Alright, presuming the game plays the way Anet says it will, and thus far all video evidence I've seen seems to support it...
There will be 5 heals in every party. There will be 5 dps in every party. There will be 5 controllers in every party. There will be 5 tanks in every party.
There will be five people in every party. And they will fill ALL roles.
Your role as a member in a GW2 Party is:
1) Provide sufficient damage to kill all enemies in the most efficient way possible
2) Stay alive using a combination of movement, delf heals, and defensive skills.
3) Use debuffs/lockdowns to reduce all incoming enemy damage in any worthwhile way you can
4) Provide any healing to other members when needed
5) Attract enemy attention to draw off from a wounded team mate
6) Revive fallen team members
And the most important one of all:
7) Think of the fly, adapt to the changing battlefield, and know when to apply the first 6. Then DO IT.
I've seen multiple videos where some moron with a shield gets 2-shot because he thinks he's supposed to stand there and get beat on. Health pools, armor mitigation, and incoming heals are not strong enough to support theindustry standard design of "Tank gets beat down, heals spam him to keep him alive, DPS just eneds to stay out of fire and spam optimal rotations". Everyone will have to take an active part in the survival of the team.
Frankly, one of my closet fears is that if it REALLY works that way, it will be too alien and harsh for too many people, and Anet won't have a sustainable playerbase.
One of my other worries is that it either WON'T work that way, or that they will cave in and change it to appease players.
I have serious concerns that it will be too tedious or make me worry about things I prefer to avoid in trinity games. Hopefully they'll provide an open beta or trial period, because I have major concerns about the game.
1) Provide sufficient damage to kill all enemies in the most efficient way possible
2) Stay alive using a combination of movement, delf heals, and defensive skills.
3) Use debuffs/lockdowns to reduce all incoming enemy damage in any worthwhile way you can
4) Provide any healing to other members when needed
5) Attract enemy attention to draw off from a wounded team mate
6) Revive fallen team members
And the most important one of all:
7) Think of the fly, adapt to the changing battlefield, and know when to apply the first 6. Then DO IT.
That's not really a selling point to me at this point. I think that playstyle may limit their playerbase. There's a fine line between challenging gameplay and gamplay that feels like work.
Bless the arrogance of ArenaNet's fans. In 2011 the maker of Angry Birds who sold 20M copies of his game stated that consoles are dead and casual games on iPhones was the future. As it turned out console gaming was fine.
ArenaNet came out and made the claim that they were making a game without the holy trinity. The presumption here was that all other MMOs use this holy trinity... as a matter of fact very few do.
Class roles in most MMOs include tank, healer, DPS, controller, and support.
The tank's job is to soak damage.
The healer's job is to heal damage.
The DPS' job is to do the vast majority of damage.
The controller's job is to juggle enemies.
The support's job is to proviide group buffs.
I'd say every MMO has classes that fit this distinction. The "holy trinity" world view is something that ANet has come up with to try and make other MMOs look simple and make their's look complicated.
Just because the WoW matchmaker states "Healer/Tank/DPS" doesn't mean that is howy ou match people up. You need controllers to clear out trash and do certain bosses when you have ads rushes. You will need specific group buffs so you will bring people just for the buffs they provide.
Even when you look at the role of a player in a specific battle it's not entirely limited to just their class. Blizzard might make a boss that will require healers to DPS with their DPS spells. There might be a boss that requires a cloth wearing warlock to tank. There might be a boss that requires a melee warrior to control via kiting.
There are tones of MMOs out there challenging what ArenaNet calls "the holy trinity" by making people do different roles.
By eliminating the holy trinity and making everyone act like every role they actually further ferment the people getting carried. In something like WoW people say DPS might get carried by tanks and healers. The reason for this is because players with more time and more 'skills' are attracted to being tanks and healers.
If you have six REALLY good players and four REALLY bad players those four REALLY bad players are still going to get carried. It's just like Borderlands.
1) Provide sufficient damage to kill all enemies in the most efficient way possible
2) Stay alive using a combination of movement, delf heals, and defensive skills.
3) Use debuffs/lockdowns to reduce all incoming enemy damage in any worthwhile way you can
4) Provide any healing to other members when needed
5) Attract enemy attention to draw off from a wounded team mate
6) Revive fallen team members
And the most important one of all:
7) Think of the fly, adapt to the changing battlefield, and know when to apply the first 6. Then DO IT.
That's not really a selling point to me at this point. I think that playstyle may limit their playerbase. There's a fine line between challenging gameplay and gamplay that feels like work.
And that's fine. It's not for everyone. I'm just tired of
Tank stands in the designated spot, spams aggro abilities, rotates defensive abilities
Healer spams heals on tank, tops off otehrs where needed
DPS spams best DPS rotation
Occasionally people have to stay out of fire.
I was a dynamic, fast changing battlefield where EVERYONE is required to pay attention and think in combat.
To Troublmaker: You're right to a point. And yes Anet's claims of killing the trinity are hype. Even GW2 has those three roles. It's just that people will be required (hopefully) to do more than their niche on every fight. WoW's 5 man and raid combat, after years of it, bore the hell out of me. I want something that rewards thinking.
And yes there's the possibility of stupid carries. I'll grladly vote to kick them every time, if I can help it. Or find a solid group and stick with them.
To Troublmaker: You're right to a point. And yes Anet's claims of killing the trinity are hype. Even GW2 has those three roles. It's just that people will be required (hopefully) to do more than their niche on every fight. WoW's 5 man and raid combat, after years of it, bore the hell out of me. I want something that rewards thinking.
Blizzard set up a specific hard modes system to deal with this. When doing 10-man hard modes it is totally personal responsibliity where everyone has to do their roles. Alternatively you can do the easy modes and just stand in place and tank and spank.
I don't think MMOs can actually reward thinking. The genre is not really setup that way. In any game that is mass and multiplayer you have the exact same thing that happens in anything that is multi-person and massive... a wave of people doing simple things. If things get too complicated it becomes complicated for a few people and not others.
MMOs that have tried to market on just being harder/challenging often just become known as tedious.
Having to move around consistently was what made tera so exhausting for me. Especially in dungeons.
Sigh but to be honest if you love fantasy novels and want to play like you are in one then this is the game for it, no tanks just distraction movement evasion each boss battle could be written down as a n awesome action sequence with numerous near death experience with everyone getting in to do damage help someone and setup combo's.
Sounds refreshing, the older I get though the more difficult it may be to play this and be competitive. IT may signal my wthdrawl from the genre all together if i find my skill cap too low.
To Troublmaker: You're right to a point. And yes Anet's claims of killing the trinity are hype. Even GW2 has those three roles. It's just that people will be required (hopefully) to do more than their niche on every fight. WoW's 5 man and raid combat, after years of it, bore the hell out of me. I want something that rewards thinking.
I don't think MMOs can actually reward thinking. The genre is not really setup that way. In any game that is mass and multiplayer you have the exact same thing that happens in anything that is multi-person and massive... a wave of people doing simple things. If things get too complicated it becomes complicated for a few people and not others.
First, to the post in green:
A trinity system is a system with THREE dedicated roles. Three.
trinity [?tr?n?t?]npl-ties
1. a group of three
2. the state of being threefold
It's already been shown that not only are there more than three roles. (you only have to scroll up to see the most recent example of this), but the 'holy trinity' (tank, dps, healer) has been proven MULTIPLE times to not exist in this game. It's not hype, it's fact, and it's asinine that we are still here 4 months later trying to debate something that's already been proven. For one, you don't have a dedicated tank in this game, it DOESN'T have aggro mechanics. Mobs / bosses pick their target through a variety of factors (not hate), and furthermore they are constantly changing who they chose to attack throughout the fight. That alone proves that the 'holy trinity' is gone. Now, you could argue that it's been replaced with a 'different trinity' as some have in the passed, however you would still be ignoring the numerous examples of how there are more than three roles.
To troublemaker:
Why don't you think MMOs can reward player thought? They do it all the time. While yes, a lot of games are getting dumbed down, people who play them more intelligently get rewarded in a number of ways (they earn gold faster, they get more rewards from pvp, they get the better gear quicker, etc.) It may not be as flashy as a giant 'level up!' sign over your head, but it's there.
I think this is where the concept of 'easy to play, difficult to master' applies best. Just look at the first GW. That game is really easy to pick up and play, however some of the harder content gets really difficult. You aren't forced to do the harder content, but if you want to beat it it requires a lot of effort and tact. The same can be said of games like Everquest, or Vanilla WoW, TERA, to name a few.
On the up side, more individual responsibility will make things more dynamic, challenging, and fun.
On the down side, the above only holds true if you are lucky enough to be in a group with only other skilled players.
More individual responsibility means one player is not going to be able to carry others.
If there is really no aggro mechanic in this game, the weakest links in your party will simply get killed one by one until not enouch players are left to succeed.
If there are aggro mechanics/abilites that allow use to raise/lower personal aggro then weak playser will simply spam their lower aggro moves until the boss kills the healer and continues killing them one by one.
Maybe WoW has made me cynical but I hate having to trust the success/failure of the group on others ability to play. Hell in WoW it's bad enough and you see pleny of people who can't do one job let alone all 3 and ALSO be able to switch dynamically between them. I have a feeling random pugs will just not be doable, at all.
Why, oh why , is there continual emphasis on the "we don't have a trinity" aspect of this game?
For those who are burying their heads in the sand.... THERE IS A TRINITY. You will still have healers, you will still have tanks, and you will still have Dps. They have changed the system so some extent but it is alive and well. What Guild Wars 2 trinity doesn't have : Whack-a-mole heals, Taunts. What it does have : Single Target Heals, Rescues, Group heals, AoE Heals, Regens- HoT's ( Which have always been stronger then flat heals in Guild Wars, Damage mitigation abilities, shields, reflects.
For the love of everything that is holy in Mmo's stop confusing the playerbase by stating Guild Wars 2 doesn't have a trinity. It absolutely does, its changed ... but its still present.
-- Yes I have pre-purchased , Yes I'm looking forward to the game. Yes I will running a pvp team as a Healer/support.
You can't really call it a Trinity system when every single profession and every single player playing those professions is going to not only be capable of doing each of those 3 roles but expected to fluidly switch between them based upon dynamic combat conditions and be self reliant.
From what I've seen, if you don't pay attention to dodging and self-heals, you're dead. Support heals are not sufficient to keep you going.
I'm worried that I'm going to feel the same way about GW2 as it sounds very clicky and very movement centric.
its called skills-friend, skills.
I read the objections to other combat systems vs GW2 here, and as an AoC-player I'll chip in with an objection to your quipped 'GW2 will be skill-based'.
AoC's combat system is also skill-based. Granted, yes, there's less of the active, action-oriented stuff that GW2 seems it will have (and I look forward to trying it out, have picked up the pre-purchase!), but you still need skill playing AoC, and combat in any MMO, whether PvE or PvP - but of course, both these types and mostly the latter, are severely influenced by gear-dependency in AoC.
And I agree that although GW2 has a new take on it, the holy trinity still exists, but its boundaries have been smudged out seeing as who takes on the particular role of the trinity at different times will be changing depending on the situation (e.g. like the thief going in to 'tank' to draw attention away from the guardian, etc.)
It will be very interesting to try out - feeling excited about next beta weekend in GW2
Maybe WoW has made me cynical but I hate having to trust the success/failure of the group on others ability to play. Hell in WoW it's bad enough and you see pleny of people who can't do one job let alone all 3 and ALSO be able to switch dynamically between them. I have a feeling random pugs will just not be doable, at all.
I think that's a valid concern and one I share as well.
Look at the big mess that Cataclysm created when it was launched and people suddenly had to CC and not stand in the fire because the healer could no longer spam heal everyone forever without running out of mana. Dungeon crawls slowed to a... well... crawl. The forums were on fire with people who did not enjoy this new level of difficulty. PUGs were a mess and some people had to resort to guild runs only. The thing is, there's only so much I can do in a group. I can play my role to perfection, but if the rest of the group doesn't know how to play, it matters not. We all die. I frankly decided not to subject myself to that by quitting WoW shortly after I reached 85. I just couldn't find the motivation to crawl through dungeons and dealing with all that when I knew I could just go play something else for a while and come back a couple of patches later when things had settled down.
I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Maybe WoW has made me cynical but I hate having to trust the success/failure of the group on others ability to play. Hell in WoW it's bad enough and you see pleny of people who can't do one job let alone all 3 and ALSO be able to switch dynamically between them. I have a feeling random pugs will just not be doable, at all.
I think that's a valid concern and one I share as well.
Look at the big mess that Cataclysm created when it was launched and people suddenly had to CC and not stand in the fire because the healer could no longer spam heal everyone forever without running out of mana. Dungeon crawls slowed to a... well... crawl. The forums were on fire with people who did not enjoy this new level of difficulty. PUGs were a mess and some people had to resort to guild runs only. The thing is, there's only so much I can do in a group. I can play my role to perfection, but if the rest of the group doesn't know how to play, it matters not. We all die. I frankly decided not to subject myself to that by quitting WoW shortly after I reached 85. I just couldn't find the motivation to crawl through dungeons and dealing with all that when I knew I could just go play something else for a while and come back a couple of patches later when things had settled down.
And there are games tailored specifically for the both of you. They're called single player RPGs. EA just released two: Mass Effect 3 and SWTOR. Play those.
Maybe WoW has made me cynical but I hate having to trust the success/failure of the group on others ability to play. Hell in WoW it's bad enough and you see pleny of people who can't do one job let alone all 3 and ALSO be able to switch dynamically between them. I have a feeling random pugs will just not be doable, at all.
I think that's a valid concern and one I share as well.
Look at the big mess that Cataclysm created when it was launched and people suddenly had to CC and not stand in the fire because the healer could no longer spam heal everyone forever without running out of mana. Dungeon crawls slowed to a... well... crawl. The forums were on fire with people who did not enjoy this new level of difficulty. PUGs were a mess and some people had to resort to guild runs only. The thing is, there's only so much I can do in a group. I can play my role to perfection, but if the rest of the group doesn't know how to play, it matters not. We all die. I frankly decided not to subject myself to that by quitting WoW shortly after I reached 85. I just couldn't find the motivation to crawl through dungeons and dealing with all that when I knew I could just go play something else for a while and come back a couple of patches later when things had settled down.
And there are games tailored specifically for the both of you. They're called single player RPGs. EA just released two: Mass Effect 3 and SWTOR. Play those.
So, because I'm concerned about the average MMO Joe not being able to live up to the challenge that GW2 is going to provide (if what we've heard/seen so far is correct), I should limit myself to singleplayer games? Nah mate, I'll just have to find a decent guild and stay far far away from PUGs if that turns out to be the case.
Funny thing is, I don't even consider myself that great a player, but I know enough to not stand in the fire, CC when needed and toss some off-heals if in a tight spot. I'm looking forward to the challenge. What I'm not looking forward to is all the drama this could potentially result in when the PUG I'm in wipes and everybody starts blaming everybody. Drama kills the fun for me instantly. That's where my concern lies. But hopefully I'll be able to find some people who are up for that challenge while being down to earth.
I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
GW2 is yet another step forward in the evolution of MMO's. Soon the term GW2-clone will be born XD
this might happen. if scalable dynamic events become succesfull and the new market standard, then we will see GW2-Clones. and the same discussion will start about if this is correct.
people say it is wrong, to call Lotro or AoC and others a WoW clone, because all together are EQ-clones. this is a valid point of view. but WoW evolved it and implemented it 1st time in a way that caused the masses to buy in.
same with dynamic events. the roots are the public quests we saw in WAR and later in RIFT. but people will recognize, that GW2 was the 1st game implementing it correctly, so that the good old quest-system was blowed out of the water. at least i hope so.
even if dynamic events are techincally just clever designed questchains presented differently.
I'd rather keep to the old ways if it means avoiding all of this crappy trend towards twitch combat. Every single game releasing this year has adopted action combat and it pisses me off.
I'd rather keep to the old ways if it means avoiding all of this crappy trend towards twitch combat. Every single game releasing this year has adopted action combat and it pisses me off.
this trend towards fast-action-based combat is already unholy. aimed combat is just the next step.
i like this playstyle for melee-classes (moves, blocks, dodges, ...). for ranged classes i prefer a more static playstyle which is based on nearly full crowd-control and tactics not operational combat like moves and such.
as a range-fighter, a perfect fight ends with 100% HP. even if the mob had a serious chance to reach me and one-hit me immediately, he never made it, because i know my class, and reacted fast enough to avoid such a situation. for this type of combat, you have 1st get rid of linked mobs and introduce again a versatile pulling-game. now introduce trash mobs with hgh HP, which is also better for the melees for longer lasting interesting fights. and on top long lasting CC-skills. plus a real dangerous environment with weird pathing and riky adds.
a good game would treat closerange-fighters and longrange-fighters different. i cant see that any game ever did that correctly. EQ1 was perfect for some range classes. but dull combat for close-range. nowadays they implemented the opposite.
And another thread overtaken by "I've not read up on anything but......., because I'm right". If your against something in this game or doubt something is correct please post links to your evidence and/or sources. Stating bold accusations about a game that's yet to hit the shelves without any proof is about as convincing as a Bigfoot report. Link a video, a review, a wiki page or a developers blog. It's not hard and goes both ways.
OT;- Good post, will be fun watching the old skool mmo players in WvWvW playing a turret. Easy kills.
If a game allows your character to select between light, medium or heavy armour then isn't that a new type of holy trinity. It's not as if ArenaNet have abolished the holy trinity they just got rid of dedicated healers and gave its players another trinity.
One....Light armour
Two.....medium armour
Three...heavy armour
now David 1 + 1 + 1 equals three.
What is the dictionary definition of trinity well, David, a group of three things is a simple one.
So, yet another MMORPG aritcle that fails on definition. GW2 does indeed have a trinity in its gameplay.
Wow, what a trinity... how about red white and blue? just as relevant. GW1 was not gear based and did not have a typical "aggro" mechanism with taunts and such to keep the ennemy on you while the less armored members stayed behind, instead all classes had at least "some" skills available to preserve their life by blocking or reducing damage. In a non gear based game, whatever armor you'll wear won't be the main factor in the way you fight... a caster in robes looks fragile but he can cast stoneskin and be tougher than the plated warrior. GW2 goes one step further by removing the more obvious "healing class" you can try and see trinities everywhere but that's just you.
Thank goodness is right. The trinity has to be the most artificial thing every made in tactics. It was all just an easy button for game designers to control the script on fights. I still remember the first time I learned about it, my reaction was "your joking right?".
Although I am excited to try Guild Wars 2 and the new type of combat system in order to give my opinion.... I don't agree with your statement here. The tank, dps, healer roles have been around (at least in my personal experience) since D&D - I don't think it's fair to call it an "articial thing" in terms of tatics. Have you ever been in the miliarty? I only ask because of your mention of tatics. There have always been light armored units, heavy armoued units, medical units, assult units, etc. Different units with very specific goals in combat, some able to take larger amounts of damage, others that are specifically for damage and can't take a hit.
Specific roles in combat such as this have been around since combat itself. The use of the "holy trinity" was just natural when it came to role playing games to give players a specific role, and thus a feeling of being needed. This may have felt necessary when being applied in gaming just so it didn't feel like 5 guys just unloading on a mob in blitzkrieg fashion.
I am very interested to see how the new system pans out, and I will not give my opinion of it until I try it. Who knows, I may like it better. I may not, only time will tell. However, I know a lot of players who do enjoy having a specific role, we'll have to see how that translates to GW2 where you can have somewhat of a role, just not in the traditional sense.
But like I said, often when I speak to gamers, specifically MMO'ers, the first thing they mention is what role they like to play... "i always play healers" or "' I always play tanks" etc. Just saying, perhaps not everyone will enjoy this new method.
Thank GOD!= no more TANK, Heals, DPS cookie cutter molds!
I know how hard is to believe it, even more for the gw2 fanboys, buy actually; people like to play roles in a MMO, they like to play as a tank, a healer, buffer or a dps. gw2 looks more like a console game, some people will love it, a lot of people will hate it.
Thank GOD!= no more TANK, Heals, DPS cookie cutter molds!
I know how hard is to believe it, even more for the gw2 fanboys, buy actually; people like to play roles in a MMO, they like to play as a tank, a healer, buffer or a dps. gw2 looks more like a console game, some people will love it, a lot of people will hate it.
...in your opinion.
Please define alot, because WoW supposedly has 10 million players...that's alot. However there's about 6 billion people in the world...that's alot. The gaming community is rumoured to number around the 1 billion mark (thanks Asia)...that's alot. Wow doesn't seem that impressive all of a sudden.
I think that anyone who plays GW2 and treats it like a new game (instead of a standard mmo) will enjoy playing it and will find a class and play style they like. There's no sub so they may also stick to another sub/free MMO if they choose.
Console game? - ANet have announced that they are looking at possible ports onto consoles but so far it's just an idea, they're focusing on the PC release. Blizzard have said exactly the same thing. How many console gamers would pay a sub though?
Thank goodness is right. The trinity has to be the most artificial thing every made in tactics. It was all just an easy button for game designers to control the script on fights. I still remember the first time I learned about it, my reaction was "your joking right?".
Although I am excited to try Guild Wars 2 and the new type of combat system in order to give my opinion.... I don't agree with your statement here. The tank, dps, healer roles have been around (at least in my personal experience) since D&D - I don't think it's fair to call it an "articial thing" in terms of tatics.
I did a lot of pen and paper RPG, D&D included (2nd ed mostly), from... think 1988 up to around 2002. I honestly don't remember ever coming across anything in the rules or various supplements that points out the holy trinity in all its glorious details and how you have to abide to it. If there was, we sure didn't play that way and we had lots of fun and never had any issues because the party lacked a dedicated healer or was made up of all thieves. The DM would just take that into account when setting the theme of the campaign and balancing the encounters. Sure, it was obvious that having a healer would reduce down time. It was obvious that having a guy with a big shield step in front of the squishy wizard while he was preparing a fireball spell was a wise tactical decision. But the game wasn't built around that as alway being the case, nor would it crumble if you tried to deviate that. So you could say that there was a trinity of sorts based on common and tactical sense... but it wasn't holy. That's the problem with most MMOs. It's holy and if you try to break it, the game breaks because it's balanced around it.
Now, when I look at 4th ed. D&D (haven't had a chance to actually play it), I see a clear MMO inspiration in the way abilities and classes work and a clear holy trinity inspiration where combat and encounter balancing is concerned. But that just tells me that D&D adopted the holy trinity from MMOs rather than inventing it. My guess is to make it more familiar to MMO players and make it easier/quicker for the DM, especially inexperienced ones, to create and balance combat encounters.
I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Comments
Alright, presuming the game plays the way Anet says it will, and thus far all video evidence I've seen seems to support it...
There will be 5 heals in every party. There will be 5 dps in every party. There will be 5 controllers in every party. There will be 5 tanks in every party.
There will be five people in every party. And they will fill ALL roles.
Your role as a member in a GW2 Party is:
1) Provide sufficient damage to kill all enemies in the most efficient way possible
2) Stay alive using a combination of movement, delf heals, and defensive skills.
3) Use debuffs/lockdowns to reduce all incoming enemy damage in any worthwhile way you can
4) Provide any healing to other members when needed
5) Attract enemy attention to draw off from a wounded team mate
6) Revive fallen team members
And the most important one of all:
7) Think of the fly, adapt to the changing battlefield, and know when to apply the first 6. Then DO IT.
I've seen multiple videos where some moron with a shield gets 2-shot because he thinks he's supposed to stand there and get beat on. Health pools, armor mitigation, and incoming heals are not strong enough to support theindustry standard design of "Tank gets beat down, heals spam him to keep him alive, DPS just eneds to stay out of fire and spam optimal rotations". Everyone will have to take an active part in the survival of the team.
Frankly, one of my closet fears is that if it REALLY works that way, it will be too alien and harsh for too many people, and Anet won't have a sustainable playerbase.
One of my other worries is that it either WON'T work that way, or that they will cave in and change it to appease players.
In the end it needs to be fun.
I have serious concerns that it will be too tedious or make me worry about things I prefer to avoid in trinity games. Hopefully they'll provide an open beta or trial period, because I have major concerns about the game.
That's not really a selling point to me at this point. I think that playstyle may limit their playerbase. There's a fine line between challenging gameplay and gamplay that feels like work.
Bless the arrogance of ArenaNet's fans. In 2011 the maker of Angry Birds who sold 20M copies of his game stated that consoles are dead and casual games on iPhones was the future. As it turned out console gaming was fine.
ArenaNet came out and made the claim that they were making a game without the holy trinity. The presumption here was that all other MMOs use this holy trinity... as a matter of fact very few do.
Class roles in most MMOs include tank, healer, DPS, controller, and support.
The tank's job is to soak damage.
The healer's job is to heal damage.
The DPS' job is to do the vast majority of damage.
The controller's job is to juggle enemies.
The support's job is to proviide group buffs.
I'd say every MMO has classes that fit this distinction. The "holy trinity" world view is something that ANet has come up with to try and make other MMOs look simple and make their's look complicated.
Just because the WoW matchmaker states "Healer/Tank/DPS" doesn't mean that is howy ou match people up. You need controllers to clear out trash and do certain bosses when you have ads rushes. You will need specific group buffs so you will bring people just for the buffs they provide.
Even when you look at the role of a player in a specific battle it's not entirely limited to just their class. Blizzard might make a boss that will require healers to DPS with their DPS spells. There might be a boss that requires a cloth wearing warlock to tank. There might be a boss that requires a melee warrior to control via kiting.
There are tones of MMOs out there challenging what ArenaNet calls "the holy trinity" by making people do different roles.
By eliminating the holy trinity and making everyone act like every role they actually further ferment the people getting carried. In something like WoW people say DPS might get carried by tanks and healers. The reason for this is because players with more time and more 'skills' are attracted to being tanks and healers.
If you have six REALLY good players and four REALLY bad players those four REALLY bad players are still going to get carried. It's just like Borderlands.
Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/users/thetroublmaker
And that's fine. It's not for everyone. I'm just tired of
Tank stands in the designated spot, spams aggro abilities, rotates defensive abilities
Healer spams heals on tank, tops off otehrs where needed
DPS spams best DPS rotation
Occasionally people have to stay out of fire.
I was a dynamic, fast changing battlefield where EVERYONE is required to pay attention and think in combat.
To Troublmaker: You're right to a point. And yes Anet's claims of killing the trinity are hype. Even GW2 has those three roles. It's just that people will be required (hopefully) to do more than their niche on every fight. WoW's 5 man and raid combat, after years of it, bore the hell out of me. I want something that rewards thinking.
And yes there's the possibility of stupid carries. I'll grladly vote to kick them every time, if I can help it. Or find a solid group and stick with them.
Blizzard set up a specific hard modes system to deal with this. When doing 10-man hard modes it is totally personal responsibliity where everyone has to do their roles. Alternatively you can do the easy modes and just stand in place and tank and spank.
I don't think MMOs can actually reward thinking. The genre is not really setup that way. In any game that is mass and multiplayer you have the exact same thing that happens in anything that is multi-person and massive... a wave of people doing simple things. If things get too complicated it becomes complicated for a few people and not others.
MMOs that have tried to market on just being harder/challenging often just become known as tedious.
Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/users/thetroublmaker
Having to move around consistently was what made tera so exhausting for me. Especially in dungeons.
Sigh but to be honest if you love fantasy novels and want to play like you are in one then this is the game for it, no tanks just distraction movement evasion each boss battle could be written down as a n awesome action sequence with numerous near death experience with everyone getting in to do damage help someone and setup combo's.
Sounds refreshing, the older I get though the more difficult it may be to play this and be competitive. IT may signal my wthdrawl from the genre all together if i find my skill cap too low.
First, to the post in green:
A trinity system is a system with THREE dedicated roles. Three.
trinity [?tr?n?t?]n pl -ties
1. a group of three
2. the state of being threefold
It's already been shown that not only are there more than three roles. (you only have to scroll up to see the most recent example of this), but the 'holy trinity' (tank, dps, healer) has been proven MULTIPLE times to not exist in this game. It's not hype, it's fact, and it's asinine that we are still here 4 months later trying to debate something that's already been proven. For one, you don't have a dedicated tank in this game, it DOESN'T have aggro mechanics. Mobs / bosses pick their target through a variety of factors (not hate), and furthermore they are constantly changing who they chose to attack throughout the fight. That alone proves that the 'holy trinity' is gone. Now, you could argue that it's been replaced with a 'different trinity' as some have in the passed, however you would still be ignoring the numerous examples of how there are more than three roles.
To troublemaker:
Why don't you think MMOs can reward player thought? They do it all the time. While yes, a lot of games are getting dumbed down, people who play them more intelligently get rewarded in a number of ways (they earn gold faster, they get more rewards from pvp, they get the better gear quicker, etc.) It may not be as flashy as a giant 'level up!' sign over your head, but it's there.
I think this is where the concept of 'easy to play, difficult to master' applies best. Just look at the first GW. That game is really easy to pick up and play, however some of the harder content gets really difficult. You aren't forced to do the harder content, but if you want to beat it it requires a lot of effort and tact. The same can be said of games like Everquest, or Vanilla WoW, TERA, to name a few.
On the up side, more individual responsibility will make things more dynamic, challenging, and fun.
On the down side, the above only holds true if you are lucky enough to be in a group with only other skilled players.
More individual responsibility means one player is not going to be able to carry others.
If there is really no aggro mechanic in this game, the weakest links in your party will simply get killed one by one until not enouch players are left to succeed.
If there are aggro mechanics/abilites that allow use to raise/lower personal aggro then weak playser will simply spam their lower aggro moves until the boss kills the healer and continues killing them one by one.
Maybe WoW has made me cynical but I hate having to trust the success/failure of the group on others ability to play. Hell in WoW it's bad enough and you see pleny of people who can't do one job let alone all 3 and ALSO be able to switch dynamically between them. I have a feeling random pugs will just not be doable, at all.
GW2 Forever !!!!
From what I've seen, if you don't pay attention to dodging and self-heals, you're dead. Support heals are not sufficient to keep you going.
I read the objections to other combat systems vs GW2 here, and as an AoC-player I'll chip in with an objection to your quipped 'GW2 will be skill-based'.
AoC's combat system is also skill-based. Granted, yes, there's less of the active, action-oriented stuff that GW2 seems it will have (and I look forward to trying it out, have picked up the pre-purchase!), but you still need skill playing AoC, and combat in any MMO, whether PvE or PvP - but of course, both these types and mostly the latter, are severely influenced by gear-dependency in AoC.
And I agree that although GW2 has a new take on it, the holy trinity still exists, but its boundaries have been smudged out seeing as who takes on the particular role of the trinity at different times will be changing depending on the situation (e.g. like the thief going in to 'tank' to draw attention away from the guardian, etc.)
It will be very interesting to try out - feeling excited about next beta weekend in GW2
I think that's a valid concern and one I share as well.
Look at the big mess that Cataclysm created when it was launched and people suddenly had to CC and not stand in the fire because the healer could no longer spam heal everyone forever without running out of mana. Dungeon crawls slowed to a... well... crawl. The forums were on fire with people who did not enjoy this new level of difficulty. PUGs were a mess and some people had to resort to guild runs only. The thing is, there's only so much I can do in a group. I can play my role to perfection, but if the rest of the group doesn't know how to play, it matters not. We all die. I frankly decided not to subject myself to that by quitting WoW shortly after I reached 85. I just couldn't find the motivation to crawl through dungeons and dealing with all that when I knew I could just go play something else for a while and come back a couple of patches later when things had settled down.
I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
And there are games tailored specifically for the both of you. They're called single player RPGs. EA just released two: Mass Effect 3 and SWTOR. Play those.
Re: SWTOR
"Remember, remember - Kakk says 'December.'"
So, because I'm concerned about the average MMO Joe not being able to live up to the challenge that GW2 is going to provide (if what we've heard/seen so far is correct), I should limit myself to singleplayer games? Nah mate, I'll just have to find a decent guild and stay far far away from PUGs if that turns out to be the case.
Funny thing is, I don't even consider myself that great a player, but I know enough to not stand in the fire, CC when needed and toss some off-heals if in a tight spot. I'm looking forward to the challenge. What I'm not looking forward to is all the drama this could potentially result in when the PUG I'm in wipes and everybody starts blaming everybody. Drama kills the fun for me instantly. That's where my concern lies. But hopefully I'll be able to find some people who are up for that challenge while being down to earth.
I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
this might happen. if scalable dynamic events become succesfull and the new market standard, then we will see GW2-Clones. and the same discussion will start about if this is correct.
people say it is wrong, to call Lotro or AoC and others a WoW clone, because all together are EQ-clones. this is a valid point of view. but WoW evolved it and implemented it 1st time in a way that caused the masses to buy in.
same with dynamic events. the roots are the public quests we saw in WAR and later in RIFT. but people will recognize, that GW2 was the 1st game implementing it correctly, so that the good old quest-system was blowed out of the water. at least i hope so.
even if dynamic events are techincally just clever designed questchains presented differently.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
I'd rather keep to the old ways if it means avoiding all of this crappy trend towards twitch combat. Every single game releasing this year has adopted action combat and it pisses me off.
this trend towards fast-action-based combat is already unholy. aimed combat is just the next step.
i like this playstyle for melee-classes (moves, blocks, dodges, ...). for ranged classes i prefer a more static playstyle which is based on nearly full crowd-control and tactics not operational combat like moves and such.
as a range-fighter, a perfect fight ends with 100% HP. even if the mob had a serious chance to reach me and one-hit me immediately, he never made it, because i know my class, and reacted fast enough to avoid such a situation. for this type of combat, you have 1st get rid of linked mobs and introduce again a versatile pulling-game. now introduce trash mobs with hgh HP, which is also better for the melees for longer lasting interesting fights. and on top long lasting CC-skills. plus a real dangerous environment with weird pathing and riky adds.
a good game would treat closerange-fighters and longrange-fighters different. i cant see that any game ever did that correctly. EQ1 was perfect for some range classes. but dull combat for close-range. nowadays they implemented the opposite.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
OT;- Good post, will be fun watching the old skool mmo players in WvWvW playing a turret. Easy kills.
Wow, what a trinity... how about red white and blue? just as relevant. GW1 was not gear based and did not have a typical "aggro" mechanism with taunts and such to keep the ennemy on you while the less armored members stayed behind, instead all classes had at least "some" skills available to preserve their life by blocking or reducing damage. In a non gear based game, whatever armor you'll wear won't be the main factor in the way you fight... a caster in robes looks fragile but he can cast stoneskin and be tougher than the plated warrior. GW2 goes one step further by removing the more obvious "healing class" you can try and see trinities everywhere but that's just you.
Although I am excited to try Guild Wars 2 and the new type of combat system in order to give my opinion.... I don't agree with your statement here. The tank, dps, healer roles have been around (at least in my personal experience) since D&D - I don't think it's fair to call it an "articial thing" in terms of tatics. Have you ever been in the miliarty? I only ask because of your mention of tatics. There have always been light armored units, heavy armoued units, medical units, assult units, etc. Different units with very specific goals in combat, some able to take larger amounts of damage, others that are specifically for damage and can't take a hit.
Specific roles in combat such as this have been around since combat itself. The use of the "holy trinity" was just natural when it came to role playing games to give players a specific role, and thus a feeling of being needed. This may have felt necessary when being applied in gaming just so it didn't feel like 5 guys just unloading on a mob in blitzkrieg fashion.
I am very interested to see how the new system pans out, and I will not give my opinion of it until I try it. Who knows, I may like it better. I may not, only time will tell. However, I know a lot of players who do enjoy having a specific role, we'll have to see how that translates to GW2 where you can have somewhat of a role, just not in the traditional sense.
But like I said, often when I speak to gamers, specifically MMO'ers, the first thing they mention is what role they like to play... "i always play healers" or "' I always play tanks" etc. Just saying, perhaps not everyone will enjoy this new method.
I know how hard is to believe it, even more for the gw2 fanboys, buy actually; people like to play roles in a MMO, they like to play as a tank, a healer, buffer or a dps. gw2 looks more like a console game, some people will love it, a lot of people will hate it.
...in your opinion.
Please define alot, because WoW supposedly has 10 million players...that's alot. However there's about 6 billion people in the world...that's alot. The gaming community is rumoured to number around the 1 billion mark (thanks Asia)...that's alot. Wow doesn't seem that impressive all of a sudden.
I think that anyone who plays GW2 and treats it like a new game (instead of a standard mmo) will enjoy playing it and will find a class and play style they like. There's no sub so they may also stick to another sub/free MMO if they choose.
Console game? - ANet have announced that they are looking at possible ports onto consoles but so far it's just an idea, they're focusing on the PC release. Blizzard have said exactly the same thing. How many console gamers would pay a sub though?
I did a lot of pen and paper RPG, D&D included (2nd ed mostly), from... think 1988 up to around 2002. I honestly don't remember ever coming across anything in the rules or various supplements that points out the holy trinity in all its glorious details and how you have to abide to it. If there was, we sure didn't play that way and we had lots of fun and never had any issues because the party lacked a dedicated healer or was made up of all thieves. The DM would just take that into account when setting the theme of the campaign and balancing the encounters. Sure, it was obvious that having a healer would reduce down time. It was obvious that having a guy with a big shield step in front of the squishy wizard while he was preparing a fireball spell was a wise tactical decision. But the game wasn't built around that as alway being the case, nor would it crumble if you tried to deviate that. So you could say that there was a trinity of sorts based on common and tactical sense... but it wasn't holy. That's the problem with most MMOs. It's holy and if you try to break it, the game breaks because it's balanced around it.
Now, when I look at 4th ed. D&D (haven't had a chance to actually play it), I see a clear MMO inspiration in the way abilities and classes work and a clear holy trinity inspiration where combat and encounter balancing is concerned. But that just tells me that D&D adopted the holy trinity from MMOs rather than inventing it. My guess is to make it more familiar to MMO players and make it easier/quicker for the DM, especially inexperienced ones, to create and balance combat encounters.
I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.