Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Min-maxing party compositions, classes will get left out?

MorpheusMJWMorpheusMJW ManPosts: 27Member

This is a question I really need answering as I never got to play the BWE and can only explain my problem in terms of GW1.

Alot of people have said all classes can support/control/damage and any party composition will work and I understand this, this was also the case for GW1.

Eventually we got to the hard content and people needed to be funneled into specific roles just like in many games. GW1 has no damage meters, no dummies, nothing to really tell who helps the party more, but it was visibly obvious that certain classes did alot more to help the party, surely this will happen in GW2? Is it really that balanced that all classes can do everything exactly the same in equal measure?

In GW1, Monks, Necros, Sins and Warriors basically made up all of endgame PvE content, leaving Rangers and Mesmers sidelined, do you think some classes will become obsolete if there is difficult party based PvE?

What is the concensus on this?

«1

Comments

  • FusionFusion VaasaPosts: 1,391Member Uncommon

    I'm pretty sure there will be some classes that'll be less desired on explorable dungeons.

    1st to be left out would propably be my class of choice, the mesmer, being a "random" condition clown.

    Currently playing: -

    Waiting for: Class4.

    Dead and Buried: ESO, NWO, GW2, SWTOR, Darkfall, AO, AC2, Vanguard, CoH/V, EnB, EVE, Neocron, FE, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, FFXI, FFXIV, SWG, WoW, and billions of eastern junks!

  • ConnmacartConnmacart OsloPosts: 681Member Uncommon

    Stupid people will no doubt want to exclude some classes as they did in GW1. Why do they do this. Exactly as mentioned because the other classes visibly show their effects. Rangers and Mesmers in GW1 often had invisible effects as in negating things. This reduced the load on the monks for one, but because it wasn't in plain sight a lot of people wrote them off. 

    Classes are not what determines a players worth. It's their skill. So I will only exclude players not classes from groups.

  • xenogiasxenogias warsaw, INPosts: 1,926Member
    It may happen. Though I dont think it will be nearly as bad as GW1 got to be. During the BWE's I unlocked every skill for every weapon set for every class. Each class can do pretty much everything. Yes, some can do one thing slightly better than others but the diffrence isnt so huge that it will render a class nearly useless. What I think people will dislike the most is you may have to use a weapon/skillset that you really dont like in order for your class to do what it will need to do on a specific encounter properly.
  • VolkonVolkon Sterling, VAPosts: 3,788Member

    The concensus is that in the harder content you won't be able to settle into a specific role. You'll need a degree of balance and versatility or you'll be gimping yourself. This is by design... ArenaNet themselves have stated that you can try to get as close to roles as you can in the early content with some degree of success but it won't work in later content.

     

    Basically, there are no roles anymore. You're skills all have a blend of damage, control and support and you'll need to use the right skills at the right time.

    Oderint, dum metuant.
    image

  • NeferaNefera XPosts: 426Member
    I don't think you can draw a direct parallel between GW 1 and 2 here, remember that in GW it wasn't certain professions that were required, it was certain cookie-cutter builds. If you had the right profession but wrong build, you were just as well off if you had a different profession altogether.

    I can see this happening to some extent in GW2, but not as extreme, as the skills seem a bit less specialized compared to the original. It's easier to fill roles with other professions, whereas in the original you just couldn't replace shadow form sin with something else, because it was so tailored to the group setup.
  • MorpheusMJWMorpheusMJW ManPosts: 27Member

    I completely agree that skill > class in every situation, but I feel at some point there will be some stronger classes, whereby they will take the class rather than the player, it happens in every MMO.

     

    For example if the last spot in a party and you have no guardian, you'll pick a guardian over anyone else rather than the player. I dont know how well this example holds up, but I just don't want it to happen. With level 20 in GW1 if your class wasn't upto scratch it'd take less than a day to reroll upto 20 again. But I feel with GW2 you'd have to stick your class out regardless.

  • terrantterrant Virginia Beach, VAPosts: 1,683Member
    I suspect there's going to be a lot of "We can't run without a Guardian", which is gonna be hilarious. While G's are somewhat stronger in suppport roles than, say, Thief...not so much that content is substantially more difficult or time confusing without them.
  • donpopukidonpopuki Dearborn, MIPosts: 591Member
    Only time will tell. Areananet has made many promises but it won't be completely apprant until the game has been out a few months. My hunch is to watch the guardian. Guardain seems too traditonal tanky. But until we see how it all fits together it's too early to make a call.
  • fiontarfiontar Dana, MAPosts: 3,719Member
    Originally posted by MorpheusMJW

    This is a question I really need answering as I never got to play the BWE and can only explain my problem in terms of GW1.

    Alot of people have said all classes can support/control/damage and any party composition will work and I understand this, this was also the case for GW1.

    Eventually we got to the hard content and people needed to be funneled into specific roles just like in many games. GW1 has no damage meters, no dummies, nothing to really tell who helps the party more, but it was visibly obvious that certain classes did alot more to help the party, surely this will happen in GW2? Is it really that balanced that all classes can do everything exactly the same in equal measure?

    In GW1, Monks, Necros, Sins and Warriors basically made up all of endgame PvE content, leaving Rangers and Mesmers sidelined, do you think some classes will become obsolete if there is difficult party based PvE?

    What is the concensus on this?

    Nothing will stop theorycrafters from trying to come up with their uber group builds. However, for most people, it just won't be an issue. With no tanks and no healers, there is no obvious way to identify when someone is defficient at some narrow, required role. Individual players may be tagged as bad players if they die a lot, pull a lot of adds, constantly trigger a lot of avoidable traps, etc... However, because no profession is tied to any role, excluding professions from groups just doesn't make much sense.

    I know the concept may be a little frightening to some people, that suitability for group inclusion will be based on personal skill and personal reputation, rather than profession choice, but that's the way it is. Some finely theorycrafted group build may provide some advantage, but a group of five players who are good at working together are probably going to find ways to make any mix of professions work together. Fine tuning DPS/Support/Control will probably be a big part of adjusting for various Dungeon challenges, but most random mixes of five professions are going to allow such tuning.

    Trait Points can't be freely altered in the field, you need to pay a trainer to reset trait point allocation. However, you can change which traits in each of your trait lines you want to slot up and you can do so any time out of combat. Your weapons determine your first five skills and you can change your healing, utility and elite skill slotting out of combat as well. So, there is a lot of ability to make adjustments on the fly in response to roadblocks any group might encounter.

    That said, old habits will die hard and we will probably see people advertising for particular professions for their groups. For the most part, they will do so out of ignorance.

    Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
    image

  • fiontarfiontar Dana, MAPosts: 3,719Member
    Originally posted by MorpheusMJW

    This is a question I really need answering as I never got to play the BWE and can only explain my problem in terms of GW1.

    Alot of people have said all classes can support/control/damage and any party composition will work and I understand this, this was also the case for GW1.

    Eventually we got to the hard content and people needed to be funneled into specific roles just like in many games. GW1 has no damage meters, no dummies, nothing to really tell who helps the party more, but it was visibly obvious that certain classes did alot more to help the party, surely this will happen in GW2? Is it really that balanced that all classes can do everything exactly the same in equal measure?

    In GW1, Monks, Necros, Sins and Warriors basically made up all of endgame PvE content, leaving Rangers and Mesmers sidelined, do you think some classes will become obsolete if there is difficult party based PvE?

    What is the concensus on this?

    Nothing will stop theorycrafters from trying to come up with their uber group builds. However, for most people, it just won't be an issue. With no tanks and no healers, there is no obvious way to identify when someone is defficient at some narrow, required role. Individual players may be tagged as bad players if they die a lot, pull a lot of adds, constantly trigger a lot of avoidable traps, etc... However, because no profession is tied to any role, excluding professions from groups just doesn't make much sense.

    I know the concept may be a little frightening to some people, that suitability for group inclusion will be based on personal skill and personal reputation, rather than profession choice, but that's the way it is. Some finely theorycrafted group build may provide some advantage, but a group of five players who are good at working together are probably going to find ways to make any mix of professions work together. Fine tuning DPS/Support/Control will probably be a big part of adjusting for various Dungeon challenges, but most random mixes of five professions are going to allow such tuning.

    Trait Points can't be freely altered in the field, you need to pay a trainer to reset trait point allocation. However, you can change which traits in each of your trait lines you want to slot up and you can do so any time out of combat. Your weapons determine your first five skills and you can change your healing, utility and elite skill slotting out of combat as well. So, there is a lot of ability to make adjustments on the fly in response to roadblocks any group might encounter.

    That said, old habits will die hard and we will probably see people advertising for particular professions for their groups. For the most part, they will do so out of ignorance.

    Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
    image

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MorpheusMJW

    This is a question I really need answering as I never got to play the BWE and can only explain my problem in terms of GW1.

    Alot of people have said all classes can support/control/damage and any party composition will work and I understand this, this was also the case for GW1.

    Eventually we got to the hard content and people needed to be funneled into specific roles just like in many games. GW1 has no damage meters, no dummies, nothing to really tell who helps the party more, but it was visibly obvious that certain classes did alot more to help the party, surely this will happen in GW2? Is it really that balanced that all classes can do everything exactly the same in equal measure?

    In GW1, Monks, Necros, Sins and Warriors basically made up all of endgame PvE content, leaving Rangers and Mesmers sidelined, do you think some classes will become obsolete if there is difficult party based PvE?

    What is the concensus on this?

    While I understand you're concernes I will say this:

    In GW1 there is only 1 class that is left on the sidelines. Just one. And that is the warrior. This is primarily due to people crying about the warrior's burst capabilities, and thus we gradually saw the class got nerfed into the ground. Furthermore, Warriors are the only class that has severely stinted energy (the mechanic all classes use to activate abilities), in favor of a mechanic based on adrenaline. However, nowadays (both in PvE and in PvE) there are so many skills that either deny hits or prevent energy / adrenaline gain, that warriors are close to useless.

    Every other class BUT the warrior is fine, though. Currently I use all of the other classes, depending on which area I'm in. Necros and Mesmers are particularly very useful, and Rangers are good if I need sustained ranged damage and interrupts.

    - That said, the way the game is currently, it's pretty balanced. There are going to be some classes that are more consistantly prefered (Guardian) and some that are less consistantly prefered (ranger) depending on the situation. However, the game makes it so that it's far more adventageous to have a mix of different classes, then to start doubling up on the same ones. For example, having 1 guardian is a huge benefit to the group, but once you start getting 2 or more it can really hinder your damage output, and you start to have overlapping boons and things, which limit the amount of benefit you get from having more than 1 guardian.

  • KanethKaneth Posts: 1,927Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fiontar

    That said, old habits will die hard and we will probably see people advertising for particular professions for their groups. For the most part, they will do so out of ignorance.

    This is really the meat and potatoes of the discussion. Players will always choose the path of least resistence, and with that you'll see groups exploiting certain mechanics in order to get through content more easily. ANet is going to have to be on top of things so that it doesn't get out of hand.  Another factor in all of this is 3rd party mods, which ANet has traditionally been against. If things like DPS meters snake their way into the game somehow, then dungeons become a numbers race (just like WoW). If someone's "skill" can be determined through some numeric value, well things tend to go downhill from there.

    Really it just comes down to community, and who the silent majority winds up following. DPS meters became the king in WoW and changed the game for the worse. Hopefully GW2 is different enough, especially in regards of people having to be more fluid with their roles, where people will just play the game and not worry about the numbers race (as much).

  • tokinitokini third hut on the leftPosts: 341Member Common

    wouldnt be surprised if its worse than just 'LFM X class', and goes into 'LFM X/Y build/class'.  there most likely will be group comps that synergize far better than others, and of course when making a group a person has the right to invite whomever they like.

    but i really hope playing your build optimally is more important than having the 'right' build, but we shall see.

  • GoldenArrowGoldenArrow TurkuPosts: 1,187Member Uncommon

    The easier story dungeons can be finished with any random combination.

    The harder ones are extremely difficult and require the optimal min/maxing. I wouldn't be suprised if HC and PUG runs are leaving out classes. "Looking for X tank, Y healer,  3xDPS" <<<- TRINITY FTW :P

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tokini

    wouldnt be surprised if its worse than just 'LFM X class', and goes into 'LFM X/Y build/class'.  there most likely will be group comps that synergize far better than others, and of course when making a group a person has the right to invite whomever they like.

    but i really hope playing your build optimally is more important than having the 'right' build, but we shall see.

    I don't see how that's worse tbh. You get people wanting to go for specific builds in any game w/ build customization. However, I don't think that'll be the majority (it wasn't in GW1, even though there was a lot of people trying to run certain builds for certain situations).

    It's also not that hard to change your build if needed. It's part of customizing the game, really.

    If you're that worried about it, then the easiest way to avoid such hastles is to take it upon yourself to make your own group.

  • JustsomenoobJustsomenoob lexington, KYPosts: 871Member

    One thing to consider is that even when a player traits in a different direction, it is often the case that various controlling abilities are still available to them.

     

    For example a necromancer that doesn't normally use a staff can still switch one in temporarily to use staff #3 for an additional AOE chill.

    A thief that doesn't normally use a pistol offhand might sub one in sometimes on stronger single mob pulls to have the #3 blind skill available.

    Could write a long list of such things but you get the idea.  Classes in general are very versatile.   Your character may not be optimized to use a particular weapon set (which most of the time, just means less damage) but can still take advantage of the various conditions on weapons they don't normally use...some of which I would imagine could be very effective even untraited.

     

     

  • AtibraAtibra Seattle, WAPosts: 65Member
    Originally posted by fiontar
    I know the concept may be a little frightening to some people, that suitability for group inclusion will be based on personal skill and personal reputation, rather than profession choice, but that's the way it is. Some finely theorycrafted group build may provide some advantage, but a group of five players who are good at working together are probably going to find ways to make any mix of professions work together. Fine tuning DPS/Support/Control will probably be a big part of adjusting for various Dungeon challenges, but most random mixes of five professions are going to allow such tuning.

    Trait Points can't be freely altered in the field, you need to pay a trainer to reset trait point allocation. However, you can change which traits in each of your trait lines you want to slot up and you can do so any time out of combat. Your weapons determine your first five skills and you can change your healing, utility and elite skill slotting out of combat as well. So, there is a lot of ability to make adjustments on the fly in response to roadblocks any group might encounter.

    That said, old habits will die hard and we will probably see people advertising for particular professions for their groups. For the most part, they will do so out of ignorance.

     

    This - is incorrect.  People will maximize efficiency of their groups based upon the mechanics of the game.  The only way around this is for everyone to be level 1 amoeba's with the exact same skills.

    Example within Guild Wars 2:

    -  You can make the assumption that Rangers will be wanted in almost every progression based group - Why?  They have a self-ress from a downed state, which they can then follow up with an Elite skill (Spirit of Nature) that can ress their entire party.  So, why would you NOT bring the best anti-wipe class in the game?

    - You can make the assumption that Combo Fields + Combo Finishers are more powerful than just regular skills (i.e. a regular arrow shot at an enemy will do less damage than an arrow that passes through a fire combo field and sets the enemy on fire when it hits).  As such, you will see groups maximizing their potential based upon what combo fields and finishers a person can bring to the table.  Not all classes can provide a combo field, not all classes can provide a combo finisher... i gaurantee you will see group formations asking for specific class/weapon combos to fill out specific field/finisher roles within a group.

     

    Those are just the two most obvious ones - there are many examples where certain class combos will be better off than others.  As such, certain class combos will be more sought after than others.  Again, this is the nature of any game that allows diversity within it's skill system, and anyone who thinks that grouping in GW2 is going to be based solely on reputation or skill... has horse blinders on.

  • needalife214needalife214 Moorpark, CAPosts: 1,128Member
    Originally posted by GoldenArrow

    The easier story dungeons can be finished with any random combination.

    The harder ones are extremely difficult and require the optimal min/maxing. I wouldn't be suprised if HC and PUG runs are leaving out classes. "Looking for X tank, Y healer,  3xDPS" <<<- TRINITY FTW :P

    if you ever saw how very little healing does you would know this isnt the case.

    my story mode dungeon experience: 1 human/ mesmer lvl 37 (all higher levels are dropped to 30), 1 Norn/Guardian lvl 32, 1 Charr/Elementalist lvl 25 (this was me, and lower levels are NOT bumped up), 1 Human/Ranger lvl 30 (was not on vent with me and the first two guys, just a random pick up)

     

    and that was it, we went in with a man down and i was underleveled. We finished it, it was tough, died more on "trash" then the bosses but the bosses all were different and had story behind them. (but better if you played GW)

    So to your first point, yes i agree.

     

    To your second point, I Disagree. dungeons can be done with any type of group. Now i think what will happen is some groups will only want some classes because they know they can get through with those certain classes. but anyone who wants to work out the kinks and feel their way around a dungeon will be able to finish it. Just will take some time.

    image

  • fiontarfiontar Dana, MAPosts: 3,719Member
    Originally posted by Atibra
    Originally posted by fiontar
    I know the concept may be a little frightening to some people, that suitability for group inclusion will be based on personal skill and personal reputation, rather than profession choice, but that's the way it is. Some finely theorycrafted group build may provide some advantage, but a group of five players who are good at working together are probably going to find ways to make any mix of professions work together. Fine tuning DPS/Support/Control will probably be a big part of adjusting for various Dungeon challenges, but most random mixes of five professions are going to allow such tuning.

    Trait Points can't be freely altered in the field, you need to pay a trainer to reset trait point allocation. However, you can change which traits in each of your trait lines you want to slot up and you can do so any time out of combat. Your weapons determine your first five skills and you can change your healing, utility and elite skill slotting out of combat as well. So, there is a lot of ability to make adjustments on the fly in response to roadblocks any group might encounter.

    That said, old habits will die hard and we will probably see people advertising for particular professions for their groups. For the most part, they will do so out of ignorance.

     

    This - is incorrect.  People will maximize efficiency of their groups based upon the mechanics of the game.  The only way around this is for everyone to be level 1 amoeba's with the exact same skills.

    Example within Guild Wars 2:

    -  You can make the assumption that Rangers will be wanted in almost every progression based group - Why?  They have a self-ress from a downed state, which they can then follow up with an Elite skill (Spirit of Nature) that can ress their entire party.  So, why would you NOT bring the best anti-wipe class in the game?

    - You can make the assumption that Combo Fields + Combo Finishers are more powerful than just regular skills (i.e. a regular arrow shot at an enemy will do less damage than an arrow that passes through a fire combo field and sets the enemy on fire when it hits).  As such, you will see groups maximizing their potential based upon what combo fields and finishers a person can bring to the table.  Not all classes can provide a combo field, not all classes can provide a combo finisher... i gaurantee you will see group formations asking for specific class/weapon combos to fill out specific field/finisher roles within a group.

     

    Those are just the two most obvious ones - there are many examples where certain class combos will be better off than others.  As such, certain class combos will be more sought after than others.  Again, this is the nature of any game that allows diversity within it's skill system, and anyone who thinks that grouping in GW2 is going to be based solely on reputation or skill... has horse blinders on.

    I did say that there will be theorycrafters that will come up with group builds that may provide some advantage. The point remains, however that a FotM group build will be crap for bad players and good players won't need a FotM build to successfully play the game.

    IMO, the more specific the requests for filling a particular group build, the worse the players looking to assemble a group that way. I much prefer grouping with smart, adaptable players with good situational awareness and an ability to fine tune their builds and strategies, as needed. If I need a Ranger for wipe insurance, then I'm probably wishing I was in a group that didn't need it.

    While some theorycrafters are sitting around fuinding someone to fit a very specific role, because one of their regulars isn't available for a run, more adaptable players will be filling their party with players on their friends list known for adaptability and intelligence, reguardless of profession.

    Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
    image

  • xpiherxpiher Indianapolis, INPosts: 3,311Member
    Not so sure about that. It seems each class can be burst dmg, pressure damage, and support. Of course, some will be better than others at certain roles, but I have a feeling that it'll be a lot more forgiving than gw 1

    image
    Games:
    Currently playing:Nothing
    Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
    Past games:
    Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
    Xpiher's GW2
    GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
    Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
    AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
    Warhammer - Xpiher

  • AIMonsterAIMonster Apopka, FLPosts: 2,059Member

    The only profession that might have to worry about getting left out in PvE is a Thief.  They really don't bring much to the table in PvE compared to the other professions. 

    Ranger - Spirit walls, awesome support, strong healing, pet tanking, some of the best sustained damage in the game, tanky themselves, amazing for PvE control.

    Guardian - Tanking, awesome support, best healer, fantastic control.

    Warrior - Nice damage dealers, great control, tanky.

    Mesmer - Illusion spam, conditions, best combo field, group haste, good control, decent damage dealers.

    Necromancer - Pet zerg and condition spam.

    Engineer - Pretty much good all rounder.  Great support, healing, control.

    Elementalist - Loads of combo fields, can be tanky, great burst damage especially AoE.

    Thief - Umm... sustained damage is a bit low for a class built around damage.  Survivability is low.  Support is almost non-existant.  Control is okay, and they can apply weakness and blind fairly well.

    image

    Raptr link because it's the cool new trend:
    image

  • OutisOutis Birchwood, TNPosts: 105Member
    Originally posted by Connmacart

    Stupid people will no doubt want to exclude some classes as they did in GW1. Why do they do this. Exactly as mentioned because the other classes visibly show their effects. Rangers and Mesmers in GW1 often had invisible effects as in negating things. This reduced the load on the monks for one, but because it wasn't in plain sight a lot of people wrote them off. 

    Classes are not what determines a players worth. It's their skill. So I will only exclude players not classes from groups.

    I think this is the major problem in MMOs. People want to blame a class not the person behind the class. Just because a person can burst dps on a boss does not mean they are better at a dungeon crawl then a person who has medium dps with medium heals. Several new generation MMO players do not under stand "their" role in a grp. Also, most of the MMO have allowed strategy to die off completely. More and more MMOs seem to be a "zerg" the mobs and kill them. I remember in EQ if you did not have a strategy the whole party would wipe and this was just pulls in Kunark. You had to CC, debuff, and assist.

    Anyways, I am way off topic. I do not think there will be as big of an issue in GW2 on classes being left out. As long as the player understand their class and has tailored their playing style to the skills available, then all classes would be welcome in a grp. just my 2 cents.

    image
    image
  • ennymithennymith Goodwell, CTPosts: 119Member

    Never underestimate the lazyness of MMO players.

    Unrealistic looking for group requirements show up almost like clockwork.

    There will still be a precieved requirement for several top damage dealers and one or two good support classes.  Thieves, Necro, Mesmer, and Engis will be the least popular.  Warriors, Ele's, Guardians and Rangers should have no problems.

    Players are lazy.  Why depend on some Rube Goldberg series of combos/team work, when several DDers and strong support classes can do it with the least fuss?

    I have seen plenty of MMOs with the trinity, where players can still beat dungeons without the trinity, if they are all skilled and work as a team, however that is always an exception. 

    Most of the time players prefer what gets the job done with the least effort, which is usually some class combination that time has shown to be the min-max solution.

     

     

     

  • Asuran24Asuran24 St. pual, MNPosts: 517Member
    Yeah i am sure that some class-weapon  layouts will see more or less community determined viability compared to others, since even in games where one dps class an another dps class coould do very close to the same damage output yett even a differnce of 1 to 2 percent will be seen as being the differennce between being viability an un-viable. This is just how players in many games are they will nitpick the classes till they find the best proforming ones, and then they will be seen as viable or not. This does not mean that classes will be completely left oout (even in wow some classes/speccs that were seen as unviable  would still get groups), but that the chances of getting groups will be less or higher based on what you are an what you are using.
  • RockhideRockhide Chicagoland, ILPosts: 155Member

    Even if every class were capable of serving in every role equally well -- which in a complex system where every player does not share identical abilities is impossible -- not every player will play every role in every class with equal skill.

     

    I realize that most people see themselves as being so tremendously skilled that they will excel in every role -- and therefore expect other players to as well -- but it baffles me that fans reject the notion that many players will gravitate toward certain classes, and certain roles or role combinations within those classes that are easier for a large segment of the player population to play well.  It's like, because they have to defend their 'fact" that "there are no set roles" in GW2 they choose to completely disregard the human element.

     

    In any case, when I'm picking from a random group of players for my basketball team, I'm picking the 6'6" kid from Chicago before I take the 5'5" kid from Montana.  I might be wrong about their level of talent, but I made a decision that gave me the best chance at putting together a winning team without knowing anything else about them.   "Giving somebody a chance" is all well and good, except that if you give a chance and your team is not competitive, nobody is going to want to be on your team the next time.

    That's the type of social dynamic players accept when they play an MMO and why most people end up preferring to play with a small group of people who know how to utilize and appreciate their set of skills.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.