EQ mastered grouping like no other game and allowed for classes like the Enchanter and Shaman to flourish as viable group members while lying outside the trinity. A good group in EQ was hard to find but when you did it operated like a finely tuned machine.
Nothing about reducing the core roles is "dumbed down".
The fact that someone points out Shaman's purge ability brings up just one of many ways that each WOW class had plenty of little sub-roles they were playing in addition to their primary task.
The trinity itself is just slapping big simplified labels onto classes which in many cases can provide a variety of benefits (my shaman wasn't just a healer, but could also be an interrupter, a kiter, a purger, a cleanser, and/or a buffer.)
So really whether a game has a trinity or not says nothing about the true depth of a given class' playstyle.
Not really, but it does tell us that the mobs are dumb as doorknobs all of them. All trinity games have really stupid AI.
My issue with trinity is tanking, it makes the game dumber and more predictable. Add a better mob AI and remove all taunts and CC and the combat will become very different even if you keep everything else the same.
Aggro should be set on who the mobs easiest kill and who is most dangerous in the group, not on silly taunts. Do you really think a smart dragon or liche would be that dumb?
Well, I don't quite agree with you there because you look at it from a stats point, not from a "reality" point of view.
Think about RL for a sec: you are out at night, and a bunch of guys start shouting trash your way. For the sake of it, let's say they are kids so you assume you may be able to take them on.
On whom do you focus?
The "loudmouth" who is taunting you? The big fella who is quite but looks like he could land a good punch? The thing guy in the back who seems rather cool? Add what other characters you like... I'm sure you'd go for the loudmouth.
Just because you don't go rational about this but rather follow your hurt ego.
And yes, even dragons and liche have egos. So taunts make perfect sense. I mean c'mon, think Braveheart: showing your arse does very little damage to you (well, it could probably blind you or cause nausea...) but it's a perfectly effective taunt.
We players live in a MMORPG world of all information provided, level, class, etc. Imagine this were not the case! You feel like taking on that guy in robes? Oooops, happens to be a "kensai", a swordmaster who is so skilled with his sword that he'd see the use of armour as an insult to his craft. Dang!
You get where I'm coming from?
Then why do players ignore tanks in PvP, even if they call names to their mothers?
What about the natural reaction to hit those that hurt you?
What about the fact no one can shrug a axe hit on their heads as if it was nothing?
And will that kensai do much with an arrow or bullet in his eye?
I have often seen people in pvp in various games go after the tank, or start hitting them because the tank pushed through and is causing havoc, or hitting them. Even when the game mechanics make the tank at best a nuissance, people still go after them because they are following their natural reaction.
I've play a tank on occaision and remember having several people attacking me because I was closer and easier to get to, annoying them, while the range was just picking them apart. They should have went after the squishy high powered range dps and leave just one to slow me down, but they didn't. Sure, you might say they were just bad players, but the funny thing is, I see that happen all the time.
The trinity was originally a quintet: Damage, Threat, Control, Support, and Healing.
Developers hated that much balancing, and certain players hated that much complexity, so things became simpler. Heals became primary support, with backup from others. Tanks became primary control in addition to threat management. Buffing became nearly useless in many games; others (wow) took the route of handing out redundant buffs so specific classes were no longer needed.
depends on what mmo you are talking about
as others have said, the trinity in EQ back in 1999 (13 years ago), was warrior, cleric, enchanter
alot of players disliked this and SOE toned down CC with Velious (2nd expansion) but needing to slow mobs was still necessary (but could be provided by 3 classes instead of 2)
when WOW launched (2004) Blizzard made their mmo paradigm simpler
- no need for mana regen buffs (power regen was innately faster in comparison to EQ)
- no need for slowing mobs (a core feature of EQ)
- little need for CC, it existed but wasnt required for dungeons
- less need for debuffs (in EQ, Enchanters and Shamans were often debuffing to make mobs less magic resistant)
My English teacher talk about prepositions by asking "what could a squirrel do in relation to a stump? "
It might be useful to ask ourselves a similar question, "what can a character do in relation to a monster or mob? " We can also add some parameters like in a typical MMO world where you and the monster are both standing in a cave next each other .
Attack it
Immobilize it for a period of time
Stun or incapacitate it for short period of time
Avoid or evade it
Do something to make it weaker (like a spell)
charm and controll it
Scarritt so it runs away
Deceive it somehow (so it lets you pass)
The following are less used in my experience
Intimidate it
Befriend it
Bribe it
I'm hitting a wall at this point. And it strikes me that I need to include groups of characters and groups of monsters into this line of questioning, but I am on my smart phone and I'm sure my grammar is terrible enough. I'll check back in later...
Good topic. Have a wonderful day.
_____________________________ "Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit"
Originally posted by Alcuin It might be useful to ask ourselves a similar question, "what can a character do in relation to a monster or mob? " We can also add some parameters like in a typical MMO world where you and the monster are both standing in a cave next each other .
Attack it
[list...]
choosing to attack can bring new options
in EQ, at upper levels, attacking also meant
- tash/malo it, so the mob is less resistant
- slow it, so it wouldnt strike as often
- debuff its stats, so it doesnt hit as hard
- if mob is caster, debuff its casting time so it takes longer to cast spells
- snare it, so it doesnt run for help when its near death
EQ also had lulls, some classes like bard,cleric,chanter could reduce the "call for help" range
what other roles would it expand to and how would content be designed to accommodate those roles?
I realize there are a lot of people that don't like the trinity .. and the need to have roles and I appreciate that. Please be mature enough to appreciate that there is at least 1 person in the world that actually thinks they are a good thing. This post isn't about why I think they are a good thing .. I am just curious what other roles you think might work.
Regenerator: What would it be like if mana/energy/etc were more finite and for more difficult encounters you needed someone in your group to cast regenerating buffs and spells? This would essentially be a healer for your mana/energy/etc bar.
Magic/Physical tanks: What if tanking was broken into 2 roles. 1 for traditional warrior style mechanics and another where the clothies were the tanks. This has kinda been done before but not on a gamewide scale. That demon in SSC could be tanked by a warlock. Having played a traditional meatshield for most of TBC I found that fight to be quite interesting to tank along side a warlock. I remember mage-tanking the imps after broodlord in BWL too .. that was a blast and kite tanking the frost vulnerable mobs after the first drake .. man I miss that instance.
Buffer: Basically vanilla wow shaman/paladin .. cleanse bot. This is a tough one. How can this be made into a more fun role overall? It's implementation in early wow is one of the things that to me .. ruined the idea of expanding roles. It was just boring as hell according to all the palys I knew back then.
Crowd Control: I think this is easy enough to make cool. There are plenty of fights that use CC in many MMOs ..
How does it all play out? The first thought is there would need to be encounters that didn't require a tank. Easy enough really. Think SOA in SWTOR without the tanking phase. Also fights that didnt require healers. Not sure how that would work.
Regenerators become a problem really fast .. as you would likely need one for every fight just like healers .. how do you prevent the need for this? Short fights, lots of mobility (buffer could have mobility buffs)
Anyway ... any other ideas?
LOL on topic and your 'posibilities'? Lineage II has them all, aside from the paper-tank (does have a mage tank in heavy though). And pullers..? Hmm... I remember me as dwarf (slowest race in L2 due to short legs) pulling hordes of mobs on my Great Wolf (being close at speed cap with right buffs from a BUFFER )
It's always fun to see ppl talk about a 'what if' if they've only played one (or more than one but all alike) MMO, without even looking what other MMO's are actually offering...
Miracle rifles opposed to miracle plate armor that doesn't tire you and allow you to actually move?
My point is: it is a game.
If it is a master Kensai, maybe he is known by reputation.
If we go by realism all the concept of hit points and instant healing is silly.
I'm still a bit at a loss what you are trying to say (aside from trolling)...?
Yes, of course it's a game... and said game works on mechanics, like NPCs recting stronger to taunts than to attacks.
Is that bad?
Loke feels like the monsters/mobs should be clairvoiant and automatically know which role a character has i.e. he is a tank, he is a healer, he is a DPS, and attack them accordingly.
Fact is that if one was to take the simple availability of class/level information out of the game, you, the gamer, would first have to figure out which character has what role.
Which you could do by just standing there and observing (and probably getting shot to bits) or you could hope for the best that your guess to attack that guy is right.
Now, based on what would you make your choice? Armour? As only healer can wear clothes armour? Or staves? As only healers can wear staves? etc.
The trick here and now is that the enemy can easily sucker you into a trap if you go by that. That's why I brought up the Kensai but I could also have pointed at the classic D&D cleric in his armour.
If you don't know what is really going on you can easily make a fatale choice in combat...
And yes, the Kensai may be known by reputation... but do you every single character in every single game that you are playing?
"Kensai" in the context I'm using it is a character class going back to AD&D's Oriental Adventures.
It is not a title.
So, even a lvl1 Kensai would be fighting without armour because he believes that his swordskills make armour unnecessary.
Originally posted by Alcuin It might be useful to ask ourselves a similar question, "what can a character do in relation to a monster or mob? " We can also add some parameters like in a typical MMO world where you and the monster are both standing in a cave next each other .
Attack it
[list...]
choosing to attack can bring new options
[...]
EQ also had lulls, some classes like bard,cleric,chanter could reduce the "call for help" range
facing 3 giants, lull 2 giants and pull the 3rd
these options *still* exist in Everquest today
I think that most of this is in WoW
@Nadia: True; once the attack begins, the actions & reactions branch out considerably.
@Coretex: I think a lot of it is in WoW. I also think that most of the gameplay (in WoW and a lot of games) devolves away from neededing anything but the following: 1) Tank get agro 2) Healer heal the tank, and 3) DPS... unleash as much hell as you can. Repeat...repeat...repeat...
I was often a rogue and remember how rarely I ever got to use the 'sap' ability during normal PvE(and how unecessary it was -usually because of unbridled AoE).
I really think some players balk at content where they have to stop and think and plan, rather tha, "gogogogogogo!!!"
Bringing back crowd control would
_____________________________ "Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit"
The more we removed ourselves from roles in a game, the more insignificant a guild, group and community became...
i.e. When developing SWTOR one of the main driving forces in making the classes in the game was that they wanted
" Everyone to be a hero "... Well we see what happens when everyone is a hero, no one needed anyone else to complete the game and we all know where that game is headed.
The Trinity was something that was important back in 1999 when Everquest was in beta / launched, not only did it define the mechanics of the game, it also made people learn those mechanics to succeed. Was it necessarily a bad design, no, but it did hinder a lot of the population in seeing a portion of the game. This was offset with meaningful crafting, guilds and exploration to a degree, allowing people to feel useful in a game without being one of the trinity.
Then hybreds were introduced, characters who could do a lot of things well, but not great, this was the end of the trinity as the only option in playing (and succeeding) a game.
One thing to remember though as MMO's have matured as a genre, the focus has narrowed conciderably. In the beginning it was "Welcome to our world" where as now the emphasis is on getting to the max level and allowing everyone to see the majority of the game world with little or no effort, why? The emphasis of the game has changed, in the beginning games catered to gamers, a very narrow audience. With the success of WoW, everyone wanted to play, and as such games were made easier to allow even the casual gamer or novice to explore and flourish in the game world.
So, now the games developers goals and their intended audience have changed from that initial trinity to what they are today, can the trinity or even Quadrinity (Septrinity anyone?) be a core concept in a modern MMO or is any Developer willing to take that chance? It would be a daunting task for anyone to balance what was popular then with what is popular today.
For me, I would love to see MMO's slide back towards the trinity and have more defined roles, maybe not as hard coded as a Tank / Healer / Crowd control as the only means of success, but to make a game world more robust, allowing multiple roles to contribute to the gaming experience and limiting the number of classes that can heal or transport people. Lets see...
A game would have 4 major areas for classes Adventure / Crafting / Travel / Diplomacy, the restriction is you have to expend at least 50% of your total experience in 1 area and none of the remaining areas can ever get more than 20% of your total experience. So if I choose the Adventure class and the Healer sub-class, I can become a good healer, but the other areas suffer by comparison. I am good in a fight and after a fight, but my usefulness ends there, forcing the need for someone else to either make the gear the group needs or to get us to where we are going. In this system you would have a need for multiple classes, the drawback is the resources necessary to make most of the class/subclass choices viable.
In short, yes I would like to see a game that has defined classes, thereby building the need for a community, guild or even a group, even if it is an artificial need. I think the trinity could be expanded and refined so that multiple classes would be needed to get the most out of the game world.
I have often seen people in pvp in various games go after the tank, or start hitting them because the tank pushed through and is causing havoc, or hitting them. Even when the game mechanics make the tank at best a nuissance, people still go after them because they are following their natural reaction.
I've play a tank on occaision and remember having several people attacking me because I was closer and easier to get to, annoying them, while the range was just picking them apart. They should have went after the squishy high powered range dps and leave just one to slow me down, but they didn't. Sure, you might say they were just bad players, but the funny thing is, I see that happen all the time.
And then there are the smart ones that ignore you and slaughter the squishies.
Now imagine a PvE situation when suddenly the third Boss and his adds decided to ignore the tank and go for the healer and DPS.
You would wipe.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I'm still a bit at a loss what you are trying to say (aside from trolling)...?
Yes, of course it's a game... and said game works on mechanics, like NPCs recting stronger to taunts than to attacks.
Is that bad?
Loke feels like the monsters/mobs should be clairvoiant and automatically know which role a character has i.e. he is a tank, he is a healer, he is a DPS, and attack them accordingly.
Fact is that if one was to take the simple availability of class/level information out of the game, you, the gamer, would first have to figure out which character has what role.
Which you could do by just standing there and observing (and probably getting shot to bits) or you could hope for the best that your guess to attack that guy is right.
Now, based on what would you make your choice? Armour? As only healer can wear clothes armour? Or staves? As only healers can wear staves? etc.
The trick here and now is that the enemy can easily sucker you into a trap if you go by that. That's why I brought up the Kensai but I could also have pointed at the classic D&D cleric in his armour.
If you don't know what is really going on you can easily make a fatale choice in combat...
And yes, the Kensai may be known by reputation... but do you every single character in every single game that you are playing?
"Kensai" in the context I'm using it is a character class going back to AD&D's Oriental Adventures.
It is not a title.
So, even a lvl1 Kensai would be fighting without armour because he believes that his swordskills make armour unnecessary.
No, I'm not trolling.
Mobs don't need to be claravoiant.
On the other hand, not every single mob needs to be stupid.
The problem is threat today is trivialized so much the mobs are almost 100% of the time on the tank. And the tank is someone that pretty much just mitigates damage, which allow the healer to have a role.
There is no reason someone wearing a t-shirt couldn't be harder to hit than a guy that could barely move due to wearing 100 kg of armor.
But does that happen?
Nope - if the boss lose the focus on the tank the guy on the t-shirt is going to die.
Your scenario never happens because today tanks either hold aggro close to 100% of the time or you wipe.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
You can expand all you want but you'll need to give all of those other classes DPS as well. To me they're not really seperate from the trinity. You have tanks, off-tanks-DPS, healers, off-healers-DPS, pure DPS, cc DPS, other support/buff DPS, and what not. It all revolves around the trinity and there are no real new roles there unless there are no optimal raid configurations for the end-game gear grind and all are equally viable. Fix the roles and you've got problems forming groups and the frustration that comes with it.
The more we removed ourselves from roles in a game, the more insignificant a guild, group and community became...
i.e. When developing SWTOR one of the main driving forces in making the classes in the game was that they wanted
" Everyone to be a hero "... Well we see what happens when everyone is a hero, no one needed anyone else to complete the game and we all know where that game is headed.
You can have heroism, soloability, and roles, and still have horrible support for grouping. The horrible group support was ToR's failure*, not its heroism or role structure (or the ability to swap roles at a whim.)
If ToR had made it effortless to get into groups, rewarding to be in them, and remove the terrible obstacles during grouping (conversations), I'd have done that all the time. Instead, grouping was a massive, under-rewarded hassle. That ends grouping right there.
Also the latter part of your post is strange...do you actually believe modern MMORPGs lack the trinity? ToR still had it. GW2 and TSW probably still have it (in the form where it matters: players taking on distinct, necessary roles). If GW2 or other MMORPGs lack it then yeah their grouping is gonna suffer because of it, but I'd be surprised if they haven't created a grouping system where multiple roles are required (removing dedicated healers doesn't necessarily remove the core of what makes the trinity the trinity.)
(*amongst other ToR failures, that is. I still think the #1 failing is that all mobs are basically identical in abilities which makes all combat the same, and therefore boring.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The more we removed ourselves from roles in a game, the more insignificant a guild, group and community became...
i.e. When developing SWTOR one of the main driving forces in making the classes in the game was that they wanted
" Everyone to be a hero "... Well we see what happens when everyone is a hero, no one needed anyone else to complete the game and we all know where that game is headed.
You can have heroism, soloability, and roles, and still have horrible support for grouping. The horrible group support was ToR's failure*, not its heroism or role structure (or the ability to swap roles at a whim.)
If ToR had made it effortless to get into groups, rewarding to be in them, and remove the terrible obstacles during grouping (conversations), I'd have done that all the time. Instead, grouping was a massive, under-rewarded hassle. That ends grouping right there.
Also the latter part of your post is strange...do you actually believe modern MMORPGs lack the trinity? ToR still had it. GW2 and TSW probably still have it (in the form where it matters: players taking on distinct, necessary roles). If GW2 or other MMORPGs lack it then yeah their grouping is gonna suffer because of it, but I'd be surprised if they haven't created a grouping system where multiple roles are required (removing dedicated healers doesn't necessarily remove the core of what makes the trinity the trinity.)
(*amongst other ToR failures, that is. I still think the #1 failing is that all mobs are basically identical in abilities which makes all combat the same, and therefore boring.)
For you what is the trinity?
I ask because there seems to be a few visions of the trinity around and then people discuss if certain games still have the trinity or not and they aren't talking about the same.
When the devs of GW2 said the holy trinity is not in GW2 they meant the statics roles performed by each class during combat - that is their definition of holy trinity: 1 class/spec = 1 role during combat.
Additionally healing and tanking roles are replaced by control and support.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I ask because there seems to be a few visions of the trinity around and then people discuss if certain games still have the trinity or not and they aren't talking about the same.
When the devs of GW2 said the holy trinity is not in GW2 they meant the statics roles performed by each class during combat - that is their definition of holy trinity: 1 class/spec = 1 role during combat.
Additionally healing and tanking roles are replaced by control and support.
Well The trinity is of course the three classic roles.
But I find that definition gets distracted by the details, when what really matters is a game having 3+ distinct, necessary roles. So there are other trinities even if they're not the trinity.
If control and support are actually required roles and not just "well it'd be nice to have some buffs floating around" then GW2 will certainly have a trinity, even if it's not the trinity. (Although admittedly the term itself is kinda flimsy when applied this way, as I'd even call it a trinity if there were 4 or more distinct necessary roles.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How is off-tank a role? isnt that just a tanke that isnt tanking the main boss? How is that a separate roll?
As I mentioned in my third reply or so, I would assume that everyone's defacto 2nd roll is dps .. so for me a tank is a tank. Thus an offtank is someone with a very niche spec of the actual tank class(es)
On the other hand a thought ive always had is that if the mob is in the room, it should pull, it should aggro, at least eventually. Standing 10.1 meters away from a mob, taunting it (yelling at it) and clashing swords with it ... and his friends just stand there watching?
Mechanics are mechanics, I get that .. its not the end of the world .. but a required off-tank role could be dodge / aoe tank?
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
I ask because there seems to be a few visions of the trinity around and then people discuss if certain games still have the trinity or not and they aren't talking about the same.
When the devs of GW2 said the holy trinity is not in GW2 they meant the statics roles performed by each class during combat - that is their definition of holy trinity: 1 class/spec = 1 role during combat.
Additionally healing and tanking roles are replaced by control and support.
Well The trinity is of course the three classic roles.
But I find that definition gets distracted by the details, when what really matters is a game having 3+ distinct, necessary roles. So there are other trinities even if they're not the trinity.
If control and support are actually required roles and not just "well it'd be nice to have some buffs floating around" then GW2 will certainly have a trinity, even if it's not the trinity. (Although admittedly the term itself is kinda flimsy when applied this way, as I'd even call it a trinity if there were 4 or more distinct necessary roles.)
There is the trinity and there is the Holy trinity - one is about roles and the other is about classes that perform the roles.
GW2 has roles.
GW2 doesn't have a system where a class/spec only has a static role.
You don't need to ask for a Guardian or a Elementalist or whatever. Every profession will have different tools to achieve similar goals and every profession will do more than 1 role during combat.
Considering GW2 doesn't have any profession that can withstand damage for more than a couple hits even from regular mobs, no profession can target heal and there is no aggro management via threat/rage system/taunt, yes, conditions, boons and CC are essential.
Example, you are trying to escape from a mob - I can a) shoot a net and immobilize it; b) inflict cripple on the enemy; c) toss an elixir that make you move faster; d) blind the enemy so he misses; e) cast a boon that makes you block the next attack; f) I can jump on the enemy and knock him.
Any of the following options would buy you time so you could self heal or dodge and allowing me to engage/kill the mob. All of the professions would have at least one of these.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
what other roles would it expand to and how would content be designed to accommodate those roles?
I realize there are a lot of people that don't like the trinity .. and the need to have roles and I appreciate that. Please be mature enough to appreciate that there is at least 1 person in the world that actually thinks they are a good thing. This post isn't about why I think they are a good thing .. I am just curious what other roles you think might work.
Regenerator: What would it be like if mana/energy/etc were more finite and for more difficult encounters you needed someone in your group to cast regenerating buffs and spells? This would essentially be a healer for your mana/energy/etc bar.
Done in DCUO. Works well
Magic/Physical tanks: What if tanking was broken into 2 roles. 1 for traditional warrior style mechanics and another where the clothies were the tanks. This has kinda been done before but not on a gamewide scale. That demon in SSC could be tanked by a warlock. Having played a traditional meatshield for most of TBC I found that fight to be quite interesting to tank along side a warlock. I remember mage-tanking the imps after broodlord in BWL too .. that was a blast and kite tanking the frost vulnerable mobs after the first drake .. man I miss that instance.
DAOC(see bonedancers). Clothies who could self-buff to give the same armor/mitigation as full tanks... Plus they had healer pets and buffer pets... So more like "one man full group replacement" than tank... but still. Not sure what other games. I like the idea though.
Buffer: Basically vanilla wow shaman/paladin .. cleanse bot. This is a tough one. How can this be made into a more fun role overall? It's implementation in early wow is one of the things that to me .. ruined the idea of expanding roles. It was just boring as hell according to all the palys I knew back then.
Would have to be made buffer/debuffer
Crowd Control: I think this is easy enough to make cool. There are plenty of fights that use CC in many MMOs ..
Yeah, but designing a whole class around CC means that CC would have to be brokenly powerful, given the way it works, imo. Either it will be too limited in which case the class will suck, or it will be too powerful in which case it will trivialize combat(PVE or PVP)
The more we removed ourselves from roles in a game, the more insignificant a guild, group and community became...
i.e. When developing SWTOR one of the main driving forces in making the classes in the game was that they wanted
" Everyone to be a hero "... Well we see what happens when everyone is a hero, no one needed anyone else to complete the game and we all know where that game is headed.
You can have heroism, soloability, and roles, and still have horrible support for grouping. The horrible group support was ToR's failure*, not its heroism or role structure (or the ability to swap roles at a whim.)
If ToR had made it effortless to get into groups, rewarding to be in them, and remove the terrible obstacles during grouping (conversations), I'd have done that all the time. Instead, grouping was a massive, under-rewarded hassle. That ends grouping right there.
Also the latter part of your post is strange...do you actually believe modern MMORPGs lack the trinity? ToR still had it. GW2 and TSW probably still have it (in the form where it matters: players taking on distinct, necessary roles). If GW2 or other MMORPGs lack it then yeah their grouping is gonna suffer because of it, but I'd be surprised if they haven't created a grouping system where multiple roles are required (removing dedicated healers doesn't necessarily remove the core of what makes the trinity the trinity.)
(*amongst other ToR failures, that is. I still think the #1 failing is that all mobs are basically identical in abilities which makes all combat the same, and therefore boring.)
Yes, modern MMO's do not have the trinity... The trinity is Fighter / Cleric / Enchanter of which EQ (which the term is coined) had only one of each. As the game progressed and as other games have come online that trinity was dissolved as games have made multiple classes tanks, given everyone heal, CC and travel abilities. That is why hybred characters are so popular, they do nothing great, they do a lot well, todays characters are more of a jack of all trades than their original counterparts.
I actually think that the trinity has been dumbed down in the current "WoW-era." In EQ, the "trinity" actually had four necessary roles:
Tank, Healer, DPS, and CC
CC was just as vital as the "main" trinity later on in the game, and there was an entire class dedicated to it (Enchanter).
Anyway, if you define a "trinity system" as a system wherein players must take different specialized roles in order to succeed in combat...then I would personally not want the trinity to expand. Expanding the trinity would mean more specialization, which would mean that each player gets stuck in a narrower niche.
For example, healers right now can flash heal, shield, regenerate, buff, etc... But if you expand the "trinity" to have roles like "regenerator" and "buffer." Then you would have classes or specs devoted solely to a subset of what a healer used to be able to do.
Now I am totally in favor of adding different kinds of abilities to the game, but I would not want to make the narrow niche that trinity classes are put into even narrower.
Nothing about reducing the core roles is "dumbed down".
The fact that someone points out Shaman's purge ability brings up just one of many ways that each WOW class had plenty of little sub-roles they were playing in addition to their primary task.
The trinity itself is just slapping big simplified labels onto classes which in many cases can provide a variety of benefits (my shaman wasn't just a healer, but could also be an interrupter, a kiter, a purger, a cleanser, and/or a buffer.)
So really whether a game has a trinity or not says nothing about the true depth of a given class' playstyle.
True. This makes the point of this thread really goofy. It starts with simplifying all the classes into the most basic 3 roles and then tries to expand on them so that we end up back where we start, with a broad range of classes with variations of the core 3 basic roles.
Reminde me why we use simplified terms (like holy trinity) that often are either interpreted differently or misused.
Yes, modern MMO's do not have the trinity... The trinity is Fighter / Cleric / Enchanter of which EQ (which the term is coined) had only one of each. As the game progressed and as other games have come online that trinity was dissolved as games have made multiple classes tanks, given everyone heal, CC and travel abilities. That is why hybred characters are so popular, they do nothing great, they do a lot well, todays characters are more of a jack of all trades than their original counterparts.
Modern classes aren't like that though. Old "hybrids" did everything, but nothing great.
Modern tanks tank great -- they just can't tank great while healing great and/or DPSing great.
Barring balance mistakes, every class performs its role at 100% while specced for it, but the downside is they can't do the other roles at the same time. That's a big difference from early "hybrid" classes which were kinda just poor designs (at least they were in the early MMORPGs I played.)
But don't you feel that's an overly narrow definition of the trinity? Trinity gets applied to everything all the time nowadays and if it only meant three classes in one specific game that's...a pretty useless term.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes, modern MMO's do not have the trinity... The trinity is Fighter / Cleric / Enchanter of which EQ (which the term is coined) had only one of each. As the game progressed and as other games have come online that trinity was dissolved as games have made multiple classes tanks, given everyone heal, CC and travel abilities. That is why hybred characters are so popular, they do nothing great, they do a lot well, todays characters are more of a jack of all trades than their original counterparts.
Modern classes aren't like that though. Old "hybrids" did everything, but nothing great.
Modern tanks tank great -- they just can't tank great while healing great and/or DPSing great.
Barring balance mistakes, every class performs its role at 100% while specced for it, but the downside is they can't do the other roles at the same time. That's a big difference from early "hybrid" classes which were kinda just poor designs (at least they were in the early MMORPGs I played.)
But don't you feel that's an overly narrow definition of the trinity? Trinity gets applied to everything all the time nowadays and if it only meant three classes in one specific game that's...a pretty useless term.
Trinity is all the EQ "clerics", "warriors" and "enchanters".
GW2 is going for the hybrid approach by preventing anyone to completely do a role at 100%.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
the only expansion of the trinity thats required in my opinion for a class based game is the following:
1) trinity: 3 man group
2) trinity: 3 distinct roles per class (tank,heal,cc)...and some sort of focus gearshift to switch between the three..everyone can kick butt all the time.
all classes just need to use magic to make this work, and of course they way it works for each role would still be different for each class. In some cases it can be as simple as equipping a sheild or activating a barrier
so in the end you have the more interesting classes you remember like the druid, shaman, ranger, paladin and necromancer..and no unidimensional classes like your typical warrior, wizard or rogue.
Yes, modern MMO's do not have the trinity... The trinity is Fighter / Cleric / Enchanter of which EQ (which the term is coined) had only one of each. As the game progressed and as other games have come online that trinity was dissolved as games have made multiple classes tanks, given everyone heal, CC and travel abilities. That is why hybred characters are so popular, they do nothing great, they do a lot well, todays characters are more of a jack of all trades than their original counterparts.
Modern classes aren't like that though. Old "hybrids" did everything, but nothing great.
Modern tanks tank great -- they just can't tank great while healing great and/or DPSing great.
Barring balance mistakes, every class performs its role at 100% while specced for it, but the downside is they can't do the other roles at the same time. That's a big difference from early "hybrid" classes which were kinda just poor designs (at least they were in the early MMORPGs I played.)
But don't you feel that's an overly narrow definition of the trinity? Trinity gets applied to everything all the time nowadays and if it only meant three classes in one specific game that's...a pretty useless term.
No, it is not overly narrow, it is to this day misused. The trinity is and forever will be, in gaming, Tank / Heal / Crowd control. Modern tanks may tank "great", but they are not a tank in the original sense of the word, they now have abilities designed to decrease down time and increase soloability. Note the chart showing everquest classes, warrior was a pure melee class with no spell casting ability, the same as the core D and D ruleset, which all of this came from originally.
Todays tanks have spell casting abilities, more classes have a self heal or heal over time or a group heal, more classes can insta travel or the game mechanics allow everyone to travel (flight or teleport) at a low level. My point is not that any of these mechanics past or present are right or wrong, my point is that the the more abilities we give a "class" the less that class has to depend on others to get the most out of the game. This led to the community, guilds and groups that exist today, the Trinity is vilified, PUG's are a forum punch line and guilds are a glorified chat room. As the focus of MMO's have shifted to level grind / end game, with everything else an add on, the needs for a guild have decreased even more.
Comments
dont forget EQ bard
EQ2 fan sites
I have often seen people in pvp in various games go after the tank, or start hitting them because the tank pushed through and is causing havoc, or hitting them. Even when the game mechanics make the tank at best a nuissance, people still go after them because they are following their natural reaction.
I've play a tank on occaision and remember having several people attacking me because I was closer and easier to get to, annoying them, while the range was just picking them apart. They should have went after the squishy high powered range dps and leave just one to slow me down, but they didn't. Sure, you might say they were just bad players, but the funny thing is, I see that happen all the time.
depends on what mmo you are talking about
as others have said, the trinity in EQ back in 1999 (13 years ago), was warrior, cleric, enchanter
alot of players disliked this and SOE toned down CC with Velious (2nd expansion) but needing to slow mobs was still necessary (but could be provided by 3 classes instead of 2)
when WOW launched (2004) Blizzard made their mmo paradigm simpler
- no need for mana regen buffs (power regen was innately faster in comparison to EQ)
- no need for slowing mobs (a core feature of EQ)
- little need for CC, it existed but wasnt required for dungeons
- less need for debuffs (in EQ, Enchanters and Shamans were often debuffing to make mobs less magic resistant)
EQ2 fan sites
It might be useful to ask ourselves a similar question, "what can a character do in relation to a monster or mob? "
We can also add some parameters like in a typical MMO world where you and the monster are both standing in a cave next each other .
Attack it
Immobilize it for a period of time
Stun or incapacitate it for short period of time
Avoid or evade it
Do something to make it weaker (like a spell)
charm and controll it
Scarritt so it runs away
Deceive it somehow (so it lets you pass)
The following are less used in my experience
Intimidate it
Befriend it
Bribe it
I'm hitting a wall at this point. And it strikes me that I need to include groups of characters and groups of monsters into this line of questioning, but I am on my smart phone and I'm sure my grammar is terrible enough. I'll check back in later...
Good topic. Have a wonderful day.
_____________________________
"Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit"
choosing to attack can bring new options
in EQ, at upper levels, attacking also meant
- tash/malo it, so the mob is less resistant
- slow it, so it wouldnt strike as often
- debuff its stats, so it doesnt hit as hard
- if mob is caster, debuff its casting time so it takes longer to cast spells
- snare it, so it doesnt run for help when its near death
EQ also had lulls, some classes like bard,cleric,chanter could reduce the "call for help" range
facing 3 giants, lull 2 giants and pull the 3rd
these options *still* exist in Everquest today
EQ2 fan sites
LOL on topic and your 'posibilities'? Lineage II has them all, aside from the paper-tank (does have a mage tank in heavy though). And pullers..? Hmm... I remember me as dwarf (slowest race in L2 due to short legs) pulling hordes of mobs on my Great Wolf (being close at speed cap with right buffs from a BUFFER
)
It's always fun to see ppl talk about a 'what if' if they've only played one (or more than one but all alike) MMO, without even looking what other MMO's are actually offering...
I'm still a bit at a loss what you are trying to say (aside from trolling)...?
Yes, of course it's a game... and said game works on mechanics, like NPCs recting stronger to taunts than to attacks.
Is that bad?
Loke feels like the monsters/mobs should be clairvoiant and automatically know which role a character has i.e. he is a tank, he is a healer, he is a DPS, and attack them accordingly.
Fact is that if one was to take the simple availability of class/level information out of the game, you, the gamer, would first have to figure out which character has what role.
Which you could do by just standing there and observing (and probably getting shot to bits) or you could hope for the best that your guess to attack that guy is right.
Now, based on what would you make your choice? Armour? As only healer can wear clothes armour? Or staves? As only healers can wear staves? etc.
The trick here and now is that the enemy can easily sucker you into a trap if you go by that. That's why I brought up the Kensai but I could also have pointed at the classic D&D cleric in his armour.
If you don't know what is really going on you can easily make a fatale choice in combat...
And yes, the Kensai may be known by reputation... but do you every single character in every single game that you are playing?
"Kensai" in the context I'm using it is a character class going back to AD&D's Oriental Adventures.
It is not a title.
So, even a lvl1 Kensai would be fighting without armour because he believes that his swordskills make armour unnecessary.
@Nadia: True; once the attack begins, the actions & reactions branch out considerably.
@Coretex: I think a lot of it is in WoW. I also think that most of the gameplay (in WoW and a lot of games) devolves away from neededing anything but the following: 1) Tank get agro 2) Healer heal the tank, and 3) DPS... unleash as much hell as you can. Repeat...repeat...repeat...
I was often a rogue and remember how rarely I ever got to use the 'sap' ability during normal PvE(and how unecessary it was -usually because of unbridled AoE).
I really think some players balk at content where they have to stop and think and plan, rather tha, "gogogogogogo!!!"
Bringing back crowd control would
_____________________________
"Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit"
Back in the day the trinity was heals, tanks, and either CC or puller.
The more we removed ourselves from roles in a game, the more insignificant a guild, group and community became...
i.e. When developing SWTOR one of the main driving forces in making the classes in the game was that they wanted
" Everyone to be a hero "... Well we see what happens when everyone is a hero, no one needed anyone else to complete the game and we all know where that game is headed.
The Trinity was something that was important back in 1999 when Everquest was in beta / launched, not only did it define the mechanics of the game, it also made people learn those mechanics to succeed. Was it necessarily a bad design, no, but it did hinder a lot of the population in seeing a portion of the game. This was offset with meaningful crafting, guilds and exploration to a degree, allowing people to feel useful in a game without being one of the trinity.
Then hybreds were introduced, characters who could do a lot of things well, but not great, this was the end of the trinity as the only option in playing (and succeeding) a game.
One thing to remember though as MMO's have matured as a genre, the focus has narrowed conciderably. In the beginning it was "Welcome to our world" where as now the emphasis is on getting to the max level and allowing everyone to see the majority of the game world with little or no effort, why? The emphasis of the game has changed, in the beginning games catered to gamers, a very narrow audience. With the success of WoW, everyone wanted to play, and as such games were made easier to allow even the casual gamer or novice to explore and flourish in the game world.
So, now the games developers goals and their intended audience have changed from that initial trinity to what they are today, can the trinity or even Quadrinity (Septrinity anyone?) be a core concept in a modern MMO or is any Developer willing to take that chance? It would be a daunting task for anyone to balance what was popular then with what is popular today.
For me, I would love to see MMO's slide back towards the trinity and have more defined roles, maybe not as hard coded as a Tank / Healer / Crowd control as the only means of success, but to make a game world more robust, allowing multiple roles to contribute to the gaming experience and limiting the number of classes that can heal or transport people. Lets see...
A game would have 4 major areas for classes Adventure / Crafting / Travel / Diplomacy, the restriction is you have to expend at least 50% of your total experience in 1 area and none of the remaining areas can ever get more than 20% of your total experience. So if I choose the Adventure class and the Healer sub-class, I can become a good healer, but the other areas suffer by comparison. I am good in a fight and after a fight, but my usefulness ends there, forcing the need for someone else to either make the gear the group needs or to get us to where we are going. In this system you would have a need for multiple classes, the drawback is the resources necessary to make most of the class/subclass choices viable.
In short, yes I would like to see a game that has defined classes, thereby building the need for a community, guild or even a group, even if it is an artificial need. I think the trinity could be expanded and refined so that multiple classes would be needed to get the most out of the game world.
And then there are the smart ones that ignore you and slaughter the squishies.
Now imagine a PvE situation when suddenly the third Boss and his adds decided to ignore the tank and go for the healer and DPS.
You would wipe.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
No, I'm not trolling.
Mobs don't need to be claravoiant.
On the other hand, not every single mob needs to be stupid.
The problem is threat today is trivialized so much the mobs are almost 100% of the time on the tank. And the tank is someone that pretty much just mitigates damage, which allow the healer to have a role.
There is no reason someone wearing a t-shirt couldn't be harder to hit than a guy that could barely move due to wearing 100 kg of armor.
But does that happen?
Nope - if the boss lose the focus on the tank the guy on the t-shirt is going to die.
Your scenario never happens because today tanks either hold aggro close to 100% of the time or you wipe.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
You can expand all you want but you'll need to give all of those other classes DPS as well. To me they're not really seperate from the trinity. You have tanks, off-tanks-DPS, healers, off-healers-DPS, pure DPS, cc DPS, other support/buff DPS, and what not. It all revolves around the trinity and there are no real new roles there unless there are no optimal raid configurations for the end-game gear grind and all are equally viable. Fix the roles and you've got problems forming groups and the frustration that comes with it.
You can have heroism, soloability, and roles, and still have horrible support for grouping. The horrible group support was ToR's failure*, not its heroism or role structure (or the ability to swap roles at a whim.)
If ToR had made it effortless to get into groups, rewarding to be in them, and remove the terrible obstacles during grouping (conversations), I'd have done that all the time. Instead, grouping was a massive, under-rewarded hassle. That ends grouping right there.
Also the latter part of your post is strange...do you actually believe modern MMORPGs lack the trinity? ToR still had it. GW2 and TSW probably still have it (in the form where it matters: players taking on distinct, necessary roles). If GW2 or other MMORPGs lack it then yeah their grouping is gonna suffer because of it, but I'd be surprised if they haven't created a grouping system where multiple roles are required (removing dedicated healers doesn't necessarily remove the core of what makes the trinity the trinity.)
(*amongst other ToR failures, that is. I still think the #1 failing is that all mobs are basically identical in abilities which makes all combat the same, and therefore boring.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For you what is the trinity?
I ask because there seems to be a few visions of the trinity around and then people discuss if certain games still have the trinity or not and they aren't talking about the same.
When the devs of GW2 said the holy trinity is not in GW2 they meant the statics roles performed by each class during combat - that is their definition of holy trinity: 1 class/spec = 1 role during combat.
Additionally healing and tanking roles are replaced by control and support.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Well The trinity is of course the three classic roles.
But I find that definition gets distracted by the details, when what really matters is a game having 3+ distinct, necessary roles. So there are other trinities even if they're not the trinity.
If control and support are actually required roles and not just "well it'd be nice to have some buffs floating around" then GW2 will certainly have a trinity, even if it's not the trinity. (Although admittedly the term itself is kinda flimsy when applied this way, as I'd even call it a trinity if there were 4 or more distinct necessary roles.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How is off-tank a role? isnt that just a tanke that isnt tanking the main boss? How is that a separate roll?
As I mentioned in my third reply or so, I would assume that everyone's defacto 2nd roll is dps .. so for me a tank is a tank. Thus an offtank is someone with a very niche spec of the actual tank class(es)
On the other hand a thought ive always had is that if the mob is in the room, it should pull, it should aggro, at least eventually. Standing 10.1 meters away from a mob, taunting it (yelling at it) and clashing swords with it ... and his friends just stand there watching?
Mechanics are mechanics, I get that .. its not the end of the world .. but a required off-tank role could be dodge / aoe tank?
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
There is the trinity and there is the Holy trinity - one is about roles and the other is about classes that perform the roles.
GW2 has roles.
GW2 doesn't have a system where a class/spec only has a static role.
You don't need to ask for a Guardian or a Elementalist or whatever. Every profession will have different tools to achieve similar goals and every profession will do more than 1 role during combat.
Considering GW2 doesn't have any profession that can withstand damage for more than a couple hits even from regular mobs, no profession can target heal and there is no aggro management via threat/rage system/taunt, yes, conditions, boons and CC are essential.
Example, you are trying to escape from a mob - I can a) shoot a net and immobilize it; b) inflict cripple on the enemy; c) toss an elixir that make you move faster; d) blind the enemy so he misses; e) cast a boon that makes you block the next attack; f) I can jump on the enemy and knock him.
Any of the following options would buy you time so you could self heal or dodge and allowing me to engage/kill the mob. All of the professions would have at least one of these.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Yes, modern MMO's do not have the trinity... The trinity is Fighter / Cleric / Enchanter of which EQ (which the term is coined) had only one of each. As the game progressed and as other games have come online that trinity was dissolved as games have made multiple classes tanks, given everyone heal, CC and travel abilities. That is why hybred characters are so popular, they do nothing great, they do a lot well, todays characters are more of a jack of all trades than their original counterparts.
True. This makes the point of this thread really goofy. It starts with simplifying all the classes into the most basic 3 roles and then tries to expand on them so that we end up back where we start, with a broad range of classes with variations of the core 3 basic roles.
Reminde me why we use simplified terms (like holy trinity) that often are either interpreted differently or misused.
Modern classes aren't like that though. Old "hybrids" did everything, but nothing great.
Modern tanks tank great -- they just can't tank great while healing great and/or DPSing great.
Barring balance mistakes, every class performs its role at 100% while specced for it, but the downside is they can't do the other roles at the same time. That's a big difference from early "hybrid" classes which were kinda just poor designs (at least they were in the early MMORPGs I played.)
But don't you feel that's an overly narrow definition of the trinity? Trinity gets applied to everything all the time nowadays and if it only meant three classes in one specific game that's...a pretty useless term.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Trinity is all the EQ "clerics", "warriors" and "enchanters".
GW2 is going for the hybrid approach by preventing anyone to completely do a role at 100%.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
the only expansion of the trinity thats required in my opinion for a class based game is the following:
1) trinity: 3 man group
2) trinity: 3 distinct roles per class (tank,heal,cc)...and some sort of focus gearshift to switch between the three..everyone can kick butt all the time.
all classes just need to use magic to make this work, and of course they way it works for each role would still be different for each class. In some cases it can be as simple as equipping a sheild or activating a barrier
so in the end you have the more interesting classes you remember like the druid, shaman, ranger, paladin and necromancer..and no unidimensional classes like your typical warrior, wizard or rogue.
thats what id do.
No, it is not overly narrow, it is to this day misused. The trinity is and forever will be, in gaming, Tank / Heal / Crowd control. Modern tanks may tank "great", but they are not a tank in the original sense of the word, they now have abilities designed to decrease down time and increase soloability. Note the chart showing everquest classes, warrior was a pure melee class with no spell casting ability, the same as the core D and D ruleset, which all of this came from originally.
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/EQ:Classes/
Todays tanks have spell casting abilities, more classes have a self heal or heal over time or a group heal, more classes can insta travel or the game mechanics allow everyone to travel (flight or teleport) at a low level. My point is not that any of these mechanics past or present are right or wrong, my point is that the the more abilities we give a "class" the less that class has to depend on others to get the most out of the game. This led to the community, guilds and groups that exist today, the Trinity is vilified, PUG's are a forum punch line and guilds are a glorified chat room. As the focus of MMO's have shifted to level grind / end game, with everything else an add on, the needs for a guild have decreased even more.