372 replies to this topic

[El Duderino]

Moderator Edit: Please note that this thread is not about the definition of the word "role." Think of it as a play on words for impact as opposed to a misinterpretation of what "roleplay" means. The correct term is "Role-playing game" as in we are acting out a role. Get on with the discussion of the point instead of the play on words.


Whether I like it or not, I understand the reasons for getting rid of classes that are dependent on each other.

At the same time, I feel like it has taken the "role" out of "ole Playing Game".

The idea of different classes predates the holy trinity. It really has its basis in pen-and-paper RPGs where you actually rolled your class and your attributes.

Regardless of my personal feeling that the lack of really different classes takes away from the team play of the game - does it take away from the actual "role" in role play game?

Does the lack of diverse roles in GW2 make it less of an RPG (Role Playing Game) in your opinion?

Edited by Feathermoore, 04 March 2013 - 09:19 PM.
added mod note

[Myugen]

El Duderino, on 04 March 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

Whether I like it or not, I understand the reasons for getting rid of classes that are dependent on each other.

At the same time, I feel like it has taken the "role" out of "ole Playing Game".

The idea of different classes predates the holy trinity. It really has its basis in pen-and-paper RPGs where you actually rolled your class and your attributes.

Regardless of my personal feeling that the lack of really different classes takes away from the team play of the game - does it take away from the actual "role" in role play game?

Does the lack of diverse roles in GW2 make it less of an RPG (Role Playing Game) in your opinion?

No. There are still class roles, some are more support than others, situations, etc. No holy trinity needed in order to have roles.

[Little Bird]

There isn't a lack of diversity, so much as a lack of usefulness when the difficulty increases.

[astromarmot]

El Duderino, on 04 March 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

Whether I like it or not, I understand the reasons for getting rid of classes that are dependent on each other.

At the same time, I feel like it has taken the "role" out of "ole Playing Game".

The idea of different classes predates the holy trinity. It really has its basis in pen-and-paper RPGs where you actually rolled your class and your attributes.

Regardless of my personal feeling that the lack of really different classes takes away from the team play of the game - does it take away from the actual "role" in role play game?

Does the lack of diverse roles in GW2 make it less of an RPG (Role Playing Game) in your opinion?

I get what you're saying but of course it depends on how you define role...we are all but poor players that strut and fret our hour upon the stage...

Pigeonrole may not be a word, but perhaps it should be...as it seems GW2 offers the role to be less typecasting and more impromptu...

[El Duderino]

Myugen, on 04 March 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

No. There are still class roles, some are more support than others, situations, etc. No holy trinity needed in order to have roles.

But everyone can pretty much do the same thing. There isn't one thing one class can do that another can't.

Edited by Feathermoore, 05 March 2013 - 04:17 PM.
off topic

[matsif]

there are still roles, except all of them now are based around damage, so you no longer are dependent on finding someone to be a dedicated healer, dedicated control, dedicated tank, etc.

imo it's better than the trinity, as many times you could sit in GW1 for hours "glf monk" or "glf tank."  Now I can just grab a group (if I wanted to - I never pug anymore) of random classes and maybe have a small difference if any from an "ideal" speed run team assuming the players know what is going on.

[El Duderino]

astromarmot, on 04 March 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

I get what you're saying but of course it depends on how you define role...we are all but poor players that strut and fret our hour upon the stage...

Pigeonrole may not be a word, but perhaps it should be...as it seems GW2 offers the role to be less typecasting and more impromptu...

Perhaps my play on the word "Role" in Role Playing Game for the sake of a good title wasn't the best way to express my question.

I will try and reword it:

How do you feel about the abandonment of specific classes being able to do specific things other classes can't do - which was a natural part of old school pen and paper RPGs and which is lacking in GW2?

[El Duderino]

matsif, on 04 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

there are still roles, except all of them now are based around damage, so you no longer are dependent on finding someone to be a dedicated healer, dedicated control, dedicated tank, etc.

There is the illusion of roles, but since everything is interchangeable, they aren't any real defining differences.

Some may be able to do some thing better than others, but everyone can do the same thing.

Edited by Feathermoore, 04 March 2013 - 09:18 PM.
Removed deleted content

[I'm Squirrel]

It really does take the role out of RPG. Back in GW2, when I played an imbagon, it was my role to keep everyone alive, like a guardian(not GW2 guardian). If I weren't there, the party would crumble.

When I played WoW, as a warrior, it was my role to take on the toughest brute in the battlefield. Brawn vs Brawn, while my team backs me up. A mage wouldn't be able to take the severe slashes, bashes, and stuns of two 500lb ogres VS a warrior or paladin who is made for direct battles, like such.

In GW2, I feel like everybody is a placeholder. You really don't need a specific profession. You can faceroll every dungeon with 5 warriors, in fact, 5 warriors would probably be the most effective. No profession makes a game-changing difference, though some do, such as professions which deal constant poison. But really, the role of a profession, isn't enforced enough, or is too minor to feel like the profession. When I play my mesmer, who is my main, I feel like my REAL role IS the fricken timewarp + portals crap, and after those skills are used, i'm just back to a regular damage dealer.

I think the thief is a good example of not having a proper role, besides dealing constant poison. What does the thief really steal? What makes him a thief?... What role does he play in a group besides dealing damage? (every profession's job is dealing damage in GW2).

Edited by I'm Squirrel, 04 March 2013 - 07:12 PM.

[Lunacy Polish]

Duderino, you get into my noggin sometimes and crawl around in there and it's kind of creepy.

To really answer the question, I have to say yes out of intellectual honesty, but I need to make a lot of commentary why that doesn't necessarily mean the game's design is inherently good or bad.

The best way I can try to comment on this, not necessarily answer the question but comment on this, is to show you two pictures of what is typical, and what I thought GW2 had the potential to be, and what GW2 actually is.

Situation A - Normal MMO gameplay.  Your basic Holy Trinity Game.  I need not elaborate, but I will say the trinity isn't in and of itself bad, if you can make the Trinity interesting or more complex, it can work out just fine.

The big thing to note here is that everyone's capabilties are defined and quantified according to set axes relative to everyone else.  Big brawny sword guy can take the hits, but finger waggling pajama wearing skinny guy does all the cool stuff, and neither of them can ever do the other's "job" effectively.

The emphasis is on artificial mechanics like Armor values or damage values to separate people into rigid roles, definining everyone on these arbitrary axes.  Note however that a really good Holy Trinity game will borrow some aspects of the next situation.

Situation B - To me this is the ideal game: each profession or class brings a noncomparable to the table.  Okay what do I mean by a noncomparable?

A noncomparable is a capability unique to the class that's hard to quantify because you either can do that thing in the game, or you can't.  It is at is heart a situational ability.

In this system with think of brand new mechanics to differentiate people.  A noncomparable is something good, that maybe not everyone can see the use for, that you just can't directly stack up against another class's potential.

It's hard to give a good example so I'll give a speculative one.

As a speculative example, what if the thief, instead of being just a better melee DPS than the warrior, could sneak into an enemy keep using special entrances/cracks/climbing points other players don't see, and then sabotage their supply count, or go into the kitchen and poison the guards?

And then the warrior, instead of just having a ton of hitpoints, could use an ability to demoralize the keep lord.  Which ability is better?  You tell me I don't know.

And then what if the thief and the warrior together can combine and give everyone Guerilla Fighting bonus if the guards outnumber the players?

When you start defining classes or professions on such an axis of what kind of powers do they have in situations, rather than just numbers, that gets hard.  As a result you typically get something that still borrows heavily from situation A with mechanics to express these ideas.

This is what I had hoped early on that GW2 would be, something where the control effects and combination attacks were the soul of the game and not finding the best number on a spreadsheet.

But GW2 is actually a derivative of situation A, it takes the Trinity away, but it does so by stuffing it within each individual character, so it still exists but the whole dynamic is dfifferent.

On the one hand this is interesting in its own right, and I actually like the system on its own merits here, because I as a player have to look at this profession and say I'm going to balance this out, or I'm going to really skew it this way or the other because I can be more productive overall that way, etc. etc.  There's nothing wrong with being an interesting Situation A derivative.

However by relying on hard mechanics and concrete capabilties over sheer creativity and noncomparable abiltities,  in  embedding the concept that each character is its own trinity, you completely destroy the possibility of non comparables being what "roles" are mostly focused on.  That doesn't mean it's "bad" it just means it doesn't have "roles" per se.

They do try to deliver some noncomparables but they're not good at it.  This profession has Virtues, no one else does, for example.  But this isn't where the emphasis of the design work is, and in fact if you look carefully, the most powerful professions that people complain are OP have some creative cleverness in the profession design that sets it apart.

[El Duderino]

I, on 04 March 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

It really does take the role out of RPG. Back in GW2, when I played an imbagon, it was my role to keep everyone alive, like a guardian(not GW2 guardian). If I weren't there, the party would crumble.

When I played WoW, as a warrior, it was my role to take on the toughest brute in the battlefield. Brawn vs Brawn, while my team backs me up. A mage wouldn't be able to take the severe slashes, bashes, and stuns of two 500lb ogres VS a warrior or paladin who is made for direct battles, like such.

In GW2, I feel like everybody is a placeholder. You really don't need a specific profession. You can faceroll every dungeon with 5 warriors, in fact, 5 warriors would probably be the most effective. No profession makes a game-changing difference, though some do, such as professions which deal constant poison. But really, the role of a profession, isn't enforced enough, or is too minor to feel like the profession. When I play my mesmer, who is my main, I feel like my REAL role IS the fricken timewarp + portals crap, and after those skills are used, i'm just back to a regular damage dealer.

I think the thief is a good example of not having a proper role, besides dealing constant poison. What does the thief really steal? What makes him a thief?... What role does he play in a group besides dealing damage? (every profession's job is dealing damage in GW2).

Exactly! Even if I actually immersed myself in the role-playing aspect of the game, I think I would be upset. Like, if I was a thief and I saw an elementalist using two daggers, I'd be like WTF! why are you using daggers?! You're a freaking spell caster!

Or a warrior using a bow and arrow, in full plate-mail armor.

[asbasb]

Yes it does, but it's a necessary evil in order to minimize class based discrimination. In an MMORPG of the future, I would expect content design to have advanced to a point where it can adapt encounters based on which classes a party is made up of, and what these professions are specced for. GW2 did that in a rudimentary way with their fuzzy aggro AI, but they're still far off from having the entire mob set of a dungeon base their powers and weaknesses around what the players bring. I feel that when AI and content design has advanced to a point where the advantages of playing with an optimal composition of professions becomes so small, then elitism and discrimination won't have such a negative effect on the whole players base(PuG-Meta) and professions can be given truly unique roles again. Right now, the only two options devs have is either turn down the difficulty of the content to a point where players don't care about the composition of their party, or homogenize the professions to be able to fill every one role at a time.

[matsif]

Gonna rephrase myself from my first post:

The game was designed to dumb down roles to begin with to make it more casual friendly and speed up group formation.  Some roles are still assumed, but the roles are different, and all based around damage (direct dps, conditions, aoe, single target burst, etc) instead of the typical tank/dps/healer roles of the trinity.

The complaints in this thread are basically based around the fact that GW2 is innovative by breaking the trinity up.  As MMO gamers, the vast majority of us have never had any experience  with anything outside of the trinity until GW2.  Some people just understood how GW2 worked and loved it, some adapted over time (I put myself here), and some just stopped playing because of the "lack of roles" you posted about.  I won't lie and say that I don't miss playing my paragon as mid-line shout support in GW1, he was definitely my favorite character in the game.  But I'm not gonna say that I miss roles all together either, as being shoehorned into 1 specific role with some classes got boring to me as well.

[MisterB]

El Duderino, on 04 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

Or a warrior using a bow and arrow, in full plate-mail armor.

Do you know about samurai?

Edited by MisterB, 04 March 2013 - 07:29 PM.

[fibbermcgee]

astromarmot, on 04 March 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

I get what you're saying but of course it depends on how you define role...we are all but poor players that strut and fret our hour upon the stage...

Pigeonrole may not be a word, but perhaps it should be...as it seems GW2 offers the role to be less typecasting and more impromptu...

Macbeth on Guru. I never thought I'd live to see the day.

[Ritualist]

Everyone is damage-based.
An almost non-existant selection of spammable skills.
Too many classes.

[El Duderino]

matsif, on 04 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Gonna rephrase myself from my first post:

The game was designed to dumb down roles to begin with to make it more casual friendly and speed up group formation.  Some roles are still assumed, but the roles are different, and all based around damage (direct dps, conditions, aoe, single target burst, etc) instead of the typical tank/dps/healer roles of the trinity.

The complaints in this thread are basically based around the fact that GW2 is innovative by breaking the trinity up.  As MMO gamers, the vast majority of us have never had any experience  with anything outside of the trinity until GW2.  Some people just understood how GW2 worked and loved it, some adapted over time (I put myself here), and some just stopped playing because of the "lack of roles" you posted about.  I won't lie and say that I don't miss playing my paragon as mid-line shout support in GW1, he was definitely my favorite character in the game.  But I'm not gonna say that I miss roles all together either, as being shoehorned into 1 specific role with some classes got boring to me as well.

I fail to see any complaints in this thread, merely a discussion.

I do appreciate your subjective point of view on this topic.

MisterB, on 04 March 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Do you know about samurai?

Probably not as well as you do, but it sounds like it would be an awesome class or role in a game.

Edited by Feathermoore, 04 March 2013 - 09:18 PM.
removed quote of deleted content

[Jobuu]

I hate the trinity. It forced me to heal in WOW because that was the only way I could get into a group back then. Once I was branded a healer, that was it. I couldn't use the other trees for anything other than daily quests.

IMO it's better to play/think with the mentality of "I need help" vs. "I need a tank,healer,dps"

I hope more new games adopt this

Edited by Jobuu, 04 March 2013 - 07:42 PM.

[El Duderino]

Jobuu, on 04 March 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

I hate the trinity. It forced me to heal in WOW because that was the only way I could get into a group back then. Once I was branded a healer, that was it. I couldn't use the other trees for anything other than daily quests.

IMO it's better to play/think with the mentality of "I need help" vs. "I need a tank,healer,dps"

I hope more new games adopt this

I get what you are saying. My primary in GW1 was a monk, which is why I rarely had to look for one, and why I miss it.

However, monks and healing aside, do you really think class diversity is a bad thing?

I mean, what if GW2 had the class diversity and skill diversity of mesmers and elementalists, but still no monk?

Do you think that it could still be fun, if not MORE fun, to have other classes do things that are inherent to their class only and still leave the healing the way it is in GW2?

[Soki]

Jobuu, on 04 March 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

I hate the trinity. It forced me to heal in WOW because that was the only way I could get into a group back then. Once I was branded a healer, that was it. I couldn't use the other trees for anything other than daily quests.

IMO it's better to play/think with the mentality of "I need help" vs. "I need a tank,healer,dps"

I hope more new games adopt this

That honestly sounds like a personal problem.
When I got tired of healing and wanted to try out DPSing, I talked with my group members and one of them said they always wanted to try healing; and 2 others said they wouldn't mind switching off once in a while.

I recognize that the trinity can feel restrictive, but when executed properly, each role will have utilities that contribute to the group in ways other than their primary role.


A lot of people tend to think of the trinity in terms of one tank, one healer, and 3 Damage just doing their thing on an enemy that just autoattacks the tank until it dies.
The problem is that no MMO has boss encounters like that anymore - and if they do, they're probably some sort of slapdash KMMO.


I've found that the lack of Tank/Heal/Damage roles has limited encounter design in GW2, and made many bosses into good 'ol Patchwerk; but tuned extremely loosely. http://www.wowhead.c...c=16028#article

The devs can't count on a group having particular roles - so the mechanics end up being simple and loosely tuned to make up for the utter lack of dependable group synergy.

[Lunacy Polish]

Jobuu, on 04 March 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

I hate the trinity. It forced me to heal in WOW because that was the only way I could get into a group back then. Once I was branded a healer, that was it. I couldn't use the other trees for anything other than daily quests.

IMO it's better to play/think with the mentality of "I need help" vs. "I need a tank,healer,dps"

I hope more new games adopt this

And this is why GW2 is a step in the right direction.  It shows that a fantasy MMO can be commercially viable and not depend on class interdependence forced by mechanisms in the game.

I however hope this paves the way for a true design revolution where someone adds a spark of soul to their game and gives the emphasis to using creative ideas as a team to accomplish more than even self sufficient characters can.

GW2 does reward coordination it just expresses itself with rigid mechanical synergies.

Again this is not bad per se.

[Thaddeuz]

El Doderino i see your point and agree 100%, but people focused too much the the definition of role here. Technically the Role in RPG is only about choosing the skill, the way you gonna play your character and the way he gonna look like. In contrast with a FPS when you use all the same weapons, you have a generic look and not stats, trait, etc to choose.

But this is now what he wanted to talk about (I think). I'm happy with the screw the Tinity from other MMO. But Arena Net created a Unity from this game since only DPS is needed. All character can heal themselves, dodge, remove condition, etc and that without any pts or trait. Why someone would use a support build in GW2??? I play glass canon and i don't need you support to stay alive, so i prefer you focus of giving you too the more DPS you can and if you can't be a glass canon, then give yourselves a bit of survivability.

For me, and i said it a lot of time in this forum, in GW2 a glass canon should not be able to survive on his own. You need to put a minimum of defensive trait to be able to survive. It could be that your basic heal only heal yourselves of 200 hp each time on a 1min cooldown and you would have to put 10pts in a defensive trait line to have a decent one, or it could be that you can only dodge once each minute except if you put trait into that.

The goal here is that a its easy to find pug with a hybrid self sufficient build and don't have to wait an hour for a tank or a healer. While being able to create powerful specialized build for organized group when everybody need everybody to finish the instance.

[El Duderino]

Thaddeuz, on 04 March 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

El Doderino i see your point and agree 100%, but people focused too much the the definition of role here. Technically the Role in RPG is only about choosing the skill, the way you gonna play your character and the way he gonna look like. In contrast with a FPS when you use all the same weapons, you have a generic look and not stats, trait, etc to choose.

But this is now what he wanted to talk about (I think). I'm happy with the screw the Tinity from other MMO. But Arena Net created a Unity from this game since only DPS is needed. All character can heal themselves, dodge, remove condition, etc and that without any pts or trait. Why someone would use a support build in GW2??? I play glass canon and i don't need you support to stay alive, so i prefer you focus of giving you too the more DPS you can and if you can't be a glass canon, then give yourselves a bit of survivability.

For me, and i said it a lot of time in this forum, in GW2 a glass canon should not be able to survive on his own. You need to put a minimum of defensive trait to be able to survive. It could be that your basic heal only heal yourselves of 200 hp each time on a 1min cooldown and you would have to put 10pts in a defensive trait line to have a decent one, or it could be that you can only dodge once each minute except if you put trait into that.

The goal here is that a its easy to find pug with a hybrid self sufficient build and don't have to wait an hour for a tank or a healer. While being able to create powerful specialized build for organized group when everybody need everybody to finish the instance.

I like what you said. It is like ANet when too far to one side and created, what you called, the "Unity".

Instead, they could have kept out the need for a healer, which seems to be the part of the trinity that everyone loathed the most, and still made other classes diverse enough that team play would be better than it is now.

[adra12]

Each class has a few small things that make them unique and then are fairly homogenized to allow for decent balancing. Yes, the group roles are mostly gone but that was part of their attempt to further the genre.

Look at WoW, originally it had very strict lines between classes(warriors had no range, priests had no real dps and warlocks and rogues could blow up anyone in pvp). But over time they found that balancing in any of the many different systems was nearly impossible. As a result they have almost entirely homogenized all the classes into 3 groups purely defined by the 3 trinity group roles. At least the mesmer still have aoe quickness and portals, guardians have tons of access to defensive boons and warriors offensive, thieves have major access to invisibility a power that has much more effect of the human psyche than many will admit.

There are still differences they are just made small to allow the classes to be balanced to attempt to allow the player to not have to decide between efficiency and playing the role they want.

Edited by Feathermoore, 04 March 2013 - 09:17 PM.
removed quote of deleted content

[Kuskah]

For me, RPG is mainly about story and being able to adjust the character to your liking - to play a certain role.

Personally, I didn't really mind the holy trinity setup and to a certain degree, it prevails in GW2 as well. You want DPS? Mesmers and Warriors. Support? Guardians. Tank? Whoever builds that way, but no real need for tanks due to dodges, casting while moving and other mechanics.
The trinity system really kind of furthered your roleplaying as you could be this legendary DPS, skilled healer or an unshakable tank. In GW2 it's a blend of it all, but mostly DPS specs prevail.

I think that GW2 is just as good of an MMORPG as it would've been with the trinity setup but hey, it's a matter of preference.

[Thaddeuz]

Kuskah, on 04 March 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

Personally, I didn't really mind the holy trinity setup and to a certain degree, it prevails in GW2 as well. You want DPS? Mesmers and Warriors. Support? Guardians. Tank? Whoever builds that way, but no real need for tanks due to dodges, casting while moving and other mechanics.
The trinity system really kind of furthered your roleplaying as you could be this legendary DPS, skilled healer or an unshakable tank. In GW2 it's a blend of it all, but mostly DPS specs prevail.

I think that GW2 is just as good of an MMORPG as it would've been with the trinity setup but hey, it's a matter of preference.

I just think that they didn't had to flush everything down the toilet. The trinity setup have strength and weakness. Personnally, i found that each profession feel different in GW2 and i like it, and i also like than everyone can do anything with any profession, but you should need to trait your character to do those things. You should not be able to heal yourself with that efficiency, remove condition and survive with putting all your pts in DPS trait lines. This just make all the support part of the game useless. Event the Guardian, if you trait into support you won't gonna have a lot more if you compare to someone that don't trait the support role.

I feel that Anet give too much power to untraited utilities. I would prefer that untraited utilities would be really poor and trait were more powerful to rebalance but only if you put trait a the right place.

[asbasb]

Is there a reason apart from being forced into a playstyle you don't want that speaks against a trinity setup? If you deconstruct the paradigm and find that the reasons why people like a trinity(feeling needed, having a defined purpose) and why other's don't like it(playstyle discrimination), you can create a combat system around that, which would allow for specialization without having 2 or more classes competing for the best dps, heal or tank role. I believe the main caveat with the trinity of specialized roles in general can be solved, not by class design, but with context sensitive adaptive content design.

[Heart Collector]

This is a very interesting OP.

I don't consider a classes function in a combat group an element of the "R" in "RPG". this sort of class role exists in shooters, RTS and any game with some sort of team focus and/or class dynamic. Hell, even Angry Birds have combat roles So no, I disagree with our good OP on this level. It does fit in to an extent, but it's a little more than insignificant for me at least.

However... What in my opinion is lacking from the classes is a deeper feel of playing the role they're supposed to be playing. What I mean: the abilities do indeed feel very "in character". E.g. a Guardian really feels like it lives up to its namesake with its combat style, abilities and graphics. But... despite this, I don't really "feel" like I'm a powerful "holy" warrior somehow, or a devious thief when on my thief. I got this feeling on my WoW classes, but not really in GW2. I chalk this up to two things: 1) The lack of proper class quests that would immerse me more into the class and 2) the lack of class specific armor (apart from a couple of starting pieces).

I may be a fan of this game, but I don't consider it flawless

Edited by Heart Collector, 04 March 2013 - 09:59 PM.

[El Duderino]

asbasb, on 04 March 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Is there a reason apart from being forced into a playstyle you don't want that speaks against a trinity setup? If you deconstruct the paradigm and find that the reasons why people like a trinity(feeling needed, having a defined purpose) and why other's don't like it(playstyle discrimination), you can create a combat system around that, which would allow for specialization without having 2 or more classes competing for the best dps, heal or tank role. I believe the main caveat with the trinity of specialized roles in general can be solved, not by class design, but with context sensitive adaptive content design.

The biggest playstyle discrimination is/was needing a dedicated healer. Now, I personally never had a problem getting one or using the henchman healer, but some did. So, get rid of the monk.

But, what I REALLY love about you post is the bolded part. Don't nerf specialized roles, buff the fights. Design them better. Make them more challenging. Make them more fun.

We don't need to make everything about DPS. I think we are finding that out now with boss fights. They are boring. Why? Because when a game is designed solely around DPS, there isn't enough complexity to make epic fights epic/difficult.

[Dasryn]

i made a tank guardian that could hold aggro and my wife made a healing elementalist.

the flexibility is there, you just have to find it.