249 replies to this topic

[Ritualist]

Dirame, on 19 February 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Accessible.... Shallow... I believe those are different things, right?

They sure are.
And I don't think we are talking about accessible PvP.

[raspberry jam]

Lordkrall, on 19 February 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

And we really had to think when doing more or less anything outside of high-end PvP in GW1 right?
It is not like people used gimmick builds and simply pressed skills when they got off cd and clearing more or less everything that way.
Oh, wait... that is EXACTLY how it was in GW1.

If you gimmicked it's your own fault. Getting together a team of friends and play some fun balanced or just random byob (hell I recall taking and holding HoH with a non-IWAY pet warrior and a monk who had Stone Daggers in the team) was entirely possible. If you couldn't pull it off it was just because you were not good at the game.

[El Duderino]

Lordkrall, on 19 February 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

And we really had to think when doing more or less anything outside of high-end PvP in GW1 right?
It is not like people used gimmick builds and simply pressed skills when they got off cd and clearing more or less everything that way.
Oh, wait... that is EXACTLY how it was in GW1.

Um, so you are complaining that people found easier ways to play the game in GW1 and then ANet made GW2 which basically relies on the fact that EVERYTHING is easier?

I mean, that is the whole point of GW2 - it is noob friendly, champion for the casual player.

So, what exactly are you trying to get at in your point? If you are saying that GW2 combat is more difficult than GW1, by ANet's own design, you are wrong.

[Lordkrall]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Um, so you are complaining that people found easier ways to play the game in GW1 and then ANet made GW2 which basically relies on the fact that EVERYTHING is easier?

I mean, that is the whole point of GW2 - it is noob friendly, champion for the casual player.

So, what exactly are you trying to get at in your point? If you are saying that GW2 combat is more difficult than GW1, by ANet's own design, you are wrong.

No, I am simply saying that people that are shouting about how GW1 was much more advanced and complex are incorrect, since quite clearly it was very possible to simply stand and press buttons after cd over and over again. Something that those people claim is new in GW2.

[El Duderino]

Lordkrall, on 19 February 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

No, I am simply saying that people that are shouting about how GW1 was much more advanced and complex are incorrect, since quite clearly it was very possible to simply stand and press buttons after cd over and over again. Something that those people claim is new in GW2.

Well, that's like your opinion, man.

And it's wrong.

GW2, by design, is less complex than GW1. BY ANET'S OWN INTENTIONAL DESIGN.

You don't have nearly the same amount of skills, and you can't even pick half the ones you do have!

How is that MORE complex? The only thing they added was some dumb dodge mechanic.

What they took away was MUCH MUCH more, as has been detailed on this page.

So, please, in some succint intelligent way, please explain the ways in which GW2 is more complex than GW1 instead of just doing your fanboy trolling act that everyone sees right through.

[typographie]

lmaonade, on 19 February 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

it isn't a step backwards because it's a different entity altogether, they don't walk the same tangent

This, entirely.

I'm being taken out of context a bit in the OP. In that quote I was responding to someone who suggested in another thread that after quickly reaching level 20 in GW1, it was all tactics and skill from then on.

I argued that it was not; if you wanted tactics and skill, that GW2 did that particular aspect of MMO combat much better. There was plenty I loved about GW1, but it wasn't trying to do the same things GW2 is and I don't think this thread is making a fair comparison.

If what you really want is GW1, why would you presume to get the same experience in another game?

Edited by typographie, 19 February 2013 - 04:01 PM.

[Norn Osprey]

rukia, on 19 February 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

Absolutely yes, a HUGE step backwards with the complete removal of healers and big pool of abilities. Let's face it, we all spam the same few buttons while not even thinking, and we'll never need to change our builds. The constant 1hit instagibs on bosses is a slap in my face, dunno about you but it's the laziest combat design I've ever seen. So goddamn boring it makes me drool at the screen.

No. Most players "spam a few buttons while not even thinking" and their lack luster performance can easily be seen in-game. I can't count how many times, per night, I see a player use a knockback skill, on a mob that has melee around it and/or standing in AOE, only to knock the mob away from more total dps only to justify that players need to press to an attack that was ready instead of playing smart.

You say, we never need to change our build and that its lazy. Um, that is how this game is designed. We dont have access to 1200+ skills. So the Devs -can't- build encounters with that in mind. That isn't lazy. That is being aware of your product.

I do agree that OneShot mechanics are stupid and need to be changed. Guess what, *gasp* change was announced and is in the works.



I flatly disagree. GW1 combat was -extremely- bland. Having played healers and tanks in other games, I am completely for their removal. Too many drama majors in those high demand classes. Sink or swim on your own. Tired of being punished or held up because of one person wanting to cause a scene.

GW1 was so easy, (how easy was it?) It was so easy, all anyone needed was a web browser to PvX build site, the wiki or YouTube to get a detailed build spec for you and your entire team of Heroes. Ding, mission completed, area cleared. Whew.  *wipes sweat away*

GW1 combat a challenge?  Pleeeeease. That is such a huge bleeping stretch of the imagination. We had NPCs helpers, helping us kill other NPCs -- that's how easy it was. It barely needed any player interaction.

It's usually the case that GW1 lovers point out specs and builds but rarely mention changing armor or having different armor. In GW2 I have multiple armors for different reasons. In GW1 I had multiple weapons be rarely ever actually -needed- to use them. Armor, along with traits and weapons makes up our build in GW2. Not just the out dated dual class system and 1200+ abilities. Many of those abilties were nigh worthless. Factions had doubles of already existing abilities and doubles of the faction abilities. Wasted space in a database.

Not that GW2 is perfect. I miss having 4 weapon sets to swap too, since I would actually use them in GW2 unlike GW1. However, I believe I will be in the small minority that thinks GW2 is superior to GW1.

Edited by Norn Osprey, 19 February 2013 - 04:03 PM.

[Lordkrall]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Well, that's like your opinion, man.

And it's wrong.

GW2, by design, is less complex than GW1. BY ANET'S OWN INTENTIONAL DESIGN.

You don't have nearly the same amount of skills, and you can't even pick half the ones you do have!

How is that MORE complex? The only thing they added was some dumb dodge mechanic.

What they took away was MUCH MUCH more, as has been detailed on this page.

So, please, in some succint intelligent way, please explain the ways in which GW2 is more complex than GW1 instead of just doing your fanboy trolling act that everyone sees right through.

I love how you time and time again decides what people have said even when they have never said it.
I have NEVER said that GW2 is more complex than GW1, and I simply stated that GW1 is not more advanced and complex than GW2.

Everything is not black or white. Just because it is not better does not mean it must be worse.

Edited by Lordkrall, 19 February 2013 - 04:00 PM.

[El Duderino]

Lordkrall, on 19 February 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

I love how you time and time again decides what people have said even when they have never said it.
I have NEVER said that GW2 is more complex than GW1, and I simply stated that GW1 is not more advanced and complex than GW2.

Everything is not black or white. Just because it is not better does not mean it must be worse.

So they are equally complex and advanced?

I mean, you have three options, kind of like numbers. Either A > B, B > A, or B=A. There is not really anything else.

To say that GW1 was NOT more advanced than GW2, you take away one of the greater than equations and are left with either B > A or B=A.

So which is it?

Edited by El Duderino, 19 February 2013 - 04:04 PM.

[typographie]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

I mean, you have three options, kind of like numbers. Either A > B, B > A, or B=A. There is not really anything else.

You're forgetting the most important relevant one.

B ≠ A

Edited by typographie, 19 February 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[Specialz]

Lordkrall, on 19 February 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

And we really had to think when doing more or less anything outside of high-end PvP in GW1 right?
It is not like people used gimmick builds and simply pressed skills when they got off cd and clearing more or less everything that way.
Oh, wait... that is EXACTLY how it was in GW1.

It's not like you could give your NPC heroes Gimmick build and watch them play the game for you either. Any game where it can play itself, isn't really a game. In some ways, gw1 was nothing more than a glorified bot game.

[rukia]

Norn Osprey, on 19 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

snip

First, I never even said GW1 combat was challenging, so I have no clue why you're spouting off with that when quoting me. However, it was far more challenging than anything I've seen so far in GW2. Also took half a brain to put a build together. Sure, pvx was there but not everyone used it, not all of us were drones bro. I've spent probably close to half of my play time in GW1 making builds, because it was fun and took a break from simply killing things. I loved using my head to get a good combination off.

By a few skills I literally meant it, you use 1 to 3 skills in GW2 constantly and save the rest for 'situations', I never said I mash all my buttons without thinking. You can even get away with spamming all your skills, doesn't matter just dodge away and kite, wait for skills to come off cd. There is no resource you need to manage, no nothing really.

In the end, GW2 combat is boring.. that's pretty much the general consensus from what I've seen. Feel free to prove me wrong...

Quote

You say, we never need to change our build and that its lazy. Um, that is how this game is designed

Exactly. It's designed to be lazy, never to use your brain in preparation of combat.

[stormofstatic]

Lordkrall, on 19 February 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

And we really had to think when doing more or less anything outside of high-end PvP in GW1 right?
It is not like people used gimmick builds and simply pressed skills when they got off cd and clearing more or less everything that way.
Oh, wait... that is EXACTLY how it was in GW1.

Not sure u played before heroes, but walk up to an Aoe ele boss in factions and watch your henchmen wipe if u don't stop the spells, try doing THK with hench like most of us did back in the day and dare say we didn't have to think outside of pvp, also have u tried to kill the bonedragon east of ToA really is faceroll ...  there is no random mob in gw2 that makes u work/think hard enough. I spent much of my time in gw2 typing to others while in combat as it was getting that boring. The "gimmick" pve builds only really came with the last game and the end of gw1 for me in EoTn. Though PvP came to its end for me with iway. before EoTN I cant rember any LF this or that other than a SS or MM necro.

[Lordkrall]

stormofstatic, on 19 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Not sure u played before heroes, but walk up to an Aoe ele boss in factions and watch your henchmen wipe if u don't stop the spells, try doing THK with hench like most of us did back in the day and dare say we didn't have to think outside of pvp, also have u tried to kill the bonedragon east of ToA really is faceroll ...  there is no random mob in gw2 that makes u work/think hard enough. I spent much of my time in gw2 typing to others while in combat as it was getting that boring. The "gimmick" pve builds only really came with the last game and the end of gw1 for me in EoTn. Though PvP came to its end for me with iway. before EoTN I cant rember any LF this or that other than a SS or MM necro.

I played GW1 since about a month after release of Prophecies, and yes, it was hard in some cases, but in the later years it was simply stand around pushing buttons when cd was done and win. Those people that argue about this seems to talk about GW1 as a whole and not only the first year or so after release.

[El Duderino]

Norn Osprey, on 19 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

No. Most players "spam a few buttons while not even thinking" and their lack luster performance can easily be seen in-game. I can't count how many times, per night, I see a player use a knockback skill, on a mob that has melee around it and/or standing in AOE, only to knock the mob away from more total dps only to justify that players need to press to an attack that was ready instead of playing smart.

So, you don't spam your skills and wait for recharge? What do you do instead, run around and hope no one catched you?

The reason people complain about spamming skills, is because that is really all the skills let you do. There is no mana pool, there is just recharge. So, it is natural to spam skills upon recharge - if you want to accomplish anything - because the only way to accomplish anything is to use your skills. Not to mention the fact that most of the skills in this game are designed around inflicting damage, when in GW1, there was way more utility to choose from which made things more interesting.

Norn Osprey, on 19 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

You say, we never need to change our build and that its lazy. Um, that is how this game is designed. We dont have access to 1200+ skills. So the Devs -can't- build encounters with that in mind. That isn't lazy. That is being aware of your product.

I do agree that OneShot mechanics are stupid and need to be changed. Guess what, *gasp* change was announced and is in the works.

Gasp! Why didn't ANet do these things from the beginning! Gasp! How long is it going to take to implement? Gasp! What if more players decide to leave instead of waiting.

Gasp! Why do you feel the need to use the expression "gasp" other than to make a condescending gesture?

Norn Osprey, on 19 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

I flatly disagree. GW1 combat was -extremely- bland. Having played healers and tanks in other games, I am completely for their removal. Too many drama majors in those high demand classes. Sink or swim on your own. Tired of being punished or held up because of one person wanting to cause a scene.

So, why do you play MMO's if you clearly don't like playing with, and relying on, other people?

Personally, I feel that making people rely upon eachother is -extremely- NOT bland as complared to single player content that requires no actual contact or communication with others.

Norn Osprey, on 19 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

GW1 was so easy, (how easy was it?) It was so easy, all anyone needed was a web browser to PvX build site, the wiki or YouTube to get a detailed build spec for you and your entire team of Heroes. Ding, mission completed, area cleared. Whew.  *wipes sweat away*

GW1 combat a challenge?  Pleeeeease. That is such a huge bleeping stretch of the imagination. We had NPCs helpers, helping us kill other NPCs -- that's how easy it was. It barely needed any player interaction.

People seem to miss the fact that, again, BY INTENTIONAL DESIGN, GW2 is supposed to be easier than GW1, so your point is moot.

Having the right build did not make playing GW1 easier, (except with the advent of Ursanway, which was a step towards GW2 easy is better routine). GW1 was better in people's OPINION, because it required more skill than build. Part of the reason for this was because you NEEDED utility in order to survive. Mesmers, interrupt rangers, healers, etc. all had a place in helping your team win.

In GW2 you basically have given up most of the utility for damage and the content is created around that fact. Which makes things easier.

I will say it again, GW2, by ANet's own intentional design, is easier and more noob/casual friendly than GW1. If you disagree, then you are flat out wrong.

Norn Osprey, on 19 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

It's usually the case that GW1 lovers point out specs and builds but rarely mention changing armor or having different armor. In GW2 I have multiple armors for different reasons. In GW1 I had multiple weapons be rarely ever actually -needed- to use them. Armor, along with traits and weapons makes up our build in GW2. Not just the out dated dual class system and 1200+ abilities. Many of those abilties were nigh worthless. Factions had doubles of already existing abilities and doubles of the faction abilities. Wasted space in a database.

You obviously didn't play GW1, because I had multiple armor sets for all of my characters. Certainly, I couldn't roll with a healing monk in prot monk armor. I also had about 10 shields for all of my casters that I swapped out based on the damage reduction I needed for the situation.

Just because you either 1) didn't play GW1 or 2) didn't know how to use these mechanics in GW1 doesn't mean they didn't exist. They were just a bit more subtle instead of laid out in your face BY DESIGN to make the game easier for casuals and noobs.

Norn Osprey, on 19 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

Not that GW2 is perfect. I miss having 4 weapon sets to swap too, since I would actually use them in GW2 unlike GW1. However, I believe I will be in the small minority that thinks GW2 is superior to GW1.

I honestly don't think that GW2 combat system is atrocious. But to say that GW2 is superior to GW1's based on making some mechanics dumbed down and easier is grasping at air.

We have dodging which replaces kiting. Dodging is easier and less complex than kiting.

We have a mechanic designed around weapon swapping two weapon which replaces the 4 weapon slots used by GW1 and makes things easier and less complex.

We have less skills, premade skill bars and less utility - which makes things easier and less complex.

What do we have that, specifically, makes things MORE complex or harder? Specific examples would be nice.

typographie, on 19 February 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

You're forgetting the most important relevant one.

B ≠ A

Give me an example where A != B while failing to account for A>B or B>A?

[fatality39]

The combat is fluid.  However, it's way too simplistic and made me realize how much better a trinity class system is versus the dungeon dodge zergfest in GW2

[El Duderino]

Specialz, on 19 February 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

It's not like you could give your NPC heroes Gimmick build and watch them play the game for you either. Any game where it can play itself, isn't really a game. In some ways, gw1 was nothing more than a glorified bot game.

I 100% agree that Heroes were the beginning of the end for GW1 and a complete disaster. But, they were designed for people that wanted a way to do single player mode - which is a step towards GW2, not a step away.

Not to mention that if it was a glorified bot game, I should have been able to leave my computer and come back to clearing an instance or something. Too bad that never happened on a good day. In fact, it was difficult for your heroes to do anything on their own without supervision.

[stormofstatic]

Lordkrall, on 19 February 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

I played GW1 since about a month after release of Prophecies, and yes, it was hard in some cases, but in the later years it was simply stand around pushing buttons when cd was done and win. Those people that argue about this seems to talk about GW1 as a whole and not only the first year or so after release.

Only in EoTN when anet killed gw1 by saying that's it, no more content/xpacs. so who really cared about PvE by then soon as Anet said that I left for WoW

[rukia]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

I 100% agree that Heroes were the beginning of the end for GW1 and a complete disaster. But, they were designed for people that wanted a way to do single player mode - which is a step towards GW2, not a step away.

Not to mention that if it was a glorified bot game, I should have been able to leave my computer and come back to clearing an instance or something. Too bad that never happened on a good day. In fact, it was difficult for your heroes to do anything on their own without supervision.

Indeed, the level if micro-managing I did with my heroes made me an even better player too. It's almost like playing multiple characters at once, and I enjoy every minute of it.

[El Duderino]

typographie, on 19 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

If what you really want is GW1, why would you presume to get the same experience in another game?

I dunno, when I read the first Lord of the Rings, why did I expect the 2nd one to be like the first?

Maybe because when you name some XYZ 1 and then come out with a XYZ 2, you expect them to be similar?

Maybe, at a bare minimum, you expect them to do the same things well that that did in the last game and build upon the last game while addressing the weaknesses?

Or, hell, maybe its because that's what ANet told us to expect:

Source: http://wiki.guildwar...nifesto_trailer

ANet's Manifesto Trailer:

Quote

Mike O'Brien: "We founded ArenaNet to innovate, so Guild Wars 2 is our opportunity to question everything, to make a game that defies existing conventions. If you love MMOs, you'll want to check out Guild Wars 2, and if you hate MMOs, you'll really want to check out Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars 2 takes everything you love about Guild Wars 1 and puts it into a persistent world that's got more active combat, a fully-branching, personalized storyline, a new event system to get people playing together, and still no monthly fees."

Daniel Dociu: "The look of Guild Wars 2 is stylized. We're going for a painterly, illustrated aesthetic. Everything in our world feels handcrafted and artisanal. We treat our environments as if they are characters themselves."   

Colin Johanson: "When you look at the art in our game, you say 'Wow, that's visually stunning. I've never seen anything like that before,' and then when you play the combat in our game, you say 'Wow, that's incredible. I've never seen anything like that.' In most games, you go out, and you have really fun tasks, occasionally, that you get to do, and the rest of the game is this boring grind to get to the fun stuff. 'I swung a sword. I swung a sword again. Hey! I swung it again.' That's great. We just don't want players to grind in Guild Wars 2. No one enjoys that. No one finds it fun. We want to change the way that people view combat."

Ree Soesbee: "As a structure, the MMO has lost the ability to make the player feel like a hero. Everybody around you is doing the same thing you are doing. The boss you just killed respawns ten minutes later. It doesn't care that I'm there."

Colin Johanson: "You'll get quest text that tells you 'I'm being attacked by these horrible things,' and it's not actually happening. In the game world, these horrible centaurs are standing around in a field, and you get a quest step that says 'Go kill ten centaurs.' We don't think that's OK. You see what's happening. You see centaurs running to the trading post, knocking the walls down, burning and killing the merchants."

Please read the bolded parts above and maybe you too will see why many are so disenchanted by what we were promised and what was delivered.

I don't think anyone here hates ANet or Guild Wars. We all love it. We just want it to be better. And ANet took a lot of things they did that set them apart from other MMO's that made them great, and threw them out the window for GW2.

rukia, on 19 February 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Indeed, the level if micro-managing I did with my heroes made me an even better player too. It's almost like playing multiple characters at once, and I enjoy every minute of it.

QFT

Edited by El Duderino, 19 February 2013 - 04:39 PM.

[Doctor Overlord]

ArenaNet could have copied GW1.  That would have been the safe and easy thing to do.

Then these forums would be filled with people complaining about how they just copied their previous game and didn't do anything new.  There would have been justified comparison that they were no better than the other MMO developers that just clone each other, only instead of other people's idea they just cloned their own.

ArenaNet took a risk doing something different in the area of AAA MMOs where the risks are measured in millions of dollars. I think that deserves applause.   There will always be people who don't want to see change and want what they're comfortable with what was done in the past.   The MMO genre is full of developers who follow that path, ArenaNet didn't need to turn into another one .

Regarding the OP's question, I prefer GW2's combat for a variety of reasons.   The most basic is that I'm not constantly paying attention to little icons waiting to hit the interrupt needed to keep a PvE fight from becoming a tedious snoozefest. GW1 was about preparing for combat, doing research and making builds.  The actual act of PvE combat was some of the least entertaining I have seen in any game, MMO or otherwise.  

PvP was different but then it always is.   Going against a real player made GW1's system more entertaining, but the PvE needed serious work.   I find GW2's combat entertaining in either PvE or PvP.

Edited by Doctor Overlord, 19 February 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[typographie]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Give me an example where A != B while failing to account for A>B or B>A?

I happen to think A > B on certain individual issues in both games, but I don't really want to get wrapped up in an argument over which game is "better" because that is an oversimplified caveman argument and it does a huge disservice to both games.

You've taken me entirely out of context in the quote in your OP—I wasn't even talking to you in that quote. I was responding to a very specific comment and I did not really need you to reply to it at all, especially not like this. I was not attacking GW1 as a whole. You can have your childish argument if you want, but I don't want to be your straw man.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

Maybe, at a bare minimum, you expect them to do the same things well that that did in the last game and build upon the last game while addressing the weaknesses?

Not everyone may agree on what things they did well in the last game, though. Someone's going to be upset, and its going to be the ones least-able to keep their expectations realistic. They DID build on some of the things that went well with the last game. They also trashed some others. I never once said I wasn't disappointed in some things as well, but its a different game and I can still go play GW1 if I want to.

Edited by typographie, 19 February 2013 - 05:23 PM.

[El Duderino]

typographie, on 19 February 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

I happen to think A > B on certain individual issues in both games, but I don't really want to get wrapped up in an argument over which game is "better" because that is an oversimplified caveman argument and it does a huge disservice to both games.

You've taken me entirely out of context in the quote in your OP—I wasn't even talking to you in that quote. I was responding to a very specific comment and I did not really need you to reply to it at all, especially not like this. I was not attacking GW1 as a whole. You can have your childish argument if you want, but I don't want to be your straw man.

So because you don't have an answer everything  is a caveman arguments and childish? Ya, that's so much more mature.

Perhaps if you don't want things taken out of context be careful how you word them because your post seems pretty straight forward. Pray tell what you mean to say as compared to what you did say.

typographie, on 19 February 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Not everyone may agree on what things they did well in the last game, though. Someone's going to be upset, and its going to be the ones least-able to keep their expectations realistic. They DID build on some of the things that went well with the last game. They also trashed some others. I never once said I wasn't disappointed in some things as well, but its a different game and I can still go play GW1 if I want to.

Specific examples would certainly help your argument. Stating a fact as fact without supporting evidence doesn't seem to move us very far forward in the conversation.

Of course it's hard when you previously asked why "you would presume to get the same experience in a different game?"

So what is it, is the experience similar or not? You seem to flip flop your responses without considering your previous stance.

[Ritualist]

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

ArenaNet could have copied GW1.  That would have been the safe and easy thing to do.

Come on, implementing "WoW"-rules into GW2 made it a MUCH safer game that it would have been had it been GW1 2.0.
I mean, the simple fact that GW1 isn't the GW we fell in love with years ago should tell you what's safe and easy.

[Dirame]

rukia, on 19 February 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

Exactly. It's designed to be lazy, never to use your brain in preparation of combat.

Maybe I've been playing the game wrong but as a Guardian I switch from Hammer and Staff to Sceptre/Focus and Sword/Shield depending whether I'm fighting a boss or mobs. Mobs need herding so they get hammer and Staff and bosses need blinding so they get S/F, S/S combo. Sometimes I just herd with the staff and switch to Sceptre.

I don't know what you guys are talking about though, the only people that don't use their brain in preparation for combat are those who don't know how to prepare in the first place.

[I'm Squirrel]

TBH. I like them both a lot.

The main problem I have with GW2's combat system is the lack of skills, spamming "1-2-3-4-5-6-7!" of the same exact skills gets so boring and stale after a short while.

IF ArenaNet made weapon skills customizable(adding 10, 20, or 30 skills to each weapon) along with adding a lot more utility skills (50 maximum) I would have no problem with it at all. Right now it's too basic, it's too cookie cutter, there's no skill/strategy on your combat builds specifically.

[typographie]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

So because you don't have an answer everything  is a caveman arguments and childish? Ya, that's so much more mature.

Perhaps if you don't want things taken out of context be careful how you word them because your post seems pretty straight forward. Pray tell what you mean to say as compared to what you did say.

Its a childish argument because you are trying to boil down two very deep, high-quality games full of nuanced components into BETTER and WORSE. That's something a child does. You may prefer one, but that's a bad basis for a serious discussion.

I've already said my piece, and anyone else can follow the links back to read what the actual discussion was. So frame me however you want, I guess.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

So what is it, is the experience similar or not? You seem to flip flop your responses without considering your previous stance.

Its similar in some ways, different in others. When you're taking an absolutist stance, it naturally appears as though no one else can make up their mind.

I avoided specifics because I don't really want to argue our opinions on them; its all pointless personal preference, and I do not care if you're happy with the game or not. There's a reason I ignored this thread until I noticed I had been called out in the OP.

Edited by unraveled, 19 February 2013 - 08:54 PM.
No name calling.

[Quartz]

I consider it a move forward since there aren't dedicated healers. I don't expect any game to be real for every game where mobs in PvE have always beat on a tank being healed really made me find the AI very silly and boring (not that AI is anywhere as good as human players in GW2).

I love the dodge mechanic since it gives an active element in combat. But above all the reason I prefer GW2 to GW1 is that they removed click to move. I could play GW1 for 3 days before giving up because I couldn't stand the combat system.

[Silent The Legend]

Norn Osprey, on 19 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

I flatly disagree. GW1 combat was -extremely- bland. Having played healers and tanks in other games, I am completely for their removal. Too many drama majors in those high demand classes. Sink or swim on your own. Tired of being punished or held up because of one person wanting to cause a scene.

GW1 was so easy, (how easy was it?) It was so easy, all anyone needed was a web browser to PvX build site, the wiki or YouTube to get a detailed build spec for you and your entire team of Heroes. Ding, mission completed, area cleared. Whew.  *wipes sweat away*

GW1 combat a challenge?  Pleeeeease. That is such a huge bleeping stretch of the imagination. We had NPCs helpers, helping us kill other NPCs -- that's how easy it was. It barely needed any player interaction.

First of all, I would like to point out that GW1's PvP was the most difficult PvP ever period. And this should tell you something.

But, if youre not convinced, I shall tell you a story...

I've always been a PvP player(Did a bit of PvE at the beginning, then I jumped in PvP). So, one day I say: "Lets finish this freaking Factions campaign once for all. And who the hell cares about builds and stuff, its PvE, LOLZ". Raisu Palace. I got roflstomped. Then I got roflstomped again. Then I had to ask a friend if he could complete the mission for me. For instance, if you dont care about the battle you get spiked in two seconds, and it wasnt even an HM dungeon or something. Even though I was pretty good at PvP I always had big big problems in PvE.

But, btw, cool story.

[El Duderino]

Silent The Legend, on 19 February 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

First of all, I would like to point out that GW1's PvP was the most difficult PvP ever period. And this should tell you something.

But, if youre not convinced, I shall tell you a story...

I've always been a PvP player(Did a bit of PvE at the beginning, then I jumped in PvP). So, one day I say: "Lets finish this freaking Factions campaign once for all. And who the hell cares about builds and stuff, its PvE, LOLZ". Raisu Palace. I got roflstomped. Then I got roflstomped again. Then I had to ask a friend if he could complete the mission for me. For instance, if you dont care about the battle you get spiked in two seconds, and it wasnt even an HM dungeon or something. Even though I was pretty good at PvP I always had big big problems in PvE.

But, btw, cool story.

Ha! I feel ya. I mostly PvP'ed as well, which is part of why I think there is such a disconnect in this thread.

PvE, at times, kicked my ass upside down and backwards.

Yes, it is easy to find the best optimal build online and copy it and win. But, isn't that inherently going to happen in any game? I mean we already have threads about people crying that groups only want certain classes and builds in them to optimize their chance to win.

PvE in GW1 was, at times and in certain places, insanely difficult. Certainly more difficult than many people here care to remember it.