Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

After GW2 do you want the holy trio back?

11113151617

Comments

  • VaelgardVaelgard Boston, MAPosts: 59Member Uncommon

    As an addendum, WoW gives you many different types and difficulties of PvE content, whereas GW2 just has a really easy cluster**** version and a more difficult cluster**** version.

     

    You find WoW dungeons easy because that is the content you are choosing to do.  Super easy mindnumbing stuff.  Raid or do challenge modes, and trust me, you will NOT be bored.  You will need to tweak your abilities in your defined role to the best they can be to down some of the most difficult content (heroic raid bosses and CM golds).

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,499Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vaelgard
    Ok.  So I noticed some people are hating on me liking WoW's raiding system and trinity.  You guys are constantly saying how easy WoW dungeons are (and you noticably do not raid current content).  Dungeons are SUPPOSED to be easy.  They are for entry level players looking for entry level loot so they can feel a sense of accomplishment.  Then, there is raiding, heroic raiding, and for the truly brave, the new challenge mode dungeons, which I have completed all on gold with a TON of dedication and effort.  If you think getting gold challenge modes is easy, then you are simply lying.  You have to play your defined role to absolute perfection, and there is no bigger rush in MMOs today!

    That honestly sounds like fun. I should have checked in on those challenge modes while I was playing as they did look interesting to me. I used to do heroic raiding in Lich King. And yeah, it was difficult for us.

     

    But I don't think any of that is dependant on the holy trinity. I agree that you can have challenging content in both situations, but the predictability level in a holy trinity game is much higher in my opinion. Maybe that's the difference. In one scenario you are reacting a lot more (no trinity) and in another you are mostly working on perfecting the movements and timing of the encounter (trinity).

     

    In other words, it's more of a taste thing.

     

     

  • VaelgardVaelgard Boston, MAPosts: 59Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by Vaelgard
    Ok.  So I noticed some people are hating on me liking WoW's raiding system and trinity.  You guys are constantly saying how easy WoW dungeons are (and you noticably do not raid current content).  Dungeons are SUPPOSED to be easy.  They are for entry level players looking for entry level loot so they can feel a sense of accomplishment.  Then, there is raiding, heroic raiding, and for the truly brave, the new challenge mode dungeons, which I have completed all on gold with a TON of dedication and effort.  If you think getting gold challenge modes is easy, then you are simply lying.  You have to play your defined role to absolute perfection, and there is no bigger rush in MMOs today!

    That honestly sounds like fun. I should have checked in on those challenge modes while I was playing as they did look interesting to me.

     

    But I don't think any of that is dependant on the holy trinity. I agree that you can have challenging content in both situations, but the predictability level in a holy trinity game is much higher in my opinion. Maybe that's the difference. In one scenario you are reacting a lot more (no trinity) and in another you are mostly working on perfecting the movements and timing of the encounter (trinity).

     

    In other words, it's more of a taste thing.

     

     

    You make a good point, and yes, ultimately, everything is a matter of taste.  What I didn't mention about the challenge modes, however, is how much you have to stretch your role and almost encompass other roles of the trinity in order to succeed in getting gold medals.  For example, a tank has to run into the next room and pull all of the mobs while the healer is drinking.  The tank needs to use his defensive CDs and self heals and the dps have to pull off certain mobs or DPS down things in order for the tank not to die.  The object is survival until the healer can enter the room and continue the fight.  I know the roles are still basically the roles, but it offers a really nice amount of dynamic feel to the holy trinity.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,499Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vaelgard
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by Vaelgard
    Ok.  So I noticed some people are hating on me liking WoW's raiding system and trinity.  You guys are constantly saying how easy WoW dungeons are (and you noticably do not raid current content).  Dungeons are SUPPOSED to be easy.  They are for entry level players looking for entry level loot so they can feel a sense of accomplishment.  Then, there is raiding, heroic raiding, and for the truly brave, the new challenge mode dungeons, which I have completed all on gold with a TON of dedication and effort.  If you think getting gold challenge modes is easy, then you are simply lying.  You have to play your defined role to absolute perfection, and there is no bigger rush in MMOs today!

    That honestly sounds like fun. I should have checked in on those challenge modes while I was playing as they did look interesting to me.

     

    But I don't think any of that is dependant on the holy trinity. I agree that you can have challenging content in both situations, but the predictability level in a holy trinity game is much higher in my opinion. Maybe that's the difference. In one scenario you are reacting a lot more (no trinity) and in another you are mostly working on perfecting the movements and timing of the encounter (trinity).

     

    In other words, it's more of a taste thing.

    You make a good point, and yes, ultimately, everything is a matter of taste.  What I didn't mention about the challenge modes, however, is how much you have to stretch your role and almost encompass other roles of the trinity in order to succeed in getting gold medals.  For example, a tank has to run into the next room and pull all of the mobs while the healer is drinking.  The tank needs to use his defensive CDs and self heals and the dps have to pull off certain mobs or DPS down things in order for the tank not to die.  The object is survival until the healer can enter the room and continue the fight.  I know the roles are still basically the roles, but it offers a really nice amount of dynamic feel to the holy trinity.

    I'm going to roll back over once the new arena season is announced and I'll check those out. They sound fun.

  • EmrendilEmrendil TirionPosts: 199Member
    I liked "trinity" more. I like having roles like dps, healer or tank.
  • Home15Home15 GentPosts: 203Member

    In evry mmo i played i always been a healer.

    Just love that role.

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

  • Lovely_LalyLovely_Laly genevaPosts: 734Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,453Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by botrytis
     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    D&D is quite far from the holy trinity.

    did you not have roles?

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

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

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

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

     

  • pantheronpantheron calhoun, GAPosts: 170Member
    My problem with the trinity mainly comes down to the fact that, a lot of the time, a smart group who isn't the trinity can't accomplish the same feats as a group who isn't as intelligent with their gameplay  descisions, but is using a trinity. If all of my friends and I want to try and do content as barbarians, It should be POSSIBLE for us to complete the content.  I'm not saying it should be as  easy as a Priest/Paladin/Sorcerer mixed group, but it should be possible. I like to think that a smart group of Warriors should be capable of taking down a raid boss.

    I play MMOs for the Forum PVP

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter So CalPosts: 386Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by botrytis
     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    D&D is quite far from the holy trinity.

    did you not have roles?

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • ValentinaValentina Los Angeles, CAPosts: 1,675Member Uncommon
    I don't want the trinity back at all.
  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member

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

     

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

     

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

     

    Get rid of healers?

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

     

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

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

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,453Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
    O

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

  • AerowynAerowyn BUZZARDS BAY, MAPosts: 7,928Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath

    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
    O

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

     

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

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

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter So CalPosts: 386Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • ZzadZzad Palma de MallorcaPosts: 1,332Member Uncommon

    You have PLENTY of games with Trinity....

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

    You just want clones forever?

    boring.....

    image

  • AerowynAerowyn BUZZARDS BAY, MAPosts: 7,928Member
    Originally posted by Zzad

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

     

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

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

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter So CalPosts: 386Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aerowyn

     

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

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

  • AerowynAerowyn BUZZARDS BAY, MAPosts: 7,928Member
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter

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

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

     

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

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

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,453Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter

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

    You know that's a very good point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,474Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by cybertrucker

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

    or :

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

    ?

     

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

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

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

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter So CalPosts: 386Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter

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

    You know that's a very good point.

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

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

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

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

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

    You have PLENTY of games with Trinity....

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

    You just want clones forever?

    boring.....

    image

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

  • Eir_SEir_S Argyle, NYPosts: 4,623Member
    Originally posted by pantheron
    My problem with the trinity mainly comes down to the fact that, a lot of the time, a smart group who isn't the trinity can't accomplish the same feats as a group who isn't as intelligent with their gameplay  descisions, but is using a trinity. If all of my friends and I want to try and do content as barbarians, It should be POSSIBLE for us to complete the content.  I'm not saying it should be as  easy as a Priest/Paladin/Sorcerer mixed group, but it should be possible. I like to think that a smart group of Warriors should be capable of taking down a raid boss.

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

Sign In or Register to comment.