It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by aSynchro 1) EQ didn't have a strict Holy Trinity. And sorry but its the first time i heard "EQ community was amazing *because* i could play a tank!!"
EQ did have a strict holy trinity, in fact that's where the name comes from, it was Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter.
Highly unbalanced classes compared to other classes. It was called that because they were powerfull classes, something peple now would scream bloody murder for because they were extremely unbalanced classes, which is actually good up to a point. You want your classes to be specialised and slightly unbalanced.
People later changed this to Tanks, Healer, DPS even though the Enchanter is CC. Which for me is the same thing, 3 specialised base classes you build a group around.
2) The Holy Trinity IS broken. Tank in pvp? Healer when doing solo quest ? Having to wait 1 hours because your group is missing a tank ? Having your healer friend enable to play with you because you are yourself a healer ? Please.
PVP players need to start realising that specialised unbalanced classes are the reason people group. If you make everyone a jack of all trades like some PVP players ask for every time, you end up with the current solo games mistakingly called MMO.
4) D&D doesn't use the trinity. There a long thread about it somewhere on these forums. Basic idea is: you heal *after the fight*
I never said D&D did the trinity.
Originally posted by chelan its so sad. some of you guys should just find a good 3.5 tabletop campaign and experience it.
I haven't had a good PnP experience since the early '90s. A former friend started a DnD club in university and pleaded 'til I joined. Most members cared more about stuffing snacks in their faces than playing and they took three 3 hour sessions to pick a class.
The holy trinity is boring because it puts you into roles where, for the most part, you can stand in one place and spam the skill you're supposed to spam (taunt, heal, damage). Sure, some games (especially in raids) make you move around more to avoid AOE attacks and the like, but avoid them and its back to spamming your skill.
Guild Wars 2 isn't a failure because of how it was designed. It is more of a disappointment because the game allows you to do just about everything solo except instances, and the difference in difficulty between the two is so far apart. The game never teaches you how to function in a group. You don't even communicate in the "open" world. Throw a whole bunch of people that have no group experience into an instance and you get what most people complain about with GW2 -- people run in their own directions, they aoe everything in sight, and they don't always help downed teammates.
If you're playing a game with the holy trinity, you can have easy solo play and still go into instances with a group that can survive because everyone can fall back into their role and they don't really need to think much about what to do. Spam heal, spam taunt, spam damage. To be honest, the most fun I've had in holy trinity group is when someone screwed up or we didn't see a patrol when we pulled. I know that some players will scream that the team screwed up even if everyone survives, but sometimes those are the most fun to me because you step out of your cement shoes and scrambled to come up with a victory. I'm not saying a group of incompetents is more fun... but these days you can't really tell how good a holy trinity group is until something goes wrong. (I will admit that this doesn't apply to big raids because one screw up is usually enough to kill everyone.)
I think there is still better gameplay than the holy trinity. Maybe you remove tanking... it has a mechanic (taunt) that doesn't work in pvp, so change it so that it makes more sense. Maybe tanks are knockdown specialists, or maybe they can protect weaker players by intercepting attacks rather than yelling "Hey, over here, attack me!" I've said this in other holy trinity threads, but I don't understand how getting repeatedly hit (mauled or stabbed through the gut) while being healed equates to any epic battle I've ever pictured in my mind, read in a book, or saw in a movie.
I really don't think spamming healing makes for an epic battle either, but at least it is a mechanic that works in both pve and pvp. I really don't like full heals and I think dots make for a more challenging battle (you'll recover as long as you don't get in too much trouble for a few seconds). But I can't say that removing healing completely from a game makes the most sense.
In summary, I think there are better options than the holy trinity but most players like the safety of knowing they need to spam heal or taunt and they'll be okay. I think tanking is the weakest of the trinity and could be tweaked to something more interesting than a taunt machine that takes all aggro.
I don't get this argument.
For me it's never been a matter of if a system is broken or not. It's the limiting factors. You can claim all you want that a trinity adds structure to a game and that without it you'd be left with mindless slogs. You're free to that as an opinion.
As a fact though, you'd be wrong.
Point on this being to look back at previous titles built on the premise of customization of characters. Asheron's Call was a decent example of a game with open-ended design to how you wished to build a character, and before players got haerdcore into the must-haves to exploit game imbalances there was a wide variety of builds you could prototype out and setupf that were actually perfectly functional, and yet could still fall in line with a group.
Or another example, Planetside. Yeah it's a shooter, but for those that actually played the game youi can think back and note how they left progression and specialization as a personal choice. Your class played as you kitted it and no matter the selection, unless you were exceptionally redundant or just rolling with a zerg, you could have a build to benefit a squad because you would have particular equipment to address at least one of the aspects of Planetside's conflict.
It might not be a popular or technically good game, but an additional example can be seen in Champions to a degree. Yes, the game has a healing class design to go along with a tank and a dps build, but you can also equally note that the game allows for character customization to the extent that you can make any combination in-between as well, and blending the class features generally goes a long way to not just building a better player, but a better team, as characters are more capable of cycling through combat and supporting one another.
This is a similar aspect to what people have a habit of discounting about GW2's approach. They simplify the notion to claim the lack of the trinity makes combat scenarios into just a bar room brawl type scenario. I find this claim generally erroneous, as I can note offhand that I see decent teams for raids and even open world play typpically choose their gear and consequently skillsets based on what the other members of the group uses, and that goes a fair way in optimizing the play of the group without them having to adopt a specific role. It's only when they choose to do silly things like all picking the heaviest hitting weapon sets they have or all weilding heal items that you get the pug wipes and spam fests where people dash themselves upon the mobs several dozen times over to complete a raid.
Then there's also one of my generally favored examples that went largely unplayed by the world in spite of the game's quality. Saga of Ryzom. A third title that let players progress in any skill thery wanted and went as far as letting them create the abilities they were using. How did they create team play elements? Well mainly by building a better game with more unique AI, creatures that respond in passive, defenseive, and predatory fashions, and larger combat situations that required co-ordination over simply making sure your role kept a wheel turning.
That brings me to my point really. The problem is the external factor of co-ordination. You can have an mmo with the trinity built into it, like Tera, and that trinity can be utterly useless because you need very little co-ordination to beat any of the creatures in the game, even the world bosses. Y^ou can have all the class definition or malleability you want, but as long as the core mechanics of combat itself is simple, the gameplay is going to be simple.
If it wasn't obvious already I'm generally in disfavor of the trinity. Not as the trinity itself, but the accompanying common trait to class-lock you where I would preferably be able to kit myself out in a scale between any of the game's elements, always meeting a net sum limiting the overall performance to roughly equal. So if you ask me what I'd rather a game have you'll most likely hear me say a 'classless system', but don't mistake that for a disorganized one. I still believe in the value of templates.
It's the complexity of combat itself that needs to be addressed. When the gameplay is simple at the basic level of interaction between you and the world, no amount of class definition or customization will fix the nature of the combat.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by Mavek Originally posted by zipzap Originally posted by CalmOceans Don't fix what isn't broken.
so nothing should be upgraded or changed ever?
i'm pretty sure the shape of the wheel has stayed the same for the last 20,000 years.
That's a bad analogy. It implies that the wheel hasn't evolved since whatever abstract frame of time you just named in a vain attempt to be cheeky. There's an entire portion of the automotive industry based around the development of wheels that offer stronger performance or are made for different situations.
@OP, I like the way GW2 and other soft trinity systems do it, because my main issue with the Holy Trinity is the pigeonholing of classes to 3 basic and unmoving archetypes. It's boring, stagnant, and needs to go imo. But that's my opinion. If I pick a heavy class, I want it to be because of the strength of the class & it's unique properties they created, and how fun it is to play that class. NOT the role it's ascribed to.
The trinity is not broken. It is simply one of several completely valid and completely relevant styles of gameplay.
Not liking something, does not make it immediately bad or wrong. I, personally, do not like trinity based games. Does this mean they are broken or bad? Not at all. Nine million WoW subscribers say otherwise.
Do some of us want a less structured playstyle? Yes, however, we are actually in the minority. The vast majority of MMO gamers enjoy having a solid, structured, point A --> point B, environment.
There's an interesting dichotomy between MMO gamers and single player gamers. I've noticed that the vast majority of MMO players want a very structured game with levels, classes and specificially designated roles. Single Player gamers, however, tend towards the complete opposite side of the spectrum. The TES series, The fallout Series, the Farcry Series and, I could go on for a long time here, are all sandbox games. Very open, very unstructured. Build the character you want to build, and play the game how you want to play it.
This has never really translated well into an online community for some reason. Even our best shining example of this, EVE Online, only boasts a tiny fraction of the players (keep in mind subs and players in EVE are vastly different concepts) of WoW and GW2. Games that have tried this are left in relative obscurity or bashed by the community such as Darkfall which was a great sandbox, but no one played it except for a tiny community of hyper griefing uber pricks.
I'm holding out great hopes for The Repopulation. It may be the game that I've been waiting for... or it may not, but I'm hoping it gives me a chance to play without the trinity.
*looks at tank*
*looks at snowmobile*
*looks at seaplane*
Wheels are great, but they're not the only thing out there anymore.
Originally posted by Eleazaros The older style wouldn't work with modern gamers. The ADD nature and "demand" based way games run would preclude most alternate systems from working. It needs to be consistent and predictable. If you can't google the answers on "best build" "how to do ..." so on and so forth, most gamers have already demonstrated they'll throw fits. These common attributes you find across MMO's is due to the same logic as your DPS parser. The game companies "parse" who does what and build more of what the players do vs just what they talk about - which rarely matches what they stay with for any length of time. Too much variance off the common themes we see and it won't be acceptable by enough players to make a quality game that can be supported by the game manufacturer. So what people do as they play limits what they can and will be able to offer with "high quality" presentations. It costs to make the stuff.
Whoa, buddy, this has nothing to do with ADD and everything to do with better gameplay. Specialists relying on each other is applicable to real life collaboration, which is why it's typically considered more fun (learning to collaborate in a group is an enjoyable form of play.)
Everyone being mostly the same and collaborating? Well that's just less of a game, and therefore considered less fun. It's not devoid of fun, but simply less fun.
Does specialization have to take the form of a trinity? Not exactly, but the trinity is so simplified down to its pure form (mitigation, recovery, and damage; tanking, healing, and DPS) that you're going to be hard-pressed to find specializations which can't be put into those categories.
For example in Puzzle Pirates a ship needs completely abstract jobs to be done: Rigging, Sailing, Bilging, Carpentry, etc. From one point of view these share absolutely no similarities to Tank, Healer, DPS. But when you actually know how all the pieces fit together, you realize Rigging/Sailing are essentially DPS, and Bilging/Carpentry are healing.
So even this game which is absurdly not the typical trinity can be quantified by the trinity because its definition is so broad.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Serelisk Originally posted by Mavek Originally posted by zipzap Originally posted by CalmOceans Don't fix what isn't broken.
I am pretty sure he is talking about the basic shape of the wheel. Now you can make those wheels to adapt various vehicles, increase or decrease them in size etc but the basic shape is still the same. That is what people mean when they give example of the wheel. However, as far as trinity goes many posters here just want to completely destroy it and start from scratch. Even though holy trinity has worked for so many years and still does.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."-Luke McKinney
the problem is not the holy trinity, the problem is how the trinity is used. Being forced to only one role per ¨class¨ is not fun. Thats wrong and thats bs IMO. I should be able to pick an archetype and build it however i want. If i want to tank i should be able to get better at tanking abilities and heavier armor while still being able to do some good dps if i want to and have some healing skills if i so desire. Same applies to a healer orientation and dps. The trinity is still there for everyone to plan their tactics while the class dont force a player to stick to 1 role unless they create a new character. That sucks really bad in games like TERA where theres zero class flexibility in which case im just happier without a trinity at all.
And im not talking about giving players few spec trees like WoW. Thats cool and all but im talking about things like Skyrim. You build whatever you want to be within your character and still be able to get a trinity going on
On a second note, I love what GW2 did but i do realise there is room for a lot of improvement to that system to avoid getting messy fights. However, even with a heavy trinity messy fights are prone to happen when players dont plan tactics ahead of time. IMO GW2s is a lot better than being forced to one and only one role per class even with the much needed improvements. But thats just me.
Guild Wars 2 tried to stray from the holy trinity and the result was the worst dungeon experience I've ever had in my life.
Holy trinity serves a purpose, and should be a standard for any MMO that wants to entertain gamers for more than 1 month.
Originally posted by JonnyBigBoss Guild Wars 2 tried to stray from the holy trinity and the result was the worst dungeon experience I've ever had in my life. Holy trinity serves a purpose, and should be a standard for any MMO that wants to entertain gamers for more than 1 month.
Whats funny is that for me GW2 had the best dungeon experience in a themepark MMO i've ever had.
Some do like the holy trinity which is why there are plenty of games that cater to that style of play. There are also a great number that do not enjoy the holy trinity as it is, which is why so many games coming out are changing it and or removing it and building a lot of hype for it.
Lets not forget, GW2 has been a massive success. It's one of the top rated MMO's out. It has out performed all trinity centric MMO's in the west except for WoW. So there obviously is a market for something other than the traditional trinity setup.
Originally posted by GrayGhost79 Originally posted by JonnyBigBoss Guild Wars 2 tried to stray from the holy trinity and the result was the worst dungeon experience I've ever had in my life. Holy trinity serves a purpose, and should be a standard for any MMO that wants to entertain gamers for more than 1 month.
Whats funny is that for me GW2 had the best dungeon experience in a themepark MMO i've ever had.
Same goes for me, and honestly, the idea that every game in a genre has to follow the same rules is stupid and it's what caused all of those lacklustre WoW clones in the first place. There's variety in the industry now, get over it and play what YOU like instead of trying to force what you like on everyone else.
Originally posted by CalmOceans I see some people complain about the holy trinity. That's fine, but realise that the holy trinity from Everquest, which was based on D&D, created one of the most successful MMO communities ever, a community that grouped and was much stronger than the fast-paced action games we see now. So people who say "the trinity is boring, we need something new" That's great, but unless you are able to offer something as compelling as the trinity then I'll remain playing games with a trinity. Don't fix what isn't broken. edit: I need to add this for people who didn't play EQ, people mistakingly say EQ didn't use trinities even though EQ coined the phrase. EQ's trinity was warrior, cleric, enchanter. This is where the name comes from. It referred to 3 classes that were extremely powerful in a number of expansions and ended up as preferral classes, a trinity.
I don't have a problem with a trinity as I haven't found one in EO yet.
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
Originally posted by JRRNeiklot Originally posted by Giffen The bottom line is the "holy trinity" is just another way of saying classes are specialized. This type of play only comes in games that stress group play over soloing.
Wrong. Again, Tabletop games don't have a holy trinity and they stress grouping. MMOS sprang out of D&D, so why must they have a trinity? I have never heard any valid reason why. Some game designer decided it would be a good idea and it works, but why must EVERY game follow that model?
Originally posted by Eir_S play what YOU like instead of trying to force what you like on everyone else.
Is it possible to allow other people to be enjoy happiness, if we're miserable?
In my point of view, the holy trinity is valid only because core components of most MMOs have not changed. You do almost the exact same things in all MMOs. Raiding, PvP, RvR, Missions, Quests, Kill X number of Y, Go fetch Z, combat control etc. Games like SWG (pre-cu) and EVE have/were headed in a slightly different direction. Both of the aforementioned games still have plenty of the said similarities with other MMOs, but they have/had very unique qualities that modded the trinity. To change the trinity, the way we think about MMOs should probably change. In games like WoW/EQ/Rift/SWTOR/etc, the holy trinity is the only viable option because thats the way the game is designed.
When PvP is introduced to an MMO the trinity takes on a whole new dynamic. Players ignore the tank and go straight for the healer. Players also actively scan for rogues who might sneak up on them and will focus fire DPS, because they're squishy. Players must adapt and be an asset to their team. They generally should have something they bring like a buff, or a CC ability.
Games like Savage 2 really mix up the dynamic by having both PvP, RTS, RPG, and FPS elements apart of it. Now granted this is a session based game, but in order to rethink and reimagine what an MMO can be we should look at other games.
In SWG, one did not have to be a combatant. You could be a city adminstrator, an entertainer, or a professional artisan. These classes worked because there was more to that game than just raiding and missions.
Games like the Sims could also lend inspiration. I don't mean by micro transactions, but by letting your character get a job and really interact with NPCs. Use said NPCs to interact with PCs. Give the player the option to guard around town and handle any disputes that may arise, in compensation he could earn rank and eventually control other city guards. Later this could end up leading you to defend the city from a siege and strategically placing guards and catapults for defense.
Games can easily create new dynamics that modify or even get rid of the trinity, and it is not by giving players the option to be any of those three. That still equates to the game needing a tank, healer, DPS/CC.
Anyways, just my 2 cents.
Asus Rampage IV FormulaIntel i7-3820 3.6 GHz O.C 4.7 GHzNoctua NH-D14 CPU CoolerHIS Radeon 7870 2 GB GDDR5Corsair XMS3 16 GB 1600 MHzSilicon Power 120 GB SSDForget stats 500 GB HDDCorsair TX 750MCooler Master HAF X
Originally posted by Antiquated Originally posted by Eir_S play what YOU like instead of trying to force what you like on everyone else.
If you are being miserable because games dont wana cater to you then you need to seek profesional help. Or play WoW.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by JRRNeiklot Originally posted by Giffen The bottom line is the "holy trinity" is just another way of saying classes are specialized. This type of play only comes in games that stress group play over soloing.
Tabletop games are for small groups. MMOs are not. So what if MMOs sprang out of D&D. Things changed. Video games sprang out of Pong. Do you see many similarities between Pong and games you play today?
Now, i do agree there is no reason why trinity is needed in all games. But D&D is not the reason. There are obviously other combat mechanics that will work in a MMO setting. For example, FPS.
Small groups my ass. 6-8 people on average, and I've played in groups of over a dozen. D&D is NOT the reason. I merely used it as an example that the trinity is not needed, and indeed, needlessly handicaps all games that use it.
Originally posted by Theocritus The thing I like about the trinity is that you can have longer battles.....The problem with everyone healing themselves and everyone being DPS is that the fights in general are made to be very short and almost everyone deals insane damage...To me this kind of gameplay just isn't fun.....Now a main tank fighting a boss with several people healing, DPS having to control their attacks so tank can hold aggro, now that is a much mroe challenging (and rewarding) way to play...Once they decided everyone can do everything it really took away alot of the fun for me.
Nothing bores me more than a long, drawn out fight in an mmo. Fights should be fast and furious imo. But isn't there room for both?
Originally posted by JRRNeiklot Originally posted by Theocritus The thing I like about the trinity is that you can have longer battles.....The problem with everyone healing themselves and everyone being DPS is that the fights in general are made to be very short and almost everyone deals insane damage...To me this kind of gameplay just isn't fun.....Now a main tank fighting a boss with several people healing, DPS having to control their attacks so tank can hold aggro, now that is a much mroe challenging (and rewarding) way to play...Once they decided everyone can do everything it really took away alot of the fun for me.
Yes, there's certainly room for both.
And also Theocritius' post is just plain wrong. You can clearly have longer battles without the trinity: take your favorite game and give everyone tanking and healing skills, and tell me fights don't last longer. There are reasons not to dilute class specializations in a game, but fight length isn't one of them.