I just don't really see what's that different between getting new abilities at 85/90 like in WoW, and getting an ability at lvl 5 in GW2, and being able to select two traits at 80 that maximize the awesomeness of that ability. I agree that elite abilities are kind of silly, and some classes just treat them as 'well, every 2m I can do this thing that does a bit of extra damage', which is a shame, but I don't think the system is silly or broken or bad in any way, I think it's a refreshing change from the 'your class is useless until some arbitrary point where you get an ability that lets you be awesome'.
The feeling of growing into your character is far more organic.
Gelsamel wrote:Yet in the heat of battle can you really tell the difference between Chaos Storm and Null Field?
Yeah, good enough point, that in the heat of battle, if an ally drops a Null field and a Chaos Storm side by side, you may have a hard time telling the difference. Incidentally, the difference is that Null field forms a bubble, Chaos Storm forms a ring, but I agree, there are abilities that may be different to differentiate, and ultimately, despite most PvP or PvE situations not really requiring this, this kind of transparency is important in terms of allowing players to make decisions.
Interrupts are less important in this game than WoW, but Confusion builds are very potent in PvP, and ultimately, because of the ubiquity of buffs/debuffs, identifying the specific move or AoE being dropped is less important than identifying what buffs/debuffs are on a target or on your groupmates. Which is by no means suggesting it is perfect or as streamlined as it should be.
Gelsamel wrote:Throwing a greatsword is the most stupid idea I've ever heard.
Most ranged greatsword abilities involve, as you said, creation of a magic greatsword that flies off. If the aesthetic of tossing a greatsword bugs you, sure, I guess it must be annoying that it's in the game; I don't think it's any better or worse than bows/guns that have no ammo associated with them, or shields that have virtually solely offensive utility.
Gelsamel wrote:It's not a 'problem', I play characters I like and am interested in. I don't play characters, builds, weapons, etc, solely on whether they provide the best stuff for my character. It's not that I don't min/max, I just min/max within what I want to play, whether that be class or weapon.
Respectfully, I believe this is a problem. This is like saying 'I want to be an offensive priest, but I don't like shadow, so I'm going to spec discipline/holy and run as rDPS'. GW2 is not designed to let you say 'I'm a Guardian, and I love the way sword and board looks, but I don't want any support abilities'. In WoW, the way you look and the weapons you choose are just skins; a mace with +100 spellpower and a sword with +100 spell power are identical. You should realize the same cannot be said for GW2; if you care more about how your character looks holding a weapon than what that weapon does, this game isn't for you.
Gelsamel wrote:But you have to be doing all this fire damage from F1 (and not using it is certainly stupid, simply choosing to do less dps?) and the best utilities for melee DPS are the fire ones. You might not have to spec into condition damage, but you are really putting yourself at a disadvantage if you don't get fire utilities or burning traits.
Seriously, this is untrue. There are reasons to keep the passive functionality of Virtue of Justice up at all times, especially given that there's a trait to cause the effect every 4th instead of every 5th hit, another that makes the attack an AoE, and I *think* there's another that makes it so allies also have the effect.
Seriously, there are multiple dps heavy builds for the guardian that do not rely on condition damage. Buuuuuuuuuut; remember, not using a range of your abilities is stupid; even the most dps centric build will still have support functionality, and should be doing so. It's a very WoW-centric way of approaching the game to say 'My dps build is totes maximized for burning damage'.
You know, truthfully, given that you stated you want to 'play your character the way you want to play your character', it seems this game is way more up your ally than WoW; if you find yourself dodging and rolling a bunch, there are traits that cause effects on rolls, if you find yourself really digging a scepter, you can focus on scepter traits. There's such a wildly greater range of viable builds in this game than anything WoW ever presented, especially now, given WoWs three choice at each level milestone getup.
Gelsamel wrote:'m not questioning design here, I'm just pointing out why I don't want to play the class. There are games where the pet class can spec away from pets and into pure range or into pure melee. Or they could choose to spec into entirely pet. But the Ranger's attacks and Fskills in GW2 are linked to the pet, so you can't just get rid of the pet or ignore it. Thats why I don't want to play the class.
Well, A ) I've never seen a pet class that lets you drop the pet entirely, and B ) there are absolutely traits that increase your efficacy over the pets. As with all pet classes, there's a spectrum between 'do more effects from the pet' and 'do more effects from the PC'. Same shtick here. I also dislike pet classes by in large.
I want to point out Necromancers though; they have pet capabilities, and they can also totally ignore the pets. My sense is the pets are kind of underwhelming though.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.