Which is a point that is certainly worth making - there is nothing wrong with the tank-heal-DPS trinity, if that's what you like and you have a guild that will support it. The opposite, however, is also true - there's nothing wrong with trinityless and soft trinity games if that's what a person enjoys. There's no reason why both styles can't exist in the marketplace simultaneously, and plenty of reasons why there should be offerings of both types. Neither is objectively better than the other, and having a reasonable range of both allows players to choose according to their preferences and circumstances.
There are also hybrids out there. GW1, for instance, had DPS and heal... but certainly did not having tanking enshrined in the group mechanics the way, say, WoW did. You could do it, sure, but you could also succeed without it and rely instead on throwing a bunch of control effects at the target in order to, well, keep them under control. The Diablo series, as another example, can be said to have a tank and DPS mechanic in multiplayer games (although good players can succeed without tanks) - but has never had an explicit "healer" role the way WoW and GW1 had.
Or to put it another way - the extremes of both sides are wrong. The holy trinity isn't the devil that must be exorcised AT ALL COSTS, nor is it a passing fad doomed to be consigned to the ashheap of MMO history. Neither, however, is it a sacred institution that MUST be in ANY MMO-style game or that game will be doomed to failure. It's nothing more than a subjective judgement on the part of individual players who are free to move to a game more to their liking, rather than trying to force an existing game to fit within their mold.
(The same comments as in the above paragraph, incidentally, can be applied to the old vertical versus horizontal progression debate. Unfortunately, designers at the moment don't seem to have the guts to move too far away from vertical progression, and because the vertical progressors have been largely having their way so far, there's always the pressure to pull back into a more vertical-progression-oriented structure. See: PvE skills linked to titles in GW1, ascended equipment in GW2.)
Desert Rose, on 08 November 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:
Calling the easier but worse option lazy or the better but harder option cumbersome is the same, just from two different perspectives. Also, you swap kits when you need Vigor, not just for the sake of it.
In general what's better depends on your trait distribution: If you have 20+ points in Tools but only 15- points in Firearms Speedy Kits is better, vise versa with 20+ points in Firearms and 15- in Tools because otherwise you wouldn't be able to get another adept major trait from that line.
I'm not sure I'd say that saying one is lazy or the other is cumbersome is quite the same thing from different perspectives. The first, to me, implies that while there is more complexity it all just works better once you get the trick of it. The second, by contrast, implies that that additional complexity can actually hamper the functioning of the build - having to interrupt a rotation by switching kits at a time you otherwise wouldn't, for instance.
In this case, though, I'd probably be inclined to agree that the trait distribution probably does matter more - with the other traits that you're planning to get, can you more easily afford an adept major in Firearms or Tools?
You'll note that I said that there were definitely builds that were better than others. Given time, players are always going to find that one build or another is 1% better than the next, or is so easy to use so that insisting everyone uses it reduces your chance of failure with unknown players (which is really what was happening with ursan groups - more balanced groups with good players generally did a better job, but having everyone go ursan reduced the risk).
Solo and speedclear (which usually involved individuals soloing different parts of the instance) groups are essentially anomalies, as GW1 was intended to be a team game. Ursan, personally, I never used as a team build either.
The distinction I'm making is that there were a lot of builds that you could use that would work. They may not be what the elitist speedrunners always insisted on, but each profession had quite a few distinct builds that would all serve you well as part of a team where everyone knew what they were doing. GW2 doesn't really have that. One the one hand, most of your skills are fixed to begin with by being weapon, healing, or elite skills. On the other hand, utility skills usually end up being fixed by there being certain capabilities you just have to have (condition removal, stunbreaks or, better yet, stability) leaving only one or two slots you have real discretion over, and even then under the current balance regime half of the pool of utility skills per profession just aren't worth taking. The end result is that, elitist group or not, most people playing a particular profession in high-end content have pretty much the same bar, because within a month or so everyone comes down to the same layout through convergent evolution. (As opposed to GW1, where it took quite a bit longer for the top-end build for each profession to appear).
And if you are thinking of the equivalents of Ursan, permasin speedclear builds, and the like, then that exists in GW2 as well. Two mesmers, two or three warriors, and maybe a guardian.
Konig Des Todes, on 21 November 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:
Fort Koga was for Krytan trade - a fort along the trade route to the western coast. Most likely during the Guild Wars as Orr/Orrian guilds no doubt blockaded the Strait of Malchor - the Krytan and Canthan trade hadn't ceased despite the Guild Wars, after all.
Yes, I'm aware, and Maldeus was aware.
He used "Kogan" purely as a short-form for "the hypothetical civilisation that Kryta may have traded with using the trade route Fort Koga was built on". May be, as you said, that that was Cantha (except that I think Cantha did suspend trade with Tyria during the Guild Wars, only resuming after the Searing and Cataclysm) but, basically, "Kogan" is just a placeholder for "western continent". (Which, tbh, is the term I probably would have used myself, but I'm not going to call foul on the usage that was made coupled with the explanation in the post).
I think it's better put together because it had to be.
Dredge and Flame Legion, Inquest and pirates... these are alliances that actually make a reasonable amount of sense when you think about them. There are quite a few very valid theories as to how each of these alliances could have happened - we haven't been told what those reasons are, but for most people those alliances actually made sense.
Krait allying with anyone, though, did not - as soon as it became evident that the we-kill-or-enslave-everything-that-isn't-us-no-questions-asked krait were the next to be involved, the outcry began. They needed to provide the explanation to that one promptly in order to retain credibility.