personally I hope GW2 focuses a bit more on solo/small scale content
all in all its a PvP game, and some pvpers like me are not interested in playing with people, they are interested in playing against people. The social aspect in PvP games isnt as compelling as in a PvE game, sometimes you might just want to smash some faces alone or with a few real life friends.
I see this complaint a lot, and while I understand it somewhat. I can't help but ask, if so many seem to want to group and socialize, why does it not happen in game (regularly)? Must you be forced to group in order to start groups? Grouping is possible in any MMO, yet most hardly utilize the ability to do so.
becuase most of the moo player base doesnt come to MMORPG.com
this little rag-tag group of flamers and trolls is a faction, and we generally learn more to the older games and the older ways.
Guild Wars 1 has given me the best guild experience to date..one that beats out my SWG guild...(times i will never forget)
I have little doubt in GW2 and I know grouping will be often and welcome. Story driven Dungeons and higher level content will need grouping and since the tank-dps-healer roles are gone grouping will be easier.
diversity in the classes open up more roles for each player. more roles= easy grouping. (why do you think pallys and druid are popular in WoW?)
If you want to chat with the people in events, invite them to your group. That's the only difference, to be able to chat..but the event system feel way more alive than questing.
Well Nomss, I can certainly understand where you are coming from. So at risk of treading in an area that someone else already has, as I did not read all the posts contained within - I will keep this short.
In pretty much every MMO since Everquest, my favorite aspect of the community has been and always will be, the chance encounter.
The chance encounter is the basis that once you enter the fictional world the developer has made for you, you will find yourself in muddy waters from time to time. During this time, you face a potentially heavy loss... let's say for this example that you are trying to fend off a keep from a marauding bunch of Grawl. During these times of muddy waters, and let's say this is an encounter that can only feasably happen once every 3 days and you are having a damn hard time being here when it does happen. So you are about to lose this encounter and have to wait another 3 days, I would say that is a sense of loss equivalent to losing a nice 20% chunk of your exp bar in high levels of a game like Everquest so needless to say, you are starting to get ancy.
Lo and behold however, another player shows up and starts to fight alongside of you. With this players help, you are able to push the encounter back into your neck of the woods - it is winnable once more, but let's also say there is a badass boss monster that shows up if the encounter persists for a certain amount of time without defeating or defeat. Together, the two of you barely scrape by. But you did, and you feel fantastic.
Community in Guild Wars 2 is epitomized by jump in/jump out play styles. In another game, a player might not want to jump in or even show up because they think the encounter is almost over, or they are waiting for their turn to attempt it. GW2 encourages you to attempt to assist your community in any way possible by rewarding players based on their contributions, and not their competition. On top of being able to group, I can't think of a better example for a game focused on community than one where servers are exclusive and important, grouping is optional but encouraged as all players are technically in it together, there are tons of mini-games to play, there are various areas that are only accessible by working with your fellow player...
My friend, community is definitely not a problem in GW2.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
Hey thx guys. I read each and every post word for word and I'm feeling much more excited. I'm starting to see that dynamic events will TRULY bring players together.
I'm starting to see the bigger picture how no specific roles will make partying easier and the party content will be much more fun and it should involve a lot of team work because of the cross role skill combos. I was thinking that even though the dungeon will require a party, there will not be any interaction between players because of how DCUO plays. For example, in DCUO I wanted to the group mission, after few minutes of waiting I was able to join a group. After we started fighting the mobs I got seprated from my group and had no idea where the tank and healers were, but I still managed to stay alive for a good period of time.
I can see how GW2 will differ from DCUO. No specific roles I think weill make the team work much more involved.
Hey thx guys. I read each and every post word for word and I'm feeling much more excited. I'm starting to see that dynamic events will TRULY bring players together.
I'm starting to see the bigger picture how no specific roles will make partying easier and the party content will be much more fun and it should involve a lot of team work because of the cross role skill combos. I was thinking that even though the dungeon will require a party, there will not be any interaction between players because of how DCUO plays. For example, in DCUO I wanted to the group mission, after few minutes of waiting I was able to join a group. After we started fighting the mobs I got seprated from my group and had no idea where the tank and healers were, but I still managed to stay alive for a good period of time.
I can see how GW2 will differ from DCUO. No specific roles I think weill make the team work much more involved.
Indeed, especially since there is quite a lot of reliance upon each other, more so than standard MMO's tbh. Traditionally there are basically 3 people in a group, the healer - the godlike omgwtf player that everyone needs, the tank and then the extra 5 players making up the numbers just spamming a few skills. In guild wars 2 every player counts and everyone needs to be doing their bit , even if that is only running around reviving when things go bad!
The energy system is also designed that using your defensive skills far outweighs the energy cost of purely attacking. Therefore everyone trying to hold their own against a ton of mobs isn't going to end well!
However, working together, such as a ranger using whirling defence to protect the others helps to save that energy party-wide and also prevent your party members taking too much damage, so they can spend less time healing, or worse, downed. Never mind, of course, that the characters themselves are more fragile than the traditional MMO characters due to the ability to recover from being downed as long as an ally is about (or they defeat the enemy while downed). This makes the battles a lot more interesting as there is always a genuine threat that you could be swatted if you're not paying attention, which'll be especially true in dungeons.
Should be fun! Probably be about a year until we play it though :P
As much as I hate to, I have to agree with the "this atmosphere (inter-class dependency) is a relic of MMO's of the past" sentiment. But I don't think that closes the issue.
I think the problem here is the language we're using, rather than the actual problem. The group dynamics of EQ, FFXI, DAOC, etc., were great, but those things were not what made the games MMO's. You could get the same experiences, theoretically at least, from any other online multiplayer game with grouping, MMO or otherwise. And while I mourn with those who mourn the decline of these aspects of games that have a cherished place in our memories, there is still MMO in their passing. I soloed when it wasn't cool to solo (actually it's always been cool to solo, but what I mean is that I played a Druid in EQ1, so I soloed more often than I grouped), and I felt that I didn't miss out on the MMO aspect of that game. In fact therein are some of my fondest memories.
Will GW2 bring that feeling back? Well, ultimately, probably not. But the more games I play and the more mature the medium gets, the more I'm willing to concede that even if EQ1 were republished with a graphics and interface overhaul (which, let's face it, would be something of a wet dream come true for some of us), I'm not sure that feeling would be there in the new EQ. It's tied up in more than the mechanics.
But even supposing that it's not--that in fact, it is all mechanics, that by reproducing class balance and functionality just as it existed in the high-water marks of the holy trinity group dynamic, one can restore that very feeling in the player that he experienced in his finest moments in his game of choice--even then, I think that it still is not the essence of what makes an MMO. Maybe it's a great thing, but the mere fact that GW2 is changing the dynamic does not mean that it will not be fun, that its mechanics and whatever grouping dynamics it offers will not be able to provide people with the same engagement as its predecessors, and most of all, certainly, that it will somehow be less than an MMO.
As much as I hate to, I have to agree with the "this atmosphere (inter-class dependency) is a relic of MMO's of the past" sentiment. But I don't think that closes the issue.
I think the problem here is the language we're using, rather than the actual problem. The group dynamics of EQ, FFXI, DAOC, etc., were great, but those things were not what made the games MMO's. You could get the same experiences, theoretically at least, from any other online multiplayer game with grouping, MMO or otherwise. And while I mourn with those who mourn the decline of these aspects of games that have a cherished place in our memories, there is still MMO in their passing. I soloed when it wasn't cool to solo (actually it's always been cool to solo, but what I mean is that I played a Druid in EQ1, so I soloed more often than I grouped), and I felt that I didn't miss out on the MMO aspect of that game. In fact therein are some of my fondest memories.
Will GW2 bring that feeling back? Well, ultimately, probably not. But the more games I play and the more mature the medium gets, the more I'm willing to concede that even if EQ1 were republished with a graphics and interface overhaul (which, let's face it, would be something of a wet dream come true for some of us), I'm not sure that feeling would be there in the new EQ. It's tied up in more than the mechanics.
But even supposing that it's not--that in fact, it is all mechanics, that by reproducing class balance and functionality just as it existed in the high-water marks of the holy trinity group dynamic, one can restore that very feeling in the player that he experienced in his finest moments in his game of choice--even then, I think that it still is not the essence of what makes an MMO. Maybe it's a great thing, but the mere fact that GW2 is changing the dynamic does not mean that it will not be fun, that its mechanics and whatever grouping dynamics it offers will not be able to provide people with the same engagement as its predecessors, and most of all, certainly, that it will somehow be less than an MMO.
1) I think you are wrong in thinking that DEs are just a simple mechanic that, even designed to foster group play, won't make the game more fun. I think its all a matter of presentation, and of small details like the fact that the way you join the quest is to see the action and join it, or to help out in some way. Or perhaps the fact that the DEs are to flow logically from one point in a chain to the next allowing for zones to be different based on the state of these DEs. Even the fact that they are always ongoing, never stopping, not even if people aren't there yet, helps create the environment that Anet wants, and I think that what Anet wants is to make a game that is fun for many people or single persons, for all kinds of player types, for old games, for new gamers, and for themselves. I think Anet knows what is fun.
2) You say that, for EQ1, you held feelings of fondness, and you don't think that any game, even a refurbished EQ1 could do the same. You are right, it has nothing to do with mechanics. Everyone has games they remember fondly. With MMOs, more often than not, that thing has more to do with the general atmosphere/community of the game, and how you felt while playing the game, than the actual mechanics of the game itself.
3) You seem to think that the trinity helped foster group interdependance, but I believe that by forcing it you separate the people from the greater battle. Sure, you can make AI that makes playing the trinity fun, but the trinity doesn't work for PvP. GW and GW2 being PvP focused games, something different is needed and I do believe it fosters the group interdependance that makes playing in a group worth it, all without ruining the fun of going solo.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
3) You seem to think that the trinity helped foster group interdependance, but I believe that by forcing it you separate the people from the greater battle. Sure, you can make AI that makes playing the trinity fun, but the trinity doesn't work for PvP. GW and GW2 being PvP focused games, something different is needed and I do believe it fosters the group interdependance that makes playing in a group worth it, all without ruining the fun of going solo.
Agreed. To bring PvP and PvE together should be a good thing. If they get closer more people will probably enjoy both aspects of the game and not a single one. Balancing them should also be somewhat easier.
I am not sure I agree that GW 1 & 2 are PvP focused games, both seems to have as much for both kinds, but compared to most other MMOs it is true. The PvP system is built in from the start and not added as an afterthought just before release, or even revamped or patched in later.
What I like best with the games however is that they try to give us a different experience compared to other MMOs and that works fine for me, the rest have changed very little since M59 in '97 and I am frankly rather tired of doing the same thing over and over in different games.
And no holy triad forces the devs to actually have smarter AI, in most MMOs are mobs dumbs as doorknobs no matter if it is an animal or a wizard. Maybe they can force us to use our brains a bit more.
1) I think you are wrong in thinking that DEs are just a simple mechanic that, even designed to foster group play, won't make the game more fun. ...
2) You say that, for EQ1, you held feelings of fondness, and you don't think that any game, even a refurbished EQ1 could do the same. You are right, it has nothing to do with mechanics. Everyone has games they remember fondly. With MMOs, more often than not, that thing has more to do with the general atmosphere/community of the game, and how you felt while playing the game, than the actual mechanics of the game itself.
3) You seem to think that the trinity helped foster group interdependance, but I believe that by forcing it you separate the people from the greater battle. Sure, you can make AI that makes playing the trinity fun, but the trinity doesn't work for PvP. GW and GW2 being PvP focused games, something different is needed and I do believe it fosters the group interdependance that makes playing in a group worth it, all without ruining the fun of going solo.
1. I didn't say that and I don't think that. Please make sure you're quoting the right person.
2. Atmosphere yes, community no. That's my experience, though, and it's certainly different from the experiences of others; I'm content to agree that it's something other than mechanics.
3. What greater battle? Secondly, I think that the trinity fostered group interdependence because the trinity is group interdependence. If you must have a tank, and you must have a healer in order to complete any content, then by definition, the other members are dependent on the tank and healer, and the tank and healer are dependent on each other. Furthermore, you said, "I do believe it fosters the group interdependance that makes playing in a group worth it" (sic). What does? In the absence of the trinity, what fosters group interdependence?
My understanding of ANet's position is that the roles previously restricted to a small number of classes can be performed by any of them. In that respect, I suppose there is interdependence in the fact that if you're undertaking group content, you must have other people in the group. My concern is that if I end up tanking (intentionally or otherwise), I might find myself waiting for someone to heal me as my life whittles away, only to find out post-mortem that every other member of the party was waiting for someone else to blow his heals first (if you've ever tried to farm the achievement off of that troll boss in WotLK in WOW--the one that requires multiple stuns back to back--you'll know what I'm talking about).
Finally, why doesn't the trinity work for PVP? GW1 is indeed a PVP-focused game, and the trinity is very apparent in its class design decisions. WOW has the trinity, and DAOC had the trinity (and it had one of the most hard-coded trinity implementations I can think of. Hell, at least one of their healing classes had no damage abilities whatsoever). WAR has the trinity, CoX had the trinity; in fact, I can't think of an MMO off the top of my head that has a strong, robust PVP system that doesn't have the trinity. I'm willing to learn though; if you've been having a blast playing an MMO sans trinity that has a fantastic PVP system, I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to hear about it. In any event. this is not to suggest that the trinity is the best way to do PVP in an MMO, but something different being needed for PVP doesn't spring whole from the mere existence of the trinity.
Things are only a relic if we want them to be, the force driving all MMO’s to solo only play has many causes. But it is not the way ‘things have to be’. It is a game play choice and one that leads us down a blind alley.
MMO’s are about interaction, not seeing other players run past you.
I had doubts that GW2 was going to be as class and innovative as the press releases were making out; the everyone can heal announcement pointed to where its weakness will lie. Grouping is even more an unnecessary pastime than before.
What is the point of soloing to top level in a MMO, you can do that offline? There is a balance, but one man’s forcing is another mans encouragement. If we lose grouping we lose the only hope MMO’s have of not becoming solo games played online.
I think GW2 will have too much focus on solo that there won't be MMO. I know they have said they are brining MMO back, but when doing missions in DCUO other players can be there and it doesn't really effect your mission, but neither does this feel MMO.
Let me try to say it clearly: I think GW2 will lack on MMO aspect.
I'm playing DCUO beta. During missions other players can be doing the same mission as yourself, this doesn't effect you, but this doesn't feel MMO either.
This is how the Dynamic events are set up. Other players can be there doing dynamic events with you, but I don't think it'll feel MMOish.
I have the same feeling about their dungeons as well. For example, take FFXI: the exping party was very role specific, healer needed tank and tank needed healer, black mages needed damage dealers and damage dealers needed black mage. This created the feeling of being needed. In order for the group to even get through one mob, they all had to work together. Even in raids, SKY, Dynamis and given any battle.
But I can't quite pin point how GW2 will bring this kind of feeling. The feeling of you need others and others need you.
"There's no healing class." Awsome, now we won't have to wait for the healer to show up. Yea this sounds good, but how will the MMO be implemented in this case? How will each player feel that he needs other 4 (We know there are 5-men dungeons) people in order to finish the dungeon? Where is the group work? How do you feel MMO in this situation when you're still "the man for yourself"?
Dear nomss,
have you ever tried GW 1? If yes than you couldnt blame Anet for no group work, if no, you cant blame Anet for group work either cause they proved in GW 1 they can mix solo possibilities with group work. In GW 1 You are not focused to be at group but ppl mostly are.
And no healer thing? I hated in AoC that everyone was playing healer and there were no tanks, 5 healers were ready and no tank? Funny.. xD So imo this is good thing, you can take with you whoever you want - means take all your friends and just go. You are not forced to leave some of your friends cause you are too many or too less so you cant go (I guess there will be some max group number but still if things here are able to "adapt" to number of ppl for that thing it sounds awesome to me). GW 2 seems to me a lot improved GW 1 and thats what I realy like to see.
Played: Lineage 2,Guild Wars 1 and 2, Age of Conan, Ragnarok Online, LOTRO, World of Warcraft, League of Legends, EvE online Tried: KAL Online, Face of Mankind, ROSE online Playing: CS:GO
Things are only a relic if we want them to be, the force driving all MMO’s to solo only play has many causes. But it is not the way ‘things have to be’. It is a game play choice and one that leads us down a blind alley.
MMO’s are about interaction, not seeing other players run past you.
I had doubts that GW2 was going to be as class and innovative as the press releases were making out; the everyone can heal announcement pointed to where its weakness will lie. Grouping is even more an unnecessary pastime than before.
What is the point of soloing to top level in a MMO, you can do that offline? There is a balance, but one man’s forcing is another mans encouragement. If we lose grouping we lose the only hope MMO’s have of not becoming solo games played online.
My guess is that the majority of people who are playing these games were never the type to have played the earlier games at all.
So for the sake of argument, let's pick an arbitrary number. Let's say there are 350k people playing the earlier games (and for those who are starting to post the numbers of players for all the earlier games, "stop" it's just a number to exhibit a point) and they are of a certain type. They are intrigued about "living' in a fantasy world, perhaps they enjoy the idea of virtuallly meeting people.
Suddenly a few games come out that do away with what these developers think are problems. And then more people start taking notice because now the things that seemed unattractive to them about these games are a bit more palpable.
So the 350k people who all loved the grouping, socializing, "living" etc are still there but they are diluted by a larger group of people who don't mind soloing to cap because they just like being in an online world but don't require the same type of interaction that the earlier adopters did.
Essentially that made up 350k players doesn't have the pull to turn it around unless developers can figure out a way to make grouping less of a pain in the neck.
Problem there is that there are just so many disreputable players of all sorts in these games that the draw of playing in a group quickly lessens when faced with people who are selfish or just lack any social skills or just love wrecking another person's day.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
3. What greater battle? Secondly, I think that the trinity fostered group interdependence because the trinity is group interdependence. If you must have a tank, and you must have a healer in order to complete any content, then by definition, the other members are dependent on the tank and healer, and the tank and healer are dependent on each other. Furthermore, you said, "I do believe it fosters the group interdependance that makes playing in a group worth it" (sic). What does? In the absence of the trinity, what fosters group interdependence?
My understanding of ANet's position is that the roles previously restricted to a small number of classes can be performed by any of them. In that respect, I suppose there is interdependence in the fact that if you're undertaking group content, you must have other people in the group. My concern is that if I end up tanking (intentionally or otherwise), I might find myself waiting for someone to heal me as my life whittles away, only to find out post-mortem that every other member of the party was waiting for someone else to blow his heals first (if you've ever tried to farm the achievement off of that troll boss in WotLK in WOW--the one that requires multiple stuns back to back--you'll know what I'm talking about).
Finally, why doesn't the trinity work for PVP? GW1 is indeed a PVP-focused game, and the trinity is very apparent in its class design decisions. WOW has the trinity, and DAOC had the trinity (and it had one of the most hard-coded trinity implementations I can think of. Hell, at least one of their healing classes had no damage abilities whatsoever). WAR has the trinity, CoX had the trinity; in fact, I can't think of an MMO off the top of my head that has a strong, robust PVP system that doesn't have the trinity. I'm willing to learn though; if you've been having a blast playing an MMO sans trinity that has a fantastic PVP system, I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to hear about it. In any event. this is not to suggest that the trinity is the best way to do PVP in an MMO, but something different being needed for PVP doesn't spring whole from the mere existence of the trinity.
(I'm just replying to this thread, not really going back and reading the ones that led to this, so my focus might not be exactly on what has been discussed to this point)
I think what GW2 is getting rid of is a strict holy trinity. Instead of being able to do one thing only, everybody will deal at least significant damage, be able to ranged attack, heal themselves if not others, at least dodge if not legitimately tank. I think you're still going to have roles in a group. Before one combat, the warrior might say this guy has a strong fire attack, I'm going to equip a shield and try to block it, everybody else stand behind with your ranged attacks. Before the next boss fight, you might have someone else focus on the boss, but the warrior equips his greatsword so he can cleave all the little adds and try to gather them up.
Likewise, you might have someone say they're going to heal, which means they might have 2-3 healing skills which support the tank's own heals, not a full focus on healing and nothing else. We also know that a lot of it is going to be based on proactive prevention, not reactive healing. So the "tank" staying alive might depend as much on that "DPS" over there throwing their ward or blind spell.
Dynamic events are going to be tuned to people of that level basically being randoms so they're going to have to worry about being their own healers. I think the DE group interdependence will come from the cross profession combos. So the randoms can work together in an intuitive way. Dungeons on the other hand will be harder. They probably will require more coordination and that's where I think these hybrid roles, as well as pre fight skill and trait swapping, are going to be required to win consistently. You might not be the "tank", but you might be the guy who has the shield, puts stuns and snares on their bar, and works to keep the squishies safe.
I think the problem in PVP isn't the DPS or healer legs of the trinity, but the tanks. You have a highly armored comparatively low damage guy, so you kill him last. He also doesn't usually have a great way to do his job and protect others. Forced taunting has always struck people as a poor solution. I think GW2 is going to make being a tank fun in PVP, with shields that block projectiles from hitting people behind you, and mace stuns if they try to get around you. And basically being a hybrid, so you're going to be a not insignificant damage dealer as well.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
(I'm just replying to this thread, not really going back and reading the ones that led to this, so my focus might not be exactly on what has been discussed to this point)
I think what GW2 is getting rid of is a strict holy trinity. Instead of being able to do one thing only, everybody will deal at least significant damage, be able to ranged attack, heal themselves if not others, at least dodge if not legitimately tank. I think you're still going to have roles in a group. Before one combat, the warrior might say this guy has a strong fire attack, I'm going to equip a shield and try to block it, everybody else stand behind with your ranged attacks. Before the next boss fight, you might have someone else focus on the boss, but the warrior equips his greatsword so he can cleave all the little adds and try to gather them up.
Likewise, you might have someone say they're going to heal, which means they might have 2-3 healing skills which support the tank's own heals, not a full focus on healing and nothing else. We also know that a lot of it is going to be based on proactive prevention, not reactive healing. So the "tank" staying alive might depend as much on that "DPS" over there throwing their ward or blind spell.
Dynamic events are going to be tuned to people of that level basically being randoms so they're going to have to worry about being their own healers. I think the DE group interdependence will come from the cross profession combos. So the randoms can work together in an intuitive way. Dungeons on the other hand will be harder. They probably will require more coordination and that's where I think these hybrid roles, as well as pre fight skill and trait swapping, are going to be required to win consistently. You might not be the "tank", but you might be the guy who has the shield, puts stuns and snares on their bar, and works to keep the squishies safe.
I think the problem in PVP isn't the DPS or healer legs of the trinity, but the tanks. You have a highly armored comparatively low damage guy, so you kill him last. He also doesn't usually have a great way to do his job and protect others. Forced taunting has always struck people as a poor solution. I think GW2 is going to make being a tank fun in PVP, with shields that block projectiles from hitting people behind you, and mace stuns if they try to get around you. And basically being a hybrid, so you're going to be a not insignificant damage dealer as well.
I generally agree with your sentiment, and I'm actually very much looking forward to GW2. I will say, though, that when I picture in my mind your scenario (the warrior talking about the fire attacks, shield, etc.), I could not help but to picture the poor guys at the beginning of the Leeroy Jenkins video talking about their strategy like they were actually going into real combat (also, now that I think about it, South Park's parody of same). Yeah yeah, most of us have been through that at one point, and as a community that's probably just a small cross-section of the kinds of personalities that play MMO's, and I really don't fault any of those guys... but at the same time, you just have to sit back and go "Damn, what a bunch of tools." So I'll admit I cringe a little at the thought of someone announcing pre-fight that he's putting on his shield, coming across like he's General Patton.
As to the response itself, though: why don't tanks work in PVP? I don't mean in specific instances, but as a general proposition. Obviously some people have gotten it wrong, but I don't think we throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. WAR, for example, did a fine job, at least when I was playing, of making the tank's job meaningful. Some of the most fun I had in that game was charging into a mob of enemy players with my tank, flinging whichever one went after my healer across the map, and wailing on the others while we plowed toward the map objective. I think we, as consumers of this genre, have this notion of taunt and aggro as the definitive aspect of tanking, and that's incorrect because it ignores the broader concept behind aggro: control. A tank is a tank not because he can take the most damage (although it certainly doesn't hurt), but because he has the mechanisms at his disposal to keep the other guys from gibbing his squishies. In PVE this is the taunt mechanic that basically exploits the functionality of the AI, but that doesn't mean it's the only avenue available for transitioning to PVP. The tank is the guy who puts obstacles between the big hungry demon-badger and squishy lil' me. He's the one who can punt their nuker across the room, body block the guy flailing sixteen swords in my face, stun the sneaky type (and his pet), and do whatever else is called for to keep me alive while I continue taking heads.
It's a little unfortunate in my opinion that the best example I can give right now about good tanking implementation isn't even an MMO. It's LOL. If you haven't played League of Legends, I'd recommend getting a free account and playing a few games just as a heuristic, because it will show you a lot about how roles can work in PVP. Anyone who has played the game for any time knows that there are some champions who are really beefy, with tons of health and defense, who can really take a punishment--but they can't tank. Mordekaiser is an awesome champ, but I don't count on Morde to keep people off of me. That's a lot of times what people think of when they think of the MMO tank. Instead, they should be thinking about Nasus or Galio or Amumu (I deliberately leave Shen and Rammus out because they have taunts). We're not talking about people who can soak, but instead people who have excellent area control and can create tactical advantages for their teams. This is the essence of tanking.
I say all that to say, if you're the guy who is stunning the other guys and getting them off of the squishies, by whatever means, then you are the tank. The trinity demands that; it demands that someone fill that role, regardless of what his class is. If in PVP so far this guy has had poor tools at his disposal, that's the fault of those developers, not the paradigm itself.
I have issues with Burger King. You see, there is no Burger King where I live. There is a Pizza Hut, though. I've been to Pizza Hut and it doesn't sell hamburgers. I fear that Burger King won't sell hamburgers either when it gets here. This fear is valid because both places sell unhealthy food and there is no reason to believe one unhealthy food joint is different from another and, besides, if there's anything mass media has thaught me it's that far-reachng baseless fear mongering and making shit up to incite lethargy in general populace is awesome.
Also, if my point managed to make you feel bad about yourself - buy gold. And vote for the guy that pays me.
Hey thx guys. I read each and every post word for word and I'm feeling much more excited. I'm starting to see that dynamic events will TRULY bring players together.
I'm starting to see the bigger picture how no specific roles will make partying easier and the party content will be much more fun and it should involve a lot of team work because of the cross role skill combos. I was thinking that even though the dungeon will require a party, there will not be any interaction between players because of how DCUO plays. For example, in DCUO I wanted to the group mission, after few minutes of waiting I was able to join a group. After we started fighting the mobs I got seprated from my group and had no idea where the tank and healers were, but I still managed to stay alive for a good period of time.
I can see how GW2 will differ from DCUO. No specific roles I think weill make the team work much more involved.
Actually you have to be aware of the fact the tank/heal/dps trinity was something great for the development of mmo. I think that wihtout it, mmos would have gone down the trash very fast as a game genre. Because the old grouping and comunity mechanism left slowly the players, each generation was further and further away from the muds, pen & paper, and old rpg 2d games like the ultima serie. So all those things that would have them want to create a world for their character left slowly but surely. Little by little the sense of haveing a persistant world would left for the need to have an entretaining video game. If the trinity wasn't there to entice players to group up i think mmo would have been more like massively solo games, but maybe that would not have been so bad after all.
Gw dev will have a lot of work to entice players to group up, if they don't do anything and think the player will do all the work, they will have the same problem as in Darkfall where grouping is totally inexistant apart from guild war stuff, which is, beleive me not good at all, go test this game to see what i'm talking about. So they definitly have to work this out very seriously so that players do group up spontaneously as they used to do before the trinity. The all world would have to sustain an mmo without tank/heal/dps trinity, it is not a small job at all they are facing.
You still have to play together to win. You may not necessarily have to party up, but teamwork is key in guild wars 2. Plus harder content (including dungeons, which require a group) will require very closely knit groups who pay a lot more attention to each other than they would in standard dynamic events.
Based on the information i've gathered, teamwork looks even more important in gw2 than other MMO's! Because, essentially, i don't think that 8 players all effectively ignoring each other apart from one guy spamming 'teh healz' is teamwork.
You still have to play together to win. You may not necessarily have to party up, but teamwork is key in guild wars 2. Plus harder content (including dungeons, which require a group) will require very closely knit groups who pay a lot more attention to each other than they would in standard dynamic events.
Based on the information i've gathered, teamwork looks even more important in gw2 than other MMO's! Because, essentially, i don't think that 8 players all effectively ignoring each other apart from one guy spamming 'teh healz' is teamwork.
Ye i have read what the dev are telling and seen the videos from the demos since the last comment i made here, and definitly it seam a main concern to them. But somehow it seam their concern is more about cooperative playing, which is a great idea really. But you know you can have cooperation and don't know each other and never really have a chance to meet. You also need to get people to talk together, to have them group up so they can share something. Its not just about cooperation. Its nice when you got to know someone in a mmo because he might live in the other end of the world, this is in itself something i love about mmo, and begin to talk about all kind of stuff ooc, like where you live and those stuff.
I gave the exemple of neighbors we had in Uo for exemple and player made villages, this really created a sense of comunity and pushed you to share stuff with people that had a house near your in UO, and maybe even drive you to or be a hated neightbors or someone you'll go into a dungeon to have fun with. This is really that kind of stuff that could be nice also to have in GW2. Some old school grouping stuff that is really missing in modern mmo, and that were totally aprt from the usual "lfg tank lv50" stuff.
Ye i have read what the dev are telling and seen the videos from the demos since the last comment i made here, and definitly it seam a main concern to them. But somehow it seam their concern is more about cooperative playing, which is a great idea really. But you know you can have cooperation and don't know each other and never really have a chance to meet. You also need to get people to talk together, to have them group up so they can share something. Its not just about cooperation. Its nice when you got to know someone in a mmo because he might live in the other end of the world, this is in itself something i love about mmo, and begin to talk about all kind of stuff ooc, like where you live and those stuff.
I gave the exemple of neighbors we had in Uo for exemple and player made villages, this really created a sense of comunity and pushed you to share stuff with people that had a house near your in UO, and maybe even drive you to or be a hated neightbors or someone you'll go into a dungeon to have fun with. This is really that kind of stuff that could be nice also to have in GW2. Some old school grouping stuff that is really missing in modern mmo, and that were totally aprt from the usual "lfg tank lv50" stuff.
Keep in mind that Anet has also put in mini games and things such as the bar fights in the social hubs to encourage communication and community building there. I'd rather they take those kinds of steps rather than force grouping in combat areas.
If you can think of a way to encourage communication without forcing it then I'd be interested.
Ye i have read what the dev are telling and seen the videos from the demos since the last comment i made here, and definitly it seam a main concern to them. But somehow it seam their concern is more about cooperative playing, which is a great idea really. But you know you can have cooperation and don't know each other and never really have a chance to meet. You also need to get people to talk together, to have them group up so they can share something. Its not just about cooperation. Its nice when you got to know someone in a mmo because he might live in the other end of the world, this is in itself something i love about mmo, and begin to talk about all kind of stuff ooc, like where you live and those stuff.
I gave the exemple of neighbors we had in Uo for exemple and player made villages, this really created a sense of comunity and pushed you to share stuff with people that had a house near your in UO, and maybe even drive you to or be a hated neightbors or someone you'll go into a dungeon to have fun with. This is really that kind of stuff that could be nice also to have in GW2. Some old school grouping stuff that is really missing in modern mmo, and that were totally aprt from the usual "lfg tank lv50" stuff.
Keep in mind that Anet has also put in mini games and things such as the bar fights in the social hubs to encourage communication and community building there. I'd rather they take those kinds of steps rather than force grouping in combat areas.
If you can think of a way to encourage communication without forcing it then I'd be interested.
As common as an mmo player loving community is you cant debunk the possibility that there are those who want to play the game who are shy towards other people. In fact I would say it improves the game, because with no forced teaming, players can play with whoever they want; jerks will be kicked, forcing them to behave if they want to team up, and allows you to only surround yourself with people you enjoy playing with (kind strangers you've just met or friends you know) while still benefiting from those jerks being present (without teaming with them).
I see the community improving from this, as there will be no specific class roles with which to judge who to team with, players will have to decide solely on if they like the person they are teaming with, so anyone wanting to be in a group will have to be polite, kind of like in the real world in some instances.
Keep in mind that Anet has also put in mini games and things such as the bar fights in the social hubs to encourage communication and community building there. I'd rather they take those kinds of steps rather than force grouping in combat areas.
If you can think of a way to encourage communication without forcing it then I'd be interested.
As common as an mmo player loving community is you cant debunk the possibility that there are those who want to play the game who are shy towards other people. In fact I would say it improves the game, because with no forced teaming, players can play with whoever they want; jerks will be kicked, forcing them to behave if they want to team up, and allows you to only surround yourself with people you enjoy playing with (kind strangers you've just met or friends you know) while still benefiting from those jerks being present (without teaming with them).
I see the community improving from this, as there will be no specific class roles with which to judge who to team with, players will have to decide solely on if they like the person they are teaming with, so anyone wanting to be in a group will have to be polite, kind of like in the real world in some instances.
Agreed. As much as I enjoy the opportunity for community building I like that I won't be forced to group with those I don't want to and with Anet taking care to make sure that griefing can't occur it should make for a healthy gameplay environment.
Let's oversimplify this in a way that even I can understand.
You're out traveling, alone perhaps to start. You come across someone else heading in your direction, so you travel with them. Safety in numbers and all that. You're not "partied" with them, but going the same way. Something happens. You can both respond to what's happening, both ignore it, or one of you respond while the other keeps on going. There's a freedom in this you don't get from game such as WoW, where you're in your party and if something happens... wait, bad example. Nothing happens there without a quest-bang. But you know what I mean... you're free to work with others as you see fit without penalty for doing so, or free to go on your merry way to your own goals and objectives. Odds are when you get there you'll find others with the same objectives and will work with them to achieve them.
Funny thing might happen too. You start pounding out events with a random group of misfits, find you get along, form a friends list and before you know it you're being invited to party with them for a dungeon run. Or, you could be a grump-ass and never make any friends. Nice thing is, even the grump-asses won't be destined to do everything alone.
I see this complaint a lot, and while I understand it somewhat. I can't help but ask, if so many seem to want to group and socialize, why does it not happen in game (regularly)? Must you be forced to group in order to start groups? Grouping is possible in any MMO, yet most hardly utilize the ability to do so.
THIS.
Also, OP, how people can keep "comparing" GW2 to other games and whining about what it does or doesn't bring to the table.....amazes me. Are people psychic or what? GW2 hasn't been released yet. Why not save your whining and "thinking" and presumptions? No one.....no one.....on these boards can make any kind of educated statement about GW2 right now. When it's released, or at LEAST in open beta.....then these threads will be worth something. Until then....it's all just speculation.
Comments
personally I hope GW2 focuses a bit more on solo/small scale content
all in all its a PvP game, and some pvpers like me are not interested in playing with people, they are interested in playing against people. The social aspect in PvP games isnt as compelling as in a PvE game, sometimes you might just want to smash some faces alone or with a few real life friends.
becuase most of the moo player base doesnt come to MMORPG.com
this little rag-tag group of flamers and trolls is a faction, and we generally learn more to the older games and the older ways.
Guild Wars 1 has given me the best guild experience to date..one that beats out my SWG guild...(times i will never forget)
I have little doubt in GW2 and I know grouping will be often and welcome. Story driven Dungeons and higher level content will need grouping and since the tank-dps-healer roles are gone grouping will be easier.
diversity in the classes open up more roles for each player. more roles= easy grouping. (why do you think pallys and druid are popular in WoW?)
If you want to chat with the people in events, invite them to your group. That's the only difference, to be able to chat..but the event system feel way more alive than questing.
Well Nomss, I can certainly understand where you are coming from. So at risk of treading in an area that someone else already has, as I did not read all the posts contained within - I will keep this short.
In pretty much every MMO since Everquest, my favorite aspect of the community has been and always will be, the chance encounter.
The chance encounter is the basis that once you enter the fictional world the developer has made for you, you will find yourself in muddy waters from time to time. During this time, you face a potentially heavy loss... let's say for this example that you are trying to fend off a keep from a marauding bunch of Grawl. During these times of muddy waters, and let's say this is an encounter that can only feasably happen once every 3 days and you are having a damn hard time being here when it does happen. So you are about to lose this encounter and have to wait another 3 days, I would say that is a sense of loss equivalent to losing a nice 20% chunk of your exp bar in high levels of a game like Everquest so needless to say, you are starting to get ancy.
Lo and behold however, another player shows up and starts to fight alongside of you. With this players help, you are able to push the encounter back into your neck of the woods - it is winnable once more, but let's also say there is a badass boss monster that shows up if the encounter persists for a certain amount of time without defeating or defeat. Together, the two of you barely scrape by. But you did, and you feel fantastic.
Community in Guild Wars 2 is epitomized by jump in/jump out play styles. In another game, a player might not want to jump in or even show up because they think the encounter is almost over, or they are waiting for their turn to attempt it. GW2 encourages you to attempt to assist your community in any way possible by rewarding players based on their contributions, and not their competition. On top of being able to group, I can't think of a better example for a game focused on community than one where servers are exclusive and important, grouping is optional but encouraged as all players are technically in it together, there are tons of mini-games to play, there are various areas that are only accessible by working with your fellow player...
My friend, community is definitely not a problem in GW2.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
Hey thx guys. I read each and every post word for word and I'm feeling much more excited. I'm starting to see that dynamic events will TRULY bring players together.
I'm starting to see the bigger picture how no specific roles will make partying easier and the party content will be much more fun and it should involve a lot of team work because of the cross role skill combos. I was thinking that even though the dungeon will require a party, there will not be any interaction between players because of how DCUO plays. For example, in DCUO I wanted to the group mission, after few minutes of waiting I was able to join a group. After we started fighting the mobs I got seprated from my group and had no idea where the tank and healers were, but I still managed to stay alive for a good period of time.
I can see how GW2 will differ from DCUO. No specific roles I think weill make the team work much more involved.
Guild Wars 2's 50 minutes game play video:
http://n4g.com/news/592585/guild-wars-2-50-minutes-of-pure-gameplay
Everything We Know about GW2:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/287180/page/1
Indeed, especially since there is quite a lot of reliance upon each other, more so than standard MMO's tbh. Traditionally there are basically 3 people in a group, the healer - the godlike omgwtf player that everyone needs, the tank and then the extra 5 players making up the numbers just spamming a few skills. In guild wars 2 every player counts and everyone needs to be doing their bit , even if that is only running around reviving when things go bad!
The energy system is also designed that using your defensive skills far outweighs the energy cost of purely attacking. Therefore everyone trying to hold their own against a ton of mobs isn't going to end well!
However, working together, such as a ranger using whirling defence to protect the others helps to save that energy party-wide and also prevent your party members taking too much damage, so they can spend less time healing, or worse, downed. Never mind, of course, that the characters themselves are more fragile than the traditional MMO characters due to the ability to recover from being downed as long as an ally is about (or they defeat the enemy while downed). This makes the battles a lot more interesting as there is always a genuine threat that you could be swatted if you're not paying attention, which'll be especially true in dungeons.
Should be fun! Probably be about a year until we play it though :P
As much as I hate to, I have to agree with the "this atmosphere (inter-class dependency) is a relic of MMO's of the past" sentiment. But I don't think that closes the issue.
I think the problem here is the language we're using, rather than the actual problem. The group dynamics of EQ, FFXI, DAOC, etc., were great, but those things were not what made the games MMO's. You could get the same experiences, theoretically at least, from any other online multiplayer game with grouping, MMO or otherwise. And while I mourn with those who mourn the decline of these aspects of games that have a cherished place in our memories, there is still MMO in their passing. I soloed when it wasn't cool to solo (actually it's always been cool to solo, but what I mean is that I played a Druid in EQ1, so I soloed more often than I grouped), and I felt that I didn't miss out on the MMO aspect of that game. In fact therein are some of my fondest memories.
Will GW2 bring that feeling back? Well, ultimately, probably not. But the more games I play and the more mature the medium gets, the more I'm willing to concede that even if EQ1 were republished with a graphics and interface overhaul (which, let's face it, would be something of a wet dream come true for some of us), I'm not sure that feeling would be there in the new EQ. It's tied up in more than the mechanics.
But even supposing that it's not--that in fact, it is all mechanics, that by reproducing class balance and functionality just as it existed in the high-water marks of the holy trinity group dynamic, one can restore that very feeling in the player that he experienced in his finest moments in his game of choice--even then, I think that it still is not the essence of what makes an MMO. Maybe it's a great thing, but the mere fact that GW2 is changing the dynamic does not mean that it will not be fun, that its mechanics and whatever grouping dynamics it offers will not be able to provide people with the same engagement as its predecessors, and most of all, certainly, that it will somehow be less than an MMO.
Peace and safety.
1) I think you are wrong in thinking that DEs are just a simple mechanic that, even designed to foster group play, won't make the game more fun. I think its all a matter of presentation, and of small details like the fact that the way you join the quest is to see the action and join it, or to help out in some way. Or perhaps the fact that the DEs are to flow logically from one point in a chain to the next allowing for zones to be different based on the state of these DEs. Even the fact that they are always ongoing, never stopping, not even if people aren't there yet, helps create the environment that Anet wants, and I think that what Anet wants is to make a game that is fun for many people or single persons, for all kinds of player types, for old games, for new gamers, and for themselves. I think Anet knows what is fun.
2) You say that, for EQ1, you held feelings of fondness, and you don't think that any game, even a refurbished EQ1 could do the same. You are right, it has nothing to do with mechanics. Everyone has games they remember fondly. With MMOs, more often than not, that thing has more to do with the general atmosphere/community of the game, and how you felt while playing the game, than the actual mechanics of the game itself.
3) You seem to think that the trinity helped foster group interdependance, but I believe that by forcing it you separate the people from the greater battle. Sure, you can make AI that makes playing the trinity fun, but the trinity doesn't work for PvP. GW and GW2 being PvP focused games, something different is needed and I do believe it fosters the group interdependance that makes playing in a group worth it, all without ruining the fun of going solo.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
Agreed. To bring PvP and PvE together should be a good thing. If they get closer more people will probably enjoy both aspects of the game and not a single one. Balancing them should also be somewhat easier.
I am not sure I agree that GW 1 & 2 are PvP focused games, both seems to have as much for both kinds, but compared to most other MMOs it is true. The PvP system is built in from the start and not added as an afterthought just before release, or even revamped or patched in later.
What I like best with the games however is that they try to give us a different experience compared to other MMOs and that works fine for me, the rest have changed very little since M59 in '97 and I am frankly rather tired of doing the same thing over and over in different games.
And no holy triad forces the devs to actually have smarter AI, in most MMOs are mobs dumbs as doorknobs no matter if it is an animal or a wizard. Maybe they can force us to use our brains a bit more.
1. I didn't say that and I don't think that. Please make sure you're quoting the right person.
2. Atmosphere yes, community no. That's my experience, though, and it's certainly different from the experiences of others; I'm content to agree that it's something other than mechanics.
3. What greater battle? Secondly, I think that the trinity fostered group interdependence because the trinity is group interdependence. If you must have a tank, and you must have a healer in order to complete any content, then by definition, the other members are dependent on the tank and healer, and the tank and healer are dependent on each other. Furthermore, you said, "I do believe it fosters the group interdependance that makes playing in a group worth it" (sic). What does? In the absence of the trinity, what fosters group interdependence?
My understanding of ANet's position is that the roles previously restricted to a small number of classes can be performed by any of them. In that respect, I suppose there is interdependence in the fact that if you're undertaking group content, you must have other people in the group. My concern is that if I end up tanking (intentionally or otherwise), I might find myself waiting for someone to heal me as my life whittles away, only to find out post-mortem that every other member of the party was waiting for someone else to blow his heals first (if you've ever tried to farm the achievement off of that troll boss in WotLK in WOW--the one that requires multiple stuns back to back--you'll know what I'm talking about).
Finally, why doesn't the trinity work for PVP? GW1 is indeed a PVP-focused game, and the trinity is very apparent in its class design decisions. WOW has the trinity, and DAOC had the trinity (and it had one of the most hard-coded trinity implementations I can think of. Hell, at least one of their healing classes had no damage abilities whatsoever). WAR has the trinity, CoX had the trinity; in fact, I can't think of an MMO off the top of my head that has a strong, robust PVP system that doesn't have the trinity. I'm willing to learn though; if you've been having a blast playing an MMO sans trinity that has a fantastic PVP system, I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to hear about it. In any event. this is not to suggest that the trinity is the best way to do PVP in an MMO, but something different being needed for PVP doesn't spring whole from the mere existence of the trinity.
Peace and safety.
Things are only a relic if we want them to be, the force driving all MMO’s to solo only play has many causes. But it is not the way ‘things have to be’. It is a game play choice and one that leads us down a blind alley.
MMO’s are about interaction, not seeing other players run past you.
I had doubts that GW2 was going to be as class and innovative as the press releases were making out; the everyone can heal announcement pointed to where its weakness will lie. Grouping is even more an unnecessary pastime than before.
What is the point of soloing to top level in a MMO, you can do that offline? There is a balance, but one man’s forcing is another mans encouragement. If we lose grouping we lose the only hope MMO’s have of not becoming solo games played online.
Dear nomss,
have you ever tried GW 1? If yes than you couldnt blame Anet for no group work, if no, you cant blame Anet for group work either cause they proved in GW 1 they can mix solo possibilities with group work. In GW 1 You are not focused to be at group but ppl mostly are.
And no healer thing? I hated in AoC that everyone was playing healer and there were no tanks, 5 healers were ready and no tank? Funny.. xD So imo this is good thing, you can take with you whoever you want - means take all your friends and just go. You are not forced to leave some of your friends cause you are too many or too less so you cant go (I guess there will be some max group number but still if things here are able to "adapt" to number of ppl for that thing it sounds awesome to me). GW 2 seems to me a lot improved GW 1 and thats what I realy like to see.
Played: Lineage 2,Guild Wars 1 and 2, Age of Conan, Ragnarok Online, LOTRO, World of Warcraft, League of Legends, EvE online
Tried: KAL Online, Face of Mankind, ROSE online
Playing: CS:GO
My guess is that the majority of people who are playing these games were never the type to have played the earlier games at all.
So for the sake of argument, let's pick an arbitrary number. Let's say there are 350k people playing the earlier games (and for those who are starting to post the numbers of players for all the earlier games, "stop" it's just a number to exhibit a point) and they are of a certain type. They are intrigued about "living' in a fantasy world, perhaps they enjoy the idea of virtuallly meeting people.
Suddenly a few games come out that do away with what these developers think are problems. And then more people start taking notice because now the things that seemed unattractive to them about these games are a bit more palpable.
So the 350k people who all loved the grouping, socializing, "living" etc are still there but they are diluted by a larger group of people who don't mind soloing to cap because they just like being in an online world but don't require the same type of interaction that the earlier adopters did.
Essentially that made up 350k players doesn't have the pull to turn it around unless developers can figure out a way to make grouping less of a pain in the neck.
Problem there is that there are just so many disreputable players of all sorts in these games that the draw of playing in a group quickly lessens when faced with people who are selfish or just lack any social skills or just love wrecking another person's day.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
(I'm just replying to this thread, not really going back and reading the ones that led to this, so my focus might not be exactly on what has been discussed to this point)
I think what GW2 is getting rid of is a strict holy trinity. Instead of being able to do one thing only, everybody will deal at least significant damage, be able to ranged attack, heal themselves if not others, at least dodge if not legitimately tank. I think you're still going to have roles in a group. Before one combat, the warrior might say this guy has a strong fire attack, I'm going to equip a shield and try to block it, everybody else stand behind with your ranged attacks. Before the next boss fight, you might have someone else focus on the boss, but the warrior equips his greatsword so he can cleave all the little adds and try to gather them up.
Likewise, you might have someone say they're going to heal, which means they might have 2-3 healing skills which support the tank's own heals, not a full focus on healing and nothing else. We also know that a lot of it is going to be based on proactive prevention, not reactive healing. So the "tank" staying alive might depend as much on that "DPS" over there throwing their ward or blind spell.
Dynamic events are going to be tuned to people of that level basically being randoms so they're going to have to worry about being their own healers. I think the DE group interdependence will come from the cross profession combos. So the randoms can work together in an intuitive way. Dungeons on the other hand will be harder. They probably will require more coordination and that's where I think these hybrid roles, as well as pre fight skill and trait swapping, are going to be required to win consistently. You might not be the "tank", but you might be the guy who has the shield, puts stuns and snares on their bar, and works to keep the squishies safe.
I think the problem in PVP isn't the DPS or healer legs of the trinity, but the tanks. You have a highly armored comparatively low damage guy, so you kill him last. He also doesn't usually have a great way to do his job and protect others. Forced taunting has always struck people as a poor solution. I think GW2 is going to make being a tank fun in PVP, with shields that block projectiles from hitting people behind you, and mace stuns if they try to get around you. And basically being a hybrid, so you're going to be a not insignificant damage dealer as well.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I generally agree with your sentiment, and I'm actually very much looking forward to GW2. I will say, though, that when I picture in my mind your scenario (the warrior talking about the fire attacks, shield, etc.), I could not help but to picture the poor guys at the beginning of the Leeroy Jenkins video talking about their strategy like they were actually going into real combat (also, now that I think about it, South Park's parody of same). Yeah yeah, most of us have been through that at one point, and as a community that's probably just a small cross-section of the kinds of personalities that play MMO's, and I really don't fault any of those guys... but at the same time, you just have to sit back and go "Damn, what a bunch of tools." So I'll admit I cringe a little at the thought of someone announcing pre-fight that he's putting on his shield, coming across like he's General Patton.
As to the response itself, though: why don't tanks work in PVP? I don't mean in specific instances, but as a general proposition. Obviously some people have gotten it wrong, but I don't think we throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. WAR, for example, did a fine job, at least when I was playing, of making the tank's job meaningful. Some of the most fun I had in that game was charging into a mob of enemy players with my tank, flinging whichever one went after my healer across the map, and wailing on the others while we plowed toward the map objective. I think we, as consumers of this genre, have this notion of taunt and aggro as the definitive aspect of tanking, and that's incorrect because it ignores the broader concept behind aggro: control. A tank is a tank not because he can take the most damage (although it certainly doesn't hurt), but because he has the mechanisms at his disposal to keep the other guys from gibbing his squishies. In PVE this is the taunt mechanic that basically exploits the functionality of the AI, but that doesn't mean it's the only avenue available for transitioning to PVP. The tank is the guy who puts obstacles between the big hungry demon-badger and squishy lil' me. He's the one who can punt their nuker across the room, body block the guy flailing sixteen swords in my face, stun the sneaky type (and his pet), and do whatever else is called for to keep me alive while I continue taking heads.
It's a little unfortunate in my opinion that the best example I can give right now about good tanking implementation isn't even an MMO. It's LOL. If you haven't played League of Legends, I'd recommend getting a free account and playing a few games just as a heuristic, because it will show you a lot about how roles can work in PVP. Anyone who has played the game for any time knows that there are some champions who are really beefy, with tons of health and defense, who can really take a punishment--but they can't tank. Mordekaiser is an awesome champ, but I don't count on Morde to keep people off of me. That's a lot of times what people think of when they think of the MMO tank. Instead, they should be thinking about Nasus or Galio or Amumu (I deliberately leave Shen and Rammus out because they have taunts). We're not talking about people who can soak, but instead people who have excellent area control and can create tactical advantages for their teams. This is the essence of tanking.
I say all that to say, if you're the guy who is stunning the other guys and getting them off of the squishies, by whatever means, then you are the tank. The trinity demands that; it demands that someone fill that role, regardless of what his class is. If in PVP so far this guy has had poor tools at his disposal, that's the fault of those developers, not the paradigm itself.
Peace and safety.
dnt b terbd. dnt b
I have issues with Burger King. You see, there is no Burger King where I live. There is a Pizza Hut, though. I've been to Pizza Hut and it doesn't sell hamburgers. I fear that Burger King won't sell hamburgers either when it gets here. This fear is valid because both places sell unhealthy food and there is no reason to believe one unhealthy food joint is different from another and, besides, if there's anything mass media has thaught me it's that far-reachng baseless fear mongering and making shit up to incite lethargy in general populace is awesome.
Also, if my point managed to make you feel bad about yourself - buy gold. And vote for the guy that pays me.
Actually you have to be aware of the fact the tank/heal/dps trinity was something great for the development of mmo. I think that wihtout it, mmos would have gone down the trash very fast as a game genre. Because the old grouping and comunity mechanism left slowly the players, each generation was further and further away from the muds, pen & paper, and old rpg 2d games like the ultima serie. So all those things that would have them want to create a world for their character left slowly but surely. Little by little the sense of haveing a persistant world would left for the need to have an entretaining video game. If the trinity wasn't there to entice players to group up i think mmo would have been more like massively solo games, but maybe that would not have been so bad after all.
Gw dev will have a lot of work to entice players to group up, if they don't do anything and think the player will do all the work, they will have the same problem as in Darkfall where grouping is totally inexistant apart from guild war stuff, which is, beleive me not good at all, go test this game to see what i'm talking about. So they definitly have to work this out very seriously so that players do group up spontaneously as they used to do before the trinity. The all world would have to sustain an mmo without tank/heal/dps trinity, it is not a small job at all they are facing.
You still have to play together to win. You may not necessarily have to party up, but teamwork is key in guild wars 2. Plus harder content (including dungeons, which require a group) will require very closely knit groups who pay a lot more attention to each other than they would in standard dynamic events.
Based on the information i've gathered, teamwork looks even more important in gw2 than other MMO's! Because, essentially, i don't think that 8 players all effectively ignoring each other apart from one guy spamming 'teh healz' is teamwork.
Ye i have read what the dev are telling and seen the videos from the demos since the last comment i made here, and definitly it seam a main concern to them. But somehow it seam their concern is more about cooperative playing, which is a great idea really. But you know you can have cooperation and don't know each other and never really have a chance to meet. You also need to get people to talk together, to have them group up so they can share something. Its not just about cooperation. Its nice when you got to know someone in a mmo because he might live in the other end of the world, this is in itself something i love about mmo, and begin to talk about all kind of stuff ooc, like where you live and those stuff.
I gave the exemple of neighbors we had in Uo for exemple and player made villages, this really created a sense of comunity and pushed you to share stuff with people that had a house near your in UO, and maybe even drive you to or be a hated neightbors or someone you'll go into a dungeon to have fun with. This is really that kind of stuff that could be nice also to have in GW2. Some old school grouping stuff that is really missing in modern mmo, and that were totally aprt from the usual "lfg tank lv50" stuff.
Keep in mind that Anet has also put in mini games and things such as the bar fights in the social hubs to encourage communication and community building there. I'd rather they take those kinds of steps rather than force grouping in combat areas.
If you can think of a way to encourage communication without forcing it then I'd be interested.
As common as an mmo player loving community is you cant debunk the possibility that there are those who want to play the game who are shy towards other people. In fact I would say it improves the game, because with no forced teaming, players can play with whoever they want; jerks will be kicked, forcing them to behave if they want to team up, and allows you to only surround yourself with people you enjoy playing with (kind strangers you've just met or friends you know) while still benefiting from those jerks being present (without teaming with them).
I see the community improving from this, as there will be no specific class roles with which to judge who to team with, players will have to decide solely on if they like the person they are teaming with, so anyone wanting to be in a group will have to be polite, kind of like in the real world in some instances.
Agreed. As much as I enjoy the opportunity for community building I like that I won't be forced to group with those I don't want to and with Anet taking care to make sure that griefing can't occur it should make for a healthy gameplay environment.
Let's oversimplify this in a way that even I can understand.
You're out traveling, alone perhaps to start. You come across someone else heading in your direction, so you travel with them. Safety in numbers and all that. You're not "partied" with them, but going the same way. Something happens. You can both respond to what's happening, both ignore it, or one of you respond while the other keeps on going. There's a freedom in this you don't get from game such as WoW, where you're in your party and if something happens... wait, bad example. Nothing happens there without a quest-bang. But you know what I mean... you're free to work with others as you see fit without penalty for doing so, or free to go on your merry way to your own goals and objectives. Odds are when you get there you'll find others with the same objectives and will work with them to achieve them.
Funny thing might happen too. You start pounding out events with a random group of misfits, find you get along, form a friends list and before you know it you're being invited to party with them for a dungeon run. Or, you could be a grump-ass and never make any friends. Nice thing is, even the grump-asses won't be destined to do everything alone.
Oderint, dum metuant.
THIS.
Also, OP, how people can keep "comparing" GW2 to other games and whining about what it does or doesn't bring to the table.....amazes me. Are people psychic or what? GW2 hasn't been released yet. Why not save your whining and "thinking" and presumptions? No one.....no one.....on these boards can make any kind of educated statement about GW2 right now. When it's released, or at LEAST in open beta.....then these threads will be worth something. Until then....it's all just speculation.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club