|
On August 14 2012 14:45 Ryhzuo wrote:I can't help but feel that all these unwavering advocates of the trinity system are trying to hang on to some remnants of past familiar territory, afraid to acknowledge and embrace change. Sure, it works. It might be flawed, it might have it's own perks, but it works. As far as discussions go that's about a solid of a bottom line as it gets. Do you know what else worked? 9 weapon slots and non-regenerating health. That didn't stop Halo and CoD from dominating the shooter market for almost a decade. Just because a mechanic is different, doesn't necessarily mean it's better or worse. It's just different, it's just apples and oranges. So it makes me very wary when off of about less than 10 days playtime (most of which are low level content, or an undeveloped PvP metagame), people are making grandiose assumptions and declarations that the game won't work, will get boring, will fail, because etc etc blah blah holy trinity. Maybe it's just a tad premature? The idea that removing the trinity is like removing a layer of complexity is also a bit misleading. In fact the statement itself is a bit fallacious due to the loaded word "remove". GW2 isn't really removing the trinity, it's just replacing it with something else. Is it better? Not necessarily, but nobody at this stage will know for sure, because it's simply too early to tell. I've always looked at GW2 pvp combat as more of Dota-esque than WoW-like. Five core skills, fun utilities, and fights where knowing when to use your skills always triumphs over blowing your cool downs whenever you get the chance. Personally that's my kind of combat.
Nailed it!
Personally I'm very excited to see how the later levels in this game will work out. I played some beta but never any instances. I'm pretty sick of having a group without a tank, waiting for 30 min to get one and then /ragequit cuz u dont find one 
|
Hey guys, quick question as i ve close to zero knowledge bout the classes, is the thief able to be played as a range with his guns? I played hunter in wow for over 5 years, and i kinda like to play range classes, so i either wanna play ranger or if possible (cuz of the guns) the thief. Anyone who played the beta can tell me?
|
Yes, you can play as ranged (pistol/pistol) or a mix of melee and ranged (pistol/dagger). Each have their use, although pistol range is more limited than say ranger's longbow.
Pistol/Pistol Unload ability is extremely satisfying to chain if you have Haste buff ^_^
|
Shouldn't engineer be a better idea than thief if you want to use guns.
|
On August 14 2012 17:28 {ToT}ColmA wrote:
Hey guys, quick question as i ve close to zero knowledge bout the classes, is the thief able to be played as a range with his guns? I played hunter in wow for over 5 years, and i kinda like to play range classes, so i either wanna play ranger or if possible (cuz of the guns) the thief. Anyone who played the beta can tell me?
Hi ColmA
The thief has numerous ranged weapons and playstyles at his disposal. By "guns" I assume you mean the double pistol build, which is a great weapon set revolving around quick spike damage with 'unload' and opportunistic attacks with 'headshot' and 'body shot'. Double pistol is great at stacking condition damage (DoT). You can also equip a shortbow which can do a ton of AOE damage and also has a great escape skill 'shadow step'.
With that being said however, playing purely ranged will put you at a disadvantage at higher ends of the skill ceiling, because the GW2 classes are balanced around the assumption that you use all the weapons, both melee and ranged, at your disposal. Builds like crit-builds, steal-builds and stealth-builds are much less viable with a ranged-only weapon setup.
In PvE however, you should be plenty adequate.
|
On August 14 2012 14:45 Ryhzuo wrote:I can't help but feel that all these unwavering advocates of the trinity system are trying to hang on to some remnants of past familiar territory, afraid to acknowledge and embrace change. Sure, it works. It might be flawed, it might have it's own perks, but it works. As far as discussions go that's about a solid of a bottom line as it gets. Do you know what else worked? 9 weapon slots and non-regenerating health. That didn't stop Halo and CoD from dominating the shooter market for almost a decade. Just because a mechanic is different, doesn't necessarily mean it's better or worse. It's just different, it's just apples and oranges. So it makes me very wary when off of about less than 10 days playtime (most of which are low level content, or an undeveloped PvP metagame), people are making grandiose assumptions and declarations that the game won't work, will get boring, will fail, because etc etc blah blah holy trinity. Maybe it's just a tad premature? The idea that removing the trinity is like removing a layer of complexity is also a bit misleading. In fact the statement itself is a bit fallacious due to the loaded word "remove". GW2 isn't really removing the trinity, it's just replacing it with something else. Is it better? Not necessarily, but nobody at this stage will know for sure, because it's simply too early to tell. I've always looked at GW2 pvp combat as more of Dota-esque than WoW-like. Five core skills, fun utilities, and fights where knowing when to use your skills always triumphs over blowing your cool downs whenever you get the chance. Personally that's my kind of combat.
You didn't really actually address any of the points or logic in my post. The only thing you actually addressed was the fact that the holy trinity is replaced with something, without describing what or how it is better and how it addresses the lack of the good features the holy trinity brings.
You accuse me of being "set in my ways" but i think it's the other way round, you are seeing it through beta-rose tinited glasses. I've played beta for almost every big-budget/popular MMO thats been released in the last 8 years, and its the same thing. Fans in beta refuse to see the shortcomings of the game that exist. In warhammer online they told me "no pve content at high level will be fine on release, they are hardly going to give you all the content!" , there was a lack of pve content. "no public quests wont be empty on release because the servers will be able to handle more players!" No they didn't it was the same size servers as the beta, as expected, and hence the public quests were empty. The same was true of so many games, SWTOR and city of heroes to name just a few. People make excuses for the company pre-release because they want to believe that its going to be a brilliant game. Maybe it wont be brilliant, maybe it wont be good, but a shade of grey in between because the designers actually don't know entirely what they are doing, because the games industry is still in its infancy and the professionalism isn't there yet. Guildwars 2 will be the best and most polished MMO since wow, hell it might even be better than wow, the pvp looks great. But they have made mistakes with their design, as well as some great innovations. I bought a new pc for this game and i per-ordered it, its safe to say im a fan, i just think i don't suffer from the halo effect.
|
On August 10 2012 20:39 Wesso wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 20:31 balosan wrote:
I was really hyped for gw 2, then i watched totalbiscuit review of beta. I didnt know u can buy game advantage for real money that suck, i have to pay for game and then for micro transitions to be equal to other players. Everything looks good but im not gonna play this pay twice to win thing for sure. Don't let such a small thing stop you. Who cares if other people gain their eq/level a bit faster than you? Also in PVP equipment is standardized. The only disadvantage you could have is you have to play a bit longer to get top gear for WvW, unlike in other MMOs, top gear will be easy to get. Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 20:28 Kavallerie wrote:
The OP should really update. When is this game going to be released? 28th of august, 25th for the people with the head start.
Alright thanks!
Hmm I'm not sure if I should get this game. I'm not too familiar with the Guild Wars series. Does it take up a lot of time like WoW?
If it requires a lot of commitment or time, I probably won't buy it.
|
My main worry now having played in all previous beta events, is the ease of knowing which ability is being used by other players. From my PvP experience, figuring out which mark was placed on the ground from say a staff Necro, is pretty much impossible at the moment.
After all they did mention the possibility, or hope rather that GW2 would attempt to become an Esport. However if it's semi-impossible to know by looking at an ability what is being used, then that's not really going to work.
|
Lalalaland34503 Posts
On August 14 2012 18:32 Kavallerie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 20:39 Wesso wrote:On August 10 2012 20:31 balosan wrote:
I was really hyped for gw 2, then i watched totalbiscuit review of beta. I didnt know u can buy game advantage for real money that suck, i have to pay for game and then for micro transitions to be equal to other players. Everything looks good but im not gonna play this pay twice to win thing for sure. Don't let such a small thing stop you. Who cares if other people gain their eq/level a bit faster than you? Also in PVP equipment is standardized. The only disadvantage you could have is you have to play a bit longer to get top gear for WvW, unlike in other MMOs, top gear will be easy to get. On August 10 2012 20:28 Kavallerie wrote:
The OP should really update. When is this game going to be released? 28th of august, 25th for the people with the head start. Alright thanks! Hmm I'm not sure if I should get this game. I'm not too familiar with the Guild Wars series. Does it take up a lot of time like WoW? If it requires a lot of commitment or time, I probably won't buy it.
No. Put in as much or as little time as you wish.
|
On August 14 2012 19:05 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 18:32 Kavallerie wrote:On August 10 2012 20:39 Wesso wrote:On August 10 2012 20:31 balosan wrote:
I was really hyped for gw 2, then i watched totalbiscuit review of beta. I didnt know u can buy game advantage for real money that suck, i have to pay for game and then for micro transitions to be equal to other players. Everything looks good but im not gonna play this pay twice to win thing for sure. Don't let such a small thing stop you. Who cares if other people gain their eq/level a bit faster than you? Also in PVP equipment is standardized. The only disadvantage you could have is you have to play a bit longer to get top gear for WvW, unlike in other MMOs, top gear will be easy to get. On August 10 2012 20:28 Kavallerie wrote:
The OP should really update. When is this game going to be released? 28th of august, 25th for the people with the head start. Alright thanks! Hmm I'm not sure if I should get this game. I'm not too familiar with the Guild Wars series. Does it take up a lot of time like WoW? If it requires a lot of commitment or time, I probably won't buy it. No. Put in as much or as little time as you wish.
Thats how I felt as well, didn't get any need to rush to max level but liked taking my time exploring the world and PvPing.
Something worth mentioning is that there's a form of PvP that when you join it your character gets max level and the skills that come with it, and equipment equal to what everyone else have. Makes playing multiple classes viable even without leveling. It's like a joining a match in DotA or CS instead of leveling for couple days and grinding for god knows how long to get proper gear.
|
On August 14 2012 19:05 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 18:32 Kavallerie wrote:On August 10 2012 20:39 Wesso wrote:On August 10 2012 20:31 balosan wrote:
I was really hyped for gw 2, then i watched totalbiscuit review of beta. I didnt know u can buy game advantage for real money that suck, i have to pay for game and then for micro transitions to be equal to other players. Everything looks good but im not gonna play this pay twice to win thing for sure. Don't let such a small thing stop you. Who cares if other people gain their eq/level a bit faster than you? Also in PVP equipment is standardized. The only disadvantage you could have is you have to play a bit longer to get top gear for WvW, unlike in other MMOs, top gear will be easy to get. On August 10 2012 20:28 Kavallerie wrote:
The OP should really update. When is this game going to be released? 28th of august, 25th for the people with the head start. Alright thanks! Hmm I'm not sure if I should get this game. I'm not too familiar with the Guild Wars series. Does it take up a lot of time like WoW? If it requires a lot of commitment or time, I probably won't buy it. No. Put in as much or as little time as you wish.
This.
It's main selling point is the "no monthly subscriptions", so you don't have to feel bad if you don't feel like playing it for a while.
I still sometimes log into Guild Wars 1 to trash people in the random arenas (seriously, players have gotten BAD) because, well... because i can. In WoW there is always the "if i don't play as much as possible, i'm wasting money" feeling.
|
On August 13 2012 06:01 nimbus99 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:45 sob3k wrote:
So guys, I followed all the dev blogs and stuff and was pretty excited about this game. Then I read the threads after the beta was released and people seemed to be a bit disappointing with the end product...not that it was bad but it wasn't amazing.
Its been a while since then. What are your guys's current opinions on the game?
Is it awesome? Would you recommend buying it without reservations to a pretty picky RPG buff? It is literally the RPG I have ever played. Hands down. Played the third beta weekend... cant stop thinking about the game. Music is amazing, graphics are amazing (not too hard to run aswell), and the gameplay is outstanding. No monthly fee. Get it.
This!
On August 13 2012 17:51 Tobberoth wrote:
What I was disappointed with was, among other things:
* Combat feels button-mashy, especially in PvE. Unlike WoW where you optimize rotations etc (which is easy, but satisfying), in GW2, you basically punch buttons. I don't think there's a place for this kind of combat, it should either be like WoW (optimized rotations) or RaiderZ (action RPG, like monster hunter, where blocking with a shield and rolling actually works well).
It's feels like in the beginning. I played BWE 1 and 3 and almost all stresstests (BWE 2 I also played a few hours but my time was very limited). Once I got into the combat system I started to understand...that I have a long way in front of me to learn everything. It's neither button smashing nor "optimized rotations". The follow up and use of your skills simply depends on situations which can change mutiple times in one fight. In BWE 3 I realised that and got overwhelmed by its possibilities.
On August 13 2012 17:51 Tobberoth wrote:* The PvE over all is very bland. I expected dynamic content which really makes an impact, but that's not what you get at all. Instead, you get big areas with "points of interest" where you do the same thing over and over, which is very tedious. You basically "help" a key character by doing "good" things in an area, which can range from clicking on things on the ground, to fighting stuff. This is actually WORSE than wow style quests, because you don't really get any story in GW2, it's just an area with problems which you help out with, where as in WoW, the basic quests are like that (kill 10 wolves style) but more advanced quests chain etc. The dynamic events are better, but the impact they make on the world was far overstated by arenanet, and it just feels like "Oh, I came in time for the random bear attack event, which I've already completed twice).
1: You can speak with every NPC of reknown heart events to get the story. But you are right, the story here is almost always very boring.
2: Dynmaic events tell for themselves, they are action based and change little things all over the world. Anet stated that there will be more events with higher scale on higher lvl areas which turn the whole thing in huge dynmic meta event chains (not even close to what we saw from beta) that affect whole areas.
3: For getting the story: Walk up to NPC's staying around everywere. A lot of them will tell you very interesting things, some of them will talk directly to you, for other you can listen to conversation they have.
4. I also feel like the event system is missing the possibility to have lore based quest and quests who send the character over a greater distance.
On August 13 2012 17:51 Tobberoth wrote:* Skills are boring, at least for the classes I've played. Cast fireball, cast blind, throw rocks. You have very few skills up at a time, and while you can switch weapons (and sometimes stance, like elementalist), you get more of the same. It feels like you have the skills of a MOBA character, but without the interesting ones.
Almost every race felt very distinct for me and even alle the weapons felt very distinct from each other. Don't know but I guess you have to make deeper thoughts about how the skills work.
On August 13 2012 17:51 Tobberoth wrote:Overall, the game just doesn't feel satsifying to me and the world isn't believable, the story feels very weak. The game LOOKS great, the art direction is great, and exploration is fun because of that fact. I also lack experience in PvP, which is definitely the biggest aspect of the game, so I can't speak for that.
Overall, I'd say it's up to your expectations. You might love it or you might be disappointed. Watch a bunch of videos of people playing it, maybe try it at a friends house... or just gamble and buy it, there's no subscription fee so it's not a big investment.
GW2 is a game that isn't fun if you obey it flat. The deeper you get the more interesting everything becomes. The story of the world is amazing it just takes a hell amount of time to get into it and see how every little detail fit each other very well. I'm a bit disappointed about the personal story until now though, because it starts with very little problems. But we will see what the future will tell. I'm convinced the PS will get very good just because I know how good the stories in the first game were.
|
just remembered one of the character quest for human.... where you have to go into a house and kill people. The camera work inside that house is so bad ._.
|
On August 14 2012 18:12 UdderChaos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 14:45 Ryhzuo wrote:On August 14 2012 09:06 UdderChaos wrote:
*snip* I can't help but feel that all these unwavering advocates of the trinity system are trying to hang on to some remnants of past familiar territory, afraid to acknowledge and embrace change. Sure, it works. It might be flawed, it might have it's own perks, but it works. As far as discussions go that's about a solid of a bottom line as it gets. Do you know what else worked? 9 weapon slots and non-regenerating health. That didn't stop Halo and CoD from dominating the shooter market for almost a decade. Just because a mechanic is different, doesn't necessarily mean it's better or worse. It's just different, it's just apples and oranges. So it makes me very wary when off of about less than 10 days playtime (most of which are low level content, or an undeveloped PvP metagame), people are making grandiose assumptions and declarations that the game won't work, will get boring, will fail, because etc etc blah blah holy trinity. Maybe it's just a tad premature? The idea that removing the trinity is like removing a layer of complexity is also a bit misleading. In fact the statement itself is a bit fallacious due to the loaded word "remove". GW2 isn't really removing the trinity, it's just replacing it with something else. Is it better? Not necessarily, but nobody at this stage will know for sure, because it's simply too early to tell. I've always looked at GW2 pvp combat as more of Dota-esque than WoW-like. Five core skills, fun utilities, and fights where knowing when to use your skills always triumphs over blowing your cool downs whenever you get the chance. Personally that's my kind of combat. You didn't really actually address any of the points or logic in my post. The only thing you actually addressed was the fact that the holy trinity is replaced with something, without describing what or how it is better and how it addresses the lack of the good features the holy trinity brings. You accuse me of being "set in my ways" but i think it's the other way round, you are seeing it through beta-rose tinited glasses. I've played beta for almost every big-budget/popular MMO thats been released in the last 8 years, and its the same thing. Fans in beta refuse to see the shortcomings of the game that exist. In warhammer online they told me "no pve content at high level will be fine on release, they are hardly going to give you all the content!" , there was a lack of pve content. "no public quests wont be empty on release because the servers will be able to handle more players!" No they didn't it was the same size servers as the beta, as expected, and hence the public quests were empty. The same was true of so many games, SWTOR and city of heroes to name just a few. People make excuses for the company pre-release because they want to believe that its going to be a brilliant game. Maybe it wont be brilliant, maybe it wont be good, but a shade of grey in between because the designers actually don't know entirely what they are doing, because the games industry is still in its infancy and the professionalism isn't there yet. Guildwars 2 will be the best and most polished MMO since wow, hell it might even be better than wow, the pvp looks great. But they have made mistakes with their design, as well as some great innovations. I bought a new pc for this game and i per-ordered it, its safe to say im a fan, i just think i don't suffer from the halo effect.
Maybe because your post was mostly speculation and assumptions. You say:
So there are 3 outcomes, either theres is less synergy and dependence on your allies, not something i look forward too, they find a good balance, and replace the holy trinity with basically another version of itself, which would be very hard to achieve, or they go too far and make you MORE dependent on specific classes, rather than 3 roles that multiple classes can fill.
The game designers already said they took a lot of the elements from Team Fortress 2 as inspiration, and it shows. If you didn't like TF2, then ok, maybe the game isn't for you, but I loved it and TF2 was a more or less a wildly popular game. So from playing the betas it certainly feels like they are "removing the synergy" between classes as you would call it, but I don't agree how this is any less fun. You still need them there, just like in TF2 you're going to be at a disadvantage if you're short 1 person. And in fact I don't know where you even derive fun from the holy trinity "synergy" to being with. I have a healer in my group, I expect them to heal me. As a DPS or tank in that group, that is it. I don't know where I derive any addition "funness" from that. Most people who are enjoyed the holy trinity are mostly the people who favor healers, who have made that niche for themselves. That's understandable, you invested time into the playstyle and enjoy it so it is a fair point, and the only suggestion I have is perhaps try to think of the game not as an MMO but a TF2 with PvE or something if it helps you adjust.
Plus what's more fun:
1) Requiring a healer so that you see your health bar go up and down every once in a while or...
2) Combo'ing your skills together like a (*&#$(*#&$ badass!
I also don't get your point about requiring more synergy. There's going to be tons of potential combos you can do as you only require a combo starter and combo finisher, so AFAIK all classes will be able to combo with all other classes.
Also I believe there will still be tanks in this game from classes using defensive weapons swaps, but there is a lot of potential now. ANet has the system in place now where they can make a lot of encounters outside of the "tank and spank" model, since every class has defensive weapons. So a boss may have an aggro mechanic that switches between players, making those players have to swap to defensive weapons and tank the boss while it is on them. It makes the whole system more free flowing and variable and ultimately, I believe, fun.
And your point about PvP I totally disagree with because like I said the game draws a lot of inspiration from TF2 and TF2 had a "class" system and while it did have a healing class (medic) it was not in any way shape or form required to be competitive. I think the healing mechanic as presented in most MMOs thus far is actually far, far more harmful in PvP than it is in PvE (see my previous post).
|
On August 15 2012 01:01 Skyro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 18:12 UdderChaos wrote:On August 14 2012 14:45 Ryhzuo wrote:On August 14 2012 09:06 UdderChaos wrote:
*snip* I can't help but feel that all these unwavering advocates of the trinity system are trying to hang on to some remnants of past familiar territory, afraid to acknowledge and embrace change. Sure, it works. It might be flawed, it might have it's own perks, but it works. As far as discussions go that's about a solid of a bottom line as it gets. Do you know what else worked? 9 weapon slots and non-regenerating health. That didn't stop Halo and CoD from dominating the shooter market for almost a decade. Just because a mechanic is different, doesn't necessarily mean it's better or worse. It's just different, it's just apples and oranges. So it makes me very wary when off of about less than 10 days playtime (most of which are low level content, or an undeveloped PvP metagame), people are making grandiose assumptions and declarations that the game won't work, will get boring, will fail, because etc etc blah blah holy trinity. Maybe it's just a tad premature? The idea that removing the trinity is like removing a layer of complexity is also a bit misleading. In fact the statement itself is a bit fallacious due to the loaded word "remove". GW2 isn't really removing the trinity, it's just replacing it with something else. Is it better? Not necessarily, but nobody at this stage will know for sure, because it's simply too early to tell. I've always looked at GW2 pvp combat as more of Dota-esque than WoW-like. Five core skills, fun utilities, and fights where knowing when to use your skills always triumphs over blowing your cool downs whenever you get the chance. Personally that's my kind of combat. You didn't really actually address any of the points or logic in my post. The only thing you actually addressed was the fact that the holy trinity is replaced with something, without describing what or how it is better and how it addresses the lack of the good features the holy trinity brings. You accuse me of being "set in my ways" but i think it's the other way round, you are seeing it through beta-rose tinited glasses. I've played beta for almost every big-budget/popular MMO thats been released in the last 8 years, and its the same thing. Fans in beta refuse to see the shortcomings of the game that exist. In warhammer online they told me "no pve content at high level will be fine on release, they are hardly going to give you all the content!" , there was a lack of pve content. "no public quests wont be empty on release because the servers will be able to handle more players!" No they didn't it was the same size servers as the beta, as expected, and hence the public quests were empty. The same was true of so many games, SWTOR and city of heroes to name just a few. People make excuses for the company pre-release because they want to believe that its going to be a brilliant game. Maybe it wont be brilliant, maybe it wont be good, but a shade of grey in between because the designers actually don't know entirely what they are doing, because the games industry is still in its infancy and the professionalism isn't there yet. Guildwars 2 will be the best and most polished MMO since wow, hell it might even be better than wow, the pvp looks great. But they have made mistakes with their design, as well as some great innovations. I bought a new pc for this game and i per-ordered it, its safe to say im a fan, i just think i don't suffer from the halo effect. Maybe because your post was mostly speculation and assumptions. You say: Show nested quote +So there are 3 outcomes, either theres is less synergy and dependence on your allies, not something i look forward too, they find a good balance, and replace the holy trinity with basically another version of itself, which would be very hard to achieve, or they go too far and make you MORE dependent on specific classes, rather than 3 roles that multiple classes can fill. You still need them there, just like in TF2 you're going to be at a disadvantage if you're short 1 person. And in fact I don't know where you even derive fun from the holy trinity "synergy" to being with. I have a healer in my group, I expect them to heal me. As a DPS or tank in that group, that is it. I don't know where I derive any addition "funness" from that. Most people who are enjoyed the holy trinity are mostly the people who favor healers, who have made that niche for themselves. That's understandable, you invested time into the playstyle and enjoy it so it is a fair point, and the only suggestion I have is perhaps try to think of the game not as an MMO but a TF2 with PvE or something if it helps you adjust. I also don't get your point about requiring more synergy. There's going to be tons of potential combos you can do as you only require a combo starter and combo finisher, so AFAIK all classes will be able to combo with all other classes.
I don't even think the healer-tank mechanic is a good way of making "synergy". Because for me its a forced synergy. There is no "cool" feeling, it's just something that you have to do otherwise you can't do shit.
What I want is 2 powerful classes by themselves that when they associate become more powerful when they combine their skills. I don't want to be restricted in the choice of classes I associate with mine and I think ANet system allows for creativity. I don't want to say to a friend he needs to play healer/tank, just because. Or worse, refuse him to take someone I like less.
Also I strongly believe that the tank mechanic strongly promotes a static gameplay. It makes everyone move a lot less, tanks can tank and pack mobs, range characters just nuke from afar, melees follow tank and healers spam heals from afar. Of course, that's in pve; pvp can be very dynamic but there's no tanks in pvp so I'm not sure discussing the trinity system in pvp makes sense... Sine the game is very static, it has to revolves around rotations and theorycraft. I'm glad GW2 is more action based, avoiding stuff and using an ability at the right time, kinda like a moba.
At least I have yet to see a game using this system and make it as dynamic as gw2 is. Maybe it can be done so I'll give future developer the opportunity to prove me wrong.
|
On August 15 2012 01:52 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 01:01 Skyro wrote:On August 14 2012 18:12 UdderChaos wrote:On August 14 2012 14:45 Ryhzuo wrote:On August 14 2012 09:06 UdderChaos wrote:
*snip* I can't help but feel that all these unwavering advocates of the trinity system are trying to hang on to some remnants of past familiar territory, afraid to acknowledge and embrace change. Sure, it works. It might be flawed, it might have it's own perks, but it works. As far as discussions go that's about a solid of a bottom line as it gets. Do you know what else worked? 9 weapon slots and non-regenerating health. That didn't stop Halo and CoD from dominating the shooter market for almost a decade. Just because a mechanic is different, doesn't necessarily mean it's better or worse. It's just different, it's just apples and oranges. So it makes me very wary when off of about less than 10 days playtime (most of which are low level content, or an undeveloped PvP metagame), people are making grandiose assumptions and declarations that the game won't work, will get boring, will fail, because etc etc blah blah holy trinity. Maybe it's just a tad premature? The idea that removing the trinity is like removing a layer of complexity is also a bit misleading. In fact the statement itself is a bit fallacious due to the loaded word "remove". GW2 isn't really removing the trinity, it's just replacing it with something else. Is it better? Not necessarily, but nobody at this stage will know for sure, because it's simply too early to tell. I've always looked at GW2 pvp combat as more of Dota-esque than WoW-like. Five core skills, fun utilities, and fights where knowing when to use your skills always triumphs over blowing your cool downs whenever you get the chance. Personally that's my kind of combat. You didn't really actually address any of the points or logic in my post. The only thing you actually addressed was the fact that the holy trinity is replaced with something, without describing what or how it is better and how it addresses the lack of the good features the holy trinity brings. You accuse me of being "set in my ways" but i think it's the other way round, you are seeing it through beta-rose tinited glasses. I've played beta for almost every big-budget/popular MMO thats been released in the last 8 years, and its the same thing. Fans in beta refuse to see the shortcomings of the game that exist. In warhammer online they told me "no pve content at high level will be fine on release, they are hardly going to give you all the content!" , there was a lack of pve content. "no public quests wont be empty on release because the servers will be able to handle more players!" No they didn't it was the same size servers as the beta, as expected, and hence the public quests were empty. The same was true of so many games, SWTOR and city of heroes to name just a few. People make excuses for the company pre-release because they want to believe that its going to be a brilliant game. Maybe it wont be brilliant, maybe it wont be good, but a shade of grey in between because the designers actually don't know entirely what they are doing, because the games industry is still in its infancy and the professionalism isn't there yet. Guildwars 2 will be the best and most polished MMO since wow, hell it might even be better than wow, the pvp looks great. But they have made mistakes with their design, as well as some great innovations. I bought a new pc for this game and i per-ordered it, its safe to say im a fan, i just think i don't suffer from the halo effect. Maybe because your post was mostly speculation and assumptions. You say: So there are 3 outcomes, either theres is less synergy and dependence on your allies, not something i look forward too, they find a good balance, and replace the holy trinity with basically another version of itself, which would be very hard to achieve, or they go too far and make you MORE dependent on specific classes, rather than 3 roles that multiple classes can fill. You still need them there, just like in TF2 you're going to be at a disadvantage if you're short 1 person. And in fact I don't know where you even derive fun from the holy trinity "synergy" to being with. I have a healer in my group, I expect them to heal me. As a DPS or tank in that group, that is it. I don't know where I derive any addition "funness" from that. Most people who are enjoyed the holy trinity are mostly the people who favor healers, who have made that niche for themselves. That's understandable, you invested time into the playstyle and enjoy it so it is a fair point, and the only suggestion I have is perhaps try to think of the game not as an MMO but a TF2 with PvE or something if it helps you adjust. I also don't get your point about requiring more synergy. There's going to be tons of potential combos you can do as you only require a combo starter and combo finisher, so AFAIK all classes will be able to combo with all other classes. I don't even think the healer-tank mechanic is a good way of making "synergy". Because for me its a forced synergy. There is no "cool" feeling, it's just something that you have to do otherwise you can't do shit. What I want is 2 powerful classes by themselves that when they associate become more powerful when they combine their skills. I don't want to be restricted in the choice of classes I associate with mine and I think ANet system allows for creativity. I don't want to say to a friend he needs to play healer/tank, just because. Or worse, refuse him to take someone I like less. Also I strongly believe that the tank mechanic strongly promotes a static gameplay. It makes everyone move a lot less, tanks can tank and pack mobs, range characters just nuke from afar, melees follow tank and healers spam heals from afar. Of course, that's in pve; pvp can be very dynamic but there's no tanks in pvp so I'm not sure discussing the trinity system in pvp makes sense... Sine the game is very static, it has to revolves around rotations and theorycraft. I'm glad GW2 is more action based, avoiding stuff and using an ability at the right time, kinda like a moba. At least I have yet to see a game using this system and make it as dynamic as gw2 is. Maybe it can be done so I'll give future developer the opportunity to prove me wrong.
Just wanted to agree (:
For me, I think this lack of "trinity" is one of the things that made my experiance so far much more enjoyable than i thought it would be.
|
On August 14 2012 17:43 Vaelone wrote:
Shouldn't engineer be a better idea than thief if you want to use guns.
Pistol engineer is much more viable than pistol thief since as thief you are going to be mainly using shortbow and switching only to pistol/dagger for 1v1.
So there are 3 outcomes, either theres is less synergy and dependence on your allies, not something i look forward too, they find a good balance, and replace the holy trinity with basically another version of itself, which would be very hard to achieve, or they go too far and make you MORE dependent on specific classes, rather than 3 roles that multiple classes can fill.
Then go play WoW, you clearly don't want to play this game and want to be constrained by archaic mechanics.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Combo
That alone brings more synergy then any healing archtype ever would.
|
Interestingly WoW 5.0 patch (pre-expac patch) is released the 28th August. Not that I think it really matter since Im pretty sure people are already set as to whether they will play GW2, MoP or both. But it looks like a bit too big to be a coincidence 
|
On August 15 2012 05:28 rezoacken wrote:Interestingly WoW 5.0 patch (pre-expac patch) is released the 28th August. Not that I think it really matter since Im pretty sure people are already set as to whether they will play WoW, MoP or both. But it looks like a bit too big to be a coincidence
Yeah and the D3 1.04 patch is also tentatively scheduled to be released around that time as well. We see right through you Blizzard! 
|
so afraid?!
and they have to...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
