Your thoughts on the Holy Trinity abscence

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

> @"TamX.1870" said:

> > @"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.

 

Reminds me of in raid encounter in Trial of the Crusader in Wrath of the Lich King where you fight a squad of NPCs from the opposite faction how ever it required you to use PVP Builds and a play style meant for PVP such as countering mechanics and proper uses if Crowd Control.

 

This is what I though GW2 Raiding would be like in the end, a handful of Raid Bosses in each encounter that acted like OverPowered PVP Opponents and would require every one to counter their opponents (something that would make Necro valuable that's for sure).

[TamX.1870]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> 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.

 

Hmmh, clearly yes. As I said, I am more inclined to PvP. If PvP fighting would be so that you could win 1vs5 or 1vs10 situations, and you would only team up to make it a bit faster, I would say that there is something seriously wrong in balance. I have same feelings towards PvE, I think that there should be real reasons to team up with other players, and that this teaming up would be crucial to success.

 

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

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

 

PvP differs from PvE mainly because of opposite side targeting. In PvP, everyone needs to have some sort of self-reliance because you can not force the opposite side to target to your best prepared player - instead, they are usually focusing to target that is easiest to take down (or target, whose death will bring the best chances to win the entire fight). Even with this, all the self-reliancy and such, PvP fights are much more about team working, co-operation and collaboration.

 

> @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> Reminds me of in raid encounter in Trial of the Crusader in Wrath of the Lich King where you fight a squad of NPCs from the opposite faction how ever it required you to use PVP Builds and a play style meant for PVP such as countering mechanics and proper uses if Crowd Control.

>

> This is what I though GW2 Raiding would be like in the end, a handful of Raid Bosses in each encounter that acted like OverPowered PVP Opponents and would require every one to counter their opponents (something that would make Necro valuable that's for sure).

 

I would really love that, too. I have said it many times, that it is bit artificial that instance mechanics allow you to go in full glass cannon. It would be much more healthy if it would resemble more a PvP fight. You could easily lower mob health & damage if you would make them bit more intelligent: focusing to correct targets, not to stupidly take damage by face-tanking players, use CC more cleverly and so on.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"TamX.1870" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > 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.

>

> Hmmh, clearly yes. As I said, I am more inclined to PvP. If PvP fighting would be so that you could win 1vs5 or 1vs10 situations, and you would only team up to make it a bit faster, I would say that there is something seriously wrong in balance. I have same feelings towards PvE, I think that there should be real reasons to team up with other players, and that this teaming up would be crucial to success.

>

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

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

>

> PvP differs from PvE mainly because of opposite side targeting. In PvP, everyone needs to have some sort of self-reliance because you can not force the opposite side to target to your best prepared player - instead, they are usually focusing to target that is easiest to take down (or target, whose death will bring the best chances to win the entire fight). Even with this, all the self-reliancy and such, PvP fights are much more about team working, co-operation and collaboration.

>

 

I am looking at this from a soldiers perspective. Each member in a squad needs to be able to pull off the basic needs of the party just in case one member goes down. Yes, there is combat medics, but they are trained the same way in how to fight and survive just like the infantry. That is why I prefer everyone being self reliant in PvE and PvP because it is best to have everyone be capable just in case. You stick together to make it easier and accomplish faster to complete the mission at hand.

[Walhalla.5473]

> @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > @"TamX.1870" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> Reminds me of in raid encounter in Trial of the Crusader in Wrath of the Lich King where you fight a squad of NPCs from the opposite faction how ever it required you to use PVP Builds and a play style meant for PVP such as countering mechanics and proper uses if Crowd Control.

>

> This is what I though GW2 Raiding would be like in the end, a handful of Raid Bosses in each encounter that acted like OverPowered PVP Opponents and would require every one to counter their opponents (something that would make Necro valuable that's for sure).

 

And that encounter was one of the most hated Encounters in WoW. It probably sounded awesome on paper to have a Raid-Encounter that plays like a PvP-Match, but well, it didn't work, was placed in a Raid that was considered bad, felt out of place and well raiders despised it back then.

 

Its not easy to get a PvP style fight right ( escpecially with how the AI works ) for a raid and if that fight then isn't top notch, people will hate and shit on it and one reason is, that a pvp style fight is completely different from a PvE style fight.

[TamX.1870]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> I am looking at this from a soldiers perspective. Each member in a squad needs to be able to pull off the basic needs of the party just in case one member goes down. Yes, there is combat medics, but they are trained the same way in how to fight and survive just like the infantry. That is why I prefer everyone being self reliant in PvE and PvP because it is best to have everyone be capable just in case. You stick together to make it easier and accomplish faster to complete the mission at hand.

 

Yes. That is why 2000 years ago soldiers were assigned to certain roles, like cavalry, heavy infantry, light infantry, siege engineers and so on. Nowadays we have infantry, motorized infantry, mariners, artillery, air forces, navy, pioneers, army intelligence, parachute corps, guerilla corps, both light (handheld), medium and heavy missile forces, etc etc.

 

The idea of all being equal resembles most a bunch of bandits raiding a cave, each on their own. Even they would assign some special roles to their team if there would be expected some more serious resistance: some would be assigned to a lookout to watch the cave entrance, some would be assigned to close back door to prevent reinforcements to come in, and so on.

 

EDIT: Even thought armies are constructed based on thousands or hundreds of thousand people, they at least nowadays have specialization even at team (10 people) level. Some are assigned to intelligence, some to communications, some are carrying machine guns instead assault rifles, few are carrying bazookas or G2A missiles and so on.

 

But I agree with you, I would like PvE encounters to resemble more the ones in PvP.

[TamX.1870]

> @"Walhalla.5473" said:

> And that encounter was one of the most hated Encounters in WoW. It probably sounded awesome on paper to have a Raid-Encounter that plays like a PvP-Match, but well, it didn't work, was placed in a Raid that was considered bad, felt out of place and well raiders despised it back then.

>

> Its not easy to get a PvP style fight right ( escpecially with how the AI works ) for a raid and if that fight then isn't top notch, people will hate and kitten on it and one reason is, that a pvp style fight is completely different from a PvE style fight.

 

Yes, I said that earlier. The form we usually like PvE encounters are not against intelligence, but to have a mechanical circus we can beat :) Of course, those who like intelligent opponents play in PvP, and it can be hard to lure them to PvE side to fight against really intelligent AI :) It is up to rewards, I think.

[Raizel.8175]

> @"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.

 

Thing is, you can have cooperative gameplay in trinity-less games, where people are actually playing together and have to coordinate stuff instead of playing next to each other. Requirement is decent game-design and class-balancing though and here's the problem GW2 really suffers from: We have Chrono and Druid who have literally everything - Tank, Heal, nearly every Support-option this game offers, united in two "specializations" - who have become mandatory for 4 of 10 raid-slots. These "specializations" do the bulk of the work. Then you have the power-creep. Both lead to spank 'n tank gameplay in most raid-encounters making it feel like you're actually playing next to each other instead of together. Then there's also the issue that you don't have any hard CDs in GW2 leading to people not coordinating CDs. I mean, just look at raid-encounters: people don't want to do the actual mechanics, they want to skip them, since the game allows it. MMORPGs get easier and easier nowadays; you don't even have to talk with each other anymore per TS or Discord for "hardcore"-content.

[Nilkemia.8507]

I prefer it this way, as opposed to having professions locked into only one or two things they can do. I like being able to heal and watch out for myself as opposed to relying on a healer to do it, who'll probably get blamed if things go wrong, or needing a tank to deflect things away from me, who again would take blame in other games if something goes wrong. While there are still things certain professions can do better than others, the freedom of choice compared to other MMOs is still better.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"TamX.1870" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > I am looking at this from a soldiers perspective. Each member in a squad needs to be able to pull off the basic needs of the party just in case one member goes down. Yes, there is combat medics, but they are trained the same way in how to fight and survive just like the infantry. That is why I prefer everyone being self reliant in PvE and PvP because it is best to have everyone be capable just in case. You stick together to make it easier and accomplish faster to complete the mission at hand.

>

> Yes. That is why 2000 years ago soldiers were assigned to certain roles, like cavalry, heavy infantry, light infantry, siege engineers and so on. Nowadays we have infantry, motorized infantry, mariners, artillery, air forces, navy, pioneers, army intelligence, parachute corps, guerilla corps, both light (handheld), medium and heavy missile forces, etc etc.

>

> The idea of all being equal resembles most a bunch of bandits raiding a cave, each on their own. Even they would assign some special roles to their team if there would be expected some more serious resistance: some would be assigned to a lookout to watch the cave entrance, some would be assigned to close back door to prevent reinforcements to come in, and so on.

>

> But I agree with you, I would like PvE encounters to resemble more the ones in PvP.

 

I am talking just one infantry squad and not the whole military. What I am trying to say is each soldier is trained with the rifle and how to kill with certain weapons, so it doesn't matter what your MOS is since you are a soldier first. Each one is proficient and can survive a fight by themselves even though they all act as one squad/platoon/etc.

 

The systems you support is basically saying only one was trained to use the m4(Yes, I know it's a carbine form of the M16-A1), only one can use the M16-A1, only one can use the m240 Bravo. If one dies, they can't use the other weapons because that is not their role nor are they trained in it.

[TamX.1870]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> I am talking just one infantry squad and not the whole military. What I am trying to say is each soldier is trained with the rifle and how to kill with certain weapons, so it doesn't matter what your MOS is since you are a soldier first. Each one is proficient and can survive a fight by themselves even though they all act as one squad/platoon/etc.

 

Yes, of course, but you know that an infantry squad is already specialized unit in the context of an army?

 

> The systems you support is basically saying only one was trained to use the m4(Yes, I know it's a carbine form of the M16-A1), only one can use the M16-A1, only one can use the m240 Bravo. If one dies, they can't use the other weapons because that is not their role nor are they trained in it.

 

I said already, that I like the basic idea, but comparing an army squad to GW2 (or other MMO) party is not necessarily right. Army infantry teams are deliberately designed so that anyone can take the place of dead teammate. That is why armies standardize their weapons, that is, if army is using M16, AK-47, FAMAS or RK-62 assault rifles, all the members of the infantry are using the same weapon to be replaceable. It is similar with all the common infantry weapons, up to things like communication devices and explosives, armies have their models they teach to all regular infantry(*). And even so, armies have lots of specialization, even at team level.

 

(*) EDIT: If an infantry unit meets a airforce base, where all members are killed, they can't just start operating it (radars, flight control, fighters). If an infantry unit meets an unmanned tank, they can't take it over to start operating with those. If they meet a fighter ship which personel is shot to death, they can't start running with that ship.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"TamX.1870" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > I am talking just one infantry squad and not the whole military. What I am trying to say is each soldier is trained with the rifle and how to kill with certain weapons, so it doesn't matter what your MOS is since you are a soldier first. Each one is proficient and can survive a fight by themselves even though they all act as one squad/platoon/etc.

>

> Yes, of course, but you know that an infantry squad is already specialized unit in the context of an army?

>

> > The systems you support is basically saying only one was trained to use the m4(Yes, I know it's a carbine form of the M16-A1), only one can use the M16-A1, only one can use the m240 Bravo. If one dies, they can't use the other weapons because that is not their role nor are they trained in it.

>

> I said already, that I like the basic idea, but comparing an army squad to GW2 (or other MMO) party is not necessarily right. Army infantry teams are deliberately designed so that anyone can take the place of dead teammate. That is why armies standardize their weapons, that is, if army is using M16, AK-47, FAMAS or RK-62, all the members of the infantry are using the same weapon to be replaceable. It is similar with all the common infantry weapons, armies have their models they teach to all infantry. And even so, armies have lots of specialization, even at team level.

 

I know, but if anyone was to do fighting it would be them which is why I use them as my team building base.

 

I know that, but it also makes each person reliable and a strong chain which is my point. The example can only go so far like any example. If you knit pick anything like you are doing, anything can fall apart. Aside from getting more off the point, having each person be reliable without having to rely on one person for heals,tanks, dps is my preferred set up.

[TamX.1870]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> I know that, but it also makes each person reliable and a strong chain which is my point. The example can only go so far like any example. If you knit pick anything like you are doing, anything can fall apart. Aside from getting more off the point, having each person be reliable without having to rely on one person for heals,tanks, dps is my preferred set up.

 

Sorry, I added an inclusion to my post while you were writing.

 

But I think that at MMO level, this is more like having 4 eles in a raid team. If one of them dies, the rest can take her/his place and try harder. Same with all the other classes, if raid team has two druids, if one of them dies, the one left alive could try to replace the dead one. I mean, in this case, "optimal" solution would be less eles and less druids, you just happen to have some extras in your team to fulfill the same role, and those could be used in case of death.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"TamX.1870" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > I know that, but it also makes each person reliable and a strong chain which is my point. The example can only go so far like any example. If you knit pick anything like you are doing, anything can fall apart. Aside from getting more off the point, having each person be reliable without having to rely on one person for heals,tanks, dps is my preferred set up.

>

> Sorry, I added an inclusion to my post while you were writing.

>

> But I think that at MMO level, this is more like having 4 eles in a raid team. If one of them dies, the rest can take her/his place and try harder. Same with all the other classes, if raid team has two druids, if one of them dies, the one left alive could try to replace the dead one. I mean, in this case, "optimal" solution would be less eles and less druids, you just happen to have some extras in your team to fulfill the same role, and those could be used in case of death.

 

How about this. We agree to disagree because we each see it differently.

[TamX.1870]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> How about this. We agree to disagree because we each see it differently.

 

Suits me, although I liked the discussion and dissecting my own thoughts in my own head :)

[Yamazuki.6073]

> @"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.

 

Being given a role doesn't limit diversity, as there's a million ways to fill in each role. Just look at League and how many different champions all fit the same role, but achieve it in different ways, and utilize different items. When you don't provide a direct role you are more or less giving everyone the same vague role, which is generally less diverse and full of false options and unnecessary complexities which only keeps people from wanting to play the game.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"TamX.1870" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > How about this. We agree to disagree because we each see it differently.

>

> Suits me, although I liked the discussion and dissecting my own thoughts in my own head :)

 

I understand. I just don't want to take control of the thread and get in trouble, so I am stepping away from it for both our sakes.

[Locce.8405]

One of my first MMOs was City of Heroes (and City of Villains) which had _some_ trinity elements, but allowed you to ignore them altogether if you played your cards right. For example it allowed you to go so hard into buffs/debuffs that it made tanks and healers obsolete and turned everybody on the team into a damage dealer. After that there really was no going back to a game with a hard trinity ever again.

So far I have found every game with a hard trinity very, very boring and restrictive, because the whole combat dynamic is predetermined by the role your character class has, and playing in a party in these games was the perfect recipe for toxicity, because the more interesting hybrid builds were objectively worse at either job almost all of the time, healers and tanks were revered as demigods (and it often showed in their demeanor), because there were never enough of them, and damage meters turned damage dealing into a competition that completely neglected any other contribution.

The "holy" trinity can die in a dumpster fire for all I care.

[Pigbottom.9837]

I think we are asking the wrong question to begin with. The right question would be: "What is the alternative to the holy trinity?". The trinity wasn't invented, it evolved from the way people play games together. It sucks sometimes and has a lot of shortcomings, but the fact that even here we seem to always be back to it tells me no one has been able to find a real viable alternative.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"Pigbottom.9837" said:

> I think we are asking the wrong question to begin with. The right question would be: "What is the alternative to the holy trinity?". The trinity wasn't invented, it evolved from the way people play games together. It sucks sometimes and has a lot of shortcomings, but the fact that even here we seem to always be back to it tells me no one has been able to find a real viable alternative.

 

There is an alternative, and it has been done before. The problem is that it's not in general MMOs. Dungeon Crawlers, Horde Mode games( ME Mp and Orcs must Die), and third person shooter MMOs don't require a trinity, and they perform quite well with everyone performing their own healing and tanking with dodging and everything. The issue is bosses become bullet sponges which no one has been able to overcome yet.

[Derenek.8931]

GW2 has a Holy Trinity.

 

D

 

P

 

S

 

That's three letters isn't it?

[Obtena.7952]

> @"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.

 

Not the only one either ... Tabula Rasa, which I suspect no one remembers either.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Nilkemia.8507" said:

> I prefer it this way, as opposed to having professions locked into only one or two things they can do. I like being able to heal and watch out for myself as opposed to relying on a healer to do it, who'll probably get blamed if things go wrong, or needing a tank to deflect things away from me, who again would take blame in other games if something goes wrong. While there are still things certain professions can do better than others, the freedom of choice compared to other MMOs is still better.

 

That's not really how trinity games work. For instance, I haven't played WoW for years but it was fairly early on they realized that locking classes into only one role (other than DPS) was a poor design. They solved the problem by their version of traits so that, for example, a druid could be ranged DPS, melee DPS, tank, or healer depending upon how they assigned their traits (they called them talents at the time).

 

The comment about relying on a healer doesn't tell the whole story either. In open world play there's really no difference. It's obviously designed so that players can survive without a pocket healer! And in instanced PvE we use healers here, too! Yes, you're more self-sufficient here, but that may also be why encounter design arguably isn't as good. I suspect the lack of a trinity is actually a limiting factor rather than granting players more freedom. Freedom to what? Play only DPS roles?

[runeblade.7514]

If ANet does make a trinity, I would like it if the tank role be gone and replaced with Control role. Which instead of surviving stats like toughness and vitality, there is hard CC(disables, stuns, daze) and soft cc(chill, cripple, immobilize, weakness) stat.

 

 

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Locce.8405" said:

> One of my first MMOs was City of Heroes (and City of Villains) which had _some_ trinity elements, but allowed you to ignore them altogether if you played your cards right. For example it allowed you to go so hard into buffs/debuffs that it made tanks and healers obsolete and turned everybody on the team into a damage dealer. After that there really was no going back to a game with a hard trinity ever again.

> So far I have found every game with a hard trinity very, very boring and restrictive, because the whole combat dynamic is predetermined by the role your character class has, and playing in a party in these games was the perfect recipe for toxicity, because the more interesting hybrid builds were objectively worse at either job almost all of the time, healers and tanks were revered as demigods (and it often showed in their demeanor), because there were never enough of them, and damage meters turned damage dealing into a competition that completely neglected any other contribution.

> The "holy" trinity can die in a dumpster fire for all I care.

 

I remember Tanker Tuesdays where everyone would run their Tanks in groups. With enough tanks, there was no need for controllers, because it didn't matter who the mobs attacked; you didn't need support because tankers were sturdy and if anyone got in trouble, Tanker instincts would kick in and suddenly mobs aren't bugging the troubled; you didn't need dps because there was no rush to defeat mobs (too much wall to wade through).

 

The same was true for any heavily leaning team (full control teams made mobs into statues, full dps teams obliterated, full support made everyone gods and mobs into ants, full tank teams just meant the team was a moderate woodchiper/lawn mower that grind every encounter underfoot) so teaming just made these dynamics shift around. It's not really a Trinity...a Quadity? But with a weird "overkill" aspect to it. If anything, a balanced team was more difficult as you had to feel out how individuals worked with others (Scrapperlock anyone?).

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"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.

>

> Not the only one either ... Tabula Rasa, which I suspect no one remembers either.

 

I remember it. I kept planning to pick up a copy and try it out, right up to the day they closed their doors.