It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Praetalus Originally posted by Bunks 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.
Originally posted by chibineko89last i checked you cant do a dungeon in WoW with 5 rogues in gw2 you can do a dungeon with 5 thiefs since they can all do dmg, heal themselves, and evade/kite the mobs
"Winning" at EVE Online since May, 2007!
In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™ "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Everyone talks about this being new, or different. I can list a half dozen if not more games that have done this previously that were either good or bad.
In no paticular order.
-Star Trek Online
-Star Wars Galaxies
And thats just a few that come to mind. I am sure there are others if I looked for five minutes on Google.
All in all every game that comes out now, is the same crap rehashed for a ever simpler gaming population. Gone are the days of Ultima Online.
So much crap, so little quality.
Originally posted by L0C0Man Guild Wars 2 does have a trinity, but with two main differences differences. First one is that instead of tank-heal-DPS we have damage-support-control. While some classes have heavier armor than others, or more health, there's no class that will be able to continously get hit by a boss and survive, nor any class that will be able to keep it alive for too long. So basically there won't be any class devoted to tanking or healing, but people that do everything at some point, either damage (DPS), support (healing, providing protections and the like) and control (a bit like crowd control, like the guardian barriers or the ranger traps, to name a few). The other one, and the biggest one IMHO, is that it isn't a "hard" trinity. I remember them saying somewhere that they wanted to really be a "bring the player, not the class" game, so while there is a trinity of sorts, every single class in the game can perform any of those roles, and will have to perform them at some point to really be effective. So there's no "oh, sorry, you're a mage and we need a tank here, you can't go". Also, if they achieve their goals as they've been stated, people won't say things like "oh, sorry, we need a healing specced elementalist for this one", and more "ok, for this fight when the boss does X we need you to attune yourself to water to help keeping us alive". They specifically said that it would be perfectly feasible to do a dungeon with, for example, 5 thieves. And, at least to me, after watching several videos, doesn't seem they're too far off that goal. We'll see for ourselves when the game goes live (or, for those of us that pre-purchased, in the next beta.. )
This guy gets it.
Yes there is a soft-trinity of sorts with DPS, support and control. But the thing is that while you can spec into one aspect more than the others, there are no builds that will allow you to completely neglect the others.
Every weapon has damage skills, every weapon has control skills and every person has to bring their own heals.
Go look at the Warrior weapon skills, every single weapon has a control effect in the form of a cripple, daze, immobilise or knockdown (except for the underwater spear, but you'll always have both a spear and a harpoon).
Its pretty much impossible to make a character that is unable to do damage, support and control all at the same time. The extent you focus on each of them depends on your weapon setups and traits, but noone can completely neglect the other two in favour of one aspect.
Originally posted by Hodo Everyone talks about this being new, or different. I can list a half dozen if not more games that have done this previously that were either good or bad. In no paticular order. -Fallen Earth -Mortal Online -Darkfall Online -Anarchy Online -Roma Victor -Xsyon Online -Star Trek Online -Star Wars Galaxies And thats just a few that come to mind. I am sure there are others if I looked for five minutes on Google. All in all every game that comes out now, is the same crap rehashed for a ever simpler gaming population. Gone are the days of Ultima Online.
Sorry bud, but Star Trek Online definitely suffered from the trinity. Cruisers = Tanks, Science Vessels = Healers / Controllers, Escorts = DPS. AO and SWG blended the roles a bit more, but it was still alive and present.
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.
From my perspective D&D was definately NOT based on the Holy Trinity to that significant a degree. The Holy Triinity, as far as I'm concerned, is a VERY SPECIFIC IMPLIMENTATION of specialization. It's the specific implimentation, not the fact the game features Specialization that defines it as using the Trinity. Many games feature Specialization without implimenting the Trinity. Both chess and baseball have specialization...they don't have the Trinity, however.
If we look at D&D, at least the versions I'm familiar with......
Yes you had Front Line Fighters in Heavy Armor....but those characters didn't just have good defensive abilities...they also had very good offensive abilities as well.... moreover they provided protection through positional interception and engagement (i.e. collision detection)..... which was a limited and tactical method of protection.
This is very different from the classical Trinity version of a Tank.....Which is a character specialized in damage absorption/mitigation with limited offensive capabilities and a pervasive abillity to attract attacks to himself through the use of an aggro mechanic.
Yes you had Wizards that could cast damaging spells like Fireball and Lightning...but Wizards were AT LEAST as usefull, if not more for thier utility spells like Fly, Invisability, Feather Fall, Wall of Iron and Hold Portal as they were for doing damage. These sort of utility spells touch upon several important dimensions/roles of combat/adventuring that aren't even present in most Trinity based MMO's...such as recon/combat intelligence, manuver, area denial, etc.
The same holds true for Rogues.... they weren't really the "DPS" guys...they were the guys you went to for Stealth/Recon... They were the guys you went to get valuable intelligence about what hazards lay ahead of the party without alerting the enemy to the parties presence....and the guys you went to to find ways to circumvent those hazards (disarming traps, unlocking doors, discovering secret passages) and to enrich the rewards for the party (i.e. finding the secret treasury and opening the locked strongbox). Again these are a dynamic/role that doesn't even exist in typical Trinity MMO's.
Yes, you had Clerics who could heal...but they too had entirely different dimensions beyond that...from holding undead at bay to casting auguries that would advise the party upon the wisdom of following a specific course of action.
Alot of peoples objections (certainly mine) to the Trinity is NOT that it pushes players into specialized roles, it's that the SPECIFIC IMPLIMENTATION makes for such a shallow and oversimplistic combat/adventuring gameplay dynamic that it is largely unsatisfying for us. It doesn't address/allow for alot of the gameplay aspects that made something like a PnP RPG adventure fun and tacticaly interesting. YMMV.
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.
GW2 will at least have the advantage that everyone starts at lvl1 and has to go water 10 melons. *goes and reserves URL*. While leveling to 80 they will have plenty of time to learn the mechanics. I'm sure some people will end up standing in the fire, spamming their skills and dying really fast, and they might complain about that. But I hope most people will figure out how and when to dodge and block and move out of the fire over the course of dozens of hours of game time.
Something else that will immensely help the new GW2 style of play is the use of vent, TS, etc. If the player currently tanking can just call for help, instead of having to type in chat or hope that the next player in line to tank will pay enough attention. Maybe ANet is the first to recognize that the use of voice has spread enough to support this play style in general and in PUGs, and not just in guilds and the odd operation.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a built-in voice client...
Originally posted by ButeoRegalis 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.
No, basically at the start of Cataclysm they nerfed healers. Everyone already had crowd control skills, its just you didnt have to use them until healers got nerfed (heals were made less potent and mana consumption became an issue). So Cataclysm was a bit of a culture shock for players.
I don't think many post-WoW players will understand that the trinity system was basically a shortcut for developers to handle combat. It's easier to program & balance around a hate table, than to have a truly dynamic content in which players are getting targetted based on what they are doing, rather than what class they are / whether or not they taunted. There were also a lot more technical limitations around the time of everquest than they are now. So nowadays there is really no good reason for developers to still be basing games around that system, other than the fact that people have gotten used to it.
Hell, look at single-player RPGs. Many of them didn't have a trinity, but now more & more of them are building the system in. It's something we've grown to accept, and thus assume it's a necessity.
Originally posted by Vorthanion Originally posted by Hodo Everyone talks about this being new, or different. I can list a half dozen if not more games that have done this previously that were either good or bad. In no paticular order. -Fallen Earth -Mortal Online -Darkfall Online -Anarchy Online -Roma Victor -Xsyon Online -Star Trek Online -Star Wars Galaxies And thats just a few that come to mind. I am sure there are others if I looked for five minutes on Google. All in all every game that comes out now, is the same crap rehashed for a ever simpler gaming population. Gone are the days of Ultima Online.
And just to set the facts straight, Good, bad or indifferent, Anarchy Online was as trinity as it gets
Originally posted by Faelan Originally posted by Kakkzooka Originally posted by Faelan Originally posted by jbombard 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.
Yeah same here. The game looks awesome, and I look forward to the challenge, but that will be a challenge likely seen only be people in guilds. If the game is awesome as it appears to be, you will get a ton of people from WoW. And a ton of those people will suck. I think some people underestimate the stubborness of sucky players to continue to suck. Like I said I may be cynical but I have a feeling with that much individual responsibility I will not want to be in a group with people unless I know they can pull their weight, and I don't think I will be the only one. And this will really go against the otherwise drop in and play nature of the rest of the game.
I love every single bit of the GW2 concept so far. It is close in the spirit to the basic idea of classes in early RPGs as the different skill sets essentially complementing to the party's success, but not limited to a certain role. Actually the holly trinity was initially Fighter-Mage-Thief (no priest and healing classes)... All 3 had both close combat and ranged combat potential (no ranged/close combat classes)! It was rather the difference in approach to solving the problems, rather than ability to solve certain problems and inability to solve the others - for example a fighter would bash the door to open it, a thief would pick a lock, while mage would either destroy it with fireball or ... say.... teleport on the other side...
BTW - I hate you people who cite the posts longer than my screen! I hope the forum administration bans your asses permanently.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 Originally posted by Praetalus Originally posted by Bunks 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?".
D&D was completely based on the trinity when it came to combat. Sure characters could do other things and had other odd specialties, but at it's core, it was based on the trinity. The whole idea of a rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric party came from D&D. And to say rogues weren't DPS guys, did you ever really play the game? Backstab?
Originally posted by stevebmbsqd D&D was completely based on the trinity when it came to combat. Sure characters could do other things and had other odd specialties, but at it's core, it was based on the trinity. The whole idea of a rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric party came from D&D. And to say rogues weren't DPS guys, did you ever really play the game? Backstab?
I respectfully disagree. Dunno about you, but I did a lot of 2nd ed D&D (which came out long before EQ et al.) with various groups both as player and DM.
Thief did have backstab, obviously, but it was never a source of significant overall DPS. It was often used as an opening attack only. When that wasn't the case, it usually required a couple of rounds of maneuvering and several skill rolls, which had a high probability of failure unless the thief was high level or the battlefield had lots of places to hide (forest at night was just about the perfect place for a low level thief). Overall, that significantly reduced his DPS contribution and it was very situational.
Magic-user DPS was also very situational. We had plenty of fights where he would contribute almost nothing DPS wise, only to have his DPS spike through the roof when he tossed a fireball into a company of orcs. Because he had limited spell use, especially at low levels, he would always try to save them for the big fight. He was extremely useful out of combat though, sometimes using spells to completely bypass fights that would have resulted in a total party kill.
As for clerics, they did heal, but usually not in-combat unless it was a tough fight where healing was needed right now. There was always a fear that some foe would try to interrupt his healing spell. Why? Because he was usually up front bashing in skulls, thus being vulnerable to interruption. Being able to wear heavy armor while having good HP and THACO meant that he was well suited for combat. He could tank when needed, heal at the same time and did OK DPS. Against undeads he was outright crazy.
The best overall DPSer though, was the fighter. He could attack all day long and could do so more often than any of the other classes with big damage bonuses on top of that and access to pretty much all weapons. Sure, there were fights where the thief, magic-user or cleric (turn/destroy undead) would shine, but when those situations were not present, it was always the fighter who did the big damage. Because of his high HP and low AC, he was generally also the best tank.
So basically, in 2nd ed D&D the classes were nothing like their MMO counterparts in terms of playstyle. You could argue that there was a type of quadrinity between the four archetypes, but it was nothing like The Holy Trinity that we see in MMOs today and unlike MMOs, you could break it without breaking the game in the process. It just meant the DM would have to make encounters that took in mind that this particular party had 2 thieves and 2 magic-users with no cleric and fighter backup.
Now, if you're talking 4th ed D&D, then it's a completely different picture, but that came out long after the holy trinity had been established.
I find the whole idea that AN has eliminated the holy trinity amusing. How have they done so?
1. Giving every class nearly instant combat rez
2. Giving every class self heal
3. Dumb down the bosses
Hey, you can do the same thing in any other mmo and eliminate the trinity as well.
Personally I don't care much. i won't be doing any boss fights. I play a healer in other mmos and there is no healer class in GW2. I will enjoy the "action oriented combat" (re: console game type fighting) for a while (already ordered the digital deluxe edition) but then move on - just as I have from every other fps game that I have played.
Originally posted by tordurbar 3. Dumb down the bosses
This made me laugh. You will be in for a rude shock.
Trinity is very much alive in this game. Its just dressed differently. I have to say I like the way its dressed in GW2 but fact is someone in the team will damage mitigate (everyone), someone will cast heal (everyone) and someone will focus on DPS (everyone). Some will lean to some rolls more then others. I know my wife really wants to spec deeply into water just to be the helping hand in fights. GJ ANet but this game did not kill the Trinity.
=-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums.
So what game in the last 6 years has used the holy trinity anyway??? Everything lately has just been "the game is so easy you dont need anyone else or to play any role"......IF there is little or no heals then that tells me either A) the players are overpowered or the content is too easy......We will see how it plays out but Im guessing the game is easy.
Below is what Eric Flannum (Lead Designer, ArenaNet) had to say about the trinity in GW2. Sorry if it was already posted, just skimmed through the second half of the thread. Sorry badSpock, you could have used this earlier to try an get across what you were saying.
“Players could make a build that resembles the trinity but it could never truly be the trinity. You cannot for example make a dedicated healer no matter how much you pump into your support trait lines. When you start getting to tougher encounters no matter how much armor and health you have you will never be able to stand toe to toe for long against most of the foes you’ll face. Because of this even a 5 person group that has 3 dps focused characters, a support focused character, and a damage soaking character (which is a standard trinity setup) will not play anything like a standard trinity group. If those players insisted on playing like a standard trinity group they could succeed against the easier content in the game but probably couldn’t finish a story mode dungeon let alone an explorable dungeon or some of the tougher events in the game. “
He then went on to make a more lengthy second post which read -
“To go a little bit more in depth with the answer I gave, it doesn’t really matter which professions you bring. Over the beta weekend I played through the dungeon with several different journalists and getting through was never a matter of bringing particular professions or even changing the builds that people were using. When we hit a tough patch people would change which weapons or utilities they were using but nobody ever had to go respec their traits. I was in groups that wiped multiple times in story mode but I was also in groups that did not wipe at all in story mode and was in one group that made it through explorable mode (we wiped a lot in that one). It all came down to how well we coordinated and how well we responded to the situations we encountered.
For example, in the explorable run through I think it was two journalists who were both warriors (one may have been a guardian, I’m having trouble recalling), our producer Chris Whiteside with a ranger, Izzy playing an elementalist, and myself playing an engineer. At different times Izzy was our condition removal guy, our debuffer, and our “tank” (bait is a more appropriate term actually). He was our most important player because he was our best player but he was actually very support/healing specced. The important thing about that group was that we were all talking and coordinating our efforts and coming up with strategies together. Those strategies never really revolved around specific skills but rather things like “We need condition removal” or “we need to stack as much vulnerability on this guy as possible” or even “we need Izzy to run around attracting attention while the rest of us activate the traps built into the area to kill the hordes of incoming mobs”. I hope that helps shed some light on how the game plays.”
Originally posted by Faelan Originally posted by stevebmbsqd D&D was completely based on the trinity when it came to combat. Sure characters could do other things and had other odd specialties, but at it's core, it was based on the trinity. The whole idea of a rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric party came from D&D. And to say rogues weren't DPS guys, did you ever really play the game? Backstab?
Did you even play second edition AD&D? A backstabbing rogue was a DPS machine.... 4x at level 10. Sure things were situational...but comparing what you can do in a PnP game and a scripted MMO is like comparing apples and oranges. When it came down to it, combat was still pretty much healer, ranged dps, melee dps, and a tank of sorts.
The simple matter is that the holy trinity has been used in other WoW style mmorpgs that set its meaning to - DEDICATED HEAL/TANK/DPS roles...
By dedicated I mean you can play a druid that can be dps/healer/tank but you can't play all of the roles at the same time, hence you only play one role
Sure GW2 has Heals and protection(not tanking though) but they are so alien to other games that you can not simply say its a Holy Trinity.
How about we all settle in on a new name? Active Trinity sounds way better to me
Originally posted by stevebmbsqd Originally posted by Faelan Originally posted by stevebmbsqd D&D was completely based on the trinity when it came to combat. Sure characters could do other things and had other odd specialties, but at it's core, it was based on the trinity. The whole idea of a rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric party came from D&D. And to say rogues weren't DPS guys, did you ever really play the game? Backstab?
Did you since you're constantly asking other people if they did? Notice that I've already stated that I did a lot of 2nd ed AD&D back in the day. Did you even read my post?
So, I went back and looked at the rules to see if I/we interpreted something wrong back in the day that could justify your claim (haven't been playing 2nd AD&D for 12 years). What I found there just confirmed my conclusion that the thief is not a DPS machine in 2nd ed AD&D. His backstab simply doesn't support that compared to the fighter. The rules clearly state that backstab bonus only applies on his first attack, only when target is unaware of the thief and only from behind, only against humanoids and the backstab modifier (x4 at 10th level as you correctly state) only applies to the base damage of the weapon which is something like 1D6 with a shortsword (most popular thief weapon when I was playing), not magical plusses, STR bonus and what else. So if he rolls 4 with the die, that's some 12 points of extra damage due to a backstab over normal attack damage if using a x4 damage multiplier. Meanwhile, the 10th level fighter gets an extra attack per round due to weapon specialization which can easily dish out 12 points or more due to bigger weapon, more STR modifiers and weapon spec bonus. Furthermore, he can do this every round whereas it's silly to assume the thief can pull off a backstab every round unless the player managed to bribe the DM into ignoring both the rules and common sense with enough slices of free pizza. Heck, a lot of the time you're not even fighting humanoids, so you're left with no backstab and regular thief THAC0/weapon damage isn't exactly all that great and certainly not better than the fighter. So unless you're willing to come up with some concrete combat examples, either by yourself or somewhere on the net, that supports your opinion of the thief being a DPS machine in general, not just some very specific special cases, I'm going to call BS on this one. Feel free to disagree.
As for the whole apples and oranges. That's the same conclusion I came to, which is why it's safe to say that the holy trinity wasn't invented by pen and paper. Again, did you read my post? The individual roles as you state, sure, no argument there, but they were not combined in the strict way we see it in MMOs. There were no aggro or taunt mechanics in AD&D, which is crucial in making the holy trinity work. All the tank could do was get in the way and hope that the monsters wouldn't ignore him and go for the squishy targets first. Often, that was not the case. At least not in the countless games that I had the chance to play in or DM myself. Orcs may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, but they know the guy in a robe with a staff or dagger means trouble and that you shouldn't turn your back to a guy in leather armor wielding one or two light stabby weapons.