Your thoughts on the Holy Trinity abscence

[Lord Kreegan.8123]

IMHO, what GW2 has implemented instead of the trinity concept doesn't work very well at all. My Master Druid, for instance, with the right pet out is quite effective in solo play, but doesn't heal worth a damn and is thus much less useful in group play. My Master Dragonhunter is most effective when laying traps, not when acting as support. My Engineer seems to work well as a healer, but that's about the only effective support character I have. It's disappointing; IMHO the classes don't do what they're advertised as doing and you're pretty much forced into the latest meta-build-of-the-week...

In any case, I prefer the original Everquest scheme with many class specializations; it worked well. Sure, there were always complainers who didn't read class descriptions and thought their _whatzit_ class should be uber/elite/a one-shotter and were vocally disappointed when it wasn't, but that's just the typical gripes you get with immature players. Or just give me a system that's completely skill-based ala the original Elder Scrolls system in Morrowind where you could define your own class.

In GW2 you're either ranged DPS or melee DPS or you're nothing. That's most obvious in WvW and sPvP. In WvW, HoT, and PoF, however, since _success_ is measured in terms of what zergs you've played in during your gaming session, it just doesn't matter. Just follow the group leader, tab-target (since you can't even see opponents most of the time due to all the VFX and crowding), and collect your XP and loot.

Disappointing...

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"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.

 

You mean zerker meta from 2013? Truly a great example of diversity.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Lord Kreegan.8123" said:

> IMHO, what GW2 has implemented instead of the trinity concept doesn't work very well at all.

 

What do you mean? The trinity is already perfected.

 

The bunker firebrand, hammer herald and the holy condi scourge.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

Trinity is mostly put around team play the way gw 2 has too trinity is dps,more dps ,superior dps

[Zedek.8932]

In FF14, I was queuing up as healer to get my Blackmage gear (with Tomestones). Too bad that the waiting time for DPS professions (read as: My Blackmage) was so high that I basically geared up a profession that can't do anything because it has no use.

 

Imagine a Trinity in GW2: Me, a Rifle Deadeye, could literally get NO game, because either getting kicked for "non-suitable [mainstream] build" or some guy leaves. Or the tank leaves because the healer sucks, or the healer leaves because the tank sucks, or the DPS getting kicked for whatever reasons. I met a total goofball that was literally dumb in my last FC in FF14, that guy rolled a tank, and he was the most popular of our FC - despite being personally and gameplay-wise a total failure. But man, Trinity, tanks, yeeeaaahhh! Cool!!

 

No. Just no. When I fail, then at least I know I did it. And not some bad French player, or some other guy that suddenly "has lags" because he plays with 1 bar WiFi strength...

 

Excelsior.

 

I just found this screenshot from January of 2014 from FF14. It's one of the many core problems of the Trinity:

If you force a Trinity and one part of it is missing out, e.g. due to disconnects. In that particular situation, the tank suddenly left. And then we had an unwanted break...

And I really would dislike to sit around with my Thief and wait..and wait...and wait for someone to fill up the ranks:

 


 

[Laila Lightness.8742]

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> In FF14, I was queuing up as healer to get my Blackmage gear (with Tomestones). Too bad that the waiting time for DPS professions (read as: My Blackmage) was so high that I basically geared up a profession that can't do anything because it has no use.

>

> Imagine a Trinity in GW2: Me, a Rifle Deadeye, could literally get NO game, because either getting kicked for "non-suitable [mainstream] build" or some guy leaves. Or the tank leaves because the healer sucks, or the healer leaves because the tank sucks, or the DPS getting kicked for whatever reasons. I met a total goofball that was literally dumb in my last FC in FF14, that guy rolled a tank, and he was the most popular of our FC - despite being personally and gameplay-wise a total failure. But man, Trinity, tanks, yeeeaaahhh! Cool!!

>

> No. Just no. When I fail, then at least I know I did it. And not some bad French player, or some other guy that suddenly "has lags" because he plays with 1 bar WiFi strength...

>

> Excelsior.

>

> I just found this screenshot from January of 2014 from FF14. It's one of the many core problems of the Trinity:

> If you force a Trinity and one part of it is missing out, e.g. due to disconnects. In that particular situation, the tank suddenly left. And then we had an unwanted break...

> And I really would dislike to sit around with my Thief and wait..and wait...and wait for someone to fill up the ranks:

>

> 

>

 

Why get healer tank just all be dps and take care of yourself

[Leo G.4501]

I think the only issue I have with Trinity is that it tends to divide players by what they enjoy vs what everyone needs. Me being a laid back player, in a holy Trinity environment, if probably gravitate to a dps type but in a non Trinity game, any option is open.

 

On the other hand, when there is no Trinity, most professions feel the same once you get the basics of it. I think my favorite system was CoH's 4 sided set up of support, tank, dps and control as you didn't require all sides and having more of one side would eliminate the need of all other sides.

 

As for my thoughts of what gw2 has; I'm indifferent. I like the game the way it is and if I feel like playing a Trinity game, I'll go look into one.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> In FF14, I was queuing up as healer to get my Blackmage gear (with Tomestones). Too bad that the waiting time for DPS professions (read as: My Blackmage) was so high that I basically geared up a profession that can't do anything because it has no use.

>

> Imagine a Trinity in GW2: Me, a Rifle Deadeye, could literally get NO game, because either getting kicked for "non-suitable [mainstream] build" or some guy leaves. Or the tank leaves because the healer sucks, or the healer leaves because the tank sucks, or the DPS getting kicked for whatever reasons. I met a total goofball that was literally dumb in my last FC in FF14, that guy rolled a tank, and he was the most popular of our FC - despite being personally and gameplay-wise a total failure. But man, Trinity, tanks, yeeeaaahhh! Cool!!

>

> No. Just no. When I fail, then at least I know I did it. And not some bad French player, or some other guy that suddenly "has lags" because he plays with 1 bar WiFi strength...

>

> Excelsior.

>

> I just found this screenshot from January of 2014 from FF14. It's one of the many core problems of the Trinity:

> If you force a Trinity and one part of it is missing out, e.g. due to disconnects. In that particular situation, the tank suddenly left. And then we had an unwanted break...

> And I really would dislike to sit around with my Thief and wait..and wait...and wait for someone to fill up the ranks:

>

> 

>

 

As rifle deadeye you would probably not even had a chance to try group content as any fractal or raid group would kick you before you say "choya".

[Ardid.7203]

> @"Lord Kreegan.8123" said:

> IMHO, what GW2 has implemented instead of the trinity concept doesn't work very well at all. My Master Druid, for instance, with the right pet out is quite effective in solo play, but doesn't heal worth a kitten and is thus much less useful in group play. My Master Dragonhunter is most effective when laying traps, not when acting as support. My Engineer seems to work well as a healer, but that's about the only effective support character I have. It's disappointing; IMHO the classes don't do what they're advertised as doing and you're pretty much forced into the latest meta-build-of-the-week...

 

Sorry man, but if your BEST healer is a ENGIE, you must be doing something wrong with your healing builds.

[Derenek.8931]

GW2 uses two team strategies only.

 

stack everyone in the same spot and spam damage.

 

or

 

get with a crapload of people and zerg.

 

Actual team tactics are pretty unnecessary. Memorize the route, get good gear, and just spam damage.

[Rauderi.8706]

After playing DPS in at least two other MMOs and having absurd wait times, I'm glad the Trinity got the boot in the core of GW2.

 

Support builds are still a thing if someone wants to, and a number of specs are tanky, if someone wants to.

 

The way forward on No Trinity is to design fights that actually support it. Since the beginning of GW2, there's been way too many fights that are the same hard-hitting monoliths as other MMOs, and that doesn't work for GW2.

Fights like Subject Six are much better for most of how GW2 is designed. When every character can heal, every character needs to be sufficiently threatened, instead of one person eating 10k hits. It's not sustainable.

 

Where ANet needs to be careful was to make sure that every class can support in a unique way, so that all these one-man-armies still develop synergy.

 

Meanwhile, detailing my most recent Trinity experience:

>! A patient tank

>! An inexperienced healer (grrl, you have Protect, cast it...)

>! Me, a summoner.

>! Her, copied me being a summoner.

Train wreck ahoy.

>! Tank's a good guy. Tries pulling too much for the healer's experience, so he plays more carefully. He explains fights. he doesn't quit after wipes. Thank heaven it only took 5 minutes to find him.

>! Healer is a mess. Standing in red zones, delays in casting (Always Be Casting, the ABCs of healing), doesn't pop cooldowns to keep the tank up. I have to cut DPS or we wipe. Sometimes we wipe anyway.

>! Other-Summoner is using a tank pet, pulling threat, not optimizing her DoT rotations. Also standing in red zones and generally not reacting to situations. (Sweetie, you can Swiftcast + Resurrect while I'm desperately off-healing...)

I suppose my point being is that by having roles that can be ruined by one or few people (turrets at Tequatl, anyone?), it runs a risk of making the overall experience awful for everyone.

 

 

 

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"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.

 

Well, there's a case of false perception here. And the early versions of the game never helped clear that, because everything was too easy.

I don't think the intention was that there never would be roles (healer/support, tank, DPS) but that every class has the potential to do either of those roles more or less effectively. And this was always the case since launch.

Up until HoT i always used my Guardian as a Tank/support, and my ranger as a DPS, etc. But Guardian could just as easily be used for DPS, and Ranger for some support options with spirits and healing spring.

 

After Elite specs, you started having more defined roles, especially with things like Druid which is clearly made to be a dedicated healer, the problem at the moment is that they aren't releasing Elite specs with a fast enough pace to get it back to the old place where all classes could be more or less capable of filling all those roles. And this would be important for the game's balance, but it's simply not being effected with a decent pace because they're keeping Elite Specs as selling points for expansions, and with that, clearly hindering the game's balance.

 

So nowadays you have a more defined trinity with classes such as Druid and Chronomancer being used almost exclusively as a specific role (healer for Druid and Support/tank for chrono), and other classes usually restricted to a single role either because there are no real viable alternatives (like for thief) or it's strength in one role is so overwhelmingly above others that it's a actual loss to use it in other roles (like using Tempest Support vs DPS is kind of ridiculous since the DPS loss is much greater than the support capability). Other classes are usually in a limbo between these extremes, like Warrior can be used either as a dedicated DPS or a DPS/Support hybrid (aka bannerslaves), Rangers can go Soulbeast for DPS instead of Druid, Guardians actually have the most options with FB being a capable condi DPS or a decent support/healer, and DH being one of the best power DPS cleave builds, etc.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"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.

 

I see nothing wrong with everyone being self-reliant and playing next to one another. It's not wasted potential at all, and I disagree with the "makes fighting so much more fun and engaging" because relying on your own self is just as fun as relying on others. It is just a different form of team play. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

Here is an example for you. Dungeon crawler like games. Everyone is self reliant and a dps in those games, and they do just fine.

[Ubi.4136]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"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.

 

This.

[Kalendraf.9521]

A big annoyance in GW1 (before heroes) was how much time ended up being wasted by groups trying to find healers to play missions. When ANet announced the no-trinity idea for GW2, it seemed like they'd finally reached that level of enlightenment to understand why the trinity sucks and that there were better alternatives. But then when raids came along and with it a renewed emphasis on the trinity, it was a regression back to the dark ages of gaming. I've tried raids and the trinity that it forces, but thus far I feel the game would have been much better without them.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"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.

 

Why would NCsoft want people to play Champions Online? They had no stake in that game.

[SlateSloan.3654]

i specially liked the boss design in gw1 so different players could have special tasks to bring an boss down or complete a mission. like shiro where it came useful to have a necro with spoil victor to let the boss damage itself etc. yeah i miss those days of challenge in gw. it was like playing a riddle. „how can we crack this situation?“ i usually try to play content where somewhat trinity alike play is done. like having harrier druid to heal, etc.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> I see nothing wrong with everyone being self-reliant and playing next to one another. It's not wasted potential at all, and I disagree with the "makes fighting so much more fun and engaging" because relying on your own self is just as fun as relying on others. It is just a different form of team play. Nothing more and nothing less.

>

> Here is an example for you. Dungeon crawler like games. Everyone is self reliant and a dps in those games, and they do just fine.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've done both, and I wouldn't return to playing next to others. It's not nearly as fun for me. Being self-sufficient is another thing, but I see no point in it outside soloing content.

[Vivilett.8509]

> @"Ardid.7203" said:

> The "trinity" is a very specific and outdated concept, more linked to grindy and old school mmorpgs with gear progression, level raising and all that stuff. Pure artificial limitation, non-creative and cliché, it is of no use for GW2.

>

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

> Yes.

>

> How would you improve on the no Trinity concept?

> Just a few ideas:

> - More builds available for all professions, providing ways to direct damage, condi, hybrid, defense, healing, cleansing, ccontrol, boosting, mobility and diverse combinations of all these.

> - Better constructed enemies, that behave more similar to good players.

> - Enemies and encounter designs that surpass and more frequently invalidate the mere "DPS check" concept.

> - More interesting environmental challenges.

> - CC potency with its own stat.

> - Condi clear potency linked to Healing Power.

> - Elimination of Ferocity.

 

100 percent this, it is also outdated to have groups , why socialize and why have classes

 

What should be is 1 avatar, everyone the same with the same skills and equipment

 

Should include a virtual timecard where you get paid gems for x hours killing mobs

 

If you pvp there should be a hazardous pay bump

 

These mmo are so old think

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

>

> 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. This would be like NCSoft shutting down GW1 to get people to play GW2 if it were struggling.

 

NCSoft would have had no motivation to push people toward Champions Online, as CO was never an NCSoft property. It was originally published by Atari.

[Ashen.2907]

I like group play. Content that challenges the party sufficiently that each member's contribution is recognizable. "Did you guys see how Sarah interrupted the boss's invulnerability spell?" I like feeling like an important part of the group's success in any given endeavor. I like coming up with a plan to overcome an encounter. I like the scramble to adapt to changing circumstances when the plan meets the fan.

 

I do not like a situation where design decides the plan for me/my team. Where the mobs are designed to be as stupid as possible, only a few steps short of standing still while they are executed, so that players can rely on those stupidities to minimize individual risk, and adaptability. Trinity, at its best, plays like this IMO. It is designed for mobs to behave in the least interesting or challenging way.

 

Mob AI in GW2 does not allow for my favorite types of encounters, but its still a step up from trinity for me.

[TamX.1870]

> @"Derenek.8931" said:

> GW2 uses two team strategies only. stack everyone in the same spot and spam damage. or get with a crapload of people and zerg.

> Actual team tactics are pretty unnecessary. Memorize the route, get good gear, and just spam damage.

 

There is no reason IMHO that it should be like this. It is true, that I am newish player in this game so I don't know everything, but from my experience so far it seems that Anet is not that good when designing PvE encounters. The ones that I have runned, not to say they are bad, but compared to the game I played previously, they are bit unimaginery... Got to say that I didn't switch the game because the previous game's PvE encounters were poor, but because of many other reasons. They always made good job with instances, IMO, at least when releasing them.

 

> @"Rauderi.8706" said:

> I suppose my point being is that by having roles that can be ruined by one or few people (turrets at Tequatl, anyone?), it runs a risk of making the overall experience awful for everyone.

 

I think that is the way to make group content? Considering a raid with 10 people, if there is room for free-runners (people whose contribution does not matter at all to completition) is basically poor design. Good encounter is something where you need the contribution from all your team members.

 

EDIT: Besides, it was very refreshing to see that in this game these world bosses IMO work properly: they are usually killed, but achieving challenges to specific bosses can be very hard (namely Shatter, Tequatl, Triple Trouble). This design is good in two fronts: (1) new players get the target killed and the rewards, and (2) more experienced players have their own difficulties to organize groups to get challenges done. Win-win -situation.

 

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> I see nothing wrong with everyone being self-reliant and playing next to one another. It's not wasted potential at all, and I disagree with the "makes fighting so much more fun and engaging" because relying on your own self is just as fun as relying on others. It is just a different form of team play. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

I see that if encounters are 'all on their own' -type, it is no group play at all. It's true, that I am more inclined to PvP sort of playing, but even that they require all members to have some sort of self-reliancy, it is much more about co-operation, collaboration and teamworking. Of course I could hope PvE encounters to introduce more similarities to PvP, but even if that does not happen, I don't think that it is good encounter design if you don't need to care your team mates at all.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > I see nothing wrong with everyone being self-reliant and playing next to one another. It's not wasted potential at all, and I disagree with the "makes fighting so much more fun and engaging" because relying on your own self is just as fun as relying on others. It is just a different form of team play. Nothing more and nothing less.

>

> I see that if encounters are 'all on their own' -type, it is no group play at all. It's true, that I am more inclined to PvP sort of playing, but even that they require all members to have some sort of self-reliancy, it is much more about co-operation, collaboration and teamworking. Of course I could hope PvE encounters to introduce more similarities to PvP, but even if that does not happen, I don't think that it is good encounter design if you don't need to care your team mates at all.

 

We just have different definitions in our heads about teamwork and play then. For me, it is a group of self reliant individuals who decided to form up to complete a goal because it's easier even though they could all solo it if need be without needing to rely on other people to get the job done. The group is only as strong as the weakest chain, and if everyone is self reliant and strong, it will be a strong chain.

 

For me, GW2 lack of hard trinity works because each person needs to be a strong chain link instead of constantly relying on others.

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

> @"Ashen.2907" 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.

>

> Why would NCsoft want people to play Champions Online? They had no stake in that game.

 

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> >

> > 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. This would be like NCSoft shutting down GW1 to get people to play GW2 if it were struggling.

>

> NCSoft would have had no motivation to push people toward Champions Online, as CO was never an NCSoft property. It was originally published by Atari.

 

Oops, thanks for correcting my mistake.

[Daishi.6027]

We don't have a trinity but we do have a structure, I think that's the most important thing clearly highlighted by the downfall of dungeons.