Your thoughts on the Holy Trinity abscence

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > I've always hated the trinity in every game. It's always felt contrived and unheroic to me. As I've often said, Lord of the Rings would have been far more boring if Boromir were tanking, Gandalf was healing him and no one ever went after the Hobbits, Gimle, Aragorn or Legolas. It's just very artificial.

> > >

> > > I prefer this. It doesn't mean there's no team work. It means there's different team work...but it's more reactive and less set in stone. If someone falls, generally someone else can pick up the slack. In most games, if your tank or healer go, that's it.

> >

> > Should have tried City of Heroes... :)

>

> Never heard of it ;)

 

Well... someday I'll tell you all about it!

[AliamRationem.5172]

I really find myself missing the trinity in instanced PvE, but I like GW2's system for open world play.

[Rhatha.2376]

I enjoy the flexibility quite a bit. There's a lot you can do when you really understand how the underlying mechanics of the game work. Unfortunately it can sometimes be a struggle to get people to actually try things outside the norm. Some of the crazy ideas work, others not so much.

 

Do you think adding support classes was a good thing?

GW2 has always had support to some extent, it's just that in its original form is was more in the form of reflects/utility and might stacking. I think overall it was better to have some elite specs specialize in support in terms of group content, yes. Tanks don't really exist in most areas, and in raids the majority of "tanking" is moving the boss to the right spot.. most attacks that a raid tank must avoid also affect the rest of the group as well.

 

How would you improve on the no Trinity concept

Make sure each profession has a variety of different dps and support focused builds that have different strengths for group play.

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > I've always hated the trinity in every game. It's always felt contrived and unheroic to me. As I've often said, Lord of the Rings would have been far more boring if Boromir were tanking, Gandalf was healing him and no one ever went after the Hobbits, Gimle, Aragorn or Legolas. It's just very artificial.

> > >

> > > I prefer this. It doesn't mean there's no team work. It means there's different team work...but it's more reactive and less set in stone. If someone falls, generally someone else can pick up the slack. In most games, if your tank or healer go, that's it.

> >

> > Should have tried City of Heroes... :)

>

> Never heard of it ;)

 

It was a an MMO that was released in the same generation as EQ2 and WoW, you basically designed a Super Hero with unique abilities but I've heard the real appeal was in costume design, they had a close knit community and were reasonably successful until one day NCSoft decided they were not making enough money and shut down the game, Champions Online had been released and I think they wanted every one to play that game to justify the development money spent, every one avoided Champions Online because it wasn't as feature rich as Heores And people had spent years on their mains. This would be like NCSoft shutting down GW1 to get people to play GW2 if it were struggling.

[Boulder.3589]

ANet hasn't figured out a good design for raids that mesh well with the no-trinity system. So instead we have raids that have a lot of similarities to raids in trinity based mmos, and some sort of a faux trinity to go with it. I would rather they come up with a better raid design to fit with no-trinity or just fully adopt a proper trinity.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

Trinity or not there always gonna be meta tactics and builds that everyone copy pastes and farms instanced content with.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> Besides the Faux Holy trinity we currently have, I am not sure what to think on it. On the one hand, I would prefer that everyone is a jack of all trades being able to heal and tank for themselves without relying on others. On the flip side, I can see how it is easier to balance for developers if they have the Holy Trinity system. I am kind of at a toss up for the whole thing.

 

Here's why this is worse: it lacks gameplay interaction between characters. Under this paradigm, you don't play *with* other players, you play *next* to other players. And that's wasted potential. Specializing, taking different roles in combat, makes fighting so much more fun and engaging because it allows for actual teamplay.

[TWMagimay.9057]

All the things listed here as pros for no-trinity are actually due to the action combat. Picking up the slack, coping with others dying, soloing content, being responsible for your own survival(to a degree), having the option to(in low-mid tier content) go with whatever applies is because classes have the ability to dodge. Every single one of these things applies to, say, Tera, which is a trinity action combat MMO.

 

PS: How bad a healer do you have to be for people to blame you even for stuff that had nothing to do with you? Always amazes me.

[eldrjth.7384]

I think there is still support classes in this game. Just go through the daily fractal lfg and you will see lf druid/warrior/chrono all the time, which is basically a healer and 2 group buffers. This is less flexible than the trinity system if 3 classes got to be set in stone (although ele can be another healer). Although usually I can get by not joining these meta groups with my Thief but sometimes I have to wait for a non "meta" listing though. I prefer it if they got rid of group healing and buffs personally or give every class a unique buff to promote diversity in group play.

[ProverbsofHell.2307]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > I've always hated the trinity in every game. It's always felt contrived and unheroic to me. As I've often said, Lord of the Rings would have been far more boring if Boromir were tanking, Gandalf was healing him and no one ever went after the Hobbits, Gimle, Aragorn or Legolas. It's just very artificial.

> >

> > I prefer this. It doesn't mean there's no team work. It means there's different team work...but it's more reactive and less set in stone. If someone falls, generally someone else can pick up the slack. In most games, if your tank or healer go, that's it.

>

> Should have tried City of Heroes... :)

 

Heh, but even CoH had a trinity! Empaths were healers, Ice Armor was the best tank spec and Blappers were huge DPS.

 

 

[MonsterB.3945]

Players have **forgotten** that Guild Wars 2 is a non trinity game. Its gaming nature to have the Holy Trinity. Thus the player base will make the trinity with what they are given then force everyone into it because it is globally accepted as meta. Now you cant play as you want in a raid you have to play meta to be accepted. In the future if there is a Guild Wars 3 I think ArenaNet should just embrace the Holy Trinity and innovate in another direction.

[Oglaf.1074]

I liked it being gone and was extremely disappointed to see them fall back on it when it came to Raids.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"MonsterB.3945" said:

> Players have **forgotten** that Guild Wars 2 is a non trinity game. Its gaming nature to have the Holy Trinity. Thus the player base will make the trinity with what they are given then force everyone into it because it is globally accepted as meta. Now you cant play as you want in a raid you have to play meta to be accepted. In the future if there is a Guild Wars 3 I think ArenaNet should just embrace the Holy Trinity and innovate in another direction.

 

Raids are designed to be trinity content. It has nothing to do with the meta. Anet decided to put trinity back into the game.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> I liked it being gone and was extremely disappointed to see them fall back on it when it came to Raids.

 

You realize we had meta before raids, don't you? And that there were combat roles before that, too? Blasting stealth for skipping mobs in dungeons is just as much of a group support as is bringing banners or having a healer. Again. It's both more efficient and more fun to have actual gameplay interactions between player characters.

[Timo.1065]

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> Hey all,

> I don't think I've played any other mmo without a holy trinity. I was wondering what you guys like/dislike about it, as well as your answers to the following questions:

> Do you think adding support classes was a good thing?

> How would you improve on the no Trinity concept?

> Anywho thanks in advance, and I look forward to reading your responses.

 

I don't know if I miss something, but we have Trinity in this game.

All new End content like T4 fractals and Raids are designe for it. They put so many RNG staff that heal is must have. In raid we have tanks and heals.

The problem is that all classes can heal but King is only one.

[Jinn Galen.2468]

For PvE I don't think you need the trinity. Though in raids, I guess there's a pseudo-trinity at work. PvP and WvW are another matter though. It would be way easier to balance if there are designated roles for each one. The role doesn't even have to be stuck to a profession just the build. So a single profession can have different builds that each specialize in a task with clear cut weaknesses. It also promotes team play in sPvP.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > I've always hated the trinity in every game. It's always felt contrived and unheroic to me. As I've often said, Lord of the Rings would have been far more boring if Boromir were tanking, Gandalf was healing him and no one ever went after the Hobbits, Gimle, Aragorn or Legolas. It's just very artificial.

> > > >

> > > > I prefer this. It doesn't mean there's no team work. It means there's different team work...but it's more reactive and less set in stone. If someone falls, generally someone else can pick up the slack. In most games, if your tank or healer go, that's it.

> > >

> > > Should have tried City of Heroes... :)

> >

> > Never heard of it ;)

>

> It was a an MMO that was released in the same generation as EQ2 and WoW, you basically designed a Super Hero with unique abilities but I've heard the real appeal was in costume design, they had a close knit community and were reasonably successful until one day NCSoft decided they were not making enough money and shut down the game, Champions Online had been released and I think they wanted every one to play that game to justify the development money spent, every one avoided Champions Online because it wasn't as feature rich as Heores And people had spent years on their mains. This would be like NCSoft shutting down GW1 to get people to play GW2 if it were struggling.

 

Yeah I know, it's an inside joke between Swagger and I. He became friends with me because I defended the game on these forums.

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > I've always hated the trinity in every game. It's always felt contrived and unheroic to me. As I've often said, Lord of the Rings would have been far more boring if Boromir were tanking, Gandalf was healing him and no one ever went after the Hobbits, Gimle, Aragorn or Legolas. It's just very artificial.

> > > > >

> > > > > I prefer this. It doesn't mean there's no team work. It means there's different team work...but it's more reactive and less set in stone. If someone falls, generally someone else can pick up the slack. In most games, if your tank or healer go, that's it.

> > > >

> > > > Should have tried City of Heroes... :)

> > >

> > > Never heard of it ;)

> >

> > It was a an MMO that was released in the same generation as EQ2 and WoW, you basically designed a Super Hero with unique abilities but I've heard the real appeal was in costume design, they had a close knit community and were reasonably successful until one day NCSoft decided they were not making enough money and shut down the game, Champions Online had been released and I think they wanted every one to play that game to justify the development money spent, every one avoided Champions Online because it wasn't as feature rich as Heores And people had spent years on their mains. This would be like NCSoft shutting down GW1 to get people to play GW2 if it were struggling.

>

> Yeah I know, it's an inside joke between Swagger and I. He became friends with me because I defended the game on these forums.

 

The funny thing is we should look at CoH as lesson regarding the fickle nature of NCSoft, here you had a profitable game that was shut down for reasons; meanwhile GW2 has had some pretty rough years during HoT each quarter only seeing an upturn with mount skin sales, who to say NCSoft doesn't come after us one day too.

 

Yeah CoH should have not needed any defending from our players because if they had a clue they'd see a promising alternative MMO gem just like us that got snuffed out of existence by the same owner.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > I've always hated the trinity in every game. It's always felt contrived and unheroic to me. As I've often said, Lord of the Rings would have been far more boring if Boromir were tanking, Gandalf was healing him and no one ever went after the Hobbits, Gimle, Aragorn or Legolas. It's just very artificial.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I prefer this. It doesn't mean there's no team work. It means there's different team work...but it's more reactive and less set in stone. If someone falls, generally someone else can pick up the slack. In most games, if your tank or healer go, that's it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Should have tried City of Heroes... :)

> > > >

> > > > Never heard of it ;)

> > >

> > > It was a an MMO that was released in the same generation as EQ2 and WoW, you basically designed a Super Hero with unique abilities but I've heard the real appeal was in costume design, they had a close knit community and were reasonably successful until one day NCSoft decided they were not making enough money and shut down the game, Champions Online had been released and I think they wanted every one to play that game to justify the development money spent, every one avoided Champions Online because it wasn't as feature rich as Heores And people had spent years on their mains. This would be like NCSoft shutting down GW1 to get people to play GW2 if it were struggling.

> >

> > Yeah I know, it's an inside joke between Swagger and I. He became friends with me because I defended the game on these forums.

>

> The funny thing is we should look at CoH as lesson regarding the fickle nature of NCSoft, here you had a profitable game that was shut down for reasons; meanwhile GW2 has had some pretty rough years during HoT each quarter only seeing an upturn with mount skin sales, who to say NCSoft doesn't come after us one day too.

>

> Yeah CoH should have not needed any defending from our players because if they had a clue they'd see a promising alternative MMO gem just like us that got snuffed out of existence by the same owner.

 

The numbers aren't even close to equal. Why don't you go look at how much City of Heroes was pulling in and how much Guild Wars 2 was pulling in. I think you'll find that rough numbers for us were still better than City of Heroes when it was closed down by a fairly big margin.

[RSLongK.8961]

Thats the best thing i like in this game.

When you soloing/leveling you dont fell slow or helpless as playing a pure healer or tank.

While in group you have a "soft trinity", as in everybody got their role.

This concept and execution, balance apart, is one of the key features that keep me hooked in this game.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > I liked it being gone and was extremely disappointed to see them fall back on it when it came to Raids.

>

> You realize we had meta before raids, don't you? And that there were combat roles before that, too? Blasting stealth for skipping mobs in dungeons is just as much of a group support as is bringing banners or having a healer. Again. It's both more efficient and more fun to have actual gameplay interactions between player characters.

 

Meta =/= Trinity.

 

 

[DreamyAbaddon.3265]

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> Hey all,

> I don't think I've played any other mmo without a holy trinity. I was wondering what you guys like/dislike about it, as well as your answers to the following questions:

> Do you think adding support classes was a good thing?

> How would you improve on the no Trinity concept?

> Anywho thanks in advance, and I look forward to reading your responses.

 

The reason why I like this game's combat without the holy trinity is because it makes it a skill based game.

This game's combat has based on 3 combat mechanics: Damage/Control/Support. Every class has their own ways of taking Control away from enemies while Supporting themselves and dealing Damage. This means if you want to get better, you need to practice, practice and practice at utilizing these 3 combat mechanics while fighting.

 

If you are good at soloing, you are good at team work in this game's combat because: A solo player can take control away from enemies, while dealing damage and supporting themselves when they need too as they move and dodge from incoming attacks. In a group content, you can coordinate control with your team while supporting each other and help contributing in dealing damage while moving and dodging from incoming attacks. This is why it's skill based. It's all about how well you utilize your skills and how well you move/dodge from attacks.

 

Also the reason why I love the combat is build diversity. Honestly, any build you make is viable for pretty much all content. As long as you know how to take advantage of the build you made and understand the strengths and weaknesses of course.

 

Trinity concept is pretty crap because it kills diversity builds, and forces a specific playstyle on specific classes to be viable. Also it's less skill based and more gear based. For example: If you're pure role is to do damage, and you have no way of Supporting yourself, or taking Control away from enemies or moving/dodging from attacks, then the only way to be better at the role you play is getting gear that increases your damage output... If your role is a Tank, then the only way to improve is getting better stats to reduce damage you take and better stats to be able to keep enemy agro/hate. So yeah... Trinity based games are not skill based... GW2's combat is skill based and is based on build diversity and that is what makes it unique in the combat department in my opinion. :)

 

Here is a link to my guide with 3 video tutorials on how you can improve in combat and make your own builds:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/806/gw2-combat-system-build-101-guide

[DreamyAbaddon.3265]

I also want to add that Trinity based combat is very limited due to lack of diversity and focus on a specific role in a combat situation.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"DreamyAbaddon.3265" said:

> I also want to add that Trinity based combat is very limited due to lack of diversity and focus on a specific role in a combat situation.

 

As opposed to "diversity" where every character in the party has exactly the same function? :)

[TamX.1870]

First my thoughts about Trinity. I especially criticize Trinity tank concept. In traditional trinity game, tanking is tightly coupled to implementation of AI, and it thus prevents any improvements and development to NPC AI, and thus it limits the possibilities to design encounters. Furthermore, in trinity games problems arise to design the encounter so that tank is needed (otherwise tanks have no spot to encounter), and even more, balancing tank classes to instance encounters radiate balance problems to other parts of the game. So, even thought tank concept can be useful tool to build certain encounters, it can also be very limiting and problematic in long run.

 

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> Do you think adding support classes was a good thing?

 

Yes. It is good that players can "outsource" some functions to player playing specialized role. In general, I commonly think that instance encounters by their design could encourage teams to have several different specialized roles.

 

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> How would you improve on the no Trinity concept?

 

In addition to all mechanics in encounters in other games, without built-in tank concept, developers have great freedom to create and tweak NPC AI in encounters. This could be used more extensively. As few people mentioned above, it would be fascinating to meet some more intelligent NPCs in encounters: such that really try to put your team down, by focusing to weakest targets first to cut down DPS/heals. I know that PvE side is more about playing against mechanics, not against artificial intelligence, but I wouldnt mind to have few encounters where we would be trying to beat more intelligent mobs.

 

Instead of more intelligent mobs, this freedom to play with NPC AI could be used to create very specially behaving mobs. As an example, in the previous game I played, one raid encounter had mobs that ignored the normal threat mechanism if they spotted a player below~50% health - these "executioners" escaped from tanks in masses to go to take that poor player down. In this game, NPC AI features like that are even easier to put in use, because classes and NPC AI are not coupled together. We might have mobs that target to highest DPS, highest heals, lowest health, lowest toughness, highest number of boons on, or highest number of conditions on, and so on.

 

Some encounters may benefit from tank-like abilities, to position mobs or to prevent mobs targeting to a player performing some specialized role. Would I be an instance designer, I would get rid from "toughness tanking" and introduce tanking concept as instance mechanism instead. In any case, I would not bake tanking inside classes, it would be too limiting in the long run. In another thread I already thought some possibilities, I write them here, too, with some additional ideas:

 

- Place a one-time-activable prop at the front of encounter: player activating this prop gets covered by specially smelling fume, which enrages mobs (in certain range) to forget their normal intelligence and try to beat the player down first (that is: player becomes a tank).

- Place a prop that any player can activate, to gain "mob-magnetism": teams could choose how many mob-magnets they want to use.

- Place three props at the front of encounter: each prop covers a player with special fume, which enrages three different types of mobs to try to kill the player against their own reasoning (that is, by-passes their regular targeting AI). Now can you see, how tying tanking concept to instance mechanics gives much more freedom to encounter design than classic trinity. Having three special "mob-magnets", each attracting their own special types of mobs is very hard to implement in Trinity game.

- Introduce a "fume point" in the encounter: a player, who runs through the cloud, is getting that special mob-enraging smell for a limited time. This way players could rotate their "mob-magnets", if necessary - otherwise, the chosen player would go constantly refreshing her/his "mob-magnetism". Again, mechanics like this are very hard to implement with traditional trinity game tank concept.

- Introduce a prop, which gives player a special ability to shout very intimitating words to target mob, to enrage it and to make player a "mob-magnet" for the mobs which were affected by the skill. This is similar to forced taunt skills in trinity games.

 

And this does not end here. When player receives "mob-magnet-fume", depending on the encounter, it could add boons or conditions. That is, in some encounters, the ones who are chosen as mob magnets, get some useful boons (e.g. some extra health and toughness). In some other encounters, players might get poisoned when using their taunt skill. The possibilities are unlimited, unlike in trinity game tanking.

 

I personally think that keeping tanking concept as a mechanism in encounter (when needed) gives much more freedom to design encounters than either trinity tank concept, or toughness tanking. It would be also good to keep NPC AI separated from class design, and thus it would give much more possibilities to introduce specially behaving mobs in encounters.