Your thoughts on the Holy Trinity abscence

[Rukia.4802]

> @"Scipion.7548" said:

> It seems a lot of former GW1 players have a bad experience with the trinity because there was only one healer class, the monk, I am right ? I didn't played GW1 but if this was the case, trinity was very poorly impleted. Like today in GW2 with the druid ...

 

That's not exactly true.. but monks definitely had some pretty terrible dps options. There were and still are many healing builds with various classes thanks to secondary professions. Necro has good energy management when enemies die and can use ritualist healing build effectively while also summoning cannon fodder or cursing, Ele can use monk prots while having the highest energy in the game so skills that normally can't be spammed can be, etc.

 

I had no problem with the trinity in GW, it was still very unique compared to other MMOs including GW2. 1 major difference is your character and NPCs were 'physical' bodies meaning you could body block people / mobs and they scattered when you cast an aoe on them , they were no where near the size or as common as in GW2 so placement was very important.

 

Monk were king in prophecies and in pvp though while easily being the most difficult and engaging role in pvp.

[deatine.2498]

I would find it rather curious if people actually complained that a (from an outside view) random game does *not* use the holy trinity. Just..don't play something if it's not interesting for you. I don't see the problem.

 

Personally, one reason I started playing GW2 was because the holy trinity stuff got really boring after playing some other MMOs for a while. Kinda restrictive/not as fun to me.

I like that I don't *have to* play with specific other people. I don't like the forced social interaction that the holy trinity ensures. Just rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather play with someone because they're a blast to play with, not because they're the healer I desperately need.

 

Also, right now we're a small guild of five people, and we can all just run into almost everything and manage. I don't need to tell anyone "no sorry, we need a free spot for a healer/tank/whatever".

 

I also like that I can completely ignore everyone else in the game if I don't feel like playing with people, but want to enjoy some random dabbling in peace.

 

It's just much more relaxed for relatively casual players.

 

It would be really boring if GW2 aimed to be the same as any other MMO regarding gameplay. Then I wouldn't have had much of a reason to try out GW2.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Scipion.7548" said:

> It seems a lot of former GW1 players have a bad experience with the trinity because there was only one healer class, the monk, I am right ? I didn't played GW1 but if this was the case, trinity was very poorly impleted. Like today in GW2 with the druid ...

 

No, that's not an accurate statement. GW2 has not implemented healing poorly because there are optimal healing builds >< Let's be clear, what GW2 has in raids is HT lite ... you DO need healing but it doesn't depend on the classic structure. In fact, I would say that if you aren't trying to sell meta to people, you can build almost any team you want, as long as there is enough healing. In otherwords, you can build your team to have as many healers as you want, as long as they bring enough healing for what is needed. Any perception of poor implementation is simply due to having a previously ingrained idea of what healing from other games is.

 

Throwing out the trinity, even at the expense of performance balance, is the best thing this game does for the MMO genre. If your logic was sound, then you could say that the whole game is poorly implemented because DPS isn't balanced either. Nothing is. The lack of the need to provide performance balance is regrettable, but a small price to pay.

 

 

[Ithilwen.1529]

**I'd be over the moon to play Monk in GW2.** I'm maining Monk atm in GW1. For a while , I thought Auramancer Ele would be the new Monk and played it enthusiastically. Unfortunately, that got nerfed into the ground. More recently Firebrand got the nerf hammer.

 

The screaming over Auramancer must have been audible all the way in Seattle, even though the spec did minimal damage. There's been a huge culture shift in the real world since the time GW1 was released. I'd claim that it has been for the worse. *Going back to GW1 I had to improve my behavior considerably to fit in.*

 

With the current population and culture, support builds draw a lot of anger. The desire is for quick and "efficient," ( read minimum effort. ) Support builds counter that.

[Crossaber.8934]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> I never liked the trinity myself. It is a system of negatives, where every class is built to be incapable on its own. GW2 gets several things right, such as giving everyone the ability to rez, everyone a heal skill, and everyone active defenses. This means that I am wholly capable on my own, and I am not dependent on the weakest link of the team.

>

> My experience with online games was different from other people. I cut my teeth on Phantasy Star Online and Phantasy Star Universe. Those games let players carry healing items, and let all non-robots use healing spells to keep themselves alive. They were also action games. I also played runescape, that had a combat triangle and not a combat trinity. It was more of a PVP thing, but the lack of a static build meant that you were whatever you decided to gear for. Another game I played was City of Heroes, which didn't have a trinity insomuch as it had a dodecahedron.

>

> The prospect of abandoning all of that to be impotent but selectively beneficial just never sounded good to me. We talk about tanks, healers, and DPS, but I want to know where the Red Mage went. Preferably I'd like to have a game where the damage is standardized, and the classes are given flavor via the other things they can do.

 

Hey there, glad to find another former PSO player here. I hate trinity as much as you do as well. I remember back in launch a Dev also commented gw2 is somehow inspired by PSO as well.

[Itz Jay.8941]

The game is great lets be fair. Of course we have our tanks for raids, but they are not needed in an organised group. We have our healers which again can be reduced from healing stats to more dps in an organised group. We have our DPS of course. Something extra GW2 has that I love, is our support like chrono, which blockshares and gives boons e.t.c.

 

People moan that GW2 has a trinity and it wasn't supposed to but they are just too lazy or narrow minded to play other classes, all the posts are "weeeh, I wanna be a healer, but I'll only play warrior" but in actual fact apart from DPS weaver which is god like fun anyway, every class offers its own unique support like stability, banners, big CC's, reflects, each brings its own unique supporting tools to a fight.

 

The fact is if every class in GW2 did have the same ability to tank, support, heal and dps, it wouldn't be the unique game that it is. Even if every class could do everything, even then, the top tier players would still find which class is better at which, because, you just simply can't balance an MMO. People should be careful what they wish for, you cant have both unique gameplay and the ability to play any role on any class.

[Sidartha.9512]

> @"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.

 

You start out with some very negative words for the "trinity" concept. You clearly don't like it. That's fine. There are a couple things that I don't get with your response, however. If you don't like the trinity system then why is your first idea to improve the "no trinity" concept to add more builds for things that clearly fall into the category of the trinity (dmg, healing, cc etc..)? I'm not trying to dump on your idea but isn't that sort of going against the whole idea of no trinity?

 

The other thing is you say that trinity systems are linked with gear progression and leveling etc..? How are they linked exactly? I know the trinity idea is typically associated with those other things because previous MMOs typically had all of them together but I don't think there is any mechanic that links them in any way. A game with no item progression/grind or even levels could easily still have a trinity based system. I think all of those elements are discreet parts that could be used or not.

 

I find these discussions interesting because while I prefer a trinity system myself.. I do recognize that there needs to be some innovation in MMOs to make them more fun and prevent them from getting stale. I just haven't seen another system that works better for grouping than the trinity does because the class interdependence that it creates is more engaging IMO. The fact that even in a game that doesn't technically use a trinity system and has players that technically don't want a trinity system there still seems to be some sort of gravitational force that brings people back to it even if it's just in incremental ways as your build ideas and the new roles seem to imply.

[Sidartha.9512]

> @"EpicName.4523" said:

> This is easier to answer than you think. The whole concept behind the lack of trinity is to avoid forcing professions/players into a single role, right? To have "diversity".

> But...some professions are still clearly better (or worse) at certain things than the others so they are still pushed into certain roles.

>

> While technically you can get the job done without druid or mesmer supporting/tanking, it wouldn't be optimal, right? Players want to increase their chances even when it is not needed. And since some professions are better at some roles they always will be played as the "meta" dictates. Either play as you are told or don't get invites.

> This proves that the "lack of trinity" concept simply doesn't work because of the player's mindset.

>

> In other games when you roll, say, a priest you know you will likely be healing. It's more often than not in the class description.

>

> In this game, when you roll, say, a guardian you won't support because some other profession is doing it better. If that is the case, why not have a trinity and at least know what you can and can't do from the start?

 

I love this post. Well said. I would also like to point out that there is also diversity in trinity games. EQ is where the trinity system was born but even in that game (and EQ2) there was quite a bit of diversity for players. There were lots of overlapping class roles and there were a lot of classes so there was a huge amount of group makeup that was feasible. Maybe not ideal or maybe downright challenging but that was part of the fun. Tanking with a monk or healing with a necro.

 

All classes brought their own advantages and disadvantages. It made grouping interesting and really let someone's skill with a class shine. Nothing was more satisfying than pulling off a great dungeon crawl with a group composition that technically shouldn't have worked well. The diversity certainly became much less as you got into raiding but I don't think that is so unexpected when you are going against the toughest content of the game.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Sidartha.9512" said:

> > @"EpicName.4523" said:

> > This is easier to answer than you think. The whole concept behind the lack of trinity is to avoid forcing professions/players into a single role, right? To have "diversity".

> > But...some professions are still clearly better (or worse) at certain things than the others so they are still pushed into certain roles.

> >

> > While technically you can get the job done without druid or mesmer supporting/tanking, it wouldn't be optimal, right? Players want to increase their chances even when it is not needed. And since some professions are better at some roles they always will be played as the "meta" dictates. Either play as you are told or don't get invites.

> > This proves that the "lack of trinity" concept simply doesn't work because of the player's mindset.

> >

> > In other games when you roll, say, a priest you know you will likely be healing. It's more often than not in the class description.

> >

> > In this game, when you roll, say, a guardian you won't support because some other profession is doing it better. If that is the case, why not have a trinity and at least know what you can and can't do from the start?

>

> I love this post. Well said. I would also like to point out that there is also diversity in trinity games. EQ is where the trinity system was born but even in that game (and EQ2) there was quite a bit of diversity for players. There were lots of overlapping class roles and there were a lot of classes so there was a huge amount of group makeup that was feasible. Maybe not ideal or maybe downright challenging but that was part of the fun. Tanking with a monk or healing with a necro.

>

> All classes brought their own advantages and disadvantages. It made grouping interesting and really let someone's skill with a class shine. Nothing was more satisfying than pulling off a great dungeon crawl with a group composition that technically shouldn't have worked well. The diversity certainly became much less as you got into raiding but I don't think that is so unexpected when you are going against the toughest content of the game.

 

The trinity system predates EQ, by quite a bit, actually. You can find it in the earliest forms of D&D manuals dating back years before MMOs were a thing. D&D was released initially in 1974.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Sidartha.9512" said:

> > > @"EpicName.4523" said:

> > > This is easier to answer than you think. The whole concept behind the lack of trinity is to avoid forcing professions/players into a single role, right? To have "diversity".

> > > But...some professions are still clearly better (or worse) at certain things than the others so they are still pushed into certain roles.

> > >

> > > While technically you can get the job done without druid or mesmer supporting/tanking, it wouldn't be optimal, right? Players want to increase their chances even when it is not needed. And since some professions are better at some roles they always will be played as the "meta" dictates. Either play as you are told or don't get invites.

> > > This proves that the "lack of trinity" concept simply doesn't work because of the player's mindset.

> > >

> > > In other games when you roll, say, a priest you know you will likely be healing. It's more often than not in the class description.

> > >

> > > In this game, when you roll, say, a guardian you won't support because some other profession is doing it better. If that is the case, why not have a trinity and at least know what you can and can't do from the start?

> >

> > I love this post. Well said. I would also like to point out that there is also diversity in trinity games. EQ is where the trinity system was born but even in that game (and EQ2) there was quite a bit of diversity for players. There were lots of overlapping class roles and there were a lot of classes so there was a huge amount of group makeup that was feasible. Maybe not ideal or maybe downright challenging but that was part of the fun. Tanking with a monk or healing with a necro.

> >

> > All classes brought their own advantages and disadvantages. It made grouping interesting and really let someone's skill with a class shine. Nothing was more satisfying than pulling off a great dungeon crawl with a group composition that technically shouldn't have worked well. The diversity certainly became much less as you got into raiding but I don't think that is so unexpected when you are going against the toughest content of the game.

>

> The trinity system predates EQ, by quite a bit, actually. You can find it in the earliest forms of D&D manuals dating back years before MMOs were a thing. D&D was released initially in 1974.

 

Maybe they meant in a video game format?

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"Sidartha.9512" said:

> > > > @"EpicName.4523" said:

> > > > This is easier to answer than you think. The whole concept behind the lack of trinity is to avoid forcing professions/players into a single role, right? To have "diversity".

> > > > But...some professions are still clearly better (or worse) at certain things than the others so they are still pushed into certain roles.

> > > >

> > > > While technically you can get the job done without druid or mesmer supporting/tanking, it wouldn't be optimal, right? Players want to increase their chances even when it is not needed. And since some professions are better at some roles they always will be played as the "meta" dictates. Either play as you are told or don't get invites.

> > > > This proves that the "lack of trinity" concept simply doesn't work because of the player's mindset.

> > > >

> > > > In other games when you roll, say, a priest you know you will likely be healing. It's more often than not in the class description.

> > > >

> > > > In this game, when you roll, say, a guardian you won't support because some other profession is doing it better. If that is the case, why not have a trinity and at least know what you can and can't do from the start?

> > >

> > > I love this post. Well said. I would also like to point out that there is also diversity in trinity games. EQ is where the trinity system was born but even in that game (and EQ2) there was quite a bit of diversity for players. There were lots of overlapping class roles and there were a lot of classes so there was a huge amount of group makeup that was feasible. Maybe not ideal or maybe downright challenging but that was part of the fun. Tanking with a monk or healing with a necro.

> > >

> > > All classes brought their own advantages and disadvantages. It made grouping interesting and really let someone's skill with a class shine. Nothing was more satisfying than pulling off a great dungeon crawl with a group composition that technically shouldn't have worked well. The diversity certainly became much less as you got into raiding but I don't think that is so unexpected when you are going against the toughest content of the game.

> >

> > The trinity system predates EQ, by quite a bit, actually. You can find it in the earliest forms of D&D manuals dating back years before MMOs were a thing. D&D was released initially in 1974.

>

> Maybe they meant in a video game format?

 

Baldur's Gate was a thing before then.

[Ubi.4136]

Players will always try and shortcut content. Meaning, despite everyone "technically" being able to do everything, someone (1 class) is the best at it, by design.

Players will end up with X has the best dps, Y is the best support, and if content requires some "tank" variant, if class Z is the best, that is what will always be "required". It's how meta's happen.

 

Here is the mistake GW2 made. They wanted everyone to do everything, mostly removed the trinity (but left elements in, and later flat out started putting it back in because it allows more dynamic content), but made the mistake of leaving armor class weights in the game. Armor ratings push classes to certain roles. It is impossible to balance skills, traits, and anything else when certain classes have an inherently higher armor rating. It's the reason that some classes are lacking in identity and they are having trouble defining what certain classes should even really do primarily.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > @"Sidartha.9512" said:

> > > > > @"EpicName.4523" said:

> > > > > This is easier to answer than you think. The whole concept behind the lack of trinity is to avoid forcing professions/players into a single role, right? To have "diversity".

> > > > > But...some professions are still clearly better (or worse) at certain things than the others so they are still pushed into certain roles.

> > > > >

> > > > > While technically you can get the job done without druid or mesmer supporting/tanking, it wouldn't be optimal, right? Players want to increase their chances even when it is not needed. And since some professions are better at some roles they always will be played as the "meta" dictates. Either play as you are told or don't get invites.

> > > > > This proves that the "lack of trinity" concept simply doesn't work because of the player's mindset.

> > > > >

> > > > > In other games when you roll, say, a priest you know you will likely be healing. It's more often than not in the class description.

> > > > >

> > > > > In this game, when you roll, say, a guardian you won't support because some other profession is doing it better. If that is the case, why not have a trinity and at least know what you can and can't do from the start?

> > > >

> > > > I love this post. Well said. I would also like to point out that there is also diversity in trinity games. EQ is where the trinity system was born but even in that game (and EQ2) there was quite a bit of diversity for players. There were lots of overlapping class roles and there were a lot of classes so there was a huge amount of group makeup that was feasible. Maybe not ideal or maybe downright challenging but that was part of the fun. Tanking with a monk or healing with a necro.

> > > >

> > > > All classes brought their own advantages and disadvantages. It made grouping interesting and really let someone's skill with a class shine. Nothing was more satisfying than pulling off a great dungeon crawl with a group composition that technically shouldn't have worked well. The diversity certainly became much less as you got into raiding but I don't think that is so unexpected when you are going against the toughest content of the game.

> > >

> > > The trinity system predates EQ, by quite a bit, actually. You can find it in the earliest forms of D&D manuals dating back years before MMOs were a thing. D&D was released initially in 1974.

> >

> > Maybe they meant in a video game format?

>

> Baldur's Gate was a thing before then.

 

Well now you're literally talking about a 3 months separation or something...

[Scipion.7548]

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> Players will always try and shortcut content. Meaning, despite everyone "technically" being able to do everything, someone (1 class) is the best at it, by design.

> Players will end up with X has the best dps, Y is the best support, and if content requires some "tank" variant, if class Z is the best, that is what will always be "required". It's how meta's happen.

 

Meta happens also because of an other thing. On WoW, if Warrior is the beast tank, it won't be required. Maybe the guilds running on the first server race will absolutly take a warrior, but other guillds and PUG won't. Why the meta happens on GW2 and not WoW (mostly) ? Maybe because WoW PvE is more balanced, but also because it is too easy on GW2 to create a new character ready to raid / pvp / going to fractals. On WoW you have your main, you invest too much on it and because of that your guild cannot force you to play a reroll. So if the guild have only a paladin and a monk tanks, they will keep them even if those classes are underpowered compared to a druid etc ... the time someone build a druid ready to raid a new patch would have nerfed the overpowered classes and buffed the underpowered classes.

On GW2, the system is too bad for people like me who play only one character. Too much casualism kill the casualism.

 

 

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Sidartha.9512" said:

> > > @"EpicName.4523" said:

> > > This is easier to answer than you think. The whole concept behind the lack of trinity is to avoid forcing professions/players into a single role, right? To have "diversity".

> > > But...some professions are still clearly better (or worse) at certain things than the others so they are still pushed into certain roles.

> > >

> > > While technically you can get the job done without druid or mesmer supporting/tanking, it wouldn't be optimal, right? Players want to increase their chances even when it is not needed. And since some professions are better at some roles they always will be played as the "meta" dictates. Either play as you are told or don't get invites.

> > > This proves that the "lack of trinity" concept simply doesn't work because of the player's mindset.

> > >

> > > In other games when you roll, say, a priest you know you will likely be healing. It's more often than not in the class description.

> > >

> > > In this game, when you roll, say, a guardian you won't support because some other profession is doing it better. If that is the case, why not have a trinity and at least know what you can and can't do from the start?

> >

> > I love this post. Well said. I would also like to point out that there is also diversity in trinity games. EQ is where the trinity system was born but even in that game (and EQ2) there was quite a bit of diversity for players. There were lots of overlapping class roles and there were a lot of classes so there was a huge amount of group makeup that was feasible. Maybe not ideal or maybe downright challenging but that was part of the fun. Tanking with a monk or healing with a necro.

> >

> > All classes brought their own advantages and disadvantages. It made grouping interesting and really let someone's skill with a class shine. Nothing was more satisfying than pulling off a great dungeon crawl with a group composition that technically shouldn't have worked well. The diversity certainly became much less as you got into raiding but I don't think that is so unexpected when you are going against the toughest content of the game.

>

> The trinity system predates EQ, by quite a bit, actually. You can find it in the earliest forms of D&D manuals dating back years before MMOs were a thing. D&D was released initially in 1974.

 

Actually... earlier if you count the paperback little manuals. It's true that in D&D each class has specific weaknesses. A player can venture out alone, but they need to be careful to cover their vulnerabilities.

 

I wish that were the case in GW2. The classes here are more "Swiss Army Knife" do everything style with flavor changes. I would be in bliss if ANET moved back toward the more narrowly focused classes of GW1, ( which would require support classes like Monk or Ritualist. )

[Sidartha.9512]

> @"runeblade.7514" said:

> 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.

>

>

 

IMO this is an example of..why not both? I have always thought the trinity system should just be improved and expanded on not removed. Keep the roles but get more creative on how they are performed. EQ (and other MMOs) sort of did this but it could be expanded further. To say that there was just a trinity system and you were "locked into a role" doesn't really explain how the trinity really worked in practice.

 

In EQ there were single target tanks that could absorb high dmg but didn't have great aggro (warriors) and there were AoE tanks that could hold aggro on multiple mobs with AE stuns but couldn't mitigate dmg as well (paladins). There were tanks that could hold aggro really well on single targets but couldn't mitigate damage as well (Shadow Knights). There were tanks that could mitigate damage (plate wearing tanks) and there were tanks that could avoid damage but had no snap aggro (monks). Why not expand this by creating another form of tank like a caster that can lock a target down with spells or mitigate damage with spells? You could also have a root based tank for a ranger or druid type of character. In this way you keep the role but expand it out to other classes so it's more readily available for groups.

 

Same for healing. Yes there was a healing role in EQ but that doesn't tell the whole story. Clerics may have been the most powerful pure healers but they only excelled at buffs and direct healing while druids excelled at HoTs and teleporting. Clerics were pretty bad dps unless it was an undead creature and they could be pretty good. Why not expand on that sort of thing to make healers more versatile?

[Sidartha.9512]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Sidartha.9512" said:

> > > @"EpicName.4523" said:

> > > This is easier to answer than you think. The whole concept behind the lack of trinity is to avoid forcing professions/players into a single role, right? To have "diversity".

> > > But...some professions are still clearly better (or worse) at certain things than the others so they are still pushed into certain roles.

> > >

> > > While technically you can get the job done without druid or mesmer supporting/tanking, it wouldn't be optimal, right? Players want to increase their chances even when it is not needed. And since some professions are better at some roles they always will be played as the "meta" dictates. Either play as you are told or don't get invites.

> > > This proves that the "lack of trinity" concept simply doesn't work because of the player's mindset.

> > >

> > > In other games when you roll, say, a priest you know you will likely be healing. It's more often than not in the class description.

> > >

> > > In this game, when you roll, say, a guardian you won't support because some other profession is doing it better. If that is the case, why not have a trinity and at least know what you can and can't do from the start?

> >

> > I love this post. Well said. I would also like to point out that there is also diversity in trinity games. EQ is where the trinity system was born but even in that game (and EQ2) there was quite a bit of diversity for players. There were lots of overlapping class roles and there were a lot of classes so there was a huge amount of group makeup that was feasible. Maybe not ideal or maybe downright challenging but that was part of the fun. Tanking with a monk or healing with a necro.

> >

> > All classes brought their own advantages and disadvantages. It made grouping interesting and really let someone's skill with a class shine. Nothing was more satisfying than pulling off a great dungeon crawl with a group composition that technically shouldn't have worked well. The diversity certainly became much less as you got into raiding but I don't think that is so unexpected when you are going against the toughest content of the game.

>

> The trinity system predates EQ, by quite a bit, actually. You can find it in the earliest forms of D&D manuals dating back years before MMOs were a thing. D&D was released initially in 1974.

 

That's true but I'm referring to the trinity systems in MMOs specifically. It was definitely inspired by D&D and MUDs as well I think.

[derd.6413]

> @"Jinn Galen.2468" said:

> 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.

 

that's pretty much the case already (except some classes have more builds while others have non)

 

unless anet forces a meta players will always come up with builds that anet didn't consider

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

You can choose to play as either a tank, healer or dps. It just doesn't work in all situations.

[joneirikb.7506]

There are more than one way to make a "role" system work, without going as extreme as the typical "trinity" systems. The main idea is to have each class have something unique to give to others, while having inherent weaknesses.

 

A clear example of this in GW2 is the Guardian being the only class that has easy access to Stability, and also can share it with others. That alone means that Guardian is "META" for all WvW. Since "Stand Your Ground" is honestly that good. At the same time, Guardian can't give Alacrity or Resistance, other strong boons.

 

So, a "Theoretical" way to make all classes in GW2 have their own "role" in the game, without inserting a pure Trinity system, would be to set such strengths and weaknesses to each class.

 

If each class had 1 Main thing they are the best at, and can give to others. While having 2-3 other boons they can't access at all in any way, thus encouraging to party with others to cover your weakness. At the same time, don't let nay class share most other types of boons.

 

(Do note, example just to show the idea, don't take this as done-fish)

 

Example Guardian could be "Strong" with:

* Stability

* Protection

* Regeneration

* Aegis

 

"Weak" at:

* Alacrity

* Quickness

* Resistance

 

And "Average" at the rest:

* Fury

* Might

* Retaliation

* Swiftness

* Vigor

 

In short, that means that Guardian would be able to use and share: Stability, Protection, Regeneration, Aegis. Have access to the rest, but can't get or share: Alacrity, Quickness, and Resistance.

 

---

 

This could be made even more interesting by linking it to traits. Each trait could make a class strong in 1 type of boon (or other mechanic), that way you can link traits more towards the play-style of that trait-line, while also letting players customize how they want to play more.

 

(Could also be a slight way to counter the power-creep on the Elite Spec, by only linking this to the core specs).

 

Example, Guardian again:

* Zeal = Retaliation

* Radiance = Fury

* Valor = Protection

* Honor = Aegis

* Virtues = Stability

 

---

 

Now the clue is to find enough mechanics to give to each class, so that each have at least one thing they're wanted for.

 

Kind of like if those class "aura's" worked better, like the spotter for ranger and safety in numbers for guard, worked better and was more interesting.

 

/rant

[Supz.9836]

If I wanted to play a holy trinity based mmo I wouldn't be playing guild wars 2

 

I think gw2 has a lot of things that separate it from other mmos, I hope that devs are always remain cognisant that while there is a large slice of the market for traditional mmos, if you become just another mmo you will die like every other run of the mill mmo.

 

I hope they take risks to develop more innovative content, that is how you can keep me spending more. I don't think the old holy trinity/raid treadmill is all that fun. Thats why I tried and quit wow and FF14 and came back to GW2.

 

If GW2 got rid of raids I wouldn't even mind paying a subscription for it.

[Aridon.8362]

This is a sentence.

[MrAptronym.2846]

I think it is important to have well defined roles of some sort, though I think breaking away from the trinity can be a very good thing. I originally left GW2 in part because in the days of dungeon runs, the meta was just "Who does the most DPS?" Having roles of some kind adds to the complexity of your end game meta, because there is more than one metric to judge things by.. Sure, the very top will still lock in (though now with more than 1 or 2 professions at least) but it offers far more combinations that are still good. Additionally, there wasn't much reason for a team to work together except as demanded by specific mechanics. When it came to actual combat, everybody was sort of out for themselves. You try and maximize your own DPS, you heal yourself and you dodge attacks as needed. I think the field and combo system was supposed to counteract this, and I love the idea, but I don't think it did a fantastic job because only a few combos were really desired.

 

I am still getting back into the game but haven't done any high end PvE content yet. I think they have been looking at buffs as a way of having characters interact, and I think it is a good direction. I'd also like to maybe see some debuffing focused roles pop up, conditions don't really add as much in this regard.

[Ubi.4136]

Most of the people I talk to in game about this, the reason they are playing GW2 isn't because there is no trinity, but because nothing else is very good. Some games started out pretty good, but lost their way (or the company did, like Trion with Rift). Most think that the newer games being released are just crap, but all agree that if a good game came along that actually had tanking, healing, support, dps, that they would stop playing GW2 for it, because people like playing those roles specifically.

I was a GW1 monk main, and while smiting was fun, I loved to be able to heal. Rift was similar in that I mained a cleric because they could heal and tank. I loved showing up at open world events and being able to quick swap roles to save the day. GW2 is starting to feel like showing up at events you are there to just spam 1 or fondle people who didn't dodge.

[Raizel.8175]

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> Most of the people I talk to in game about this, the reason they are playing GW2 isn't because there is no trinity, but because nothing else is very good. Some games started out pretty good, but lost their way (or the company did, like Trion with Rift). Most think that the newer games being released are just crap, but all agree that if a good game came along that actually had tanking, healing, support, dps, that they would stop playing GW2 for it, because people like playing those roles specifically.

> I was a GW1 monk main, and while smiting was fun, I loved to be able to heal. Rift was similar in that I mained a cleric because they could heal and tank. I loved showing up at open world events and being able to quick swap roles to save the day. GW2 is starting to feel like showing up at events you are there to just spam 1 or fondle people who didn't dodge.

 

Well, there are also people who became sick of trinity-based games. I myself actually enjoyed Blade & Soul quite a lot until it became p2w. Trinity-less gameplay is actually more fun since everyone definitely has to carry his/her own weight, has to know and has to be able to execute very mechanic by him/herself. I dare say that a lot of people actually feel the same and would be happy if stuff like raid-content wouldn't be trinity-based.