I think a lot of gamers just want a game where they're not forced into playing with others in a certain manner.
I for one hate the whole trinity thing and for that reason alone haven't bothered with a dungeon in an MMO for years. I hate the total dependance on a class for success. Now I haven't played LOTRO but I like how the arrangement in that game sounds. However, people - particularly gamers - have a tendancy to optimise and typically won't settle for 3 druids in a raid when 1 priest would do just as well.
My hope for GW2 is that the role and the responsibility of the healer will simply be disributed across all the classes. In this respect I would assume that if someone doesn't know how to manage their own health the party could wipe just as easily as a party with a lame healer. That way it becomes far more than just a dps-fest.
Aryas
Playing: Ableton Live 8 ~ ragequitcancelsubdeletegamesmashcomputerkillself ~
I'll make this one response post, but if you can't understand it like you did my previous post, I will cease to respond again just to keep the thread moving instead of stagnating with bickering. Nothing personal.
Firstly, I never said other mmos require a group for everything. However, many of them require a group for end content. And the group structure is rigid and repetitive. Boring. Having a role might suit some sheepish players out there but it bores me and doesn't let me character shine to their fullest as the bad ass they should be. Second my zergfest comment was to the guy who posted below you. He was saying the game would be a zerg fest...which makes a lot of sense considering that end game content in WoW is 40 man.
Action movies and MMOs were compared as in STORY. Both GW2 and action movies have a story. The story is more interesting when you happen upon other characters rather than queing to meet them in order to run some dungeon - which isn't social btw. Everyone in the dungeon is in it for themselves - no one really talks or if they do it's "lol! I gotz phat lootz!". If that makes an MMO fun for you so be it, but some of us want to adventure and meet others more natually.
And now that I think about it: Why not compare MMOS to an action movie? Maybe that's what MMOS are missing which is why they are becoming more action based and less nerd pen and paper based. But that's another topic all together.
Have you watched all the videos on how teaming up in GW2 works? And what the devs said about incentive? And how people can help each other without grouping outright? It's a different version of being social that will surprise you I bet. Did you see all the videos on gametrailers?
Because everyone who doesn't like GW2 is a sheepish nerd enjoying nothing but boring, repetitive and rigid gaming whilst continuesly calling "lol! I gotz phat lootz!".
Why the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?
Look, I've got no problem with the fact that lots of people are excited and loving GW2. But can you please start being excited without continuesly insulting anyone having fun with things like the trinity, healers, world PvP and player competition?
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Should suit a pvp centric game more I guess. I cant see how boss fights wont be zergs though. That'll be fine if all pve is like rift invasions or similar.
Should suit a pvp centric game more I guess. I cant see how boss fights wont be zergs though. That'll be fine if all pve is like rift invasions or similar.
that will probably be the case by the looks of things.. the PVE looks to be totally forgettable.. but the PVP has a lot of promise.. the only thing bothering me at the moment is the combat mechanics.. ..which i don't like the sound of.. so keeping fingers crossed that when the game releases, it'll be a lot better than its been described as being.... ..
The reason a lot of people hate the healing class is that they lack the social skills to work in a group. That isn't suprising, a LOT of effort is spend by businesses trying to get their employees to learn to work together after they are out of their teens. Yes highly trained specialist person, your contribution to the companies success is useful, so is the contribution of the average intelligence office worker who makes sure everyones birthday is remembered and the office does not come to resemble a student dorm room.
Actually the reason a lot of people (like me) hate/dislike the healing class is because we have to spend a lot of time waiting around for said healer. Also if you're not a healer or a tank then you are immediately relegated as an unimportant/expendable member of the group. That does tend to kill the mood for people, when the game keeps telling us that the world is in peril ONLY YOU can save it.
The no-healer thing has been tried before. Age of Conan tried it partly by making healers worthy of DPS in their own right and making heals group based rather then target based. So instead of emergency heals the healers in AoC did constant boost healing while in the process of DPS. It worked, one healing class, forgot which, was so good it could out DPS and out tank anything.
AoC you might have noticed failed. Because of this? Well. Partly. You see, while twitch gaming used to get a lot of press, not everyone likes it. Some people like a slower pace and actually have to use tactics and strategy. The triad of tank, dps, healer (with additional specialized classes) creates this.
Funny thing is that I've been involved with MMOs for only a few months and even I know that AoC failed largely because it was an unoptimized & unplayable piece of crap for a lot of the people that were excited for the title. And that's the problem with MMOs (themepark ones especially), where if you fail to leave a positive impression within the 1st month then you're likely doomed to failure. Now look at the state GW2 was in during the demo. People are able to experience this MMORPG, with a completely new take on combat and still have fun, without bugging out & crashing. So yeah, I don't think healers had much to do with it.
...
Compared to that, in Lotro, each class has a role and mix matching them requires different approaches. Some players can do that. All burglar rift? Why not. LM for the heals? Can be done. Have you seen the power of 3 captains working together?
But that requires players who know their own class and that of others and can adjust their style to work with it. Yes, I see many a group in Lotro begging for a minstrel (the standard healing class) even when they are a captain themselves and they could team up with other secondary healers or more tanks or more crowd control and get the job done just as well.
I've played LOTRO and I'm in fact a Captain class in the game and I've done instances with 2 or 3 Captains, a tank & the rest DPS and it can work with the easier instances. But tough ones always require a dedicated healer. That's because Captains in the game are built for support, their weak burst heals & HoTs, in order to make Minstrels more needed. And thus I've pretty much stopped playing the game at level 40 because I'm sick of spamming "LF Healer for..." for an hour. It's just not fun and I play games in order to have fun.
...
I am very intrested in seeing what GW2 is going to be like. But a game with no tactics, no strategy, is going to be very boring. And don't say that lack of a healer class means that all classes won't be the same. If all classes are not the same, then the "need healer" will just be replaced by "need crowd control" or "need dps" or "need class X I will never roll, never thank, to come and help me out".
People still believe that a lack of a rigid team make-up makes the game less tactical and the classes the same. Well let me bring up this example again, because even though none of the players are tanking or healing, they are still tactically working together. The Thief constantly dealing damage & pulling mobs when necessary, the Guardian controlling the enemy & protecting allies and the Warrior dealing damage & providing buffs. Those 3 have naturally fallen into roles but unlike other MMORPGs, these aren't rigid roles and they can switch on the fly. So they'll be no "Need CC", since if they need a CC'er anyone an just become a CC'er.
SWTOR might suffer from the same. When everyone can heal themselves, you got a lot of people playing essentially with themselves. I am to old to play with myself.
SW:TOR is following the trinity, the same as how Rift follows the trinity, so that is of no concern.
I don't really mind that part so much I kinda like being an essential part of the team so to speak but what gets me is that the game mechanics for healing are so boring/annoying having to take your focus of the action constantly having to watch green bars and more importantly having to click them and then press a heal ALL THE TIME, this is the biggest crux I believe healers do nothing but heal and if they don't they are usually not using the class optimally.
which makes a lot of people stay away from playing healers so some ultimately have to sacrifice themselves.
Removing the class entirely is one solution i guess but there can still be healing but avoiding the issues I listed above I believe.
Heals usually tends to be on the same resource as any other abilities and like mentioned above if a healer doesn't use all or the vast majority of resources to heal then the power is decreased usually since the gear favors only healing.
Put heals on a different resource, limit that resource so heals can't be spammed 24h if not this change wouldn't really have an effect. Warhammer online does this with the warrior priest for example altough they introduced gear that essentially made them into pure healers anyway which is dumb. But there is also another problem I mentioned above watching healthbars and clicking them, i found running around dpsing them stopping clicking a healthbar click heal was just stupid many will probably not like this but just make it so the heal automatically targets the person with the lowest hp in los/group or raid (which I think a single healthbar of said person could neatly placed somewhere it's easy to keep track of) but if you have a friendly target it would heal that target because healing the target with lowest hp is not always the best thing but it would have made playing a warrior priest in warhammer a hundred times more enjoyable for me.
Removing the class entirely is one solution i guess but there can still be healing but avoiding the issues I listed above I believe.
Heals usually tends to be on the same resource as any other abilities and like mentioned above if a healer doesn't use all or the vast majority of resources to heal then the power is decreased usually since the gear favors only healing.
Put heals on a different resource, limit that resource so heals can't be spammed 24h if not this change wouldn't really have an effect. Warhammer online does this with the warrior priest for example altough they introduced gear that essentially made them into pure healers anyway which is dumb. But there is also another problem I mentioned above watching healthbars and clicking them, i found running around dpsing them stopping clicking a healthbar click heal was just stupid many will probably not like this but just make it so the heal automatically targets the person with the lowest hp in los/group or raid (which I think a single healthbar of said person could neatly placed somewhere it's easy to keep track of) but if you have a friendly target it would heal that target because healing the target with lowest hp is not always the best thing but it would have made playing a warrior priest in warhammer a hundred times more enjoyable for me.
Games are already doing things like this with all the hybrid classes, like the Chloromancer in Rift, which is basically a healer that heals the group when it deals damage. However hybridization (if that even is a word) is just a way these devs try to fix issues with the trinity, by stapliing other mechanics onto it. Kinda like how Rift and SW:TOR are allowing Rogue's to tank. However it does nothing to actually tackle the issues many people have with the trinity: the dull repetition of the "tank 'n' spank", the reliance on that 1 guy taking a beating & that other guy handing out bandaids and the wait (which is the worst of all).
So sure, other games can do as you've said and try to make healing more interesting, or even add interesting mechanics to boss (which games already do). But those 3 problems will still remain in those trinity games. At least GW2 won't be one of those games.
From what I understand, you still have basic achetypes, they just call them Control (tank), Damage (dps), and Support (heals). Yes, there does appear to be some deviation in the mechanics though. But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group.
I think these two articles really give a sense of what ArenaNet is trying to accomplish. Please take a moment to read them, especially if you missed them when they came out.
I also want to add that I don't think these articles mention that the aggro system is different than a trinity system. With a trinity system, the tank holds mob aggro by means of additional threat. The mob is forced to stupidly attack the worst person in the raid for it to attack, and would instantly wipe the raid if it could just walk over and slap some healers dead.
In the GW2 system, the mob tries to attack the people it considers best for it to attack, whether it be because they're doing the most damage, or are casters, are wearing lighter armor, or are closer. And being that people can dodge, I'm willing to bet that mobs can really hurt you.
I can't ever see it being a zerg, if anything I'd be afraid it's the other way and it gets too much toward kiting. But what it is is tactical and being able to switch roles as the battle develops. And especially because of the ability to rez anybody at any time (just taking longer each time). As the articles say, it's not a game where you make a mistake and then just call a wipe, it's a game where the whole group can try to adjust to fix it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Diablo II LoD had no healing classes and it was the most fun I've ever had in pve in a multiplayer game. I'm quite sure Guild Wars 2 will do just fine without healers.
Healers take the fun out of PvP in pretty much every mmorpg they exist in, in my opinion. Minor / medium self-healing-suppurt is allright, while being able to outheal two to three people constantly hitting on you for over one minute is absolutely ridonkulous by any standarts.
"Only in quiet waters do things mirror themselves undistorted. Only in a quiet mind is adequate perception of the world." Hans Margolius
Because everyone who doesn't like GW2 is a sheepish nerd enjoying nothing but boring, repetitive and rigid gaming whilst continuesly calling "lol! I gotz phat lootz!".
Why the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?
Look, I've got no problem with the fact that lots of people are excited and loving GW2. But can you please start being excited without continuesly insulting anyone having fun with things like the trinity, healers, world PvP and player competition?
From what I understand, you still have basic achetypes, they just call them Control (tank), Damage (dps), and Support (heals). Yes, there does appear to be some deviation in the mechanics though. But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group.
"Heal: Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal. Healing is the least dynamic kind of support there is. It is reactive instead of proactive. Healing is for when you are already losing. In Guild Wars 2 we prefer that you support your allies before they take a beating. Sure, there are some healing spells in Guild Wars 2, but they make up a small portion of the support lines that are spread throughout the professions. Other kinds of support include buffs, active defense, and cross-profession combinations."
Healing isn't gone. The person that stands in the back and keeps the health bars full is gone. GW2 is about avoiding damage and lessening the damage that is done. Its about proactive gameplay, not reactive.
no? Teamwork shows when there is no Press 1. press 1. press 2 for aurora bubble. press 1., Priests are no help in any mmorpg, it should be played like reviving a member on call of duty when hes in last stand. DERRP
As long as you stop glorifying your own point of view whilst degrading others I'm happy.
I poke fun but I never insulted anyone. You know that. Making points sound compelling and funny is just more fun. Maybe this is a tone/context thing, which happens on forums a lot. I'm a bit sarcastic as a personality and I like humor to emphasise points.
From what I understand, you still have basic achetypes, they just call them Control (tank), Damage (dps), and Support (heals). Yes, there does appear to be some deviation in the mechanics though. But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group.
"Heal: Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal. Healing is the least dynamic kind of support there is. It is reactive instead of proactive. Healing is for when you are already losing. In Guild Wars 2 we prefer that you support your allies before they take a beating. Sure, there are some healing spells in Guild Wars 2, but they make up a small portion of the support lines that are spread throughout the professions. Other kinds of support include buffs, active defense, and cross-profession combinations."
Healing isn't gone. The person that stands in the back and keeps the health bars full is gone. GW2 is about avoiding damage and lessening the damage that is done. Its about proactive gameplay, not reactive.
Which is basically what I said.
"But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group."
I agree that the dynamics will be quite different, but it appears that you will still need the "archetypes" required to form a full party. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out - and if support classes get stuck back in the old buff-and-heal scenarios.
I'm excited about their approach, but it look sto me like its still a trinity-type makeup overall, whether the mechanics are completely different or nor. You'll still need certain roles in parties that need to be filled, maybe not "LF1M Heals and gtg" but there will definitely be aspects of the "looking for a specific class" scenario.
As long as you stop glorifying your own point of view whilst degrading others I'm happy.
I poke fun but I never insulted anyone. You know that. Making points sound compelling and funny is just more fun. Maybe this is a tone/context thing, which happens on forums a lot. I'm a bit sarcastic as a personality and I like humor to emphasise points.
If that's the case then I apologise. There's just a lot of hating going on when it comes to healers and trinity that it's a bit hard to seperate the sarcastic comments from the real insults, especially when using only text.
But personally I like the trinity. I like healers. Do they have problems? Hell yeah. Should all games everywhere throw them out because only narrow-minded, attention-deprived, sadomassochistic players like them? Hell no.
And I'm getting quite tired that just because GW2 is going in a diffirent direction ( a good direction I might add ) it's suddenly implied that all other directions are outdated and if you don't like the direction GW2 is taking then, well.... something's wrong with you.
Even the GW2 website is taking a very sarcastic stance towards the trinity and healers. And while I realise that from their point this is only humor, which in and of itself is no problem at all, I just wish there weren't so many people taking it seriously and copycatting it everywhere like it's the one undeniable universal truth.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
From what I understand, you still have basic achetypes, they just call them Control (tank), Damage (dps), and Support (heals). Yes, there does appear to be some deviation in the mechanics though. But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group.
"Heal: Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal. Healing is the least dynamic kind of support there is. It is reactive instead of proactive. Healing is for when you are already losing. In Guild Wars 2 we prefer that you support your allies before they take a beating. Sure, there are some healing spells in Guild Wars 2, but they make up a small portion of the support lines that are spread throughout the professions. Other kinds of support include buffs, active defense, and cross-profession combinations."
Healing isn't gone. The person that stands in the back and keeps the health bars full is gone. GW2 is about avoiding damage and lessening the damage that is done. Its about proactive gameplay, not reactive.
Which is basically what I said.
"But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group."
I agree that the dynamics will be quite different, but it appears that you will still need the "archetypes" required to form a full party. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out - and if support classes get stuck back in the old buff-and-heal scenarios.
I'm excited about their approach, but it look sto me like its still a trinity-type makeup overall, whether the mechanics are completely different or nor. You'll still need certain roles in parties that need to be filled, maybe not "LF1M Heals and gtg" but there will definitely be aspects of the "looking for a specific class" scenario.
Actually you're wrong.
"Being able to adapt to situations is something that we feel makes combat more exciting. In Guild Wars 2, the combination of weapon swapping and skill versatility give each profession the ability to adapt to combat situations and change their role. Taking too much damage as a warrior? Swap to mace and shield. A bunch of adds as an elementalist? Attune to fire. Even within single skills we try and maintain versatility. A guardian that brings Wall of Deflection or an elementalist with Swirling Aura can use them to defend allies when retreating. They can also use it to push into enemy lines, or they can cast it in a timely manner to counter a particularly dangerous enemy projectile and send the effects of that projectile back to the attacker. Being able to rotate roles and cover for other players is another piece in the puzzle to removing dependencies."
You aren't going to be using a single build and covering a single role in combat. Every class can support, cc and damage, they all just do it differently. Switching weapon sets (attunments in the ele's case) allows for people to flow with the battle and switch to a play style that is better suited to what is going on at the moment.
From what I understand, you still have basic achetypes, they just call them Control (tank), Damage (dps), and Support (heals). Yes, there does appear to be some deviation in the mechanics though. But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group.
"Heal: Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal. Healing is the least dynamic kind of support there is. It is reactive instead of proactive. Healing is for when you are already losing. In Guild Wars 2 we prefer that you support your allies before they take a beating. Sure, there are some healing spells in Guild Wars 2, but they make up a small portion of the support lines that are spread throughout the professions. Other kinds of support include buffs, active defense, and cross-profession combinations."
Healing isn't gone. The person that stands in the back and keeps the health bars full is gone. GW2 is about avoiding damage and lessening the damage that is done. Its about proactive gameplay, not reactive.
Which is basically what I said.
"But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group."
I agree that the dynamics will be quite different, but it appears that you will still need the "archetypes" required to form a full party. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out - and if support classes get stuck back in the old buff-and-heal scenarios.
I'm excited about their approach, but it look sto me like its still a trinity-type makeup overall, whether the mechanics are completely different or nor. You'll still need certain roles in parties that need to be filled, maybe not "LF1M Heals and gtg" but there will definitely be aspects of the "looking for a specific class" scenario.
Actually you're wrong.
"Being able to adapt to situations is something that we feel makes combat more exciting. In Guild Wars 2, the combination of weapon swapping and skill versatility give each profession the ability to adapt to combat situations and change their role. Taking too much damage as a warrior? Swap to mace and shield. A bunch of adds as an elementalist? Attune to fire. Even within single skills we try and maintain versatility. A guardian that brings Wall of Deflection or an elementalist with Swirling Aura can use them to defend allies when retreating. They can also use it to push into enemy lines, or they can cast it in a timely manner to counter a particularly dangerous enemy projectile and send the effects of that projectile back to the attacker. Being able to rotate roles and cover for other players is another piece in the puzzle to removing dependencies."
You aren't going to be using a single build and covering a single role in combat. Every class can support, cc and damage, they all just do it differently. Switching weapon sets (attunments in the ele's case) allows for people to flow with the battle and switch to a play style that is better suited to what is going on at the moment.
We'll have to see how it actually turns out. Their concepts look awesome on paper, I just can't imagine that you'll be able to take 5 warriors (or whatever you happen to have) and have the success of a group that uses classes that are more condusive to the role archetypes.
From what I understand, you still have basic achetypes, they just call them Control (tank), Damage (dps), and Support (heals). Yes, there does appear to be some deviation in the mechanics though. But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group.
"Heal: Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal. Healing is the least dynamic kind of support there is. It is reactive instead of proactive. Healing is for when you are already losing. In Guild Wars 2 we prefer that you support your allies before they take a beating. Sure, there are some healing spells in Guild Wars 2, but they make up a small portion of the support lines that are spread throughout the professions. Other kinds of support include buffs, active defense, and cross-profession combinations."
Healing isn't gone. The person that stands in the back and keeps the health bars full is gone. GW2 is about avoiding damage and lessening the damage that is done. Its about proactive gameplay, not reactive.
Which is basically what I said.
"But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group."
I agree that the dynamics will be quite different, but it appears that you will still need the "archetypes" required to form a full party. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out - and if support classes get stuck back in the old buff-and-heal scenarios.
I'm excited about their approach, but it look sto me like its still a trinity-type makeup overall, whether the mechanics are completely different or nor. You'll still need certain roles in parties that need to be filled, maybe not "LF1M Heals and gtg" but there will definitely be aspects of the "looking for a specific class" scenario.
Actually you're wrong.
"Being able to adapt to situations is something that we feel makes combat more exciting. In Guild Wars 2, the combination of weapon swapping and skill versatility give each profession the ability to adapt to combat situations and change their role. Taking too much damage as a warrior? Swap to mace and shield. A bunch of adds as an elementalist? Attune to fire. Even within single skills we try and maintain versatility. A guardian that brings Wall of Deflection or an elementalist with Swirling Aura can use them to defend allies when retreating. They can also use it to push into enemy lines, or they can cast it in a timely manner to counter a particularly dangerous enemy projectile and send the effects of that projectile back to the attacker. Being able to rotate roles and cover for other players is another piece in the puzzle to removing dependencies."
You aren't going to be using a single build and covering a single role in combat. Every class can support, cc and damage, they all just do it differently. Switching weapon sets (attunments in the ele's case) allows for people to flow with the battle and switch to a play style that is better suited to what is going on at the moment.
We'll have to see how it actually turns out. Their concepts look awesome on paper, I just can't imagine that you'll be able to take 5 warriors (or whatever you happen to have) and have the success of a group that uses classes that are more condusive to the role archetypes.
In one of the older PCgamer articles Eric Flannum mentioned he ran through a dungeon with a group of 5 elementalists. He also mentioned that he ran through another dungeon with 2 warriors and a ranger.
Don't know why we have to wait and see. We've already been told it works.
From what I understand, you still have basic achetypes, they just call them Control (tank), Damage (dps), and Support (heals). Yes, there does appear to be some deviation in the mechanics though. But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group.
"Heal: Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal. Healing is the least dynamic kind of support there is. It is reactive instead of proactive. Healing is for when you are already losing. In Guild Wars 2 we prefer that you support your allies before they take a beating. Sure, there are some healing spells in Guild Wars 2, but they make up a small portion of the support lines that are spread throughout the professions. Other kinds of support include buffs, active defense, and cross-profession combinations."
Healing isn't gone. The person that stands in the back and keeps the health bars full is gone. GW2 is about avoiding damage and lessening the damage that is done. Its about proactive gameplay, not reactive.
Which is basically what I said.
"But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group."
I agree that the dynamics will be quite different, but it appears that you will still need the "archetypes" required to form a full party. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out - and if support classes get stuck back in the old buff-and-heal scenarios.
I'm excited about their approach, but it look sto me like its still a trinity-type makeup overall, whether the mechanics are completely different or nor. You'll still need certain roles in parties that need to be filled, maybe not "LF1M Heals and gtg" but there will definitely be aspects of the "looking for a specific class" scenario.
i dont know that it really is going to be that different.. by the sound of it.. someone is still needed to cast the group heal thing.. and there is a need for someone... multiples probably. to handle aggro... any class that was limited only being able to dps would be a liability.. so group members must be able to either be able to do group healing, or be able to draw aggro and 'tank' a certain amount of damage before allowing another member to 'take aggro' for a while.. so.. no trinity.. as the dps guys are no longer required...in fact.. any class that can 'only' dps.. would be a liability/weakness in the group. as their role would be handled by the ones casting the area heals.. so.. Tank/Dps and Healer/Dps..
You aren't going to be using a single build and covering a single role in combat. Every class can support, cc and damage, they all just do it differently. Switching weapon sets (attunments in the ele's case) allows for people to flow with the battle and switch to a play style that is better suited to what is going on at the moment.
We'll have to see how it actually turns out. Their concepts look awesome on paper, I just can't imagine that you'll be able to take 5 warriors (or whatever you happen to have) and have the success of a group that uses classes that are more condusive to the role archetypes.
In one of the older PCgamer articles Eric Flannum mentioned he ran through a dungeon with a group of 5 elementalists. He also mentioned that he ran through another dungeon with 2 warriors and a ranger.
Well that definitely gets my hopes up. I just got the impression that its another type of trinity (a much cooler type albeit) with new mechanics.
Only the release/beta will let me know for sure, once people are running endgame scenarios and dungeons and really having to fine-tune who gets to participate. That's why I say "wait and see." Pre-release info is all well and good but it hasn't been tested on a large scale yet, and even the bottom paragraphs say that anything at this point is subject to change.
But the PC Gamer article definitely makes it look like they are moving in the right direction.
From what I understand, you still have basic achetypes, they just call them Control (tank), Damage (dps), and Support (heals). Yes, there does appear to be some deviation in the mechanics though. But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group.
"Heal: Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal. Healing is the least dynamic kind of support there is. It is reactive instead of proactive. Healing is for when you are already losing. In Guild Wars 2 we prefer that you support your allies before they take a beating. Sure, there are some healing spells in Guild Wars 2, but they make up a small portion of the support lines that are spread throughout the professions. Other kinds of support include buffs, active defense, and cross-profession combinations."
Healing isn't gone. The person that stands in the back and keeps the health bars full is gone. GW2 is about avoiding damage and lessening the damage that is done. Its about proactive gameplay, not reactive.
Which is basically what I said.
"But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group."
I agree that the dynamics will be quite different, but it appears that you will still need the "archetypes" required to form a full party. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out - and if support classes get stuck back in the old buff-and-heal scenarios.
I'm excited about their approach, but it look sto me like its still a trinity-type makeup overall, whether the mechanics are completely different or nor. You'll still need certain roles in parties that need to be filled, maybe not "LF1M Heals and gtg" but there will definitely be aspects of the "looking for a specific class" scenario.
i dont know that it really is going to be that different.. by the sound of it.. someone is still needed to cast the group heal thing.. and there is a need for someone... multiples probably. to handle aggro... any class that was limited only being able to dps would be a liability.. so group members must be able to either be able to do group healing, or be able to draw aggro and 'tank' a certain amount of damage before allowing another member to 'take aggro' for a while.. so.. no trinity.. as the dps guys are no longer required...in fact.. any class that can 'only' dps.. would be a liability/weakness in the group. as their role would be handled by the ones casting the area heals.. so.. Tank/Dps and Healer/Dps..
Comments
I think a lot of gamers just want a game where they're not forced into playing with others in a certain manner.
I for one hate the whole trinity thing and for that reason alone haven't bothered with a dungeon in an MMO for years. I hate the total dependance on a class for success. Now I haven't played LOTRO but I like how the arrangement in that game sounds. However, people - particularly gamers - have a tendancy to optimise and typically won't settle for 3 druids in a raid when 1 priest would do just as well.
My hope for GW2 is that the role and the responsibility of the healer will simply be disributed across all the classes. In this respect I would assume that if someone doesn't know how to manage their own health the party could wipe just as easily as a party with a lame healer. That way it becomes far more than just a dps-fest.
Aryas
Playing: Ableton Live 8
~ ragequitcancelsubdeletegamesmashcomputerkillself ~
Because everyone who doesn't like GW2 is a sheepish nerd enjoying nothing but boring, repetitive and rigid gaming whilst continuesly calling "lol! I gotz phat lootz!".
Why the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?
Look, I've got no problem with the fact that lots of people are excited and loving GW2. But can you please start being excited without continuesly insulting anyone having fun with things like the trinity, healers, world PvP and player competition?
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Should suit a pvp centric game more I guess. I cant see how boss fights wont be zergs though. That'll be fine if all pve is like rift invasions or similar.
that will probably be the case by the looks of things.. the PVE looks to be totally forgettable.. but the PVP has a lot of promise.. the only thing bothering me at the moment is the combat mechanics.. ..which i don't like the sound of.. so keeping fingers crossed that when the game releases, it'll be a lot better than its been described as being.... ..
R.I.P Healers!
Now its party time!
amen!
Guild Wars 2 Youtube Croatian Maniacs
My Guild Wars titles
I don't really mind that part so much I kinda like being an essential part of the team so to speak but what gets me is that the game mechanics for healing are so boring/annoying having to take your focus of the action constantly having to watch green bars and more importantly having to click them and then press a heal ALL THE TIME, this is the biggest crux I believe healers do nothing but heal and if they don't they are usually not using the class optimally.
which makes a lot of people stay away from playing healers so some ultimately have to sacrifice themselves.
Removing the class entirely is one solution i guess but there can still be healing but avoiding the issues I listed above I believe.
Heals usually tends to be on the same resource as any other abilities and like mentioned above if a healer doesn't use all or the vast majority of resources to heal then the power is decreased usually since the gear favors only healing.
Put heals on a different resource, limit that resource so heals can't be spammed 24h if not this change wouldn't really have an effect. Warhammer online does this with the warrior priest for example altough they introduced gear that essentially made them into pure healers anyway which is dumb. But there is also another problem I mentioned above watching healthbars and clicking them, i found running around dpsing them stopping clicking a healthbar click heal was just stupid many will probably not like this but just make it so the heal automatically targets the person with the lowest hp in los/group or raid (which I think a single healthbar of said person could neatly placed somewhere it's easy to keep track of) but if you have a friendly target it would heal that target because healing the target with lowest hp is not always the best thing but it would have made playing a warrior priest in warhammer a hundred times more enjoyable for me.
Games are already doing things like this with all the hybrid classes, like the Chloromancer in Rift, which is basically a healer that heals the group when it deals damage. However hybridization (if that even is a word) is just a way these devs try to fix issues with the trinity, by stapliing other mechanics onto it. Kinda like how Rift and SW:TOR are allowing Rogue's to tank. However it does nothing to actually tackle the issues many people have with the trinity: the dull repetition of the "tank 'n' spank", the reliance on that 1 guy taking a beating & that other guy handing out bandaids and the wait (which is the worst of all).
So sure, other games can do as you've said and try to make healing more interesting, or even add interesting mechanics to boss (which games already do). But those 3 problems will still remain in those trinity games. At least GW2 won't be one of those games.
From what I understand, you still have basic achetypes, they just call them Control (tank), Damage (dps), and Support (heals). Yes, there does appear to be some deviation in the mechanics though. But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group.
I think these two articles really give a sense of what ArenaNet is trying to accomplish. Please take a moment to read them, especially if you missed them when they came out.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/10/18/guild-wars-2-hands-on-preview/ (especially on the 2nd page)
http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/10/20/guild-wars-2-the-kitchen-sink-post/
I also want to add that I don't think these articles mention that the aggro system is different than a trinity system. With a trinity system, the tank holds mob aggro by means of additional threat. The mob is forced to stupidly attack the worst person in the raid for it to attack, and would instantly wipe the raid if it could just walk over and slap some healers dead.
In the GW2 system, the mob tries to attack the people it considers best for it to attack, whether it be because they're doing the most damage, or are casters, are wearing lighter armor, or are closer. And being that people can dodge, I'm willing to bet that mobs can really hurt you.
I can't ever see it being a zerg, if anything I'd be afraid it's the other way and it gets too much toward kiting. But what it is is tactical and being able to switch roles as the battle develops. And especially because of the ability to rez anybody at any time (just taking longer each time). As the articles say, it's not a game where you make a mistake and then just call a wipe, it's a game where the whole group can try to adjust to fix it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Diablo II LoD had no healing classes and it was the most fun I've ever had in pve in a multiplayer game. I'm quite sure Guild Wars 2 will do just fine without healers.
Healers take the fun out of PvP in pretty much every mmorpg they exist in, in my opinion. Minor / medium self-healing-suppurt is allright, while being able to outheal two to three people constantly hitting on you for over one minute is absolutely ridonkulous by any standarts.
"Only in quiet waters do things mirror themselves undistorted.
Only in a quiet mind is adequate perception of the world."
Hans Margolius
Sorry Gobla, not taking the bait. Grow up.
As long as you stop glorifying your own point of view whilst degrading others I'm happy.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
"Heal: Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal. Healing is the least dynamic kind of support there is. It is reactive instead of proactive. Healing is for when you are already losing. In Guild Wars 2 we prefer that you support your allies before they take a beating. Sure, there are some healing spells in Guild Wars 2, but they make up a small portion of the support lines that are spread throughout the professions. Other kinds of support include buffs, active defense, and cross-profession combinations."
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/healing-death/
Healing isn't gone. The person that stands in the back and keeps the health bars full is gone. GW2 is about avoiding damage and lessening the damage that is done. Its about proactive gameplay, not reactive.
guild wars to is gonna fail badly for this one reason.
no? Teamwork shows when there is no Press 1. press 1. press 2 for aurora bubble. press 1., Priests are no help in any mmorpg, it should be played like reviving a member on call of duty when hes in last stand. DERRP
I poke fun but I never insulted anyone. You know that. Making points sound compelling and funny is just more fun. Maybe this is a tone/context thing, which happens on forums a lot. I'm a bit sarcastic as a personality and I like humor to emphasise points.
Which is basically what I said.
"But it doesn't look like they are doing away with healing/support classes all together, just sort of changing the way they operate within the group."
I agree that the dynamics will be quite different, but it appears that you will still need the "archetypes" required to form a full party. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out - and if support classes get stuck back in the old buff-and-heal scenarios.
I'm excited about their approach, but it look sto me like its still a trinity-type makeup overall, whether the mechanics are completely different or nor. You'll still need certain roles in parties that need to be filled, maybe not "LF1M Heals and gtg" but there will definitely be aspects of the "looking for a specific class" scenario.
If that's the case then I apologise. There's just a lot of hating going on when it comes to healers and trinity that it's a bit hard to seperate the sarcastic comments from the real insults, especially when using only text.
But personally I like the trinity. I like healers. Do they have problems? Hell yeah. Should all games everywhere throw them out because only narrow-minded, attention-deprived, sadomassochistic players like them? Hell no.
And I'm getting quite tired that just because GW2 is going in a diffirent direction ( a good direction I might add ) it's suddenly implied that all other directions are outdated and if you don't like the direction GW2 is taking then, well.... something's wrong with you.
Even the GW2 website is taking a very sarcastic stance towards the trinity and healers. And while I realise that from their point this is only humor, which in and of itself is no problem at all, I just wish there weren't so many people taking it seriously and copycatting it everywhere like it's the one undeniable universal truth.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Actually you're wrong.
"Being able to adapt to situations is something that we feel makes combat more exciting. In Guild Wars 2, the combination of weapon swapping and skill versatility give each profession the ability to adapt to combat situations and change their role. Taking too much damage as a warrior? Swap to mace and shield. A bunch of adds as an elementalist? Attune to fire. Even within single skills we try and maintain versatility. A guardian that brings Wall of Deflection or an elementalist with Swirling Aura can use them to defend allies when retreating. They can also use it to push into enemy lines, or they can cast it in a timely manner to counter a particularly dangerous enemy projectile and send the effects of that projectile back to the attacker. Being able to rotate roles and cover for other players is another piece in the puzzle to removing dependencies."
http://www.arena.net/blog/jon-peters-talks-combat
http://gw2.luna-atra.fr/skills_tool/?lang=en
You aren't going to be using a single build and covering a single role in combat. Every class can support, cc and damage, they all just do it differently. Switching weapon sets (attunments in the ele's case) allows for people to flow with the battle and switch to a play style that is better suited to what is going on at the moment.
We'll have to see how it actually turns out. Their concepts look awesome on paper, I just can't imagine that you'll be able to take 5 warriors (or whatever you happen to have) and have the success of a group that uses classes that are more condusive to the role archetypes.
In one of the older PCgamer articles Eric Flannum mentioned he ran through a dungeon with a group of 5 elementalists. He also mentioned that he ran through another dungeon with 2 warriors and a ranger.
Don't know why we have to wait and see. We've already been told it works.
i dont know that it really is going to be that different.. by the sound of it.. someone is still needed to cast the group heal thing.. and there is a need for someone... multiples probably. to handle aggro... any class that was limited only being able to dps would be a liability.. so group members must be able to either be able to do group healing, or be able to draw aggro and 'tank' a certain amount of damage before allowing another member to 'take aggro' for a while.. so.. no trinity.. as the dps guys are no longer required...in fact.. any class that can 'only' dps.. would be a liability/weakness in the group.
as their role would be handled by the ones casting the area heals.. so.. Tank/Dps and Healer/Dps..
Well that definitely gets my hopes up. I just got the impression that its another type of trinity (a much cooler type albeit) with new mechanics.
Only the release/beta will let me know for sure, once people are running endgame scenarios and dungeons and really having to fine-tune who gets to participate. That's why I say "wait and see." Pre-release info is all well and good but it hasn't been tested on a large scale yet, and even the bottom paragraphs say that anything at this point is subject to change.
But the PC Gamer article definitely makes it look like they are moving in the right direction.
http://www.arena.net/blog/jon-peters-talks-combat
Read the whole blog post.