Jump to content
  • Sign Up

What Makes a Guild Wars 2 PvE Build Strong?


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, mindcircus.1506 said:

There was a time when this was true in MMOs.

 

I think this is still true...but the design of the game works against it, and well...people follow the path of least energy...that's just the natural progression of all things that exist.

 

It's harder to work as a group...then it is to work alone...the game is designed to encourage playing alone...that's a design flaw, and it shows up as a reflection of the games community.

Edited by JusticeRetroHunter.7684
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

I think this is still true...but the design of the game works against it, and well...people follow the path of least energy...that's just the natural progression of all things that exist.

 

It's harder to work as a group...then it is to work alone...the game is designed to encourage playing alone...that's a design flaw, and it shows up as a reflection of the games community.

Yes and no.

 

The game is designed to be played together. The benefits and intentionally omissions in specializations (none being able to provide every benefit and benefits being meaningful) hint at this. Nearly everything is easier if done via a similar skilled group of players versus alone (the key wording being similar skilled).

 

Where the game falls short is actually enforcing this grouping requirement in a huge majority of its content.

 

So yes, one could say the game is designed to encourage playing alone if the bar to meet is simple completion of easy tasks, but from a balance and conceptional approach, it is designed to be played together.

 

If the game were actually to enforce grouping, aka push the boundries even beyond what is demanded now fully expecting players to properly group as a baseline. We would have a very different beast on our hands. Raid clears and especially progression raiding would not be a 1.5 hour affair as is now for a new wing (SC took 1h31m to clear Q2, wing 7 final boss, on patch day )

But instead would be a day/week long project as is in other MMORPGs. Granted that is in part also due to the gearing necessities other games have working against raiders.

Edited by Cyninja.2954
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Yes and no.

 

Sorry but you are sidetracking my conversation with a non-sequitur about skills design.

 

The point of my comment comes from this here :

 

 

"This game's current audience, however. won't stand more than two wipes before saying "not worth it",  going to farm Drizzlewood and putting up a post on the forums that equates challenge with bad  design justified with the misuse of the word "casual". 

You can see this attitude in this very thread.

The issue is not, as you maintain, creating some kind of safe space. The issue is about making a spoiled and entitled playerbase happy, when they argue 40g an hour for spamming autoattacks and laying full dead at meta events is "how the game was meant to be"."

 

I was saying that this isn't the fault of players...it's the fault of the game and how it's designed. People will go down the path of least resistance but, they will also want to achieve, that is human nature. The game's design, determines how well these two things are balanced, and like water filling in the shape of it's container, the people will adhere to it.

 

 

Edited by JusticeRetroHunter.7684
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Sorry but you are sidetracking my conversation with a non-sequitur about skills design.

 

The point of my comment comes from this here :

 

 

"This game's current audience, however. won't stand more than two wipes before saying "not worth it",  going to farm Drizzlewood and putting up a post on the forums that equates challenge with bad  design justified with the misuse of the word "casual". 

You can see this attitude in this very thread.

The issue is not, as you maintain, creating some kind of safe space. The issue is about making a spoiled and entitled playerbase happy, when they argue 40g an hour for spamming autoattacks and laying full dead at meta events is "how the game was meant to be"."

 

I was saying that this isn't the fault of players...it's the fault of the game and how it's designed. People will go down the path of least resistance but, they will also want to achieve, that is human nature. The game's design, determines how well these two things are balanced, and like water filling in the shape of it's container, the people will adhere to it.

 

 

and I am saying I disagree since your claim that the game is designed to encourage payers to play alone is limited at best and faulty at worst.

 

It depends on which design elements you look at. This rings double true for different content, especially more challenging one. It also rings true for the different game modes, one which is from the ground up not designed to be played alone.

 

Your statement only holds true for specific content in this game, and even then only when intentionally not looking at specific elements like class design and balance. Even worse, in some cases one has to leave out entire sections of offered achievements for this claim to remain true.

Edited by Cyninja.2954
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mindcircus.1506 said:

The issue is about making a spoiled and entitled playerbase happy, when they argue 40g an hour for spamming autoattacks and laying full dead at meta events is "how the game was meant to be".

Well, aside from the unnecessary name-calling, one has to question how the game has served its players from the beginning. There isn't a debate here ... this game is NOT for tryhard players EXCEPT for this TINY island of CM's and raid content.  So it seem to me if Anet wants to do right for most of its playerbase to the benefit of the game ... making content aimed at their 'spoiled and entitled' playerbase isn't an issue ... it's the requirement. I mean, the game can't last if Anet decides to turn away from its playerbase, no matter who it is. So if they have to choose a direction ... you know what one it has to be, even if most of them are entitled and spoiled. 

 

So again, what makes a GW2 build good in PVE? It's players knowing how to play it in the situation they are playing it in. Meta has nothing to do with that and it's not measured by how tryhards perform on their tiny island of hard instanced content either. Whether those players are 'entitled and spoiled' has NOTHING to do with what is good builds in this game. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

and I am saying I disagree since your claim that the game is designed to encourage payers to play alone is limited at best and faulty at worst.

 

The game was originally designed, so that you didn't need a healer or a tank... no holy trinity...you can do everything yourself in a different way from your peers. Don't you remember this? Also it was designed as a game that you can just log in, do stuff and log off whenever you wanted (that's what dailies are...a reward for just logging in). Do you remember when this was Anet's stance many many years ago?

 

Overtime, they have built many systems both in favor of that stance and also completely against that stance...at some point they introduced healers and tanks...and at some point they completely invalidated combo field mechanics... there's probably a long list you could write of things they've done on both sides of the fence...but make no mistake that at inception the game was originally designed with the notion of self sufficiency. 

 

 

 

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

18 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

The game was originally designed, so that you didn't need a healer or a tank... no holy trinity...you can do everything yourself in a different way from your peers. Don't you remember this? Also it was designed as a game that you can just log in, do stuff and log off whenever you wanted (that's what dailies are...a reward for just logging in). Do you remember when this was Anet's stance many many years ago?

 

Overtime, they have built many systems both in favor of that stance and also completely against that stance...at some point they introduced healers and tanks...and at some point they completely invalidated combo field mechanics... there's probably a long list you could write of things they've done on both sides of the fence...but make no mistake that at inception the game was originally designed with the notion of self sufficiency. 

 

 

 

Not only that, but we also need to acknowledge that aside from some EXCEPTIONS, some of which now include content that is no longer in development because the playerbase can't properly support it, that's STILL the way the game is intended to be played since nothing outside of these exceptions makes 'filling a role' or 'playing meta' a requirement for success. 

 

In otherwords, even though we have some deviations, Anet continues to primarily favour supporting their original stance. It's probably the only reason the game still exists. Builds that are good in this game are not going to ignore that. 

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

23 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

The game was originally designed, so that you didn't need a healer or a tank... no holy trinity...you can do everything yourself in a different way from your peers. Don't you remember this? Also it was designed as a game that you can just log in, do stuff and log off whenever you wanted (that's what dailies are...a reward for just logging in). Do you remember when this was Anet's stance many many years ago?

I remember. Do you remember how the developers explained how they wanted players to share enemy agro and weave in and out of range, making enemies switch to different players, thus encouraging every player to tank at some time which is why we have personal heal skills to begin with?

 

Do you remember how different classes brought different unique benefits to the table, besides boons?

 

Remember when blast fields and finishers were actually distributed evenly among most classes, not allowing any 1 class (with very few combos) to do these combos?

 

Daily achievements were not a thing at launch. Even when they were added, there were monthly achievements too. There were varying degrees of complexity and length. Also you might misunderstand, I am not arguing that there is or was not solo player content, because there certainly is. I am saying you are focusing very selectively.

 

Quote

Overtime, they have built many systems both in favor of that stance and also completely against that stance...at some point they introduced healers and tanks...and at some point they completely invalidated combo field mechanics... there's probably a long list you could write of things they've done on both sides of the fence...but make no mistake that at inception the game was originally designed with the notion of self sufficiency. 

 

 

 

They have expanded on many systems. Some elementes have remained the same the entire time:

1. the net benefit of playing together is always greater in its sum than playing alone. This was true and always has been true

2. different game modes were always made with different amount of players in mind

3. and within those game modes, different content was made with different amounts of players in mind

 

I am making no mistake. I am not the one selective remembering here.

 

The claim that this game was from the inception designed as a solo experience is strait up just false. The fact that it turned into a mostly solo able game is a different issue and causes the problems players face when they actually do meet challenging content.

Edited by Cyninja.2954
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I remember. Do you remember how the developers explained how they wanted players to share enemy agro and weave in and out of range, making enemies switch to different players, thus encouraging every player to tank at some time?

 

Do you remember how different classes brought different unique benefits to the table, besides boons?

 

Daily achievements were not a thing at launch. Even when they were added, there were monthly achievements too. There were varying degrees of complexity and length. Also you might misunderstand, I am not arguing that there is or was not solo player content, because there certainly is. I am saying you are focusing very selectively.

They have expanded on many systems. Some elementes have remained the same the entire time:

1. the net benefit of playing together is always greater in its sum than playing alone. This was true and always has been true

2. different game modes were always made with different amount of players in mind

3. and within those game modes, different content was made with different amounts of players in mind

 

 

Anet's expansions on systems is not the question here. What is relevant is if they invalidate fundamental philosophies the game is built on ... and where they HAVE deviated from those philosophies, those systems do poorly

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

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Anet's expansions on systems does not invalidate fundamental philosophies the game is built on ... and where they HAVE deviated from those philosophies, those systems do poorly

Which is neither the thing discussed or talked about, but go on side tracking.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Which is neither the thing discussed or talked about, but go on side tracking.

No it's definitely to what you are talking about here. How players approach the game and interact with it and others is most definitely related to how the content is designed. In this game, the fact that players can maintain a level of independency from their team mates and still be successful with those team mates is VERY much a result of intentional game design. In fact if I think about how I've seen high performance players interact with their teams ... sure they buff them and maybe get buffs from them ... but it's not a necessary part of their performance for them to be successful. 

 

I have no doubt that the game is enabling players to play independently, and that's not a limited view based on cherrypicking content. There is lots of evidence, especially from highly capable players, that suggests otherwise. 

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

9 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

No it's definitely to what you are talking about here. How players approach the game and interact with it and others is most definitely related to how the content is designed. In this game, the fact that players can maintain a level of independency from their team mates and still be successful with those team mates is VERY much a result of intentional game design. In fact if I think about how I've seen high performance players interact with their teams ... sure they buff them and maybe get buffs from them ... but it's not a necessary part of their performance for them to be successful. 

Yes it is. Which is exactly what I said further up. Here is what I said:
 

Quote

 

The game is designed to be played together. The benefits and intentionally omissions in specializations (none being able to provide every benefit and benefits being meaningful) hint at this. Nearly everything is easier if done via a similar skilled group of players versus alone (the key wording being similar skilled).

 

Where the game falls short is actually enforcing this grouping requirement in a huge majority of its content.

 

So yes, one could say the game is designed to encourage playing alone if the bar to meet is simple completion of easy tasks, but from a balance and conceptional approach, it is designed to be played together.

 

 

It depends on which parts of "design" one looks at. From a class and skill design this has never been true.

 

From a difficulty design when only looking at open world content and not counting ANY challenging content in form of instances or achievements, yes the game is made for solo play (aka when one decide to not count everything which goes against this assumption. By this same logic I could call this game a shooter and direct people to the first person action camera while leaving out everything else).

 

I don't agree with your high performance player assessment, but I really don;t feel like explaining how different system interact with each other to discuss so let's just keep it at that.

Edited by Cyninja.2954
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Yes it is. Which is exactly what I said further up. Here is what I said:
 

 

It depends on which parts of "design" one looks at. From a class and skill design this has never been true.

 

From a difficulty design when only looking at open world content and not counting ANY challenging content in form of instances or achievements, yes the game is made for solo play (aka when one decide to not count everything which goes against this assumption. By this same logic I could call this game a shooter and direct people to the first person action camera while leaving out everything else).

 

I don't agree with your high performance player assessment, but I really don;t feel like explaining how different system interact with each other to discuss so let's just keep it at that.

 

Let's be careful about how we define 'solo' play here. I don't believe the original claim was that all content is designed to be soloed, because as we know, that would be an absurd claim ... obviously instanced content is not designed for solo play. Interestingly enough, some instanced content CAN be soloed, and that leads to the what I believe is being intended here ... 

 

It seems the comments being made are more aligned to the fact that players can interact INDEPENDENTLY of each other, EVEN in content that is designed for teams. That's largely demonstrated to be true through out the history of the game and even pointed out in the video from Teapot by the fact that for the most part, only a few players need to pay attention to mechanics for group content to be successful. ... and also by the fact above, there are some instanced content that CAN be soloed. That can only happen if the game was designed in a way that players were not dependent on each other. That design is very much indicative of independent play styles that coincidentally appeal to casual players. 

 

I mean, you are saying we have to ignore challenging content in the form of instances or achievements to say game is designed around players being independent ... but we don't. People were soloing dungeons when dungeons were THE hardest content you could do. People are carrying and short manning raids. People are soloing low Teir fractals where they aren't hard coded for requiring multiple players. These examples are in contrast to your belief we have to exclude certain contents to claim game is designed around independent play. 

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

24 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I don't agree with your high performance player assessment, but I really don;t feel like explaining how different system interact with each other to discuss so let's just keep it at that.

I don't think anyone wants to explain every single system in minutiae to determine just how oriented it is toward solo-play or group-play or whatever play...that was never the point of my comment either... it's about human nature and how it doesn't really change...and it's the game that orchestrates how people decide to act. It's not a set in stone thing either because all people are different, so everyone's got their own personalities and things...but on average you want to guage how people play the game... And it's on the developers to analyze why their game inspires this kind of behavior...not the other way around. 

 

Think of games like Hideo Kojima's Death Stranding...Kojima purposefully designed it that way, to bring out the best in people, a bit short of how else to describe the genius of it's game design.

 

Anyway, that was just the point of my response to mind-circus...that hope is not lost unless you've lost hope in humanity.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I don't think anyone wants to explain every single system in minutiae to determine just how oriented it is toward solo-play or group-play or whatever play...that was never the point of my comment either... it's about human nature and how it doesn't really change...and it's the game that orchestrates how people decide to act. It's not a set in stone thing either because all people are different, so everyone's got their own personalities and things...but on average you want to guage how people play the game... And it's on the developers to analyze why their game inspires this kind of behavior...not the other way around. 

 

Think of games like Hideo Kojima's Death Stranding...Kojima purposefully designed it that way, to bring out the best in people, a bit short of how else to describe the genius of it's game design.

 

Anyway, that was just the point of my response to mind-circus...that hope is not lost unless you've lost hope in humanity.

True, that I can agree with.

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...