Talk:Guide to PvE

Disclaimer: This is not at all how I want a PvE strategy guide to look like, but I needed an article to copy those items unrelated to hard mode to. --Xeeron 11:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

rewritten. --Xeeron 09:16, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Regarding team setups, I agree that we should keep the list short. However, I still think we should include the no-frontline option (e.g. 1 minion master + 5 midliners including 1-3 pets + 2 healers). Not including this option gives the false impression that you will be ineffective without frontlines, whereas I found that you can be more effective without frontlines if you use enough minions & pets. Given the already large variability included (e.g. 2-3 midlines, where midlines can be anything from paragons to mesmers), I fail to see what other team setup could also be added that is not covered by these two 8-man teams (e.g. the standard and my addition). Alaris 14:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

1 monk, 3 monks, 4 monks, 7 rangers, IWAY, no-frontliners without pets, no frontliners without minions, all can and have been viable somewhere, the list is just endless. If you really dislike the team setup part, do away with it completely. I feel this line "While there is some leeway in the number of melee (warriors and dervishes) and midline characters" already captures that the frontline can be smaller. If we keep that special example, we have to include many more and this would become a mini-team-build section. --Xeeron 15:20, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree that 1 monk is too few, you get killed quickly. 3-4 monks is too many, you don't get enough damage output. 7 rangers? 4 is enough if they're trapping :) The point is not about being viable somewhere, but being viable generally everywhere. I have switched to this team setup while doing protector titles, and I have since kept with it for vanquishing. I've not had to use melee characters since.

Perhaps we should not focus so much on what makes it in and what doesn't, but rather, how can we put in useful suggestions without making the list overly large. I've tried another way, let me know if it works better. Alaris 02:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Much better. And I like your table =) --Xeeron 08:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Alaris 13:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

what a stupid page. Skakid9090 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What a stupid comment. Here's an idea, make it smarter by adding in some good information new players can use. Alaris 01:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Team build

I disagree a bit with the team build-table. I think it looks much too static to me.

I know for a fact that it is possible to play 6 person missions on hard mode with only 1 healer and 1 supportive/hybrid character (for example a Restoration/Channeling Ritualist). Putting in two 'healers' is too rigid IMO. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a restoration rit a healer? Anyway, the point here is to give a general model that works well, and people can feel free to experiment and deviate from the model. My experience is that less than 2 healers needs to be compensated by skill and strategy, so beginners will generally find those builds not very useful. IMHO Alaris 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure almost all normal mode missions can be beat by a monk, a necro and a tank alone. That does not mean we should recommend 3 person teams. People come here to see what the standard is and that is, clearly, 2 healers. Of course other setups work as well, but if you want something special, you're unlikely to read a text about "standard" teams in the first place. --Xeeron 13:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A full restoration rit is indeed a healer, but a restoration+channeling ritualist is quite capable of dealing out damage too, thus a hybrid. I guess you really want this to be more of a PvE PUG Strategy guide then? My concern is, is that if people are reading this article, they will not try to go outside the box, and I find that wrong. Of course two monks are a 'nice to have', but plenty of times, this just ain't possible. In my opinion, team builds should be described, not prescribed; similar to Guild Wars Wiki:Policy/Builds.--  (CoRrRan / talk) 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are actually right about the PuG strategy guide, I dont think that any guild team would ever need to read those tips, they'd simply make their own tailored build. This is directed at first time players (noobs if you want), who are unable to create a team build from scratch themself, because they dont know the game well enough. --Xeeron 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This guide should be useful for PUG's and single players (i.e. using henchs and heroes). To the extent that a hybrid is a healer, then it's not worth mentionning. To the extent that he is less effective as a healer, then it's a bad idea. I think that people reading this will do efforts at bringing two healers, and they'll go outside the box once they get a feel for the game. Alaris 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives

I'm gonna talk some crazy-talk: I like a no melee team. By that I mean no warriors, no dervishes, no assassins (with exceptions for spear warrs, crit barragers, or otherwise ranged W, D, and A), no MMs, no pets. I can hear the gasps of horror already. Particularly with heroes and henches, it's a great way of managing aggro, and not as suicidal as you might be thinking. I've yet to find a mission that can't be taken down this way as or more effectively than a team with melee, and being Protector of all three continents, the soonest you might convince me there is one is a month away. - Tanetris 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

CRAZY TALK !!! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA !!! I WON'T HEAR A WORD OF IT !!! Just kidding. Different team combinations work, and it's fun to work them out. Your team combo reminds me of how I used to play DS2 using only bow attacks. It was really fun! But if you start describing every alternative that works in a guide to PvE, you're going to confuse the players. Besides, team builds like the one you describe requires more strategy to work well - you need to know how to manage aggro and keep your squishies out of harm's way or you might be losing team members quickly. Alaris 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I bet I could do almost all protector missions completely without a healer, given a good guild team. That doesnt mean it should be recommended here though. --Xeeron 22:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am betrayed by a fellow ranger! Like a savage shot in my heart! Anyway, it's not like I'm advocating an all-ranger team (4 R/Es and 2 R/Mos, back before Factions came out, when I was doing Sanctum Cay for the first time. Funnest PUG ever.), just saying neither tank nor tank substitutes are as necessary as they're made out to be, and in fact there are advantages in not taking them at all. As for you, Xeeron, I'm most certainly not talking about a good guild team, or even a bad guild team. I'm talking about hench/hench&hero teams, and PUGs. Also I'm talking from the experience of a crappier player, since I doubt I could do all the missions, let alone protector, without a healer along. :p - Tanetris 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i play monk. and i do not take pugs. Dunkoro: WoH, Zhed&Sousuke: SF, another 2 ele hench (CYNN FTW!!!!), one supporter (=rit), one interrupt hench, one w-t-h-do-i-know other hench. no problems with pulling, no problems with anything. of course, slight changes for shiro'ken rangers >.> - Y0_ich_halt 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the professions guide

There are several biases in the professions guide, like trying to fit the new players into cookie-cutters. Examples, fire elementalist only, paragons use command to support melee-heavy teams, and rangers can sometimes pull instead of warriors? I think this section should be re-organized as (1) what are some common uses, (2) what are some less common uses, (3) what you need to tell your party if you're playing a given build. We want to educate, not reinforce already-existing biases. Alaris 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Alaris, I love you. Yseron - 86.64.70.44 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clear to me this guy doesn't like mesmers and has a very very limited idea of what necros can do. Nagennif

Frontline, Midline, Backline

These terms are only used in PvP. Putting things like this in Guide to PvE is really not appropriate. Lightblade 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Yes, they are only used in PvP, but that doesn't mean it can't describe teams in PvE. In this case, it really isn't going into detailed tactics based on which position you're playing; it's making very broad generalizations, basically using the terms as a pronoun. "Frontline" is easier to type than "Warriors and Dervishes and sometimes Assassins," "Midline" is easier than "Rangers, Elementalists, Imbagons, Mesmers, Necromancers, and Ritualists", and "backline" is marginally easier to type than "Monks and/or ritualists."

If you break PvE down like a PvP match (and treat it as such), it gets ridiculously easy. Role realization is an important first step of thinking critically about PvE. -Auron 09:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I thought PvE only have tank, nuker, and healer. Lightblade 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just that generally, "tanks" have endure pain, "nukers" have flare, and "healers" have healing breeze... -Auron 09:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There are smart and non-smart players in both formats, that really doesn't have much to do with terminology. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody who calls himself backline is going to be running healing breeze :p -Auron 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But it's 9 arrows of health increase at 16 healing prayers! (And with mending, it's even more (13!!!).) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CoRrRan r leet heelar -Auron 17:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that playing PvE with a PvP mindset is nice, but it's not necessary, and imle not common, certainly not in PuGs. And for those, I find that the "we need more <class x>" mentality is more hurtful than beneficial. I do concede you need to balance your defense versus your offense, and if unsure about the shutdown/positioning/advancedwhatever abilities of your team, it's probably best, certainly easiest to take two healer-types. The frontline/midline split, however, is something derived from the PvP mechanics of the game: melee there does far more damage than casters, and the midline is delegated to enable their frontline, disable the enemy and assist in spikes, since they can't hope to match melee dps. In PvE, however, caster damage is noticeably increased (mainly due to AoE and the AI's inability to deal with hexes), so there's no strong reason to prefer melee dps over caster dps or vice versa. The only argument I can see for following the "frontline-midline" profession split in PvE is that it forces your party members apart, reducing the impact of hostile AoE on a team of poor players. (I'm disregarding tank+spank teams here, since I consider it a gimmick and comparing a tank to a PvP frontliner or a spanker/nuker to a PvP midliner should be obviously silly.) 134.130.4.46 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, for beginner players (which this guide is for), it's easier to stay alive with some tanks in front taking the heat, and some midliners doing their damage outside the range of risks. Also, as you pointed out, AoE is less effective against diverse groups. I think there's no need to change it, more experienced players will understand that there are other ways to play it. -- Alaris 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's certainly easier at first, but this is called "Guide to PvE", not "Guide to surviving your first few missions, please forget the partially wrong advice in here afterwards" ;) So I guess I'd prefer a clearer distinction between "if you have trouble advancing at all, here is cookie-cutter way X to beat most everything nm" and "if you can usually hold your own in nm, but want to become a better player, here's some tips". And I think the tanking frontline/nuking midline is well placed in the former category, while horribly wrong in the latter. 134.130.4.46 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some tips on alternate ways to play, like that of substituting frontliners with a MM necro. You always have to balance "correctness" with "readable", if you start putting too many exceptions and too many alternatives, it'll just confuse the new players. Maybe we could add a section on alternatives and advanced play instead? -- Alaris 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, something like that. 134.130.4.46 23:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulling

Why does the Pulling section cite Flatbows as the best tool? 18:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

because they have the longest range at highest attack rate. - Y0_ich_halt 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You only need one arrow to have a reasonable pull from a large mob, so longbow is best IMO. Calor — talk 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

ya, it actually is. better flight time, so you hit better. - Y0_ich_halt 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you answered the question, really, lol. Pull cites Longbows as the _commonest_. Whether refire rate is a factor in a good pull is another debate. But why is it being recommended in this beginners guide over Longbow? Is there a specific benefit to getting more pull hits? Aren't you supposed to fire and run? I would think a long bow offers the most benefit, because it can keep distance. 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't image either being that much better over the other, both have the same range. - HeWhoIsPale 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Long is better when the target is moving (lower arc->better chance to hit your target), Flat is better when the target is stationary (higher arc->more time to run away before the mob starts following you). 134.130.4.46 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ursan

Should we just switch the whole article to a link to Ursan Blessing? I mean, it is the new fastest and easiest way to play pve. (Even if it is hated, the new people will find it eventually anyway.)--Yankeefan984 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. If you wanna throw in the notes something like

• Some players form groups based on predesigned team builds, such as Ursanway or Foo, and only accept players willing to follow the prebuilt roles. Many of these builds are listed on (pvxwiki).

Go ahead, but replacing the article, pfttt :). Even for people who refuse to use anything else there's a period of time in which they don't yet have access to it, for each new character. --Star Weaver 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

While, obviously, we should not replace the whole article (and I dont think it was a serious suggestion), we should mention it. No matter your personal opinion about Ursan blessing, it IS a very useful tool in PvE. --Xeeron 18:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And it is very widely used. (And no, I was not serious about replaceing the whole article (Maybe bold print at the top though.))--Yankeefan984 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I saw no objections to putting up a note about Ursan, I did so in the notes of the team build section.--Yankeefan984 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god! I hate you all. This is a GUIDE to PvE!! You're promoting the shortcut in the tutorial! You concern me, you concern me gravely. Spawnlegacy 11:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) Ursan is not widely used. Only placed its really used is in elite or particularly difficult areas. I never use Ursan when just doing missions, and only once I've seen someone use Ursan in missions. (2) Until Ursan is appropriately dealt with (nerfed), it remains a way to play the game that works. This is a Guide. It should not have opinions, but rather give players options that work. -- Alaris 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

Hmm..

Assassins (melee midline) are hit-and-run experts, and should not stay in melee range for extended periods of time. Assassins are unpopular because many tried to Tank with them, with the success of Leeroy Jenkins. Convince your group that you are using hit-and-run tactics for high damage output.

The part about Leeroy Jenkins is fail, deleting that.. Koen 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And the above comment has to do with the conversation how exactly?--Yankeefan984 18:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Star Weaver 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Assassins

Everyone loves to give assassins the label of being useless for PvE teams, possibly because many young players think assassins are "cool" but often lack the experience to play them properly thus giving them a bad name. However a wiki guide should be un-bias therefore I think we should remove the point that is -> "Despite using a melee weapon, assassins are classified as midline characters here, because their play style resembles a midline character much more than a warrior or dervish." <- This is purely a matter of opinion. I play an Assassin mostly and I am the only melee player in the party which is made up of heros and henchies. (although sometimes I include a minnion master which I guess counts as melee). I stay at the front line and always try to hold agro on me. For those who lake experience as an Assassin yet feel the need to comment on their "play style" you may wish to look at a commonly run assassin build which is entirely "front line" -> [1]. So unless anyone objects, in the not to distant future i will remove this phrase. Please Discuss....

As an side note for 8 player areas surely 1-4 melee 2-5 midline and 2 monks is a very common set up for PvE areas in Particular Hard Mode and elites. Therefore it may be more accurate to have 1-4 as opposed to 2-4. most good PvE teams run one tank and 5 midline with 2 monks so whys this not an option on the guide? Sure it doesnt look as neat as having both melee and midline at 2-4, but including only 1 melee as an option is a better representation of how experienced players play PvE. Once again Please Discuss.... 90.207.245.31 16:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the guide should be addressed to new players, and thus does well to give them a realistic way to play viably with sub-optimal skill. Sins played as melee/tank, IMO, are more likely to be a liability than sins played as midline. That's not to say that it's not feasible or viable. But I think the comment stands that new players who use the sin as melee will suffer from it more often than not. In short, I think the comment is statistically true, even though there may be exceptions to the rule.

That being said, my vote is to keep that section as is, but then mention that with more skill, melee builds are also viable. I prefer guides that give the main playstyle but also offer reasonable alternatives. -- Alaris 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

sounds like a great compromise, ultimately new players have to face less difficult foes so less optimal skill will often be acceptable. I will conjour up some way of conveying a more compromising sentiment towards assassin when im at work on monday maybe :) 90.207.245.31 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hp Theif of Doom (HTD)
Assassin / Any
Dagger Mastery	12+1+1
Shadow Arts	6
Critical Strikes	10
Deadly Arts	6
Unsuspecting Strike Wild Strike Vampiric Assault Moebius Strike Crippling Dagger Way of the Fox Death's Charge Shadow Refuge

watch out for that build, it could save your team, you can replace cripple dagg with endure toxy it'll force 'em to slow down either way (PvE and PvP)

I personally prefer to contrast "common", "safe", "uncommon", "pro", and "niche". As a general rule, this page should emphasize the common safe builds that get the work done a low risk to a newbie. However, we could add a short note that there are other possible playstyles with a link to a page discussing those (generally the profession page). -- Alaris 14:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Given the introductory nature of this page, merging in Hard Mode does not seem like a good idea. The link to the Hard Mode guide provides the necessary additional information if needed.

On previous occasions, similar merges have made a real mess of things. In particular, the original sources of the information get lost and it becomes very difficult to trace questionable information back to its origins when trying to verify its accracy. --Max 2 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The advice given under "The Professions" far too loosely defines the classes' roles for in Hard Mode, as an example. -- Oiseau | 05:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

/agree --Kyoshi (Talk) 17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. Merge would be a bad idea. Duplication of information isn't always a bad thing to do. --Lania Elderfire 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

PvE?

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guide_to_PvE&diff=2044531&oldid=2039529

Wouldn't that be better in a PvP section as it's not exactly Player vs Environment. Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of this particular page (first time I've questioned someone else's edit, so apologies if I've stepped on any toes!). Tylenol Jones 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

CM is almost like PvE but it isn't. Competitive missions still should be considered PvP even though you deal with NPC's as well. --Lania Elderfire 04:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are NPCs in guild matches as well ... CM are clearly not PvE. --Xeeron 09:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Terrain section

This section states that standing on higher ground gives rangers a damage boost. If this is true, can someone link to where a test has been done or a dev has said this? As far as I know it only gives a range boost, and *possibly* and boost in critical percentage (not too sure about this) Kumlekar 04:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been common knowledge since very early on. You can always test it quiet easily and see the difference it makes too. Tylenol Jones 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you head out to the Isle of the Nameless, you can see both the range and the damage being increased. G R E E N E R 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

mesmers

so underrated, when fighting against them crap like shatter enchant will eat your prot hard or even patient spirit with the monsters superior reaction time. soothing images is pretty common and will take away your Save Yourselves! or adren wars. don't forget that mesmers deal armor ignoring damage. I'd say they should go sooner rather than later in most encounters.

when playing as them, i'd say a good mesmer is prob one of the best assets in your team (esp after the recent buff). it's bad mesmer players that give mesmers a bad name. Roflmaomgz 05:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I'd never read this before

This comment may come a bit late - but this article looks way to much like a pvp article where someone went find/replace pvp with pve... But seriously - average Joe isn't going to be able to find a group this organized starting out. He probably won't be able to find anyone who will take him in a group and if he does find a group, they will likely call him a noob and kick him because his build is lame. That said, this guide should be restructured around a h/h game play aspect, or more about setting up a good pve build for joining groups. Sure, the pvp elements are useful, but this guide is way to long, and full of quaint pvp ideals Kyle van der Meer 02:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't favor one side or the other. This is information a person can find useful no matter what in PvE; while true that there are fewer pugs or groups in general in the game now, that doesn't mean we should remove information on how to work with groups. A guide obviously won't have everything, and h/h is much simpler than groups and, imo, doesn't even need a guide (really, you can just charge in wands-a-blazing with a h/h group and be fine in almost any situation in NM). -- -- Konig/talk 03:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Average balanced way teams

Who runs balanced these days? There's no point teaching people how Guild Wars used to be played, back when it was quite simply a very different game. These days it's more "get all your Necro heroes, give them builds from PvXWiki, then as you gain more experience learn how to abuse additional OP skills, such as all Ritualist Binding Rituals".

The article looks like it hasn't changed at all from the time Warriors started loosing ground in PvE - and casters have become more and more dominant. There's different styles of play and, sure 100 Blades can work well for farming, but I don't think that table should stay. It suggests balanced way is in some way meta for normal PvE (if not, why is it mentioned at all?) and that's just not the case anymore. A F K When Needed 13:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is mostly true. The section is outdated and while there may be a few people out there who still run balanced teams, I don't think the article really applies to them. Shadow Runner 13:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

At the same time it just seems silly to tell people to run either discordway or sabway. In certain areas, discordway or sabway fails miserably, and you have to customize your team bars. A new player should learn how to fit the team to the area or else they'll just crash and burn when the "stock" pvx hero build fails. Also you have to consider players who don't own all the campaigns, like they might be lacking factions for example. --Lania 16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This point is extremely valid. I spent half of my time playing Guild Wars only having the prophecies and EoTN campaigns, and I was forced to learn how a balanced party should be customized to each mission to allow the least effort - imagine fighting glint without any interrupts, which i struggled but did manage to do since the builds I had were decent enough to make for the shortcomings of the NPCs and heroes. I didn't have (or even know about) any one-build-fits-all builds, and I know how to change my build to suit the environment better because of it. Learning how to use discordway or sabway is pointless when you end up having players who crash and burn when faced with situations they don't recognise, which happens more often than one thinks. ToadnoChikara 124.197.0.12 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is directed at people who want to play an online game with other humans. Not at people who want to solo a game with PvX build heroes. --Xeeron 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Other humans don't play balanced way. So if it's geared at people who wish to play with other humans Xeeron, why does it recommend an obsolete team build which has been long since discarded?

My point is still valid. So is the one raised by ToadnoChikara. However, I'm not saying we redirect the page to PvXWiki. We don't have to recommend a style of play.

As I've already stated - the table suggests that balanced way is meta / dominant / commonly used, or whatever - and that is not the case at all. Ergo it's misleading, and should be removed. A F K When Needed 22:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Tanking sub-section is garbage

Not only does the article mention 'holding aggro' and warriors in the same section, but it gives players the impression that it's viable for general play.

Tanking warriors are only viable with specific builds, or if the player is experienced with aggro distance and mob travel limits. Iether way, a doorstop is NOT how a warrior is supposed to be used.

Also, the cornerblocking diagram is wrong. Tank is supposed to hold on inner, not outer edge.

These two sections need to be merged and rewritten, or done away with entirely, this is borderline dangerous.Gennadios 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've taken the first step toward changing it. Let's see if anyone else agrees with you. -- Wyn talk 22:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the diagram could be better, but unless someone who knows how to produce such stuff comes up with a better one, this is preferable to nothing. And regarding aggro, in normal mode (and this article is directed at NM players), focusing aggro on the warrior is both possible and a good idea - even without specific builds. --Xeeron 14:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Frontline Midline and Backline

These terms are almost never used outside PVP and frankly if I were a new player looking at this article, I'd give GW a pass altogether. This is NOT how most new people play, nor should it be desirable that they play this way.

Much easier to suggest that you have a balanced team, integrating the ability to do enough damage to kill foes, with enough healing to keep you alive long enough to do so. This sort of very specific table would chase most new people away. It's not a good introduction to Guild Wars PVe.

I'd rather see something like this...

"When creating a team, it's important to represent a variety of different skills depending on the situation you're likely to encounter. You need to have damage dealers (either melee or spell casters), and healers (such as monks or ritualists). Making sure that each member of the party also has self-heal or some way to protect themselves can take a lot of pressure off healers."

I think frontline, mid line and back line is far too rigid for PVe and mostly, people prior to the Underworld or Fissure of Woe don't really worry so much about the builds your using. Hopefully by the time a player gets that far, they'll have learned something about builds and the game. But as an intro to new players, frontline, midline and backline is simply terrible. I've finished all the games in normal and hard mode, and never began to think on those terms. It's about balance, as much as anything else. Not rigid profession definitions.

Clearly too, there is bias here in favor of certain professions and against others. If you were a new player reading this, would you try to play a mesmer? Yet I found mesmers, even before the recent upgrade to be quite enjoyable to play. -- Nagennif

The recent update changes stuff, but I prefectly well remember all the assassins that did not find groups when Factions came out and similar for the mesmers. People need to be frankly told that they'll have trouble finding groups, whether that trouble is justified or not. For the intro: If you think it could be worded better, go ahead and change it. This is a wiki, after all, everyone is welcome to edit. --Xeeron 22:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Things like frontline and shutdown are important if you want to do something else than tank & spank. Especially for new players who do not have full knowledge of every profession's role in combat this is useful information so they know what they need to complete their party. Koda Kumi 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)