next expansion should remove all self-sustain aside from a generic heal, add monks, and resurrection signet.

[Teknomancer.4895]

15 hours ago, kiroho.4738 said:

Not to mention that Monks extinct when the human gods left. Monks evolved into Guardians.
In other words you talking about a class that a) simply no longer exist in Tyria and b) was Human only.

Human-only? Nonsense. Even the random, roving trash mobs often had Monks. And surely you remember how annoying dealing with this enemy was.

Fact-check aside, they're still not needed in GW2.

[Zera.9435]

4 hours ago, Leger.3724 said:

I think the developers especially high up in Arena Net need to understand this:

The original vision at Arena Net was "we don't want people waiting for monks to complete content".

Where are we at today? "LF ALACDPS, LF QDPS, LFHEALS".

You tried. You failed. When you are developing Guild Wars 3 keep this in mind and stop shying away from having roles/mechanics in your game because people might need to "wait for a specific role". Because they are waiting right now in Guild Wars 2 despite the game being designed from the ground up to avoid this.

They didn't fail, they caved to the demands of the WoW players who demanded raids. Core gameplay was fine and enjoyable for casuals before any of that was implemented.

[RoseofGilead.8907]

5 hours ago, Leger.3724 said:

The original vision at Arena Net was "we don't want people waiting for monks to complete content".

Where are we at today? "LF ALACDPS, LF QDPS, LFHEALS".

The vast majority of of the in-game content can be and is done without need the for groups, let alone groups with a healer and alacdps. So no, they didn't fail in the way you're trying to say.

[Hey its me.3064]

5 hours ago, Leger.3724 said:

Where are we at today? "LF ALACDPS, LF QDPS, LFHEALS".

You tried. You failed. When you are developing Guild Wars 3 keep this in mind and stop shying away from having roles/mechanics in your game because people might need to "wait for a specific role". Because they are waiting right now in Guild Wars 2 despite the game being designed from the ground up to avoid this.

Tell me you can only play DPS without telling me you can only play DPS and have poor understanding of your “favourite” spec…having multiple roles in each spec hurt your brain too much? 
 

Edited June 4 by Hey its me.3064

[Hey its me.3064]

1 hour ago, Zera.9435 said:

They didn't fail, they caved to the demands of the WoW players who demanded raids. Core gameplay was fine and enjoyable for casuals before any of that was implemented.

Cope

[KindredPhoenyx.8976]

ChatGTP going wild with this thread.

Edited June 4 by KindredPhoenyx.8976

[kiroho.4738]

9 hours ago, Teknomancer.4895 said:

Human-only? Nonsense. Even the random, roving trash mobs often had Monks. And surely you remember how annoying dealing with this enemy was.

Fact-check aside, they're still not needed in GW2.

That's lore vs. gameplay.
In gameplay enemies had the same skills as players. For gameplay and for balancing reasons.
Lore-wise Monks got their power from their connection to the human gods. When the gods left Tyria completely, also the Monks' power were gone, which is why they searched other sources of might and eventually turned into Guardians (and become available for other races).
I doubt Margoniters worshiped Dwayna, yet some of them had access to monk healing skills.

Ofcourse we can argue with both in the end, so you are kinda right.

However, Monk skills are gone anyway and we agree that OP's idea is just bad.

Edited June 4 by kiroho.4738

[kiroho.4738]

48 minutes ago, GBEW.6248 said:

cant even jump lolol

That's In Fact Wrong!!

There is a /jump emote. 😛 

[starlinvf.1358]

20 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

It does work, but they do it because those roles represent the 3 ways players can interact with the game in PvE: ally to ally (support), ally to AI (damage), AI to ally (tanking).

GW2 didn't innovate with their system.  They just severely limited the ability of players to control enemy positioning.  The idea was that players would fend for themselves by using their dodge ability and self-sustain skills.  But they quickly realized that could never produce compelling group PvE content and the dedicated support role became a thing.   

As it was before the support role, all not having a tank role did was limit the developer's options in encounter design.  The result is that lovely stack in a pile gameplay and everything they've tried to do to break out of it.  Simply having tanks and UI support for the healer role like other games would have solved these problems.

By compelling you mean toxic.   You pidgin hole classes to singular meta builds, and then gate keep people who son’t fit that.  Raids are hands down THE worst kind of group content because it largely eliminates adaptive player skills in favor of rout memorization and programmable behavior.   Raid culture is over-optimized the group can be 30% over the DPS requirement and still blame someone for being too low for their class benchmark. 

5 man dungeons and fractals are built the same way, but the margins leave less room for others to carry.  If anything, thats where the system shines. Every player has to pull their weight.  And really efficient teams don’t even need healers.   

Trinity is a crutch from older RPG designs. Ones where the action economy is a thing, snd singular attacks can swing a battle.  In the modern DPS race, trinity is frame work DESIGNED  to fail as a way to make fights longer and more attrition based. And when they realized some players could solo it, they started adding hard checks to stop smart or skilled players beating it on the one vector they all rely on…. raw damage. 

Pretty much any looter shooter shows how basic the core premise is. A gun healer being a requirement in a game where evading damage is the optimal option.   Its also why Chrono was such a big deal in early raids. A pvp focused class able to tank a boss, because the overall trinity design is flawed on such a fundamental level. 

[AliamRationem.5172]

50 minutes ago, starlinvf.1358 said:

By compelling you mean toxic.   You pidgin hole classes to singular meta builds, and then gate keep people who son’t fit that.  Raids are hands down THE worst kind of group content because it largely eliminates adaptive player skills in favor of rout memorization and programmable behavior.   Raid culture is over-optimized the group can be 30% over the DPS requirement and still blame someone for being too low for their class benchmark. 

5 man dungeons and fractals are built the same way, but the margins leave less room for others to carry.  If anything, thats where the system shines. Every player has to pull their weight.  And really efficient teams don’t even need healers.   

Trinity is a crutch from older RPG designs. Ones where the action economy is a thing, snd singular attacks can swing a battle.  In the modern DPS race, trinity is frame work DESIGNED  to fail as a way to make fights longer and more attrition based. And when they realized some players could solo it, they started adding hard checks to stop smart or skilled players beating it on the one vector they all rely on…. raw damage. 

Pretty much any looter shooter shows how basic the core premise is. A gun healer being a requirement in a game where evading damage is the optimal option.   Its also why Chrono was such a big deal in early raids. A pvp focused class able to tank a boss, because the overall trinity design is flawed on such a fundamental level. 

Complete nonsense.  Everything you blame on the trinity applies to GW2's design in equal measure and nothing you assign as a virtue is precluded by the trinity.  As I said, the trinity is simply a reflection of the 3 ways players can interact with the game.  Severely restricting those interactions doesn't introduce anything new.  It simply limits the tools developers have available for encounter design.

[Gehenna.3625]

On 6/3/2024 at 2:24 AM, Eddie.9143 said:

boons are terrible for balance. 

They are but you don't need to bring in a new class to deal with the boon situation. But the whole combat system, particularly for group content relies heavily on boons, it's built around boons. So fixing the boon situation takes an complete overhaul of the combat system and I'm not sure if Anet wants to spend that amount of resources on it or even if they want to fix it at all.

In short:  "one does not simply fix boons in GW2"

[Sobx.1758]

2 hours ago, starlinvf.1358 said:

You pidgin hole classes to singular meta builds, and then gate keep people who son’t fit that. 

Well, that's just false, but I understand this is how you imagine it is. Functionally nobody checks your builds in random groups -if you'll decide to "pigeonhole your classes into singular meta builds" for whatever reason (be it because you want that optimal build or because you think that's what you need to do), it's on you.

2 hours ago, starlinvf.1358 said:

Raid culture is over-optimized the group can be 30% over the DPS requirement and still blame someone for being too low for their class benchmark. 

And that's also usually false.

Edited June 4 by Sobx.1758

[ShroomOneUp.6913]

....

i literally explained in layman's terms everything there is to know about gw2 combat and you still argue semantics....

[Zera.9435]

9 hours ago, GBEW.6248 said:

guild wars 1 is outdated, terrible game in 2024. not worth even for gwamm. cant even jump lolol

There was no need to jump. It served no purpose in that game. The good in that game was from the immense build variety that was possible, the pvp was actually fun, and guilds actually mattered. Plus it had good writing and a good story.

[Bladestrom.6425]

2 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Complete nonsense.  Everything you blame on the trinity applies to GW2's design in equal measure and nothing you assign as a virtue is precluded by the trinity.  As I said, the trinity is simply a reflection of the 3 ways players can interact with the game.  Severely restricting those interactions doesn't introduce anything new.  It simply limits the tools developers have available for encounter design.

Thats objectively wrong, and the poster was right, there is a relationship between toxicity and Player A forcing restrictions on Player B, and trinity magnifies this issue.  Anet avoided this like the plague for good reason. 

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

14 hours ago, GBEW.6248 said:

guild wars 1 is outdated, terrible game in 2024. not worth even for gwamm. cant even jump lolol

/jump

[AliamRationem.5172]

4 hours ago, Bladestrom.6425 said:

Thats objectively wrong, and the poster was right, there is a relationship between toxicity and Player A forcing restrictions on Player B, and trinity magnifies this issue.  Anet avoided this like the plague for good reason. 

They didn't avoid anything.  We still have dedicated roles that fall into the categories of ally-to-ally (support) and ally-to-AI (DPS) and removing the AI-to-ally (tank) role didn't alleviate toxicity.  All it did was hamstring encounter design to prevent player control over enemy positioning, resulting in glaring issues that players complain about to this day:  Namely stack-in-a-pile encounter design and lack of UI/skill support for ranged healing/buffing. 

 

[Obtena.7952]

The idea that GW2 should be more like GW1 ... ELEVEN years into it's existence ... makes no sense whatsoever. 

You think GW1 is great and better than GW2? Awesome, go play it. 

Edited June 4 by Obtena.7952

[Apolo.5942]

On 6/2/2024 at 4:29 PM, RoseofGilead.8907 said:

Nah. I'll go play GW1 for that.

GW1 had a metric ton of passive healing...

Buffs that healed you, 10hps on a 10hp pool that could only take 1 damage per hit.

[Obtena.7952]

7 hours ago, Bladestrom.6425 said:

Thats objectively wrong, and the poster was right, there is a relationship between toxicity and Player A forcing restrictions on Player B, and trinity magnifies this issue.  Anet avoided this like the plague for good reason. 

No one should conclude that Anet avoided trinity because of the perception it magnifies toxicity. There is nothing intrinsically that a roles-based system (like trinity) enables more toxic behaviour than any other. I would argue that there are more avenues for players to behave badly to others in a free for all system than a roles-based one. 

Edited June 4 by Obtena.7952

[Astralporing.1957]

19 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

As I said, the trinity is simply a reflection of the 3 ways players can interact with the game.  Severely restricting those interactions doesn't introduce anything new.  It simply limits the tools developers have available for encounter design.

No. Trinity is a byproduct of players originally taking advantage of mob AI being very, very dumb. Which was later turned from exploiting flaws of the system into a feature, because it was both easier on players, and on developers.

19 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

It simply limits the tools developers have available for encounter design.

It's the other way around. It's the Trinity system that is restricting the choices of both players and developers. And both sides prefer it that way, because it makes their life easier (less variables means less effort required).

[AliamRationem.5172]

23 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

No. Trinity is a byproduct of players originally taking advantage of mob AI being very, very dumb. Which was later turned from exploiting flaws of the system into a feature, because it was both easier on players, and on developers.

It's the other way around. It's the Trinity system that is restricting the choices of both players and developers. And both sides prefer it that way, because it makes their life easier (less variables means less effort required).

If we have no trinity, then players have no ability to support each other or prevent an enemy from engaging its intended target.  We're strictly limited to ally-to-AI interactions.  Please explain:

1) How is that not restricting the choices of both players and developers?

2) How do you design group content without those elements?  What does it look like in your world when 10 players team up to fight a 500 lb. smart gorilla?

 

 

 

[Vaniity.4985]

I guess you are just trolling with this whole post lol, but you stopped playing gw1 in 2008?? So at most, you played it for 3 years, probably more like 1 or 2. GW2 is now 11 years old mate. If you think gw1 is the better game, how the hell are you still playing GW2 when you barely played GW1?

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

If we have no trinity, then players have no ability to support each other or prevent an enemy from engaging its intended target.  We're strictly limited to ally-to-AI interactions.  Please explain:

1) How is that not restricting the choices of both players and developers?

2) How do you design group content without those elements?  What does it look like in your world when 10 players team up to fight a 500 lb. smart gorilla?

No, trinity is not having those abilities. Trinity is when you can specialize in them to the exclusion of everything else.

Have you looked at Baldur's Gate 3 maybe? Warriors are the iconic tank class, right?... except their ability to manage aggro is extremely limited, and they are as much (if not more) the damage dealers than damage blockers. Clerics are iconic healers, right? Except they are primarily damage and support, and most of the healing takes place outside of battles. Sorcerers and wizards are the quintessential dps... except usually their support and crowd control abilities are even more impactful than the damage they deal. And most of actual builds used are even more hybrid in nature. There's no real trinity in there at all. And yet the combat is in no way more restricted than in pure tinity setups. Quite the opposite - it has to be more fluid and dynamic, because you don't have the cheat of being able to predict with near 99% probability what enemies will do next.

Holy Trinity is just the easy mode of combat design. That's why it's so liked by many players.

[AliamRationem.5172]

12 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

No, trinity is not having those abilities. Trinity is when you can specialize in them to the exclusion of everything else.

Have you looked at Baldur's Gate 3 maybe? Warriors are the iconic tank class, right?... except their ability to manage aggro is extremely limited, and they are as much (if not more) the damage dealers than damage blockers. Clerics are iconic healers, right? Except they are primarily damage and support, and most of the healing takes place outside of battles. Sorcerers and wizards are the quintessential dps... except usually their support and crowd control abilities are even more impactful than the damage they deal. And most of actual builds used are even more hybrid in nature. There's no real trinity in there at all. And yet the combat is in no way more restricted than in pure tinity setups. Quite the opposite - it has to be more fluid and dynamic, because you don't have the cheat of being able to predict with near 99% probability what enemies will do next.

Holy Trinity is just the easy mode of combat design. That's why it's so liked by many players.

I love Baldur's Gate 3.  But the only reason it works as you describe is that, for the most part, the combat is very easy.  Classes are overpowered and itemization is completely bonkers.  It's fine for that game because it's turn based, so most of the skill involved is in strategy and the game is remarkable for reasons other than its combat.