IMHO
The Current Limited Skill Deck system is not pug friendly for a MMORPG.
Reason I came to this conclusion, is because of limited Action Bar, along side the large number of (Useless/ limited) Skills per class.
-----------
In a MMO role playing game, were the world has open gameplay (persistent environments), everybody should, be allowed to be equally useful in group gameplay, no matter her/his gameplay style and skill deck choices.
Even Blizzard has gone out their past ways to make gameplay more open and equal to different class specs in their MMORPG.
-----------
If you're out in the wilds of Tyria, you may encounter a group that you want to join with. Keep in mind that Guild Wars 2 won't be instanced like the current version of Guild Wars, so it's entirely possible to meet people you weren't originally prepared to group with.

---------
---Example---
If iam a Rit that like to use Weapon Buffs, but my group is made up of Casters or something, then I would be very less useful, compared to if the group were a bunch of Melees.
-----------

My Solution for this, would be to give all classes, a "base set" of skill that they could have at all times to fore fill their class role.
Example---
A Monk would have a small Set of Heal Spells at all times, along side the 8 Optional Card Deck Spells, so the Monk can still be used as a healer when needed, even when speced in other roles.
Warrior would have a small set of Base Defense skills.
Ranger could have Base Trap Skills or something.
ext,
 

 Too much conjecture. There is barely any information about GW2 or it's gameplay, much less their skill system and metagame.

The only thing we do know in terms of skills is that every class will be fully capable of soloing in the game world, so if you're wandering around in the wilderness, and get to a group, chances are you've survived that long because your skills are somehow viable enough to get the job done.

I was fairly active in the GWiki GW2 suggestion section back when they actually had one, and the majority of suggestions were "don't repeat these mistakes" style postings that assumed GW2 will be a carbon copy of GW1. For good or ill it won't be the same, but about the only thing we can do right now is wait to see how things turn out.

The limited skill deck shouldn't really be changed... Making changes such as the ones you suggest are bad since they simplify and stupid the system, something that in the end makes the game worse. One of the great things about GW is that you can't just go "i liek to use watr magick lolz" and then only do that because different situations and teams require different setups. This makes the game more complicated and require your team to coordinate all the builds so that there's at least a basic synergy. It requires thinking and makes the game much better. It's not friendly for uncoordinated PuGs no, but encouraging randomway is stupid. The system encourages PuGing where the players tweak and change their skill bars a little depending on what others are running. When it comes to the skill system I'm really conservative simply because I think it's close to perfect.

The limited action bar along with the two class system are one of the best features in GW.

I hope they leave it exactly the same for GW2.

It's what defines the game imo.

If it's anything like GW, it's entirely PUG friendly.

Worst case scenario people who don't enjoy thinking for themselves can always wiki skill deck builds to use, or have their group's leader explain what they need.

Originally posted by Godliest

The limited skill deck shouldn't really be changed... Making changes such as the ones you suggest are bad since they simplify and stupid the system, something that in the end makes the game worse. One of the great things about GW is that you can't just go "i liek to use watr magick lolz" and then only do that because different situations and teams require different setups. This makes the game more complicated and require your team to coordinate all the builds so that there's at least a basic synergy. It requires thinking and makes the game much better. It's not friendly for uncoordinated PuGs no, but encouraging randomway is stupid. The system encourages PuGing where the players tweak and change their skill bars a little depending on what others are running. When it comes to the skill system I'm really conservative simply because I think it's close to perfect.

In a persistent environments? where youcan randomly run into all kinds of people.

Originally posted by tro44_1

Originally posted by Godliest

The limited skill deck shouldn't really be changed... Making changes such as the ones you suggest are bad since they simplify and stupid the system, something that in the end makes the game worse. One of the great things about GW is that you can't just go "i liek to use watr magick lolz" and then only do that because different situations and teams require different setups. This makes the game more complicated and require your team to coordinate all the builds so that there's at least a basic synergy. It requires thinking and makes the game much better. It's not friendly for uncoordinated PuGs no, but encouraging randomway is stupid. The system encourages PuGing where the players tweak and change their skill bars a little depending on what others are running. When it comes to the skill system I'm really conservative simply because I think it's close to perfect.

In a persistent environments? where youcan randomly run into all kinds of people.

 

This isn't a problem in GW1, why would this be a problem in GW2? By building your skilldeck, you get choices. You can dump all your free slots into a 1-trick uber skill combo, and risk running into people equipped to counter it, or you can make a more balanced build to encounter multiple types of encounters at the risk of falling victim to a nasty spike. You can make a deck to work better with certain groups of people, or to solo better, etc. etc.

Systems setup to reward smart thinking, and ingenuity over cooky cutter builds most games are plagued with. If you've played GW, you might know that in pvp and pve you ran into different situations that required different strategies to handle them effectively. The better teams understood this and would plan accordingly. The worse teams did not and would gamble every time.

I've been playing GW over 3 years, When PVE (havnt for a long time now), I never saw a group preparing their skills for synergy.

Simpy everybody came with what they had. Going for hard missions, the groups were always pre-made with specific requirements. But those groups always get prepared is some town, they dont form while roaming the country. 

What I found' most of the time in PVE, that what matter is the skills inside the player head and not the skills on the skill bar.

Knowing how and when to agro, when to fall back and possitioning matter much more than this or that skill. 

I guess that will still be the case in GW2.

Originally posted by redOrc

I've been playing GW over 3 years, When PVE (havnt for a long time now), I never saw a group preparing their skills for synergy.

Simpy everybody came with what they had. Going for hard missions, the groups were always pre-made with specific requirements. But those groups always get prepared is some town, they dont form while roaming the country. 

What I found' most of the time in PVE, that what matter is the skills inside the player head and not the skills on the skill bar.

Knowing how and when to agro, when to fall back and possitioning matter much more than this or that skill. 

I guess that will still be the case in GW2.

Those could not have been very successful groups to be in during the hard missions IMO. The only groups worth pugging are the ones that actually know what they want.

You'll see this alot in the new zmissions, but the most successful groups always post requirements (LF Cryer; LF Ranger /w interrupts/winter;LF Tanks;etc...)

It's true that it's hard to put together synergy builds with a group of complete strangers (although we do that alot in my alliance) but it's VERY necessary for the individual to know which skills are worth bringing into a given mission/area.

Lol what on earth OP? You continually try to suggest ArenaNet turn Guild Wars 2 into World of Warcraft 2. NO. Just no. The limited skill set works perfectly fine. It's clear that you've only joined Guild Wars recently, as up until Nightfall was released, and heroes as a result, PUG-ing was all people did.

Replacing the unique and incredibly fun GW1 skill deck system with something more akin to the average MMO is a HORRIBLE idea!!!! The skill deck is what sets GW apart from the run of the mill line up of MMO's. Besides I'm "guessing" that Anet will still make great use of instancing for missions that will require more strategic planning.

WoW and others are good games, but it is the differences from GW1 that has GW2 at the very TOP of my play list!

I love the 1 bar skill set. The only thing I'd like them to add is maybe 2 more spots for skills.

Keep the limited skill deck. It brought a healthy magic the gathering kind of deck building feel to it. They've already hinted they might even cut the amount of skills in the action bar. The trick is that these skills will have different effects in different situations (whatever that means is unknown).

Adding skills to the skill-bar wouldn't be true to the original GW and would lessen the strategic part of the game, not to mention the fact that there wasn't a generic build for any class in the previous game which was part of the appeal.

Your concern is valid but Anet should first and foremost stick to what made GW good. Going for the mainstream is a mistake.

Originally posted by Lydon

Lol what on earth OP? You continually try to suggest ArenaNet turn Guild Wars 2 into World of Warcraft 2. NO. Just no. The limited skill set works perfectly fine. It's clear that you've only joined Guild Wars recently, as up until Nightfall was released, and heroes as a result, PUG-ing was all people did.

Give him a break. He's just one of those guys who don't really know why GW was so good - what made Guild Wars Guild Wars. Maybe one day he'll see the light. ...or not. I'm just glad these people don't run the show.

Originally posted by Quirhid

 I'm just glad these people don't run the show.

As I understand it the majority of the changes, from the higher level cap, to giving every class soloing capacity, has been tailored as a response to "these" people's heavy whining.

I'm still holding out hope that the devs know what they're doing and they won't lose what made Guild Wars what it is in the process, but I'm not exactly brimming with optimism, especially if EotN, not exactly my favorite campaign, really is a taste of things to come.

But worst case scenario, if GW ends up leaning too heavily towards pleasing the WoW crowd, at least my account and titles will be worth something to "those" people, allowing me to recoup the costs and retire to Mortal Online.

Originally posted by Gennadios

As I understand it the majority of the changes, from the higher level cap, to giving every class soloing capacity, has been tailored as a response to "these" people's heavy whining.

Yeah, but they have stated that after a certain point the level-ups will have no effect or very, very little effect on the character's abilities. And PvP will stay balanced because everyone will be set to the same level. This solution is fine with me. I don't care how high the level cap is - either 20 or infinity. It's just a number only grinders care about. It will hardly be anything game breaking.

Soloing capacity could also come from the single hero concept. So basically you're controlling a one additional character. This is all just speculation however. I could be wrong.

---

Originally posted by Quirhid

---

Originally posted by Gennadios

As I understand it the majority of the changes, from the higher level cap, to giving every class soloing capacity, has been tailored as a response to "these" people's heavy whining.

---

Yeah, but they have stated that after a certain point the level-ups will have no effect or very, very little effect on the character's abilities. And PvP will stay balanced because everyone will be set to the same level. This solution is fine with me. I don't care how high the level cap is - either 20 or infinity. It's just a number only grinders care about. It will hardly be anything game breaking.

Soloing capacity could also come from the single hero concept. So basically you're controlling a one additional character. This is all just speculation however. I could be wrong.

---

I hope that that they by solo capacity mean what you (Quirhid) described since that would maintain it Guild Wars like. One of the great things about GW is the constant teaming, and if GW2 becomes a all-time solo with small amounts of teaming it would be much less Guild Wars already.

Since the game has not been released, this is speculation but I thought the game was to work like this: Mission areas will mostly if not all be instanced, and perhaps more so "main quest" missions. The non-instanced areas will be mostly "explorable" and side-quest areas. Most of these non-instanced areas are meant to be more solo-able, and pug friendly. The mentality behind this being that it is an area for people to meet. Mission will continue to require cohesion within your team, but if there continues to be a "mission hub" for the missions, it will give you an area to coordinate before entering the mission.

On to how I saw Guild Wars 1 as working. In Guild Wars the only real requirement, for pve, 90% of the time, was to have an effective build at doing something. Whether that was protection type skills or healing or dot or spiking, as long as the build did SOMETHING and did it decently, you could be viable in a group. Sometimes it required finding the group looking for whatever you were playing. Also as the game progressed, it became less noob friendly in many ways. People required specific builds to join their group in pve, and specific titles for pvp.

Although that system certainly prevent bad players from joining your group, it also prevented good players too. If there is one thing I hope gets changed between games, it would be a way to somehow change how this affected the game for far too many players. Its something that was done by the "community" so I'm not sure how much control the devs actually have, but it certainly hurt people who did not grind up certain titles. In the long run I saw some better players getting stuck unable to get the titles to be able to get into better groups, while idiot players who had simply gotten the titles (through abuses, imbalances, or simply having grinded since closer to release when it was easier) were getting into groups much more easily.

Also, I, as many other players do, do not want to see the game changed into "wow 2". The grinding, and lack of planning and tactics required for most mmos, is something we do not want included in "our game". The counter point to this, is simply, many do, and we all should, want the player base to expand. Guild Wars was great, it started off great, and rarely did any additions hurt the core game. The problem was, it like many games with loyal small communities, became a game of "elitists". It certainly hurt some of my later experiences with the game (such as the rank requirements I stated above),  at times forced me to pve, with a small pool of people, who either were newer, or simply didn't care about all the requirements the community had created. PvP became something like a game of politics to get into any guilds/groups, and really stopped me from enjoying the game post nightfall release.

To finish this, I was a beta tester. I was in a highly competitive guild in beta, and especially post launch, up until the release of factions. About that time, most of the officers left my guild to join top 2 top 10 guilds. Somehow I got left behind (It was about when I was my busiest during college). I'm an experienced pve and pvp player, I've played guildwars off and on for years, so I do have idea of how that game worked. It was certainly great, but it can certainly be better.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Soloing capacity could also come from the single hero concept. So basically you're controlling a one additional character. This is all just speculation however. I could be wrong.

Companions are a feature in Guild Wars 2. Companions will have customisability similar to the Heroes of the original Guild Wars game series. Players will be allowed to bring a single companion with them, who will not take up a party slot. When a player chooses not to bring a companion, their character will instead be buffed so that they will not be disadvantaged by not bringing a companion.

In other words there will ideally be no net gain between bringing a hero along ang going solo, which makes me wonder why they would even bother with such a feature in the first place. Seems like a nither here nor there compromise between the team heavy system of GW and the likes of WoW/Aion/etc.

I was also aware of the plateu of power for the level cap. The problem is it adds absolutely nothing to actual gameplay. Hell, theoretically GW can be an infinite level game. Characters still gain exp and earn skill points after level 20, just increment the level with every additional skill point earned and you have an infinite level cap. That still doesn't make it any less pointless, it just seems like an appeasement to the certain "I was really disappointed when I found out the level cap was only 20" crowd that seems to come out of the woodwork now and then.

 @Telre

GW is still very much a skill based game. Most missions in the game have some kind of gimmick and specific requirement, and players that can fill that need will never have a problem with finding a group. The thing is that one or two players can almost always equip all the specific skills necessary to beat a mission, throw in two healers, and that leves the other 4 spots to be filled by players who advertise themselves the best... Elite armor and titles are usually the deal maker.

If you're having trouble getting into groups, research the mission, and work the necessary skills into your build. Or go as a healer, they don't have much trouble usually.

Originally posted by Gennadios

Originally posted by Quirhid

Soloing capacity could also come from the single hero concept. So basically you're controlling a one additional character. This is all just speculation however. I could be wrong.

 

Companions are a feature in Guild Wars 2. Companions will have customisability similar to the Heroes of the original Guild Wars game series. Players will be allowed to bring a single companion with them, who will not take up a party slot. When a player chooses not to bring a companion, their character will instead be buffed so that they will not be disadvantaged by not bringing a companion.

 

In other words there will ideally be no net gain between bringing a hero along ang going solo, which makes me wonder why they would even bother with such a feature in the first place. Seems like a nither here nor there compromise between the team heavy system of GW and the likes of WoW/Aion/etc.

Ah, but I disagree.

Two "weaker" characters of different classes with different skill set IS an advantage while soloing atleast.

1. More skills available. Possible combo options increase.

2. Two targets. One can take the damage, other can heal. Or when the first one is shutdown the second can still act.

I would never use this "companion" in PvP or anything meaningful since AI is always a liability - something you cannot directly control.

Although I appreciate the attempt at helping me, my biggest problems with groups, or the lack there of, was not for pve. I've beaten all the campaigns, 2 of which by soloing some of the end missions. Its doable, it wasn't a "problem" in terms of being able to get it done. It was just annoying, that I as a more experienced player, would often times be doing something other then the "flavor of the week" build, so I choose to just play myself/with few people, because of the hassle involved with groups. PvP is the real problem, and has been adressed in other threads.

Amusingly enough, I use my hero battles builds to do pve. So far I've been able to do every mission I've attempted with them. I never saw most missions as requiring a gimick, but I've also not gotten into hard mode, or some of the most difficult post campaign missions, simply because those seem to actually require real players.

I was just sitting  here pugging an imaginary group in an unreleased game that has not released very much information and came to the conclusion that I spend too much time thinking about games.

---

Originally posted by Telre
Although I appreciate the attempt at helping me, my biggest problems with groups, or the lack there of, was not for pve. I've beaten all the campaigns, 2 of which by soloing some of the end missions. Its doable, it wasn't a "problem" in terms of being able to get it done. It was just annoying, that I as a more experienced player, would often times be doing something other then the "flavor of the week" build, so I choose to just play myself/with few people, because of the hassle involved with groups. PvP is the real problem, and has been adressed in other threads.

Amusingly enough, I use my hero battles builds to do pve. So far I've been able to do every mission I've attempted with them. I never saw most missions as requiring a gimick, but I've also not gotten into hard mode, or some of the most difficult post campaign missions, simply because those seem to actually require real players.

---

In all honesty I've soloed all except 4-5 missions in both NM and HM, and almost never changed the bars. That you can solo the missions in NM isn't so strange considering that they are sooooooo easy really, anything works as long as it got some heals and some damage, in HM you need to have good builds at least... But then GW idea is good, but the problem is that the "hard" places don't become hard, they become impossible: you have to run a strange gimmick relying on permasins and whatnot. If you've ever tried SoO in HM with a balanced team you should know what I'm talking about. I would very much like to see the idea becoming better done in GW2 by allowing you to run some semi-balanced builds and the difficulty being beatable by being clever.

Well, I only play this game for less than a week, and havent really done much yet, esp I never did PvP yet.

But so far I dont feel this is the future. The 8 skill limit and the extraordinary properties of some skills you can learn is certainly fun in a way. But it makes the game feel a lot like chess and a lot less like actually playing a MMO. Maybe its ideal for PvP, but for PvE is kinda weird, and the RP value is not that uber either.

For example, one thing I really miss is playing a healer class and being able to buff others.

Another thing I miss is being able to choose a race. Everyone is human. Except if you're a thief, then you're actually an anorexic human. And many classes look quite elf-ish except for Warrior. Anyway, I love having a choice there.

That said, its certainly an interesting system, but I wouldnt want to be limited to play only that.

I think you'd be in the minority in not liking the skill set system that Guild Wars has. I hope they keep the same (which I think they are) system for GW2. It's a real nice change of pace from all of the other cookie cutter mmo's out there. As you said, it is more stratagy or chess like and I, for one, enjoy that. Since you've only played for a week you are missing out on a lot of elite and other skills, it can be fun to mess around and play with different combinations. As far as your healer example, there are many different setups for monks and ritualists for healing and buffing. Your gripe for not having race choices is certainly valid, I don't mind just playing human but I know other people would want to play different races. Well if you can wait for GW2, it'll have different choices for races.