Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

After GW2 do you want the holy trio back?

11113151617

Comments

  • Home15Home15 Member Posts: 203

    In evry mmo i played i always been a healer.

    Just love that role.

    Not interested in being a rambo with a first aid kit strapped behind my back that shoot mage lazers trough my eyeballs while wielding tank shields on both my arms. =P

  • Lovely_LalyLovely_Laly Member UncommonPosts: 734

    I think dual skill like war/monk or any other form of healer as dual class would be my best choice.

    GW2 system is more enjoyable to be as I'm not dependent on healer for lvl up, solo progress.

    I think role of tank is obsolete in game where anybody can heal.
    GW2 id nice but I would prefer option: heal others and more healing abilities.

    I don't see hybrid class in sense of 50:50 skill equal; I would prefer like 10 primary and 2-3 healer skills with 1 AoE heal but long cd.

    I like live in a party but sometime it can be hard to find it so why not to do solo run?
    any class / healer would be a good farmer.

    As for dungeons, where trio was most needed, it may works too if we can heal each other.
    Or make new model: healer NPC for dungeons. So far I felt like healer role was the hardest and the most hated in case of fail, so let it be NPC. =D

    try before buy, even if it's a game to avoid bad surprises.
    Worst surprises for me: Aion, GW2

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 31,892
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by botrytis
     

    But there is no reason why a "trinity" system couldn't be made that relied upon warriors blocking/protecting their allies while the squishier players shield themselves (taking themselves out of the equation) or moving to a better vantage point.

    I know some people say that games like D&D didn't have a trinity but they sort of did. It just didn't rely upon this whole "agrro/hate" mechanic.

    there was a reason they the toughter members were in front and the ranged/squishy members.

    Essentially, we are talking about roles, each person playing a role. I would agree that the whole "press a button and magically have all the enemies rush toward the tank" is horrid, but it doesn't have to be that way.

    First, its not that: Some melee fighters had to be tough in order to survive in melee. Others used their mobility and abilities to avoid damage. Having someone tough in the front was never mandatory like it is in trinity games. Defense in trinity consists of soaking damaga and repairing damage - The most idiotic form of defense there is if you ask me.

    Second, in D&D, there was no shooting into melee due to friendly fire. AOE farming was not possible for the same reason.

    Third: Ranged healing spells were rare, so while the party almost always had a divine spellcaster with them (Cleric/Druid) healing was somewhat unwieldy and was only reserved for emergencies in mid combat.

    D&D is quite far from the holy trinity.

    did you not have roles?

    1, All I know was that in our campaigns the fighers were out front. The fighers were the members who were taking the damage, blocking, throwing themselves into the fray,

    2, We actually did have firing into the area where melee was if it was necessary or if melee was blocking a path and the ranged could fire over their heads.

    3, we had ranged healing. Sorry but we changed the rules to suit our needs. So having said that I suppose one's mileage may vary.

    The D&D I knew was closer to the trinity.

     

    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • pantheronpantheron Member UncommonPosts: 256
    My problem with the trinity mainly comes down to the fact that, a lot of the time, a smart group who isn't the trinity can't accomplish the same feats as a group who isn't as intelligent with their gameplay  descisions, but is using a trinity. If all of my friends and I want to try and do content as barbarians, It should be POSSIBLE for us to complete the content.  I'm not saying it should be as  easy as a Priest/Paladin/Sorcerer mixed group, but it should be possible. I like to think that a smart group of Warriors should be capable of taking down a raid boss.

    I play MMOs for the Forum PVP

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter Member UncommonPosts: 455
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by botrytis
     

    But there is no reason why a "trinity" system couldn't be made that relied upon warriors blocking/protecting their allies while the squishier players shield themselves (taking themselves out of the equation) or moving to a better vantage point.

    I know some people say that games like D&D didn't have a trinity but they sort of did. It just didn't rely upon this whole "agrro/hate" mechanic.

    there was a reason they the toughter members were in front and the ranged/squishy members.

    Essentially, we are talking about roles, each person playing a role. I would agree that the whole "press a button and magically have all the enemies rush toward the tank" is horrid, but it doesn't have to be that way.

    First, its not that: Some melee fighters had to be tough in order to survive in melee. Others used their mobility and abilities to avoid damage. Having someone tough in the front was never mandatory like it is in trinity games. Defense in trinity consists of soaking damaga and repairing damage - The most idiotic form of defense there is if you ask me.

    Second, in D&D, there was no shooting into melee due to friendly fire. AOE farming was not possible for the same reason.

    Third: Ranged healing spells were rare, so while the party almost always had a divine spellcaster with them (Cleric/Druid) healing was somewhat unwieldy and was only reserved for emergencies in mid combat.

    D&D is quite far from the holy trinity.

    did you not have roles?

    1, All I know was that in our campaigns the fighers were out front. The fighers were the members who were taking the damage, blocking, throwing themselves into the fray,

    2, We actually did have firing into the area where melee was if it was necessary or if melee was blocking a path and the ranged could fire over their heads.

    3, we had ranged healing. Sorry but we changed the rules to suit our needs. So having said that I suppose one's mileage may vary.

    The D&D I knew was closer to the trinity.

     

    I really think people are starting to mix up D&D they played on the computer and tabletop D&D.

    It is true that D&D characters had roles but they weren't the trinity you see in MMOs.

    1. Fighters were considered tanks, yes but they also dished out a ton of damage.  And they didn't taunt or hold agro, they blocked the way with their bodies.  I also recall having clerics in the frontlines also since their armor and spells gave them potentially better AC than fighters.

    2. You could fire arrows past your fighters just like the mobs could fire past them.  But yeah, forget about tossing a fireball that does AoE damage or chain lightning.

    3. In tabletop, you rarely healed during battle.  It was used when things got desperate.  Heals were normally done after the battle was won because healing took away precious attacks.  Buffs and debuffs were much more prevalent.  Computer games incorporated healing so much more because you could reset heal spells with resting.  It was just a press of a button; not so in tabletop.

     

  • ValentinaValentina Member RarePosts: 2,077
    I don't want the trinity back at all.
  • KarteliKarteli Member CommonPosts: 2,646

    Get rid of the trinity and then you may as well get rid of classes, and make every player a cookie cutter of each other.  No don't get rid of the trinity concept.

     

    OK, ok ..a better design I've seen was to make every player identical at first, but then let them choose where they would like to specialize in.  Eve has this.  Other games have the idea to some extent, even if you choose a set role, allow for change over time.

     

    Allow players to specialize in areas they want.  In typical warfare these days, there are soldiers, artilliary / range attacks, medics, and members of the clergy (various denominations).  I think the trinity is practical, but as you develop a character, a player might decide for a change.

     

    Get rid of healers?

    Clergy members work best in fantasy, because priests can essentially pray for actions.  If anything, modern MMORPGS abuse the role of priests, because when a priest gets a prayer answered in pen-and-paper games it is significant (and requires a lot of praying).  Not some minor autocast spell in MMORPGS.  Having a priest is essential in PnP.

     

    If anything, I'd see an argument against the trinity in Sci-Fi games.  Heal mortal wounds with fix-em droids .. are you serious?

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 31,892
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
    O

    I really think people are starting to mix up D&D they played on the computer and tabletop D&D.

    It is true that D&D characters had roles but they weren't the trinity you see in MMOs.

    1. Fighters were considered tanks, yes but they also dished out a ton of damage.  And they didn't taunt or hold agro, they blocked the way with their bodies.  I also recall having clerics in the frontlines also since their armor and spells gave them potentially better AC than fighters.

    2. You could fire arrows past your fighters just like the mobs could fire past them.  But yeah, forget about tossing a fireball that does AoE damage or chain lightning.

    3. In tabletop, you rarely healed during battle.  It was used when things got desperate.  Heals were normally done after the battle was won because healing took away precious attacks.  Buffs and debuffs were much more prevalent.  Computer games incorporated healing so much more because you could reset heal spells with resting.  It was just a press of a button; not so in tabletop.

     

    You are very correct. But quite frankly that's how mmo's should be. Warriors should be dishing out damage and AOE spells were never fired into the fray. That's just common senes. Clerics were in the front but I don't remember them being killer Damage dealers.

    The idea being that in D&D players had roles. Mages didn't march into the battle and Thieves/Rogues were always trying to get the upper hand in a sneaky way.

    I don't think anyone, myself included, would say that mmo's and table top have a 1 to 1 correlation as to how accurate their rules transfer.

    But the idea is that in D&D we had roles, and roles that each of us wanted to embody. I think when people are asking "do you want to have the holy trinity back, what they are saying is they want to embody those roles. If anyone can be in front, if anyone can be healing, if anyone wield magic then things stop becoming unique.

     

    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • AerowynAerowyn Member Posts: 7,928
    Originally posted by Sovrath

    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
    O

    I really think people are starting to mix up D&D they played on the computer and tabletop D&D.

    It is true that D&D characters had roles but they weren't the trinity you see in MMOs.

    1. Fighters were considered tanks, yes but they also dished out a ton of damage.  And they didn't taunt or hold agro, they blocked the way with their bodies.  I also recall having clerics in the frontlines also since their armor and spells gave them potentially better AC than fighters.

    2. You could fire arrows past your fighters just like the mobs could fire past them.  But yeah, forget about tossing a fireball that does AoE damage or chain lightning.

    3. In tabletop, you rarely healed during battle.  It was used when things got desperate.  Heals were normally done after the battle was won because healing took away precious attacks.  Buffs and debuffs were much more prevalent.  Computer games incorporated healing so much more because you could reset heal spells with resting.  It was just a press of a button; not so in tabletop.

     

    You are very correct. But quite frankly that's how mmo's should be. Warriors should be dishing out damage and AOE spells were never fired into the fray. That's just common senes. Clerics were in the front but I don't remember them being killer Damage dealers.

    The idea being that in D&D players had roles. Mages didn't march into the battle and Thieves/Rogues were always trying to get the upper hand in a sneaky way.

    I don't think anyone, myself included, would say that mmo's and table top have a 1 to 1 correlation as to how accurate their rules transfer.

    But the idea is that in D&D we had roles, and roles that each of us wanted to embody. I think when people are asking "do you want to have the holy trinity back, what they are saying is they want to embody those roles. If anyone can be in front, if anyone can be healing, if anyone wield magic then things stop becoming unique.

     

     

    you can be more unique without set roles..just depends how the system is implemented.. In most holy trinity games I feel the exact same as the next guy of my class.. If the system allows me to essentially make my own class I feel much more unique

    I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter Member UncommonPosts: 455
    Originally posted by Sovrath

    But the idea is that in D&D we had roles, and roles that each of us wanted to embody. I think when people are asking "do you want to have the holy trinity back, what they are saying is they want to embody those roles. If anyone can be in front, if anyone can be healing, if anyone wield magic then things stop becoming unique.

    Just copying the paragraph that I wanted to discuss.  I agree with everything else you said in reply.

    Are you sure that's what the proponents of the trinity system wants?  I get the impression they want just three roles: tank, healer, dps and once you are locked into a role you cannot deviate from it.  They want the tank to hold agro while the healer heals to keep him alive and have the dps rain damage upon the mob.  The trinity is three roles and once you pick a class you are that role.

    I personally like the hybrid system better but with roles that fluctuate and change depending upon the encounter.

    Fighters in tabletop could do lots of damage...pretty much everyone could (clerics with buffs hit hard and they had offensive spells).  They also resisted certain types of damage, so much so that in some cases, they didn't need much support.  But against magic they were very vulnerable.  In fact, mages were better equipped in handling mobs with magic.  Rogues also.  Every class had their unique ability to tank and dps depending upon the encounter.

    I guess that's what I want.  Currently, the tank is always the warrior in MMOs.  It doesn't matter if the mob is completely magical and could/should devastate a warrior.  How much more interesting would it be if the mage had to "tank" the mob by casting spells and counterspelling while the warrior attacked when vulnerabilities opened up?

  • ZzadZzad Member UncommonPosts: 1,401

    You have PLENTY of games with Trinity....

    Its amazing how some people just cannot enjoy a different take on a game for once...

    You just want clones forever?

    boring.....

    image

  • AerowynAerowyn Member Posts: 7,928
    Originally posted by Zzad

    You have PLENTY of games with Trinity....Its amazing how some people just cannot enjoy a different take on a game for once...You just want clones forever?boring.....image

     

    also seems pretty common practice people get very complacent in certain things and when something new comes along instead of trying to learn it they cry they want what they know back.. Me personally I get bored with same old same old all the time and happy to learn something new..

    I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter Member UncommonPosts: 455
    Originally posted by Aerowyn

     

    also seems pretty common practice people get very complacent in certain things and when something new comes along instead of trying to learn it they cry they want what they know back.. Me personally I get bored with same old same old all the time and happy to learn something new..

    People hate change, even if it's an improvement.

  • AerowynAerowyn Member Posts: 7,928
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter

    Originally posted by Aerowyn   also seems pretty common practice people get very complacent in certain things and when something new comes along instead of trying to learn it they cry they want what they know back.. Me personally I get bored with same old same old all the time and happy to learn something new..

    People hate change, even if it's an improvement.

     

    haha so I have noticed.. I don't really get why though.. More variety the better I always say

    I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 31,892
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter

    I guess that's what I want.  Currently, the tank is always the warrior in MMOs.  It doesn't matter if the mob is completely magical and could/should devastate a warrior.  How much more interesting would it be if the mage had to "tank" the mob by casting spells and counterspelling while the warrior attacked when vulnerabilities opened up?

    You know that's a very good point.

    Maybe the core of the issue is just that people want to play the way "they want to play". When given a scenario where they "can't do their thing" they feel dissatisfied. Whether one player wants full hybrid and the other wants very clear, specific classes.

    What would happen if a mage was asked to tank? Would they? since it's not really done would someone who played a mage just drop group or never join encounters where only a mage could tank?

    As far as making hybrid classes, I think in general hybrid classes were usually jack of all trade classes. They weren't the most powerful mage or the best thief but they could get by in a pinch.

    The question of the thread is eally "now that you have played Guild Wars 2, are you sold on getting rid of the trinity (presumably in other games that might do the same) and It's very clear that some people love doing multiple things and some like being damage dealer, traditional mmo tank, healer.

    As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm more for a soft trinity. I like the idea of "interesting classes" but don't support players being a mage that can call down lava storms, then dazzle with the sword and then, in full plate, be stealthy and pick the hardest locks.

    But then again that's all pen and paper stuff and we don't really find that in an mmo.

    I do like the idea of people playing "some type" of warrior and "some type" of mage. I'm not really for mage as boom master but mage as "mage". damage, buffs, light spells etc. But mmo's seem to have streamlined a lot of that stuff out.

    Interesting enough a friend of mine is sick of modern mmo's (he's tried them all) and he went back to Everquest a few days ago.

    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,769
    Originally posted by cybertrucker

    So as the title asks. We have seen a game launch now that tried to break the mold and offer us a game that didn't rely on the holy trinity. Some like it some don't.. So how does everyone here feel that has tried a non holy trinity game? Do yu think games are better  with the trinity or witha massive hybrid system like GW2 offered or something close to it..Vote and discuss below.

     

     I really wish people would have better polls than the limited choices you have.

    I don't like GW2 system but that doesn't mean I don't like hybrid systems.  I prefer typical trinity (ex: wow) to GW2's system.  CoH system was very enjoyable for me. 

    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • evilastroevilastro Member Posts: 4,270
    Originally posted by Zeroxin
    Originally posted by dreamscaper
    Originally posted by aSynchro

    I'd also like to point that trinity prevents players from being together.  What do you prefer to hear :

    Ultima Online, EVE, Guild Wars 2: "hey, sure: join us and lets have fun together!"

    or :

    Trinity based MMORPG: "mmh, sorry: we only need a tank/healer now..."

    ?

     

    The lack of trinity doesn't prevent this in GW2. Go over to gw2lfg.com and you'll see tons of posts requesting Warriors or Guardians specifically.

    Those are the kinds of people you don't want to play with because they don't understand the game. Or they just want what they consider to be the easiest way which is not necessarily the case.

     Yep, some of the easiest dungeon runs I have had comprised entirely of cloth wearers.

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter Member UncommonPosts: 455
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter

    I guess that's what I want.  Currently, the tank is always the warrior in MMOs.  It doesn't matter if the mob is completely magical and could/should devastate a warrior.  How much more interesting would it be if the mage had to "tank" the mob by casting spells and counterspelling while the warrior attacked when vulnerabilities opened up?

    You know that's a very good point.

    Maybe the core of the issue is just that people want to play the way "they want to play". When given a scenario where they "can't do their thing" they feel dissatisfied. Whether one player wants full hybrid and the other wants very clear, specific classes.

    What would happen if a mage was asked to tank? Would they? since it's not really done would someone who played a mage just drop group or never join encounters where only a mage could tank?

    I think this stems from all these years of classes being subjugated to one specific role.  There was no other way of thinking.  I agree at first people will complain that as a dps, you'll have to tank but I think over time people will find the game to be more dynamic and exciting that way.  Sometimes it's good to be out of your comfort zone to experience new things.

    Change is always met with opposition, regardless of whether a system would be improved or not.

  • evilastroevilastro Member Posts: 4,270
    Originally posted by Zzad

    You have PLENTY of games with Trinity....

    Its amazing how some people just cannot enjoy a different take on a game for once...

    You just want clones forever?

    boring.....

    image

     Yep this is what annoys me about the constant recurrance of threads like this. How about we get some more diversity in the industry? If players like the trinity they already have hundreds of MMOs that cater to them.

  • Eir_SEir_S Member UncommonPosts: 4,440
    Originally posted by pantheron
    My problem with the trinity mainly comes down to the fact that, a lot of the time, a smart group who isn't the trinity can't accomplish the same feats as a group who isn't as intelligent with their gameplay  descisions, but is using a trinity. If all of my friends and I want to try and do content as barbarians, It should be POSSIBLE for us to complete the content.  I'm not saying it should be as  easy as a Priest/Paladin/Sorcerer mixed group, but it should be possible. I like to think that a smart group of Warriors should be capable of taking down a raid boss.

    This is what GW2 aimed to do, and to an extent, they did it.  Some people have complained about multiple wipes, others have grasped the system and taken advantage of it, but overall, it's possible to do just that with a group of 5 of the same profession because that's how it was designed.  You don't have to search for or be searched for, you just play the game the way you want to, no roles, no fuss.  GW2 is a breath of fresh air to me personally, and there are plenty of trinity games out now as well, ones that I will inevitably give a try.  That's why the OP's question is misleading.  Neither trinity gameplay nor hybrid gameplay are going anywhere anytime soon.

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 31,892
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter

    I guess that's what I want.  Currently, the tank is always the warrior in MMOs.  It doesn't matter if the mob is completely magical and could/should devastate a warrior.  How much more interesting would it be if the mage had to "tank" the mob by casting spells and counterspelling while the warrior attacked when vulnerabilities opened up?

    You know that's a very good point.

    Maybe the core of the issue is just that people want to play the way "they want to play". When given a scenario where they "can't do their thing" they feel dissatisfied. Whether one player wants full hybrid and the other wants very clear, specific classes.

    What would happen if a mage was asked to tank? Would they? since it's not really done would someone who played a mage just drop group or never join encounters where only a mage could tank?

    I think this stems from all these years of classes being subjugated to one specific role.  There was no other way of thinking.  I agree at first people will complain that as a dps, you'll have to tank but I think over time people will find the game to be more dynamic and exciting that way.  Sometimes it's good to be out of your comfort zone to experience new things.

    Change is always met with opposition, regardless of whether a system would be improved or not.

    As a point of note, I was shocked playing my first mmo (lineage 2) and could't understand why there weren't "light spells' and "tentacle spells" and shield spells and all the other little spells that made being a mage in Neverwinter nights fun.

    I did blast a lot of things.

    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter Member UncommonPosts: 455
    Originally posted by Sovrath

    As a point of note, I was shocked playing my first mmo (lineage 2) and could't understand why there weren't "light spells' and "tentacle spells" and shield spells and all the other little spells that made being a mage in Neverwinter nights fun.

    I did blast a lot of things.

    Hehe.  I was more confused as to why the dark elf females ran the way they did. 

    I will concede this point.  Having a trinity system is easier on the devs.  NWN was/is a great game but it's not balanced.  In a MMO, classes have to be balanced (perhaps this paradigm needs to change?).

    But yeah, I still hope and wish for a MMO like NWN.  Hopefully it'll happen before I die or am unable to play video games.

  • CorehavenCorehaven Member UncommonPosts: 1,533

    Here's how I view the trinity and all the wonderful things it has done for me in the past.......

     

    It made looking for, and forming a group very difficult every time.  The group had to be organized perfectly.  You had to have so much tank, so much DPS, and so much healing from a healer.  Even in a guild setting someone often got left out or couldn't go because of this mechanic. 

     

    Also....well.......there's nothing else.  That's about it. 

     

    And that is all the wonderful things the trinity has done for me in mmos.  That is the sole purpose it has ever served me. 

     

    Yea, I'd rather seriously not have it.  Thanks. 

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
     

    You are very correct. But quite frankly that's how mmo's should be. Warriors should be dishing out damage and AOE spells were never fired into the fray. That's just common senes. Clerics were in the front but I don't remember them being killer Damage dealers.

    The idea being that in D&D players had roles. Mages didn't march into the battle and Thieves/Rogues were always trying to get the upper hand in a sneaky way.

    I don't think anyone, myself included, would say that mmo's and table top have a 1 to 1 correlation as to how accurate their rules transfer.

    But the idea is that in D&D we had roles, and roles that each of us wanted to embody. I think when people are asking "do you want to have the holy trinity back, what they are saying is they want to embody those roles. If anyone can be in front, if anyone can be healing, if anyone wield magic then things stop becoming unique.

    Like I said in an earlier post: Any game with any amount of specialization will have roles, be that warriors and mages or close-quarter specialists with shotguns and snipers long range rifles. GW2 certainly has roles, they are only different from what some are used to. I don't have any problem with roles - I don't think anyone does. I only have problem with the holy trinity and the accompanying aggro mechanics which make combat so unnaturally formulaic.

    Some single player games have even started using it! And there is no excuse! The resources do not constrict you in a way that you can only maintain a threat table and/or attack the player nearest to them. It is unforgivable in this day and age; I could exploit the poor AI in Baldur's Gate, Morrowind and more than half of the MMORPGs I've played, but now I expect more.

    I die a little inside everytime when I see a SRPG using holy trinity. Even in Bordrerlands some abilities and weapons cause "less threat". It is in too many games, I tell you... and I can't escape it! I have never liked it and it is now more widely used than ever.

    A good AI challenges you. It makes you think. This was the role of the GM in P&P games. Holy trinity just makes you go on autopilot. I'm at a point where I am willing to try anything other than that horrible, horrible system.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • EmrendilEmrendil Member Posts: 199
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
    Originally posted by Aerowyn

     

    also seems pretty common practice people get very complacent in certain things and when something new comes along instead of trying to learn it they cry they want what they know back.. Me personally I get bored with same old same old all the time and happy to learn something new..

    People hate change, even if it's an improvement.

    Yep, why fix something if it' ain't broken. Not all new things are better.

    I think in this case, neither system is better then the other. It's just about personal preference.

Sign In or Register to comment.