Your thoughts on the Holy Trinity abscence

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > Yeah, I don't see it, Squallaus. Nothing you've said changes the fact that the non-trinity design essentially removes two roles and replaces them with nothing but more of the same. That isn't interesting and it limits encounter design, resulting in GW2's instanced PvE being rather lackluster, in my opinion.

>

> Personally, I say forget the roles. Combat is combat, and there can be more complexity in two people hitting each other with sticks (See: Souls Series, BloodBorne) than there is in a 14 year old aggro management system. You can design a fight where a group of players must battle atop a gigantic rubiks cube that gives the boss different abilities depending on where it spins, and that fight would be complicated without touching group dynamics.

>

>

> Unfortunately, the big old post I wrote about this issue before was eaten up when the old forums were deleted, so I'll have to free write it again: _There are roles in GW2 PVE combat_. However, they are not hard roles. The role that each class plays is more nuanced, since being an action game there are far more things to consider than just spreadsheet values. From dungeons to raids, there have been different needs for groups to fulfill, and a myriad of ways to fulfill them:

>

> (1)Stealth. Back in dungeons, stealth was excellent for skipping mobs, bypassing certain mechanics, and aggro management. You'd either need a thief, or an engineer who can blast smoke fields. This role has lost its use in modern content, but nonetheless is still useful in legacy dungeons. Although I have found myself refuge-rezzing players in fractals on occasion.

>

> (2)Blinder. The difference between a group that mysteriously wipes and a group that sails through content is often down to whether or not you have a teammate that can pulse blinds on enemies. Black Powder, Smoke Bomb, Gllyph of Storms, Well of Darkness, Radiance Guardian, etc were all good at disabling enemies, and with the cranked damage of vets and elites they were sometimes utterly necessary to get through content safely. Still useful in fractals today.

>

> (3)Projectile manager. Whether you reflect projectiles, or destroy them. For awhile, this was a big one, since nearly all content in the game had enemies who shot at you relentlessly. It's still needed today, too, just not in such copious amounts.

>

> (4)CCer. Not all classes do it evenly, or as conveniently. Having a teammate who can stun, daze, freeze, or outright disable large groups of enemies reliably is paramount.

> (a)Hard CC

> (b)Soft CC

>

> (5)Enemy mover. This is not just a CCer: this is a player who can gather enemies together, or forcefully move them apart. Guardians, Mesmers, Holosmiths, Necromancers, even Revenants can pile enemies on top of each other, and most classes can quickly relocate an enemy if needed. Or, barring that, keeping some enemies in place (I.E. line of warding).

>

> (6)Boon support. Originally we had combo blasters and combo starters, but that has been simplified a bit. We still need classes to give out boons, both because they're useful and because a lot of classes have profession specific buffs tied to boons. I'm considering regen as part of the healer role.

> (a)Might Stacker

> (b)Fury Stacker

> ©Quickness Stacker

> (d)Alacrity Stacker

> (e)Protection Stacker

> (f)Vigor Stacker

> (g)Aegis Stacker

> (h)Unique buffs

>

> (7)Condi cleanser. This role is distinct from healers, since you don't need to be a healer to do it, but nonetheless it is important in many circumstances. Again, not every class has equal access to condi clears.

>

> (8)Boon ripper. A rare but nonetheless pivotal role. Some enemies really stack on the nasty boons (retaliation, for example), and unless you can get those boons off, you're gonna have a bad time.

>

> (9)Burster. This is one of the two primary forms of DPS. This isn't just any power build. It is a power build that is capable of unloading a lot of damage in a short amount of time, in case there are enemies that need to go down ASAP. You see this most often in fractals, where vinds and anomalies have to be killed within moments of spawning.

>

> (10)The condi build. This is another form of DPS, notable for two reasons. First, it can be spread via epidemic. Second, it bypasses toughness, so against high toughness enemies it is really useful.

>

> (11)The vulnerability stacker. Capped vulnerability doesn't just come from nowhere.

>

> (12)Ranged DPSer. AKA the kiter. This is an uncommon role, but sometimes you need a player who can do a lot of damage at a distance. Whether they are kiting range directed attacks, or you are fighting an enemy that you can't get close to for some reason.

>

> (13)Healer. You all know this one.

>

> (14)Toughness Tanker. You all know this one.

>

> (15) Body blocker. This is an unusual role, but it works like this: there are some attacks that stop when hitting an entity, but can't be stopped with standard projectile management. Here, you need somebody who can take the hit reliably so everyone else doesn't have to. For example, Necromancers can often place Flesh Wurms inside of enemy models, causing their attacks to hit the Wurm instead of everyone else. Sometimes, the best way to tank is figuratively with your face.

>

> (16)Stabilizer/Group Stun breaker. Sometimes, enemies have AoE CC, and you'll need somebody who can stunbreak not just themselves, but the entire team.

>

> All of this is without looking at profession specific buffs, or mechanically unique encounter. There is probably more that I am not thinking of, or more that I can divide the groups in to (I.E. "evade tanking"). You can use all of these to deal with encounters in a creative number of ways. When a problem presents itself, usually there's several solutions to it. There's a lot to consider in this game other than how much you heal, and who can tank the most. Also, it does sadden me a bit that the roles of Combo Fielder and Blast Finisher are all but gone now.

 

Okay. So basically, you just put 100 different sub-categories under the label of "DPS". Now multiply by 3 and you have a trinity game.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > Yeah, I don't see it, Squallaus. Nothing you've said changes the fact that the non-trinity design essentially removes two roles and replaces them with nothing but more of the same. That isn't interesting and it limits encounter design, resulting in GW2's instanced PvE being rather lackluster, in my opinion.

>

> Each role is there to serve a purpose to reach an end result. If traditional roles are removed and new roles are created, but the purpose of the original roles are still covered by the new roles then you will still get the same result. Its called a change in basis. Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it wont work. If content in trinity systems are easy, you wont need trinity roles either. Its exactly the same thing in gw2. For content in gw2 that are easy, you wont need dedicated roles. But for harder content like raids and CMs, dedicated roles are necessary to progress and in some cases make runs a lot more easier.

 

Except you don't have those roles because they don't exist here. I can play my tempest auramancer as a healer here and even be effective. But my "healing" consists almost entirely of area effects that heal passively as a side-effect. We have virtually no targeted healing and the range of healing abilities is almost non-existent. Just like we don't have tanks because we don't have usable threat mechanics and the range of abilities that would apply to such a system in a trinity game are missing.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> Except you don't have those roles because they don't exist here. I can play my tempest auramancer as a healer here and even be effective. But my "healing" consists almost entirely of area effects that heal passively as a side-effect. We have virtually no targeted healing and the range of healing abilities is almost non-existent. Just like we don't have tanks because we don't have usable threat mechanics and the range of abilities that would apply to such a system in a trinity game are missing.

 

Um no. Tempest has the most range aoe heal out of all the healers that's is why it is dubbed as newbie friendly for raids. Tanks doesn't mean you have to take agro. It can also mean u can simply keep attacking without moving much. You out of all people should know this since you play a lot of condi mirage. That is condi mirage's primary role in instanced content, as an evade tank. By the sound of things you don't know what roles the classes are capable of filling rather than there are no roles.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

>

> Okay. So basically, you just put 100 different sub-categories under the label of "DPS". Now multiply by 3 and you have a trinity game.

 

Go on, show us a DPS class/build that can might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > Except you don't have those roles because they don't exist here. I can play my tempest auramancer as a healer here and even be effective. But my "healing" consists almost entirely of area effects that heal passively as a side-effect. We have virtually no targeted healing and the range of healing abilities is almost non-existent. Just like we don't have tanks because we don't have usable threat mechanics and the range of abilities that would apply to such a system in a trinity game are missing.

>

> Um no. Tempest has the most range aoe heal out of all the healers that's is why it is dubbed as newbie friendly for raids. Tanks doesn't mean you have to take agro. It can also mean u can simply keep attacking without moving much. You out of all people should know this since you play a lot of condi mirage. That is condi mirage's primary role in instanced content. By the sound of things you don't know what roles the classes are capable of filling rather than there is no role.

 

Okay, work with me here. You're comparing passively soaking damage (which you call "tanking") to trinity games where tanks also passively soak damage by virtue of their high health and damage mitigation, but also have this whole dynamic called "threat" they and other classes have to manage. They have all sorts of skills that apply to this mechanic. All of that is missing here because of the non-trinity design.

 

You say that this doesn't matter, that these roles are replaced by other roles. But they aren't. Those mechanics are simply missing and what we have are a non-trinity game's sad attempt to play like a trinity game. You can tell me all about the various classes, how they play differently, how they each serve a purpose. What? You don't think trinity games also have a range of classes and that they don't serve more of a purpose than just straight "DPS"? You don't think a game like WoW has its own version of boon support?

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> >

> > Okay. So basically, you just put 100 different sub-categories under the label of "DPS". Now multiply by 3 and you have a trinity game.

>

> Go on, show us a DPS class/build that can might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc

 

You're lack of general knowledge is showing. GW 2 did not invent party buffs, they've been around since there were party based games, including SP games. In Pen and Paper DnD you have dps classes that can throw out party buffs, if they have the appropriate spells memorized, and that's been around since ~1974. What classes were throwing out party buffs in GW in 1974? But I can answer your question rather easily, and even stay with the Aion example: Chanter, and they could do it all in one buff that lasts 5 minutes: Word of Wind. Understand that these skills/affected abilities will have different names, but the concepts are the same. This also discounts their auras, which would be party wide buffs that applied permanently so long as you were in range, and could even add in resource regeneration to boot. The thing about limited gaming experience is that it doesn't make you an expert on gaming, it makes you a novice.

 

"The true enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it's assumed knowledge". Stephen Hawking, may he RIP.

[AliamRationem.5172]

By the way, don't get me wrong. I love GW2's combat system. Action combat is just better, in my opinion. And the non-trinity design is a joy to play with in open world. I think that's where it really shows its advantages in terms of flexibility when compared to a trinity game like WoW. In WoW, players don't typically run tank or healer builds in open world because they're slow and unnecessary. Their primary function is in instanced PvE. Outside of that they are simply locked into a sub-par skill set that doesn't adapt well to solo play.

 

That's where GW2 lets you jump in there and tweak those skills to be...whatever you need them to be. In practice, there is still a meta and chances are you'll get good results with it. But I've certainly played enough weirdo non-meta builds in open world with great success to know that you don't have to go that route. Finally! A way to give "It's open world. Do whatever you want." a positive connotation!

 

That's pretty much where I stand. GW2 and non-trinity shines in open world play with its flexibility. Trinity (mostly WoW, in my limited experience) does the instanced play better by adding dimensions to the gameplay and encounter design that aren't applicable in open world for the most part. However, I do agree with the point that the fractal queue is infinitely better than the dungeon queue in WoW. I almost exclusively played tank and healer roles, so obviously my experience with dungeon queues was very different from players who tend toward DPS roles. DPS roles waiting inordinate periods of time in the dungeon queue for what is supposed to be quick, casual instanced PvE is a significant downside of the trinity system.

[joneirikb.7506]

Still haven't seen a "tank mechanic" I've liked. Tried to get used to it in a couple of other MMO's and I've always felt that this whole "Aggro" system just gets super dull, watch a meter to see if he hates your guts more than others or not. I really don't want that in GW2, the "highest toughness target" is bad enough. Thankfully it doesn't apply much outside of Raids.

 

So one of my problems with accepting a trinity system is that I find the entire tanking mechanics to be boring as heck, I don't want to sit and watch a bar to see if I'm doing my job (to make the mob hate me). This especially falls flat the moment you look at PvP modes, where tanks are usually useless, because enemy players aren't controlled by Aggro mechanics.

 

I think that it is possible to make an interesting tanking mechanic somehow, but I haven't seen one yet. The closest is honestly the "controller" role in GW2, using launch, knockdowns, blinds, pulls, stuns, lines of warding etc, to limit what a mob can do (then break-bar).

[squallaus.8321]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

 

> Okay, work with me here. You're comparing passively soaking damage (which you call "tanking") to trinity games where tanks also passively soak damage by virtue of their high health and damage mitigation, but also have this whole dynamic called "threat" they and other classes have to manage. They have all sorts of skills that apply to this mechanic. All of that is missing here because of the non-trinity design.

>

> You say that this doesn't matter, that these roles are replaced by other roles. But they aren't. Those mechanics are simply missing and what we have are a non-trinity game's sad attempt to play like a trinity game. You can tell me all about the various classes, how they play differently, how they each serve a purpose. What? You don't think trinity games also have a range of classes and that they don't serve more of a purpose than just straight "DPS"? You don't think a game like WoW has its own version of boon support?

 

Are you sure 'threat' don't exist in gw2? You mean you've never seen mobs/champs/bosses switch focus to other players? This has existed since core game but sparingly. Most of the time people never really cared either way because the core content were relatively easy. Only the most hardcore pve groups would care about something like that for speedrun purposes.

 

Trinity games don't allow you to customise your classes should you decide to opt for more dps, heal, support to varing degrees depending on the difficulty of the fight and party composition availability. This will be in the form of swapping traits, utilities, weapons.... and even stat type if you can be bothered.

 

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> *shrugs* feel free to link a video of hard Aion dungeon and some example from other games. Chances are they will look very dull compared to gw2 raids and fractals.

Wildstar wiped the floor with anything GW2 offers, too bad they fucked up so much other stuff about the game. Nevertheless, feel free to admire Rains in all his glory at Starmap:

Tanking or healing encounters like these makes GW2 feel like a booze cruise. That isn't necessarily bad, but please don't try to describe GW2 raids/fractals as something particularly challenging. It isn't.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> Still haven't seen a "tank mechanic" I've liked. Tried to get used to it in a couple of other MMO's and I've always felt that this whole "Aggro" system just gets super dull, watch a meter to see if he hates your guts more than others or not. I really don't want that in GW2, the "highest toughness target" is bad enough. Thankfully it doesn't apply much outside of Raids.

>

> So one of my problems with accepting a trinity system is that I find the entire tanking mechanics to be boring as heck, I don't want to sit and watch a bar to see if I'm doing my job (to make the mob hate me). This especially falls flat the moment you look at PvP modes, where tanks are usually useless, because enemy players aren't controlled by Aggro mechanics.

>

> I think that it is possible to make an interesting tanking mechanic somehow, but I haven't seen one yet. The closest is honestly the "controller" role in GW2, using launch, knockdowns, blinds, pulls, stuns, lines of warding etc, to limit what a mob can do (then break-bar).

 

Oh, I totally agree on the PvP comment, and the same applies to basically everything outside of instanced PvE. Although, it doesn't necessarily have to. I have seen games where there are physical blocking mechanics that tanks can employ to protect allies in PvP scenarios. However, I mostly find these mechanics annoying and prefer the more fluid PvP gameplay of GW2.

 

On the threat comments, you're oversimplifying. It would not be unlike observing that action combat sucks because I don't want to watch an endurance bar all day.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

 

> "The true enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it's assumed knowledge". Stephen Hawking, may he RIP.

 

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > >

> > > Okay. So basically, you just put 100 different sub-categories under the label of "DPS". Now multiply by 3 and you have a trinity game.

> >

> > Go on, show us a DPS class/build that can might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc

>

> You're lack of general knowledge is showing. GW 2 did not invent party buffs, they've been around since there were party based games, including SP games. In Pen and Paper DnD you have dps classes that can throw out party buffs, if they have the appropriate spells memorized, and that's been around since ~1974. What classes were throwing out party buffs in GW in 1974? But I can answer your question rather easily, and even stay with the Aion example: Chanter, and they could do it all in one buff that lasts 5 minutes: Word of Wind. Understand that these skills/affected abilities will have different names, but the concepts are the same. This also discounts their auras, which would be party wide buffs that applied permanently so long as you were in range, and could even add in resource regeneration to boot. The thing about limited gaming experience is that it doesn't make you an expert on gaming, it makes you a novice.

>

 

 

Like I said, "Go on, show us a DPS class/build that can might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc". Otherwise different roles exists in gw2 as per point of that post.

 

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> "The true enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it's assumed knowledge". Stephen Hawking, may he RIP.

 

There is no knowledge to begin with if you can't even read properly. Which you are showing an abundance of currently.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> Still haven't seen a "tank mechanic" I've liked. Tried to get used to it in a couple of other MMO's and I've always felt that this whole "Aggro" system just gets super dull, watch a meter to see if he hates your guts more than others or not. I really don't want that in GW2, the "highest toughness target" is bad enough. Thankfully it doesn't apply much outside of Raids.

>

> So one of my problems with accepting a trinity system is that I find the entire tanking mechanics to be boring as heck, I don't want to sit and watch a bar to see if I'm doing my job (to make the mob hate me). This especially falls flat the moment you look at PvP modes, where tanks are usually useless, because enemy players aren't controlled by Aggro mechanics.

>

> I think that it is possible to make an interesting tanking mechanic somehow, but I haven't seen one yet. The closest is honestly the "controller" role in GW2, using launch, knockdowns, blinds, pulls, stuns, lines of warding etc, to limit what a mob can do (then break-bar).

 

swtor addressed the player aggro thing, sort of, in PvP, by making taunted players do 30% less damage to anyone but the taunting tank. It's a mechanic that should be used universally in RPGs with a PvP focus.

 

Overall, however, tanking is one of my favorite things to do, but I didn't use threat meters. I used Target's Target, where it's available, to ensure that I had aggro, and used skills accordingly to get that window to say it was me. There's an 8 man raid in swtor that requires tank swapping on one of the boss fights, and that you keep the mobs away from each other, or they buff themselves and make the fight a lot harder to do.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

 

> swtor addressed the player aggro thing, sort of, in PvP, by making taunted players do 30% less damage to anyone but the taunting tank. It's a mechanic that should be used universally in RPGs with a PvP focus.

>

> Overall, however, tanking is one of my favorite things to do, but I didn't use threat meters. I used Target's Target, where it's available, to ensure that I had aggro, and used skills accordingly to get that window to say it was me. There's an 8 man raid in swtor that requires tank swapping on one of the boss fights, and that you keep the mobs away from each other, or they buff themselves and make the fight a lot harder to do.

 

Looks like some one is just too dumb to read properly. I was challenging AliamRationem.5172 to list DPS builds in gw2 that could "might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc" because he said the roles detailed by Blood Red Arachnid.2493 can be simply covered by "DPS".

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

>

> > "The true enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it's assumed knowledge". Stephen Hawking, may he RIP.

>

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > > >

> > > > Okay. So basically, you just put 100 different sub-categories under the label of "DPS". Now multiply by 3 and you have a trinity game.

> > >

> > > Go on, show us a DPS class/build that can might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc

> >

> > You're lack of general knowledge is showing. GW 2 did not invent party buffs, they've been around since there were party based games, including SP games. In Pen and Paper DnD you have dps classes that can throw out party buffs, if they have the appropriate spells memorized, and that's been around since ~1974. What classes were throwing out party buffs in GW in 1974? But I can answer your question rather easily, and even stay with the Aion example: Chanter, and they could do it all in one buff that lasts 5 minutes: Word of Wind. Understand that these skills/affected abilities will have different names, but the concepts are the same. This also discounts their auras, which would be party wide buffs that applied permanently so long as you were in range, and could even add in resource regeneration to boot. The thing about limited gaming experience is that it doesn't make you an expert on gaming, it makes you a novice.

> >

>

>

> Like I said, "Go on, show us a DPS class/build that can might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc". Otherwise different roles exists in gw2 as per point of that post.

>

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > "The true enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it's assumed knowledge". Stephen Hawking, may he RIP.

>

> There is no knowledge to begin with if you can't even read properly. Which you are showing an abundance of currently.

 

Reading comprehension is essential in a medium that requires reading for communication. I answered your question, in the very post you quoted, you just didn't like the answer. In swtor, btw, you can swap on the fly between three different builds. In Aion, there are a ton of possible variations in the classes depending on Stigma builds. In DDO, you can vary your role by simply swapping out spells on caster classes. Rappelz gave you a ton of options based on active skills/spells/auras etc. The list goes on and on. I'm sorry that your limited experience requires these stats to all line up with the only thing you know, but the truth is, these games all existed before there was GW 2, and in some instances listed here, before there was a GW 1. The only issue in this conversation is your lack of knowledge of gaming in general, and trying to pretend that it makes you some kind of expert on something, when it really doesn't.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

>

> > swtor addressed the player aggro thing, sort of, in PvP, by making taunted players do 30% less damage to anyone but the taunting tank. It's a mechanic that should be used universally in RPGs with a PvP focus.

> >

> > Overall, however, tanking is one of my favorite things to do, but I didn't use threat meters. I used Target's Target, where it's available, to ensure that I had aggro, and used skills accordingly to get that window to say it was me. There's an 8 man raid in swtor that requires tank swapping on one of the boss fights, and that you keep the mobs away from each other, or they buff themselves and make the fight a lot harder to do.

>

> Looks like some one is just too dumb to read properly. I was challenging AliamRationem.5172 to list DPS builds in gw2 that could "might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc" because he said the roles detailed by Blood Red Arachnid.2493 can be simply covered by "DPS".

 

*Yawn* ...and now with the insults, because you just can't seem to wrap your head around your own cluelessness.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

>

> > Okay, work with me here. You're comparing passively soaking damage (which you call "tanking") to trinity games where tanks also passively soak damage by virtue of their high health and damage mitigation, but also have this whole dynamic called "threat" they and other classes have to manage. They have all sorts of skills that apply to this mechanic. All of that is missing here because of the non-trinity design.

> >

> > You say that this doesn't matter, that these roles are replaced by other roles. But they aren't. Those mechanics are simply missing and what we have are a non-trinity game's sad attempt to play like a trinity game. You can tell me all about the various classes, how they play differently, how they each serve a purpose. What? You don't think trinity games also have a range of classes and that they don't serve more of a purpose than just straight "DPS"? You don't think a game like WoW has its own version of boon support?

>

> Are you sure 'threat' don't exist in gw2? You mean you've never seen mobs/champs/bosses switch focus to other players? This has existed since core game but sparingly. Most of the time people never really cared either way because the core content were relatively easy. Only the most hardcore pve groups would care about something like that for speedrun purposes.

>

> Trinity games don't allow you to customise your classes should you decide to opt for more dps, heal, support to varing degrees depending on the difficulty of the fight and party composition availability. This will be in the form of swapping traits, utilities, weapons.... and even stat type if you can be bothered.

>

 

I should have been more clear. I've explained this earlier in the thread and have since condensed the point to "threat is missing". As I said earlier in the thread, we have no meaningful way of manipulating threat outside of contrived raid encounters where 1 player passively "tanks" by putting toughness on their gear. That is about as similar to trinity tanking as a punch card machine is to a modern PC.

 

Practically speaking, there is no threat here because there is no meaningful way of manipulating threat. That is, of course, by design. That's what non-trinity means! When you bring up these instances of threat manipulation it really only shows how much better the trinity design is in this context. As I said, that entire dynamic is missing outside of a few examples of passive tanking baked into specific encounters.

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > Still haven't seen a "tank mechanic" I've liked. Tried to get used to it in a couple of other MMO's and I've always felt that this whole "Aggro" system just gets super dull, watch a meter to see if he hates your guts more than others or not. I really don't want that in GW2, the "highest toughness target" is bad enough. Thankfully it doesn't apply much outside of Raids.

> >

> > So one of my problems with accepting a trinity system is that I find the entire tanking mechanics to be boring as heck, I don't want to sit and watch a bar to see if I'm doing my job (to make the mob hate me). This especially falls flat the moment you look at PvP modes, where tanks are usually useless, because enemy players aren't controlled by Aggro mechanics.

> >

> > I think that it is possible to make an interesting tanking mechanic somehow, but I haven't seen one yet. The closest is honestly the "controller" role in GW2, using launch, knockdowns, blinds, pulls, stuns, lines of warding etc, to limit what a mob can do (then break-bar).

>

> swtor addressed the player aggro thing, sort of, in PvP, by making taunted players do 30% less damage to anyone but the taunting tank. It's a mechanic that should be used universally in RPGs with a PvP focus.

>

> Overall, however, tanking is one of my favorite things to do, but I didn't use threat meters. I used Target's Target, where it's available, to ensure that I had aggro, and used skills accordingly to get that window to say it was me. There's an 8 man raid in swtor that requires tank swapping on one of the boss fights, and that you keep the mobs away from each other, or they buff themselves and make the fight a lot harder to do.

 

Never played swtor, but that is quite clever. I like it!

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

>

> > "The true enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it's assumed knowledge". Stephen Hawking, may he RIP.

>

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > > >

> > > > Okay. So basically, you just put 100 different sub-categories under the label of "DPS". Now multiply by 3 and you have a trinity game.

> > >

> > > Go on, show us a DPS class/build that can might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc

> >

> > You're lack of general knowledge is showing. GW 2 did not invent party buffs, they've been around since there were party based games, including SP games. In Pen and Paper DnD you have dps classes that can throw out party buffs, if they have the appropriate spells memorized, and that's been around since ~1974. What classes were throwing out party buffs in GW in 1974? But I can answer your question rather easily, and even stay with the Aion example: Chanter, and they could do it all in one buff that lasts 5 minutes: Word of Wind. Understand that these skills/affected abilities will have different names, but the concepts are the same. This also discounts their auras, which would be party wide buffs that applied permanently so long as you were in range, and could even add in resource regeneration to boot. The thing about limited gaming experience is that it doesn't make you an expert on gaming, it makes you a novice.

> >

>

>

> Like I said, "Go on, show us a DPS class/build that can might stack for party, stack fury for party, stack quickness for party etc". Otherwise different roles exists in gw2 as per point of that post.

>

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > "The true enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance, it's assumed knowledge". Stephen Hawking, may he RIP.

>

> There is no knowledge to begin with if you can't even read properly. Which you are showing an abundance of currently.

 

Seriously, what are you talking about? Boons are simply buffs that have a few extra rules applied to them (e.g. boon corruption, concentration, etc.). You can't possibly think that party buffing is a new concept.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

>

> I should have been more clear. I've explained this earlier in the thread and have since condensed the point to "threat is missing". As I said earlier in the thread, we have no meaningful way of manipulating threat outside of contrived raid encounters where 1 player passively "tanks" by putting toughness on their gear. That is about as similar to trinity tanking as a punch card machine is to a modern PC.

>

> Practically speaking, there is no threat here because there is no meaningful way of manipulating threat. That is, of course, by design. That's what non-trinity means! When you bring up these instances of threat manipulation it really only shows how much better the trinity design is in this context. As I said, that entire dynamic is missing outside of a few examples of passive tanking baked into specific encounters.

>

 

Not really. It just means treat is over used in other games where it is the norm to the point where it is taken advantage of. If you look hard enough im sure there are some but are sparsely used. Things like standing furthest away, attacking the enemy the most etc comes to mind.

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> >

> > > Okay, work with me here. You're comparing passively soaking damage (which you call "tanking") to trinity games where tanks also passively soak damage by virtue of their high health and damage mitigation, but also have this whole dynamic called "threat" they and other classes have to manage. They have all sorts of skills that apply to this mechanic. All of that is missing here because of the non-trinity design.

> > >

> > > You say that this doesn't matter, that these roles are replaced by other roles. But they aren't. Those mechanics are simply missing and what we have are a non-trinity game's sad attempt to play like a trinity game. You can tell me all about the various classes, how they play differently, how they each serve a purpose. What? You don't think trinity games also have a range of classes and that they don't serve more of a purpose than just straight "DPS"? You don't think a game like WoW has its own version of boon support?

> >

> > Are you sure 'threat' don't exist in gw2? You mean you've never seen mobs/champs/bosses switch focus to other players? This has existed since core game but sparingly. Most of the time people never really cared either way because the core content were relatively easy. Only the most hardcore pve groups would care about something like that for speedrun purposes.

> >

> > Trinity games don't allow you to customise your classes should you decide to opt for more dps, heal, support to varing degrees depending on the difficulty of the fight and party composition availability. This will be in the form of swapping traits, utilities, weapons.... and even stat type if you can be bothered.

> >

>

> I should have been more clear. I've explained this earlier in the thread and have since condensed the point to "threat is missing". As I said earlier in the thread, we have no meaningful way of manipulating threat outside of contrived raid encounters where 1 player passively "tanks" by putting toughness on their gear. That is about as similar to trinity tanking as a punch card machine is to a modern PC.

>

> Practically speaking, there is no threat here because there is no meaningful way of manipulating threat. That is, of course, by design. That's what non-trinity means! When you bring up these instances of threat manipulation it really only shows how much better the trinity design is in this context. As I said, that entire dynamic is missing outside of a few examples of passive tanking baked into specific encounters.

 

It feels like they're starting to explore some pseudo-threat mechanics now (SH), which is a good thing. Still, it's a far cry from the things classic trinity games accomplished with regard to the relevance of properly tanking multitank encounters.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> Seriously, what are you talking about? Boons are simply buffs that have a few extra rules applied to them (e.g. boon corruption, concentration, etc.). You can't possibly think that party buffing is a new concept.

 

Its not a new concept but they are often not part of DPS builds in gw2. Therefore roles exist in gw2. Just that they are not trinity roles.

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> >

> > I should have been more clear. I've explained this earlier in the thread and have since condensed the point to "threat is missing". As I said earlier in the thread, we have no meaningful way of manipulating threat outside of contrived raid encounters where 1 player passively "tanks" by putting toughness on their gear. That is about as similar to trinity tanking as a punch card machine is to a modern PC.

> >

> > Practically speaking, there is no threat here because there is no meaningful way of manipulating threat. That is, of course, by design. That's what non-trinity means! When you bring up these instances of threat manipulation it really only shows how much better the trinity design is in this context. As I said, that entire dynamic is missing outside of a few examples of passive tanking baked into specific encounters.

> >

>

> Not really. It just means treat is over used in other games where it is the norm to the point where it is taken advantage of. If you look hard enough im sure there are some but are sparsely used. Things like standing furthest away, attacking the enemy the most etc comes to mind.

 

You're welcome to your preferences, and I won't say that having tanks, threat mechanics, healers, etc. doesn't come without its own set of issues. However, in my opinion, GW2 instanced PvE feels like you basically took the DPS roles from a trinity game and left everything else behind. In my opinion, that has not produced compelling gameplay and encounter design, despite GW2's very enjoyable combat system and the fact that the non-trinity system is amazingly flexible in open world play, where trinity is the opposite.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"squallaus.8321" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > Seriously, what are you talking about? Boons are simply buffs that have a few extra rules applied to them (e.g. boon corruption, concentration, etc.). You can't possibly think that party buffing is a new concept.

>

> Its not a new concept but they are often not part of DPS builds in gw2. Therefore roles exist in gw2. Just that they are not trinity roles.

>

 

But those same roles exist in trinity games under the umbrella of "DPS". That's what I keep telling you. The tank and healer roles are stripped away and all you have left is "DPS". Our poor attempts at "tanking" and "healing" in raid encounters are nothing but a pale shadow, and evidence that trinity is the way to go (why else introduce it to the raids that were never going to be?).

 

We're talking in circles here. This has all been said already.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

 

> Reading comprehension is essential in a medium that requires reading for communication. I answered your question, in the very post you quoted, you just didn't like the answer. In swtor, btw, you can swap on the fly between three different builds. In Aion, there are a ton of possible variations in the classes depending on Stigma builds. In DDO, you can vary your role by simply swapping out spells on caster classes. Rappelz gave you a ton of options based on active skills/spells/auras etc. The list goes on and on. I'm sorry that your limited experience requires these stats to all line up with the only thing you know, but the truth is, these games all existed before there was GW 2, and in some instances listed here, before there was a GW 1. The only issue in this conversation is your lack of knowledge of gaming in general, and trying to pretend that it makes you some kind of expert on something, when it really doesn't.

 

Nope that does not answer my 'question' at all. In fact you are well off the mark . I was infact debating with AliamRationem.5172 on whether multiple roles existed in gw2. AliamRationem.5172 argued you can simply combine all the sub roles in DPS builds. It had nothing to do with roles in other games. At that point, your talk of swtor, aion, DDO etc had no relevance. Like I said you can't read.