There are millions of people that genuinely enjoy tanking and healing. For that reason alone the trinity will never actually die.
We may see different reincarnations of it, but to say it's outright dying is simply oblivious to how different people enjoy their gaming.
I know my gf, among others, genuinely enjoys playing a healer. When it comes to PvP, I often find that playing a healer offers a more dynamic experience than dps roles.
No one enjoys playing a healer. I do not believe that a person "enjoys" clicking on 2 dimensional boxes on the corner of the screen watching green bars moving left and right.
Your GF, among others do not enjoy healing at all.
What they enjoy is helping thier friends and being there for them in time of need. They enjoy feeling needed. They have a very strong sense of companionship. They want to support others. Like a spoke on a wheel.
The healing mechanic as designed in WoW is a chore. It's an insult to human cognitive capabilities.
"no one" is a strong phrase. I highly doubt you have any evidence to back it up.
If people enjoy slot mechnics (which is much simpler than WOW healing mechanics), why would not a single soul enjoy some simple healing mechanics?
Personally i don't heal .. but i wouldn't rule out others who actually enjoy the simple whack-the-mole mechanics.
there are lots of people that enjoy healing. In fact, in most games tanks seem to be the rarest component. Females particularly seem to enjoy healing (or support) roles.
The reason tanks are so hard to find is because of the way the aggro system works. Aggro is a control mechanism. The tank is essentially responsible for keeping the attention of the NPC's and controlling the situation. Loss of aggro is a loss of control and regarded as a tank that is not doing it's job.
People generally aren't the leader type. They don't want all that excess baggage of responsibility that comes with the role. This is why DPS is so popular. Log in, point, shoot, kill, next.
No one enjoys playing a healer. I do not believe that a person "enjoys" clicking on 2 dimensional boxes on the corner of the screen watching green bars moving left and right.
Your GF, among others do not enjoy healing at all.
What they enjoy is helping thier friends and being there for them in time of need. They enjoy feeling needed. They have a very strong sense of companionship. They want to support others. Like a spoke on a wheel.
The healing mechanic as designed in WoW is a chore. It's an insult to human cognitive capabilities.
I enjoy healing in games where healing has strong mechanics behind it. In WOW that was certainly true, constantly optimizing your heals to minimize overheal wasting your finite resource (mana) took many forms. It wasn't the pinnacle of healing design, and I think things could be taken further, but it was fun in its own right.
It's pretty ridiculous that you think there's more innate depth to making an HP bar go to zero than preventing one from going to zero. The differences between the two aren't particularly substantial.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No one enjoys playing a healer. I do not believe that a person "enjoys" clicking on 2 dimensional boxes on the corner of the screen watching green bars moving left and right.
Your GF, among others do not enjoy healing at all.
What they enjoy is helping thier friends and being there for them in time of need. They enjoy feeling needed. They have a very strong sense of companionship. They want to support others. Like a spoke on a wheel.
The healing mechanic as designed in WoW is a chore. It's an insult to human cognitive capabilities.
I enjoy healing in games where healing has strong mechanics behind it. In WOW that was certainly true, constantly optimizing your heals to minimize overheal wasting your finite resource (mana) took many forms. It wasn't the pinnacle of healing design, and I think things could be taken further, but it was fun in its own right.
It's pretty ridiculous that you think there's more innate depth to making an HP bar go to zero than preventing one from going to zero. The differences between the two aren't particularly substantial.
I am of the opinion that the health bar is your own responsibility. Babysitting someone elses health bar doesn't sound very innovative. Wouldn't it be more innovative to pull your friend away from a fireball about to hit his face? Or drop a portal next to him so that he can jump in to change his positioning. How about raising a slab of rock from the ground so that he can use it for cover? Create an energy shield at a target location that deflects projectiles. Send him flying up into the air over a wall to assault the keep.
The reason tanks are so hard to find is because of the way the aggro system works. Aggro is a control mechanism. The tank is essentially responsible for keeping the attention of the NPC's and controlling the situation. Loss of aggro is a loss of control and regarded as a tank that is not doing it's job.
People generally aren't the leader type. They don't want all that excess baggage of responsibility that comes with the role. This is why DPS is so popular. Log in, point, shoot, kill, next.
There is a lot of truth to this, but its not just the aggro. Tank is EXPECTED to have knowledge of the dungeon, and keep a faster-than-fun pace because one or two of the party members is surely to be a go go go rusher. Tanking is getting more and more annoying as people are becoming imppatient turds.
EQ had the best system for this, as tanks were mostly responsible for keeping aggro and not for pulling, there was a seperate person assigned for that so it split up the duties a bit. Also since you did NOT want to get hit by an EQ1 mob, dps were generally much more careful of their aggro.
I am of the opinion that the health bar is your own responsibility.
good for you. doesnt mean theres anything wrong with the mechanic.
How much you wanna bet that the "trinity" of Tank, Healer, DPS will not be used on Blizzard's Titan project?
People are sick and tired of waiting for a healer and a tank. Wouldn't you want to design a game where people are actually playing it instead of looking for people to play with them?
Isn't WoW's next expansion "MOP" going to introduce a new class "Monk" that moves away form the reactive healing model? Aren't they designing senario's that do not require a tank or a healer?
Maybe it's just me, but I don't know why everyone is happy about the demise of the holy trinity. I personally see it as a good thing, it gives me a sense of purpose and role in an MMO.
I know that a lot of people will disagree, what with the release of the second coming of christ (GW2). Tbh, i really think thats what has put me off GW2, i need to know that im needed and not just an interchangeable part of a machine.
So, what do you guys think? Pro-trinity or not?
/Levi
Everyone wants and loves to feel needed. This is why the trinity worked so well. This design model is getting old though. When new physics come into play; a tank, healer and DPS doesn't make sense anymore.
I appreciate Guild Wars 2's model a lot more. All classes can control, support and deal damage when needed. This means that everyone is needed and not just a few people hoarding all the attention.
Removing trinity, like what has been done with GW2 is a step back to like 1990. I'm glad developers are trying to innovate, but they've not selected the right features to change. Trinity gives needed structure.
And waisted time waitng froming a group, and boring gameplay consisting on watching the UI whacking moles as a healer, and watching threathmeters and so on.
Removing trinity is a BIG step forward. Look at hov accesable FPS games are, and what it means to be skilled in that genre. And tell me why MMO's could not move forward being inspired of that.
The holy trinity is the curse that have made MMO combat boring and make the genre stall since the 90'ties !
I have to agree with this.
If you like the trinity, fine, use it. But IMO if a quest/instance/dungeon requires 6 level 60s, it should be doable with ANY combination of level 60 classes.
What viable rpg combat systems can be used to replace the trinity for mmorpgs?
Diablo 3 system, or any multiplayer co-op action RPG. In fact, the playstyle of D3 is very close to many MMORPGs. You form up groups to go to dungeons. The only difference is that the lobby you go before the dungeon is a menu, instead of a 3D city.
To me, it seems that roles in a game, be it the holy trinity or otherwise, are factors of player preference and necessity. Necessity, in this case, being the need to focus on what is most efficient and effective. The trinity became that due to game mechanics. For example, players tank because the aggro mechanics of mobs and bosses focus their attention on that play style, and because class skills (taunts) were created specifically to draw aggro. Developers can encourage people to move away from these specific and fixed roles by varying the mechanics of mob AI's and character skills, as we see in the given example, GW2. However, that will not be the end of the trinity, as there is still the factor of player preference. Some people enjoy fixed roles, and will build their characters to suit their preferred play style as much as is feasible. In our given example of a potential trinity-breaker, GW2, I am sure we will still find plenty of groups focusing on a trinity-style gameplay, just as we likely could find players in trinity-centric games trying (even if inefficiently or unsuccessfully) to avoid the trinity. So, the trinity is not dead, but it also isn't the only option.
Personally, I prefer choice and flexibility. I do not want to play a fixed role. While I am not a hardcore roleplayer, I do RP my character to a certain extent. I prefer to focus on the story and immersion of the game over the mechanics. Also, I feel like they trinity focus puts too much reliance onto each individual mechanic, meaning if one breaks down, the whole lot is often lost. This can often lead to anger and anxiety, which are not the reasons I play a game. I want to have fun, and what I enjoy more is to be able to bend to the needs of the moment. Of course, everyone's preference will be different; that is why we have more than one game available.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't know why everyone is happy about the demise of the holy trinity. I personally see it as a good thing, it gives me a sense of purpose and role in an MMO.
I know that a lot of people will disagree, what with the release of the second coming of christ (GW2). Tbh, i really think thats what has put me off GW2, i need to know that im needed and not just an interchangeable part of a machine.
So, what do you guys think? Pro-trinity or not?
/Levi
I'll say this yet another time to yet another person - the only people saying gw2 is a second coming or jesus MMO are the ones that don't like it. So please stop using that term. It only makes people prejudiced against you straight from the get go.
And as to your question - aren't you just that in a trinity MMO though? An interchangeable part of a machine? A machine with three different gears - dps, healer and tank. If one of those isn't working well, replace it with another gear and the machine is working again just with the same configuration.
From personal experience, boy am I glad to see other people if I'm doing an event. There's been a good few events where I've been struggling alone, but when that second person shows up to help, I know that I need his help to complete it, and he needs my help to complete it.
If you're talking from strictly dungeons/organized teams point of view, well, even more so. There is no clear cut roles, but instead you'll need to piece together what skills/effects the team has and what it needs, and each character can adjust their skills to bring whatever is needed to the table.
For me it's a resounding no to trinity, it's way more fun and challenging this way.
I find this post ironic. Last night another mesmer and I tried to escort a Moa trainer to another place in a dynamic event. We kept dying. It was more frustrating (a lot more frustrating) than fun. Finally the other mesmer invited another player - a guardian. We breezed through the rest of event with no problem (well the guardian did die once). Why was it so easy? It was not due to the third player - it was because the Guardian tanked! While he kept the mobs focus we tore then up with dps. I say a resounding YES to the Trinity!
"...it was because the Guardian tanked!"
The trinity will never die as long as one class, just one is all it takes, can take damage better than the others. You going to have the squishy in cloth engage the dragon or the guy in plate, who, coincidentally, can carry a shield? It's ludicrous to say there is no "trinity" in gw2. There are plate wearers and there are not. There are classes that can increase/improve upon the basic heals each class gets. And, obviously, every class can kill things.
The only way there will never be a tank is if you can kill things faster than they can kill you. Period. If it's an extended battle there will be a tank. Regardless of what the class filling the role is called.
Don't get carried away. There is one game that is talking about minimizing the need for the trinity, while getting ready to release a game that still depends on it.
I am of the opinion that the health bar is your own responsibility. Babysitting someone elses health bar doesn't sound very innovative. Wouldn't it be more innovative to pull your friend away from a fireball about to hit his face? Or drop a portal next to him so that he can jump in to change his positioning. How about raising a slab of rock from the ground so that he can use it for cover? Create an energy shield at a target location that deflects projectiles. Send him flying up into the air over a wall to assault the keep.
I guess if things had to be innovative to be fun, this opinion might matter. But I'm still playing TF2, which isn't necessarily a massive innovation over the "shoot people" gameplay of Wolf3D or Quake 1. Yet it's fun because it's a good game design, and because polish and details matter a lot in regards to whether these activities are actually fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am of the opinion that the health bar is your own responsibility. Babysitting someone elses health bar doesn't sound very innovative. Wouldn't it be more innovative to pull your friend away from a fireball about to hit his face? Or drop a portal next to him so that he can jump in to change his positioning. How about raising a slab of rock from the ground so that he can use it for cover? Create an energy shield at a target location that deflects projectiles. Send him flying up into the air over a wall to assault the keep.
I guess if things had to be innovative to be fun, this opinion might matter. But I'm still playing TF2, which isn't necessarily a massive innovation over the "shoot people" gameplay of Wolf3D or Quake 1. Yet it's fun because it's a good game design, and because polish and details matter a lot in regards to whether these activities are actually fun.
This ^^^
Innovation and fun are two different things. There are MANY old ideas in gaming are still fun with good new implementation and polish. Shooting things never get old .. otherwise shooters won't be popular for so many years.
The trinity exists because there is demand for the trinity and as long as there are people who wish for a game with a holy trinity they will keep existing.
Personally I hate the Holy Trinity with passion, but I am not going to say it can never work. But if they fix the problems attributed to the Holy Trinity I wouldnt mind it so much, namely how every foe is magnetically attatched to the tank and there is no need for formations, oh and if you mess up, the healer can provide you with all your life back at a whim, assuming he has the resource (and resource management is dying it seems).
In these trinity based games, I played as a tank, and occationally healer. I never really felt like I was working as a team with the rest of the players.
Some mmos naturally do things better than others, such as WoW does the healing role quite well, but I felt the tanking role was rather stale, just do your rotation to maintain the foes on you and pay heed to the gimmicks.
Like with any gaming genre, there is no right and wrong in mmorpgs. Some mmos benefit from the system, others suffer for it. It really dephends on how well it blends with everything else and how it is executed.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't know why everyone is happy about the demise of the holy trinity. I personally see it as a good thing, it gives me a sense of purpose and role in an MMO.
I know that a lot of people will disagree, what with the release of the second coming of christ (GW2). Tbh, i really think thats what has put me off GW2, i need to know that im needed and not just an interchangeable part of a machine.
So, what do you guys think? Pro-trinity or not?
/Levi
It has 100% to do with the fact that the MMORPG genre has been run over by a bunch of entitled console gamer soloer's.
The holy trinity is a great thing, hell i actually prefer the holy quadrity (sp?) that was present in EverQuest. Where you need a tank, dps, a healer, and someone to handle crowd control.
These games started out being about 2 things. 1. Having a huge open world to explore and "live in", so to speak, and 2. To be massively multiplayer, by that meaning having more than 12 or 16 people in one area at a time. Literally having hundreds of people able to run around in the same area doing things independently of each other (don't mistake that statement to mean soloing).
Everquest and UO both acheived these goals. They both catered to different styles of gamers as far as PVP vs PVE at its most basic level, and thats fine.
But now, everyone is about "Using up the content" and then moving on to their next fix. They treat MMO's exactly as they do single player games. I.e. you buy it, play through the content, then move on to something else. The insulting part is the developers have tried to deliver this and still call these games MMOs. It makes me sick.
People came to these games before because they werent single player games, because it wasnt about burning through the content. Because it was about socializing, grouping with your buddies to go explore, or go find what creatures may live in the dark, damp forest and kill them. Or to sit around in a town and sell your wares, or to sit around in a town and craft your wares. Or to get a crap ton of people together and take down that annoying white dragon thats been roaming around in the zone you've been playing in, etc etc etc.
I just can't fathom the reasoning behind why people enjoy the sytle of play they complain so loudly that they want in these and many forums.
You know, thats what games like Skyrim are for. Why dont you guys go play that and leave our precious genre the hell alone. No, instead you had to crap all over it and turn it into something it was never intended nor designed to be...
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
tbh, the trinity is still there. It's just more dynamic and flexible.
For example in GW2, the gaurdian is still viewed as your tank/support and your elementalist/thief is viewed as dps, although the elementalist is somewhat of a powerhouse with defensive and support magic as well.
It's still there very much, you just won't be doing boring ass tank n spank shit where your tank runs in, aggros, healer heals tank, etc, etc.
The gameplay is much more dynamic and fluid this way, more exciting.
Originally posted by Arskaaa "when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".
without trinity mmorpg is bored,sterile...it is not rpg it is arcade shooter ,look STO there not egsist trinity,bored fight where all playing as dps ,no team work, nothing what can associate on team work , all can be done withouth talking inside teams cuse trinity not egsist
I am of the opinion that the health bar is your own responsibility. Babysitting someone elses health bar doesn't sound very innovative. Wouldn't it be more innovative to pull your friend away from a fireball about to hit his face? Or drop a portal next to him so that he can jump in to change his positioning. How about raising a slab of rock from the ground so that he can use it for cover? Create an energy shield at a target location that deflects projectiles. Send him flying up into the air over a wall to assault the keep.
I guess if things had to be innovative to be fun, this opinion might matter. But I'm still playing TF2, which isn't necessarily a massive innovation over the "shoot people" gameplay of Wolf3D or Quake 1. Yet it's fun because it's a good game design, and because polish and details matter a lot in regards to whether these activities are actually fun.
This ^^^
Innovation and fun are two different things. There are MANY old ideas in gaming are still fun with good new implementation and polish. Shooting things never get old .. otherwise shooters won't be popular for so many years.
What is it exactly that makes shooting games so much fun? I believe the player is interacting with a 3D world. You're given a toolbox and using it to escape from impossible odds, decimate anything in your path and find a way to overcome obstacles. What are you asking a healer to do? Playing a 2 dimensional user interface.
What is it exactly that makes shooting games so much fun? I believe the player is interacting with a 3D world. You're given a toolbox and using it to escape from impossible odds, decimate anything in your path and find a way to overcome obstacles. What are you asking a healer to do? Playing a 2 dimensional user interface.
If that's really all it was, it wouldn't be that fun. But there's movement, and boss mechanics, and even the "pulling teammates away from incoming harm" suggestion you yourself made (WOW priests).
In short, preventing health bars from reaching 0 is just as compelling as making health bars reach 0. Being the reason the party lives or dies is fun. A healers' toolbox exerts a large influence over the battle (an influence DPS classes typically lack.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What is it exactly that makes shooting games so much fun? I believe the player is interacting with a 3D world. You're given a toolbox and using it to escape from impossible odds, decimate anything in your path and find a way to overcome obstacles. What are you asking a healer to do? Playing a 2 dimensional user interface.
If that's really all it was, it wouldn't be that fun. But there's movement, and boss mechanics, and even the "pulling teammates away from incoming harm" suggestion you yourself made (WOW priests).
In short, preventing health bars from reaching 0 is just as compelling as making health bars reach 0. Being the reason the party lives or dies is fun, because it exerts a large influence over the battle (an influence DPS classes typically lack.)
Right. I think people would enjoy interacting with a 3D world instead of a 2D user interface. Future game design should make support roles that have the player's eyes on the action. Wether the role is reactive or proactive or a mix of both is fine. The health bar is an outdated system. Even FPS games don't use it anymore. It serves little to no purpose.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by pointchizI am of the opinion that the health bar is your own responsibility. Babysitting someone elses health bar doesn't sound very innovative. Wouldn't it be more innovative to pull your friend away from a fireball about to hit his face? Or drop a portal next to him so that he can jump in to change his positioning. How about raising a slab of rock from the ground so that he can use it for cover? Create an energy shield at a target location that deflects projectiles. Send him flying up into the air over a wall to assault the keep.
I guess if things had to be innovative to be fun, this opinion might matter. But I'm still playing TF2, which isn't necessarily a massive innovation over the "shoot people" gameplay of Wolf3D or Quake 1. Yet it's fun because it's a good game design, and because polish and details matter a lot in regards to whether these activities are actually fun.
This ^^^
Innovation and fun are two different things. There are MANY old ideas in gaming are still fun with good new implementation and polish. Shooting things never get old .. otherwise shooters won't be popular for so many years.
What is it exactly that makes shooting games so much fun? I believe the player is interacting with a 3D world. You're given a toolbox and using it to escape from impossible odds, decimate anything in your path and find a way to overcome obstacles. What are you asking a healer to do? Playing a 2 dimensional user interface.
Healing is interacting with a 3d world, if the mechanics allow it. There is aoe healing with different spatial elements. Healing circle on the ground is different than an instant aoe heal center on the healer.
I am of the opinion that the health bar is your own responsibility. Babysitting someone elses health bar doesn't sound very innovative. Wouldn't it be more innovative to pull your friend away from a fireball about to hit his face? Or drop a portal next to him so that he can jump in to change his positioning. How about raising a slab of rock from the ground so that he can use it for cover? Create an energy shield at a target location that deflects projectiles. Send him flying up into the air over a wall to assault the keep.
I guess if things had to be innovative to be fun, this opinion might matter. But I'm still playing TF2, which isn't necessarily a massive innovation over the "shoot people" gameplay of Wolf3D or Quake 1. Yet it's fun because it's a good game design, and because polish and details matter a lot in regards to whether these activities are actually fun.
This ^^^
Innovation and fun are two different things. There are MANY old ideas in gaming are still fun with good new implementation and polish. Shooting things never get old .. otherwise shooters won't be popular for so many years.
What is it exactly that makes shooting games so much fun? I believe the player is interacting with a 3D world. You're given a toolbox and using it to escape from impossible odds, decimate anything in your path and find a way to overcome obstacles. What are you asking a healer to do? Playing a 2 dimensional user interface.
Healing is interacting with a 3d world, if the mechanics allow it. There is aoe healing with different spatial elements. Healing circle on the ground is different than an instant aoe heal center on the healer.
There's only so much you can do with that idea. The reason is because you're limited to just refilling a health bar. There is no depth to this.
"There's only so much you can do with that idea. The reason is because you're limited to just refilling a health bar. There is no depth to this."
Certainly not the case in PvP. Everyone who played DAoC knows that having a skilled healer made all the difference in the world. And with skill I most certainly don't mean how good he was at watching healthbars go down and up.
What the trinity adds is structure, which can lead to more tactical gameplay. (I agree this is questionable in many PvE implementations though)
The downside of "no trinity" (or other structure) is that fights can become zergfests, everyone just runs in the middle and pewpews while keeping himself alive. Basically, the game must provide some other means to avoid this.
Some sort of structure is good,. Doesn't have to be "the trinity (tm)" ofcourse.
The downside of "no trinity" (or other structure) is that fights can become zergfests, everyone just runs in the middle and pewpews while keeping himself alive. Basically, the game must provide some other means to avoid this.
That is not true. Look at D3. There are multiple play style. Kiting, using ability to tank/keep yourself alive .. a combo of the two. Use terraine to your advantage. All those can be done in groups.
Comments
The reason tanks are so hard to find is because of the way the aggro system works. Aggro is a control mechanism. The tank is essentially responsible for keeping the attention of the NPC's and controlling the situation. Loss of aggro is a loss of control and regarded as a tank that is not doing it's job.
People generally aren't the leader type. They don't want all that excess baggage of responsibility that comes with the role. This is why DPS is so popular. Log in, point, shoot, kill, next.
I enjoy healing in games where healing has strong mechanics behind it. In WOW that was certainly true, constantly optimizing your heals to minimize overheal wasting your finite resource (mana) took many forms. It wasn't the pinnacle of healing design, and I think things could be taken further, but it was fun in its own right.
It's pretty ridiculous that you think there's more innate depth to making an HP bar go to zero than preventing one from going to zero. The differences between the two aren't particularly substantial.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am of the opinion that the health bar is your own responsibility. Babysitting someone elses health bar doesn't sound very innovative. Wouldn't it be more innovative to pull your friend away from a fireball about to hit his face? Or drop a portal next to him so that he can jump in to change his positioning. How about raising a slab of rock from the ground so that he can use it for cover? Create an energy shield at a target location that deflects projectiles. Send him flying up into the air over a wall to assault the keep.
There is a lot of truth to this, but its not just the aggro. Tank is EXPECTED to have knowledge of the dungeon, and keep a faster-than-fun pace because one or two of the party members is surely to be a go go go rusher. Tanking is getting more and more annoying as people are becoming imppatient turds.
EQ had the best system for this, as tanks were mostly responsible for keeping aggro and not for pulling, there was a seperate person assigned for that so it split up the duties a bit. Also since you did NOT want to get hit by an EQ1 mob, dps were generally much more careful of their aggro.
good for you. doesnt mean theres anything wrong with the mechanic.
How much you wanna bet that the "trinity" of Tank, Healer, DPS will not be used on Blizzard's Titan project?
People are sick and tired of waiting for a healer and a tank. Wouldn't you want to design a game where people are actually playing it instead of looking for people to play with them?
Isn't WoW's next expansion "MOP" going to introduce a new class "Monk" that moves away form the reactive healing model? Aren't they designing senario's that do not require a tank or a healer?
Everyone wants and loves to feel needed. This is why the trinity worked so well. This design model is getting old though. When new physics come into play; a tank, healer and DPS doesn't make sense anymore.
I appreciate Guild Wars 2's model a lot more. All classes can control, support and deal damage when needed. This means that everyone is needed and not just a few people hoarding all the attention.
I have to agree with this.
If you like the trinity, fine, use it. But IMO if a quest/instance/dungeon requires 6 level 60s, it should be doable with ANY combination of level 60 classes.
Let me turn this conversation around abit.
What viable rpg combat systems can be used to replace the trinity for mmorpgs?
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Diablo 3 system, or any multiplayer co-op action RPG. In fact, the playstyle of D3 is very close to many MMORPGs. You form up groups to go to dungeons. The only difference is that the lobby you go before the dungeon is a menu, instead of a 3D city.
To me, it seems that roles in a game, be it the holy trinity or otherwise, are factors of player preference and necessity. Necessity, in this case, being the need to focus on what is most efficient and effective. The trinity became that due to game mechanics. For example, players tank because the aggro mechanics of mobs and bosses focus their attention on that play style, and because class skills (taunts) were created specifically to draw aggro. Developers can encourage people to move away from these specific and fixed roles by varying the mechanics of mob AI's and character skills, as we see in the given example, GW2. However, that will not be the end of the trinity, as there is still the factor of player preference. Some people enjoy fixed roles, and will build their characters to suit their preferred play style as much as is feasible. In our given example of a potential trinity-breaker, GW2, I am sure we will still find plenty of groups focusing on a trinity-style gameplay, just as we likely could find players in trinity-centric games trying (even if inefficiently or unsuccessfully) to avoid the trinity. So, the trinity is not dead, but it also isn't the only option.
Personally, I prefer choice and flexibility. I do not want to play a fixed role. While I am not a hardcore roleplayer, I do RP my character to a certain extent. I prefer to focus on the story and immersion of the game over the mechanics. Also, I feel like they trinity focus puts too much reliance onto each individual mechanic, meaning if one breaks down, the whole lot is often lost. This can often lead to anger and anxiety, which are not the reasons I play a game. I want to have fun, and what I enjoy more is to be able to bend to the needs of the moment. Of course, everyone's preference will be different; that is why we have more than one game available.
Level Up Quickly
"...it was because the Guardian tanked!"
The trinity will never die as long as one class, just one is all it takes, can take damage better than the others. You going to have the squishy in cloth engage the dragon or the guy in plate, who, coincidentally, can carry a shield? It's ludicrous to say there is no "trinity" in gw2. There are plate wearers and there are not. There are classes that can increase/improve upon the basic heals each class gets. And, obviously, every class can kill things.
The only way there will never be a tank is if you can kill things faster than they can kill you. Period. If it's an extended battle there will be a tank. Regardless of what the class filling the role is called.
Don't get carried away. There is one game that is talking about minimizing the need for the trinity, while getting ready to release a game that still depends on it.
Behind the curtain? Smoke and mirrors...
I guess if things had to be innovative to be fun, this opinion might matter. But I'm still playing TF2, which isn't necessarily a massive innovation over the "shoot people" gameplay of Wolf3D or Quake 1. Yet it's fun because it's a good game design, and because polish and details matter a lot in regards to whether these activities are actually fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This ^^^
Innovation and fun are two different things. There are MANY old ideas in gaming are still fun with good new implementation and polish. Shooting things never get old .. otherwise shooters won't be popular for so many years.
The trinity exists because there is demand for the trinity and as long as there are people who wish for a game with a holy trinity they will keep existing.
Personally I hate the Holy Trinity with passion, but I am not going to say it can never work. But if they fix the problems attributed to the Holy Trinity I wouldnt mind it so much, namely how every foe is magnetically attatched to the tank and there is no need for formations, oh and if you mess up, the healer can provide you with all your life back at a whim, assuming he has the resource (and resource management is dying it seems).
In these trinity based games, I played as a tank, and occationally healer. I never really felt like I was working as a team with the rest of the players.
Some mmos naturally do things better than others, such as WoW does the healing role quite well, but I felt the tanking role was rather stale, just do your rotation to maintain the foes on you and pay heed to the gimmicks.
Like with any gaming genre, there is no right and wrong in mmorpgs. Some mmos benefit from the system, others suffer for it. It really dephends on how well it blends with everything else and how it is executed.
It has 100% to do with the fact that the MMORPG genre has been run over by a bunch of entitled console gamer soloer's.
The holy trinity is a great thing, hell i actually prefer the holy quadrity (sp?) that was present in EverQuest. Where you need a tank, dps, a healer, and someone to handle crowd control.
These games started out being about 2 things. 1. Having a huge open world to explore and "live in", so to speak, and 2. To be massively multiplayer, by that meaning having more than 12 or 16 people in one area at a time. Literally having hundreds of people able to run around in the same area doing things independently of each other (don't mistake that statement to mean soloing).
Everquest and UO both acheived these goals. They both catered to different styles of gamers as far as PVP vs PVE at its most basic level, and thats fine.
But now, everyone is about "Using up the content" and then moving on to their next fix. They treat MMO's exactly as they do single player games. I.e. you buy it, play through the content, then move on to something else. The insulting part is the developers have tried to deliver this and still call these games MMOs. It makes me sick.
People came to these games before because they werent single player games, because it wasnt about burning through the content. Because it was about socializing, grouping with your buddies to go explore, or go find what creatures may live in the dark, damp forest and kill them. Or to sit around in a town and sell your wares, or to sit around in a town and craft your wares. Or to get a crap ton of people together and take down that annoying white dragon thats been roaming around in the zone you've been playing in, etc etc etc.
I just can't fathom the reasoning behind why people enjoy the sytle of play they complain so loudly that they want in these and many forums.
You know, thats what games like Skyrim are for. Why dont you guys go play that and leave our precious genre the hell alone. No, instead you had to crap all over it and turn it into something it was never intended nor designed to be...
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
tbh, the trinity is still there. It's just more dynamic and flexible.
For example in GW2, the gaurdian is still viewed as your tank/support and your elementalist/thief is viewed as dps, although the elementalist is somewhat of a powerhouse with defensive and support magic as well.
It's still there very much, you just won't be doing boring ass tank n spank shit where your tank runs in, aggros, healer heals tank, etc, etc.
The gameplay is much more dynamic and fluid this way, more exciting.
Originally posted by Arskaaa
"when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".
without trinity mmorpg is bored,sterile...it is not rpg it is arcade shooter ,look STO there not egsist trinity,bored fight where all playing as dps ,no team work, nothing what can associate on team work , all can be done withouth talking inside teams cuse trinity not egsist
What is it exactly that makes shooting games so much fun? I believe the player is interacting with a 3D world. You're given a toolbox and using it to escape from impossible odds, decimate anything in your path and find a way to overcome obstacles. What are you asking a healer to do? Playing a 2 dimensional user interface.
If that's really all it was, it wouldn't be that fun. But there's movement, and boss mechanics, and even the "pulling teammates away from incoming harm" suggestion you yourself made (WOW priests).
In short, preventing health bars from reaching 0 is just as compelling as making health bars reach 0. Being the reason the party lives or dies is fun. A healers' toolbox exerts a large influence over the battle (an influence DPS classes typically lack.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Right. I think people would enjoy interacting with a 3D world instead of a 2D user interface. Future game design should make support roles that have the player's eyes on the action. Wether the role is reactive or proactive or a mix of both is fine. The health bar is an outdated system. Even FPS games don't use it anymore. It serves little to no purpose.
I guess if things had to be innovative to be fun, this opinion might matter. But I'm still playing TF2, which isn't necessarily a massive innovation over the "shoot people" gameplay of Wolf3D or Quake 1. Yet it's fun because it's a good game design, and because polish and details matter a lot in regards to whether these activities are actually fun.
This ^^^
Innovation and fun are two different things. There are MANY old ideas in gaming are still fun with good new implementation and polish. Shooting things never get old .. otherwise shooters won't be popular for so many years.
What is it exactly that makes shooting games so much fun? I believe the player is interacting with a 3D world. You're given a toolbox and using it to escape from impossible odds, decimate anything in your path and find a way to overcome obstacles. What are you asking a healer to do? Playing a 2 dimensional user interface.
Healing is interacting with a 3d world, if the mechanics allow it. There is aoe healing with different spatial elements. Healing circle on the ground is different than an instant aoe heal center on the healer.There's only so much you can do with that idea. The reason is because you're limited to just refilling a health bar. There is no depth to this.
"There's only so much you can do with that idea. The reason is because you're limited to just refilling a health bar. There is no depth to this."
Certainly not the case in PvP. Everyone who played DAoC knows that having a skilled healer made all the difference in the world. And with skill I most certainly don't mean how good he was at watching healthbars go down and up.
What the trinity adds is structure, which can lead to more tactical gameplay. (I agree this is questionable in many PvE implementations though)
The downside of "no trinity" (or other structure) is that fights can become zergfests, everyone just runs in the middle and pewpews while keeping himself alive. Basically, the game must provide some other means to avoid this.
Some sort of structure is good,. Doesn't have to be "the trinity (tm)" ofcourse.
That is not true. Look at D3. There are multiple play style. Kiting, using ability to tank/keep yourself alive .. a combo of the two. Use terraine to your advantage. All those can be done in groups.