Disappointment?

[CHIPS]

Yes; I cede that point as too bluntly put.



Thing is, while there might be some sort of support line in play, without a dedicated healer (and/or prot, not to forget) role, it just won't be the critical objective it was in GW. You might as well bring your team to bear on the opposing W as on the -say- Guardian that's occasionally buffing it. A team is no longer critically interlocked like in GW. At least, I don't see anything indicating it is.

I recall a major point of criticism against the later GW metas was the dominance of hybrids (the WoH-protter, the MoI Ele and so on), and now we're apparently getting a whole game full of hybrids.
And it's not even the GW 1 hybrids with their still limited roles (a WoH-hybrid could heal and prot but not deal damage, for example), but full-on allrounders.

In other words, will there be any reason to not just find the class and weapon set that offers the best damage output, and then filling your team with those, like the eight Warrior teams of very early GW GvGs?

2 mesmers can totally shut down those 8 warriors, while the rest of the team ward those warriors to death. Heck Blinding Surge spammers can do the same thing.

Healing is not so simple. Have you forgotten about Backfire and interrupts? Defile Flesh that cuts your healing down to 2/3? Even if we give those monks in GW1 100 armor they will still die.

In other words wammo, even if it ever worked in GW1, will not work in the long run. There are tons of ways to go past them, which the players will discover after a period of time. Shut down their attack. Shut down their healing. Then you have 8 useless wammos.

[Akirai Annuvil]

Thing is, while there might be some sort of support line in play, without a dedicated healer (and/or prot, not to forget) role, it just won't be the critical objective it was in GW. You might as well bring your team to bear on the opposing W as on the -say- Guardian that's occasionally buffing it. A team is no longer critically interlocked like in GW. At least, I don't see anything indicating it is.

I agree with your conclusion, less so your arguments. A team is no longer critically interlocked because goals are numerous and spatially spread. If goals were singular, team fights would occur more often, so probably last longer, disabling the ability to switch weapon sets and I could see things like Guardian focusing one weapon set on offensive support, one on defensive support with the rest focusing on fairly straightforward offense making Guardian the crumpler. So I think there's some possibility based on maps and game modes, mostly, but there's also need to be some numerical balance allowing for a critical role - and I'm not sure ANet's willing to do that.

[Soulstorm]

Eh, seems to me our arguments are the same, only we're at different points in the causation chain.

A team is no longer critically interlocked because goals are numerous and spatially spread. If goals were singular, team fights would occur more often, so probably last longer, disabling the ability to switch weapon sets and I could see things like Guardian focusing one weapon set on offensive support, one on defensive support with the rest focusing on fairly straightforward offense making Guardian the crumpler. So I think there's some possibility based on maps and game modes, mostly, but there's also need to be some numerical balance allowing for a critical role - and I'm not sure ANet's willing to do that.

Goals are spread out exactly because the game is focused around individual units now, and that's why ANet would be unwilling to make the numbers favour specific roles.
It all starts right there: ANet's moving away from team dynamics and onto individual units as their primary focus.
As an aside, I can't help but wonder if this is the end result of their (ANet's/Izzy's) idea of "balance" as "every profession is equally useful"; refer the time when Necros got stupidly buffed to force them into play in GvG.

I'll concede that I might have been too focused on the concept of lines, under the impression it's the start and end of "proper" PvP when they're really just a consequence of the role-bound, team-based gameplay we know from Ye Olde GilWorz.

Hopefully, the system will be as such that it is better to adaptively play (as a whole team) in an offensive style or a defensive one, depending on the circumstances. That is, if the enemy pushes hard, playing in a way that conserves the resources of the own team (by for example preventing damage from being applied) while expending the resources of the enemy team/exploiting mistakes that they are forced to make because they are attempting to play offensively.

Yes, hopefully there will be a strategic level to "GvGs" in GW 2 at all.
Being 5v5 and seemingly based around what we'd call skirmishing in GW 1, though, I rather doubt it'll be anything special.

[CHIPS]

Eh, seems to me our arguments are the same, only we're at different points in the causation chain.



Goals are spread out exactly because the game is focused around individual units now, and that's why ANet would be unwilling to make the numbers favour specific roles.
It all starts right there: ANet's moving away from team dynamics and onto individual units as their primary focus.
As an aside, I can't help but wonder if this is the end result of their (ANet's/Izzy's) idea of "balance" as "every profession is equally useful"; refer the time when Necros got stupidly buffed to force them into play in GvG.

I'll concede that I might have been too focused on the concept of lines, under the impression it's the start and end of "proper" PvP when they're really just a consequence of the role-bound, team-based gameplay we know from Ye Olde GilWorz.




Yes, hopefully there will be a strategic level to "GvGs" in GW 2 at all.
Being 5v5 and seemingly based around what we'd call skirmishing in GW 1, though, I rather doubt it'll be anything special.

All the classes play differently. The only similarity they have is that they all have self defense skills and can self heal. But even then, each class do those differently.

[RD]

Just watched the TotalBiscuit Mesmer gameplay video and it's pretty much killed my love of Mesmer...

No longer are we this backline caster, damaging foes via finesse. Now we're swinging swords, jumping around, with these big, flashy skills. Clone gameplay still seems like it could be interesting, and I'll still give the class a try (since it was my favorite in GW 1), but I don't think I'll be playing one in GW 2, based on what I've seen. It's almost a completely different class...

It looks like conditions are the biggest focus of Mesmers in GW 2. However, from the looks of that video, the conditions Mesmers inflict won't stick very long (it looks like they're only on for 1-2 seconds). Additionally, a lot of skills seem to inflict random conditions, so the whole element of timing your hexes is gone, too. Holding on to Backfire or an interrupt is a thing of the past.

Guess I'll start exploring Warrior v. Guardian more seriously now.

[Alaris]

Think of clones and phantasms as visual hexes.

If anything, I am even more excited about mesmer now. I think the finess will make more of a difference in how effective you are... spamming skills seems to be a tactic that will work, but not well. I didn't like how in GW1, you could end up bringing roughly 0% contribution to the fight if you played badly. Good play should be rewarded, but bad play should still do something.

There's enough ranged weapons to the mesmer imo, I like having some melee options. It will give me some thief-like play without having to make a thief. But I do plan to spend most of my mesmer time at a range.

[RD]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say you didn't like playing Mesmer in GW 1?

It seems to me like Mesmer 2.0 is aimed at people like you, who didn't like GW 1 Mesmer gameplay. There's no finesse anymore, I stand by that. You don't stand at the back line picking your hex targets, spreading your hexes out, timing your interrupts. Now you leap into combat, dodge attacks, create a flashy clone, fire pistols, shoot laser beams, and debuffs are random.

I liked that you had to have a level of skill to contribute in GW 1, especially for professions like Mesmer.

[Art]

I'll reserve judgement but I think RDarken has a point regarding how mesmers will be played.

Proof, of course, is in the eating.

-Art

[Alaris]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say you didn't like playing Mesmer in GW 1?

You are somewhat wrong, so let me explain.

The mesmer and I have a bit of a love/hate relationship. I loved how I could pull off some really cool combos and how I could really hurt foes via finesse, well-timed play, and using my knowledge. I really appreciated the mesmer at its finest.

However, as much as I liked the gameplay and the knowledge required, the mesmer at times was too punishing. Sometimes I would quickly use up my good skills and end up with either a full bar recharging, or a bunch of skills I had no reason whatsoever to cast on foes. So I ran into times where I was staring at the screen, waiting to play.

Also, while I like intellectual play, I don't care much for the combination of twitch and encyclopedia. I know some people know every skill and which need to be interrupted, but not me. Especially when I also need to keep track of what I can interrupt with what, that is an unnecessary degree of complexity I don't care for.

Now, I think your concerns are more cosmetic than gameplay. Yes, the new mesmer is flashy, but I maintain that phantasms and clones are just like hexes, except that they are show in the game rather than as debuff icons. Also, they made playing the mesmer more visual, which is nice because one common complaint was that people didn't know what mesmers do. Now they will.

But gameplay-wise, I think it will take a lot of skill and finess to play well the mesmer in GW2. I think ANet captured the gameplay spirit fairly well. Hexes are still in, but in visible form. Twitch is still in, but now they act mainly via shatters. Conditional stuff is still in, but it's less punishing than it was.

I'll admit that there is less twitch than before though (which I am happy with, it was fun to twitch but I wouldn't want this to become central to my gameplay). There is also less possibility for failing hard, which I consider is good because a good game should distinguish excellent players from good players, but to make bad players feel even worse about their performance is really not justified.

That's my impression / opinion anyway.

[RD]

Now, I think your concerns are more cosmetic than gameplay. Yes, the new mesmer is flashy, but I maintain that phantasms and clones are just like hexes, except that they are show in the game rather than as debuff icons. Also, they made playing the mesmer more visual, which is nice because one common complaint was that people didn't know what mesmers do. Now they will.

Somewhat, yeah. But outside of that, you touch on it a bit more with the twitch gameplay. I was never a real interrupter, so twitch wasn't what I liked about playing Mesmer.

In GW 1, you could see a Warrior, hit it with Empathy. In GW 2, you see a Warrior, have to create a clone, get the clone close enough to the Warrior, then shatter it. And, like I said, it doesn't look like the conditions, as inflicted by Mesmers, last that long. Clones/Phantasms DO simulate hexes, but they do it much differently, in a roundabout way that I'm not crazy about. You might like it, as someone who really likes pet classes. I don't really like the micromanagement that often comes with pet classes (as much as I loved my Beastlord in EQ - that was just summon, buff, and heal, though), so pet classes aren't my style.

While deciding which illusions to use, when to shatter, and how to shatter them is similar to the decisions you had to make on target / hex selection in GW 1, it's way different in execution.

Like Art said, we won't know until we can eat the Mesmers ourselves, but I'm less excited about this class.