249 replies to this topic

[El Duderino]

Raytla, on 20 February 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, how do you know 99% of GW1 pvp playerbase has left GW2?  Or was that intended to be pure sarcasm.

Edit:  Nevermind you've already asnwered a similar question that was asked.

99% may be a stretch, admittedly.

However, I think it is common knowledge that the PvP playerbase was much higher in GW1 than it is currently in GW2. Part of that is that PvP in GW2 is not near where ANet wants it to be - which has been admitted by them already. If you need a link, I will be happy to provide it.

I thought, perhaps wrongly, that this was all common knowledge.

[st_clouds]

Craywulf, on 20 February 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

GW1's combat was not all that exciting, it was all about 2 things, your skill bar and how well you executed them. GW2's skillbar is half as important as it was in GW1, but there is a lot more  hand and eye coordination. So execution player a more predominant role in your success or failure. This gives the perception that GW1's combat is more complicated.

I personally don't equate a complicated skill bar as "better". Furthermore I fully understand the necessity of the changes. I also can see the vast potential for improving the combat while keeping the goal of reduced imbalance. I been saying this in other threads, I believe what's missing in GW2's combat is the lack of importance Cross-Profession-Combos (CPCs). They don't have any superior benefit of executing CPCs over the usual spamming conditions that zergs do. There needs to HUGE benefit of doing them, and mobs and champions need have specific vulnerabilities to them. This will help make the roles more obvious, and encourage the zerg to disperse into a more organized group.

This. Combat in GW1 was boring. It was very rock, paper, scissor-ish. If you bring the wrong skill, you're toast. You also must keep the same skillset match to match. And there're only 8 of them. So it was only a matter of time before you meet your counter. So lame.

Some skills were very all or nothing - ish. it makes their activation so "brainless". If you bring a stance, you're invincible for 30+ seconds against melee, but if someone brings wildstrike the stance becomes completely useless. Similarly wild strike is useless, unless someone brings a stance. Compared to GW2 where you actually have to time your evade and block. If you notice none of the skill in GW2 makes you invincible for 30+ seconds.

GW2 you have more skills at any given time. There's a lot more complex decision to make where to use which skill and when at any given time. To weapon swap or not to weapon swap. There's more dynamic in regards to what button to press next.

Should you meet a build you're weak against, you're given the opportunity to run away and switch skills. It's still costly to do so, but you at least have the option to.

Environment and positioning also plays a much bigger role, now. In GW1, all your enemies are on the map. Now you actually have to look carefully to find them. It's very easy to camoflauge under a shadow, next to a tree etc to gank on unsuspecting players. There's none of that in GW1.

Sorry, I like the level 20 cap  in GW1, but in terms of pure combat awesomeness GW2 is FAR SUPERIOR.

Edited by st_clouds, 20 February 2013 - 08:12 PM.

[Raytla]

GW2 combat system is a step in the right direction, it beats the standing still combat sytsem any day. The dodge mechanic may not be the best but it is still a nice componant to the game.  Moving out of the way is another feature that I like it adds to the dodging system.  Remember you can only dodge twice and with the feature to move out of the way makes it possible to save our endurance for powerful attacks.

I prefer a dodge than not have one at all. Like others have said before me, it would be great if they added skill features from GW1 because both games are great they both bring something different to the table.  If Anet decided to improve the skill customization found in GW2 it would be nice to incorporate the skill customization level found in GW1 (maybe not 1000 skills but enough to make both pve and pvp players happy).

In all honesty, we should instead come together and talk about how we can improve certain features that people dislike about GW2. The devs are watching, this might be the time to think about adding new ideas like others have done.  Ideas that is benefical to not only you as a player but to the rest of the playerbase. For example, there is a well written and constructed thread about how to improve PVE maybe the ones that have the abnormal hate towards GW2 should start doing that and come up with a "How to improve PVP" thread.

Edited by Raytla, 20 February 2013 - 08:12 PM.

[El Duderino]

Raytla, on 20 February 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

In all honesty, we should instead come together and talk about how we can improve certain features that people dislike about GW2. The devs are watching this might be the time to think about adding new ideas like others have done.  For example, there is a well written and structed thread about how to improve PVE maybe the ones that have the abnormal hate towards GW2 should start doing  that.

I thought everything about GW2 was great, and if you disagreed you hated the game and should quit? (/sarcasm)

I think that is a fine idea - but threads like these do (or are supposed to) allow people to get their feelings out and bounce them off others' feelings and opinions so that they can formulate their thoughts to paper (or in this case an electronic forum).

I can say that I have changed my opinion based on this thread - or at least changed how I would present my opinion based on what I thought I liked about GW1 (which was everything from prophecies).

Please do keep in mind that everyone here only takes their time to contribute because of their love for either GW1, GW2 or the franchise - and wants to see it get better in their own way.

[st_clouds]

One other thing in GW1, everyone had a tunnel vision, pigeon-holed into their archetypical roles.

Eg. Warriors chase, monks heal, rangers spike etc.

There's no nuance to playing your toon. In GW1 if you're a warrior and you don't get healed enough it's always the monk's fault, coz all your bars 1-8 is full of burst skills (except for the res signet). The only time when it's not the monk's fault is when you over-extend.

In GW2 you actually have to remember to heal, pull back, run away. If you get face rolled, much of it is your fault as much as anyone else. Again a lot more nuanced. You gotta think for something other than "how to make my damage bigger" even if you're playing a war.

To me combat in GW1 feels a lot like assembly line work. Do the one thing you do, well, but that feels so hollow. GW2 roles on the contrary is more faceted.

Also it stops the stupid class discrimination and the bottle neck around the usual PUG scenarios. "Group LF1M - MONK Only!" Except there's few if hardly any monk coz none likes to play them.

Edited by st_clouds, 20 February 2013 - 08:33 PM.

[Raytla]

@ El D-  I guess I misunderstood how certain people delivered certain things... which to me did not seem like an idea, but more of a I'm right because I said so kind of attitude. A lot of people get attached to what they say and then disregard what others have said. So, I think it would be best if a well thought out thread should be written listing the pros and cons of PVP or skill mechanism for example and jot down ways Anet can improve it by asking the community what they think would be the best approach.

I understand that certain players love GW1 and hate GW2 and vice versa. That's why I think people should deliver certain things differently or there will be a lot of room for misunderstanding especially since we are on the internet.

They are both very good games!

Edited by Raytla, 20 February 2013 - 08:42 PM.

[El Duderino]

For what it's worth I don't hate GW2. I find myself enjoying it most days that I play. I'm just a little disillusioned.

[Hybarf Tics]

It depends which way you evade. Even if I'm  not a PVP player I still prefer this combat system. I love evade and down mode.

Edited by Hybarf Tics, 22 February 2013 - 02:34 AM.

[Arich]

Im a bit late to this discussion, but in general I am happy with the GW2 combat system.  I really like the dodge/evade mechanic.  Especially now that I am playing a Thief.

That being said, the one thing I really miss from GW1 is the interrupt system.  When you have someone targeted, being able to see what spell/skill they are using made interrupts very strategic.  My first character in GW2 was a Ranger and I feel like I just kind of randomly spam my interrupts.  I mean, I use them based on animation, but I typically dont know what Im going to be interrupting, as opposed to GW1 when I would save them for particular skills/spells based on what I was fighting.  I really miss that.

I also miss healers.  I see why Anet got rid of them and I really applaud the vision they have created, but I still liked playing them.

[Ritualist]

st_clouds, on 20 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

One other thing in GW1, everyone had a tunnel vision, pigeon-holed into their archetypical roles.

Eg. Warriors chase, monks heal, rangers spike etc.

There's no nuance to playing your toon. In GW1 if you're a warrior and you don't get healed enough it's always the monk's fault, coz all your bars 1-8 is full of burst skills (except for the res signet). The only time when it's not the monk's fault is when you over-extend.

In GW2 you actually have to remember to heal, pull back, run away. If you get face rolled, much of it is your fault as much as anyone else. Again a lot more nuanced. You gotta think for something other than "how to make my damage bigger" even if you're playing a war.

To me combat in GW1 feels a lot like assembly line work. Do the one thing you do, well, but that feels so hollow. GW2 roles on the contrary is more faceted.

Also it stops the stupid class discrimination and the bottle neck around the usual PUG scenarios. "Group LF1M - MONK Only!" Except there's few if hardly any monk coz none likes to play them.

The reason why there is barely any class discrimination is because everyone is just doing damage in GW2 (and even here we can see that certain classes are preferred because they simply do more damage). That's all you want and all you need need and that's all that every class is offering. 8 GW1 bars are shoved into a single GW2 bar - sure, there might be some differences, but ultimately GW2 characters differ only in the colour of their big, bad skill of doom.

Edited by Ritualist, 21 February 2013 - 06:54 AM.

[El Duderino]

Ritualist, on 20 February 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

The reason why there is barely any class discrimination is because everyone is just doing damage in GW2 (and even here we can see that certain classes are preferred because they simply do more damage). That's all you want and need and that's all that every class is offering. 8 GW1 bars are showed into a single GW2 bar - sure, there might be some differences, but ultimately GW2 characters differ only in the colour of big bad skill of doom.

Hit the nail on the head. The illusion of diversity does not mean things are actually diverse. Quite the opposite in fact.

[st_clouds]

Ritualist, on 20 February 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

The reason why there is barely any class discrimination is because everyone is just doing damage in GW2 (and even here we can see that certain classes are preferred because they simply do more damage). That's all you want and need and that's all that every class is offering. 8 GW1 bars are showed into a single GW2 bar - sure, there might be some differences, but ultimately GW2 characters differ only in the colour of big bad skill of doom.

You're overgeneralizing. Again the differences between classes are much more subtle in GW2.

Before:
Healing -
War/Mo => Very bad
Boon Monk=> Very good.


But now there's no boon monk, every class can heal each other. Even the thief the successor to assassin can actually group heal + stealth, which's invalueable in many situations. Rangers, ele, warriors, etc each of them can group heal AND deal damage at the same time. Of course certain professions slightly better and worse than the others, but it's not like in GW1 where you're either really good or really bad at what you do - the later resulted in an overly complicated game of rock paper scissors and every profession being pigeonholed to playing a very very specific role.

I like this aspect of GW2 better where every prof ends up playing a more diverse role than before. Opens up a much more rewarding playstyle.

And come on now, there's bunker builds running around in sPvP. Don't tell me it's all just about burst. Of course if you over generalize everything ends up being the same. If you wanna take it like that, GW1 was also all about damage. PvP's all about who kills who at the end of the day.

Edited by st_clouds, 20 February 2013 - 10:35 PM.

[Krazzar]

st_clouds, on 20 February 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

Spoiler

You're overgeneralizing. Again the differences between classes are much more subtle in GW2.

Before:
Healing -
War/Mo => Very bad
Boon Monk=> Very good.


But now there's no boon monk, every class can heal each other. Even the thief the successor to assassin can actually group heal + stealth, which's invalueable in many situations. Rangers, ele, warriors, etc each of them can group heal AND deal damage at the same time. Of course certain professions slightly better and worse than the others, but it's not like in GW1 where you're either really good or really bad at what you do - the later resulted in an overly complicated game of rock paper scissors and every profession being pigeonholed to playing a very very specific role.

I like this aspect of GW2 better where every prof ends up playing a more diverse role than before. Opens up a much more rewarding playstyle.

And come on now, there's bunker builds running around in sPvP. Don't tell me it's all just about burst. Of course if you over generalize everything ends up being the same. If you wanna take it like that, GW1 was also all about damage. PvP's all about who kills who at the end of the day.

I think the difference explained here is between strategy and tactics. In GW1 you had a strategy that could be completed in any way, but because it was high-level and difficult to match so many different builds with each other most used a formula of particular builds and professions to complete it. With GW2 you can win through proper tactics with any combination of professions. Tactics are much more approachable than strategy and can be changed quickly so you can have more choice as a player and team. That's what I personally like, I can do the things I like to do and not be forced into a particular build.

Edited by Krazzar, 20 February 2013 - 11:52 PM.

[Minion]

st_clouds, on 20 February 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

every profession being pigeonholed to playing a very very specific role.

You're overgeneralising.

My elementalist, for the most part, was a prot monk, as well as an axe/hammer warrior, because lolmelee. Very diverse class.
My necromancer, for a lot of my seven hero time, was a warrior. In player teams, a monk or ritualist support healer, etc. Very diverse class with soul reaping.
My mesmer took monk melee buffs too with monk signets to abuse fast casting's reduced recharge. Very diverse class.
Rangers ran all the weapons because reduced energy costs. No other profession could run daggers as well as ranger or assassin. Same goes for scthe, axe, etc. Very diverse class, with many options.

And these are just the funny options you can get with a deeper skill system when you can mix professions. What do we have here? you are pidgeonholed into playing DPS or being bad players.

[Dasviidonja]

Quote

even ranger is severely gimped in abilities from before.

For me this ^ is a plus. Never have I hated a class so much as the ranger class of GW1. To me it is the cheater class, the griefer class, the class that rudely plays the game. How I remember how they would run around forever in the RA just so the winning team couldn't win just because nobody brought some slow skill which never should have been required. THankfully the developers saw they were griefing everybody and placed a timer in those battles thus ruining the rangers griefing fun.

The next thing were the interupt skills they had and the slow skills and degen skills. They could kite you to death and there was nothing you could really do about it unless you came totally prepared for the ranger class and the ranger class only with maybe the exception of the mesmer included..

Then to top all that off they had blind and whirling dervish and that one Elite Escape to prevent you from harming them with melee skills so even if you did catch up to them as a warrior or melee you couldn't do any or much harm unless you had counters to everything they used specifically as I said above a build vs rangers.

Even a mesmer with her interupts and degens at least you had a better chance of pounding her in the ground as a melee than you did vs a ranger as at least she couldn't blind you silly and if you brought a sword you could cripple her and then it was over.

So any gimping they did to the ranger in this game I'm all for the more the better because the ranger in GW1 was the most overbalanced overpowering griefing pos I ever played against with the assassin coming in a very close 2nd. Both classes are wimpy loser I can't play anything else because I don't like getting pounded types. Both classes the most griefing classes in the game. Just look at that assassin invulernable build they made so they could farm without fear until Anet finally did nerf it some but still not enough to ruin it.

Hurray for nerfing rangers and mesmers. I'm all for it and welcome all nerfings to their death.

[Perm Shadow Form]

st_clouds, on 20 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

One other thing in GW1, everyone had a tunnel vision, pigeon-holed into their archetypical roles.

Eg. Warriors chase, monks heal, rangers spike etc.

There's no nuance to playing your toon. In GW1 if you're a warrior and you don't get healed enough it's always the monk's fault, coz all your bars 1-8 is full of burst skills (except for the res signet). The only time when it's not the monk's fault is when you over-extend.

No. You obviously didn't play GW1. Or if you did you were one of those awful players who didn't know how to build a efficient build.

[Ritualist]

st_clouds, on 20 February 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

Of course if you over generalize everything ends up being the same. If you wanna take it like that, GW1 was also all about damage. PvP's all about who kills who at the end of the day.

That's the problem, isn't it? All these games are about killing the foe, so how does one go about it? Does one force roles onto the players, creating quite different experiences when players play those roles or does one accept that damage is everything and provide just that?
There's not a right or wrong answer here, each path has its advantages but it also has its flaws: and in GW2 this shows as classes pretty much only differing in lore. I mean, if they didn't, they couldn't be as easily interchangeable.

Dasviidonja, on 21 February 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

ranger rant

The problem wasn't the ranger, the problem was that you were playing RA.

[raspberry jam]

st_clouds, on 20 February 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

This. Combat in GW1 was boring. It was very rock, paper, scissor-ish. If you bring the wrong skill, you're toast. You also must keep the same skillset match to match. And there're only 8 of them. So it was only a matter of time before you meet your counter. So lame.

You had 64 slots in GW1, not 8.

Playing for the team vs. being an egoist was the main difference between a good and a bad player in GW1.

[Di-Dorval]

GW2 would have had a better skill system if they had stick to the original idea of having traits affect skills in a major way.

Imo just remove skill channeling and GW1 is a much better system.

And the holy trinity wasnt has important has people imply in GW1.. there was lots of hybrid builds floating around and a normal party didn't needed a rigid structure (compared to other MMOs). Though it was vital in harder content unless it was a speedrun/solo thing.

Making my hero party in GW1 was awesome. Has a warrior having all my dudes buff me until a simple attack killed everything around was great.

Edited by Di-Dorval, 26 February 2013 - 10:18 PM.

[Fenice_86]

I agree with the guys saying it's a side step, not forward nor backward.

GW2 system is much more "action", dynamic and easier to understand... it ends up being boring, too simple and hardly customizable

GW1 is more like a "chess gamestyle" more static, more strategies, defined roles and reward players who use their brain better, not their fingers/eyes

it's just... different.
And in my personal opinion, i preferred GW1's style... maybe they'll add something of it soon or later in GW2 too... (give us more skills!!)

[Fenice_86]

st_clouds, on 20 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

One other thing in GW1, everyone had a tunnel vision, pigeon-holed into their archetypical roles.

Eg. Warriors chase, monks heal, rangers spike etc.

There's no nuance to playing your toon. In GW1 if you're a warrior and you don't get healed enough it's always the monk's fault, coz all your bars 1-8 is full of burst skills (except for the res signet). The only time when it's not the monk's fault is when you over-extend.

Bunny Thumper, Ranger Toucher, SF Tank Ele, Infuser Ele, Bomber Necro, Healer Necro, Smiter Monk, Bonder Monk, Spiker Ritu, SF Tank Sin, HH Warrior and a few other friends say /HELLO.

[Resolve]

I love the dodge mechanic and PvE wise the combat is definitely better but I preferred GW1's PvP. All the different builds and team comps was good fun. I also loved healing and spiking so there's that as well.

[st_clouds]

raspberry jam, on 21 February 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

You had 64 slots in GW1, not 8.

Playing for the team vs. being an egoist was the main difference between a good and a bad player in GW1.

Then I have 200 slots in GW2, not 10.

This is a game. I want to get in and have fun. Not theorycraft in forums, or spend hours building the "right" group instead of playing the game.

[st_clouds]

Fenice_86, on 21 February 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Bunny Thumper, Ranger Toucher, SF Tank Ele, Infuser Ele, Bomber Necro, Healer Necro, Smiter Monk, Bonder Monk, Spiker Ritu, SF Tank Sin, HH Warrior and a few other friends say /HELLO.

Dude a lot of those were gimmick! They died a long time before GW2 ever came around.

One other thing that was crappy in GW1, we had hexes and we had condition, even when they both did the same exact thing. Except that to remove hex, you need hex removal, to remove condition you need condition removal. Those kinds of things did nothing for gameplay except to make it turn again into a glorified game of rock paper scissors.

Let me repeat, hexes and conditions were REDUNDANT gameplay mechanics that did nothing to enrich the experience except to turn it into a game of rock paper scissors.

Contrast that we with GW2, where you have all those elements plus some actual new mechanics, that's unique. Not just copying the same effect and providing different counters. Eg. you have dodging, cloaking, stealthing, teleporting, weapon swapping, and much much more. Plus more diversity in runes/upgrades besides making your character hit harder.

[Ritualist]

st_clouds, on 21 February 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

Dude a lot of those were gimmick! They died a long time before GW2 ever came around.

One other thing that was crappy in GW1, we had hexes and we had condition, even when they both did the same exact thing. Except that to remove hex, you need hex removal, to remove condition you need condition removal. Those kinds of things did nothing for gameplay except to make it turn again into a glorified game of rock paper scissors.

Let me repeat, hexes and conditions were REDUNDANT gameplay mechanics that did nothing to enrich the experience except to turn it into a game of rock paper scissors.

Contrast that we with GW2, where you have all those elements plus some actual new mechanics, that's unique. Not just copying the same effect and providing different counters. Eg. you have dodging, cloaking, stealthing, teleporting, weapon swapping, and much much more. Plus more diversity in runes/upgrades besides making your character hit harder.

While GW1 provided us with more diversity than we can see in GW2, it also introduced a TON of REALLY dumb ideas.
Interestingly enough, despite the reduction of diversity, GW2 still managed to introduce a TON of REALLY dumb ideas (a few of which you conveniently listed above).

Both games are flawed.

[El Duderino]

st_clouds, on 21 February 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

Then I have 200 slots in GW2, not 10.

This is a game. I want to get in and have fun. Not theorycraft in forums, or spend hours building the "right" group instead of playing the game.

You don't have 200 slots in GW2. How did you come up with that?

Also, you weren't required to theorycraft in forums, some did, some didn't. It was a personal choice.

You don't think people right now are theorycrafting in forums about the best setups for armor, runes, gear, skills in GW2? They are. Just wait. And as content gets harder, it will be come more selective. You simply can't get around this.

st_clouds, on 21 February 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

Dude a lot of those were gimmick! They died a long time before GW2 ever came around.

One other thing that was crappy in GW1, we had hexes and we had condition, even when they both did the same exact thing. Except that to remove hex, you need hex removal, to remove condition you need condition removal. Those kinds of things did nothing for gameplay except to make it turn again into a glorified game of rock paper scissors.

Let me repeat, hexes and conditions were REDUNDANT gameplay mechanics that did nothing to enrich the experience except to turn it into a game of rock paper scissors.

Contrast that we with GW2, where you have all those elements plus some actual new mechanics, that's unique. Not just copying the same effect and providing different counters. Eg. you have dodging, cloaking, stealthing, teleporting, weapon swapping, and much much more. Plus more diversity in runes/upgrades besides making your character hit harder.

Gimmick does not mean it wasn't a viable build. All of the builds he mentioned worked. Gimmicks are just a product of imbalance. Some would suggest that GW2 needs balancing as well - so your argument is moot.

Also, there were lots of hexes that didn't make your red bar go down. Diversion was probably the best hex in the game in PvP and it did nothing to red bars and there isn't a condition like it.

If you would have read this thread more carefully, you would know that MANY of GW2's mechanics are simplified versions of GW1 mechanics.

Dodge is an easier way to kite.

Stealthing and cloaking were already in GW1. See the skill shadow form. I can provide others if necessary.

Teleporting was already in the game. See assassins.

Weapon swapping has been simplified from 4 slots that poeple who were good at the game used to 2 slots that are simply just a part of the game because it is easier.

Edited by Leyana, 22 February 2013 - 01:51 AM.
Let's not quote war.

[Feathermoore]

st_clouds, on 21 February 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

snip

Only one of those builds is really considerable as a "gimmick" and pretty much all of them lasted for years. GW as a whole ended long before GW2 came out and those builds were played past the "unofficial end" of GW. A build being an interesting combination of a primary/secondary that utilizes the secondary skills with the primary attribute of the primary does not a gimmick make. The game was designed so you could do that.

Conditions and hexes were not redundant. The issue with them was that the removal skills for hexes just plain sucked for a long time. The power creep from Factions and NF ramped up the feasibility of front loading hexes and increased the number of "cover hexes" while the hex removal skills didn't really get any better. Some hexes could have their effects mirrored by conditions (backfire, empathy, blurred vision, deep freeze, and the like) but others just plain can't. You can hardly classify diversion, wastrel's worry, spinal shivers, malign intervention, or rising bile as conditions and GW2 just can't duplicate the functions of these skills.

My opinion on the matter? GW2 went sideways. Sadly, by going sideways they effectively went backwards because they failed to further develop from previous systems. GW2 is a hack and slash. That doesn't mean I don't get any enjoyment out of it, or that it can't possibly ever challenge me (currently it is too easy but that can be fixed). It is just the defining feature of the combat. It isn't anything new or special. GW was much more dependent on doing a certain action at a certain time and managing resources. It was said a lot in the past and I wish I could come up with some other comparison, but GW was a real time version of Magic. GW2 didn't develop anything from GW's combat. It just completely hopped to a separate game type.

This disappointed a lot of fans. GW2 lost the depth that GW had. It greatly decreased the barrier of entry to start playing, but lost the flair (in my mind).

So it isn't a step backwards, but it is a loss. It isn't like the combat is worse. It is just less interesting.


Off topic, but there were a couple comments here about the number of skills GW had that were useless. I only went through the Ele skills (because no way am I taking the time to go through them all), but of the prophecies/core skills all but a single skill (iron mist) saw use on a regular basis. I went through every Ele skill, and only about 12 of them I had never used in a serious PvP build and with only 10ish more that I would say I only used a dozen times. Percentage wise, GW2 has more useless/niche only skills (at least on the Ele) than GW had at release and the % of viable skills GW had was way higher than people go on about. This actually surprised me.

Edited by Feathermoore, 21 February 2013 - 06:58 PM.
I knew necrotic intervention wasn't the name of that skill.

[Elcee]

st_clouds, on 21 February 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

Dude a lot of those were gimmick! They died a long time before GW2 ever came around.

One other thing that was crappy in GW1, we had hexes and we had condition, even when they both did the same exact thing. Except that to remove hex, you need hex removal, to remove condition you need condition removal. Those kinds of things did nothing for gameplay except to make it turn again into a glorified game of rock paper scissors.

Let me repeat, hexes and conditions were REDUNDANT gameplay mechanics that did nothing to enrich the experience except to turn it into a game of rock paper scissors.

Are you telling me skills like Rising Bile were redundant because we had conditions? Or that it would have been better to compress like the entire Water Magic line of snares into Cripple or Spiteful Spirit/Empathy/Backfire into Confusion?

Again, a lot of Build Wars came into play because A)Anet didn't know what the ass they were doing and B)The game had become so complex.

Feathermoore, on 21 February 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Off topic, but there were a couple comments here about the number of skills GW had that were useless. I only went through the Ele skills (because no way am I taking the time to go through them all), but of the prophecies/core skills all but a single skill (iron mist) saw use on a regular basis. I went through every Ele skill, and only about 12 of them I had never used in a serious PvP build and with only 10ish more that I would say I only used a dozen times. Percentage wise, GW2 has more useless/niche only skills (at least on the Ele) than GW had at release and the % of viable skills GW had was way higher than people go on about. This actually surprised me.

Yeah, like I detailed earlier, for all the people who say GW1 didn't have a lot of useful skills, it sure had a lot of useful skills. Also, even Iron Mist saw usage, but only in a small number of builds(read: Invoke spike).

Edited by Elcee, 21 February 2013 - 06:56 PM.

[st_clouds]

I dunno I still like GW2 better though, to each their own I guess.

It may not be as deep, esp because 5/10 skills are already pre-selected for you, but it's a lot more fun. And that's what I look for in a game.

Very much liking how dynamic the combat has become. Being able to kite while invoking long cast skills is much more fun. In GW1 you had to stop and become interrupt magnet. GW1 just feels so archaic and ancient in comparison to GW2. It's kinda like saying turn based games requires deeper, more strategic thinking, eg. chess, but where're those games now? They're practically gone, because they're no fun, however deep you make them to be.

But yeah FUN > deep in my book. Part of the reason why RPG is losing ground to FPS because RPG just got too dorky or "deep" if you prefer it. Most of us aren't looking for depth, we want to jump in, and have fun, that's it. Not to the level of Angry Bird, but it's in the same vein.

Same thing with sports, most of us aren't playing sports because we're aspiring olympians. We just want to have fun and hang out. GW1 wasn't like that. PvP required a lot of dedication and was choke full of elitist snobs.

Edited by st_clouds, 21 February 2013 - 07:22 PM.

[DeConstruct]

Personally I dont really like GW2's combat system. At any given time as a class you only really have one or two main abilities and one or two situational abilities. The rest is just fluff in my opinion. I'm missing more indepth customization of skills and stats to bring more diversity.

I think the dodge mechanic is horrendous. Not only is it awful to just see people rolling around, but it tends to operate as a crutch and gimmick. It is completely arbitrary just how much you can dodge. I would much rather see it as an integral stat people choose to increase in order to become more defensive. The trade-off being offense.

With the number of skills being relatively low I expected much, much more from the combo mechanics. However they are hopelessly weak and terribly situational. I had expected them to be an integral part of strategy in PvE as well as PvP. Take a game like Dota2, seems strange to compare to, but virtually each of around 100 heroes has only four abilities. Four. The key part to win there is to strategize, augment the skills you want to, setting up combos and utilizing each strengths and weaknesses by assigning different roles. The number of roles in GW2? One. Everyone's doing the same damn thing. In a sense I feel this is much more like a multiplayer shooter, where the enemy you face only differs in the type of gun he carries or the powerup he just picked up. The sPvP maps dont lend themselves to anything more complex either. It's just a kill tally with some nodes to capture. I'd draw another comparison with shooters but I think you get the point.

So in conclusion what the game needs - in my eyes - is much more build diversity, reward for careful skill/role combination rather than just zerg.