PDA

View Full Version : Racial Abilities and my gripes regarding them



Kazuhiro Risuko
24-09-2008, 21:28
The first thing I did when I realized that the Norn were going to be playable was jump for joy. The second thing I did was think how awesome a Norn spellcaster would be. I had the image of a big tough Norn Elementalist with a long white beard, wearing oversized fur-lined robes. Maybe he would sling fire, or maybe he would be a stone-faced Monk. Awesome.

The last thing I did was grumble a little as I realized that if all Norn have the ability to become the bear, then I'll be laughed at for making a spellcaster character from a race that was never meant to be anything but a tank.

That's why I think that the races' special abilities (like the Asuran golems and the Slyvari hive-mind) should be limited and not common to all characters. Perhaps they should only be available to people who choose to go solo instead of with a companion, or perhaps they would take up a skill slot. We might even have several special abilities to choose from-- like maybe the Norn could become werewolves or sprout huge black wings, as well as becoming the bear.

All I know is that I would not want my choice of race to obligate me to choose one character type or another.

Alaris
24-09-2008, 21:33
I think racial abilities (as opposed to racial passives) are great, if done properly. The point is to give the race a flavor, but at the same time make sure that any race-profession is viable.

So perhaps the Norn casters have an animal form that casters use... Owl form?

And perhaps Asuras melee'rs have a pain inverter shield skill?

I agree with you, race and profession should not be linked or even strongly encouraged. You should have good reasons to combo any race with any profession.

Skyy High
24-09-2008, 22:46
The Norn will most likely take more than just the bear form. The players get the blessings of the bear, raven, and wolf, so those are all likely. Other lore has stated that the norn also respect the owl, badger, and boar.

raspberry jam
25-09-2008, 10:23
All I know is that I would not want my choice of race to obligate me to choose one character type or another.I agree. But if GW2 is as well-balanced as GW, every little advantage will count, and considering the prevalence of cookie cutters in such situations, your race will obligate certain choices if there are any meaningful racial abilities - or at least, a very large part of the playerbase will perceive it that way.

lorddarkflare
28-09-2008, 16:00
True, no matter how hard they work to balance racial differences, the players will always find a way to unbalance it.

Obviously, the best way to do this is by putting into play a VERY small pool of racial skills that are either beefed up in single PvE or are banned from PvP.

Actually, they can bias the races towards whatever they want for soloing and non-team work, but take them away(or balance) when you join a team.

KyppDuron
28-09-2008, 19:27
Actually, they can bias the races towards whatever they want for soloing and non-team work, but take them away(or balance) when you join a team.

Yes please!

Divinity Archer
28-09-2008, 21:47
Or, make it that a race has a beneficial effect to the party.

Like, for every norn you have in your party (may it be a norn warrior or norn mesmer) your psychical attacks deal 5% more damage.

Maybe a bit imba, but you get the idea I hope.

While being far from perfect, I think this could be rather interesting.
You can create a certain playstyle with a racial party and maintain a certain role playing element, but balanced parties should not notice a difference between a norn mesmer and an asura warrior when the racial boosts mix together. (for example, 5% reduced spell cost for each Asura in your party)

Of course, balanced teamplay should be promoted in GW2 in this scenario.

People will want to have a certain amount of norn, humans etc. in their party, but what is to expect with racial bonusses?
At least this way your race can be of any profession you please to be, without having a set role related to your bonus.

I still think racial bonusses should not be included, but that's highly unlikely.

Ace Bear
28-09-2008, 23:01
When guild wars first started....

W/mos were thought to be the best damage dealers of the warriors because they could focus on dps without having to worry about healing they had passive heals instead(mending, live vicariously, etc.).

N/r was the best combo for that class because "A pet and minions are amazing!".

Me/N were thought to be the best dps machines in the universe because they could get -10 degen so easily(this one went on for a long time).

These were just a few of the idiocies of the first few weeks of GW. GW2 will have it, just don't listen to those morons. Play what you want is how I look at it.

There should be plenty of people to play with who don't think that, and if there isn't there is always an alliance, and if there isn't an alliance you have a guild, and if no guild then you have a friends' list, and if none of the above then you have henchies. And if you don't want to play with henchies then I hear that the sun is nice if you see it once in a while.

Shallowrain
28-09-2008, 23:11
Or, make it that a race has a beneficial effect to the party.


That could be interesting and kind of neat, although it could just promote racial discrimination.



(for example, 5% reduced spell cost for each Asura in your party)



However, it shouldn't be done like that. I know you're just fishing about for an example, but having racial abilities stack like that will just lead to players spamming full-race parties.

Erring Ryft
29-09-2008, 00:04
"For each Asuran in your Party, your Nose Length increases by 5 inches"

"For each Norn in your Party, your face gains 3 frown lines"

"For each Sylvari in your party, the likelihood that your enemies will find you too innocent/cute to attack increases by 3%"

Perfect.

sorudo
29-09-2008, 00:11
they could make racial tied to the profession, instead of making it all open but blunt.
so let's say you make a warrior norn, you then can turn in to bear, but as a caster you can turn in to an owl, etc....
could be the same with silvary's, as a warrior they could have higher resistant against knockdown, but as a caster they have a faster spell reload.
i know it's not the best solution, but it removes the racial discrimination.

The Last Windseeker
29-09-2008, 01:03
I think it is a little too early to be worried about racial traits. We barely know any information about Guild Wars 2 and how the racial traits will exactly work.

Alaris
29-09-2008, 02:53
Racial skills, with enough variety that every profession is viable with any race.

Anything permanent just begs for balance problems.

lorddarkflare
29-09-2008, 03:46
Yeah i agree with alaris. Skills are WAY easier to balance than game mechanics. Case in point: GvG mechanics and soul reaping mechanics.

A small pool that allows inbalance for single play, but disappear for serious group play.

birdfoot
29-09-2008, 11:03
Racial traits/skills are a great way to provide differentiation on the choice of races. If PvP balancing was an issue, they could make racial traits/skills not persist in serious PvP modes. World PvP, however (imo), should allow for such differences between races.

raspberry jam
29-09-2008, 11:21
These were just a few of the idiocies of the first few weeks of GW. GW2 will have it, just don't listen to those morons. Play what you want is how I look at it.How long did the "send in a warrior enchanted with Obsidian Flesh and wait until they have hooked on him, then cast Spiteful Spirit/Meteor Shower/Savannah Heat" idiocy persist?

lorddarkflare
30-09-2008, 01:08
I do not play PvE with others, but does that idiocy not still persist?



Racial traits/skills are a great way to provide differentiation on the choice of races. If PvP balancing was an issue, they could make racial traits/skills not persist in serious PvP modes. World PvP, however (imo), should allow for such differences between races.

But serious PvE should not have them either, or else there would be a HUGE amount of racial descrimination, on top of the expected class descrimination.

Bashor
30-09-2008, 14:49
What's wrong with a Norn Caster turning into a bear?
Is extra health a bad thing? And have you ever thought that there might be by chance a way to go melee with a Norn Caster?
Elementalist/Ritualist, anyone?

raspberry jam
30-09-2008, 15:02
What's wrong with a Norn Caster turning into a bear?
Is extra health a bad thing? And have you ever thought that there might be by chance a way to go melee with a Norn Caster?
Elementalist/Ritualist, anyone?This sounds super balanced and not at all gimmicky.

I was sarcastic there, by the way.

Bashor
30-09-2008, 15:13
This sounds super balanced and not at all gimmicky.

I was sarcastic there, by the way.

Wha'? Have you never met a Ritualist not casting but beating the **** outta' your toon with an axe,daggers or a spear?
If that works in GW, why shouldn't it in GW2?
Of course, ANet could just stick with the stereotypical classes, tho'.

Caster->can_only_cast; Warrior->can't do_anything_but tank; etc.

raspberry jam
30-09-2008, 15:24
Wha'? Have you never met a Ritualist not casting but beating the **** outta' your toon with an axe,daggers or a spear?
If that works in GW, why shouldn't it in GW2?
Of course, ANet could just stick with the stereotypical classes, tho'.

Caster->can_only_cast; Warrior->can't do_anything_but tank; etc.Rit with dagger: yes, I have met those. Axe or spear: yes, but they didn't beat the **** out of me.

In any case it's a horrible and unbalanced gimmick build, it doesn't (and shouldn't) work outside of RA, and possibly PvE. I'm really hoping for the complete elimination of such things in GW2, but that's not going to happen of course.

The warriors only being able to tank thing made me smile a little. No, in fact I think that they should remove classes altogether, but if they keep them, they should follow the pattern of having different roles in a party due to having different weaknesses. That doesn't mean stereotypes, as it works like that in GW and professions in GW really doesn't follow stereotypes.

Bashor
30-09-2008, 16:11
Rit with dagger: yes, I have met those. Axe or spear: yes, but they didn't beat the **** out of me.

In any case it's a horrible and unbalanced gimmick build, it doesn't (and shouldn't) work outside of RA, and possibly PvE. I'm really hoping for the complete elimination of such things in GW2, but that's not going to happen of course.

The warriors only being able to tank thing made me smile a little. No, in fact I think that they should remove classes altogether, but if they keep them, they should follow the pattern of having different roles in a party due to having different weaknesses. That doesn't mean stereotypes, as it works like that in GW and professions in GW really doesn't follow stereotypes.

The builds would, could and should work outside of RA...and, actually, they do. It's just that the majority only uses the cookie-cutter builds, everyone's playing.
Of course, a caster class isn't suppost to be a DPS dmg dealer, but having that option sure is a positive thing, as it increases the flexibility of the class.
They kinda are gimmick builds, I agree, but they aren't horrible either. Neither are they unbalanced(as in OP).
GW has stereotype-classes. Monk, for instance.
There are so many ways of playing that class, but no one accepts a monk that isn't healing 24/7.
I hope they'll change that in GW2. And they probably will....
Norn Tank casters; Charr fire DPS warriors; etc.

Alaris
30-09-2008, 16:23
Rit with dagger: yes, I have met those.

they should follow the pattern of having different roles in a party due to having different weaknesses. That doesn't mean stereotypes, as it works like that in GW and professions in GW really doesn't follow stereotypes.


There are so many ways of playing that class, but no one accepts a monk that isn't healing 24/7.

I hope they'll change that in GW2. And they probably will....
Norn Tank casters; Charr fire DPS warriors; etc.

Flexible playstyle and lack of forced gameplay styles is what got me into GW, and the strongest selling point for me.

Some odd builds I love to play:
R/Rt summoner + painful bond.
P/W or R/W hammer.
R/Rt splinter & nightmare bow
Mo invincimonk
N/Mo 55 ss
W/A dagger warrior
and more...

I do hope that they balance better the invinci-builds (i.e. make them not overpowered, so that you can't solo an area that's meant for a team). But otherwise, I like being able to play different roles.

In most games, role playing means forcing you into a role. I like that GW has moved away from that, and hope they will keep doing that.

raspberry jam
30-09-2008, 16:37
The builds would, could and should work outside of RA...and, actually, they do. It's just that the majority only uses the cookie-cutter builds, everyone's playing.
Of course, a caster class isn't suppost to be a DPS dmg dealer, but having that option sure is a positive thing, as it increases the flexibility of the class.
They kinda are gimmick builds, I agree, but they aren't horrible either. Neither are they unbalanced(as in OP).
GW has stereotype-classes. Monk, for instance.
There are so many ways of playing that class, but no one accepts a monk that isn't healing 24/7.Are you for real? Well, I'll assume you are, for now.

No, they don't work outside of RA. When was the last time you saw a Rt/A in HA? GvG? Sure, they work in PvE, but most things do.
And yes, they are inherently unbalanced because they are gimmicks - very powerful unless they are countered, in which case they fall apart like a house of cards. Also, the effectiveness of the build does not increase with the skill which it is played.

Monk isn't stereotypical: As you say, many play it as a healer, but at the same time it is an absolute fact that a prot monk (which doesn't exist in any other game of this type) is much more efficient, thus breaking the stereotype. And as you know, no one wants to play a smiter, though many top-level GvG players (and they should know!) say that smiters are very good midline characters.

That people play the stereotypes doesn't mean that the professions are stereotypes; they are not, but people are hardheaded and want to play like they play in other similar games. I agree that there should be non-typical ways to play, the thing is though, there already are, yet so, so many just won't do it.


I hope they'll change that in GW2. And they probably will....
Norn Tank casters; Charr fire DPS warriors; etc.For example, tanking isn't necessary at all, casters (eles, necros, mesmers) already provide huge amounts of distributed damage mitigation in PvE when played right, and finally, warriors have, when speced and played right, higher DPS than any other profession.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
I agree with the "gimmick build" part, but not with the "unbalanced" one; I think the fact they only work in RA and PvE (two areas in which most things work anyway) is a sign that they're not imbalanced.Being underpowered is just as sure a sign of imbalance as being overpowered.

Erasculio
30-09-2008, 16:38
In any case it's a horrible and unbalanced gimmick build, it doesn't (and shouldn't) work outside of RA, and possibly PvE.

I agree with the "gimmick build" part, but not with the "unbalanced" one; I think the fact they only work in RA and PvE (two areas in which most things work anyway) is a sign that they're not imbalanced.

Gimmicks of that kind - not imbalanced to take over PvP or PvE - are IMO good for the game. They add variety, allowing a player to take a completely different build and go have some fun, without hampering "serious" play.

(I'm rather fond of the dagger Ritualist build myself, mostly because the animations of a ritualist holding daggers are beautiful. I would never take it to, say, vanquish an area, but it works to have fun once in a while.)

Erasculio

Simply Kedde
30-09-2008, 17:03
They're not necessarily overpowered because they only work in ra. In fact they're pretty damn sure to not work optimally anyways as pretty much any of those can only do a single thing and nothing else. If they're ever used outside of ra/ab it'll be because people are playing alone and are careless about efficiency or because they're ignorant.

For any of such gimmicks to be viable outside of bad builds being used for fun they'd have to be overpowered.

Bashor
30-09-2008, 18:10
Are you for real? Well, I'll assume you are, for now.

No, they don't work outside of RA. When was the last time you saw a Rt/A in HA? GvG? Sure, they work in PvE, but most things do.
And yes, they are inherently unbalanced because they are gimmicks - very powerful unless they are countered, in which case they fall apart like a house of cards. Also, the effectiveness of the build does not increase with the skill which it is played.

Monk isn't stereotypical: As you say, many play it as a healer, but at the same time it is an absolute fact that a prot monk (which doesn't exist in any other game of this type) is much more efficient, thus breaking the stereotype. And as you know, no one wants to play a smiter, though many top-level GvG players (and they should know!) say that smiters are very good midline characters.

That people play the stereotypes doesn't mean that the professions are stereotypes; they are not, but people are hardheaded and want to play like they play in other similar games. I agree that there should be non-typical ways to play, the thing is though, there already are, yet so, so many just won't do it.

For example, tanking isn't necessary at all, casters (eles, necros, mesmers) already provide huge amounts of distributed damage mitigation in PvE when played right, and finally, warriors have, when speced and played right, higher DPS than any other profession.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:Being underpowered is just as sure a sign of imbalance as being overpowered.

I never saw anyone using the "gimmick" builds, but that's the point.
People don't move outside their box. AFAIK, only coockie cutter builds are used in HA.

[Gimmick Builds]They are powerful, unless they're countered. True.
But let's be realistic, there are counter-builds for_every_build. So, that's no valid argument. That's what balance is all about, after all.

You're saying that there are prot monks and they are, indeed, more effective than pure-heal monks.
But Protting is, basically, healing+additional effect.Now if you're playing a prot, you'll be the "healer", in the end. The role doesn't change. It does, but only slightly.

Saying that no one wants to play smiters, is just wrong.
I'd say the reason, why we don't see any smiters, in general, is because people are afraid of not being accepted in parties, by others. So monks are_only_healing. If smiting was an acknowledged playstyle for monks, we'd see way more of them. I guarantee.

I agree with the rest.

Simply Kedde
30-09-2008, 20:19
Smiters are just far from effective enough in pve for any regular group to want them. They do a little of everything, but aren't effective at any of it. Pve'ers generally don't want that, hence the standard tanks, and nukers. They all have specific roles in which they excel. There's simply no room for versatility and the kind of shutdown gameplay some attributes are meant for. Hopefully gw2 will have challenging AI helping off the old tank, nuke, heal concept by making it obsolete or simply fail.

Face the facts, so called "cookie cutters" are used mostly because they've been tested thouroughly and have been proven to perform a specific task with a reasonable amount of efficiency.
At this point in the game, every possible skill combination will have been tested. Whether you chose to agree with this is your own problem. The most effective combinations have been found and are no secrets from the community.

Bashor
30-09-2008, 21:07
Smiters are just far from effective enough in pve for any regular group to want them. They do a little of everything, but aren't effective at any of it. Pve'ers generally don't want that, hence the standard tanks, and nukers. They all have specific roles in which they excel. There's simply no room for versatility and the kind of shutdown gameplay some attributes are meant for. Hopefully gw2 will have challenging AI helping off the old tank, nuke, heal concept by making it obsolete or simply fail.

Face the facts, so called "cookie cutters" are used mostly because they've been tested thouroughly and have been proven to perform a specific task with a reasonable amount of efficiency.
At this point in the game, every possible skill combination will have been tested. Whether you chose to agree with this is your own problem. The most effective combinations have been found and are no secrets from the community.

Smiters are far from Useless in PvE, but people don't see the benefit of having one in the party. Neither does the majority know how to play one 'correct'.

I agree that a lot has been tested out, already, but I dare to say that not even 60% of possible effective builds have been tested, yet. At least not good enough(tested).
There are so many skill combinations. Let alone build combinations.
Cookie Cutter builds aren't necessary the most effective builds. They're just the first once that have been proven as effective.
If have played GW for a reasonable time now and been "active", you'll have noticed that builds, in GW, come and go.
As soon as one Cookie Cutter builds is way too overused, ANet comes up with some skill nerves.
And after that has been done, someone comes up with a new cookie cutter build, which lasts for some time and then gets nerved.
What I'm trying to say is that most people are just too lazy to look for a new build, till their current one gets nerved to death.

I, for one, am testing builds all the time. Regardless of how stupid/effective they sound at first.
Gotta say that I have got quite a lot of 'unkown' builds, which work really great. Not saying they're the best, but very effective and some are even better than the Cookie Cutter alternatives, everyone else's using.
But that's a different story.

Nemeon Lion
30-09-2008, 22:52
People are lazy. That's a proven fact.

Once someone posts a build that it's proven to be effective and it's easy to use, people will flock to it like moths to lightbulbs. Sabway is the perfect example of it.

Not saying you shouldn't use them. As I said in a previous thread, cookie-cutter builds are the perfect start for any new player when it comes to "build making". They offer an already proven template, allowing the newbie to understand what kind of skills work, what he should bring, how to counter other builds, etc.

I don't use cookie-cutter builds because, IMHO, I'm veteran enough to learn what is good and what is not and how to build a decent skillbar. If I was a newbie, I would use cookie-cutter builds.

However, some, if not most people, are lazy and simply stick with the cookie-cutter build all the time in the game, effectivelly ending up not learning anything. If you then asked him to build a Warrior or Mesmer skillbar, he wouldn't know what to choose.

That's what leads to mass fear of cookie-cutters. First, because new players that simply copy-paste them end up not knowing how to effectively use the build. Second, because people that stick too long with them without trying anything new end up not knowing anything as well.

0.02 from me.

Simply Kedde
30-09-2008, 22:58
The thing is that calling anyone out for using a build proven effective is rather stupid. Even more so when the only reason for saying so is that it's popular.

Smiters aren't useless. They're great in areas with undead and can be valuable to any team. There are just more effective builds out there for the areas where people actually feel the need to change anything.

And yes, I'm fairly confident pretty much any sensible combination of skills have been tested and evaluated. Of course the builds come and go due to skill balances, that's simple logic. But that's also the only reason to change your build unless you should actually find some area too difficult with a standard setup.

Kazuhiro Risuko
01-10-2008, 00:09
I have seen very effective smiters in RA. Basically, everyone jumps on the monk, and the monk responds with anti-melee skills and uninterruptible knockdowns.

Anyway, I would love to see mounts instead of map travel, although perhaps with autopilot. Map travel was one of the main things that killed GW's immersion factor.

Alaris
01-10-2008, 00:51
I have seen very effective smiters in RA. Basically, everyone jumps on the monk, and the monk responds with anti-melee skills and uninterruptible knockdowns.

Anyway, I would love to see mounts instead of map travel, although perhaps with autopilot. Map travel was one of the main things that killed GW's immersion factor.

I believe in choice... keep map travel, but add other means of transportation for those who like that. Map travel is critical in cutting wasted travel time.

Back to topic... I've seen a lot of people saying this or that build is effective in RA. The usual counter is that just about anything can work in RA. The true tests are Hard Mode for PvE, and HA or GvG for PvP. IMO

lorddarkflare
01-10-2008, 02:28
Yep, i am forever greatful that HM was added, as h/h it gives one a great feeling, that i imagine i would get if i had time for organized PvP.

Also, i always find the idea of tanking to be rediculous in PvE, who seriously allows themselves to get the crap beaten out of them while not fighting back? Seems awefully boring to me, but to each his own.

Skyy High
01-10-2008, 03:58
Anyway, I would love to see mounts instead of map travel, although perhaps with autopilot. Map travel was one of the main things that killed GW's immersion factor.
Boo hiss. Immersion is for hardcore RPGs; when immersion gets in the way of gameplay, GW goes for gameplay, and I hope that continues. I want to play a fun game first, and be connected with my character a distant second.

They've confirmed, in fact, that map travel would be in GW2, though they haven't said anything about mounts.

Erasculio
01-10-2008, 05:28
Anyway, I would love to see mounts instead of map travel, although perhaps with autopilot. Map travel was one of the main things that killed GW's immersion factor.

Heh, it's amazing what the MMORPG companies get away with. They added a very annoying time sink - having to waste time walking from one place to the other. Then they added a "reward" to make that time sink slightly less annoying, and so mounts were created...

...And people fell so much for that, that not only we have legions asking for mounts in GW, but also a few individuals asking for the time sink itself :shocked:

Erasculio

Tro
01-10-2008, 05:49
There may be a whole new set of Classes, so the racials may just fit.

Also we don't know if Races will be Class limited or not yet. so we just have to wait for info.

Simply Kedde
01-10-2008, 08:41
Classes being limited to races would be ridiculous. That'd totally kill the game. I don't wanna have to be a furball to be a warrior or a miniature cross between a rabbit and something else to roll an ele.

Kazuhiro Risuko
01-10-2008, 08:52
Heh, it's amazing what the MMORPG companies get away with. They added a very annoying time sink - having to waste time walking from one place to the other. Then they added a "reward" to make that time sink slightly less annoying, and so mounts were created...

...And people fell so much for that, that not only we have legions asking for mounts in GW, but also a few individuals asking for the time sink itself :shocked:

ErasculioOkay you're right, I'm a sucker ):

However, insta-travel tends to make a game lose its feel of grandeur. Yahtzee mentioned this in his review of Oblivion. When you can teleport across the map, you lose the feeling of having a big expansive map. Like I said, I think auto-pilot is a decent compromise because at least then I'd be able to chat with my guildies.

raspberry jam
01-10-2008, 12:34
Heh, it's amazing what the MMORPG companies get away with. They added a very annoying time sink - having to waste time walking from one place to the other. Then they added a "reward" to make that time sink slightly less annoying, and so mounts were created...

...And people fell so much for that, that not only we have legions asking for mounts in GW, but also a few individuals asking for the time sink itself :shocked:

ErasculioI have been amazed ever since I realized that MMORPGs (well, many other computer RPGs as well) not only keep but even emphasize stats development, the very thing that the creators of pen & paper RPGs (which computer RPGs were inspired by of course), see as a necessary evil, and something they definitely would handle in a more discreet way if it was possible. Some of them even recommend to hide all stats from the players.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never saw anyone using the "gimmick" builds, but that's the point.
People don't move outside their box. AFAIK, only coockie cutter builds are used in HA.You are incorrect sir, but very often PUGs use cookie cutter builds (that also are gimmick builds btw) since that's easier to set up and much easier to play than a balanced team.


[Gimmick Builds]They are powerful, unless they're countered. True.
But let's be realistic, there are counter-builds for_every_build. So, that's no valid argument. That's what balance is all about, after all.Um... no. If that was balance, then rock-paper-scissors would be a balanced game. The chance of winning an RPS turn if you play optimally is 50%, but that doesn't mean that it's a balanced game.
For a game to be balanced you need to be able to shift your strategy to respond to your opponent, there needs to be a proportionality between the risks you run and the rewards you get if you succeed, and between your own skill and the efficiency of your play.
If it was just "if I get lucky, my build will counter the enemy's", it wouldn't be balanced, it would be random, which is not the same at all.


You're saying that there are prot monks and they are, indeed, more effective than pure-heal monks.
But Protting is, basically, healing+additional effect.Now if you're playing a prot, you'll be the "healer", in the end. The role doesn't change. It does, but only slightly.Well that's true, but prot monks are played in quite a different way from heal monks, having to "heal" before the damage actually arrives. Yes it follows the stereotype since the monk is still the guy that hangs back and makes sure that the team doesn't die, but it also breaks it by asking actual battle awareness, as opposed to just targeting the team member with the least amount of health and using your healing spell.

It might not be breaking the typical way of playing entirely, but I think it's a step in a very interesting direction.

Tom Nook
01-10-2008, 14:05
There may be a whole new set of Classes, so the racials may just fit.

Also we don't know if Races will be Class limited or not yet. so we just have to wait for info.

We also don't know whether there will be Classes at all. :smiley:

Balan Makki
01-10-2008, 16:15
The first thing I did when I realized that the Norn were going to be playable was jump for joy. The second thing I did was think how awesome a Norn spellcaster would be. I had the image of a big tough Norn Elementalist with a long white beard, wearing oversized fur-lined robes. Maybe he would sling fire, or maybe he would be a stone-faced Monk. Awesome. . .


.



In my experience playing GW, Arena Net is very open with how they handle mechanics; I'd guess that you'd be able to acquire cross-racial abilities, if you build alliance rank with other races.

To play your Monk Spellcaster Norn, you'll likely have to support the race you want the "Racial Abilities" from--build rank with that race. See EoTN.

sorudo
01-10-2008, 17:31
i hope not, the rank of EotN is horrible, even after saving the world you still need to grind rep points to prove your matter.

Akirai Annuvil
01-10-2008, 18:10
Have you never met a Ritualist not casting but beating the **** outta' your toon with an axe,daggers or a spear?
If that works in GW,
It doesn't.

lorddarkflare
02-10-2008, 00:31
Well it does in RA/Some of PvE. So it does work, just not in any places that really matter.

Divinity Archer
02-10-2008, 08:07
Well it does in RA/Some of PvE. So it does work, just not in any places that really matter.

Yes, but with that logic anything will work.

Simply Kedde
02-10-2008, 08:17
Works in some pve. Aka. it doesn't work. No it won't work in ra either.

lorddarkflare
02-10-2008, 09:37
At some point i thought Rits used Spirit's Strength in RA to use weapons? I have been away from the game and from RA for several months now and am just coming back, but i am sure that at some point that i owned/got owned by some of them. So i suppose it all depends on what one's definition of 'works' is.

And yeah you guys are right, i was not trying to defend it, just making a point.

Tro
03-10-2008, 02:57
We also don't know whether there will be Classes at all. :smiley:


This to

Darkfall is doing something similar.
So it's possible

GADefence
12-10-2008, 17:50
"Darkfall is doing something similar.
So it's possible"

Mount and blade's already done it and it's 3 years old. Class less systems work, the problem is, Guild Wars is inherently a class based system. I wouldn't want to play GW2 class less, but whatever, we'll see.

raspberry jam
13-10-2008, 10:20
"Darkfall is doing something similar.
So it's possible"

Mount and blade's already done it and it's 3 years old. Class less systems work, the problem is, Guild Wars is inherently a class based system. I wouldn't want to play GW2 class less, but whatever, we'll see.But "class" in GW is basically just the runes you can equip together with what primary attribute you have. When it really comes down to it, a necro curses spell is cast identically by a necro with 12 curses and a monk/necromancer with 12 curses.

Bravo
13-10-2008, 13:26
I remember about 20 years ago playing a computerised version of a board game by the name of hero quest. There were 2 spell casting classes, the elf and the wizard. The elf and the wizard could choose different numbers of spells, but once the spells are chosen they behave in the same way for both characters; essentially the wizard would choose a spell class first (they were named after the 'old' elements - fire, water, earth, air), then the elf would choose one from the remaining classes, then the wizard would receive the spells from the remaining 2 classes. The beauty of hero quest was that you would play small little modules at a time and you could choose which of the spell classes you wanted at the start of each module.

Where I'm going with this is that just because there are classes doesn't mean you have to be fixed by initial choice limits (possibly made years ago); and agreeing with raspberry that a 'classless' system (your character can be setup to do anything - but not necessarily all at the same time) can exist in a game that has classes as a large balancing mechanic - even if it is only a case of having no fixed primary (especially as armour is apparently coming in light/medium/heavy varieties).

With the lack of PvP characters, and 'spontaneous PvP' (world PvP; what I interpret as the equivalent of RA/TA/AB) potentially having an equipment and character level (ergo a skill effect) disparity, it would be nice to think that you won't have to roll 6/8/10 * #races characters (assuming racial abilities are usuable in PvP - and I can imagine roleplayers having a field day if they aren't) to be able to play whatever I would like to in a casual PvP setting. I don't have (the real world) time for guilds and organised PvP any more; the destruction of PvP characters seems like a step back, but without knowing the implementations it is hard to say.

sorudo
13-10-2008, 17:39
Heh, it's amazing what the MMORPG companies get away with. They added a very annoying time sink - having to waste time walking from one place to the other. Then they added a "reward" to make that time sink slightly less annoying, and so mounts were created...

...And people fell so much for that, that not only we have legions asking for mounts in GW, but also a few individuals asking for the time sink itself :shocked:

Erasculio
off-topic here but,there is something els amazing, ppl are so used on having MMO's with a monthly fee that they think it's a part of having a MMO.....picture that:duh:
i ones had a discussion in COX about making it F2P but every so much issues costs money as an expansion, they just couldn't see how much the profit and community would expand.(and i can say you this, if they did, they would have at least 4x more profit then currently)