I am curious is there any class base modern day MMOs that has a pure support class?
LOTRO - the healers all have damage abilities and can spec into damage so that game does not have a 100% support class.
WoW - the healers have damage spells and can spec into damage so that game does not have a 100% support class.
Rift – I do not know for sure if this is possible or not. I know when I was in beta playing the Cleric I did not come across a 3 soul build that was 100% support. Can anyone still playing say if this is possible or not?
DDO – Cleric is not 100% support based since it has damage abilities.
WAR – all healers were a mix of Damage and support.
Guild wars – It was possible to make a 100% support builds, but it would be more of a gimp for your team in PVP and PVE. Since you need shutdowns and other things to help your teams win.
City of Heroes – I do not remember, I have not played it in a long time. Can someone answer this?
Well can anyone point to a recent MMO with a 100% support class; were the whole point of playing the character was just to aid your allies and nothing else?
Actually, going 51 Bard in Rift, similar to this, is considered a full support class and the best support class. All a Bard is expected to do is cycle through their motifs (buffs) keeping them up at all times, whilst providing continuous support heals and dumping mana to the healer whenever they need it. Nothing else. I've tried low-level Barding in Rift and found it extremely boring.
Now as for Healing in Rift... well it was the first time I'd ever done healing in an MMO, ever and I must say; I found it kinda fun. But only because I created some weird hybrid Prot. HoT Healer and the only reason why I found it fun was because it was challenging, yet rewarding. Forces me to do more than cycle through the same skill rotation.
So I've finally developed an appreciation for healing in an MMO, especially in Rift where the bosses do ridicilous amounts of damage. I still disliked the whole I idea of a dedicated healer/tank/dps and I believe that GW2 will be better without that whole paradigm.
GW2 wants to break the oldschool pattern of 'Healers are a crutch'
Most oldschool mmorpg's require a 'Healer' to some extent to handle tougher content.
This can be considered bad, as every type of character should be equal (as possible).
So as I see it, Healers that are 'weak' do not feel like a main healer, but Healers that are overpowered (the norm) break the game.
Just my opinion.
also an opinionated person.. but rather than saying their trying to 'break the mold' i would say their dumbing down the classes... ... seems to be a familiar kind of theme with modern MMO's tbh..
I just felt that you haven't taken into consideration the information that is and isn't available to us. You seemed to assume that there would probably only be 2 viable support builds for guardians compared to gw1 monks, I just felt that assumption was misplaced considering that cannot be calculated as of right now. No need to wax philosophical on my ass.
Which is why you'll find a high density of the word 'likely' in my post. Implying that it's not certain but that I, personally, deem it probable.
We do have information like the skill builders here and this gives me the impression that, when it comes to pure support. There's 1-2 weapons that are viable. And the selectable skills that offer support mostly rely on the same beneficial conditions being applied to your allies. Mainly protection and regeneration.
Of course this isn't final yet and more abilities should be added but that is the impression I'm getting so far. Should something else come out I have no problem changing it, but I just haven't seen it yet.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
GW2 wants to break the oldschool pattern of 'Healers are a crutch'
Most oldschool mmorpg's require a 'Healer' to some extent to handle tougher content.
This can be considered bad, as every type of character should be equal (as possible).
So as I see it, Healers that are 'weak' do not feel like a main healer, but Healers that are overpowered (the norm) break the game.
Just my opinion.
also an opinionated person.. but rather than saying their trying to 'break the mold' i would say their dumbing down the classes... ... seems to be a familiar kind of theme with modern MMO's tbh..
Dumbing down... hm..
Nah, each class now has more layers within them that makes them more versatile. Dumbing down would require focusing rather than multi-tasking, removing the layers and making your objectives clear and simple. Kinda like what CCP is doing with mission agents.
GW2 wants to break the oldschool pattern of 'Healers are a crutch'
Most oldschool mmorpg's require a 'Healer' to some extent to handle tougher content.
This can be considered bad, as every type of character should be equal (as possible).
So as I see it, Healers that are 'weak' do not feel like a main healer, but Healers that are overpowered (the norm) break the game.
Just my opinion.
also an opinionated person.. but rather than saying their trying to 'break the mold' i would say their dumbing down the classes... ... seems to be a familiar kind of theme with modern MMO's tbh..
I don't know about dumbing down the classes, I think they're just trying to change the equation. Honestly, in a realistic situation, a healer wouldn't be able to level period. They'd be useless in single combat, but to fill this they made all these healers with super combat abilities. I kinda like their approach, now every one fighting on the battle field is a FIGHTER not a medic. I mean can you imagine if the medics of the world's armies were running around with guns in the middle of the battles, ridiculous. It happens sometimes, but you don't see medics running around trying to do missions. I think their approach was pretty unique and well thought out.
GW2 wants to break the oldschool pattern of 'Healers are a crutch' Most oldschool mmorpg's require a 'Healer' to some extent to handle tougher content.This can be considered bad, as every type of character should be equal (as possible).
So as I see it, Healers that are 'weak' do not feel like a main healer, but Healers that are overpowered (the norm) break the game.
Just my opinion.
A good way of putting the dichotomy. To add: Because AI is limited: Either make the mob OP or easily beatable through stats as it cannot innovate position/timing like a person can, add the tank to take on the OP mob. That leads teamwork split and firstly a healer to keep the tank alive. Then just muddy the conditions that lead to tanking and damage as much as possible to make players use teamwork to work out the formula to win. 1. A lot of mmorpgs use the same skills in pve as in pvp so this then goes over to pvp also. 2. Teamwork does becomes part of the game is the upside.
Tank: This is where Guild Wars 2 makes the biggest break from the traditional MMO setup... Control is the only thing versatile enough to get away from the rock-paper-scissors gameplay of other MMOs. It's healing when you need it, its damage when you need it. It is the glue that holds together our system.
It's intended to introduce more movement in these scenarios and deemphasize the healer's prerequisite role to the survival of the whole group. Once the tank is removed and proactive control (incl. tanking) used instead, everyone shares duties more as well as some emphasis on specialist roles/functions but more diversity in how the fight with the mob is organized.Everyone is a weak healer for themselves; no OP healers, so controlling the mob needs to step into it's place juggling mobs (being proactive: support/control/dps). It will probably be easier with support professions and harder without support professions/specs.
Which is why you'll find a high density of the word 'likely' in my post. Implying that it's not certain but that I, personally, deem it probable.
We do have information like the skill builders here and this gives me the impression that, when it comes to pure support. There's 1-2 weapons that are viable. And the selectable skills that offer support mostly rely on the same beneficial conditions being applied to your allies. Mainly protection and regeneration.
Of course this isn't final yet and more abilities should be added but that is the impression I'm getting so far. Should something else come out I have no problem changing it, but I just haven't seen it yet.
Well, I think the main question becomes how much of a difference do the utility skills make, and the heal skills.
Since there's about 6 heal skills per class, and 25 utility skills (Out of which you must pick 1 and 3 respectively), that's 4 whole skills and quite a lot of choices.
That's half the bar of a GW1 character, and enough room to pack in completely different types of support, theoretically.
Oh, and I remember at least 3 viable weapons for support with a Guardian? Since I remember making a build with two weapon sets that was pretty much all support.
Originally posted by Phry despite the WvW thing in GW2.. what im not seeing.. is an improvement from GW1.. at least in terms of combat mechanics.. if anything.. it even seems to have degraded..
You must have some really high opinion of GW1 combat then.
So making combat more active with actual dodging instead of using percentage for dodge and parry is a down grade?
To be able to use your team’s abilities to enhance your abilities on the fly is a down grade?
The fact that the build system if easier to understand at first for new people, with tons of options for the more experienced build makers is a down grade?
You have some really high opinion of GW1 combat system, and apparently do not see any of its weaknesses since you consider everything in GW2 to be a downgrade.
Nah, each class now has more layers within them that makes them more versatile. Dumbing down would require focusing rather than multi-tasking, removing the layers and making your objectives clear and simple.
Actually dumbing down requires well..... dumbing it down.... as in making it require less thought to play.
It doesn't really have anything to do with multi-tasking and focussing. You could have an incredibly focussed yet deep and thoughtfull class. You could also have an incredibly focussed yet simple class. Or maybe a multi-tasker requiring lots of thought and micro-management. Or a multi-tasker that can do it all easy with a single button press.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Well, I think the main question becomes how much of a difference do the utility skills make, and the heal skills.
Since there's about 6 heal skills per class, and 25 utility skills (Out of which you must pick 1 and 3 respectively), that's 4 whole skills and quite a lot of choices.
That's half the bar of a GW1 character, and enough room to pack in completely different types of support, theoretically.
Oh, and I remember at least 3 viable weapons for support with a Guardian? Since I remember making a build with two weapon sets that was pretty much all support.
The question will really be how many of those utility skills are pure support. Likely a third of them ( 8 ) will have some support functionality. But as you could have hybrid abilities that are both supportive and damaging at the same time these wouldn't be optimal for someone going for a support build. Leaving you with 5 or so utility skills to pick from.
But let's say the guardian is more support focussed and has 10 viable utility skills for pure support and 3 viable weapons.
I still think that's a very limited class to play. As everone else will have over twice the available weapons and utility skills.
Focussed support characters simply have more options available because they can do with having a very high percentage of their abilities being support focussed. They can dedicate to support without having to sacrifice half their options.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
I just felt that you haven't taken into consideration the information that is and isn't available to us. You seemed to assume that there would probably only be 2 viable support builds for guardians compared to gw1 monks, I just felt that assumption was misplaced considering that cannot be calculated as of right now. No need to wax philosophical on my ass.
Which is why you'll find a high density of the word 'likely' in my post. Implying that it's not certain but that I, personally, deem it probable.
We do have information like the skill builders here and this gives me the impression that, when it comes to pure support. There's 1-2 weapons that are viable. And the selectable skills that offer support mostly rely on the same beneficial conditions being applied to your allies. Mainly protection and regeneration.
Of course this isn't final yet and more abilities should be added but that is the impression I'm getting so far. Should something else come out I have no problem changing it, but I just haven't seen it yet.
I guess we have different takes on what we consider "Support" because in my mind all the weapons are viable for playing the support role. And from what I can see, just in the skill builder alone there are two viable pure support builds counting only the utility skills which is to say if it were "likely" that there were only 1 or 2 pure support builds then we probably already know them which I doubt entirely.
The thing is the word "likely" in the sentence you used it indicates that there is a high probability that what you said would happen, you might want to try "might" or "may be" instead of "likely" to make it more 50/50.
I guess we have different takes on what we consider "Support" because in my mind all the weapons are viable for playing the support role. And from what I can see, just in the skill builder alone there are two viable pure support builds counting only the utility skills which is to say if it were "likely" that there were only 1 or 2 pure support builds then we probably already know them which I doubt entirely.
The thing is the word "likely" in the sentence you used it indicates that there is a high probability that what you said would happen, you might want to try "might" or "may be" instead of "likely" to make it more 50/50.
I use likely because, personally, I don't think it's 50/50. I think it's more like 80/20.
Simple thing is that when you're designing a class for a single role you can go all out on that role. You can create deep, interesting and engaging mechanics for that role. You can give them a large variety of skills that only work for that role and no other role.
If you're designing a class that has to be able to switch between roles you have to make a mechanic that works for all those roles. You have to give them skills for all those roles and thus less for each role individually.
You could design a guardian where every single utility skill is an interesting and viable choice for support. Or you could design a guardian where only a number of those utility skills are interesting and viable choices for support, because the other skills are interesting and viable skills for the other roles.
For most players the second option is superior. But for the minority that loves support the first option is simply better.
I'm not saying the guardian can't support. I'm simply saying that the guardian won't be as interesting and as deep a support class compared to the well designed 'pure' support classes in other games.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
I am so happy arenanet is scrapping the healer class and dumping it into the trash where it belongs. I am glad some developer out there realized that it is absurd to have one class hold so much power in deciding if an entire group wins or loses, survives or dies. it boggles my mind how such an insanely stupid mechanic was ever able to exist. in almost every single mmo out there, it is the #1 cause for people not being able to play with each other: because they cannot find a healer to group with. does it make sense that 5 people are not able to play together just because they are missing one specific player? does it make sense to be forced to level a character you dont even like just so you can get groups? no it doesnt.
Thank you arenanet and good riddance healer class.
We shall see who the blame game shifts focus to, but it certainly won't be the player themself...
. despite the WvW thing in GW2.. what im not seeing.. is an improvement from GW1.. at least in terms of combat mechanics.. if anything.. it even seems to have degraded..
Haha, considering we could do a partial dodge and semi-active blocking in GW1 I'd definitely say this is an upgrade. In pvp in GW1 people used two weapon sets or more so that they could perform certain actions (assassins with hammers so that they can cause knockdown or healers with shields so that they can perform shield bash) or have more energy (monks with high energy sets and all that jazz). This, I think, has been taken and broadened into what you see now in GW2 as the weapon set mechanic. The skill combo mechanic could be seen in almost any MMO as syncing but in GW2 its taken to the next level allowing you to do more than just sync but actually combine the effects of both your skills.
With all that I've listed how you can say its degraded... I really do not know.
I think the problem with the trinity is that dps was considered part of that trinity. Everybody should be able to dps. Just like "Every Marine is a rifleman." No class should have had to exchange dps for a role that was necessary for the group. And no class should have ever been dps only or the dps specialist. Everyone should be expected to support the team with something other than the dps that everyone should bring. At least that is my view of it.
It seems that GW2 isn't so much going to get rid of the roles as much as they are getting rid of the idea that only certain classes can do a role and only one person in the party will be expected to perform the role and do virtually nothing else. Tanking and control will still happen but several will be doing it. Healing, support and enhancement will still be happening but several people will be doing it. I think this will create some very fun game play. I expect it will also create problems for those who don't think ahead and expect everyone else to be taking care of the control and support. Ultimately the prize goes to those who work together well as a team and that is the kind of game I like.
It will also be very nice to see the restrictions on filling a role disappear. No more having only a limited number of classes able to fill the control or tanking role. No more only being screwed if the healer dies and nobody can rez him. I think this was one of the more likeable things I found in rift. Having several different classes at least capable of healing roles, tanking roles and support roles. Sure people might have a favored role they play more than others but don't limit people to only being able to bring one role. Let people be able to form a group with any given composition of classes and then allow them to figure out what roles need to be brought to the table in order to over come the objective.
Guild Wars 2 seems to do that and also takes it to the next level. Not only can people choose what role they will play in the up coming action but you could also have one player on more than one role, you could have more than one player on the same role and you can also have players shift roles during combat if the situation warrents it. If the medic gets shot in the head does the rest of the platoon just stop and wait to die? They better not. Someone picks up the medic's supplies and you push on and do your best.
Originally posted by Phry despite the WvW thing in GW2.. what im not seeing.. is an improvement from GW1.. at least in terms of combat mechanics.. if anything.. it even seems to have degraded..
You must have some really high opinion of GW1 combat then.
So making combat more active with actual dodging instead of using percentage for dodge and parry is a down grade?
To be able to use your team’s abilities to enhance your abilities on the fly is a down grade?
The fact that the build system if easier to understand at first for new people, with tons of options for the more experienced build makers is a down grade?
You have some really high opinion of GW1 combat system, and apparently do not see any of its weaknesses since you consider everything in GW2 to be a downgrade.
actually i said degraded, rather than downgraded.. though rather than argue semantics i would add that while i wasnt a particular fan of the combat mechanics of GW1.. they did work well.. and it did encourage teamwork.. which is something ... i don't really see from GW2.. players need a reason to group together, the less reason there is to do so.. the less it will occur.. and by not having strong classes, though each persons evaluation of 'strong' will vary - what one player might consider being strong might not be the same as anothers after all.. and imo.. its why people choose different class types in the first place.. it means there will be less reason to value any particular class anyway.. which is why i consider it to be a degredation.. .. hopefully when the game is released this won't prove to be the case. but for the moment i have yet to see any evidence to contradict this opinion..
Well, I think the main question becomes how much of a difference do the utility skills make, and the heal skills.
Since there's about 6 heal skills per class, and 25 utility skills (Out of which you must pick 1 and 3 respectively), that's 4 whole skills and quite a lot of choices.
That's half the bar of a GW1 character, and enough room to pack in completely different types of support, theoretically.
Oh, and I remember at least 3 viable weapons for support with a Guardian? Since I remember making a build with two weapon sets that was pretty much all support.
The question will really be how many of those utility skills are pure support. Likely a third of them ( 8 ) will have some support functionality. But as you could have hybrid abilities that are both supportive and damaging at the same time these wouldn't be optimal for someone going for a support build. Leaving you with 5 or so utility skills to pick from.
I don't quite understand that part, are you saying that skills that have both damaging and heal effects aren't good for support builds?
I'm getting memories of grouping in diablo 2... oh yeah, no healers. Mega fun, have a blast kind of gameplay and no tanking (agro) and no dedicated healers. It works. And it's more fun for everyone.
its why people choose different class types in the first place.. it means there will be less reason to value any particular class anyway.. which is why i consider it to be a degredation.. .. hopefully when the game is released this won't prove to be the case. but for the moment i have yet to see any evidence to contradict this opinion..
? I'm a little confused by what you're saying.
How does 'less reason to value any particular class' = 'less teamwork'?
Teamwork does not require extremely stratified class roles.
Teamwork requires... well, teamwork. (A little self-referential, but true. )
Just because you're as happy to see an elementalist as you are to see a warrior, doesn't mean teamwork is suddenly gone. It just means that there's more characters viable to join your group.
(edit: This is especially true because it's not like these teamwork abilities are GONE, it's just that each character can perform different roles in different ways. With over a hundred skills and a hundred traits for many characters, that's a lot of different ways to do things that they can pick and choose from.)
Originally posted by Phry despite the WvW thing in GW2.. what im not seeing.. is an improvement from GW1.. at least in terms of combat mechanics.. if anything.. it even seems to have degraded..
You must have some really high opinion of GW1 combat then.
So making combat more active with actual dodging instead of using percentage for dodge and parry is a down grade?
To be able to use your team’s abilities to enhance your abilities on the fly is a down grade?
The fact that the build system if easier to understand at first for new people, with tons of options for the more experienced build makers is a down grade?
You have some really high opinion of GW1 combat system, and apparently do not see any of its weaknesses since you consider everything in GW2 to be a downgrade.
actually i said degraded, rather than downgraded.. though rather than argue semantics i would add that while i wasnt a particular fan of the combat mechanics of GW1.. they did work well.. and it did encourage teamwork.. which is something ... i don't really see from GW2.. players need a reason to group together, the less reason there is to do so.. the less it will occur.. and by not having strong classes, though each persons evaluation of 'strong' will vary - what one player might consider being strong might not be the same as anothers after all.. and imo.. its why people choose different class types in the first place.. it means there will be less reason to value any particular class anyway.. which is why i consider it to be a degredation.. .. hopefully when the game is released this won't prove to be the case. but for the moment i have yet to see any evidence to contradict this opinion..
I'm not sure you quite understand. Relieving classes from specific roles doesn't mean there is no reason to group up, it simply means you have more opitons when it comes to viable options in grouping up.
Originally posted by Phry despite the WvW thing in GW2.. what im not seeing.. is an improvement from GW1.. at least in terms of combat mechanics.. if anything.. it even seems to have degraded..
You must have some really high opinion of GW1 combat then.
So making combat more active with actual dodging instead of using percentage for dodge and parry is a down grade?
To be able to use your team’s abilities to enhance your abilities on the fly is a down grade?
The fact that the build system if easier to understand at first for new people, with tons of options for the more experienced build makers is a down grade?
You have some really high opinion of GW1 combat system, and apparently do not see any of its weaknesses since you consider everything in GW2 to be a downgrade.
actually i said degraded, rather than downgraded.. though rather than argue semantics i would add that while i wasnt a particular fan of the combat mechanics of GW1.. they did work well.. and it did encourage teamwork.. which is something ... i don't really see from GW2.. players need a reason to group together, the less reason there is to do so.. the less it will occur.. and by not having strong classes, though each persons evaluation of 'strong' will vary - what one player might consider being strong might not be the same as anothers after all.. and imo.. its why people choose different class types in the first place.. it means there will be less reason to value any particular class anyway.. which is why i consider it to be a degredation.. .. hopefully when the game is released this won't prove to be the case. but for the moment i have yet to see any evidence to contradict this opinion..
I think it will depend on how they handle building synergy in small groups. The problem doesn't have to be that everyone can do anything but rather you want to limit the ability for one person to do everything at once. In other words there needs to be an advatage to having people fill roles and work together on coodinated attacks within small groups. The single guy holding off two attackers should be able to do so to a degree but give him a partner and they should be able to do better than simply having twice as much punch. Two working together should be able to defeat two working independantly.
Of course we will see if this turns out to be the case but just because classes and roles are not strongly coupled doesn't mean that it will be every man for himself. At least that is not the impression I am getting so far.
1 skill which does A points of healing. 1 skill which does B points of healing and C points of damage.
In order for these to be balanced A needs to be higher then B. Otherwise there's just no point to the first skill.
Because A is higher then B characters focussing on support will pick the first skill since, when it comes to support, it's superior.
A pure support skill has to provide superior support compared to a hybrid skill. Otherwise there's just no point to the pure skills.
It's a good thing people from OTHER games can't walk into GW2.
... wouldn't 'best support' be determined in comparison to other GW2 classes, rather than other games? :< So if you have a bunch of B/C skills and only a couple A skills, it would still be an optimal support build. (For GW2) You'd just be doing a lot of damage on accident. :<
Originally posted by Phry despite the WvW thing in GW2.. what im not seeing.. is an improvement from GW1.. at least in terms of combat mechanics.. if anything.. it even seems to have degraded..
You must have some really high opinion of GW1 combat then.
So making combat more active with actual dodging instead of using percentage for dodge and parry is a down grade?
To be able to use your team’s abilities to enhance your abilities on the fly is a down grade?
The fact that the build system if easier to understand at first for new people, with tons of options for the more experienced build makers is a down grade?
You have some really high opinion of GW1 combat system, and apparently do not see any of its weaknesses since you consider everything in GW2 to be a downgrade.
actually i said degraded, rather than downgraded.. though rather than argue semantics i would add that while i wasnt a particular fan of the combat mechanics of GW1.. they did work well.. and it did encourage teamwork.. which is something ... i don't really see from GW2.. players need a reason to group together, the less reason there is to do so.. the less it will occur.. and by not having strong classes, though each persons evaluation of 'strong' will vary - what one player might consider being strong might not be the same as anothers after all.. and imo.. its why people choose different class types in the first place.. it means there will be less reason to value any particular class anyway.. which is why i consider it to be a degredation.. .. hopefully when the game is released this won't prove to be the case. but for the moment i have yet to see any evidence to contradict this opinion..
I think it will depend on how they handle building synergy in small groups. The problem doesn't have to be that everyone can do anything but rather you want to limit the ability for one person to do everything at once. In other words there needs to be an advatage to having people fill roles and work together on coodinated attacks within small groups. The single guy holding off two attackers should be able to do so to a degree but give him a partner and they should be able to do better than simply having twice as much punch. Two working together should be able to defeat two working independantly.
Of course we will see if this turns out to be the case but just because classes and roles are not strongly coupled doesn't mean that it will be every man for himself. At least that is not the impression I am getting so far.
i certainly hope that this is the case.. its player interdependance that will define whether or not people fight alone or as part of a team.. the less interdependance there is.. the more groups of 'lone wolves' i would expect to encounter... i have a feeling though.. that the only answer i'll get on that one.. is from playing the game when it comes out... i know i'll be getting it.. but whether i play it for any length of time will .. really depend on how those issues.. as i see them at least.. are dealt with...
Comments
Actually, going 51 Bard in Rift, similar to this, is considered a full support class and the best support class. All a Bard is expected to do is cycle through their motifs (buffs) keeping them up at all times, whilst providing continuous support heals and dumping mana to the healer whenever they need it. Nothing else. I've tried low-level Barding in Rift and found it extremely boring.
Now as for Healing in Rift... well it was the first time I'd ever done healing in an MMO, ever and I must say; I found it kinda fun. But only because I created some weird hybrid Prot. HoT Healer and the only reason why I found it fun was because it was challenging, yet rewarding. Forces me to do more than cycle through the same skill rotation.
So I've finally developed an appreciation for healing in an MMO, especially in Rift where the bosses do ridicilous amounts of damage. I still disliked the whole I idea of a dedicated healer/tank/dps and I believe that GW2 will be better without that whole paradigm.
also an opinionated person.. but rather than saying their trying to 'break the mold' i would say their dumbing down the classes... ... seems to be a familiar kind of theme with modern MMO's tbh..
Which is why you'll find a high density of the word 'likely' in my post. Implying that it's not certain but that I, personally, deem it probable.
We do have information like the skill builders here and this gives me the impression that, when it comes to pure support. There's 1-2 weapons that are viable. And the selectable skills that offer support mostly rely on the same beneficial conditions being applied to your allies. Mainly protection and regeneration.
Of course this isn't final yet and more abilities should be added but that is the impression I'm getting so far. Should something else come out I have no problem changing it, but I just haven't seen it yet.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Dumbing down... hm..
Nah, each class now has more layers within them that makes them more versatile. Dumbing down would require focusing rather than multi-tasking, removing the layers and making your objectives clear and simple. Kinda like what CCP is doing with mission agents.
This is not a game.
I don't know about dumbing down the classes, I think they're just trying to change the equation. Honestly, in a realistic situation, a healer wouldn't be able to level period. They'd be useless in single combat, but to fill this they made all these healers with super combat abilities. I kinda like their approach, now every one fighting on the battle field is a FIGHTER not a medic. I mean can you imagine if the medics of the world's armies were running around with guns in the middle of the battles, ridiculous. It happens sometimes, but you don't see medics running around trying to do missions. I think their approach was pretty unique and well thought out.
A good way of putting the dichotomy. To add: Because AI is limited: Either make the mob OP or easily beatable through stats as it cannot innovate position/timing like a person can, add the tank to take on the OP mob. That leads teamwork split and firstly a healer to keep the tank alive. Then just muddy the conditions that lead to tanking and damage as much as possible to make players use teamwork to work out the formula to win. 1. A lot of mmorpgs use the same skills in pve as in pvp so this then goes over to pvp also. 2. Teamwork does becomes part of the game is the upside.
What GW2 is doing is quote:
It's intended to introduce more movement in these scenarios and deemphasize the healer's prerequisite role to the survival of the whole group. Once the tank is removed and proactive control (incl. tanking) used instead, everyone shares duties more as well as some emphasis on specialist roles/functions but more diversity in how the fight with the mob is organized.Everyone is a weak healer for themselves; no OP healers, so controlling the mob needs to step into it's place juggling mobs (being proactive: support/control/dps). It will probably be easier with support professions and harder without support professions/specs.
edit: format
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Well, I think the main question becomes how much of a difference do the utility skills make, and the heal skills.
Since there's about 6 heal skills per class, and 25 utility skills (Out of which you must pick 1 and 3 respectively), that's 4 whole skills and quite a lot of choices.
That's half the bar of a GW1 character, and enough room to pack in completely different types of support, theoretically.
Oh, and I remember at least 3 viable weapons for support with a Guardian? Since I remember making a build with two weapon sets that was pretty much all support.
You must have some really high opinion of GW1 combat then.
So making combat more active with actual dodging instead of using percentage for dodge and parry is a down grade?
To be able to use your team’s abilities to enhance your abilities on the fly is a down grade?
The fact that the build system if easier to understand at first for new people, with tons of options for the more experienced build makers is a down grade?
You have some really high opinion of GW1 combat system, and apparently do not see any of its weaknesses since you consider everything in GW2 to be a downgrade.
Actually dumbing down requires well..... dumbing it down.... as in making it require less thought to play.
It doesn't really have anything to do with multi-tasking and focussing. You could have an incredibly focussed yet deep and thoughtfull class. You could also have an incredibly focussed yet simple class. Or maybe a multi-tasker requiring lots of thought and micro-management. Or a multi-tasker that can do it all easy with a single button press.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
I don't think GW1 or GW2 are built around a 'dumbed down' concept at all.
Both games give the classes a large toolbox where you have tons of options.
Most games are the reverse..."take these cookie cutter abilities"
The question will really be how many of those utility skills are pure support. Likely a third of them ( 8 ) will have some support functionality. But as you could have hybrid abilities that are both supportive and damaging at the same time these wouldn't be optimal for someone going for a support build. Leaving you with 5 or so utility skills to pick from.
But let's say the guardian is more support focussed and has 10 viable utility skills for pure support and 3 viable weapons.
I still think that's a very limited class to play. As everone else will have over twice the available weapons and utility skills.
Focussed support characters simply have more options available because they can do with having a very high percentage of their abilities being support focussed. They can dedicate to support without having to sacrifice half their options.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
I guess we have different takes on what we consider "Support" because in my mind all the weapons are viable for playing the support role. And from what I can see, just in the skill builder alone there are two viable pure support builds counting only the utility skills which is to say if it were "likely" that there were only 1 or 2 pure support builds then we probably already know them which I doubt entirely.
The thing is the word "likely" in the sentence you used it indicates that there is a high probability that what you said would happen, you might want to try "might" or "may be" instead of "likely" to make it more 50/50.
This is not a game.
I use likely because, personally, I don't think it's 50/50. I think it's more like 80/20.
Simple thing is that when you're designing a class for a single role you can go all out on that role. You can create deep, interesting and engaging mechanics for that role. You can give them a large variety of skills that only work for that role and no other role.
If you're designing a class that has to be able to switch between roles you have to make a mechanic that works for all those roles. You have to give them skills for all those roles and thus less for each role individually.
You could design a guardian where every single utility skill is an interesting and viable choice for support. Or you could design a guardian where only a number of those utility skills are interesting and viable choices for support, because the other skills are interesting and viable skills for the other roles.
For most players the second option is superior. But for the minority that loves support the first option is simply better.
I'm not saying the guardian can't support. I'm simply saying that the guardian won't be as interesting and as deep a support class compared to the well designed 'pure' support classes in other games.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
We shall see who the blame game shifts focus to, but it certainly won't be the player themself...
Haha, considering we could do a partial dodge and semi-active blocking in GW1 I'd definitely say this is an upgrade. In pvp in GW1 people used two weapon sets or more so that they could perform certain actions (assassins with hammers so that they can cause knockdown or healers with shields so that they can perform shield bash) or have more energy (monks with high energy sets and all that jazz). This, I think, has been taken and broadened into what you see now in GW2 as the weapon set mechanic. The skill combo mechanic could be seen in almost any MMO as syncing but in GW2 its taken to the next level allowing you to do more than just sync but actually combine the effects of both your skills.
With all that I've listed how you can say its degraded... I really do not know.
This is not a game.
I think the problem with the trinity is that dps was considered part of that trinity. Everybody should be able to dps. Just like "Every Marine is a rifleman." No class should have had to exchange dps for a role that was necessary for the group. And no class should have ever been dps only or the dps specialist. Everyone should be expected to support the team with something other than the dps that everyone should bring. At least that is my view of it.
It seems that GW2 isn't so much going to get rid of the roles as much as they are getting rid of the idea that only certain classes can do a role and only one person in the party will be expected to perform the role and do virtually nothing else. Tanking and control will still happen but several will be doing it. Healing, support and enhancement will still be happening but several people will be doing it. I think this will create some very fun game play. I expect it will also create problems for those who don't think ahead and expect everyone else to be taking care of the control and support. Ultimately the prize goes to those who work together well as a team and that is the kind of game I like.
It will also be very nice to see the restrictions on filling a role disappear. No more having only a limited number of classes able to fill the control or tanking role. No more only being screwed if the healer dies and nobody can rez him. I think this was one of the more likeable things I found in rift. Having several different classes at least capable of healing roles, tanking roles and support roles. Sure people might have a favored role they play more than others but don't limit people to only being able to bring one role. Let people be able to form a group with any given composition of classes and then allow them to figure out what roles need to be brought to the table in order to over come the objective.
Guild Wars 2 seems to do that and also takes it to the next level. Not only can people choose what role they will play in the up coming action but you could also have one player on more than one role, you could have more than one player on the same role and you can also have players shift roles during combat if the situation warrents it. If the medic gets shot in the head does the rest of the platoon just stop and wait to die? They better not. Someone picks up the medic's supplies and you push on and do your best.
All die, so die well.
actually i said degraded, rather than downgraded.. though rather than argue semantics i would add that while i wasnt a particular fan of the combat mechanics of GW1.. they did work well.. and it did encourage teamwork.. which is something ... i don't really see from GW2.. players need a reason to group together, the less reason there is to do so.. the less it will occur.. and by not having strong classes, though each persons evaluation of 'strong' will vary - what one player might consider being strong might not be the same as anothers after all.. and imo.. its why people choose different class types in the first place.. it means there will be less reason to value any particular class anyway.. which is why i consider it to be a degredation.. .. hopefully when the game is released this won't prove to be the case. but for the moment i have yet to see any evidence to contradict this opinion..
I don't quite understand that part, are you saying that skills that have both damaging and heal effects aren't good for support builds?
This is not a game.
Basically.
To give a very simple example.
1 skill which does A points of healing. 1 skill which does B points of healing and C points of damage.
In order for these to be balanced A needs to be higher then B. Otherwise there's just no point to the first skill.
Because A is higher then B characters focussing on support will pick the first skill since, when it comes to support, it's superior.
A pure support skill has to provide superior support compared to a hybrid skill. Otherwise there's just no point to the pure skills.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
I'm getting memories of grouping in diablo 2... oh yeah, no healers. Mega fun, have a blast kind of gameplay and no tanking (agro) and no dedicated healers. It works. And it's more fun for everyone.
? I'm a little confused by what you're saying.
How does 'less reason to value any particular class' = 'less teamwork'?
Teamwork does not require extremely stratified class roles.
Teamwork requires... well, teamwork. (A little self-referential, but true.
)
Just because you're as happy to see an elementalist as you are to see a warrior, doesn't mean teamwork is suddenly gone. It just means that there's more characters viable to join your group.
(edit: This is especially true because it's not like these teamwork abilities are GONE, it's just that each character can perform different roles in different ways. With over a hundred skills and a hundred traits for many characters, that's a lot of different ways to do things that they can pick and choose from.)
I'm not sure you quite understand. Relieving classes from specific roles doesn't mean there is no reason to group up, it simply means you have more opitons when it comes to viable options in grouping up.
I think it will depend on how they handle building synergy in small groups. The problem doesn't have to be that everyone can do anything but rather you want to limit the ability for one person to do everything at once. In other words there needs to be an advatage to having people fill roles and work together on coodinated attacks within small groups. The single guy holding off two attackers should be able to do so to a degree but give him a partner and they should be able to do better than simply having twice as much punch. Two working together should be able to defeat two working independantly.
Of course we will see if this turns out to be the case but just because classes and roles are not strongly coupled doesn't mean that it will be every man for himself. At least that is not the impression I am getting so far.
All die, so die well.
It's a good thing people from OTHER games can't walk into GW2.
... wouldn't 'best support' be determined in comparison to other GW2 classes, rather than other games? :< So if you have a bunch of B/C skills and only a couple A skills, it would still be an optimal support build. (For GW2) You'd just be doing a lot of damage on accident. :<
i certainly hope that this is the case.. its player interdependance that will define whether or not people fight alone or as part of a team.. the less interdependance there is.. the more groups of 'lone wolves' i would expect to encounter... i have a feeling though.. that the only answer i'll get on that one.. is from playing the game when it comes out... i know i'll be getting it.. but whether i play it for any length of time will .. really depend on how those issues.. as i see them at least.. are dealt with...