shysaursoft
Member
At least it provides better combat at end game. GW2 party/zerg combat is very bad in PvE.
Nope.
GW2 is at its best during dungeons, 5-person parties. This idea that the game was designed for 1-on-1 is a fiction.
*ALL* MMOS that have encounters that require more people,end up being a zerg with 'move out of bad spots' encounters. WoW raids were no exception. The only difference there, is the entire party was dependant on a few key players to keep the deeps alive, and all the deeps had to do was follow DBM and stop attacking when it told them, move when it told them. WildStar is no different, from what I've seen.
If the Twisted Marionette has taught us anything, is that the "casuals" are actually having a hard time when the game expects anything more of them other than autoattack 1, and will actually *rage* at ArenaNet for "forcing them to get better at the game" when all they want to do is walk around and find loot. I won't deny GW2 eases casuals in, perhaps to a fault - but you think every MMO doesn't do that right off the bat? They *have* to, you can't scare away potential customers right at level 1. Though I'd like to see a truely "hardcore" permadeath Dark Souls style combat MMO try. It'd probably find a receptive audience. Just not the millions most MMOs need.
Throwing around the "GW2 iz for teh casuals" is not only trite, it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how things work. Akin to claiming the fighting game you don't personally like, is 'just a button masher'.
C'mon son.
My suggestion: run more dungeons with a variety of people, and avoid the 'stack and pack' groups. Play the dungeons *normally*, and see how different team compositions dramatically change the feel of each encounter. It's amazing how much things change, and yet, people can still succeed, in spite of the differences. I was in a SE path 2 run with all mesmer/thieves, myself the only Engineer. It was a clusterfuck, but we got creative and made it through regardless. And that we *could*, with almost all cloths, speaks to how well designed each class is when they're utilized fully.
The biggest problem GW2 faces right now, are the theoryfighters/numbercrunchers, who are trying to propagate the narrative that there's a "best" way to play. GW1 ended up with the same issue, where it's Build X or you don't get into groups. I'm hoping Anet has an idea on how to solve this.
I won't deny that many people keep zerging, and propagating the narrative that zerging is the only way 2 play. But we see this in games all the time: people don't want to change how they play, they want to force the game to play the way they like to play. Zerging large encounters gets the jobs done, with enough dead bodies and skilled players carrying the less skilled, but it's hardly optimal.
Zerg at Taco: fail.
Organized groups at Taco: farm.
Just because people play badly, doesn't mean the game is badly designed.
The biggest problems with the Trinity were:
If you tackled those issues with exp tricks (redirection of exp gain/improving subsequent characters greatly/whatever), instant class switching, and some minimal kind of gear universality you could probably manage the best of both worlds. Some players can stick with just what they know, some can moonlight, and some can become pros at all of them, but without the ridiculous time investments before you even know if you WANT to be a pro at <X>.
- Unique, irreplaceable skills (CH)
- Separate characters with their own leveling and gear
FFXIV tries this to a degree, and I like some of the systems. But it still results in queue times as you wait for a tank to show up. While that's fine, if that's the kind of thing you want - I don't think it's a universal truth that everyone *wants* the trinity just because it makes encounters more "structured".