, they must enter Berserk to F1. 
If Core is Weapon Swapping and weaving F1s in between skill combos, Berserker is all about timing your skill cooldowns, entering Berserk, then Smashing F1 3 - 4 times in a row before being locked out of it for awhile.

In that respect, I think Berserker plays pretty differently from Core. 

Edited by Yasai.3549
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Yasai.3549 said:

No? Berserkers can no longer SMASH F1 on demand, they must enter Berserk to F1. 
If Core is Weapon Swapping and weaving F1s in between skill combos, Berserker is all about timing your skill cooldowns, entering Berserk, then Smashing F1 3 - 4 times in a row before being locked out of it for awhile.

In that respect, I think Berserker plays pretty differently from Core. 

Warrior can also "wait" with smashing F1 and be on-par with Berserker timings, so your argument is already threw through window at this point.
The difference between them is only "time" to smash F1, the one can "freely" choice it, the other needs "window", but ultimately the gameplay is the same, smash F1. 
If it wasn't for the "shiny effects" of Berserker bursts, the only differnce between these 2 would only be "time window" to do the smashing and that's it. The gameplay is exactly the same, mechanics are exactly the same. If you really think that this "time window" makes "completely different playstyle" then kekw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean the e-specs are work the same but somehow also different. They work the same cause warrior always use the same mechanic ..... fill adrenalin Bar and burst. 

However they arent the same.

Berserker is a more aggressiv playstyle doing high burst damage with low CD on the burst skills. 

Spellbraker is a more passive playstyle reacting to enemys moves and use your fullcounter at the right moments. 

Core is litterly the middle ground it deal good damage and got some defence by heal shouts 

How ever maybe bladesworn (more a meme spec to me) .... how ever it will be a better core way but without using banners and disciplin instead you want to use strength tacitcs to be a damaging second healer  (if its just still balanced like this tho)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TrollingDemigod.3041 said:

Warrior can also "wait" with smashing F1 and be on-par with Berserker timings, so your argument is already threw through window at this point.
The difference between them is only "time" to smash F1, the one can "freely" choice it, the other needs "window", but ultimately the gameplay is the same, smash F1. 
If it wasn't for the "shiny effects" of Berserker bursts, the only differnce between these 2 would only be "time window" to do the smashing and that's it. The gameplay is exactly the same, mechanics are exactly the same. If you really think that this "time window" makes "completely different playstyle" then kekw.

Zerker's ability to back to back F1s far outshine Core's ability to do so. 
Zerker is also able to F1 > Rage Heal > F1 for even harder burst which Core doesn't enjoy. 

When I say back to back F1, I literally mean spamming F1 over and over in short span, not like Core's F1 weaving between attacks. It's different enough to be unique, especially since Core Bursts have "Levels" to consider, which increases the power/effect of the Burst. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Azure The Heartless.3261 yeas and no. The reason why warrior is still in this state are simply banners. They are too strong to not get used. Even while they are actually nerfed. I myself woule love to see banners played more as a passive buff. That would bring more variants into warriors playstyle. 

 

Or (and thats why i was hope for a supp e-spec instead of bladesworn) get banners into tactics and buff Disziplin to a more damaging variant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TrollingDemigod.3041 said:

Sorry, but there's currently only 1 class that falls under "different playstyle" if it comes to it's core and e-speces and that is Necromancer, everything else is just core+ at most with the same playstyles in long run.
In case of Warriors: Berserker is core+, because all it does is smashing F1 to do the same as core; Spellbreaker is also core+, because it have exactly same F1 skill, but it does fancy F2, but has the playstyle changed? No, it didn't in the slightest, it's just core+ with fancy evadeblock skill and that's it.
The playstyle for Berserker should be completely losing it's capability to "burst" and maybe work as some sort of transform skill like Rampage, which would be tuned via traits to how it should behave, like 1 trait would change what range you have in it (if picked x trait then it would gain 900 range attacks that would be some fancy air pressure that burns; if picked y it would be melee range that heavily punches enemies to death or whatever; if picked z then it would some fancy slashes that reach 300~600 brackets, etc.).
The playstyle for Spellbreakers should be also losing it's capability to "burst", in exchange for that warrior would gain new F1-F3 skills (still using Adrenaline as energy for usage) that would also be tuned by traits. Let's say that F1 would tether x enemies to you (taunting and same tether mechanics as current one), apply some condies (burn and slow) and remove boons from them while connected, F2 could do some fancy restoration (hp, skill cd) to you and allies within 180 radius , F3 could create some static Light field of 360? radius that would remove boons from enemies and conditions from allies. These could furher be changed via traits, like: "remove 1 additional boon from enemies thethered to you whenever you apply burn to them" or "you increase boon duration of allies when casting F2" or something like that.
But no, A-net went super lazy way to just do the same "S M A S H  F1" theme for warriors and that goes for pretty much all classes. There's no "different" playstyle in the slightest, the same kitten just with more buttons to press...

I just want to point out that when the Post EoD balance is done I'd love for these suggestions on how to rework Berserker and Spellbreaker to be strongly considered by the balance team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Is F1 -> To The Limit -> Weapon Swap -> F1 a joke to you?

But doing so is already different in both steps and outcome as compared to Berserker so... I'll say it's still different enough to be considered unique. The argument he was trying to make was that Berserker is simply Core+, but the actual truth is that by running Berserker you are sacrificing a traitline you would run on Core in favor of the capability to have windows of back to back high burst damage. 

In this respect, Warrior's Berserker Espec follows through with the entire idea of trade offs.

 

In regards to the main discussion, it is true that some Especs just give too much to the Class without trading off which is why we have class imbalance. Things like Renegade, both Guardian Specs, Weaver, both Thief specs, can be considered as such. Not to say they don't "alter" the gameplay as intended of Especs, but their "tradeoffs" are more or less just a small boop on the nose and the benefits and abilities gained from running their Especs far outstrips the trade offs and loss of a core traitline. 

Edited by Yasai.3549
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Yasai.3549 said:

But doing so is already different in both steps and outcome as compared to Berserker so... I'll say it's still different enough to be considered unique. The argument he was trying to make was that Berserker is simply Core+, but the actual truth is that by running Berserker you are sacrificing a traitline you would run on Core in favor of the capability to have windows of back to back high burst damage. 

In this respect, Warrior's Berserker Espec follows through with the entire idea of trade offs.

 

In regards to the main discussion, it is true that some Especs just give too much to the Class without trading off which is why we have class imbalance. Things like Renegade, both Guardian Specs, Weaver, both Thief specs, can be considered as such. Not to say they don't "alter" the gameplay as intended of Especs, but their "tradeoffs" are more or less just a small boop on the nose and the benefits and abilities gained from running their Especs far outstrips the trade offs and loss of a core traitline. 

But how is that different from CORE beside TIME WINDOWS? It still does the same kitten F1 smash for burst and nothing beyond that. Just because A-net compressed the window of opportunity for Berserkers Burst skills, doesn't mean it's completely different playstyle to core in the slightest, you smash F1 more often in tinier time window with longer downtime, but you do exactly same thing as core in this case, smash F1 with fancier animations and effects, it's Core+ and that's it. There' really 0 differences between core and berserker beside that burst time window, it's the same kitten.
If Berserker F1 skill would do something COMPLETELY different than SMASH FOR DAMAGE like Core skills, then and only then you could start claiming that it's "different" playstyle, for now it's just fancier animations in different time windows with exactly same gameplay.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TrollingDemigod.3041 said:

But how is that different from CORE beside TIME WINDOWS? It still does the same kitten F1 smash for burst and nothing beyond that. Just because A-net compressed the window of opportunity for Berserkers Burst skills, doesn't mean it's completely different playstyle to core in the slightest, you smash F1 more often in tinier time window with longer downtime, but you do exactly same thing as core in this case, smash F1 with fancier animations and effects, it's Core+ and that's it. There' really 0 differences between core and berserker beside that burst time window, it's the same kitten.
If Berserker F1 skill would do something COMPLETELY different than SMASH FOR DAMAGE like Core skills, then and only then you could start claiming that it's "different" playstyle, for now it's just fancier animations in different time windows with exactly same gameplay.

Your entire argument is that DURRRRR BERSERKER F1 TOO, ALL ESPEC F1 TOO. 
Yea no kitten, it's their Class ability, of course they all F1.

The difference is how often, how different their F1 is, and what they lose in order to do so. 
Both SpB and Zerk loses Burst Levels, but both gain another form of Burst. And this isn't even counting the loss of a traitline and gaining different stats/traits through Espec traitline. 
 

Your argument is like saying "BUT ALL NECRO SPECS HAVE SHROUD, IT'S JUST NECRO +" but well one doesn't actually have Shroud in the form of a handy health bar they can pocket and the other trades all of its ranged capability for melee skills. 

Edited by Yasai.3549
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo I don't dislike Berserker gameplay. Overall I'd actually like for all warrior specs to maintain the same muscle memory buttons of importance in their kit. The difference won't come from pressing different buttons, the difference will come from pressing the same buttons and doing something else, which both Full Counter and Berserk mode imo fullfill.

 

Bladesworn is just all flashy no substance in that department... That;s where the "role" of a spec comes in. Look at Mesmers and what they say about shatters. Same thing here. It's about giving you a meaningful change, not just an icon change.

 

Breaking stuns on a burst is unique and so is evading all attacks for a time frame. Equipping a kit and doing 3 more steps to deliver the same results as core with 1 button press.....is bad..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TrollingDemigod.3041 said:

Warrior can also "wait" with smashing F1 and be on-par with Berserker timings

Exactly ... if you CHOOSE to play that way, it can be the same ... but you can also choose to play so it's not. Of course you ignored the fact that Berserker also has a 'mode' while core warrior doesn't ... and that affects how you can play too ... or at least it does if you actually know how to play the spec. 

I mean, EVERYTHING plays the same if you just press 1 too ... but that doesn't mean anything you can just press 1 on doesn't have different playstyles ... but you can believe you what like. That doesn't prevent Anet from continuing to do what they do because some people only press 1. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Yasai.3549 said:

Your entire argument is that DURRRRR BERSERKER F1 TOO, ALL ESPEC F1 TOO. 
Yea no kitten, it's their Class ability, of course they all F1.

The difference is how often, how different their F1 is, and what they lose in order to do so. 
Both SpB and Zerk loses Burst Levels, but both gain another form of Burst. And this isn't even counting the loss of a traitline and gaining different stats/traits through Espec traitline. 
 

Your argument is like saying "BUT ALL NECRO SPECS HAVE SHROUD, IT'S JUST NECRO +" but well one doesn't actually have Shroud in the form of a handy health bar they can pocket and the other trades all of its ranged capability for melee skills. 

I wrote that Necro is the only class in the entire game which actually gives "different" playstyle with their e-speces.
Imagine that a Core Warrior is a wood stick, got it? A simple wood stick. Now what is a Berserker? The Berserker is that the same stick, but shorter and painted with different colors, but does it make it some different stick? No it doesn't, it's just shorter and painted stick, but it's the same stick in grand scheme of things, for you people somehow it is "WOW MARVELOUS, INNOVATIVE, NOVELANT", which in reality isn't. Berserker should become something completely different, like instead of wood stick, it should become iron pipe or whatever, but in current iteration it's just painted short stick.
Your argument about "shorter uptime on bursts" is ridiculous to say the least, because it does the same thing, do damage like the core does, you get it now or still too high IQ? On top of that, the F1 in burst mode is only one skill, same like Core, there's no difference here. Take away the "berserker mode" activation requirement and you have core class that have now fancy F1, nothing beyond that. If that F1 in Berserker mode would do something COMPLETELY different to core, then you would be right, but it doesn't. For example: if GS burst in berserk would buff the user like gain +33% attack speed for x seconds instead of still doing the same SMASH ENEMY, do you get it?

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Daddy.8125 said:

I would actually prolly say most from a PvP point of few would be happy if warriors got suddenly made overpowered. 

The staleness of Necromancer, revenant thief and engineer dominance of the meta currently is boring. 

We have side noders afking on points to prevent thief decapping. Stale team fights of never dying core necros and thiefs spamming back and fourth to try take points. 

It's honestly a horrific state. And anything that could possibly throw this meta on its head imho would be a positive. Even if just to change the order of what's OP and what sucks. 

Perhaps now, as people seem to acknowledge more that warrior is a fundamentally easy-to-counter class, at least in competitive modes. I think you are forgetting the hatred people had for spell when it was OP though. 

The question on Anet’s side you would have to ask is this; would more players from the currently strong professions stop playing if we made warrior OP vs the number of players who would return to play if warrior was made OP. Those numbers, from a business perspective, need to be roughly balanced. My suspicion is that they would not tbh. Thus, it’s more logical for Anet to balance all the other professions and leave warrior where it is, since the presently most popular professions are the ones that would suffer most from warrior buffs (guardian, necro mostly). 

However, this is not the sole consideration for Anet, admittedly. Video game do lie somewhere between a form of expression and a business. Thus, for the sake of the health of the class, they could choose a different route.

Also the decision set is non-binary. It’s quite literally infinite. For example, they could choose to give small buffs to warrior that would not move it up much in the meta, but enough that some warrior players return without anyone abandoning other professions (small, frequent changes is actually the ideal way to balance things imo).

However, without actual play numbers or anything like that, this is all conjecture. No one here, not me, not you, not Obtena have a clue what Anet thinks 😛

Edited by oscuro.9720
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, oscuro.9720 said:

However, without actual play numbers or anything like that, this is all conjecture. No one here, not me, not you, not Obtena have a clue what Anet thinks

Would likely depend on longevity. 

Look at league of legends, DoTA2, WoW etc etc, they always have overpowered champions that rotate and it gets very little negativity towards it. 

I think the larger problem then what is op and what isn't OP is the regularity of balance changes. 

Gw2s balance is no worse then any of these other PvP games let's face you can back through time and you will find broken things, stuff in need of reworks, outdated designs and more it exists across the board. 

However other games tend to balance the game and things change more regularly which prevent the same level of backlash occuring as it does in gw2. 

It's far easier to just roll with things that are broken when you have faith the company will fix it in a few weeks.  Rather then the assumption your stuck with it for uptoo a year. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Daddy.8125 said:

Would likely depend on longevity. 

Look at league of legends, DoTA2, WoW etc etc, they always have overpowered champions that rotate and it gets very little negativity towards it. 

I think the larger problem then what is op and what isn't OP is the regularity of balance changes. 

Gw2s balance is no worse then any of these other PvP games let's face you can back through time and you will find broken things, stuff in need of reworks, outdated designs and more it exists across the board. 

However other games tend to balance the game and things change more regularly which prevent the same level of backlash occuring as it does in gw2. 

It's far easier to just roll with things that are broken when you have faith the company will fix it in a few weeks.  Rather then the assumption your stuck with it for uptoo a year. 

100% agree with you. I just made a comment about that in another thread actually 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Daddy.8125 said:

Would likely depend on longevity. 

Look at league of legends, DoTA2, WoW etc etc, they always have overpowered champions that rotate and it gets very little negativity towards it. 

I think the larger problem then what is op and what isn't OP is the regularity of balance changes. 

Gw2s balance is no worse then any of these other PvP games let's face you can back through time and you will find broken things, stuff in need of reworks, outdated designs and more it exists across the board. 

However other games tend to balance the game and things change more regularly which prevent the same level of backlash occuring as it does in gw2. 

It's far easier to just roll with things that are broken when you have faith the company will fix it in a few weeks.  Rather then the assumption your stuck with it for uptoo a year. 

The issue with PvP and game balance is that our current devs are more intent on overnerfing first before doing anything... if they even intend to do anything. 

Power nerfs, Heal nerfs, Boon nerfs, Condi nerfs, all of these matter and has brought the game back from the 1 shot parade it has been but some of these overlapping nerfs affect some builds/classes more than others. 

Warrior specifically has been hit 3 times indirectly with a combination of Power nerfs first curbing their killing power by an insane amount, then Heal nerfs preventing them from sustaining with HoT, then finally Resistance rework which no longer gave immunity to Condi but at the same time Warrior of all specs can't even generate Resolution reliably, so it just ends up with giving Warrior immunity to movement impairment and condemning them to be Condi food. 

Even if Warrior still retained the same strength as before, the Resistance rework coupled with little to no ability to grant Resolution to themselves basically killed the entire class in PvP. I mean, sure if you have a pocket brand around just covering you, Warrior is still pretty solid, but it's just a shameful shadow of their former prowess regardless. 

Edited by Yasai.3549
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2022 at 3:47 PM, Daddy.8125 said:

Would likely depend on longevity. 

Look at league of legends, DoTA2, WoW etc etc, they always have overpowered champions that rotate and it gets very little negativity towards it. 

I think the larger problem then what is op and what isn't OP is the regularity of balance changes. 

Gw2s balance is no worse then any of these other PvP games let's face you can back through time and you will find broken things, stuff in need of reworks, outdated designs and more it exists across the board. 

However other games tend to balance the game and things change more regularly which prevent the same level of backlash occuring as it does in gw2. 

It's far easier to just roll with things that are broken when you have faith the company will fix it in a few weeks.  Rather then the assumption your stuck with it for uptoo a year. 

I'll tell you what it is. It is freaking bias. Bias from non-warrior players who got SHELLACKED by a skilled warrior and lobby ANet for buffs and more broken builds as well as bombarding the forums and Reddit. Warriors are not really all that known for complaining about balance. We tend to just make do. You don't believe me? Look at the profession forum activity. We're the 2nd least active with 67 pages (guardian is 1st).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

You don't believe me? Look at the profession forum activity. We're the 2nd least active with 67 pages (guardian is 1st)

Tbh all the percentages in this game are strongly showing atleast some problems 😂 I mean there's multiple proffessions which seem to be trash in alot of content currently. 

I wouldn't say it's a bias against warrior, it's just simply currently we have 4 proffessions which dominant all content in this game and the other 5 are left to gather dust and rot to the side. 

And regardless to the extent of such a accusation towards a company it's very hard to beleive otherwise when the company have intentionally ensured these proffessions over perform for 4 years while doing nothing to aid the 5 which have continously been kept below them

Why is it fine for some proffessions elites to get more risk or "ensure its fun" factor to others? 

Anet seem fine to release speccs for sheer "thematic existence" for some then others. There are some proffessions which have just continously been given elites which are sheet upgrades and power creeps where others just have never reached the same standard. 

Edited by Daddy.8125
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2022 at 8:52 PM, Daddy.8125 said:

Anet seem fine to release speccs for sheer "thematic existence" for some then others. 

This is very close to what is true. People should start asking themselves the thought-inducing questions like:

Why is there 9 classes in a game where there aren't defined roles? I'm certain it's not because Anet love the work it adds. I'm certain Anet could EASILY get away with 3 classes based on the mechanics of the game ... yet we have 9. It's clearly thematic.

now, if you snapshotted the game today, you might conclude that there is something 'special' about some classes being thematically existential ... but if you look at the whole history of the game, at some point or other, all classes have had their day looking like purely thematic existences. 

In otherwords, all the classes exist for flavour ... it's just some flavours are more relevant to the menu than others at different points in the game. There was a time where meta was simply about power DPS and nothing else. So, the game evolves, as does the meta.  

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Why is there 9 classes in a game where there aren't defined roles? I'm certain it's not because Anet love the work it adds. I'm certain Anet could EASILY get away with 3 classes based on the mechanics of the game ... yet we have 9. It's clearly thematic

While true. Thematic choice seems limited when the game plays as if there really is only 3 proffessions. 

It may aswell only have 3 proffessions in it realistically. Over 80% of the playerbase have accepted this. I mean if we keep going this way the games gonna be played as if the other 6 don't exist. 

Ofcourse EoD may suprise us and we see a wider choice but we will see. 

 

  • Like 1
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...