I have to agree with you that damage is pretty much currency in combat because that's really the whole point of combat. But I have to disagree with the part about "needing" a healer class. Personally, in most games that involve a dedicated healer I really have no fun. I always have to have a healer with me, whether I like it or not, sometimes I kind of want to take care of myself instead of somebody doing it for me. I'm sure a lot of people would enjoy being self-sufficient, I know I would. Now take ummm, say runescape for example. Yes a lot of people hate the game and I do too but that's not the point, the point is that game has no dedicated healer, actually I don't think there is a healing other mechanic anyway. But what I'm trying to get at is that the characters are self-sufficient and can take care of themselves and keep themselves alive instead of stressing out their teammates if they do a bad job healing or they constantly die because they couldn't get a healer. I'm sorry but it's not fun for the people that don't play as dedicated healers because they can't do things themselves and you have to be with someone, even if you don't want to be with someone. To me there seems to be a lot more cons to dedicated healers as opposed to letting everyone heal themselves. I mean really, if everyone can take care of themselves then we can all fight together and do more "damage" because we don't have a spot wasted for someone to heal us.
Now to give an obvious anwser to the question you had about what they are going to do instead of a healer, and if you read you would notice they replaced healer with supporter. So instead of having your health bar go up and down and up again, making you stress out whether you might die or not, someone will be protecting you so your healthbar would stay at a more constant level and relieve the stress about dieing.
Now onto the subject of greifing, heh, how many time has it been said on their interviews and their blogs and on the website itself that if they find someway to grief a dynamic event or manipulate it or make it unfair they remove it? All the time. I mean they aren't retarded, they know that if people ruin the fun of it people will complain that the company did a bad job and they'd get bad reviews and probably not sell many copies of the game, therefore they wouldn't make any profit and it would all go downhill from there.
The thing about content being too hard isn't going to be a problem, because it doesn't matter! If you alone or a group of people lose an event, your still getting rewarded, it's not going to be like, "You Lost! Now go back home and try again!". If you have read the articles then you would know that the quests aren't in the old fashioned sense and your not going to have to go around and get a group of people to do some dynamic events. Besides, people will just come and join you if they want to do the event to, you don't even have to group together! And there would be no kill stealing because everyone gets loot and xp evenly so you can't argue that. Also it wouldn't matter if you died anyway, because you would be in a downed mode and could come right back to life by killing a monster or someone reviving you. And even if you have to go back to a waypoint, I'm sure they're pretty close and you only lose a couple coins.
Now I'm sorry, this is kind of mean, but I had to laugh at your last paragraph, you totally controdicted yourself. You say they should do things in a new way like they want to do, but not to do new things? I don't know if that's what you meant by it or not but that's what I got out of it. But seriously, they just said outloud, to the world, what a lot of people were already thinking. They pointed out the negatives of healing, death, static worlds, and they're trying to take those negatives out of their game and test out new ways of doing things, and from what I've heard, it works great.
So really dude, if you don't like what their doing, don't say, hey if I don't like it no one should, and try making it so everyone has to feel mad about the no healing thing. A lot of a lot of people like where the game is going and a few people complaining there isn't a healer isn't going to make Anet alter all their years of work to add in a healing profession. If you don't like it maybe Guild Wars 2 just isn't going to be for you.
These are pessimistic times, my friend.
You don't want the stress of potentially dying, but to some (most?) people that's the excitment of it. And what happens when you're in a group, someone is supposed to be protecting you, they suck, they aren't, and you then die (or start to)... if the answer is 'oh, no big deal, just heal yourself' then I'm afraid this game will suck.
Everyone gets rewarded for quests. YAY. It makes sense with the general direction they're going. It reminds me of soccer games for kids where they don't keep score, then everyone wins... except the kids who grow up thinking life will always give them orange slices even when they lose.
Other games manage to have dedicated healers who also have a lot of support to provide as well as the ability to do other roles, like damage even. The difference is those games don't try to eliminate healing classes, they just make playing a healer fun. Shrug. So adding in support isn't exactly revolutionary, nor is taking away from elements of a game either imo.
How did I contrOdict myself? They should evolve the genre, not pretend they're revolutionizing it. They aren't revolutionizing anything. It's going to be different lipstick on the same pig. Meaning, they should add new things that make their game better than others, not claim what they're doing is new and improved and that we've never seen the likes of before.
Taking out negatives always SOUNDS good... but if you've ever seen an episode of Star Trek you'll know that the never-feel-anything-bad eutopian societies are anything but. Sure, nobody LIKES the death penalty, but many are smart enough to realize it does serve a purpose. Sure, nobody likes being grounded... but that doesn't mean we should let our kids dictate their own punishments and make the rules. Devs should be parents--and those who don't try to be one of the cool kids and fit in and make everyone happy--and what I keep seeing in [failed] release after [failed] release is a bunch of parents trying to make their kids happy by letting the kids have everything they want, not realizing that's not the best in the long run.
Yeah, thanks for the if-you-don't-like-it-scram sentiment. I'm smart enough not to play a game I don't like. Seeing that I haven't had a chance to TRY to game yet, I'll continue to follow the game and discussing the implications of their design decisions. I'm sorry that offends you.
And at least this time around there is no annoying British git dancing around promising that no class would ever just sit at the back of a group and go "and I heal, and I heal and I heal".
I personally believe damage is the currency of combat in MMORPGs, and the best way to deal with that IS by having classes that can heal a lot. Because if an encounter doesn't require a lot of healing, it typiclly isn't very challenging since damage is the way things die in these games, ya know? And just because a class is a healer, doesn't mean it has to be boring (like EQretro) or forced into only certain specs players may not enjoy (like WoW).
I mean, what are they going to do to make the game not require a lot of healing, turn it into a puzzle game? The mobs do little damage, but if you don't activate the right combos in a certain order they don't die? Heh, sounds almost fun on paper, until you're sitting around for hours waiting for one person in a combo puzzle to get online. I know, I know, there will be other ways to mitigate the healing... which imo will again lead to unchallenging content or the same must-wait-for-soandso situation they're claiming to do away with.
That's my main concern. Want to do things a new way? Then just do it.... but instead they're playing right into everyone's hopes and expectations by declaring the negative things about the 'old way' to be dead. Spinning the PR that they're doing things DIFFERENTLY. Psht, right.
You're being unimaginative. The fact that you can't see a way how team combat can be engaging and challenging without a healer role doesn't mean that other people like the ANet designers haven't thought of ways. Isn't it a bit arrogant to think that the things that you can think of are the limit of what is possible in MMO's?
In fact, in some ways ANet already has done away with healers and trinity team combat: everyone who has played Guild Wars extensively, also in the arenas, has seen the very different team setups that were possible and successful. Trinity team configuration was only 1 in dozens and dozens of team configurations that you could encounter.
That's why when I read the article about getting rid of the healer role and putting the focus on proactive support instead reactive support as healing is, I knew immediately what they meant: because in some ways I've already seen it in GW, in the works of earth elementalists and protection monks, where damage protection and deflection plays a far larger role.
Yet in their own words on the website they admit that in Guild Wars, if you saw a healing monk or two in the opposing group, you pretty much knew you were going to lose unless you had a healing monk too. Sucks having their own words kill your point, eh?
The unimaginativeness that annoys me is the assertion that any and all holy trinity systems are stale and bland, with people sitting around for endless hours looking for a healer who didn't want to be a cleric but was somehow 'forced' to be. Sure, I don't mind when players want to spout off ignorant hyperbole, but the devs of a AAA game shouldn't.... and when they do, I'm sorry but it screams bullshit PR spin that as we've seen gets the playerbase's panties all wet with hype.
Seriously, the unimaginativeness is the people that think if you have a tank it must be a warrior and they're only allowed a taunt and kick button like in old school EQretro. The playerbase thinks these things because, by and large, massive groups of people end up being massively ignorant and like to compartmentalize everything into a few buzz words and label them as good or evil (omg that sentence was a WoW clone holy trinity heal-bot exp themepark grind! luulz!).
Read the article on healing and death... note how little actual facts and systems are revealed, yet how much telling-us-what-we-want-to-hear is occuring in the form of buzzwords and grandiose visions.
And since when was DPS part of the holy trinity?
Don't try to sell me that your new system is cooler and more fun... tell me HOW it will work and let me decide if it's better.
And from that same 'article' they bash healing and relying on healers, saying "Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal." and then, the first example of this dynamic new amazing system is an elementalist casting a aoe healing rain... ummm, wft? Not only is this healing (belittling their own ideas of 'support' apparently), but it's NO different from multiple other games that apparently aren't dynamic enough for the GW2 devs not to imply they're all stale and reactive... duhwhat? So if other games have this sort of 'proactive', and they're trying to not do what other games do, they plan to have similar systems?
Again, if you break the information down as information, not a pep rally motivational speech, it doesn't all make sense (right now, maybe it'll all come together, shrug).
The other examples of 'support' they give, that seem to be designed to prove their not-relying-on-dedicated-healers system is better than games in the past are to site increased movement speed to outdistance enemy attacks--done since forever--a tank debuff that marks a single target to take more damage--revolutionary, no--or a buff that increases armor of others in the group.
Ummm, think about it. ALL these things have been done in spades in other games. And again, remember that these SAME systems in GW2 are supposed to revolutionize gameplay and do away with the holy trinity. Why can't they just openly say the game is going to have the same crap as every game ever, but done in better, funner ways, instead of trying to spin and convince the playerbase what they're doing is somehow drastically different.
It's as if they took all the archetypes from a typical holy trinity game and shuffled all the skills. Now instead a cleric having all the heal spells, everyone gets one or two of them, etc. Sure, now everyone is self-sufficient and can just log in and have the fun. The rainman in me realizes this will be a nightmare if the content is demanding because everyone will have to learn how to master ever role, which isn't happening if you've spent any amount of time in pickup groups where the average IQ aint too high, OR the players will just revert back to specialization. I'm pretty sure that's what'll happen just like ever recent game that purported they'd finally made the archetypes fun by adding non-archetype options to the classes... What happens is that don't cut it, so the players themselves specialize and form more pure classes--which even happens heavily in skill based games that are all about NOT having this happen. The good news is the company, like WoW, still gets to claim they've shaken up the standard notion of healers and meanwhile there are very rigid constraints as to how you can be specced to be taken seriously as a healer in most groups/raids.
But again, why make the claims they're doing something totally new and breaking down old expectations, when their very examples are NOT new and are based on the same expectations they're claiming to design against?
And, sure, they may accomplish a free-for-all sort of no-need-for-dedicated-healer atmosphere, but that doesn't mean the content will be good or challenging (without requiring specialization, lol)... I mean did you see the videos they've released showing skills and combat? It's diablo level burn-the-mobs-down sort of zerging, not the depth and strategy most expect from mmorpg combat. Hey, you make a fire wall and I'll shoot arrows through it and there'll be no risk in the mobs even touching us! Sure, that would certainly reinvent the wheel, but will something not-quite-round roll as good as the same concept we've had for wheels since the dark ages?
The healing and death article: "You could say instead of DPS/heal/tank, we have our own trinity of damage, support, and control, but we prefer to think of them as the variety of elements that create a diverse and dynamic combat system that gives each player a toolbox to work with to solve any encounter we might throw their way."
So, you mean like every other game, including EQretro, for players that weren't lemmings and could think outside the box on their own? A toolbox to solve any encounter? You mean like in such revolutionary games as Vanguard?! But at least other games didn't try to sell me boot leather and claim it was filet minion... they simply claimed it was the best effing boot leather I've ever tasted. Whether or not it was the best, it was still boot leather, so at least I didn't feel lied to... but a discerning player should already have red flags going off as to what GW2 devs are selling them and what they actually expect to be delievered.
I personally believe damage is the currency of combat in MMORPGs, and the best way to deal with that IS by having classes that can heal a lot. Because if an encounter doesn't require a lot of healing, it typiclly isn't very challenging since damage is the way things die in these games, ya know? And just because a class is a healer, doesn't mean it has to be boring (like EQretro) or forced into only certain specs players may not enjoy (like WoW).
I mean, what are they going to do to make the game not require a lot of healing, turn it into a puzzle game? The mobs do little damage, but if you don't activate the right combos in a certain order they don't die? Heh, sounds almost fun on paper, until you're sitting around for hours waiting for one person in a combo puzzle to get online. I know, I know, there will be other ways to mitigate the healing... which imo will again lead to unchallenging content or the same must-wait-for-soandso situation they're claiming to do away with.
That's my main concern. Want to do things a new way? Then just do it.... but instead they're playing right into everyone's hopes and expectations by declaring the negative things about the 'old way' to be dead. Spinning the PR that they're doing things DIFFERENTLY. Psht, right.
You're being unimaginative. The fact that you can't see a way how team combat can be engaging and challenging without a healer role doesn't mean that other people like the ANet designers haven't thought of ways. Isn't it a bit arrogant to think that the things that you can think of are the limit of what is possible in MMO's?
In fact, in some ways ANet already has done away with healers and trinity team combat: everyone who has played Guild Wars extensively, also in the arenas, has seen the very different team setups that were possible and successful. Trinity team configuration was only 1 in dozens and dozens of team configurations that you could encounter.
That's why when I read the article about getting rid of the healer role and putting the focus on proactive support instead reactive support as healing is, I knew immediately what they meant: because in some ways I've already seen it in GW, in the works of earth elementalists and protection monks, where damage protection and deflection plays a far larger role.
Yet in their own words on the website they admit that in Guild Wars, if you saw a healing monk or two in the opposing group, you pretty much knew you were going to lose unless you had a healing monk too. Sucks having their own words kill your point, eh?
The unimaginativeness that annoys me is the assertion that any and all holy trinity systems are stale and bland, with people sitting around for endless hours looking for a healer who didn't want to be a cleric but was somehow 'forced' to be. Sure, I don't mind when players want to spout off ignorant hyperbole, but the devs of a AAA game shouldn't.... and when they do, I'm sorry but it screams bullshit PR spin that as we've seen gets the playerbase's panties all wet with hype.
You miss the Point ArenaNet is making in the quote you are providing. They want to get away from that, that is the whole point of adjusting group dynamics. Here is what they have said today on their blog.
Q:You seem set on fundamentally changing a lot of the MMO established models, and in particular the “holy trinity.” Aren’t you afraid that there are too many innovations for GW2? How can you be sure that it’ll be fun for the GW1 players?
on: We are very set on changing established models that we think were not working in general or do not work for our game. Guild Wars 2 is its own game with its own rules, and we want to make sure that the experiences from playing it gel together. If we see something that is an established convention, we are just as unafraid to use it as we are to use something new. We have a lot of GW1 players here at the office, and they are our first line of defense to make sure we are doing the right things, but ultimately it comes down to making the right decisions to make Guild Wars 2 the best game it can be.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
Yet in their own words on the website they admit that in Guild Wars, if you saw a healing monk or two in the opposing group, you pretty much knew you were going to lose unless you had a healing monk too. Sucks having their own words kill your point, eh?
Not really, they were talking about ordinary team setups and pickup groups, but in the arenas you encountered highly successful team setups of which a number didn't even have a healer.
The unimaginativeness that annoys me is the assertion that any and all holy trinity systems are stale and bland, with people sitting around for endless hours looking for a healer who didn't want to be a cleric but was somehow 'forced' to be. Sure, I don't mind when players want to spout off ignorant hyperbole, but the devs of a AAA game shouldn't.... and when they do, I'm sorry but it screams bullshit PR spin that as we've seen gets the playerbase's panties all wet with hype.
Simple, because you don't believe it - or maybe even don't want to believe it? Those devs know what they're talking about. And personally, after 10 years of trinity I actually had expected and certainly am looking forward to combat mechanics that outgrow the trinity, or evolutionize it.
Because I've also seen the long waits where people had to wait to find a healer before they could go adventuring.
Read the article on healing and death... note how little actual facts and systems are revealed, yet how much telling-us-what-we-want-to-hear is occuring in the form of buzzwords and grandiose visions.
Just go play GW extensively, and you see what is possible.
And since when was DPS part of the holy trinity?
What, you didn't know? Lol
Don't try to sell me that your new system is cooler and more fun... tell me HOW it will work and let me decide if it's better.
Wait for the beta. If you don't want to believe what they're saying, then don't, they're just telling it as it is.
And from that same 'article' they bash healing and relying on healers, saying "Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal." and then, the first example of this dynamic new amazing system is an elementalist casting a aoe healing rain... ummm, wft? Not only is this healing (belittling their own ideas of 'support' apparently), but it's NO different from multiple other games that apparently aren't dynamic enough for the GW2 devs not to imply they're all stale and reactive... duhwhat? So if other games have this sort of 'proactive', and they're trying to not do what other games do, they plan to have similar systems?
etc etc
You specialize in long rants, but the gist of it is that you're pissed off that they said the trinity has major flaws and that they are aiming for something different. That's why you won't believe anything they're saying about their team mechanics, you like the trinity gameplay and can't imagine that anything else will work. So you automatically believe they're just spouting hype PR, because it can't be true, can it?
I and others are saying, yes it can: it isn't blasphemy to think there's a world beyond the Holy Trinity.
GW already showed the variety in possible effective team setups that had no healing monk in it, and warriors in GW were already not aggro management based.
They said that there would be no healer classes, but I do expect a protection class, or classes that can specialize in protection builds like you saw the protection monks and earth elementalists in GW.
Like I said before, your statements show that you're painfully ignorant of the fact that ANet have already done a lot of what they were saying, namely in GW.
In that you're right, they aren't coming up with something fully new: they're building further upon what was there in GW, which already did a number of things differently from other MMO's. GW2 is just a progress, a natural evolution of what could be found in GW.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You specialize in long rants, but the gist of it is that you're pissed off that they said the trinity has major flaws and that they are aiming for something different. That's why you won't believe anything they're saying about their team mechanics, you like the trinity gameplay and can't imagine that anything else will work. So you automatically believe they're just spouting hype PR, because it can't be true, can it?
I and others are saying, yes it can: it isn't blasphemy to think there's a world beyond the Holy Trinity.
GW already showed the variety in possible effective team setups that had no healing monk in it, and warriors in GW were already not aggro management based.
They said that there would be no healer classes, but I do expect a protection class, or classes that can specialize in protection builds like you saw the protection monks and earth elementalists in GW.
Like I said before, your statements show that you're painfully ignorant of the fact that ANet have already done a lot of what they were saying, namely in GW.
In that you're right, they aren't coming up with something fully new: they're building further upon what was there in GW, which already did a number of things differently from other MMO's. GW2 is just a progress, a natural evolution of what could be found in GW.
I think he's pissed at the assumption not using the trinity is virgin territory and this is new and exciting. If players have hit points and hit points are lost during combat, you want to be able to heal. If you want players to specialise or have roles then you will end up with healers weather that is their intended role or not. If there are no roles there is no strategy, literally. Nothing new or imaginative there or any indication they have a solution. I would have been more impressed with a review of agro management as thats a more flexible concept, especially for pvp.
I think he's pissed at the assumption not using the trinity is virgin territory and this is new and exciting. If players have hit points and hit points are lost during combat, you want to be able to heal. If you want players to specialise or have roles then you will end up with healers weather that is their intended role or not. If there are no roles there is no strategy, literally. Nothing new or imaginative there or any indication they have a solution. I would have been more impressed with a review of agro management as thats a more flexible concept, especially for pvp.
But that's the thing there are roles, they even describe a number of roles. If it falls outside the frame of reference of people, then that's not the fault of the ANet people, nor is it their fault if people who played GW extensively have a better chance of grasping ANet's ideas than people who didn't play GW.
As GW already showed in a number of ways and as the ANet people stated, GW2 will have deep tactics and a lot of possible important roles, only it won't be the traditional trinity roles as healer or meatshield tank nor will the tank be a aggro manager/mob lurer as the trinity team setup defined. So yes, in that way GW2 will be very different, its complexity and depth in team combat and team setups isn't in any Trinity setups.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
To be honest, secondary classes, along with an almost fully instanced world, are what ruined GW1 for me. They simply ruin immersion
Not sure if youre assuming GW2 will be the same or what, but just incase.... Neither of those things is in GW2. No dual classes,a nd it will not be fully instanced like GW1.
Think some of you didn't pay attention very well when reading the articles. They said no healers, as in there is no proffesion that stands in the back and casts heals all the time. That doesn't mean their wont be specialized support proffesions, and to think that is rediculous considering how many proffessions they have. There are support focused proffessions. Proffesions that are still allowed a small amount of healing, but more importantly the ability to save group wipes and keep the team up. As they said they are focusing support proffesions on more active buffing rather than reactive buffing, Healing is reactive. trying to react to damage is a lot more painfull and annoying for a support proffesion to deal with than to prevent it with counter measures. So expect more things like forcefield buffs that absorb or block incoming damage.
This actually works too considering games like city of heroes have a support class that specialized in preventing damge(Force Field defender), and for awhile they were way better than the other support roles like healing. Because stoping damage is way more efficent and fun than reacting to damage. People don't realize how inefficent healing really is. The best part to is when you stop damage and don't have to spend a lot of time looking at ally health bars it leaves you more time to attack the enemy. Then you can just glance occasionally at your allies health to see if you need to spot heal at all. I immagine that is what arena net has in mind.
The Looking for group comment is a whole nother part that has nothing do to with their being Support proffesions. They have proffessions that are allowed to fill a role is some sort of limited way. for example the Ranger can bring a mowa pet out to be a support for the team. Elementalists can perfom a small amount of support with water, etc.
Having non healing classes have a useful self heal (like a HoT on a timer) almost does away with the need to have a purely healing class by it's inclusion alone. Coupled with damage mitigation or avoidance it puts the power and responsiblity back in the hands of the individual.
Honestly it can be amazing how survivable you can be with mitigation, avoidance and a small self heal. When every class has this potential, the idea of one player in the group whose sole role is to stand there and only heal sounds actually quite weird.
There is nothing wrong with the trinity, but it isn't necessary. I personally haven't played a game that didn't rely on it as the basis of combat and class mechanics so for Arenanet to be doing something different is new and fresh for me (though it may not be for the genre).
And has already been stated by the developers, the self heal that everyone gets will be of more actual use in straight healing than anything that another player can cast on you. This would make having a group with a dedicated healer horribly inefficient by comparison to a group were each player is willing to take care of themselves in this reguard and be self sufficient.
Biggest problem seems to be people not understanding the possibility of non-trinity game play who didnt play GW1. Hell even in GW1 i would run across groups that would insist on running trinity builds despite the options. They had a tendency to kinda suck tbh.
As for people bringing up the dev's use of a monk or 2 in pvp in GW1 being predecided to there inclusion, Id like to point out that in the higher ranks of pvp, heal monks were not usually ideal. Most monks would spec more as a protection monk as opposed to a healing monk.
Not sure if youre assuming GW2 will be the same or what, but just incase.... Neither of those things is in GW2. No dual classes,a nd it will not be fully instanced like GW1.
I am aware of that, just pointing it out to the people who want those things back :P
SteamID: Sertii
Help spread PC gaming dominance, sign up on Steam!
ok, i'll admit i marked some posts with tl;dr so sorry if what i said is already mentioned.
For the people who assume it will be easy/zerg; it doesnt have to be. It may turn out to be the case but it doesnt have to be.
You know the problem with the trinity? the dps has to behave.
The way i see it in this new system, they will make the tank the annoying sob you have to clear first. You try to reach dps, the ones most hurting you, he'll break your leg; you try to shoot something he'll throw dirt in your eyes.
This system doesnt necessarily mean everyone can tank, it may very well mean noone can tank. You'll have to rotate, control, kite and DPS! You'll throw everything you have at him to make him drop before you.
Big part of GW1 was skill denial, i think they are extending on that aspect. Dont let him cast that meteor else its a wipe, dont let him put that buff up else it will take ages to kill, get in front squishy to protect him from pull skill. Try to maximize dps via cross-class thingies to take it down fast.
Biggest problem seems to be people not understanding the possibility of non-trinity game play who didnt play GW1. Hell even in GW1 i would run across groups that would insist on running trinity builds despite the options. They had a tendency to kinda suck tbh.
I agree. I'm afraid that people are going to be ignorant and try to play the game with the trinity and end up sucking. Not just that but the extremely hardcore gamers from other mmos might not even allow some players into their parties because of the builds they have, being non-trinity that is. And I'm sure for the first several months we'll see, "LF Healer" all over the place. But I'm sure once people realize that the game doesn't run that way groups will be easier to form and people are going to have a lot of fun.
I see a number of people have mentioned that the removal of class specific roles and the trinity will lead to zerging. Just thought I'd point out that the cross class combo system makes this unlikely to actually happen. If ANet balance it correctly then players will need to make use of such combos to be efficient in group combat. If everyone is trying to coordinate skill synergy within the group then there won't be a zerg.
My feel is that they're overstating a departure from the trinity and merely changing what the trinity is composed of. In practice you will have specialized "defense" roles. Sure maybe everyone has some defense skills to choose from, but players are likely to specialize.
The defense role is just as they say, pre-emptive/proactive. In a pure healing role, you don't need to pay much attention to combat except for special attacks that could require specific debuffs etc... In a defense role you're still trying to keep your allies alive but you do so by mitigating damage rather than healing it. If an enemy is pounding an ally you might be able to:
Put up a shield around the ally
"Aggro" enemy (i know they say no aggro but still)
Interrupt
"Blink" the ally to a different place
"Active defense" as they called it. The ally can then heal themselves or you can help them.
All in all I think the defense role could be more, not less challenging. If they do it right it will certainly be an attractive role and more popular that static healer roles.
Think some of you didn't pay attention very well when reading the articles. They said no healers, as in there is no proffesion that stands in the back and casts heals all the time. That doesn't mean their wont be specialized support proffesions, and to think that is rediculous considering how many proffessions they have. There are support focused proffessions. Proffesions that are still allowed a small amount of healing, but more importantly the ability to save group wipes and keep the team up. As they said they are focusing support proffesions on more active buffing rather than reactive buffing, Healing is reactive. trying to react to damage is a lot more painfull and annoying for a support proffesion to deal with than to prevent it with counter measures. So expect more things like forcefield buffs that absorb or block incoming damage.
This actually works too considering games like city of heroes have a support class that specialized in preventing damge(Force Field defender), and for awhile they were way better than the other support roles like healing. Because stoping damage is way more efficent and fun than reacting to damage. People don't realize how inefficent healing really is. The best part to is when you stop damage and don't have to spend a lot of time looking at ally health bars it leaves you more time to attack the enemy. Then you can just glance occasionally at your allies health to see if you need to spot heal at all. I immagine that is what arena net has in mind.
The Looking for group comment is a whole nother part that has nothing do to with their being Support proffesions. They have proffessions that are allowed to fill a role is some sort of limited way. for example the Ranger can bring a mowa pet out to be a support for the team. Elementalists can perfom a small amount of support with water, etc.
Let me summarize. Proactive healing is way more fun than reactive healing (FACT!!!) which is why support roles like a ranger pet will replace the conventional healer, and isntead of 'heal' which is boring there will be exciting mechanics to absorb or block incoming damage (like many healing classes in other games have, lol).
I'm still not sold.
Again, until they explain exactly how this will go down and give some real information on group dynamics I'm not going to jump on the 'omg it'll be the bestest evaaar' bandwagon yet. Call me crazy, but I feel more comfortable saying 'that mechanic will work nicely and is what I'm looking for in a game' rather than 'the devs have high hopes and chocolate covered intentions.'
Remember how every failed mmorpg ever had devs and fans talking the game up with vague notions on what the game will maybe end up being based on the intentions the devs can hopefully execute? If you listened to devs and fans, Vanguard was going to be fully interactive no-possible-way-to-zerg skill-based grouping game, and cure cancer! What was the truth, when the facts started to come out? It was going to improve group content in little ways like weaknesses other classes could exploit and reactions triggered by things like crits or changes in agro. It was actually more fun, but by launch along with every other problem people expected it to be virtual reality because the devs (read as Brad) never gave out information, just healthy doses of intentions and dreams.
GW2 look intriguing, has a very good crew producing videos, has a politician level PR department writing scripts for the devs.... but until we get actual Infor-effing-mation I'm not going to bow down to the hype. Personal choice. In the mean time, I'll continue to be annoyed by people that argue the game will be more fun than other games because the devs claim they're doing away with things that aren't fun, like duuuuuh!
My feel is that they're overstating a departure from the trinity and merely changing what the trinity is composed of.
Exactly. My annoyance. Not what they're trying to do, but how they talk about it (lots of spin and not a lot of facts/figures/information). They're telling me they've invented an amazing new dessert, when in reality it's just a pie with an improved recipe. Sometimes selling a pie as a pie is okay, and one doesn't need to talk it up as the new after dinner experience that will put other antiquated notions of 'dessert' to shame. Because then, after them not providing the recipe and talking it up like it's more than just a pie, a pie comes out and you're like wtf this is just a pie. At that point, no matter how delicious it is, expectations aren't met, kids are yelling in the restaurant, the restaurant panics and starts making tons of changes to the menu to appease the angry mobs, suddenly the restaurant no longer resembles the place the old customers enjoyed, so they leave, the angry mob isn't happy because they're still pissed their pie was just a pie so they find every reason to hate anything on the new menu. Pretty soon the restaurant closes down. Shame too, they made pretty good pie... now if they'd have simply just called it that all along....
Yes, I'm being intentionally ridiculous, but there's a point in there I swear... mostly that pie is good and doesn't need a PR team hyping it for people to enjoy. Peach is my favorite... who likes what kinds of pie?!
Ok, going to state it just for good measure: the game will be more fun than other MMO's because it will do away with the elements in team combat gameplay that weren't that much fun or efficient.
Those that can't understand how ANet will achieve this or that didn't grasp the gazillion former posts that gave a heap of examples of how non-trinity gameplay can be fun, can of course still continue their moping and trying to wrap their brains unsuccessfully around the idea of gameplay mechanics that exists that can be different from what we've seen the last 10 years.
For me, personally, the ANet interviews did a pretty good job of giving me the idea what to expect in GW2 and the elements they did get rid of; but I've seen enough examples in the MMO's I've been playing of engaging combat different from trinity teamplay, so it wasn't that hard for me to understand.
I expect to recognize some things of what I've seen in GW when I experience teamplay in GW2, and some things will be an evolution of it. Not totally, 100% radically different from any combat I've experienced outside of GW (or CoH), but without specialised healers, without aggromanagement and with the warrior not being a meatshield tank but more of a utility/mob harasser class, it'll be different enough to result in refreshing, new team dynamics.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Exactly. My annoyance. Not what they're trying to do, but how they talk about it (lots of spin and not a lot of facts/figures/information). They're telling me they've invented an amazing new dessert, when in reality it's just a pie with an improved recipe. Sometimes selling a pie as a pie is okay, and one doesn't need to talk it up as the new after dinner experience that will put other antiquated notions of 'dessert' to shame
It's not a pie.
It's still dessert, but instead of a pie it's pastry or a cake.
What, you want them to lie and say it's pie on the menu when it's a ice-cream cake or pastry?
Of course, if you don't believe what the menu says and distrust the restaurant owner, you just have to wait until they serve it to you, or leave and go to a restaurant that does serve pie.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
They're telling me they've invented an amazing new dessert, when in reality it's just a pie with an improved recipe. Sometimes selling a pie as a pie is okay, and one doesn't need to talk it up as the new after dinner experience that will put other antiquated notions of 'dessert' to shame...
Then you go on and talk about how kids at a restaurant are going to be mad or something...I get it. You made some good points in your other posts, but I think that you have this sense of wariness in any MMO that might change something up a bit, or at least promise to. I can understand how you could feel this way since most developers usually try to pour honey in everyone's ear during development, and usually when release comes, the game is missing some or most of the content they promised, or the things they promised are poorly implemented.
But here's the thing, they never said that they would do away with the trinity, just tweak it a bit. From your posts you seem to think that they promised in getting rid of the trinity or something, which they never did so that can't even be argued on your side. They actually said-
"Instead, we break these trinity categories down into a more versatile system":
DPS: Damage
Heal: Support
Tank: Control
A change to HOW the trinity will play out is all that is. I'm actually glad that there will be a game to get rid of the whole,
"Let's queue up for scenarios (battlegrounds/arenas)."
"Yeah, I'm down...but there's already 4 of us...and we're all DPS..."
They're telling me they've invented an amazing new dessert, when in reality it's just a pie with an improved recipe. Sometimes selling a pie as a pie is okay, and one doesn't need to talk it up as the new after dinner experience that will put other antiquated notions of 'dessert' to shame...
Then you go on and talk about how kids at a restaurant are going to be mad or something...I get it. You made some good points in your other posts, but I think that you have this sense of wariness in any MMO that might change something up a bit, or at least promise to. I can understand how you could feel this way since most developers usually try to pour honey in everyone's ear during development, and usually when release comes, the game is missing some or most of the content they promised, or the things they promised are poorly implemented.
But here's the thing, they never said that they would do away with the trinity, just tweak it a bit. From your posts you seem to think that they promised in getting rid of the trinity or something, which they never did so that can't even be argued on your side. They actually said-
"Instead, we break these trinity categories down into a more versatile system":
DPS: Damage
Heal: Support
Tank: Control
A change to HOW the trinity will play out is all that is. I'm actually glad that there will be a game to get rid of the whole,
"Let's queue up for scenarios (battlegrounds/arenas)."
"Yeah, I'm down...but there's already 4 of us...and we're all DPS..."
"Wanna log onto your healer to help us out?"
"*sigh* Yeah, I guess"
This, in red^^^
That seems to be whats causing his whole problem and seeming lack of being able to understand what the differences are and whats good about them. Theyre not saying "Hey we invented this 100% completely new dessert thats better than any other dessert ever created in history" and then simply serving up pie. Theyre saying "We think our pie is better than all the other pies out there because we made it slightly differently with some different ingredients to give it its own unique flavor" and then serving up a pie that might taste slightly strange to some at first (such as those whove never tried any pie with a certain ingredient in it, or the lack of certain other ingredients), but once they get over that initial strangeness really do find the pie tastes better than any other pie theyve had.
Dominos pizza is actually a pretty good example of exactly this type of situation. Does Dominoes pizza claim to have created some entirely new type of food, and then it turns out to be just pizza? No, theyre like "Hey we know there were problems with the way we used to make pizza, so we did some research, changed things around a little bit, and feel that our new pizza is the best damn pizza out there now because of the improvements we made". Similar to what GW2 is doing, theyre simply changing the ingredients around a little, adding something it was missing before, and changeing the amounts of said ingredients compared to what was used before.
I don't think it was the sentence "instead, we break these trinity categories down into a more versatile system" that made Popsideath prejudiced (and reading this thread, seems he's the only one that sceptic) against ANet's explanations.
I think it was more these comments in the article:
"We keep hearing other MMO developers espousing the "holy trinity" of DPS/ heal/tank with such reverence, as if this is the most entertaining combat they have ever played. Frankly, we don't like sitting around spamming "looking for healer" to global chat. That feels an awful lot like preparing to have fun instead of having fun."
and
"Ultimately, DPS/heal/tank just didn't cut it in our book...er, game. Our players demand more from Guild Wars 2 and we intend to deliver on that demand instead of delivering more of the same. Not only is the trinity very formulaic, but it leaves out a lot of gameplay elements that make many other games so much fun."
also
"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."
"Tank: This is where Guild Wars 2 makes the biggest break from the traditional MMO setup. Tanking is the most rudimentary form of the most important combat fundamental, CONTROL. Every game has it, yet it always seems to get a bad name."
Now, everyone's personal interpretations aside, this does sound like they're taking a break or at least a very big step away from the classic trinity team setup, looking at the larger picture of team combat dynamics.
For those that have always loved and adored playing a primary tank or especially a dedicated skilled healer, those comments could sound like a slap in the face of their skills or effort throughout the years, and it could sound like a lot of boasting and (maybe?) hollow words.
On the other hand, to think that trinity combat should always be the end all and be all of team combat for the next 10-20 years or not to realize that in the course of time other teamplay dynamics beyond trinity could emerge, is unreasonable or a lack of imagination.
A little scepticism or a reserved attitude until the beta arrives is good, to dismiss that GW2 might be one of the upcoming MMO's that can break or progress away from traditions like the trinity, goes too far though.
Or as the ANet article states:
"You could say instead of DPS/heal/tank, we have our own trinity of damage, support, and control, but we prefer to think of them as the variety of elements that create a diverse and dynamic combat system that gives each player a toolbox to work with to solve any encounter we might throw their way. If that sounds like the kind of combat you are interested in, Guild Wars 2 is going to be a great place for you and your friends to fight together for many years to come."
That last sentence also implies that if you don't like different combat but want to play only/mostly trinity style, then there's always other MMO's that you can pick that have that kind of specialised team combat.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Comments
These are pessimistic times, my friend.
You don't want the stress of potentially dying, but to some (most?) people that's the excitment of it. And what happens when you're in a group, someone is supposed to be protecting you, they suck, they aren't, and you then die (or start to)... if the answer is 'oh, no big deal, just heal yourself' then I'm afraid this game will suck.
Everyone gets rewarded for quests. YAY. It makes sense with the general direction they're going. It reminds me of soccer games for kids where they don't keep score, then everyone wins... except the kids who grow up thinking life will always give them orange slices even when they lose.
Other games manage to have dedicated healers who also have a lot of support to provide as well as the ability to do other roles, like damage even. The difference is those games don't try to eliminate healing classes, they just make playing a healer fun. Shrug. So adding in support isn't exactly revolutionary, nor is taking away from elements of a game either imo.
How did I contrOdict myself? They should evolve the genre, not pretend they're revolutionizing it. They aren't revolutionizing anything. It's going to be different lipstick on the same pig. Meaning, they should add new things that make their game better than others, not claim what they're doing is new and improved and that we've never seen the likes of before.
Taking out negatives always SOUNDS good... but if you've ever seen an episode of Star Trek you'll know that the never-feel-anything-bad eutopian societies are anything but. Sure, nobody LIKES the death penalty, but many are smart enough to realize it does serve a purpose. Sure, nobody likes being grounded... but that doesn't mean we should let our kids dictate their own punishments and make the rules. Devs should be parents--and those who don't try to be one of the cool kids and fit in and make everyone happy--and what I keep seeing in [failed] release after [failed] release is a bunch of parents trying to make their kids happy by letting the kids have everything they want, not realizing that's not the best in the long run.
Yeah, thanks for the if-you-don't-like-it-scram sentiment. I'm smart enough not to play a game I don't like. Seeing that I haven't had a chance to TRY to game yet, I'll continue to follow the game and discussing the implications of their design decisions. I'm sorry that offends you.
According to a Facebook quiz, I'm a genius.
And at least this time around there is no annoying British git dancing around promising that no class would ever just sit at the back of a group and go "and I heal, and I heal and I heal".
Yet in their own words on the website they admit that in Guild Wars, if you saw a healing monk or two in the opposing group, you pretty much knew you were going to lose unless you had a healing monk too. Sucks having their own words kill your point, eh?
The unimaginativeness that annoys me is the assertion that any and all holy trinity systems are stale and bland, with people sitting around for endless hours looking for a healer who didn't want to be a cleric but was somehow 'forced' to be. Sure, I don't mind when players want to spout off ignorant hyperbole, but the devs of a AAA game shouldn't.... and when they do, I'm sorry but it screams bullshit PR spin that as we've seen gets the playerbase's panties all wet with hype.
Seriously, the unimaginativeness is the people that think if you have a tank it must be a warrior and they're only allowed a taunt and kick button like in old school EQretro. The playerbase thinks these things because, by and large, massive groups of people end up being massively ignorant and like to compartmentalize everything into a few buzz words and label them as good or evil (omg that sentence was a WoW clone holy trinity heal-bot exp themepark grind! luulz!).
Read the article on healing and death... note how little actual facts and systems are revealed, yet how much telling-us-what-we-want-to-hear is occuring in the form of buzzwords and grandiose visions.
And since when was DPS part of the holy trinity?
Don't try to sell me that your new system is cooler and more fun... tell me HOW it will work and let me decide if it's better.
And from that same 'article' they bash healing and relying on healers, saying "Don't belittle the SUPPORT role by calling it heal." and then, the first example of this dynamic new amazing system is an elementalist casting a aoe healing rain... ummm, wft? Not only is this healing (belittling their own ideas of 'support' apparently), but it's NO different from multiple other games that apparently aren't dynamic enough for the GW2 devs not to imply they're all stale and reactive... duhwhat? So if other games have this sort of 'proactive', and they're trying to not do what other games do, they plan to have similar systems?
Again, if you break the information down as information, not a pep rally motivational speech, it doesn't all make sense (right now, maybe it'll all come together, shrug).
The other examples of 'support' they give, that seem to be designed to prove their not-relying-on-dedicated-healers system is better than games in the past are to site increased movement speed to outdistance enemy attacks--done since forever--a tank debuff that marks a single target to take more damage--revolutionary, no--or a buff that increases armor of others in the group.
Ummm, think about it. ALL these things have been done in spades in other games. And again, remember that these SAME systems in GW2 are supposed to revolutionize gameplay and do away with the holy trinity. Why can't they just openly say the game is going to have the same crap as every game ever, but done in better, funner ways, instead of trying to spin and convince the playerbase what they're doing is somehow drastically different.
It's as if they took all the archetypes from a typical holy trinity game and shuffled all the skills. Now instead a cleric having all the heal spells, everyone gets one or two of them, etc. Sure, now everyone is self-sufficient and can just log in and have the fun. The rainman in me realizes this will be a nightmare if the content is demanding because everyone will have to learn how to master ever role, which isn't happening if you've spent any amount of time in pickup groups where the average IQ aint too high, OR the players will just revert back to specialization. I'm pretty sure that's what'll happen just like ever recent game that purported they'd finally made the archetypes fun by adding non-archetype options to the classes... What happens is that don't cut it, so the players themselves specialize and form more pure classes--which even happens heavily in skill based games that are all about NOT having this happen. The good news is the company, like WoW, still gets to claim they've shaken up the standard notion of healers and meanwhile there are very rigid constraints as to how you can be specced to be taken seriously as a healer in most groups/raids.
But again, why make the claims they're doing something totally new and breaking down old expectations, when their very examples are NOT new and are based on the same expectations they're claiming to design against?
And, sure, they may accomplish a free-for-all sort of no-need-for-dedicated-healer atmosphere, but that doesn't mean the content will be good or challenging (without requiring specialization, lol)... I mean did you see the videos they've released showing skills and combat? It's diablo level burn-the-mobs-down sort of zerging, not the depth and strategy most expect from mmorpg combat. Hey, you make a fire wall and I'll shoot arrows through it and there'll be no risk in the mobs even touching us! Sure, that would certainly reinvent the wheel, but will something not-quite-round roll as good as the same concept we've had for wheels since the dark ages?
The healing and death article: "You could say instead of DPS/heal/tank, we have our own trinity of damage, support, and control, but we prefer to think of them as the variety of elements that create a diverse and dynamic combat system that gives each player a toolbox to work with to solve any encounter we might throw their way."
So, you mean like every other game, including EQretro, for players that weren't lemmings and could think outside the box on their own? A toolbox to solve any encounter? You mean like in such revolutionary games as Vanguard?! But at least other games didn't try to sell me boot leather and claim it was filet minion... they simply claimed it was the best effing boot leather I've ever tasted. Whether or not it was the best, it was still boot leather, so at least I didn't feel lied to... but a discerning player should already have red flags going off as to what GW2 devs are selling them and what they actually expect to be delievered.
imo, of course.
According to a Facebook quiz, I'm a genius.
You miss the Point ArenaNet is making in the quote you are providing. They want to get away from that, that is the whole point of adjusting group dynamics. Here is what they have said today on their blog.
Q:You seem set on fundamentally changing a lot of the MMO established models, and in particular the “holy trinity.” Aren’t you afraid that there are too many innovations for GW2? How can you be sure that it’ll be fun for the GW1 players?
on: We are very set on changing established models that we think were not working in general or do not work for our game. Guild Wars 2 is its own game with its own rules, and we want to make sure that the experiences from playing it gel together. If we see something that is an established convention, we are just as unafraid to use it as we are to use something new. We have a lot of GW1 players here at the office, and they are our first line of defense to make sure we are doing the right things, but ultimately it comes down to making the right decisions to make Guild Wars 2 the best game it can be.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
You specialize in long rants, but the gist of it is that you're pissed off that they said the trinity has major flaws and that they are aiming for something different. That's why you won't believe anything they're saying about their team mechanics, you like the trinity gameplay and can't imagine that anything else will work. So you automatically believe they're just spouting hype PR, because it can't be true, can it?
I and others are saying, yes it can: it isn't blasphemy to think there's a world beyond the Holy Trinity.
GW already showed the variety in possible effective team setups that had no healing monk in it, and warriors in GW were already not aggro management based.
They said that there would be no healer classes, but I do expect a protection class, or classes that can specialize in protection builds like you saw the protection monks and earth elementalists in GW.
Like I said before, your statements show that you're painfully ignorant of the fact that ANet have already done a lot of what they were saying, namely in GW.
In that you're right, they aren't coming up with something fully new: they're building further upon what was there in GW, which already did a number of things differently from other MMO's. GW2 is just a progress, a natural evolution of what could be found in GW.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
But that's the thing there are roles, they even describe a number of roles. If it falls outside the frame of reference of people, then that's not the fault of the ANet people, nor is it their fault if people who played GW extensively have a better chance of grasping ANet's ideas than people who didn't play GW.
As GW already showed in a number of ways and as the ANet people stated, GW2 will have deep tactics and a lot of possible important roles, only it won't be the traditional trinity roles as healer or meatshield tank nor will the tank be a aggro manager/mob lurer as the trinity team setup defined. So yes, in that way GW2 will be very different, its complexity and depth in team combat and team setups isn't in any Trinity setups.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
To be honest, secondary classes, along with an almost fully instanced world, are what ruined GW1 for me. They simply ruin immersion
SteamID: Sertii
Help spread PC gaming dominance, sign up on Steam!
Not sure if youre assuming GW2 will be the same or what, but just incase.... Neither of those things is in GW2. No dual classes,a nd it will not be fully instanced like GW1.
Think some of you didn't pay attention very well when reading the articles. They said no healers, as in there is no proffesion that stands in the back and casts heals all the time. That doesn't mean their wont be specialized support proffesions, and to think that is rediculous considering how many proffessions they have. There are support focused proffessions. Proffesions that are still allowed a small amount of healing, but more importantly the ability to save group wipes and keep the team up. As they said they are focusing support proffesions on more active buffing rather than reactive buffing, Healing is reactive. trying to react to damage is a lot more painfull and annoying for a support proffesion to deal with than to prevent it with counter measures. So expect more things like forcefield buffs that absorb or block incoming damage.
This actually works too considering games like city of heroes have a support class that specialized in preventing damge(Force Field defender), and for awhile they were way better than the other support roles like healing. Because stoping damage is way more efficent and fun than reacting to damage. People don't realize how inefficent healing really is. The best part to is when you stop damage and don't have to spend a lot of time looking at ally health bars it leaves you more time to attack the enemy. Then you can just glance occasionally at your allies health to see if you need to spot heal at all. I immagine that is what arena net has in mind.
The Looking for group comment is a whole nother part that has nothing do to with their being Support proffesions. They have proffessions that are allowed to fill a role is some sort of limited way. for example the Ranger can bring a mowa pet out to be a support for the team. Elementalists can perfom a small amount of support with water, etc.
Having non healing classes have a useful self heal (like a HoT on a timer) almost does away with the need to have a purely healing class by it's inclusion alone. Coupled with damage mitigation or avoidance it puts the power and responsiblity back in the hands of the individual.
Honestly it can be amazing how survivable you can be with mitigation, avoidance and a small self heal. When every class has this potential, the idea of one player in the group whose sole role is to stand there and only heal sounds actually quite weird.
There is nothing wrong with the trinity, but it isn't necessary. I personally haven't played a game that didn't rely on it as the basis of combat and class mechanics so for Arenanet to be doing something different is new and fresh for me (though it may not be for the genre).
And has already been stated by the developers, the self heal that everyone gets will be of more actual use in straight healing than anything that another player can cast on you. This would make having a group with a dedicated healer horribly inefficient by comparison to a group were each player is willing to take care of themselves in this reguard and be self sufficient.
Biggest problem seems to be people not understanding the possibility of non-trinity game play who didnt play GW1. Hell even in GW1 i would run across groups that would insist on running trinity builds despite the options. They had a tendency to kinda suck tbh.
As for people bringing up the dev's use of a monk or 2 in pvp in GW1 being predecided to there inclusion, Id like to point out that in the higher ranks of pvp, heal monks were not usually ideal. Most monks would spec more as a protection monk as opposed to a healing monk.
I am aware of that, just pointing it out to the people who want those things back :P
SteamID: Sertii
Help spread PC gaming dominance, sign up on Steam!
ok, i'll admit i marked some posts with tl;dr so sorry if what i said is already mentioned.
For the people who assume it will be easy/zerg; it doesnt have to be. It may turn out to be the case but it doesnt have to be.
You know the problem with the trinity? the dps has to behave.
The way i see it in this new system, they will make the tank the annoying sob you have to clear first. You try to reach dps, the ones most hurting you, he'll break your leg; you try to shoot something he'll throw dirt in your eyes.
This system doesnt necessarily mean everyone can tank, it may very well mean noone can tank. You'll have to rotate, control, kite and DPS! You'll throw everything you have at him to make him drop before you.
Big part of GW1 was skill denial, i think they are extending on that aspect. Dont let him cast that meteor else its a wipe, dont let him put that buff up else it will take ages to kill, get in front squishy to protect him from pull skill. Try to maximize dps via cross-class thingies to take it down fast.
I need more vespene gas.
I agree. I'm afraid that people are going to be ignorant and try to play the game with the trinity and end up sucking. Not just that but the extremely hardcore gamers from other mmos might not even allow some players into their parties because of the builds they have, being non-trinity that is. And I'm sure for the first several months we'll see, "LF Healer" all over the place. But I'm sure once people realize that the game doesn't run that way groups will be easier to form and people are going to have a lot of fun.
I see a number of people have mentioned that the removal of class specific roles and the trinity will lead to zerging. Just thought I'd point out that the cross class combo system makes this unlikely to actually happen. If ANet balance it correctly then players will need to make use of such combos to be efficient in group combat. If everyone is trying to coordinate skill synergy within the group then there won't be a zerg.
From http://www.tentonhammer.com/gw2/features/interviews/death-and-healing
Jon Peters (ArenaNet) says:
"Guild Wars 2 is a game about killing, not a game about not dying"
"There is no way for a character to make a completely dedicated healing or support roles"
My feel is that they're overstating a departure from the trinity and merely changing what the trinity is composed of. In practice you will have specialized "defense" roles. Sure maybe everyone has some defense skills to choose from, but players are likely to specialize.
The defense role is just as they say, pre-emptive/proactive. In a pure healing role, you don't need to pay much attention to combat except for special attacks that could require specific debuffs etc... In a defense role you're still trying to keep your allies alive but you do so by mitigating damage rather than healing it. If an enemy is pounding an ally you might be able to:
Put up a shield around the ally
"Aggro" enemy (i know they say no aggro but still)
Interrupt
"Blink" the ally to a different place
"Active defense" as they called it. The ally can then heal themselves or you can help them.
All in all I think the defense role could be more, not less challenging. If they do it right it will certainly be an attractive role and more popular that static healer roles.
Let me summarize. Proactive healing is way more fun than reactive healing (FACT!!!) which is why support roles like a ranger pet will replace the conventional healer, and isntead of 'heal' which is boring there will be exciting mechanics to absorb or block incoming damage (like many healing classes in other games have, lol).
I'm still not sold.
Again, until they explain exactly how this will go down and give some real information on group dynamics I'm not going to jump on the 'omg it'll be the bestest evaaar' bandwagon yet. Call me crazy, but I feel more comfortable saying 'that mechanic will work nicely and is what I'm looking for in a game' rather than 'the devs have high hopes and chocolate covered intentions.'
Remember how every failed mmorpg ever had devs and fans talking the game up with vague notions on what the game will maybe end up being based on the intentions the devs can hopefully execute? If you listened to devs and fans, Vanguard was going to be fully interactive no-possible-way-to-zerg skill-based grouping game, and cure cancer! What was the truth, when the facts started to come out? It was going to improve group content in little ways like weaknesses other classes could exploit and reactions triggered by things like crits or changes in agro. It was actually more fun, but by launch along with every other problem people expected it to be virtual reality because the devs (read as Brad) never gave out information, just healthy doses of intentions and dreams.
GW2 look intriguing, has a very good crew producing videos, has a politician level PR department writing scripts for the devs.... but until we get actual Infor-effing-mation I'm not going to bow down to the hype. Personal choice. In the mean time, I'll continue to be annoyed by people that argue the game will be more fun than other games because the devs claim they're doing away with things that aren't fun, like duuuuuh!
According to a Facebook quiz, I'm a genius.
Exactly. My annoyance. Not what they're trying to do, but how they talk about it (lots of spin and not a lot of facts/figures/information). They're telling me they've invented an amazing new dessert, when in reality it's just a pie with an improved recipe. Sometimes selling a pie as a pie is okay, and one doesn't need to talk it up as the new after dinner experience that will put other antiquated notions of 'dessert' to shame. Because then, after them not providing the recipe and talking it up like it's more than just a pie, a pie comes out and you're like wtf this is just a pie. At that point, no matter how delicious it is, expectations aren't met, kids are yelling in the restaurant, the restaurant panics and starts making tons of changes to the menu to appease the angry mobs, suddenly the restaurant no longer resembles the place the old customers enjoyed, so they leave, the angry mob isn't happy because they're still pissed their pie was just a pie so they find every reason to hate anything on the new menu. Pretty soon the restaurant closes down. Shame too, they made pretty good pie... now if they'd have simply just called it that all along....
Yes, I'm being intentionally ridiculous, but there's a point in there I swear... mostly that pie is good and doesn't need a PR team hyping it for people to enjoy. Peach is my favorite... who likes what kinds of pie?!
According to a Facebook quiz, I'm a genius.
Ok, going to state it just for good measure: the game will be more fun than other MMO's because it will do away with the elements in team combat gameplay that weren't that much fun or efficient.
Those that can't understand how ANet will achieve this or that didn't grasp the gazillion former posts that gave a heap of examples of how non-trinity gameplay can be fun, can of course still continue their moping and trying to wrap their brains unsuccessfully around the idea of gameplay mechanics that exists that can be different from what we've seen the last 10 years.
For me, personally, the ANet interviews did a pretty good job of giving me the idea what to expect in GW2 and the elements they did get rid of; but I've seen enough examples in the MMO's I've been playing of engaging combat different from trinity teamplay, so it wasn't that hard for me to understand.
I expect to recognize some things of what I've seen in GW when I experience teamplay in GW2, and some things will be an evolution of it. Not totally, 100% radically different from any combat I've experienced outside of GW (or CoH), but without specialised healers, without aggromanagement and with the warrior not being a meatshield tank but more of a utility/mob harasser class, it'll be different enough to result in refreshing, new team dynamics.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
It's not a pie.
It's still dessert, but instead of a pie it's pastry or a cake.
What, you want them to lie and say it's pie on the menu when it's a ice-cream cake or pastry?
Of course, if you don't believe what the menu says and distrust the restaurant owner, you just have to wait until they serve it to you, or leave and go to a restaurant that does serve pie.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Then you go on and talk about how kids at a restaurant are going to be mad or something...I get it. You made some good points in your other posts, but I think that you have this sense of wariness in any MMO that might change something up a bit, or at least promise to. I can understand how you could feel this way since most developers usually try to pour honey in everyone's ear during development, and usually when release comes, the game is missing some or most of the content they promised, or the things they promised are poorly implemented.
But here's the thing, they never said that they would do away with the trinity, just tweak it a bit. From your posts you seem to think that they promised in getting rid of the trinity or something, which they never did so that can't even be argued on your side. They actually said-
"Instead, we break these trinity categories down into a more versatile system":
DPS: Damage
Heal: Support
Tank: Control
A change to HOW the trinity will play out is all that is. I'm actually glad that there will be a game to get rid of the whole,
"Let's queue up for scenarios (battlegrounds/arenas)."
"Yeah, I'm down...but there's already 4 of us...and we're all DPS..."
"Wanna log onto your healer to help us out?"
"*sigh* Yeah, I guess"
This, in red^^^
That seems to be whats causing his whole problem and seeming lack of being able to understand what the differences are and whats good about them. Theyre not saying "Hey we invented this 100% completely new dessert thats better than any other dessert ever created in history" and then simply serving up pie. Theyre saying "We think our pie is better than all the other pies out there because we made it slightly differently with some different ingredients to give it its own unique flavor" and then serving up a pie that might taste slightly strange to some at first (such as those whove never tried any pie with a certain ingredient in it, or the lack of certain other ingredients), but once they get over that initial strangeness really do find the pie tastes better than any other pie theyve had.
Dominos pizza is actually a pretty good example of exactly this type of situation. Does Dominoes pizza claim to have created some entirely new type of food, and then it turns out to be just pizza? No, theyre like "Hey we know there were problems with the way we used to make pizza, so we did some research, changed things around a little bit, and feel that our new pizza is the best damn pizza out there now because of the improvements we made". Similar to what GW2 is doing, theyre simply changing the ingredients around a little, adding something it was missing before, and changeing the amounts of said ingredients compared to what was used before.
I don't think it was the sentence "instead, we break these trinity categories down into a more versatile system" that made Popsideath prejudiced (and reading this thread, seems he's the only one that sceptic) against ANet's explanations.
I think it was more these comments in the article:
"We keep hearing other MMO developers espousing the "holy trinity" of DPS/ heal/tank with such reverence, as if this is the most entertaining combat they have ever played. Frankly, we don't like sitting around spamming "looking for healer" to global chat. That feels an awful lot like preparing to have fun instead of having fun."
and
"Ultimately, DPS/heal/tank just didn't cut it in our book...er, game. Our players demand more from Guild Wars 2 and we intend to deliver on that demand instead of delivering more of the same. Not only is the trinity very formulaic, but it leaves out a lot of gameplay elements that make many other games so much fun."
also
"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."
"Tank: This is where Guild Wars 2 makes the biggest break from the traditional MMO setup. Tanking is the most rudimentary form of the most important combat fundamental, CONTROL. Every game has it, yet it always seems to get a bad name."
Now, everyone's personal interpretations aside, this does sound like they're taking a break or at least a very big step away from the classic trinity team setup, looking at the larger picture of team combat dynamics.
For those that have always loved and adored playing a primary tank or especially a dedicated skilled healer, those comments could sound like a slap in the face of their skills or effort throughout the years, and it could sound like a lot of boasting and (maybe?) hollow words.
On the other hand, to think that trinity combat should always be the end all and be all of team combat for the next 10-20 years or not to realize that in the course of time other teamplay dynamics beyond trinity could emerge, is unreasonable or a lack of imagination.
A little scepticism or a reserved attitude until the beta arrives is good, to dismiss that GW2 might be one of the upcoming MMO's that can break or progress away from traditions like the trinity, goes too far though.
Or as the ANet article states:
"You could say instead of DPS/heal/tank, we have our own trinity of damage, support, and control, but we prefer to think of them as the variety of elements that create a diverse and dynamic combat system that gives each player a toolbox to work with to solve any encounter we might throw their way. If that sounds like the kind of combat you are interested in, Guild Wars 2 is going to be a great place for you and your friends to fight together for many years to come."
That last sentence also implies that if you don't like different combat but want to play only/mostly trinity style, then there's always other MMO's that you can pick that have that kind of specialised team combat.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."