Originally Posted by MysticPhantom
I love this style of play, I hope they keep true to this on the final run. I really can't wait to test the beta. I have been doing reviews and research for a few months now, and finally convinced my wife I need a new MMO and GW2 was going to be it just last week, (she let me get the Collectors addition too, so if I ever find any of the developers I am getting the whole thing signed and encasing that bia...)
Has anyone come up with any wierd quirky things we can do in GW2 yet....like for instance the guys who stayed in Presearing and lvld to 20 without ever stepping into the real Tyria...or getting to Deldrimor Warcamp as a lvl2 necro.
Or have they taken the wierd opportunities away when the trinity was removed??
Do not meddle in the affairs of the Charr because, to them, you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
The trinity never existed in GW 1. That is to say, there were no true tanks because warriors couldn't hold aggro. NPCs attacked monks and minion masters as part of their AI.
I haven't found anything like that yet, but I'm sure that loopholes will be found as the game gets older. No one has really had time to work these things out yet, particularly since the game is still in heavy flux.
Well in that case the game was in two instances, pre searing which was disconnected from the rest of the world and then after the searing.
Only instance I can think that it is similar is the first starting zone where you have to kill that elite boss before advancing to the real world. But man trying to grind 80 levels with those mobs might take a decade.
I wondered myself how far someone could attempt to level in the Dream as a Sylvari. But it seems like killing the wolves there does not get you very much XP at all. I think it's going to be a pointless endeavor.
Not even for one of those "Dreamy Wolf-Killer" titles you can't get anywhere else??
Do not meddle in the affairs of the Charr because, to them, you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
So we did have warrior (damage types who mostly held agrro), Monks (sort of healer types) and other Ele based dps builds..that is the trinity i was referring to.
I remember doing 3-man (warrior/monk/Ele) Underworld runs right at the beginning of GW1..until the 55hp monk showed us the way to make ectos. GW1 had a trinity.
Not all classes could do the Droks run..not all classes could solo the underworld...i dont see the separation of classes as much with GW2..all do damage, all have support skills...and all can heal.
Do not meddle in the affairs of the Charr because, to them, you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Not really, just because the warrior was doing enough damage to get aggro doesn't make it a tank. A Tank has the ability to taunt or skills that generate aggresion built into them.
It was built in the code that the healers and the big dps would get aggro (which is normal), so a warrior in heavy armor acting like a dps to get aggro does not make it a tank.
I think we are attempting to split a hair twice. We might have to agree to disagree..However, once last attempt…
In GW1 there was a trinity of tank, heals, dps...that it doesn't fit your exact definition of such doesn't mean it didn't exist. It also wasn't classically used exclusively so. Warriors didn't have the taunt skills, but taunt doesn't make a tank..A charcter that can stand and take large punishment with a higher health pool from or within a group is a tank. Yes it has to have the agrro and that was quite easily attained in GW1..the rest stood outside agrro range for a while, dipping in when required. The Team allowed the tank to ..well tank really. That is exactly how some people played them. The healer healed the player getting the most damage more often than themselves. That being the warrior with a shield and damage limitation skills. this also fits the trinity template. Last but not least, the dps role doesn't really need explaining..
With all the different team builds available in GW1 some people could spend theyre whole time not playing the classic tank/heal/dps..but it was still available.
Am i alone in thinking this..and am starting to look a bit wierd..or does anone else see what i mean?
Do not meddle in the affairs of the Charr because, to them, you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
I think there's two things to be aware of here.
The first is that for many people (and you can check various dictionaries, online and off, for definitions of the word 'tank' in gaming) high armour/health and damage mitigation or avoidance do not constitute a tank. They were certainly part of what a tank did, but most importantly, they needed to be able to grab and hold threat, despite other party members having high dps or healing. Usually they can force enemy mobs to attack them, and often they can physically pull the enemy to them. The idea being that it did you no good to have high health and armour if the enemy attacked the healer or some other party member.
The second point is that in GW1, you didn't need a tank - or a warrior at all. In fact, many players (possibly most) avoided taking melee classes (including heroes and henchies) with them at all. They weren't necessary. Even if you were 'doing Duncan' or similar content. Go without a healer? No way. Go without a tank? Absolutely. Groups didn't stand around calling out for a tank - though healer they certainly did. So GW1, imo, didn't have a 'holy trinity'. They did have a dedicated healer (using healing or protection or a hybrid of both). They did have DPS. In fact, they also had support and crowd control. But you didn't need a tank.
Edit: The only two roles you had to have in a group, for almost any content, were healer and dps. For some content, your job was made easier if you had support/cc. But really, it was more of a 'holy duo', in that you just didn't go out without healing/prot and dps.
Last edited by Shaiel; 08-16-2012 at 04:44 AM.
[IGN: Wu Lingwei]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
