Tactics like taunt/kiting are nothing new and are not somehow more interesting or more fun than previous systems.
You did note that by using good tactics they were able to overcome the fight that 5 man groups couldn't, right? I don't know how you got the impression it was easy... because they succeeded?
Where the tactical play is new is the fact that, unlike WoW for example, you don't have scripted encounters. You don't have Blizzard providing the fight and the strategy to beat it to high end guild in Beta, you don't have the guilds perfecting the strategy in Beta then posting videos on the web for everyone else to copy or fail when it goes live. Every fight is different, period. The same fight with different people will play out differently simply because everyone has different tools in their box. There's no more "we need two tanks, taunt off each other at three stacks" crap. No more "LFG, Need two healers to go GS 6300+ only" crap.
Not everyone will be able to handle this, true. Not everyone can think on their feet and simply do better when told to stand over there, pew-pew away and move out of fire. Some people follow strategies, some people create tactics.
GW2 is for the tactician.
"Tactics" in MMORPGs are really just plans players make so that each of them has a defined role to play. If a tactic for 3 people is, try and gain aggro with DPS, then when you die, the 2nd person gains aggro while the 3rd person rez's the first, all you are doing is switching off a tank/DPS role with one dedicated support. If you slice it any other way, you are just giving players a different "role" to play in the "tactic" you are using.
By utilizing said tactics, with the right skill set, you could probably complete any number of group quests with less players in different games as well. I think it may be slightly more accessible considering you will have a wider range of abilities ::in GW2:: , but whichever way they are manifested in each class (meaning what abilities should be coupled together for viability) will play a really big part in multiplayer gameplay.
What worries me is the scaling of, pretty much everything. If you are playing a 5 man encounter with 3 men and it scales the 5 man encounter to be possible for 3 men, it just seems much less rewarding if you complete it knowing that the encounter that would normally take 5 people scaled to be easier for your group. I've done group missions in many games like CoX, FE, and many other games that required a full team, but for whatever reason we were left with less and we still pulled it through. That kind of feeling, knowing that we did what seemed "impossible" is what makes encounters like that worth it.
If I went into every group match knowing full well that even if we go in that match with 3 characters when 5 is normally "required" but its okay because it "scales" it just loses not only the excitement of doing something unconventional, not only the accomplishment of doing what "couldn't be done" but you also get left with wondering why you should even bother with a 5 man team at all if it doesn't get any easier and 3 people are quicker and easier to round up than 5.
Thats just my take on it though.
Dungeons do not scale, events do. Doing a dungeon with 3 people is only possible if a) the characters are high level (although your level will scale down but your level will still be relatively high and you still have all your equipment, skills, traits etc) or b) the players are good.
Its one of those things that I'll really have to play to see. Normally the idea of classes and roles really plays a big part in the scaling and difficulty of missions. In a game that has an overall pretense of mostly DPS classes I think the mentality of the playerbase will also play a big part in how these encounters will take place.
"Hi, im a warrior.....I've been trained to fight and kill my enemies...destroy territory, pillage villages and lead my troops to victory, but because I use a sword I am not trained in preserving my unit, keeping my members alive and judging the wounds of an ally or enemy, oh no.....I need to go to a Church and get some monk who spent 20+ years praising jesus to touch my 12 year old child hoping God can cure my child"
Healers are gone, but support classes are not! ^_^
My monk's a smiter, healing bores me. And I think its rude of other people to insist that monk be healer. And healers don't get the drops.
I hate elitists who think PVP is the main aspect of the game,. it isn't, not even close, and you guys are the minority of Guild Wars players not the majority youn try to pretend.
Comments
Its one of those things that I'll really have to play to see. Normally the idea of classes and roles really plays a big part in the scaling and difficulty of missions. In a game that has an overall pretense of mostly DPS classes I think the mentality of the playerbase will also play a big part in how these encounters will take place.
"Hi, im a warrior.....I've been trained to fight and kill my enemies...destroy territory, pillage villages and lead my troops to victory, but because I use a sword I am not trained in preserving my unit, keeping my members alive and judging the wounds of an ally or enemy, oh no.....I need to go to a Church and get some monk who spent 20+ years praising jesus to touch my 12 year old child hoping God can cure my child"
Healers are gone, but support classes are not! ^_^
My monk's a smiter, healing bores me. And I think its rude of other people to insist that monk be healer. And healers don't get the drops.
I hate elitists who think PVP is the main aspect of the game,. it isn't, not even close, and you guys are the minority of Guild Wars players not the majority youn try to pretend.