That was Andrew or how I tended to call him throughout this video the Avatarless S-man.
Indeed, he had only a few lines and I felt like he had more to contribute.
It's really tough with 6 people on the show. I'm going to set a hard cap on 5 max for the show from now on.
Holy Theory said:
WvWvW is gonna be a Zerg Fest because no Healers? I was under the impression that just because there is no dedicated healer that doesn't say you cant heal yourself and others.I think all Non personal Heals are AOE, im not quite sure. This AOE heal system alone will have Physical attackers running to points in which AOE has been layed down or Ranged Dealers running to the front line throwing them down. I dont think this will be mindless zerging I think players will have to make quick judgement in any bout of WvWvW.
I don't think the lack of healers is going to cause zerg. I think there's going to be zerg because concentrated firepower is completely overwhelming and uncountable (unless maybe massed AoE counters blobbing?). Basically if you have a choice between four fights of 5v5 or two fights of 10 vs. 5, you'd go for the 10 vs. 5 option every time, because after you finish completely destroying the people you outnumber, you can go finish off their friends just as easily.
This is still speculation of course. Not having played the game and gotten a feel for the mechanics this prediction could be off for a number of reasons.
Just gonna write some comments as I'm watching.
On the issue of WvW turning into two sides of Ranged DPS just slinging away at each other: I just don't see it that way at all. You say that tanks need healers to get up close; that is illogical in this system. Yes, in a Trinity game, you need healers to survive the DPS. Why? Because the DPS needs to do enough DPS to not be pointless and the healers need to heal enough to not be pointless (and the same thing works with tanks vs other roles). They are all circularly designed. Since there IS no trinity, that design paradigm doesn't apply. In fact, going along those lines, one might say that self heals are pointless because in 5v5, the enemy will spike you down too fast because with the trinity a 5 man spike with no healer resulted in instant death.
This is an interesting point. I still don't think it accounts for concentrated ranged spike firepower. Perhaps, however, the movement abilities of the melee classes will allow them to close the distance fast enough and force the ranged classes to engage. However, the prevalence of moving + casting abilities seems to indicate that it will be easy to kite? Maybe cripple/chilled abilities will be the key here. Warrior uses some kind of ranged cripple then switches to a melee setup and uses a charge skill to get in close.
On the question of if you can make a fully ranged warrior or for example a fully melee (or close range)necromancer: I fully and completely believe that you can do that. The design of the system is such that it truly is meant to have every option be viable. That's why each class has different skills when equipping the same weapon, why there are no dual-classes, why each class has set weapon lists, and why your 5 skills are locked by weapon. If a warrior can use a bow, then they are going to make skills that are good for the warrior using the bow. If not, what's the point?
Agreed. The Warrior with a Bow should be and will be (IMHO) as effective as a ranger with a bow, but in his own way. Looking at the skills on the GW2 wiki, the warrior seems to have quite a few AoE ranged shots, as well as an immobilize. The Ranger, on the other hand, has only one AoE with his bow, but plenty of single target spike damage (specializing in long range) and one skill that knocks enemies away.
So the Warrior with a longbow is going to be mostly dropping AoE down to support a larger engagement (his rifle is a more single target weapon) and has the capability to immobilize a target and charge to melee. The Ranger with a longbow is going to try to nail a single target and keep the enemy at range.
...Think about it this way: the treb can make a point virtually impossible to capture any given point. That's one person that essentially can counter 2+ players on whatever point they are shelling. The distinction I think is that you are saying it's "random". If you are a coordinated team with any kind of voice chat, you can tell the person where to shoot that treb. You don't need to "hit someone", you need to keep them off the cap point. You need to hit the point repeatedly; then your players can sit in a completely safe area. If they can't get on the point because the whole point gets blown up every few seconds, they will never take it; the entire point of a capture map is to capture points, thus the trebuchet can be crucial to winning by simply guaranteeing that one point never gets touched.
That's a really good point actually. I believe it can fire that fast as well. You might be on to the real usefulness of the trebuchet.