Feedback talk:User/2818322192/clear class roles

Now, I may be a bit naive, but isn't looking up information about class roles and whatnot what the wiki is for? When I start up on a "new" mmo or anything(more for mmo's than anything else) I 1 read the manuals and look at various fansites of that game, that way I know what classes or races/etc do what best. Also, you may want to check your grammar and whatnot, it was really painful to read. "then all is left for me is to tank u" for reading my opinion. Weaponmaster 08:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I find the notion of "class roles" extremely overrated and an unimaginative way to go about things. Weaponmaster 08:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I made the mistake of once playing Fiesta, where there are only four classes; Fighter, Mage, Cleric and Ranger. You could specialise to some extent after that. It was shit.

My point is that with hundreds of skills, you will always find things arent't always what they seem due to people finding good sets of skills which interact well with each other. But over simplifying this would make the game all about class wars and not about tactical applications of skills. Chibot2000 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, i want the exact opposite of the suggestion on this page. While its good for class difference, it really whittles down what any single class can do. For ages monks had problems with smiting, just because most smiting skills aren't affected by divine favor, in addition to being underwhelming, while divine favor directly added to the healing of Healing Prayers. I would personally like to see a class more ambiguous in its use, like the ranger. Sure, its mostly used for bows and arrows, but expertise, in all its overpowered goodness, has made it a flexible melee and support class as well. On the same line, Soul Reaping makes necromancers very useful in pve, regardless of their usage, and are just are very flexible as a caster. 128.173.125.74 03:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah i'd much prefer classes to be more flexible than having set roles. I wanna see my monk shooting jesus beams and doing damage and i wanna see my ranger fixing peoples wounds up with unguents. I dont want warrior always running in and taking damage allthe time or my mesmer constantly just inturupting spellcasters.--Crazy guy 02:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh... it's thanks to this kind of thinking that DnD 4.0 was such a decline from 3.5. I agree with everyone who's commented so far... class roles are too restrictive. It should all definitely be left to the players to decide how to play the game... and with the limited bar system the value of builds climbs up one-hundred fold, making Guild Wars (2) the most viable game for having this mechanic. I was so happy when I hear everyone would have a healing move. 131.94.37.53 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree the class stereotypes just make the game more blah. Breaking such stereotypes while also being very effective is what I prefer. The whole class stereotype thing (example: monks=heal) is boring and quite a pain, and also part of why I'm glad for the removal of 'dedicated healing' in GW2. ~Cookies~ 19:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Number 1: Improve your spelling. Number 2: Apparently you don't go onto the homepage much, because they have very much said that you can choose whatever it is that you want to do. Quote: "You can have a warrior who chooses to bleed his opponents out slowly, or you can have one that controls his opponents movement with long, slow strokes", or something to that effect. My best guess is that you could have a warrior who chooses to kill his opponents quickly (like me), or you could just bleed them out, or you could focus on support. It really doesn't matter. Besides that, they've said on the homepage that there won't be certain roles, aka tank, DD, healer etc.