Your thoughts on the Holy Trinity abscence

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> >

> > Most of those don't qualify as roles, but merely tactics. I mean, why not have a "Swiftness Providier" so that people can run between encounters faster or a "Leaper" which is someone who uses leap or teleport techniques to escape AoEs? IMO, a role in a game like this is how you play moreso than what you provide to others, it's just that the way you play within a group tend to combine into a group tactic to defeat the encounter. For example, a "boon support", "vulnerability stacker", "blinder", "boon ripper", "stealther" are all just forms of support and each profession specializes in different forms of support (or they are supposed to). Had it been a "role", it would be something akin to ripping boons from a target to sustain yourself and keep the target's attention or a hit that is missed by blind heals the target or something, as such they are means to change how you play and interact rather than a tactic you're using for a given interaction.

> >

> > And I don't think it was very common for a DoT DPS to be differentiated from a common DPS. They are the same thing and play identically.

>

> All roles are merely tactics assigned to individuals. It becomes a hard role if it is the only thing you do and nobody else can, but it is a soft role if you can do multiple things and multiple people can fulfill your role.

 

A role determines how you play, while a tactic is merely a situational aspect of an encounter.

 

A healer will approach a scenario differently than a DPS, i.e. a healer will seek to isolate themselves from multiple foes to control the amount of incoming damage and out-sustain their enemies while a DPS will seek to overwhelm the target quickly before they themselves are overwhelmed. The tactics have similarities but each have unique aspects that change how each uses those tactics.

 

I'm not arguing "hard roles" or "soft roles" as that is an aspect of how the professions are balanced, not the complexity, necessity or effectiveness of a role. I say things like "vulnerability stacker" isn't a role because it doesn't affect how you play, just the numbers you produce nor is spamming various conditions or boons because they are just common side-effects of using skills and fulfilled by practically any and all players.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

>If you tried hard enough, you can call anything you do in the game "support". I.E. DPSers support the team by killing off threats before they can hurt the team.

 

Maybe in this game. In the broader sense of RPGs, support is indespensible and comes at a price. The main price in GW2 for support is that only some professions provide things uniquely (such as stealth, aclarity, quickness and aegis). There are also generic unique buffs like %damage and stat buffs but the level of affect of these supports really dictates the strength and level of nuance of support in GW2...I'm just of the opinion the effectiveness of support is watered down so that any portion of it isn't necessary.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

Personally, if I were to break everything I listed into extremely broad categories, it would look like this:

>

> Buffers

> Debuffers

> Controllers

> Environmental Effects

> Miscellaneous utility

>

> But, each of the things I listed individually is prominent enough to bare mentioning.

>

 

What constitutes environmental effects?

 

As for buffers and debuffers, I feel these are so watered down that the only thing that provides these roles any substance is the scarcity of certain boons and the traited effects some conditions can have. That's why, I feel, many people complain about balance because combined with the over abundance of common effects and the exclusivity of some unique effects, players are at the same time annoyed that only 2 professions fill a niche while for everything else, with enough players, you can just spam and "fill" all the other "roles".

 

And I've always hated control, not because I hate the effects (I love control, actually) but because it plays such a minimal role in PvE. Anything that can constantly be controlled isn't worth controlling, for the most part, and anything worth controlling can only be controlled when it lets you control it. It's the opposite of what a controlling mentality is. PvP is a different story. Good thing the devs are willing to split along those lines now.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> Splitting damage types isn't uncommon at all. Many games have an elemental system, or a division of damage types. I.E. you have physical damage and magic damage, or you have fire/water/air/earth in a bigger game of paper/rock/scissors. You can also have damage divided by ranges and areas, such as melee, range, AoE, single target. In particular, the broad damage types in GW2 bear mentioning due to how differently they interact:

>

 

But those aren't really "roles", but "types". Yes there is a difference between a magic DPS and a physical DPS but they serve the same purpose. Same for single target and AoE DPS. The main differece in style is ranged vs melee DPS and we all know where GW2 lies there.

 

In a theoretical game with variety of play and roles, you would have multiple "types" of each "role" and with those types, they would have some nuances that make them play slightly differently (the ranged DPS typically keeps foes away while overwhelming them while melee DPS have some survival tools or CC to keep targets busy while they overwhelm the foe with damage) but both typically do the same thing: keep the target busy while you overwhelm them with DPS.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> Power damage is immediate, but it is affected by armor and protection. The speed at which it can be done is really useful, so much that cm100 groups will specifically recruit a power build to kill off anomalies. Condition damage bypasses armor and protection, and it can be spread wide with epidemic. But, it has varying levels of ramp up, and it can be cleansed away. These differences are big enough that, for awhile, Raids had a condition damage meta while Fractals had a power damage meta, due to the nature of each fight.

 

You don't have to explain power and condition damage to us. We've all played GW2. They are the same thing, however. The only difference is what gear you use. As for ramp up, I don't know if they've changed the game much in the past 4 months, but the level of ramp up of conditions isn't that substantial. It's really only a problem with foes that cleanse.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

>

> You haven't established how it "waters down" group play. Simply calling it a crutch doesn't define it as such. "Wolf-pack" tactics may be fun from time to time, but they are also easily exploited in a game like this where all classes are designed to take care of themselves as opposed to necessarily working as unit for all to survive. Different story if the boss gets loose from your tank (I mean, that's why he's there, right?). In order for wolf-pack to work, enemy stats must be watered down sufficiently (or, in the case of action combat, damage must be sufficiently predictable to be avoidable to a degree) for all classes to handle the boss, at least for several seconds at a time.

>

 

Well I mean, you or any other person here haven't exactly substantiated why strict trinity games's content are more engaging and fun than gw2's. The only video game play posted so far of wild star looked as boring as hell. The only difficulty in it was the need to coordinate a larger number of people compared to gw2 raids. Nothing else about it looked more difficult and certainly looked a lot less engaging than gw2 raid, fractals and even dungeon combat or just combat in general.

 

And no not every class can always take care of themselves in gw2. They can only take care of themselves to a degree. That's why you don't need dedicated healers in easier content while you do for harder content. Its best described as a change of basis provided by the coverage of the trinity system where each class covers each area of the trinity to a varying degree. Players collectively need to provide enough coverage of each area and high enough amount as a total of each area to succeed. Doing it this way means that each player will need to pay attention to all areas of the combat to varying degree. Which will result in more engaging battles for everyone. In more difficult content players are forced to take more dedicated roles so that they focus on their primary role while still fall in compliance with more difficult to succeed mechanics.

[Zaraki.5784]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > This game is too dps-centric.

> > I just miss the lack of a healing-only role, druid, the so-called healer in groups, has still to do some dps to be accepted.

>

> There is nothing wrong with that. The reality is most people prefer DPS roles over tanking and healing which is why in every trinity game those roles are lowest population wise. Having a non trinity game that is basically all dps is a good thing because that is what most people prefer according tons of MMO statistics on the matter.

 

I said "I just miss..." meaning that I can only speak for myself and from my own point of view, it IS wrong since I like pure healer classes to only heal without dealing damange.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

>

> I somehow have the impression that you haven't played that many MMORPGs thus far since it seems that you aren't considering the community at all. While it is true that you can somewhat use Renegade and Firebrand as surrogate for Chronomancer and Druid, you still always have to consider the community. Especially the GW2-community is strongly infected by efficieny-madness and thus will almost always be reserved when it comes to using your suggested combination as surrogate. You already see enough people leaving fractal-groups if they see that the cute little paw-symbol in LFG doesn't turn out to be a Druid.

>

> The same will undoubtly happen in raids because people simply don't want to leave their comfort zone. While it is true that you can use the Renegade/Firebrand-combination in some raids, those combination is still rather niche since using the Chronomancer/Druid-combination is easier and more comfortable to use and less susceptible. You also seem to forget that the Druid/Chronomancer-combination also offers a lot of valuable utilities. So it's not just about personal preference; it's in fact about possibilities and balance.

>

> The reason why this community is that strongly efficieny-infected and strongly focused on meta-builds and -compositions is because raids don't fit into the game very well on a conceptual basis since they're a strong contrast to base-game-content both gameplay- and difficulty-wise. People generally aren't that familiar with how they work gameplay-wise since the base-game doesn't offer the same experience. That is why we often have such high requirements for LFG-squads. Mind you that these squads usually try to be far more hardcore than actual raiding-guilds.

>

 

Then stop hanging out people who are unwilling to try other squad compositions that works. They have their right to do what they want, you have the right to do what you want. But since you still join in on the act it just tells me you agree with running chrono and druid all the time, just that you like to complain about it and want to just leech the bandwagon. If you want to be considerate to the community in general, simply don't force them to run what they don't want. It's that simple. But it doesn't mean you can't do your own thing. If a community force you to join in then its them that's being inconsiderate not the other way around.

 

 

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> Nonetheless, raids in GW2 really aren't as hard as you claim. There is harder content in other games which are focused on instanced PvE. There are reasons why the OW-content is the main-selling-point of GW2. The point of instanced PvE-content is always to build up some muscle-memory and to internalize mechanics. I really doubt that new players need several months to get raids done. That's far too generalizing to begin with. If you're invested in a game and want to do stuff, you will check stuff like raid- and build-guides. It always depends on the specific player. Especially if said player already has experience from other MMORPGs, it won't be difficult to internalize raid-mechanics.

>

 

Feel free to build up a guild / raid squad from scratch consistent of entirely new players. Lets see how you go. They will need a month to adapt to HoT open world maps for starters.

 

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> As to Aion: Like I said, it's a game focused on PvP. Nonetheless it features some bosses which are in fact harder than GW2-raids since that game actually features a real tab-targetting trinity-system. With that, you can actually enforce people to communicate in MMORPGs. One boss in particular consisted of two snakes which used special skills on targeted players. You had to split your group because both snakes had to die at the same time; you have to do them simultaneously else your healer would get aggro and die because the specific snake would interrupt healing-spells. Other than that, both snakes would randomly target people (you can see which person the specific snake is targetting if said snake is your target) and use skills that would 1. set up a fire field and 2. would destroy that fire field, so you have to communicate to have people neutralize fire fields. That's only the first phase of that fight and I dare say it's easily on GW2s raid-niveau. Nonetheless, please keep in mind that Aion is a PvP-based game and has rather casual PvE to begin with.

>

 

That sounds like a ok set of objectives, but... killing more than 1 thing at the same time or something bad happens........ pretty sure I've seen that mechanic in gw2 some where...

[Ashen.2907]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

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

> > > > > > @"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.

> > > >

> > > > Im not sure what you mean when you say, "raids that were never going to be."

> > > >

> > > > Anet said pre launch that gw2 would have its own version of raids. The equivalent of raids in other games. Unfortunately the content intended to fulfill that role was insufficient to the task and so Anet went back to the drawing board.

> > > >

> > > > --------------

> > > >

> > > > The game didnt replace trinity roles with just dps. It created a new, more dynamic, system in which a single character needs to be able to dps, tank, heal, buff, debuff, and cc situationally, at need.

> > >

> > > I mean that sounds really great and all (almost like a slogan!), but when you use the words "tank" and "heal" to apply to what all classes in GW2 do as a matter of course, again, those are all things that DPS classes in trinity games do as well. Calling it "new" and "dynamic" doesn't alter the fact that nearly all builds in this game fall under the broad category of "DPS". The fact that you are capable of using skills that heal does not make you a healer. Nor does putting toughness and vitality on your gear make you a tank (it makes you _tanky_ - two different things!).

> >

> > A character here needs to be able to handle aggro when he gets it, passing it off to another when the boss' attention becomes overwhelming. The character may then heal himself, or even others, provide group wide defensive buffs, and, of course offensive buffs, debuffs, and CC.

> >

> > In another game I played where true trinity play was purely optional, more of a crutch for those players less able to adapt quickly to changing fight dynamics, we used the term wolfpack tactics to describe a common approach to big boss fights. Any member of the party could expect to get aggro and was expected to be able to handle it for at least a while. Other members of the party would be expected to take aggro away from another if the heat got to be too much for them. Any member of the party might be expected to support those taking the most heat with a heal or defensive buff (or a cc or debuff on the boss) all of them while carrying their weight in ablating the boss' health pool.

> >

> > The boss focus on attacking the one person in the group that he is least able to hurt while ignoring, to an extent, the actual threat is a simplification crutch intended to water group play down to make it more manageable.

>

> You haven't established how it "waters down" group play. Simply calling it a crutch doesn't define it as such. "Wolf-pack" tactics may be fun from time to time, but they are also easily exploited in a game like this where all classes are designed to take care of themselves as opposed to necessarily working as unit for all to survive. Different story if the boss gets loose from your tank (I mean, that's why he's there, right?). In order for wolf-pack to work, enemy stats must be watered down sufficiently (or, in the case of action combat, damage must be sufficiently predictable to be avoidable to a degree) for all classes to handle the boss, at least for several seconds at a time.

>

 

Hmm, I thought I had expressed my perception of watered down by describing the alternative. My apologies. To me watered down or crutch combat is designed around the idea that individual members of the group are relieved of personal responsibility for their survival/performance through simplification of their role. Less watered down combat (IMO of course) involves all (or most) members of the party responsible for participating in all aspects of a group encounter.

 

Boss stats dont need to be watered down for wolfpack tactics to be viable, the characters just need access to a variety of tools to handle a variety of situations and need both player and teammates to be able to adapt to lightning fast changes in encounter dynamic.

 

What happens when tank and healer go down in a trinity encounter? Usually the party wipes. In a wolfpack encounter the remaining party members take turns holding aggro, drawing the boss away from the downed long enough for them to be rezzed.

 

 

[squallaus.8321]

> @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> I said "I just miss..." meaning that I can only speak for myself and from my own point of view, it IS wrong since I like pure healer classes to only heal without dealing damange.

 

I mean if you want to play true healer role just play double staff minstrels druid that focus on high survivability, spirits support, healing and CC. Its a perfectly valid build.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

>

> A role determines how you play, while a tactic is merely a situational aspect of an encounter.

>

> A healer will approach a scenario differently than a DPS, i.e. a healer will seek to isolate themselves from multiple foes to control the amount of incoming damage and out-sustain their enemies while a DPS will seek to overwhelm the target quickly before they themselves are overwhelmed. The tactics have similarities but each have unique aspects that change how each uses those tactics.

>

> I'm not arguing "hard roles" or "soft roles" as that is an aspect of how the professions are balanced, not the complexity, necessity or effectiveness of a role. I say things like "vulnerability stacker" isn't a role because it doesn't affect how you play, just the numbers you produce nor is spamming various conditions or boons because they are just common side-effects of using skills and fulfilled by practically any and all players.

 

This stipulation that a role has to change the way you play is arbitrary, and ultimately doesn't make sense. If you go by playstyle, then the game has dozens of roles divided up by each class and the builds they can run. A thief and an elementalist both approach a problem differently, in spite of both being damage focused. Likewise, the mechanical functions of roles can be extremely similar in execution and action in spite of doing different things. For example, a DPS tempest and a heal tempest both perform the exact same actions: they drop AoEs on the enemy, blast their own fields, overload when they can, and auto attack between all other actions. No, a "role" is the particular job you have to perform in a group. It is not the mechanical method in which this job is done. What you're describing is flavor.

 

Players do not get a whole bunch of conditions and boons for free. Run in an haphazard casual group and you'll quickly find yourself boon-less and defense-less against enemies with no disabling conditions. The only reason why it might seem like otherwise is because most players copy meta builds, and each meta build is already built in such a way as to capitalize on that classes' strong points. Tiny but important details, such as "which class using which weapons stacks vulnerability the best" are neglected in mention.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> Maybe in this game. In the broader sense of RPGs, support is indespensible and comes at a price. The main price in GW2 for support is that only some professions provide things uniquely (such as stealth, aclarity, quickness and aegis). There are also generic unique buffs like %damage and stat buffs but the level of affect of these supports really dictates the strength and level of nuance of support in GW2...I'm just of the opinion the effectiveness of support is watered down so that any portion of it isn't necessary.

 

It's like this for all games, really. Whether you have a debuffer that reduces damage, a controller who disables enemies so they don't inflict damage, a healer that manually removes damage taken, a tank which naturally blocks and defends against damage, buffers who give barriers to absorb damage, an assassin that quickly dispatches targets so they don't do damage, or a mana buffers who refills everyone's mana bar so they can do more of the above, the end result is the same: less damage taken. The goal of combat is to be in as little danger as possible while doing the most damage possible. The only way to have a role that can't be considered support is a role that doesn't meaningfully contribute to any of those things, which basically is just dead weight.

 

The primary difference between GW2 and some other games is that other games make you feeble. Other games would have each role I mentioned above sacrifice all other abilities for the sake of that role.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

>

> What constitutes environmental effects?

>

 

Environmental effects include combo fields, blast finishers, portals and other movement skills, CC that relocates enemies, lines and rings of warding, projectile reflection + destruction, group stun breaks, and also to a certain degree, summons (since they can body-block and manage aggro). Named such because they manage the environment around them by moving players and enemies, while also changing their attacks. For example, Spectral Wall denies enemies entrance into a space, buffs the offensive power of whirl and projectile finishers, and also buffs the defensive power of blast and leap finishers. Spectral Wall does a lot of things, but only in the space where it is placed, and this number of things is highly varied and dependent on what other players do.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> As for buffers and debuffers, I feel these are so watered down that the only thing that provides these roles any substance is the scarcity of certain boons and the traited effects some conditions can have. That's why, I feel, many people complain about balance because combined with the over abundance of common effects and the exclusivity of some unique effects, players are at the same time annoyed that only 2 professions fill a niche while for everything else, with enough players, you can just spam and "fill" all the other "roles".

>

> And I've always hated control, not because I hate the effects (I love control, actually) but because it plays such a minimal role in PvE. Anything that can constantly be controlled isn't worth controlling, for the most part, and anything worth controlling can only be controlled when it lets you control it. It's the opposite of what a controlling mentality is. PvP is a different story. Good thing the devs are willing to split along those lines now.

>

 

I remember a time when combo fields were really important to peak performance. Stacking might was hard, since all skills that used to do it only gave you one stack. Groups would stand together on a fire field and all use blast finishers to buff themselves up as much as possible. Sometimes, they'd just do it right on the enemy. But, Anet introduced Phalanx Strength, and from then on might stacking became trivial. You are right in saying that buffing and debuffing is way too easy now, but that is a door that cannot be closed. That said, there are some boons and conditions that get overlooked. People forget about protection, blind, and stability so often, and yet they can be really useful in countless circumstances.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

>

> But those aren't really "roles", but "types". Yes there is a difference between a magic DPS and a physical DPS but they serve the same purpose. Same for single target and AoE DPS. The main differece in style is ranged vs melee DPS and we all know where GW2 lies there.

>

> In a theoretical game with variety of play and roles, you would have multiple "types" of each "role" and with those types, they would have some nuances that make them play slightly differently (the ranged DPS typically keeps foes away while overwhelming them while melee DPS have some survival tools or CC to keep targets busy while they overwhelm the foe with damage) but both typically do the same thing: keep the target busy while you overwhelm them with DPS.

>

 

In a vacuum it would seem like this, but when it comes down to specific encounters, their status as roles become clear. Take, for example, the split phase of the Vale Guardian. The Red Guardian is all but immune to physical damage, so you need condition builds to kill it. When building a team for Vale Guardian, you have to dedicate a few spots specifically for a condition build, specifically so they can kill Red. Once you have that level of specialization, it isn't just a type of damage, it is a role that you need to fulfill.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> You don't have to explain power and condition damage to us. We've all played GW2. They are the same thing, however. The only difference is what gear you use. As for ramp up, I don't know if they've changed the game much in the past 4 months, but the level of ramp up of conditions isn't that substantial. It's really only a problem with foes that cleanse.

 

It isn't just foes that cleanse. It is foes that would otherwise die quickly to power builds. Since a lot of fractal bosses will cleanse on phasing, this means that condition builds have a needlessly hard time in fractals. The ramp up depends on the class, but it can be pretty significant at times. The worst offenders are Scourges and Daredevils, where enemies are far more likely to die or phase than a DD is to reach cruising speed.

[CptAurellian.9537]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> What are the mechanics that can be used in hard trinity games to make encounters more diverse and interesting that cannot be used in either system?

>

> + Adds? Both.

> + AoE? Both.

> + Perform action X at time(s) Y? Both.

> + Change positioning? Both.

> + Split the party? Both.

> + Prevent X from happening? Both.

 

Break it down to such a generic level and of course, everything looks the same. However, I have seen no evidence so far that the rather primitive GW2 system is even remotely capable of coming close to the intricacies of e.g. mob control or positioning that are standard for trinity games.

[vesica tempestas.1563]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > What are the mechanics that can be used in hard trinity games to make encounters more diverse and interesting that cannot be used in either system?

> >

> > + Adds? Both.

> > + AoE? Both.

> > + Perform action X at time(s) Y? Both.

> > + Change positioning? Both.

> > + Split the party? Both.

> > + Prevent X from happening? Both.

>

> Break it down to such a generic level and of course, everything looks the same. However, I have seen no evidence so far that the rather primitive GW2 system is even remotely capable of coming close to the intricacies of e.g. mob control or positioning that are standard for trinity games.

 

lol dont make me laugh, trinity = simplify skills until they boil down to 3 gameplay styles, thats the root difference. Simple is not more fun or better than complex - we only need to look at the cesspool that is WOW to see this in action. Raids are inflexible and incapable of coping with the skill diversity - even in GW2, thats why its so similar at the moment, you see raids where the players are aligned to the roles because its the only way the raid leaders have learned the fights i.e speed > gameplay. The classic 'smell' you get for raids is early call for wipes when a healer or tank dies - this more than anything demonstrates the weakness of trinity, because calling for wipes / asking for everyone to stop playing and die so you can repeat what you just done rather than pushing the team to adapt to the diversity in a game is **extremely ** poor gameplay.

 

 

[CptAurellian.9537]

Well, if you want to argue on that level, GW2 simplifies until everything boils down to 1 gameplay style. But Aliam has said that often enough, no need for endless repetition. Non-trinity systems can certainly work and probably be as interesting as trinity systems, but not when you are as inconsequential as ANet. Vanilla showed that getting stuck halfway between trinity and real self-sufficiency does the game no good.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

Trinity system is better in group work content sincr filling 1 role is better then try to do all

[squallaus.8321]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> Well, if you want to argue on that level, GW2 simplifies until everything boils down to 1 gameplay style. But Aliam has said that often enough, no need for endless repetition. Non-trinity systems can certainly work and probably be as interesting as trinity systems, but not when you are as inconsequential as ANet. Vanilla showed that getting stuck halfway between trinity and real self-sufficiency does the game no good.

 

There are in fact multiple styles to do the same thing in gw2. You can have multiple classes filling the same healing role for example. Each will have their own style of doing things but the end result will be very similar. Not all encounters will require more than 1 primary role. The simpler the encounter the less dedicated roles you will need. Core tyria content being fairly easy will only require primary DPS role. But for harder encounters you will need more dedicated roles. RAIDS and fractal CMs are the only content so far that are challenging enough to require multiple dedicated roles like those found in trinity games if you want a reasonably smooth run. But point is, gw2 allows you to customize your team make up and roles much better and in trinity games you don't have a choice. On top of this, because everyone in gw2 is required to perform some aspects of the trinity to varying degrees, players are required to understand more elements of each encounter and the combat tend to be much more engaging and fun.

 

> @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> Trinity system is better in group work content sincr filling 1 role is better then try to do all

 

Only if the mechanics of an encounter is complex enough that warrants multiple different roles to be assigned in order to progress. So that each player can just focus on their primary role while still remain in compliance of the mechanics. But even then it doesn't have to be strictly trinity as long as your team has enough coverage to perform tasks as required, trinity or no trinity doesn't really matter.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> >

> > A role determines how you play, while a tactic is merely a situational aspect of an encounter.

> >

> > A healer will approach a scenario differently than a DPS, i.e. a healer will seek to isolate themselves from multiple foes to control the amount of incoming damage and out-sustain their enemies while a DPS will seek to overwhelm the target quickly before they themselves are overwhelmed. The tactics have similarities but each have unique aspects that change how each uses those tactics.

> >

> > I'm not arguing "hard roles" or "soft roles" as that is an aspect of how the professions are balanced, not the complexity, necessity or effectiveness of a role. I say things like "vulnerability stacker" isn't a role because it doesn't affect how you play, just the numbers you produce nor is spamming various conditions or boons because they are just common side-effects of using skills and fulfilled by practically any and all players.

>

> This stipulation that a role has to change the way you play is arbitrary, and ultimately doesn't make sense. If you go by playstyle, then the game has dozens of roles divided up by each class and the builds they can run. A thief and an elementalist both approach a problem differently, in spite of both being damage focused. Likewise, the mechanical functions of roles can be extremely similar in execution and action in spite of doing different things. For example, a DPS tempest and a heal tempest both perform the exact same actions: they drop AoEs on the enemy, blast their own fields, overload when they can, and auto attack between all other actions. No, a "role" is the particular job you have to perform in a group. It is not the mechanical method in which this job is done. What you're describing is flavor.

>

> Players do not get a whole bunch of conditions and boons for free. Run in an haphazard casual group and you'll quickly find yourself boon-less and defense-less against enemies with no disabling conditions. The only reason why it might seem like otherwise is because most players copy meta builds, and each meta build is already built in such a way as to capitalize on that classes' strong points. Tiny but important details, such as "which class using which weapons stacks vulnerability the best" are neglected in mention.

>

 

I'm not going by playstyle (that is type) and effectiveness of a role (as I iterated) is more an expression of "hard" or "soft" role but it isn't a function of role itself, more like a symptom.

 

"How you play" and "playstyle" aren't synonymous as I can have various playstyles depending on my build. How you play, to me, are limitations and advantages wired into the game itself and exist to facilitate differentiation of roles. It's why a healer or tank cannot deal as much damage as a DPS or why healers or DPS do not draw in foes to themselves en mass. These are extremely elementary examples but I'm keeping my explanation as simple as possible to make my position understandable. Just to state my point frankly, the roles that you outlined in your previous point, if they are roles, are miniscule and situationally arbitrary. If we're conscede to GW2's role system (as it seems some think GW2 doesn't have roles at all), I'd only do so to end the discussion with the conclusion that the system throws in a bunch of minor roles thrown off balance by more prominent and less available roles.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Maybe in this game. In the broader sense of RPGs, support is indespensible and comes at a price. The main price in GW2 for support is that only some professions provide things uniquely (such as stealth, aclarity, quickness and aegis). There are also generic unique buffs like %damage and stat buffs but the level of affect of these supports really dictates the strength and level of nuance of support in GW2...I'm just of the opinion the effectiveness of support is watered down so that any portion of it isn't necessary.

>

> It's like this for all games, really. Whether you have a debuffer that reduces damage, a controller who disables enemies so they don't inflict damage, a healer that manually removes damage taken, a tank which naturally blocks and defends against damage, buffers who give barriers to absorb damage, an assassin that quickly dispatches targets so they don't do damage, or a mana buffers who refills everyone's mana bar so they can do more of the above, the end result is the same: less damage taken. The goal of combat is to be in as little danger as possible while doing the most damage possible. The only way to have a role that can't be considered support is a role that doesn't meaningfully contribute to any of those things, which basically is just dead weight.

>

 

Right, but I'm arguing that GW2 might have aspects of such roles, they are watered down so as to be less prominent and desireable. For an action game, it's just better to not have arbitrary watered down aspects and push for exaggerated and unique playstyle. For an RPG, it's practically required those aspects be prominent.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> The primary difference between GW2 and some other games is that other games make you feeble. Other games would have each role I mentioned above sacrifice all other abilities for the sake of that role.

>

 

Not really. If the aspect of their role is prominent enough, it makes up for their shortcomings up to a point where harder group content comes into play where group tactics form depending on what roles and types they have to work with. Some games might do as you mentioned, but not all and if we're talking about hypotheticals (I don't think anyone is making a suggestion here), it's just as possible to pull from the best case scenario as the worst.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> >

> > What constitutes environmental effects?

> >

>

> Environmental effects include combo fields, blast finishers, portals and other movement skills, CC that relocates enemies, lines and rings of warding, projectile reflection + destruction, group stun breaks, and also to a certain degree, summons (since they can body-block and manage aggro). Named such because they manage the environment around them by moving players and enemies, while also changing their attacks. For example, Spectral Wall denies enemies entrance into a space, buffs the offensive power of whirl and projectile finishers, and also buffs the defensive power of blast and leap finishers. Spectral Wall does a lot of things, but only in the space where it is placed, and this number of things is highly varied and dependent on what other players do.

>

 

Okay, well those don't constitute a role but a type of effect. Kind of like targeted AoE or player based AoE are types of AoEs.

 

And as an aside, combo fields and finishers had such potential when the game was announced but I feel they dropped the ball with them and just like boons and conditions, they are now watered down and minor. Now don't jump down by throat thinking I'm a n00b that doesn't know what he's talking about, I know some combos/fields are pivotal...but most combos/fields are pointless. Considering this feature was a prominently advertised feature of the active combat system, it is objectively a shadow of its abitious beginnings.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > As for buffers and debuffers, I feel these are so watered down that the only thing that provides these roles any substance is the scarcity of certain boons and the traited effects some conditions can have. That's why, I feel, many people complain about balance because combined with the over abundance of common effects and the exclusivity of some unique effects, players are at the same time annoyed that only 2 professions fill a niche while for everything else, with enough players, you can just spam and "fill" all the other "roles".

> >

> > And I've always hated control, not because I hate the effects (I love control, actually) but because it plays such a minimal role in PvE. Anything that can constantly be controlled isn't worth controlling, for the most part, and anything worth controlling can only be controlled when it lets you control it. It's the opposite of what a controlling mentality is. PvP is a different story. Good thing the devs are willing to split along those lines now.

> >

>

> I remember a time when combo fields were really important to peak performance. Stacking might was hard, since all skills that used to do it only gave you one stack. Groups would stand together on a fire field and all use blast finishers to buff themselves up as much as possible. Sometimes, they'd just do it right on the enemy. But, Anet introduced Phalanx Strength, and from then on might stacking became trivial. You are right in saying that buffing and debuffing is way too easy now, but that is a door that cannot be closed. That said, there are some boons and conditions that get overlooked. People forget about protection, blind, and stability so often, and yet they can be really useful in countless circumstances.

>

 

To me, I don't think it's a door that cannot be closed. If they are willing to change Phantasms into AoEs, revamping the system can't be completely out of the question.

 

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> >

> > But those aren't really "roles", but "types". Yes there is a difference between a magic DPS and a physical DPS but they serve the same purpose. Same for single target and AoE DPS. The main differece in style is ranged vs melee DPS and we all know where GW2 lies there.

> >

> > In a theoretical game with variety of play and roles, you would have multiple "types" of each "role" and with those types, they would have some nuances that make them play slightly differently (the ranged DPS typically keeps foes away while overwhelming them while melee DPS have some survival tools or CC to keep targets busy while they overwhelm the foe with damage) but both typically do the same thing: keep the target busy while you overwhelm them with DPS.

> >

>

> In a vacuum it would seem like this, but when it comes down to specific encounters, their status as roles become clear. Take, for example, the split phase of the Vale Guardian. The Red Guardian is all but immune to physical damage, so you need condition builds to kill it. When building a team for Vale Guardian, you have to dedicate a few spots specifically for a condition build, specifically so they can kill Red. Once you have that level of specialization, it isn't just a type of damage, it is a role that you need to fulfill.

>

 

And I'll reiterate, if these are what GW2 considers roles, they are miniscule and arbitrary.

 

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > What are the mechanics that can be used in hard trinity games to make encounters more diverse and interesting that cannot be used in either system?

> >

> > + Adds? Both.

> > + AoE? Both.

> > + Perform action X at time(s) Y? Both.

> > + Change positioning? Both.

> > + Split the party? Both.

> > + Prevent X from happening? Both.

>

> Break it down to such a generic level and of course, everything looks the same.

 

How would you like to break it down? A better question is, "What mechanics cannot be used in a soft role game that can be used in a hard trinity game?" People seem to insinuate that trinity play is better, so how is that true?

 

> However, I have seen no evidence so far that the rather primitive GW2 system is even remotely capable of coming close to the intricacies of e.g. mob control or positioning that are standard for trinity games.

 

Sure, GW2 instanced content had many failings at launch (e.g., buff n' spank encounters being the equivalent of tank n' spank in a hard trinity game). Now, newer fractals use more mechanics, as do raids. Are those still "primitive?" What would make them not "primitive?"

 

I suspect that there is bias in statements that hard trinity encounters are more intricate, engaging, etc. than content in a soft role game solely because of the trinity mechanics.

 

I'm not saying that GW2 instanced content is perfect, or that the devs responsible for it can't do better. I'm not saying that there aren't other games that do instanced content better. I am saying that, from a psychological point of view, there is an inherent bias on the part of people who prefer a trinity system which colors their perceptions. I'm also aware that my own perceptions are biased because I dislike the artificial nature of tanking in trinity games. It's the same reason I dislike the role Toughness plays in GW2 aggro mechanics.

[pyewacket.1807]

I think as far as organized PvE concerned AN undoubtedly failed with their "no trinity" philosophy. Every raid group requires tanks and healers and 99% of t4 FotM groups require tanks and healers. And they didn't just fail, they actually made it bad and much worse compared to competitors like WoW. Unlike in WoW or other similar games in GW2 right now basically only one class accepted by raid and FotM community as a tank and only one class accepted as a healer. Out 9 classes. That is very, very bad for the game and thus for the community. I think, what AN should do is accept their failure, learn from it and redesign classes so that multiple classes are viable and accepted as tanks/healers, so you don't have to look at LFT for raids/FotM and see how everyone is only looking for chrono/druid.

[Rauderi.8706]

Had to beg guildies for an off-meta dungeon run in XIV, because haha had to do the quest as a dps, and those dps queues, man.

Now I know why Gold Saucer exists. It's a waiting room for damage classes until they're *allowed* to follow an overzealous tank who pulls 4x what he's supposed to. :|

[Laila Lightness.8742]

> @"pyewacket.1807" said:

> I think as far as organized PvE concerned AN undoubtedly failed with their "no trinity" philosophy. Every raid group requires tanks and healers and 99% of t4 FotM groups require tanks and healers. And they didn't just fail, they actually made it bad and much worse compared to competitors like WoW. Unlike in WoW or other similar games in GW2 right now basically only one class accepted by raid and FotM community as a tank and only one class accepted as a healer. Out 9 classes. That is very, very bad for the game and thus for the community. I think, what AN should do is accept their failure, learn from it and redesign classes so that multiple classes are viable and accepted as tanks/healers, so you don't have to look at LFT for raids/FotM and see how everyone is only looking for chrono/druid.

 

One solution remove abillity to heal and support others all in group for themself only concern is their own survival

[pyewacket.1807]

> @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> One solution remove abillity to heal and support others all in group for themself only concern is their own survival

 

That would be kind of a gimmick i don't think anyone needs or wants. I think much more sense in just embracing the GW2's version of holy trinity. It's already there and been there for some time, but atm it's poorly implemented.

[CptAurellian.9537]

We already had it the way that everyone had to care for himself. It was Vanilla and I don't think I've ever seen more boring instances, where everything just boiled down to "bring as much dps as possible, push it into a corner and burn it down". No thanks.

 

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> How would you like to break it down? A better question is, "What mechanics cannot be used in a soft role game that can be used in a hard trinity game?" People seem to insinuate that trinity play is better, so how is that true?

>

> Sure, GW2 instanced content had many failings at launch (e.g., buff n' spank encounters being the equivalent of tank n' spank in a hard trinity game). Now, newer fractals use more mechanics, as do raids. Are those still "primitive?" What would make them not "primitive?"

So far, I have not seen a single mechanic in this game that provides an engaging mode of shared mob control between two or more people. No, SH with its two buttons does not even come close. It's really conspicuous that, with now 17 encounters considered as a raid boss, we do not have a single one that requires handling of two (or more) strong and relevant enemies in parallel within the same arena, for example. Not to talk about making that handling dependent on proper positioning. Such aspects of the standard trinity tank toolkit are missing completely.

 

Right now, I can't think of any mechanics in GW2 raids that could _not_ be easily covered in a classical trinity game as well. The other way round, there are plenty of gaps, especially when it comes to tanking-related control stuff. So yes, I'll call many of the current raid bosses primitive. There are some exceptions, which usually saturate you with other mechanics, but on a general level, encounter design does not shine in this game. Maybe I'm spoiled from Wildstar's dungeons and raids (why did Carbine fuck up the rest of the game so much? :( ), but ANet does not even come close to the sophistication of these encounters. Though to be honest, I'm pretty sure Blizzard was more advanced 10+ years ago. But with the typically rose-tinted glasses of the past and having forgotten so much since I quit in Wrath, I won't make WoW the point of reference anymore.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> So far, I have not seen a single mechanic in this game that provides an engaging mode of shared mob control between two or more people. No, SH with its two buttons does not even come close. It's really conspicuous that, with now 17 encounters considered as a raid boss, we do not have a single one that requires handling of two (or more) strong and relevant enemies in parallel within the same arena, for example. Not to talk about making that handling dependent on proper positioning. Such aspects of the standard trinity tank toolkit are missing completely.

>

> Right now, I can't think of any mechanics in GW2 raids that could _not_ be easily covered in a classical trinity game as well. The other way round, there are plenty of gaps, especially when it comes to tanking-related control stuff. So yes, I'll call many of the current raid bosses primitive. There are some exceptions, which usually saturate you with other mechanics, but on a general level, encounter design does not shine in this game. Maybe I'm spoiled from Wildstar's dungeons and raids (why did Carbine kitten up the rest of the game so much? :( ), but ANet does not even come close to the sophistication of these encounters. Though to be honest, I'm pretty sure Blizzard was more advanced 10+ years ago. But with the typically rose-tinted glasses of the past and having forgotten so much since I quit in Wrath, I won't make WoW the point of reference anymore.

 

That's fair enough. To me, it sounds like any failure on ANet's part is not _necessarily_ due to the lack of tanking mechanics per se. There may be other factors limiting their raid encounter design -- such as a desire to keep them accessible to a larger demographic. I've always wondered, though, if a lot of the issues with GW2 instanced content revolve around basic design decisions like

 

+ Limiting the depth and complexity of character capabilities for supposed ease of balance

+ Designing boons for contesting small capture points in sPvP

+ Approaching character design based on the idea of each profession being a "role," trying to make professions different, but simultaneously trying to provide instanced content that could be completed by any subset of those professions

[CptAurellian.9537]

That's very well possible, good thoughts. Maybe time will tell what's possible and what the devs are actually willing to implement within the framework of GW2 gameplay. Until then, having nice casual raids isn't a bad thing, before anyone thinks that "primitive" is necessarily bad.

[Raizel.8175]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> > So far, I have not seen a single mechanic in this game that provides an engaging mode of shared mob control between two or more people. No, SH with its two buttons does not even come close. It's really conspicuous that, with now 17 encounters considered as a raid boss, we do not have a single one that requires handling of two (or more) strong and relevant enemies in parallel within the same arena, for example. Not to talk about making that handling dependent on proper positioning. Such aspects of the standard trinity tank toolkit are missing completely.

> >

> > Right now, I can't think of any mechanics in GW2 raids that could _not_ be easily covered in a classical trinity game as well. The other way round, there are plenty of gaps, especially when it comes to tanking-related control stuff. So yes, I'll call many of the current raid bosses primitive. There are some exceptions, which usually saturate you with other mechanics, but on a general level, encounter design does not shine in this game. Maybe I'm spoiled from Wildstar's dungeons and raids (why did Carbine kitten up the rest of the game so much? :( ), but ANet does not even come close to the sophistication of these encounters. Though to be honest, I'm pretty sure Blizzard was more advanced 10+ years ago. But with the typically rose-tinted glasses of the past and having forgotten so much since I quit in Wrath, I won't make WoW the point of reference anymore.

>

> That's fair enough. To me, it sounds like any failure on ANet's part is not _necessarily_ due to the lack of tanking mechanics per se. There may be other factors limiting their raid encounter design -- such as a desire to keep them accessible to a larger demographic. I've always wondered, though, if a lot of the issues with GW2 instanced content revolve around basic design decisions like

>

> + Limiting the depth and complexity of character capabilities for supposed ease of balance

> + Designing boons for contesting small capture points in sPvP

> + Approaching character design based on the idea of each profession being a "role," trying to make professions different, but simultaneously trying to provide instanced content that could be completed by any subset of those professions

 

ANet already screwed up on the accessibility-part. By now, it doesn't matter anymore if they make instanced content more complex or not. The split inside the community is already too insurmountable. They may as well finally put some proper aggro-mechanics in; put stuff in where people actually need some situational awareness, not just turning raids into dps-races but force people to act more wisely.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"CptAurellian.9537" said:

> Right now, I can't think of any mechanics in GW2 raids that could _not_ be easily covered in a classical trinity game as well. The other way round, there are plenty of gaps, especially when it comes to tanking-related control stuff. So yes, I'll call many of the current raid bosses primitive. There are some exceptions, which usually saturate you with other mechanics, but on a general level, encounter design does not shine in this game. Maybe I'm spoiled from Wildstar's dungeons and raids (why did Carbine kitten up the rest of the game so much? :( ), but ANet does not even come close to the sophistication of these encounters. Though to be honest, I'm pretty sure Blizzard was more advanced 10+ years ago. But with the typically rose-tinted glasses of the past and having forgotten so much since I quit in Wrath, I won't make WoW the point of reference anymore.

 

Don't think you understand what a change in basis means then. Both systems are suppose to have the same coverage but have a different set of basis. Traditional trinity is DPS, Tank, Healer and gw2 is loosely DPS, Control, Support. Each build in gw2 will have some aspect of each basis and you can easy change builds to have different coverage. What trinity games lack is customizability. Boss encounters and their difficulty has nothing to do with what system is being used but rather what unique roles you can create with a system that make sense. If anet wants to make harder content they can, by simply being creative with roles and mechanics compliance and then have different builds fill these roles. I'd argue that the system in gw2 is capable of creating more unique roles than trinity based systems ever will. And the combat will feel more dynamic, engaging and fun at the same time. But I suspect anet will only ramp up the difficulty over time since currently it take new players a fair while to get into raids and actually do well.

[squallaus.8321]

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> ANet already screwed up on the accessibility-part. By now, it doesn't matter anymore if they make instanced content more complex or not. The split inside the community is already too insurmountable. They may as well finally put some proper aggro-mechanics in; put stuff in where people actually need some situational awareness, not just turning raids into dps-races but force people to act more wisely.

 

It's all well a good that there are alot of us here that want anet to create more interesting encounters that forces people to sacrifice dps for other features that will help the the encounter. But you also have a large number of people telling anet content is unfun and unintelligent whenever content is more difficult than the current meta can handle. All you need to do is look at the fractals and raid subsection of the forum. One recent example is when they introduced randomised instabilities for fractals. People are already asking for exclusions for certain combinations of instability because the current DPS + BS + Druid + Chrono meta couldn't handle it. Afflicted + last laugh + toxic trail comes to mind. People could have been more inventive and created new party composition with more specific roles to handle it, like 2 mirage DPS + BS + fire brand healer + chrono, but instead they chose to complain and ask for that combination of instability and others to be on the exclusion list.