Boonsharing classes undermine class viability - they are simply too powerful

[Jski.6180]

Just re-balance the boons effect your going to get much more out of the game if you do that then asking for one class or another to be nerf in how much of a boon they give out.Quickness duration cap needs to be 3 sec.Aegis should only block part of dmg or should only block dmg skills.Alacrity duration needs to cap at 2 sec.

[Belenwyn.8674]

If your team has too much boons then the opponent has not enough abilities to remove, corrupt, exchange, or steal boons. Therefore Arenanet has to design enemies with a better palette of skills to counter massive usage of boons.

[Rasta.2371]

Be careful with heavy handed solutions. I agree with a little bit of the premise (alacracity and quickness OP). Also class diversity and class uniqueness is important.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Jski.6180 said:Just re-balance the boons effect your going to get much more out of the game if you do that then asking for one class or another to be nerf in how much of a boon they give out.Quickness duration cap needs to be 3 sec.Aegis should only block part of dmg or should only block dmg skills.Alacrity duration needs to cap at 2 sec.Again, either the boons would still be worth running, in which case nothing changes (except maybe more slots dedicated to getting boons), or they wouldn't, in which case they'd be simply ignored, in favour of another dps slot (In which case, why not just remove them completely)?Neither option seems all that appealing to me.

[TotallyNotJazzie.1493]

@Jski.6180 said:Aegis should only block part of dmg or should only block dmg skills.

Only part block damage? Erm sure!! as long as swiftness only granted extra movespeed in 1 leg...

I wouldn’t mind, as long as Guardians would now have 20,000k base hp to compensate.

[Jski.6180]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Jski.6180 said:Just re-balance the boons effect your going to get much more out of the game if you do that then asking for one class or another to be nerf in how much of a boon they give out.Quickness duration cap needs to be 3 sec.Aegis should only block part of dmg or should only block dmg skills.Alacrity duration needs to cap at 2 sec.Again, either the boons would still be worth running, in which case nothing changes (except maybe more slots dedicated to getting boons), or they wouldn't, in which case they'd be simply ignored, in favour of another dps slot (In which case, why not just remove them completely)?Neither option seems all that appealing to me.

Well a 100% block is much stronger then most boon effects in the game and the fact that it is borderline spam-able makes it very powerful.

[Crackmonster.2790]

Maybe, it also smells like at some point in the future a reduction to all the tools builds have gotten over time is in order. Hard to say, i wasn't around since the start but if true that various blocks, aegis etc has gotten far more readily available it looks like the kind of utility creep that happened to many other mmo's and often leads to pruning eventually in order to preserve more distinguished builds instead of all things have most things. Maybe that is also something to keep in mind.

In that case it seems the sharing of boons like aegis is also problematic and reductions to sharing, but not necessarily what classes can provide only for themselves is required.

All in all, it points towards --> reduce various boonsharing - a more greater redesign of the boonsharing classes can provide.

[Opopanax.1803]

Hopefully they will do a big boon rework at some point, maybe with the expansion.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Jski.6180 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Jski.6180 said:Just re-balance the boons effect your going to get much more out of the game if you do that then asking for one class or another to be nerf in how much of a boon they give out.Quickness duration cap needs to be 3 sec.Aegis should only block part of dmg or should only block dmg skills.Alacrity duration needs to cap at 2 sec.Again, either the boons would still be worth running, in which case nothing changes (except maybe more slots dedicated to getting boons), or they wouldn't, in which case they'd be simply ignored, in favour of another dps slot (In which case, why not just remove them completely)?Neither option seems all that appealing to me.

Well a 100% block is much stronger then most boon effects in the game and the fact that it is borderline spam-able makes it very powerful.It's not as spammable as you'd make it, it can obly block a single attack and due to that is only really useful against big well-telegraphed hits (and not even all of them, because unblockables are a thing). It's also completely useless against condi damage.

And you were also talking about quickness and alacrity, and also proposed practically neutering them.

You are basically complaining that boons are worth using.

Seriously, i read the whole thread, and see people complaining that a build dedicated completely to giving boons is good at it. We might as well complain that dedicated healers are too good at it, because they do their job well. Or that dps-focused builds are too good at dpsing, because specializing at dealing damage should not give them that massive advantage over other builds.

So, maybe we just need to simplify everything and make alll builds the same, with only some superficial and unimportant differences? Surely that would be soo much better [/sarcasm]

[Jski.6180]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Jski.6180 said:Just re-balance the boons effect your going to get much more out of the game if you do that then asking for one class or another to be nerf in how much of a boon they give out.Quickness duration cap needs to be 3 sec.Aegis should only block part of dmg or should only block dmg skills.Alacrity duration needs to cap at 2 sec.Again, either the boons would still be worth running, in which case nothing changes (except maybe more slots dedicated to getting boons), or they wouldn't, in which case they'd be simply ignored, in favour of another dps slot (In which case, why not just remove them completely)?Neither option seems all that appealing to me.

Well a 100% block is much stronger then most boon effects in the game and the fact that it is borderline spam-able makes it very powerful.It's not as spammable as you'd make it, it can obly block a single attack and due to that is only really useful against big well-telegraphed hits (and not even all of them, because unblockables are a thing). It's also completely useless against condi damage.

And you were also talking about quickness and alacrity, and

also

proposed practically neutering them.

You are basically complaining that boons are

worth using

.

Seriously, i read the whole thread, and see people complaining that a build dedicated completely to giving boons is good at it. We might as well complain that dedicated healers are too good at it, because they do their job well. Or that dps-focused builds are too good at dpsing, because specializing at dealing damage should not give them that massive advantage over other builds.

So, maybe we just need to simplify everything and make alll builds the same, with only some superficial and unimportant differences? Surely that would be soo much better [/sarcasm]

Its very close to being spamable. Its not just blocking dmg its blocking cc as well making it a border line stab and condi clear. Blocks in a game with active dodging makes targets too hard to hit.

[Funky.4861]

Boonsharing has always been a thing (1mes 4 warr dungeon runs for example) and i seem to recall anet balancing encounters around the availability of boons. If we look at low-boon classes (thief and necro) they were not taken as much in instanced content because they were selfish dps (thief) or mediocre dps with alleged sustain (necro).

If you want to say chrono is OP, i'd ask you to consider wht would happen upon it's removal (nerfing it's boons would make it redundant). Chrono is boonbot/tank because it's the class which loses the least when doing so; it has mediocre gimmicky damage by itself- note that i'm not talking core mes or mirage. It also has the skills needed to sustain in a tanky role. Thief (daredevil) can also tank but shares no boons and loses dps- this is the same for any 'dps' class. Ele and druid are the best healers (read: most efficient) in the game; necro can also heal as can chrono but they are not taken in those roles because not only do other classes heal better, but they bring more to the group (sprirts, auras etc).

It's also beneficial for group composition to compress roles where possible, as it allows more slots for different classes (as someone above me pointed out). Compromises are a given in this type of content, and i prefer having to take 1 tank/support and 1 healer 8 dps instead of 1 tank, 1 heal, 3 support 5 dps as it promotes variety. Class-stacking is a thing because people will gravitate to the optimum setup anyway. Anet made quickness/alacrity firebrand/renegade viable and still chronos are the preferred buffbots, because raid slots are a thing.

If you want to nerf the damage output potential of boons, weapon skills, traits and utilities will have to be increased to compensate and encounters adjusted. That's a lot of work for next-to-no benefit.

[Crackmonster.2790]

I am a bit confused about the argument you are making there. You argue pro role compression aka the way it is now, and then somehow say non-rolecompression leads to support slots required where actually the role compression is what leads to the supports required.

If you undermine lets say chrono ability to be always-required due to their boons since boons are now the automatic reward of a diverse group setup with no dedicated support requirements, then yes indeed it opens up the door for having better balance for the chrono actual play rather than it being forced to be lesser dps because it provides far too many other bonuses. In order words, these boon changes does exactly pave the way for more fair balances across the board, with less one class is only really worthwhile as dedicated one role.

It is true however, that if you switch up compositions so that more dps classes can be put into setups, either all classes average dps output or all encounters needs to be lowered to have the same levels. That is why i said conclusive in OP that if the changes are too large they can at least serve as a guiding principle. But then again, there has been too much creep and near-instadeaths are easier - to dial damage back or to increase health levels across the board might actually be a good idea.

Again these are guiding principles to know which direction leads to the best game.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Crackmonster.2790 said:

If you undermine lets say chrono ability to be always-required due to their boons since boons are now the automatic reward of a diverse group setup with no dedicated support requirements, then yes indeed it opens up the door for having better balance for the chrono actual play rather than it being forced to be lesser dps because it provides far too many other bonuses. In order words, these boon changes does exactly pave the way for more fair balances across the board, with less one class is only really worthwhile as dedicated one role.

What he is saying is: it's harder and requires more effort to get multiple classes to get all the boons required versus taking 2.

That Argument remains valid and was mentioned as far back as Page 1. It is a more restrictiv meta.

In this case raid composition and ease of composition is directly affected by class balance. The best approach would be to introduce more boon supports which can rival chrono while keeping the total amount required in a good setup low. This also was mentioned multiple times by now.

The only way your Suggestion would not negatively impact group composition and building is if boon were made unneccessary in which case those slots simply fall away to more dps. The entire game becomes more simplistic.

[Crackmonster.2790]

I understand what you are saying, but i am not sure if you have noticed that the idea of bringing support classes becomes redundant in entirety if a diverse representation of classes automatically yields all boons represented in team without the need for dedicated support. 2-4 classes can supply each boon, there isn't a need for fixed setup.

Your argument - if boons were unnecessary is based on a misunderstanding. They would be just as powerful as currently, you simply would need a diverse team to get them.

The solution you mention with sharing the power with more classes, is one i have said many times. But as i say each time, i consider it a bad solution because it preserves the "support" role which is one who is there for the passive benefit he provides to team and who's performance isn't required to the same degree. There is a reason games throughout time generally don't support this role - it is quite nonsensical.

My answers only follow logic there is little room for error but plenty of room for improvements, the real question is - should the support role be made more official, is it a good thing for game with a slot for someone who's mostly there for the passive benefit he gives to team through boons or should all team fight more equal to get the kills? Because if you wanted the support role then this entirely post is naturally redundant as it seeks to remove the support role and spread the boons out over more classes so a diverse team automatically get's them. It has been said from the start that this post serves the angle that it's better to spread buffs more out than have them concentrated on a single role of passive buffing.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Crackmonster.2790 said:I understand what you are saying, but i am not sure if you have noticed that the idea of bringing support classes becomes redundant in entirety if a diverse representation of classes automatically yields all boons represented in team without the need for dedicated support.

Let's assumed a raid needs boons A, B and C.

Light armor classes provide boon A, Medium. Armor boon B and heavy armor boon C. (I chosen weight classes because they are automatically grouped for easier comparison, the actual distribution and grouping of which lass brings what is inconsequential)

Net result of such a change:Each raid now needs 2xlight armor classes, 2x Medium and 2x heavy. The classes chosen will be the most efficient or powerful out of their respected category leaving the other 6 (2 light, medium and heavy) to fight over the now remaining 4 spots instead of 8.

That's what would happen in any scenarios in which boons remain required for raid Performance but get spread out over multiple classes.

That's how this was handled in the past as well when 25 might stacking was a thing.

@Crackmonster.2790 said:

My answers only follow logic there is little room for error but plenty of room for improvements, the real question is - should the support role be made more official, is it a good thing for game with a slot for someone who's mostly there for the passive benefit he gives to team through buffs or should all team fight more equal to get the kills? Because if you wanted the support role then this entirely post is naturally redundant as it seeks to remove the support role and spread the boons out over more classes so a diverse team automatically get's them.

That is a vaible question to ask and current Design points towards a necessity for this role if boons remain a integral part of the endgame fractals and raid meta.

[Crackmonster.2790]

Finally we can have some actual discussion.

Let me address your last point first. I will claim that this "integral" part you talk about as supposed evidence isn't out of good health - it has come about by Darwinian principle. Survival of the Fittest. It is the most efficient way because it has been possible. As evidence against it i will cite the allness of computer games, they don't design games around a passive buffer role - that player doesn't need to work as hard as everyone else. Inbefore chronos says or but my work is so hard and complicated, this is something else a seperate point from the argument.

Consider this, the one who argue for this role now(the majority) want it because as long as they can provide their buffs they can relax more where dps is more stressful in terms of performance. Imagine if you wanted to solidify the support role and make it demand equal as much effort, not a single moment for slack or suffer in buff uptime, not a moment, then suddenly this gets to be the most stressful role(compared to dps) because if you mess up the whole team suffers more than if 1 dps mess up.

To the first point.

If we have 3(2-4) classes that can provide each boon, and there are 4 main offensive boons, Alacrity, Fury, Might, Quickness, it would mean we need 1 out of the group of 3 classes that can provide each boon. 4 out of 12 classes, and there are what 16 classes in total?

Let me make one attempt at filling out the numbers. Now i will just assume 1 class 1 boon, but theorytically, some classes could get more than 1 making things far easier.

16 classes, 4 main boons. 4 classes for each boon, or two core classes for each boon. 2 boons remaining, vigor, quickness - each one could be granted to classes most strongly designed for either healing or tanking. Say Healer gives vigor, tank gives swiftness.

This mean you have 4 different classes to select for each buff , hardly restrictive.There will always be a BiS setup, this will never change. Even for dps roles it will never change. Therefore i will ignore it. I think this gives groups plenty of choice of finding players to fill the requirements. With the changes, then for general play, the penalty for not having a perfect group is reduced. Currently you need one huge buffer or pay a large price, here the price is lesser. This takes pressure off from these fixed group demands and resulting elitism. Your argument of there always being a BiS is a strawman. Additionally, let me remind you GW2 is not balanced around perfection required, you aren't forced to play with perfect composition.

I will now reverse the situation and apply critical thinking to what i just wrote.

So one thing that comes to mind in terms of limitation is now that in order to ensure the perfect 5 man setup, you cannot have more than 2 classes from the same boongroup if you want a perfect group. This is a problem. This i think is similar to the situation you talked about. It points towards setting max 1 boon per class as an insufficient number. It also requires understanding boongroups before you can find the correct party members. It can be solved in two or three simple ways. The first way is that classes can provide two boons, I am not a fan of that as it will make 2 class combos again BiS. The second way is that there is a subset of classes maybe 4-8 that can provide two boons anyway chosen among some of the less demanded classes to give them relevance. The third way is consumerables for pve to ultimately say - we want free choice to matter most.

--

Now, i am sure alot of you are willing to jump right on the bandwagon @ above paragraph and consider it defeat of my argument. But let me remind you - current situation is much worse. This is a very complicated matter. Many other games try so many things so solve it and have come up short. The way it is now, and what many of you are arguing for - that we should get more classes that can "do it all" is hugely problematic. First of all - that is easily solved much better by consumerables, then there will be far more open spots. Second of all, if it is assumed that all groups have everything, then they might as well be removed because it is like having none at all. It creates only the weird support role, nothing else whatsoever. Thirdly, having this weird support role with all-power leads to the biggest problem of them all. Class stacking. WoW recently in region made an experiment to remove class buffs - and it didn't turn out well because class stacking and lack of flavor, and they are introducing them again. The role you are asking for here again begs for class stacking. Another point to keep in mind, is that the power of these boons is much greater than in other games making it even more problematic and required.

With all this in mind, i think i would still argue for the 4 boongroup setup with extra boon for tank/healer, while reducing the base power of boons to be no more than around a 5-8% increase in effectiveness and then some classes get individual passives that makes the boons more effective for them(generally the ones they can provide themselves). This returns most closely to the purpose of boons given to groups - to give relevance to having a diverse group. This way i think it protects most the benefits and avoids most of the disadvantages. It allows perfectionists still to theorycraft optimal groups -and it reduces the penalty for not having a restricted group setup. It is important to remember that GW2 is not balanced around perfection.

Again, i have to say, there is a good reason to discuss this because if you really want to have 1 class that can bring all the boons - then you are better off removing boons altogether or simply giving them through consumerables. Either of those situations, including your 1 class all buff setup leads to class stacking. The only thing that avoids stacking the single most powerful class for the job now is different tools and benefits like "class buffs" that makes it meaningful to bring a variety of classes instead of just the most efficient one.

[Crackmonster.2790]

I know this community probably isn't fond of WoW - and tbh i haven't played it for many years. But, i wanted to investigate why they reintroduced class buffs after having removed them and found this quite interesting article.https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/9/16993946/world-of-warcraft-battle-for-azeroth-bring-player-not-classIn addition to the article, the comments are interesting.

I think anything that caters to elitist simplicity is also going to bring the community down and lead to a more leave if group isn't prefect attitude. I might even go so far as t suggest making it too troublesome to construct perfect group so that the reality is that peple are okay with missing 5-15% runspeed. I mean this very seriously, games that cater to elitist perfections attracts the shittiest community. The current situation with max boonshare also does that, because the penalty for not having that becomes so great it causes big problems.

Spread it out, make it nice friendly in particular for the mid-range players not the perfectionists as they can always find a BiS to use anyway.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Crackmonster.2790 said:Finally we can have some actual discussion.

To the first point.

If we have 3(2-4) classes that can provide each boon, and there are 4 main offensive boons, Alacrity, Fury, Might, Quickness, it would mean we need 1 out of the group of 3 classes that can provide each boon. 4 out of 12 classes, and there are what 16 classes in total?

No you need 2 out of each group, boons affect 5 people. If we were to introduce 10 boon limits the chrono requirement drops down to 1 per raid group. Hardly a change in favor of your suggestion.

There are 9 classes and 18 elite specializations. Raid groups are 10 man sized. Just a small reminder.

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

Some classes do it better and that is how it has to be. There is no problem in this. All rpgs have classes that excel in certain areas. Why would this change. All classes are not created equally and if it was it would be boring.

[yusayu.3629]

ANet has to decide whether they want a Holy Trinity in the game or not. Right now the game basically already has one, and it will stay that way unless they remove Boonsharing and excessive Team Healing.

Imo there are enough games with a Holy Trinity already out and one of the selling points of GW was that it specifically avoided having such a restrictive design.

The first necessary step would be to completely remove sharing up to 10 boons, and start rebalancing from there. It would include removing concentration and limiting almost all abilities of the Chrono to only affect himself.

But ANet probably won't do that. Holy Trinity is so much easier to maintain.

[Imperadordf.2687]

@"Crackmonster.2790" said:Finally we can have some actual discussion.

Let me address your last point first. I will claim that this "integral" part you talk about as supposed evidence isn't out of good health - it has come about by Darwinian principle. Survival of the Fittest. It is the most efficient way because it has been possible. As evidence against it i will cite the allness of computer games, they don't design games around a passive buffer role - that player doesn't need to work as hard as everyone else. Inbefore chronos says or but my work is so hard and complicated, this is something else a seperate point from the argument.Consider this, the one who argue for this role now(the majority) want it because as long as they can provide their buffs they can relax more where dps is more stressful in terms of performance.? "As long as I keep up boons it's alright." is the same thing as "As long as I dps it's alright." I would argue that keeping up boons is much harder than doing DPS, but that's not this discussion's point.

Seriously though, some DPS can do 25K instead of 26K DPS, it doesn't matter. But it does matter if the Chrono keeps up %97 boon uptime instead of %100.

Imagine if you wanted to solidify the support role and make it demand equal as much effort, not a single moment for slack or suffer in buff uptime, not a moment, then suddenly this gets to be the most stressful role(compared to dps) because if you mess up the whole team suffers more than if 1 dps mess up.That's exactly what happens right now actually. You slack as chrono, whole group's dps goes down. You slack as DPS, only your DPS goes down.To the first point.

If we have 3(2-4) classes that can provide each boon, and there are 4 main offensive boons, Alacrity, Fury, Might, Quickness, it would mean we need 1 out of the group of 3 classes that can provide each boon. 4 out of 12 classes, and there are what 16 classes in total?Let me make one attempt at filling out the numbers. Now i will just assume 1 class 1 boon, but theorytically, some classes could get more than 1 making things far easier.16 classes, 4 main boons. 4 classes for each boon, or two core classes for each boon. 2 boons remaining, vigor, quickness - each one could be granted to classes most strongly designed for either healing or tanking. Say Healer gives vigor, tank gives swiftness.This mean you have 4 different classes to select for each buff , hardly restrictive.There will always be a BiS setup, this will never change. Even for dps roles it will never change. Therefore i will ignore it. I think this gives groups plenty of choice of finding players to fill the requirements. With the changes, then for general play, the penalty for not having a perfect group is reduced. Currently you need one huge buffer or pay a large price, here the price is lesser. This takes pressure off from these fixed group demands and resulting elitism. Your argument of there always being a BiS is a strawman. Additionally, let me remind you GW2 is not balanced around perfection required, you aren't forced to play with perfect composition.Renegade/Firebrand combo is viable instead of Chrono/Druid combo too. Do you see any PuGs or even, anybody looking for Rene/FB? No, because people always go for BiS. Your solution isn't taking any pressure off from people.I will now reverse the situation and apply critical thinking to what i just wrote.

So one thing that comes to mind in terms of limitation is now that in order to ensure the perfect 5 man setup, you cannot have more than 2 classes from the same boongroup if you want a perfect group. This is a problem. This i think is similar to the situation you talked about. It points towards setting max 1 boon per class as an insufficient number. It also requires understanding boongroups before you can find the correct party members. It can be solved in two or three simple ways. The first way is that classes can provide two boons, I am not a fan of that as it will make 2 class combos again BiS.Correct.The second way is that there is a subset of classes maybe 4-8 that can provide two boons anyway chosen among some of the less demanded classes to give them relevance.That's a desperate way for balancing at best.The third way is consumerables for pve to ultimately say - we want free choice to matter most.I would actually be fine with this, but I have no idea how it would be implemented. Price of the consumables matter too.

Now, i am sure alot of you are willing to jump right on the bandwagon @ above paragraph and consider it defeat of my argument.We are not in war :lol: calm downBut let me remind you - current situation is much worse. This is a very complicated matter. Many other games try so many things so solve it and have come up short. The way it is now, and what many of you are arguing for - that we should get more classes that can "do it all" is hugely problematic.I wouldn't say it's problematic. It's just Chrono is the best buffer around. We need more options. Actually we have one more option (Renegade/Firebrand), but Arenanet isn't making any effort to make it better. Nobody knows why.First of all - that is easily solved much better by consumerables, then there will be far more open spots. Second of all, if it is assumed that all groups have everything, then they might as well be removed because it is like having none at all. It creates only the weird support role, nothing else whatsoever. Thirdly, having this weird support role with all-power leads to the biggest problem of them all. Class stacking. WoW recently in region made an experiment to remove class buffs - and it didn't turn out well because class stacking and lack of flavor, and they are introducing them again. The role you are asking for here again begs for class stacking. Another point to keep in mind, is that the power of these boons is much greater than in other games making it even more problematic and required.We don't see any class stacking, no? We stack(!) 2 chronos, 1 druid, 1 warrior and 6 DPS. Support players are "forced" to one of those 3, and DPS players are "forced" to play what the encounter requires.With all this in mind, i think i would still argue for the 4 boongroup setup with extra boon for tank/healer, while reducing the base power of boons to be no more than around a 5-8% increase in effectiveness and then some classes get individual passives that makes the boons more effective for them(generally the ones they can provide themselves). This returns most closely to the purpose of boons given to groups - to give relevance to having a diverse group. This way i think it protects most the benefits and avoids most of the disadvantages. It allows perfectionists still to theorycraft optimal groups -and it reduces the penalty for not having a restricted group setup. It is important to remember that GW2 is not balanced around perfection.There are 2 ways for this.1 - Everyone gets some effects you mentioned (for example if Soulbeast, having protection = 100 power, if Weaver, Might = 100 ferocity etc.) and there would be more class stacking because people will get the DPS with the most effective effect.2 - Everyone gets same effects (Soulbeast protection = 100 power, Weaver Might = 100 power, Thief Fury = 100 power etc.) which won't be unique.Again, i have to say, there is a good reason to discuss this because if you really want to have 1 class that can bring all the boons - then you are better off removing boons altogether or simply giving them through consumerables.Most people think Chaos chrono should be nerfed, no build should give permanent almost every boon.Either of those situations, including your 1 class all buff setup leads to class stacking. The only thing that avoids stacking the single most powerful class for the job now is different tools and benefits like "class buffs" that makes it meaningful to bring a variety of classes instead of just the most efficient one.

Spreading the power among classes might not be the best solution.

I would say buffing other supports such as Renegade and Firebrand, and nerfing Chrono a bit would make the situation much better, as we'd have more options to choose from.

[yann.1946]

@yusayu.3629 said:ANet has to decide whether they want a Holy Trinity in the game or not. Right now the game basically already has one, and it will stay that way unless they remove Boonsharing and excessive Team Healing.

Do we have a trinity though. Their are very few places you need a tank (which is just a support who takes agro). And very few places you need a healer. The meta strat for fractals involves no healer. And condi druid is more of a dps/support hybrid which accidently throws a little heal around.

Imo there are enough games with a Holy Trinity already out and one of the selling points of GW was that it specifically avoided having such a restrictive design.

The first necessary step would be to completely remove sharing up to 10 boons, and start rebalancing from there. It would include removing concentration and limiting almost all abilities of the Chrono to only affect himself.

Wouldn't this just kill teamwork.

But ANet probably won't do that. Holy Trinity is so much easier to maintain.

Or they won't do this because their are better solutions. :)

[Crackmonster.2790]

Quaternity* :)

[Edelweiss.4261]

I really enjoy Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition. One of my favorite things about it is that I can create characters with such disparate playstyles. One character focuses on isolating an enemy to deal massive damage; the next is a pacifist healer; then I go with a character that shifts allies and enemies around the board in a beautiful dance. My favorite role, however, has always been debuffing enemies. That's something I miss in GW2. As such, I think removing a "buffing" role would be unfortunate. =(

[Tjdraxus.7143]

They certaintly should make all classes raid viable but not the way you propose, I'm currently playing Spellbreaker, and it ain't viable for most of the time so I play banner core warrior, tho I would love to be able to tank as a warrior, i'm just a sucker for sword and board classes and warrior sword and board skills are just so fun to play but not viable outside leveling.

Where I'm trying to get is that, raiding takes dedication, and learning and getting used to compositions that get our butts through it, if they make it viable for every class then the raiding community will get flooded with more toxic people who's not willing to commit to changing anything from their playstyle to succeed in said content.

So far the only class i haven't seen in a raid enviroment is the revenant tho I'm fairly new to raiding and I have yet to see a lot of things.