Pros & cons discussion of professions released so far

[MaximumSquid]

Alaris:

N/Rt . . . so good. . .

If you don't mind some WoW references and reading the comments first (The quality is a little bad) I got some nostalgia for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbuV-qbZ5Ro&NR=1

As far as picking one over the other you mentioned you didn't like to melee so I'd probably stay away from Guardian

Now you just need to decide between a non-Axe Necro and the ele

[Alaris]

Hahah, how many people I killed in RA using my trusty vampiric (et al) weapon spells? Too many, my friend... too many.

Again, it's not that I dislike melee, it's that I don't like having to use it all the time. Guardian is fine on that point because he has ranged attacks as well. Paladins are necessarily melee afaik.

[Feannag]

Boo was a miniature Giant Space Hamster. It's what the gnomes used to power their spaceships.

(Not kidding. D&D's Spelljammer campaign was insane.)

[BrettM]

A hamster named Boo. Suddenly I am intrigued. What game is that from? Does it have ferrets?

I do have to wonder just how accurate is the claim that rangers without pets will be underpowered. Most of the rangers we saw in the demos were playing with dead pets or pets nowhere in sight. In a couple of cases the pets were just standing there, apparently set on passive, or flagged in place somewhere while the battle moved in and out of their range. But the better ranger players seemed to be getting the job done nonetheless. How can we judge the supposed substantial difference in effectiveness?

Yet, if a ranger is actually able to be just about as effective without a pet, then that will be a disappointment too. If it doesn't really make a significant difference if the pet is there or not, then the pet is more of a liability than an asset since it will demand attention without returning real benefits. It will just be a distraction for the ranger, since he will still have to keep an eye on its health, rez as needed, and control its movements to prevent unwanted aggro.

The special mechanics of most revealed professions seem easy to understand and one can easily see how badly a player would be gimped by refusing to use that mechanic in cases where there is a choice. An ele can refuse to switch attunements, but would obviously be made far less effective by this refusal. The thief's mechanic is a little harder to understand, but it is one, like the warrior's adrenaline, where there is no choice in using it. In the case of the ranger's mechanic, however, the situation is not so clear cut. The ranger has a choice, but the costs and benefits of making that choice are not clear.

It would be very informative if one of ANet's best ranger drivers sat down one day and recorded the same encounter twice, once without a pet and once with.

[Alaris]

How can we judge the supposed substantial difference in effectiveness?

ANet said so. Also, I'm sure the difference will be felt in endgame / PvP.

Yet, if a ranger is actually able to be just about as effective without a pet, then that will be a disappointment too.

The pet wouldn't be a liability, it would be a different playstyle. Pet effectiveness takes into account the pet AI, skills, etc.

I get your point about not using attunements etc, but it's not the same. First, an elementalist can be very effective without switching attunements. Second, playing without a pet can be a lot of fun, even if you "miss out" on what makes the ranger fun. Third, pet AI is sure to bug some people sometimes, so it'd be nice to have an alternative for those times.

[Alexia of Durham]

A hamster named Boo. Suddenly I am intrigued. What game is that from? Does it have ferrets?

I do have to wonder just how accurate is the claim that rangers without pets will be underpowered. Most of the rangers we saw in the demos were playing with dead pets or pets nowhere in sight. In a couple of cases the pets were just standing there, apparently set on passive, or flagged in place somewhere while the battle moved in and out of their range. But the better ranger players seemed to be getting the job done nonetheless. How can we judge the supposed substantial difference in effectiveness?

Yet, if a ranger is actually able to be just about as effective without a pet, then that will be a disappointment too. If it doesn't really make a significant difference if the pet is there or not, then the pet is more of a liability than an asset since it will demand attention without returning real benefits. It will just be a distraction for the ranger, since he will still have to keep an eye on its health, rez as needed, and control its movements to prevent unwanted aggro.

The special mechanics of most revealed professions seem easy to understand and one can easily see how badly a player would be gimped by refusing to use that mechanic in cases where there is a choice. An ele can refuse to switch attunements, but would obviously be made far less effective by this refusal. The thief's mechanic is a little harder to understand, but it is one, like the warrior's adrenaline, where there is no choice in using it. In the case of the ranger's mechanic, however, the situation is not so clear cut. The ranger has a choice, but the costs and benefits of making that choice are not clear.

It would be very informative if one of ANet's best ranger drivers sat down one day and recorded the same encounter twice, once without a pet and once with.

Boo is from Baldur's Gate series ( the mother/father of all subsequent RPG's and MMO's ) , mandatory purchase for all folks who love RPG's and MMO's from GoG :
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/baldu..._original_saga


http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/baldurs_gate_2_complete

[Akirai Annuvil]

Completely and utterly irrational, but summoning a flock of birds to attack one's target sounds like one of the most fun things about GW2.
I am guessing that this, combined with a pet will make for one seriously crappy character, but ... having fun sounds like fun.

I thought it sounded annoying (moar summonz) but to each their own. Sword+dagger with a secondary shortbow. Lots of agility and A BOW.
Thief's probably gonna be sword+pistol and shortbow for the same reasons.
Warrior dual axe and longbow. BECAUSE STRENGTH IS STRONG.
And a Monkguard. Don't know how, but because I can.

From what I've seen in the videos, there is a short word for pets that are ignored and left on autopilot: corpse.

Can't even remember what happened to my pet I completely and utterly neglected in the demo. I think it died somewhere and was out of range of my res skill so I just forged on ahead. Good news: I was still progressing smoothly. Bad news: I was accompanied by at least 1 or 2 devs, they could've been picking up the slack for me, I wouldn't know.

ANet in an interview said that warrior, elementalist, and ranger were designed to be easier to play.

So, guardian, thief, and necro might be good choices if you like harder classes.

Do you have the source? I remember an interview where ANet devs stated the necro being reworked because it never died (iirc, PAX thread, killtenrats blog) which points to the opposite off what you're claiming.

[Alaris]

Do you have the source? (...) necro being reworked because it never died

Couldn't find the source, sry.

As for necro proving anything... efficient =/= easy to play.

Necro could survive easily, but could they do enough damage? Efficient is about how fast you progress, so it's dependent on survival and damage.

Also, a profession could be any combination of easy/hard to play and efficient/inefficient. We tend to notice easy efficient (OP) and hard inefficient more (UP). But easy inefficient vs hard efficient is usually less of an issue.

[Supreme Dragon]

Heavy Armor + Weapon skills + Staff + Bubbles of Awesome.

Wait. Why is this a hard choice?

[BrettM]

My first character was an ele, and my first character in GW2 will be an ele. The lack of summons does not bother me (if you don't want to count "conjure" skills as summons), and I'm excited by the possibilities of attunement switching. I've rarely played my ele as anything other than earth, partly because it is such a pain to juggle multiple auras and a couple of weapon sets for each line. Earth, for my money, is the most flexible line for GW1 eles, with both damage and support, so I picked that right from the beginning. GW2 will only get better from there by adding even more flexibility though attunement switching.

My third was a smiting monk, created within a few days of the first two. I love playing smite, and it seems to offer many interesting ways to combine with a secondary profession. Smite/rit is one fun way to go, and the guardian has some of that built in. I also love playing my rit, rolled about a year ago, and my para, rolled about four months ago. Guardian = smitey monkagon with a bit of rit. How could I possibly pass? First day of GW2 this will be my third character.

The melee capabilities of the guardian might take some getting used to, since I've never rolled any melee characters or used my others for any sort of melee. But I'm starting to get used to the fact that my para is not squishie and I need to stop playing him like he was now that he's made Survivor. I think I like it.

I just can't see the necro being anything other than third choice.