Adding the target based gameplay and holy trinity as new game mode

[beeftotem.4137]

> @"mauried.5608" said:

> Would help somewhat if the OP explained what trinity means to them , because it has differant meanings in differant games.

> eg the healer class in WOW is the only class that can heal and the only class that can res dead players, so if you want that type of gameplay in this game you wont get much support for it.

> GW2 is fine as it is and doesnt need special snowflake type classes.

>

 

There is no need for an explanation. The trinity is tank/healer/dps and this is exactly what s/he is talking about.

 

Realistically though gw2 does have a trinity to an extent, it's just most of their content does not need it, and the rolls are less defined.

 

And your example for wow does not really work either if you look at it broadly. Most classes in wow are a lot like the professions in gw2. They have their own tool kits and most have their own version of sustain, and there are actually more dps/tanks that can rez then healers. There are also more non healers that can battle rez as well.

 

[Omernon.9762]

@"zityz.6089" There is no holy trinity in GW1. There are no tanks there. You can however make tanky, almost unkillable characters in both games, but they are not a real tanks in the way in which holy trinity portraits them as aggro magnets.

 

 

[mauried.5608]

In GW2 every class can heal and every class can res dead players.

If you want to introduce a healer class, the you have to remove those skills from the classes that you dont want to call healer classes.

Noone will support this as it effectively means a nerf for all classes other than your healer class.

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Omernon.9762" said:

> @"zityz.6089" There is no holy trinity in GW1. There are no tanks there. You can however make tanky, almost unkillable characters in both games, but they are not a real tanks in the way in which holy trinity portraits them as aggro magnets.

>

>

Unfortunately, there's no _Global Commission on MMO Standards_ that defines what any of the terms mean, so different people are strict with their usage while others are loose... and yet both are correct usages (or perhaps neither).

 

The OP's purpose in asking for Trinity was a return to traditional MMOs, as something fun to do (for them, at least). In that context, I'm not sure it's helpful to insist on strict use of the terminology.

 

Besides which, it's not clear what distinction you're trying to make. In GW1, for some 'metas', there's a ~~tank~~ tank-like character that draws aggro, and is kept alive by a ~~healer~~ healer-like character, while a ~~DPS~~ damage-dealing character dishes out most of the, well, damage. There are some creative variations as to which professions can manage the job, except it's still mostly traditional trinity. The 55/Monk can tank in part because it's low health draws aggro and there are Ritualist/Paragon/etc combinations that can keep the tank alive, and just about everyone understands those as variations of ... the traditional trinity.

 

 

 

 

[Omernon.9762]

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781"

 

Yes, those are player-made builds that abuse the way some mobs behave in GW1 - by prioritizing healers and low HP characters. This is different to a designed class or spec that acts as a tank, because it was made that way on the developer’s design board and therefore uses dedicated mechanics in order to accomplish this task.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Omernon.9762" said:

> Yes, those are player-made builds that abuse the way some mobs behave in GW1 - by prioritizing healers and low HP characters. This is different to a designed class or spec that acts as a tank, because it was made that way on the developer’s design board and therefore uses dedicated mechanics in order to accomplish this task.

 

A tank-like character is not meaningfully different -- _for the discussion in this thread_ -- from a "tank" in the sense of the word as you use it. And largely, people who enjoy traditional trinity mechanics don't care if classes are designed to tank or if they can just create one from within the game anyhow.

 

There is no fixed definition for the terms. The concept existed long before game designers programmed specific mechanics to take advantage of what people were already doing in games. Instead of struggling to get AI to be smarter than the tech, they went with creating challenges that expected the humans to behave in certain ways.

 

 

[beeftotem.4137]

> @"mauried.5608" said:

> In GW2 every class can heal and every class can res dead players.

> If you want to introduce a healer class, the you have to remove those skills from the classes that you dont want to call healer classes.

> Noone will support this as it effectively means a nerf for all classes other than your healer class.

>

 

Can't druids, firebrands, scourge, and chrono all be built to be "healers"?

 

And I don't know why you are so hard pressed on reviving, just because gw2 and wow handle downed players differently does not change anything about "healers". Giving warriors in wow a rez would not make them a healer. Does a prot paladin having his own self heals and a rez make him a healer? No it does not.

 

Like i said before gw2 has a trinity like system built in with the ability to have tank like builds or healer like builds. The difference between the two is gw2 does not shoehorn you into a tank/healing spec and the content is not made with tanks/healers being required.

 

I'm not advocating for them to change how gw2 is played, I'm just pointing out what i thought where inconsistencys with your statements.

[Tiviana.2650]

They already broke the no trinity when they made chrono the go to for tanking. Tanking is a trinity role, all i would like to see is more classes that can tank. Not everyone likes mesmer. Look in open world we all know it dont matter, but raiding is still a thing in the game, and thats where we need the trinity. No one but chrono tanks, because no one has the defenses that they can keep up to do it. I would love to guardian tank or reaper tank

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Tiviana.2650" said:

> They already broke the no trinity when they made chrono the go to for tanking.

"They" didn't make chrono to tank. That was something that players figured out was possible and how to make it work. That said, some foes (especially in raids) aggro on toughness. And plenty of foes aggro on other considerations (including random), so tanking or kiting isn't always even possible.

 

> all i would like to see is more classes that can tank. Not everyone likes mesmer.

Other classes can tank. The reason why chrono excelled is that, at the time, did poor DPS and spit out boons like crazy, while having evades galore. Consequently, it meant that everyone else could focus on damage or support.

 

And finally, "trinity" requires three elements and largely, with the exception of aggro control, meta configurations are much more diverse than Tank+Heal+Damage. Even various DPS builds are responsible for boons or protections.

 

 

[Omernon.9762]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Omernon.9762" said:

> > Yes, those are player-made builds that abuse the way some mobs behave in GW1 - by prioritizing healers and low HP characters. This is different to a designed class or spec that acts as a tank, because it was made that way on the developer’s design board and therefore uses dedicated mechanics in order to accomplish this task.

>

> A tank-like character is not meaningfully different -- _for the discussion in this thread_ -- from a "tank" in the sense of the word as you use it. And largely, people who enjoy traditional trinity mechanics don't care if classes are designed to tank or if they can just create one from within the game anyhow.

>

> There is no fixed definition for the terms. The concept existed long before game designers programmed specific mechanics to take advantage of what people were already doing in games. Instead of struggling to get AI to be smarter than the tech, they went with creating challenges that expected the humans to behave in certain ways.

>

>

 

Oh yes, it did. It existed as early as White Box D&D, but that’s beside the point. In the late 90s, in games like UO or Tibia you could tank by simply blocking monsters, because in these 2D games you (or your foes) couldn’t walk through occupied spaces. Some time later in early 2000s in the first big 3D MMORPGs monsters were glued to the first enemy they’ve encountered and wouldn’t retarget unless thier initial target was dead. Concept of tanking evolved a bit from that point and today’s standards are bit different, because we moved past the idea that simply making huge, living online fantasy world is enough to make a game successful (for a good or worse).

 

The first thing that comes into your mind when you think about tanks in a modern MMORPG are iron-clad warriors with abilities to mitigate damage and control enemies. The first part might not be universally true, but damage mitigation (or reduction) and crowd control mechanics is exactly what makes tank a tank. Ranger kiting monsters because he is faster than any of them is not in line with that description, although technically you can call that a “tanky” character, because outcome is the same. I don’t think this is what OP wants to see in this game when he says holy trinity. Also you can make a tanky, durable character in GW2. Just get right prefixes and runes and you’ll never die if you have enough of self healing.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Omernon.9762" said:

> The first thing that comes into your mind when you think about tanks in a modern MMORPG are iron-clad warriors with ...

No, quite honestly, that's not the first thing that comes to my mind.

 

Again, the reason the OP brought up the idea isn't dependent on the definition you are using for the term. If it helps, simply replace the work "tank" with "tank-like role" or "tank-like character" and replace "trinity" with "focused roles of tank-like character, pure healer, and pure damage."

 

[Tiviana.2650]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Tiviana.2650" said:

> > They already broke the no trinity when they made chrono the go to for tanking.

> "They" didn't make chrono to tank. That was something that players figured out was possible and how to make it work. That said, some foes (especially in raids) aggro on toughness. And plenty of foes aggro on other considerations (including random), so tanking or kiting isn't always even possible.

>

> > all i would like to see is more classes that can tank. Not everyone likes mesmer.

> Other classes can tank. The reason why chrono excelled is that, at the time, did poor DPS and spit out boons like crazy, while having evades galore. Consequently, it meant that everyone else could focus on damage or support.

>

> And finally, "trinity" requires three elements and largely, with the exception of aggro control, meta configurations are much more diverse than Tank+Heal+Damage. Even various DPS builds are responsible for boons or protections.

>

>

 

I dont know how to break it to you , but no one tanks but chrono, because they get trucked by bosses if other classes. So no other classes cant tank because they dont have the spells needed to deal with boss mechanics. You said it yourself chrono has all the goodies to tank.Its why its meta. Bosses only agro on other players for simple reasons, either they out tough a weak(chrono), the boss fight has a mechanic that drops agro and picks a new target for a set percentage, or boss has a mechanic that focuses first one to him. Otherwise the tank holds the boss just fine, in all other raid fights. By the definition of tank in a trinity thats what chronomesmer is. And we have healers, and we have dps, we have a trinity, just not one with much variety in roles.

 

 

Also my ex played this game when it came out and really had no trinity. I rem watching him play and all the frustration because dungeons were a clusterkitten without some kind of trinity.

[Tiviana.2650]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Omernon.9762" said:

> > The first thing that comes into your mind when you think about tanks in a modern MMORPG are iron-clad warriors with ...

> No, quite honestly, that's not the first thing that comes to my mind.

>

> Again, the reason the OP brought up the idea isn't dependent on the definition you are using for the term. If it helps, simply replace the work "tank" with "tank-like role" or "tank-like character" and replace "trinity" with "focused roles of tank-like character, pure healer, and pure damage."

>

 

No a tank is a role that can take the agro off the group, tanks can get beat on and have mitigation and defenses to survive with support. You can throw as much toughness and vitality w/e on a class that isnt a chrono, he still wont live long with a boss on him like a chrono will. You dont need pure anything what would be nice is that other classes besides mesmer could get some tanking mitigation and threat to be viable to tank. I mean people always say how you can do anything in gw2, there is no trinity! But thats not quite true its lopsided with 1 spec being able to take on a role no one else can do.

[Omernon.9762]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Omernon.9762" said:

> > The first thing that comes into your mind when you think about tanks in a modern MMORPG are iron-clad warriors with ...

> No, quite honestly, that's not the first thing that comes to my mind.

>

> Again, the reason the OP brought up the idea isn't dependent on the definition you are using for the term. If it helps, simply replace the work "tank" with "tank-like role" or "tank-like character" and replace "trinity" with "focused roles of tank-like character, pure healer, and pure damage."

>

 

I don’t know what really OP had in mind, but if I had to bet my money, I would say he meant something along the lines of WoW’s holy trinity and there is no improvised tanking or healing there — every class was designed to fit certain roles.

 

[kharmin.7683]

> @"beeftotem.4137" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"beeftotem.4137" said:

> >

> > > What does being a casual have to do with the topic?

> > The casuals that I know don't care for holy trinity.

> >

> >

>

> What does being a casual have to do with the holy trinity is what I'm asking.

>

> Not liking the Trinity and being a casual have nothing to do with each other. I am a casual and I enjoy the Trinity, but I also enjoy the way gw2 is as well.

>

> If you don't like the responsibility that comes with tanking or healing then that is what your tastes are, but they still also don't have anything to do with being a casual.

>

> Being a casual should mean either lack of available time to play or lack of static time to play. Nothing more. Being a "casual" has got a bad name in mmos because "casuals" use it as an excuse for EVERYTHING.

>

> Give reasons why YOU don't like the system, leave being a casual out of it.

 

I said "the casuals I know" so I wasn't speaking for every player that deems themselves casual. I apologize if you were offended.

 

My experience in other MMOs with more traditional roles (or trinity) has been that players there are more hard-core (or less casual if you want to look at it that way) and insistent on others maintaining and playing their role in a specific manner. GW2 alleviates this by not incorporating this trinity and allows casual players like myself more freedom to experiment with builds. This is a major reason why I (and the casuals I know) do not want this type of system.

 

Your interpretation of casual and mine are different, although I do agree with what you've stated. I define it a bit further, but I'd prefer not to derail this thread into what is and is not a "casual" player.

[Urud.4925]

> @"mauried.5608" said:

> In GW2 every class can heal and every class can res dead players.

> If you want to introduce a healer class, the you have to remove those skills from the classes that you dont want to call healer classes.

> Noone will support this as it effectively means a nerf for all classes other than your healer class.

 

I'm not talking about core/build changes, keep in mind.

I give you an example:

 

- You enter the hub (like fractal of the mists). Here you'll find 3 different NPC or 3 different weapons on the ground (I went down from 4 classes to 3, easier - But the party would be always of 5 ppl): you talk to one/pick 1 weapon and your character will be transformed. Think about something similar to Toypocalypse.

- You would have 5 new skills 1-5, NOTHING in 6-0. Your gear's stats and traits would be ineffective. This condition would be kept as long as you are in the hub. Your main profession/build won't be affected outside of the hub.

- From the hub, you can only access to the 8 dungeons that we have. Mobs inside will be the same (so the 5 new skills we'd receive should do more or less the same damage, as whole, in group, of the damage that let's say a group of lv80 in exotic gear would currently do. We might take Arah as reference). The dungeons won't be changed: you can still run them like you do now, if you access them from the open world.

.

- The tank would have something like: #1 melee autoattack - 500 dmg; #2 pull/grab a single enemy, 10s cd; #3 AoE taunt, 350 radius, 30s cd; #4 personal shield, block every (direct) damage for 5s, 50s cd; #5 bodyguard, target a single ally to receive on you all the damage that the ally would take in the following 7s, reduced by the 33%, 90s cd.

- The healer could have something like: #1 autoattack, 300 range - 350 dmg; #2 heal a single target by 500, 1s cast time, 2s cd; #3 heal a single target by 1200, 2s cast time, 5s cd; 4# single target cleanse - dispel 2 conditions, 2s cd; 5# group healing, 400 radius, 600 range, recover 1700 dmg, 50s cd.

- The dps could be: # 1 melee autoattack, 900 dmg; #2 ranged autoattack, 800 range, 600 dmg; #3 nuke: 1800 dmg, 150 range, 12s cd; 4# CC/launch 400 (so that 2 coordinated dps should be able to destroy a defiance bar), 15s cd; #5 AoE burn (condition), 700 dmg for 5s, 10 cd.

 

In addition to the personal skills, the tank would have a natural higher toughness (to keep a bit of aggro even when he doesn't use taunt, to avoid changing too many mechanics) and the HP of a warrior. The healer would be a medium/leather class let's say, kind of a ranger/engi and the dps would be a light/cloth class with low HP (like the ele/thief).

There wouldn't be any boon share (unless introducing a 4th class) or stealth mechanic to skip mobs.

 

It would require undoubtedly some resource, to test how these skills perform into the current dungeons. And it wouldn't probably bring any profit (unlike a new mount). But again, the idea _is not to change the current mechanics_ (that I like) in open PvE. It's like investing in sPvP or WvW: 2 different game modes that are there for someone, not the majority.

[Vlad Morbius.1759]

Why would anyone who plays and enjoys GW2 want the developers to pour resources into a side mode like trinity when there are countless of areas currently that need their attention and once again if it's that style of play people want there are many alternatives for people in the MMO world. I just cannot grasp the rational for wanting something like this if the core game had worked fine for 7 years, and the core game is why the bulk of the players are here? I'd much prefer they continue polishing the current balance and adding content to old and new areas bringing more life into GW2 rather than wasting anymore resources on ideas that do not add to the longevity of GW2, and please don't say this would because as a side addition this would grab attention for a short time frame much like festivals.

 

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Vlad Morbius.1759" said:

> Why would anyone who plays and enjoys GW2 want the developers to pour resources into a side mode like trinity when there are countless of areas currently that need their attention and once again if it's that style of play people want there are many alternatives for people in the MMO world. I just cannot grasp the rational for wanting something like this if the core game had worked fine for 7 years, and the core game is why the bulk of the players are here? I'd much prefer they continue polishing the current balance and adding content to old and new areas bringing more life into GW2 rather than wasting anymore resources on ideas that do not add to the longevity of GW2, and please don't say this would because as a side addition this would grab attention for a short time frame much like festivals.

>

 

If you think about it from multiple perspectives, the same could be said about any sort of side-projects or niche content.

 

I'd argue what makes the content you are interested in more worthy than what someone else might be interested in? While someone couldn't grasp the rational of wasting resources on a faux-platformer retro-graphics minigame, another might think you'd be insane not to pump more resources into it.

[beeftotem.4137]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"beeftotem.4137" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"beeftotem.4137" said:

> > >

> > > > What does being a casual have to do with the topic?

> > > The casuals that I know don't care for holy trinity.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > What does being a casual have to do with the holy trinity is what I'm asking.

> >

> > Not liking the Trinity and being a casual have nothing to do with each other. I am a casual and I enjoy the Trinity, but I also enjoy the way gw2 is as well.

> >

> > If you don't like the responsibility that comes with tanking or healing then that is what your tastes are, but they still also don't have anything to do with being a casual.

> >

> > Being a casual should mean either lack of available time to play or lack of static time to play. Nothing more. Being a "casual" has got a bad name in mmos because "casuals" use it as an excuse for EVERYTHING.

> >

> > Give reasons why YOU don't like the system, leave being a casual out of it.

>

> I said "the casuals I know" so I wasn't speaking for every player that deems themselves casual. I apologize if you were offended.

>

> My experience in other MMOs with more traditional roles (or trinity) has been that players there are more hard-core (or less casual if you want to look at it that way) and insistent on others maintaining and playing their role in a specific manner. GW2 alleviates this by not incorporating this trinity and allows casual players like myself more freedom to experiment with builds. This is a major reason why I (and the casuals I know) do not want this type of system.

>

> Your interpretation of casual and mine are different, although I do agree with what you've stated. I define it a bit further, but I'd prefer not to derail this thread into what is and is not a "casual" player.

 

The problem was purely with the term casual and how you used it as an explanation for why you would not like the system, with out giving anything else to go by. Then when I asked what being a casual and the topic had to do with each other you said that other casuals don't like it. Now I know a least 2 people share the same view, but I don't know why they share this view, and this is what I'm looking for, a discussion.

 

I can understand your point in regards to the strict play style, and in most cases the lack of build customization. I still don't see what the casual part has to do with it as this seems more like a play style preference over a time/skill issue.

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

We already have the trinity - The Firebrand, the Scourge and the Holy Herald.

 

Thats 90% of the zerg meta.