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!

So who decided that the Holy Trinity of class dynamics was a bad thing?

189101113

Comments

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 18,000Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nephelai

    What on earth is this none sense - I cant even think of a team sport where no one has a role to play. Sure they can play out of their role at times but essentially they have roles and in fact have usually been selected based on their specialty.

    You are a prime example of what's silly about this argument - its obvious you haven't done anything remotely hard because if you had, say heroic Ragnaros in Firelands, you would know how difficult and challenging every persons role can be. Sure trinity is boring at toddler level but the challenge is for you to get better and rise to the challenge.

    I think we all agree that people needs to work together to beat a hard opponent, no matter if you prefer trinity combat or not.

    My problem with trinity games is more that they support skill rotations and you need to think less in a game where you have one single thing to do in combat..

    As I see it is trinity the first working group dynamics MMOs had (Meridian 59 had it already in 1996) but that doesn't make it the ultimate one. We need some new mechanics that are more dynamic while still rewards players for working together.

    That doesn't mean all trinity combat fights are easy of course but as soon as you fight something less than at the highest difficulty you get people who macro or rotate skills and all mobs can't be high level raid bosses.

    In combat you must have a number of things that needs to be done, and they needs to be done in co-operation but I don't see why it have to be decided who does what even before the combat starts.

    It is true that the alternatives to the trinity needs more work still though but the trinity have been improved for 17 years and I think with some time a few of those will most likely be far better in the long run.

  • crashdxcrashdx Houston, TXPosts: 53Member
    Originally posted by Nephelai
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    The trinity makes combat formulaic and trivial. Its like a dance routine, always the same. Things can get interesting only if somebody makes a mistake. And these games are not very hard anyway so why would you? It doesn't even promote "teamwork" 'cause everyone usually have just one job to do. Thats it. You do your thing, the rest do their thing, and if everybody does their thing well, nobody needs to talk to one another and all encounters are won. Woopty doo!

    What on earth is this none sense - I cant even think of a team sport where no one has a role to play. Sure they can play out of their role at times but essentially they have roles and in fact have usually been selected based on their specialty.

     

    You are a prime example of what's silly about this argument - its obvious you haven't done anything remotely hard because if you had, say heroic Ragnaros in Firelands, you would know how difficult and challenging every persons role can be. Sure trinity is boring at toddler level but the challenge is for you to get better and rise to the challenge.

     

    You're right with the team sport idea. Every team sport is defined roles. One of my favorite sports is basketball. PGs control the offense, SGs/SFs usually can shoot the ball, Big men get rebounds, score in the paint, defend.

     

    In this case the PG would be the healer. Assisting the other team and such. Like Chris Paul. If the PG sucks and can't get his teammates the ball then the team doesn't last long. Turnovers, bad decisions, broken plays, etc.

     

    SG/SFs are like the DPS. Think Kobe Bryant. They usually do the most damage on offense, can usually score in a variety of ways.

     

    PF would be like off tank and Center the Tank. Hard for a team to go anywhere without good big men.

     

    But see...the roles in ANY team sport are not so static. While Chris Paul is the prototypical PG (healer) you have a guy like Derrick Rose or Westbrook that are not. They will willingly score the ball and a guy like Westbrook will even deny his teammates the ball so that he can score. He's still very effective though.

    While SGs and SFs usually do a lot of the scoring in the NBA...a guy like Lebron is not the prototypical SF. He can assist, bring the ball up, rebound, defend the paint, score in the paint...do it all basically.

    While big men are usually relied on to grab rebounds and defend the paint...Dirk Nowitzki doesn't. He rather shoot and score on the perimeter. We could do this with every team sport. Roles are not static.

     

    So you see,  what EQN and other games are trying to do is make the roles less static than what they are. So that a healer could still heal but also play a backup damage role...or perhaps he could still just be a full on healer. At least that is what I took from it.

     

    I think GW2 did a pretty good job of it. Just like basketball everyone scores(DPS) but everyone also has to do something else. Sullpy buffs, remove conditions,  CC, etc etc...

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by marsh9799
     

    There's plenty of ways tanking can work other than that.  Current DnD uses forced movement, collision / positioning, and opportunity attacks.    If you didn't run with a tank and a healer in PnP games, you could make do... provided you stick to certain types of adventures, don't get unlucky rolls, and/or have a GM who rains down magical healing potions like nobody's business.

     

    Non-trinity combat is identical to the trinity combat you describe.  It's formulaic and trivial.  You do the exact same thing over and over again depending on the AI.

     

    And you clearly haven't done hard raiding.  Nobody needs to talk to one another?  LOL!

    Positioning and attacks of opportuny do not make a "tank" nothing forces the enemy to attack anyone. But if you insisted that is still tanking (which it really isn't) you would have to concede that any melee fighter in GW1 was also a tank, because that is precisely  how melee fighters worked in GW1: bodyblocking, positioning, pressure & harassment.

    No... The tank role is to make yourself as hard to kill as possible and then fool the AI to attack you. Frontline fighters in many games such as GW1, D&D etc. do not follow this criteria. Healing spells, in D&D, required the healer to touch his/her target, which could easily compromise the healer in melee range. For this reason, healing was reserved for emergencies only. Drinking potions in melee would also provoke an attack of opportunity. How is this relevant to your argument? Have you even played D&D?

    Non-trinity combat is far more varied than trinity combat, don't be silly. It is only limited by encounter and monster design. It also has more resemblance to PvP, and bringing PvE and PvP metagames closer together would help in a number of classic issues such as "wolves hunting the sheep" in OPvP games or PvP and PvE skill/class balance.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • eHugeHug HamburgPosts: 224Member
    Originally posted by KBishop

    that's kind of missing the point.

    You can add a bunch of interesting mechanics to the encounter to shake things up, but in the end the combat is still formulaic. Tanks tank, healers heal and damage dealers deal damage. Thats it. At best, they will have other things to do that aren't their designed role like moving locations to prevent wipes or something, but even taking out adds or shooting down orbs is STILL dpsing. Thats the problem with the trinity, is that it locks people to a specific role, and gives them only so much wiggle room before you are just having them do the same thing over different skins

    The same thing is true for any type of combat role. Just because the roles are named different, doesn't mean they are not roles anymore. Of course you can remove all roles and make every class exactly the same as the rest, but I have my doubts that this will make the game more interessting. It's like playing a FPS where you got exactly one weapon.

    Or do you know a way to have custom classes without roles?

  • marsh9799marsh9799 jackson, MSPosts: 100Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by marsh9799
     

    There's plenty of ways tanking can work other than that.  Current DnD uses forced movement, collision / positioning, and opportunity attacks.    If you didn't run with a tank and a healer in PnP games, you could make do... provided you stick to certain types of adventures, don't get unlucky rolls, and/or have a GM who rains down magical healing potions like nobody's business.

     

    Non-trinity combat is identical to the trinity combat you describe.  It's formulaic and trivial.  You do the exact same thing over and over again depending on the AI.

     

    And you clearly haven't done hard raiding.  Nobody needs to talk to one another?  LOL!

    Positioning and attacks of opportuny do not make a "tank" nothing forces the enemy to attack anyone. But if you insisted that is still tanking (which it really isn't) you would have to concede that any melee fighter in GW1 was also a tank, because that is precisely  how melee fighters worked in GW1: bodyblocking, positioning, pressure & harassment.

    No... The tank role is to make yourself as hard to kill as possible and then fool the AI to attack you. Frontline fighters in many games such as GW1, D&D etc. do not follow this criteria. Healing spells, in D&D, required the healer to touch his/her target, which could easily compromise the healer in melee range. For this reason, healing was reserved for emergencies only. Drinking potions in melee would also provoke an attack of opportunity. How is this relevant to your argument? Have you even played D&D?

    Non-trinity combat is far more varied than trinity combat, don't be silly. It is only limited by encounter and monster design. It also has more resemblance to PvP, and bringing PvE and PvP metagames closer together would help in a number of classic issues such as "wolves hunting the sheep" in OPvP games or PvP and PvE skill/class balance.

    Positioning, attacks of opportunity, and forced movement do make a tank, provided you have decent hit points and armor class.  It's actually similar to what Age of Conan used for PvP tanking.  It had very legit PvP tanking.  I know all you Trinity people hate agro based tanking, it's not inherently bad.  It's just a simplification.

    The tank role is to prevent damage from occurring to teammates and soak damage.  Period.  That's what makes a tank a tank.  You are conflating AI scripting and combat mechanics with a class role.

    Not all heals required touch in DnD.  The big thing though about healing is that there's no way to recover after a fight without it.  There's no "click to rest to full health" button unless your playing with house rules.

     

    Trinity combat is far more varied than you give it credit.  The problem you really have is the scripting (and probably add ons).  People who've done high end raid content in EQ or early WoW raiding before mods, guides, nerfs, and poor design trivialized it will agree.  Even after that, some of the WoW raiding has still been extraordinarily difficult.  One of the things you Trinity haters typically love to do is look at the current environment and say "it's the Trinity's fault!"  It's not.  It's content design.  It's class homogenization.  It's an emphasis on small scale content.  Killing Lucifron in early WoW before Decursive, threat meters, boss mods, etc. took more coordination, communication, and on the fly adaptation than pretty much anything I've ever done since.

    Bringing PvP and PvE closer together has nothing to do with the Trinity and everything to do with the actual content and combat mechanics.  Someone brought up the issue of skill rotations.  I agree.  They suck.  It's bad design.  It's not due to the Trinity.  It's due to bad design and bad design is a very common problem with the MMOs out there right now.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    It really doesn't matter if you want to call every melee character a tank. People are not against that kind of "tank". People are against the AI exploiting tank - the ridiculous taunt mechanics, which often define PvE metagame. The most trivial type of defense there is, is to have one guy soaking damage and another healing him. Its just stupid and boring.

    And I'm not going to trust anyone's word on a forum that a game is hard, because Eve Online is supposed to be hard, but it isn't. It is very easy, fairly straight forwad, only thing that would make it feel hard, if you were bad at it. And it is true: 90% of Eve players are just plain bad. I wouldn't be surprised if other games had similar numbers. You get those guys playing some other game like World of Tanks, Battlefield 3 or League of Legends and you'll realize an alarmingly high number of those players are well below average players. Maybe its just the players I know, but they certainly have no business looking down on WoW or any other MMO they deem "casual" or "easymode". I secretly laugh my ass off when they talk on TS how Eve is "hardcore" or whatever.

    I've actually played games that don't have the trinity with people who have only known the trinity. Mostly they have significant trouble to understand and adjust to the new combat dynamics. One guy just kept yelling "who's tanking, who's tanking". Worse players are those who insist on being a "healer" playing an Elementalist in GW2. They are so engrained in the trinity they are often unable to let go of it. In the end they just get confused and frustrated and quit. That is precisely where you get these comments "there's no structure, its chaotic" or "its a zergfest".

     

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Nephelai
    Originally posted by Quirhid The trinity makes combat formulaic and trivial. Its like a dance routine, always the same. Things can get interesting only if somebody makes a mistake. And these games are not very hard anyway so why would you? It doesn't even promote "teamwork" 'cause everyone usually have just one job to do. Thats it. You do your thing, the rest do their thing, and if everybody does their thing well, nobody needs to talk to one another and all encounters are won. Woopty doo!
    What on earth is this none sense - I cant even think of a team sport where no one has a role to play. Sure they can play out of their role at times but essentially they have roles and in fact have usually been selected based on their specialty.

     

    You are a prime example of what's silly about this argument - its obvious you haven't done anything remotely hard because if you had, say heroic Ragnaros in Firelands, you would know how difficult and challenging every persons role can be. Sure trinity is boring at toddler level but the challenge is for you to get better and rise to the challenge.




    I agree with you that the challenge of encountered isn't caused or limited by whether or not trinity combat is used. There are plenty of challenging aspects to combat that uses the trinity style system.

    I would say though, that trinity style combat systems tend to be repetitive. If you do a fight once, fail or succeed, it will largely be the same as the next time you run the fight or the last time you run the fight. Changing roles changes your experience of the fight, but the fight itself largely remains the same. I think this is the only "problem" with trinity style combat.

    I put problem in quotes because it's not really a problem, it's a preference. I spent a lot of time in Kharazan (sp) in WoW and enjoyed pretty much all of it. The fights didn't change all that much, but it was still interesting and fun.

    The fights in Champions Online were pretty fun too though. EQN is doing something different, and that might be fun as well. *shrug* Sorry, just can't get worked up and really pick a side on this issue.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    It really doesn't matter if you want to call every melee character a tank. People are not against that kind of "tank". People are against the AI exploiting tank - the ridiculous taunt mechanics, which often define PvE metagame. The most trivial type of defense there is, is to have one guy soaking damage and another healing him. Its just stupid and boring.  Did it occur to you that playing a fantasy game with magic isn't real?  And why do you think they call warriors wearing plate tanks?  UMM because they are built like a REAL tank.. DUH..  We also used to call them meat shields too..  The beauty of the role class system was diversity and options.. PROS and CONS.. Our military over the centuries are built around roles to be performed.. FYI

    And I'm not going to trust anyone's word on a forum that a game is hard, because Eve Online is supposed to be hard, but it isn't. It is very easy, fairly straight forwad, only thing that would make it feel hard, if you were bad at it. And it is true: 90% of Eve players are just plain bad. I wouldn't be surprised if other games had similar numbers. You get those guys playing some other game like World of Tanks, Battlefield 3 or League of Legends and you'll realize an alarmingly high number of those players are well below average players. Maybe its just the players I know, but they certainly have no business looking down on WoW or any other MMO they deem "casual" or "easymode". I secretly laugh my ass off when they talk on TS how Eve is "hardcore" or whatever. 

    I've actually played games that don't have the trinity with people who have only known the trinity. Mostly they have significant trouble to understand and adjust to the new combat dynamics. One guy just kept yelling "who's tanking, who's tanking". Worse players are those who insist on being a "healer" playing an Elementalist in GW2. They are so engrained in the trinity they are often unable to let go of it. In the end they just get confused and frustrated and quit. That is precisely where you get these comments "there's no structure, its chaotic" or "its a zergfest".

     

         Neither method is right or wrong.. they are play style options..   I too have played games like GW2 where it's primary combat is ZERG..  It is what it is..  There are times I'm in the mood for that, times I'm not..  There are times I'm in the mood for FPS combat like Call of Duty, and then there are times I'm in the mood for turn bases and RTS games..  They are ALL good, It baffles me how so many argue over "role" classes are bad..  This is about as crazy as some demanding that McDonald's shouldn't be selling chicken sammies, because burgers are better..  Really?

  • LourentLourent Punta Gorda, FLPosts: 19Member

    I think it happened as more and more people realized they were just buying different versions of the same game.  Different names for gods and dragons.  Once you understood this, you realized you were only switching up the curtains on the same game.  Attack big bad.  Tank holds aggro by cracking yo mamma jokes.  Healer heals the tank.  Heck, if anyone else needs a heal, because the DPS didn't move out of fire, or because they didn't wait .4 seconds for the ultimate mamma joke of infinite hate to land on the tank's target, the healer felt put out.  And the dps?  Wait the .4 seconds the tank needs to establish aggro.  Then do the rotation laid out it in the sticky, in your class forum.  Oh, and watch the dps meter.  All the while the big bad is apparently a slack-jawed simpleton who can't look past hurtful words.  Then the party ends and the tank and healer switch to their questing spec.

     

    The same old stupid fights, against the same stupid big bads, all so two classes/builds that are only good for one aspect of the game, have a place in the game. 

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Rydeson
     

         Neither method is right or wrong.. they are play style options..   I too have played games like GW2 where it's primary combat is ZERG..  It is what it is..  There are times I'm in the mood for that, times I'm not..  There are times I'm in the mood for FPS combat like Call of Duty, and then there are times I'm in the mood for turn bases and RTS games..  They are ALL good, It baffles me how so many argue over "role" classes are bad..  This is about as crazy as some demanding that McDonald's shouldn't be selling chicken sammies, because burgers are better..  Really?

    Again, no one is arguing against roles. GW2 has roles, GW1 had roles, LoL has roles, even Counter Strike has roles! They just don't use the trinity. And its the trinity we are against.

    You are showing your ignorance and your ingrained mindset by calling any other system "zerg".

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 18,000Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Rydeson

         Neither method is right or wrong.. they are play style options..   I too have played games like GW2 where it's primary combat is ZERG..  It is what it is..  There are times I'm in the mood for that, times I'm not..  There are times I'm in the mood for FPS combat like Call of Duty, and then there are times I'm in the mood for turn bases and RTS games..  They are ALL good, It baffles me how so many argue over "role" classes are bad..  This is about as crazy as some demanding that McDonald's shouldn't be selling chicken sammies, because burgers are better..  Really?

    Again, no one is arguing against roles. GW2 has roles, GW1 had roles, LoL has roles, even Counter Strike has roles! They just don't use the trinity. And its the trinity we are against.

    You are showing your ignorance and your ingrained mindset by calling any other system "zerg".

    My experience is that many trinity players don't bother to learn any other types of roles, play the easy content and wipe in the hard and then quit saying they got bored. In fact that was surprisingly common in the first GW game, I know many people from Wow that played the 20 levels and then died a lot and finally quit, but they never really bother learn how the group dynamics actually worked and a game becomes really hard then.

    You don't really need roles for GW2s open world, you can zerg most things there if you enjoy that (or suck) but once you start the explorable dungeons those people tend to whine a lot, and BTW, you can't revive in dungeons anymore unless the group has wiped and the boss reset.

    I blame a lot of the problems on the game though, if GW2 was as hard as it was during the first 2 beta weeks before whiners got it down people would actually have to learn how to play from the start.

    But yes, there are group dynamics in most games and while you can ignore those by zerging some content that doesn't mean that the game is easy. Open world content in any modern MMO is so easy that you can ignore group dynamics but that goes for trinity games as well as others.

    I said it before: Raise the difficulty of the open world.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Rydeson

         Neither method is right or wrong.. they are play style options..   I too have played games like GW2 where it's primary combat is ZERG..  It is what it is..  There are times I'm in the mood for that, times I'm not..  There are times I'm in the mood for FPS combat like Call of Duty, and then there are times I'm in the mood for turn bases and RTS games..  They are ALL good, It baffles me how so many argue over "role" classes are bad..  This is about as crazy as some demanding that McDonald's shouldn't be selling chicken sammies, because burgers are better..  Really?

    Again, no one is arguing against roles. GW2 has roles, GW1 had roles, LoL has roles, even Counter Strike has roles! They just don't use the trinity. And its the trinity we are against.

    You are showing your ignorance and your ingrained mindset by calling any other system "zerg".

    My experience is that many trinity players don't bother to learn any other types of roles, play the easy content and wipe in the hard and then quit saying they got bored. In fact that was surprisingly common in the first GW game, I know many people from Wow that played the 20 levels and then died a lot and finally quit, but they never really bother learn how the group dynamics actually worked and a game becomes really hard then.

    You don't really need roles for GW2s open world, you can zerg most things there if you enjoy that (or suck) but once you start the explorable dungeons those people tend to whine a lot, and BTW, you can't revive in dungeons anymore unless the group has wiped and the boss reset.

    I blame a lot of the problems on the game though, if GW2 was as hard as it was during the first 2 beta weeks before whiners got it down people would actually have to learn how to play from the start.

    But yes, there are group dynamics in most games and while you can ignore those by zerging some content that doesn't mean that the game is easy. Open world content in any modern MMO is so easy that you can ignore group dynamics but that goes for trinity games as well as others.

    I said it before: Raise the difficulty of the open world.

    Simply having roles does not make it a better system than trinity. I am all for new forms of combat, trinity is a good but stale system. But you need something good to replace it, what we have seen so far over the years has just been one step after another of removing the need for trinity and by extension grouping.

    Raising the difficulty in open world at least in certain areas should be the way to go. They need to make MMO's harder in way they can. Not uber leet hardcore, I am not saying that, but MMO's have become the RPG equivalent of a Walkthrough.

    The problem of players not being able to group well at later levels because they never had to group at lower levels has been with us for years. But now grouping is a just a content choice, do you want to do a dungeon before you hit top level?

    A Zerg is not a combat tactic, style or system. It is the lack of having such a system. In the right gameplay context it can be fun, but if that is all you have then the MMO is lacking.

  • CyclopsSlayerCyclopsSlayer Minneapolis, MNPosts: 532Member

    The "problem" with the (un)Holy Trinity playstyle arose from the game designers building encounters that could only be done a certain way.

     

    Take EQ1 at release;

    Warriors did more damage than any other class with the same Stats and Weapons (100% + Str Bonus vs. 75% and no bonus). As well with the first expansion gained a skill that reduced incoming damage to a degree vastly greater than any other class could even dream of.

    Clerics, Shaman and Druids got the 'same' Heals spells, except the Shaman and Druids version healed less and were acquired at a later level (ie 360 vs 400iirc). As well, ONLY Clerics got Complete Heal, the best HP/AC buffs, no one else came close.

    Enchanters were only second at Slowing a targets attack, but were bar none first at Speeding players attack speeds, Crowd Control, Mana regen, and more.

     

    The Devs there then built encounters that ONLY a Warrior could Tank, ONLY a Cleric could heal, and with the best support as the Enchanter. Others were only fill ins once the group had one each of these.

    Later, much later, they completely rebalanced the skills sets such that every class had a unique line and ability they brought to the table.

     

    If a Warrior wasn't available to Tank, a Cleric to Heal, an Enchanter to Buff/Debuff, others could fill in for group play, but... You were much more likely to wipe and have a bad experience. Attainable content was lesser, and Difficult content needed to be avoided.

    This is what brought the 'bad taste' to the Trinity model. 

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Rydeson

         Neither method is right or wrong.. they are play style options..   I too have played games like GW2 where it's primary combat is ZERG..  It is what it is..  There are times I'm in the mood for that, times I'm not..  There are times I'm in the mood for FPS combat like Call of Duty, and then there are times I'm in the mood for turn bases and RTS games..  They are ALL good, It baffles me how so many argue over "role" classes are bad..  This is about as crazy as some demanding that McDonald's shouldn't be selling chicken sammies, because burgers are better..  Really?

    Again, no one is arguing against roles. GW2 has roles, GW1 had roles, LoL has roles, even Counter Strike has roles! They just don't use the trinity. And its the trinity we are against.

    You are showing your ignorance and your ingrained mindset by calling any other system "zerg".

    My experience is that many trinity players don't bother to learn any other types of roles, play the easy content and wipe in the hard and then quit saying they got bored. In fact that was surprisingly common in the first GW game, I know many people from Wow that played the 20 levels and then died a lot and finally quit, but they never really bother learn how the group dynamics actually worked and a game becomes really hard then.

    You don't really need roles for GW2s open world, you can zerg most things there if you enjoy that (or suck) but once you start the explorable dungeons those people tend to whine a lot, and BTW, you can't revive in dungeons anymore unless the group has wiped and the boss reset.

    I blame a lot of the problems on the game though, if GW2 was as hard as it was during the first 2 beta weeks before whiners got it down people would actually have to learn how to play from the start.

    But yes, there are group dynamics in most games and while you can ignore those by zerging some content that doesn't mean that the game is easy. Open world content in any modern MMO is so easy that you can ignore group dynamics but that goes for trinity games as well as others.

    I said it before: Raise the difficulty of the open world.

    I'm sorry, I have to disagree with Q and mostly agree with Loke on what is a trinity role system.. atleast in my opinion..  When I refer to trinity, it's MORE then just tank, heal, dps..  Those are the 3 primary ingredients in the recipe, but there is much more.. There are your utility roles and/or support roles..  Those roles would be people that buff, debuff, CC, etc.. In my opinion the MORE roles you offer, the more dynamic  combat can be..  In EQ, there were times I grouped and we had NO tank, or NO healer, but still have loads of fun..

    As for the GW2 thing.. As I said, that game is 90% zerg dps.. I will agree that 10% of each profession has limited role ability, and there are times it does come into play IN dungeons, but for the open world, it's not necessary at all.. GW2 could do a lot more to bring back a trinity feeling without jeopardizing their professions.. But oh well..  There is more depth to the trinity then tank and heals.. 

  • marsh9799marsh9799 jackson, MSPosts: 100Member
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Rydeson

         Neither method is right or wrong.. they are play style options..   I too have played games like GW2 where it's primary combat is ZERG..  It is what it is..  There are times I'm in the mood for that, times I'm not..  There are times I'm in the mood for FPS combat like Call of Duty, and then there are times I'm in the mood for turn bases and RTS games..  They are ALL good, It baffles me how so many argue over "role" classes are bad..  This is about as crazy as some demanding that McDonald's shouldn't be selling chicken sammies, because burgers are better..  Really?

    Again, no one is arguing against roles. GW2 has roles, GW1 had roles, LoL has roles, even Counter Strike has roles! They just don't use the trinity. And its the trinity we are against.

    You are showing your ignorance and your ingrained mindset by calling any other system "zerg".

    My experience is that many trinity players don't bother to learn any other types of roles, play the easy content and wipe in the hard and then quit saying they got bored. In fact that was surprisingly common in the first GW game, I know many people from Wow that played the 20 levels and then died a lot and finally quit, but they never really bother learn how the group dynamics actually worked and a game becomes really hard then.

    You don't really need roles for GW2s open world, you can zerg most things there if you enjoy that (or suck) but once you start the explorable dungeons those people tend to whine a lot, and BTW, you can't revive in dungeons anymore unless the group has wiped and the boss reset.

    I blame a lot of the problems on the game though, if GW2 was as hard as it was during the first 2 beta weeks before whiners got it down people would actually have to learn how to play from the start.

    But yes, there are group dynamics in most games and while you can ignore those by zerging some content that doesn't mean that the game is easy. Open world content in any modern MMO is so easy that you can ignore group dynamics but that goes for trinity games as well as others.

    I said it before: Raise the difficulty of the open world.

    I'm sorry, I have to disagree with Q and mostly agree with Loke on what is a trinity role system.. atleast in my opinion..  When I refer to trinity, it's MORE then just tank, heal, dps..  Those are the 3 primary ingredients in the recipe, but there is much more.. There are your utility roles and/or support roles..  Those roles would be people that buff, debuff, CC, etc.. In my opinion the MORE roles you offer, the more dynamic  combat can be..  In EQ, there were times I grouped and we had NO tank, or NO healer, but still have loads of fun..

    As for the GW2 thing.. As I said, that game is 90% zerg dps.. I will agree that 10% of each profession has limited role ability, and there are times it does come into play IN dungeons, but for the open world, it's not necessary at all.. GW2 could do a lot more to bring back a trinity feeling without jeopardizing their professions.. But oh well..  There is more depth to the trinity then tank and heals.. 

    I agree.  One of the things that so many people forget is that the Trinity was not end all be all.  The Trinity is nothing but a foundation.  It's the bare minimum.  If you have someone who can tank, someone who can heal, and someone who can DPS, you have the core to do just about anything and virtually everything you can add to the group impacts it along these lines.  Bring in a debuffer?  Increases damage target takes, decreases damage target puts out.  Bring in a buffer?  Increases damage party does, decreases damage party takes.  Bring in a CC?  Drastic increase in tank viability.  The Trinity roles are core.  The other roles are supplemental but this does not mean they're less important or less needed.

     

     

    Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer

    The "problem" with the (un)Holy Trinity playstyle arose from the game designers building encounters that could only be done a certain way.

     

    Take EQ1 at release;

    Warriors did more damage than any other class with the same Stats and Weapons (100% + Str Bonus vs. 75% and no bonus). As well with the first expansion gained a skill that reduced incoming damage to a degree vastly greater than any other class could even dream of.

    Clerics, Shaman and Druids got the 'same' Heals spells, except the Shaman and Druids version healed less and were acquired at a later level (ie 360 vs 400iirc). As well, ONLY Clerics got Complete Heal, the best HP/AC buffs, no one else came close.

    Enchanters were only second at Slowing a targets attack, but were bar none first at Speeding players attack speeds, Crowd Control, Mana regen, and more.

     

    The Devs there then built encounters that ONLY a Warrior could Tank, ONLY a Cleric could heal, and with the best support as the Enchanter. Others were only fill ins once the group had one each of these.

    Later, much later, they completely rebalanced the skills sets such that every class had a unique line and ability they brought to the table.

     

    If a Warrior wasn't available to Tank, a Cleric to Heal, an Enchanter to Buff/Debuff, others could fill in for group play, but... You were much more likely to wipe and have a bad experience. Attainable content was lesser, and Difficult content needed to be avoided.

    This is what brought the 'bad taste' to the Trinity model. 

    Did you play EQ1?  Warriors did not do more damage than any other class.  They were on a higher damage table.  They did not have the same skill caps or special abilities (Flying Kick and Backstab were far superior to Kick / Bash).

    The common heals from the Clerics, Shaman, and Druids healed for the same (they were acquired at different levels).  Complete Heal was what made raiding possible though.  It was far, far superior in terms of mana efficiency.  That was the primary reason it was used.  You don't make mention of the 10 second cast time.  That's a long cast time.  The genius who came up with Complete Heal Chains totally screwed up any content design at the time.

    Warriors never had a substantial edge in tanking.  They really only offered an advantage when you were raiding something at the edge of your guild's abilities.  Knight snap agro and just plain agro generation left warriors crying in the fetal position.

    Enchanters were primarily CC.  You didn't bring them for their buffs and debuffs.  You used a shaman for that.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by marsh9799
    Originally posted by Rydeson
     

    I'm sorry, I have to disagree with Q and mostly agree with Loke on what is a trinity role system.. atleast in my opinion..  When I refer to trinity, it's MORE then just tank, heal, dps..  Those are the 3 primary ingredients in the recipe, but there is much more.. There are your utility roles and/or support roles..  Those roles would be people that buff, debuff, CC, etc.. In my opinion the MORE roles you offer, the more dynamic  combat can be..  In EQ, there were times I grouped and we had NO tank, or NO healer, but still have loads of fun..

    As for the GW2 thing.. As I said, that game is 90% zerg dps.. I will agree that 10% of each profession has limited role ability, and there are times it does come into play IN dungeons, but for the open world, it's not necessary at all.. GW2 could do a lot more to bring back a trinity feeling without jeopardizing their professions.. But oh well..  There is more depth to the trinity then tank and heals.. 

    I agree.  One of the things that so many people forget is that the Trinity was not end all be all.  The Trinity is nothing but a foundation.  It's the bare minimum.  If you have someone who can tank, someone who can heal, and someone who can DPS, you have the core to do just about anything and virtually everything you can add to the group impacts it along these lines.  Bring in a debuffer?  Increases damage target takes, decreases damage target puts out.  Bring in a buffer?  Increases damage party does, decreases damage party takes.  Bring in a CC?  Drastic increase in tank viability.  The Trinity roles are core.  The other roles are supplemental but this does not mean they're less important or less needed.

    You are contradicting yourself. If the trinity is the core, then the trinity is absolutely mandatory. They are the "gamemaker" and that also means that every other role is, indeed, less important. At most, everything else merely supports the trinity, but they are nowhere near as important as the trinity itself.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • marsh9799marsh9799 jackson, MSPosts: 100Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by marsh9799
    Originally posted by Rydeson
     

    I'm sorry, I have to disagree with Q and mostly agree with Loke on what is a trinity role system.. atleast in my opinion..  When I refer to trinity, it's MORE then just tank, heal, dps..  Those are the 3 primary ingredients in the recipe, but there is much more.. There are your utility roles and/or support roles..  Those roles would be people that buff, debuff, CC, etc.. In my opinion the MORE roles you offer, the more dynamic  combat can be..  In EQ, there were times I grouped and we had NO tank, or NO healer, but still have loads of fun..

    As for the GW2 thing.. As I said, that game is 90% zerg dps.. I will agree that 10% of each profession has limited role ability, and there are times it does come into play IN dungeons, but for the open world, it's not necessary at all.. GW2 could do a lot more to bring back a trinity feeling without jeopardizing their professions.. But oh well..  There is more depth to the trinity then tank and heals.. 

    I agree.  One of the things that so many people forget is that the Trinity was not end all be all.  The Trinity is nothing but a foundation.  It's the bare minimum.  If you have someone who can tank, someone who can heal, and someone who can DPS, you have the core to do just about anything and virtually everything you can add to the group impacts it along these lines.  Bring in a debuffer?  Increases damage target takes, decreases damage target puts out.  Bring in a buffer?  Increases damage party does, decreases damage party takes.  Bring in a CC?  Drastic increase in tank viability.  The Trinity roles are core.  The other roles are supplemental but this does not mean they're less important or less needed.

    You are contradicting yourself. If the trinity is the core, then the trinity is absolutely mandatory. They are the "gamemaker" and that also means that every other role is, indeed, less important. At most, everything else merely supports the trinity, but they are nowhere near as important as the trinity itself.

     

    This is completely false and evidence of a limited experience with older games.  In EQ, a lot of group content required dealing with pulling multiple mobs that would overwhelm a tank.  You could deal with this by getting one or a combination of an off-tank, slower, puller, off-healer, etc.  It's core because other roles serve as amplifiers for those roles.  Your error is that you assume by being core, it is sufficient.  In some content, it was.  It was the same content that didn't require the Trinity because it was such low level content.  The Trinity is core of grouping.  You have a defensive specialist, you have a damage dealing specialist, you have a healing specialist.  This, by no means, makes the group sufficient.

    If you have a roof, a frame, and a foundation, you have the core of a house.  It's a shitty, non-functioning house if you don't have electricity, walls, and climate control.

  • KBishopKBishop tracy, CAPosts: 205Member
    Originally posted by marsh9799

    You are contradicting yourself. If the trinity is the core, then the trinity is absolutely mandatory. They are the "gamemaker" and that also means that every other role is, indeed, less important. At most, everything else merely supports the trinity, but they are nowhere near as important as the trinity itself.

     

    This is completely false and evidence of a limited experience with older games.  In EQ, a lot of group content required dealing with pulling multiple mobs that would overwhelm a tank.  You could deal with this by getting one or a combination of an off-tank, slower, puller, off-healer, etc.  It's core because other roles serve as amplifiers for those roles.  Your error is that you assume by being core, it is sufficient.  In some content, it was.  It was the same content that didn't require the Trinity because it was such low level content.  The Trinity is core of grouping.  You have a defensive specialist, you have a damage dealing specialist, you have a healing specialist.  This, by no means, makes the group sufficient.

    If you have a roof, a frame, and a foundation, you have the core of a house.  It's a shitty, non-functioning house if you don't have electricity, walls, and climate control.

    An off tank is just another tank that you grabbed. A slower is at best a debuffer, but currently that is just someone that has a mechanic that slows the movement of a target. This tends to be dps most often. A puller is typically a ranged character or a tank. An off healer is just a second healer.

    Those aren't exactly roles. There was no class that was specifically DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, a puller, or an off healer, and very rarely someone who just slowed people. Those are just secondary sub roles that players set as means to tackle content. These are by no means really related to the trinity itself.

  • GravargGravarg Harker Heights, TXPosts: 3,332Member Uncommon
    I like the Holy Trinity.  It gives people purpose.  In games without it, it's just a dps zergfest.
  • nolic1nolic1 Kingman, AZPosts: 687Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    I like the Holy Trinity.  It gives people purpose.  In games without it, it's just a dps zergfest.

    You can zerg in any game thats has open maps like EQ, EQ 2, WoW, And the like no matter but most players feel the need of a group heck even DaOC you had 5 on one which would amount to a zerg. EQ the same 5  players to one mob. Does a zerg have a set amount to be one even so 2 PC on 1 or does it have to be 25 on 1 if some one could please tell me cause a raid is a zerg.

    image
    To me I enjoy gaming I dont play to be uber I play to have fun. If a game is not fun to me guess what I move on and play something else till I find one that is. When I find that great game and not sure if in my life time there will be one I hope it has everything I want in an mmo.

  • marsh9799marsh9799 jackson, MSPosts: 100Member
    Originally posted by KBishop
    Originally posted by marsh9799

    You are contradicting yourself. If the trinity is the core, then the trinity is absolutely mandatory. They are the "gamemaker" and that also means that every other role is, indeed, less important. At most, everything else merely supports the trinity, but they are nowhere near as important as the trinity itself.

     

    This is completely false and evidence of a limited experience with older games.  In EQ, a lot of group content required dealing with pulling multiple mobs that would overwhelm a tank.  You could deal with this by getting one or a combination of an off-tank, slower, puller, off-healer, etc.  It's core because other roles serve as amplifiers for those roles.  Your error is that you assume by being core, it is sufficient.  In some content, it was.  It was the same content that didn't require the Trinity because it was such low level content.  The Trinity is core of grouping.  You have a defensive specialist, you have a damage dealing specialist, you have a healing specialist.  This, by no means, makes the group sufficient.

    If you have a roof, a frame, and a foundation, you have the core of a house.  It's a shitty, non-functioning house if you don't have electricity, walls, and climate control.

    An off tank is just another tank that you grabbed. A slower is at best a debuffer, but currently that is just someone that has a mechanic that slows the movement of a target. This tends to be dps most often. A puller is typically a ranged character or a tank. An off healer is just a second healer.

    Those aren't exactly roles. There was no class that was specifically DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, a puller, or an off healer, and very rarely someone who just slowed people. Those are just secondary sub roles that players set as means to tackle content. These are by no means really related to the trinity itself.

    A slower is slows the movement of a target?  Ummm... No.  Slowers slow attack spend and in older games was given to debuffers (a role we really don't see anymore in games).  Slowing makes content extremely difficult to balance around and we don't see them much anymore.  By assuming slowing meant movement speed, you've just admitted you have no experience with EQ as it was so critically important.

    Yes, actually we have had classes DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, puller, or off healer.  These are not specialist roles and there's a trade off for having additional utility.  EQ is where you want to look to this because it predates class homogenization although there are other examples that are just as good.  Monks were primarily DPS, but they lost some of the DPS in order to be better pullers and for durability to off tank.  Same goes for Rangers to a large extent.  Shaman were primarily buffers and debuffers, but had damage and healing at significantly less than specialists in those areas.  You can look to DAOC for examples from a different game.  You need to stop limiting yourself to WoW and WoW clone approaches to the Trinity.

  • marsh9799marsh9799 jackson, MSPosts: 100Member
    Originally posted by nolic1
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    I like the Holy Trinity.  It gives people purpose.  In games without it, it's just a dps zergfest.

    You can zerg in any game thats has open maps like EQ, EQ 2, WoW, And the like no matter but most players feel the need of a group heck even DaOC you had 5 on one which would amount to a zerg. EQ the same 5  players to one mob. Does a zerg have a set amount to be one even so 2 PC on 1 or does it have to be 25 on 1 if some one could please tell me cause a raid is a zerg.

    He did qualify it with "dps."  He did not simply say "zergfest."

  • SephirosoSephiroso Marietta, GAPosts: 1,160Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nolic1
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    I like the Holy Trinity.  It gives people purpose.  In games without it, it's just a dps zergfest.

    You can zerg in any game thats has open maps like EQ, EQ 2, WoW, And the like no matter but most players feel the need of a group heck even DaOC you had 5 on one which would amount to a zerg. EQ the same 5  players to one mob. Does a zerg have a set amount to be one even so 2 PC on 1 or does it have to be 25 on 1 if some one could please tell me cause a raid is a zerg.

    I can't tell if you're serious or just trolling. But i'll assume you're serious in which case i feel sorry for you.

     

    Most open world bosses are tailored for a certain amount of players to tackle it on. Take the Sha in WoW: MoP it's tailored so a raid of 25 people can take it down. When you go a large amount above that it turns into a zerg.

     

    Also the term zerg isn't just merely about numbers. It's when you have so many people that strategy literally goes out the window for a particular fight. Which is just about every big meta event boss in GW2 and even Sha like i just mentioned and many other open world bosses like the Cerberus from event in Moonglade or that other MoP ow boss that drops better gear than Sha.

     

    This is why i find it funny when people cry out against instances when instances is what keeps the game interesting. Otherwise everything would be horrible because there would be lines to even attack a boss, realisitcally pvp battles would break out over who fights next and the losing side would just make the other side wipe against the boss and then they fight but then the other side does the exact same thing to them and this starts a battle of atrrition where the only real winner is the boss that both sides are trying to fight.

     

    None of that is fun. Which is why instances were born. They protect against zergs. They protect against waiting in lines. They protect against people griefing each other.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • KBishopKBishop tracy, CAPosts: 205Member
    Originally posted by marsh9799
    Originally posted by KBishop
    Originally posted by marsh9799

    You are contradicting yourself. If the trinity is the core, then the trinity is absolutely mandatory. They are the "gamemaker" and that also means that every other role is, indeed, less important. At most, everything else merely supports the trinity, but they are nowhere near as important as the trinity itself.

     

    This is completely false and evidence of a limited experience with older games.  In EQ, a lot of group content required dealing with pulling multiple mobs that would overwhelm a tank.  You could deal with this by getting one or a combination of an off-tank, slower, puller, off-healer, etc.  It's core because other roles serve as amplifiers for those roles.  Your error is that you assume by being core, it is sufficient.  In some content, it was.  It was the same content that didn't require the Trinity because it was such low level content.  The Trinity is core of grouping.  You have a defensive specialist, you have a damage dealing specialist, you have a healing specialist.  This, by no means, makes the group sufficient.

    If you have a roof, a frame, and a foundation, you have the core of a house.  It's a shitty, non-functioning house if you don't have electricity, walls, and climate control.

    An off tank is just another tank that you grabbed. A slower is at best a debuffer, but currently that is just someone that has a mechanic that slows the movement of a target. This tends to be dps most often. A puller is typically a ranged character or a tank. An off healer is just a second healer.

    Those aren't exactly roles. There was no class that was specifically DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, a puller, or an off healer, and very rarely someone who just slowed people. Those are just secondary sub roles that players set as means to tackle content. These are by no means really related to the trinity itself.

    A slower is slows the movement of a target?  Ummm... No.  Slowers slow attack spend and in older games was given to debuffers (a role we really don't see anymore in games).  Slowing makes content extremely difficult to balance around and we don't see them much anymore.  By assuming slowing meant movement speed, you've just admitted you have no experience with EQ as it was so critically important.

    Yes, actually we have had classes DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, puller, or off healer.  These are not specialist roles and there's a trade off for having additional utility.  EQ is where you want to look to this because it predates class homogenization although there are other examples that are just as good.  Monks were primarily DPS, but they lost some of the DPS in order to be better pullers and for durability to off tank.  Same goes for Rangers to a large extent.  Shaman were primarily buffers and debuffers, but had damage and healing at significantly less than specialists in those areas.  You can look to DAOC for examples from a different game.  You need to stop limiting yourself to WoW and WoW clone approaches to the Trinity.

    movement encompasses both attack speed and movement speed. You can infer that as one or the other, while I meant both, I should have been more blatant in that comment. As I said, AT BEST it was given to a debuffer, but debuffers do not exist much anymore.

    I find it extremely hard to believe that there was a class who did absolutely nothing else but pulling. As in no attacking or anything. Likewise I find it hard to believe that there was a class who did absolutely nothing but off tanking. They pretty much all  (with the exception of debuffers and buffers) were able to perform somewhere in the trinity at least. The puller may have lost damage to pull, but they STILL could do damage. Likewise, the offtanker may have lost damage to tank, but they could STILL do damage. They were not designed to specifically do that role and that role only, and once that role was either filled or no longer necessary, they were sitting through the entire fight doing nothing. Having utility was a long since forgotten relic that was once given to ranged classes, but now being a ranged dps is just a different way of playing vs melee dps. You gain no utility and lose no damage. I can believe straight buffers and debuffers, although those types of classes tend not to exist much anymore.

    I'm not sure if you are for or against the trinity btw, cause this sounds like you'd be against it.

  • SephirosoSephiroso Marietta, GAPosts: 1,160Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by marsh9799
    Originally posted by KBishop
    Originally posted by marsh9799

    You are contradicting yourself. If the trinity is the core, then the trinity is absolutely mandatory. They are the "gamemaker" and that also means that every other role is, indeed, less important. At most, everything else merely supports the trinity, but they are nowhere near as important as the trinity itself.

     

    This is completely false and evidence of a limited experience with older games.  In EQ, a lot of group content required dealing with pulling multiple mobs that would overwhelm a tank.  You could deal with this by getting one or a combination of an off-tank, slower, puller, off-healer, etc.  It's core because other roles serve as amplifiers for those roles.  Your error is that you assume by being core, it is sufficient.  In some content, it was.  It was the same content that didn't require the Trinity because it was such low level content.  The Trinity is core of grouping.  You have a defensive specialist, you have a damage dealing specialist, you have a healing specialist.  This, by no means, makes the group sufficient.

    If you have a roof, a frame, and a foundation, you have the core of a house.  It's a shitty, non-functioning house if you don't have electricity, walls, and climate control.

    An off tank is just another tank that you grabbed. A slower is at best a debuffer, but currently that is just someone that has a mechanic that slows the movement of a target. This tends to be dps most often. A puller is typically a ranged character or a tank. An off healer is just a second healer.

    Those aren't exactly roles. There was no class that was specifically DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, a puller, or an off healer, and very rarely someone who just slowed people. Those are just secondary sub roles that players set as means to tackle content. These are by no means really related to the trinity itself.

    A slower is slows the movement of a target?  Ummm... No.  Slowers slow attack spend and in older games was given to debuffers (a role we really don't see anymore in games).  Slowing makes content extremely difficult to balance around and we don't see them much anymore.  By assuming slowing meant movement speed, you've just admitted you have no experience with EQ as it was so critically important.

    Yes, actually we have had classes DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER to be an off tank, puller, or off healer.  These are not specialist roles and there's a trade off for having additional utility.  EQ is where you want to look to this because it predates class homogenization although there are other examples that are just as good.  Monks were primarily DPS, but they lost some of the DPS in order to be better pullers and for durability to off tank.  Same goes for Rangers to a large extent.  Shaman were primarily buffers and debuffers, but had damage and healing at significantly less than specialists in those areas.  You can look to DAOC for examples from a different game.  You need to stop limiting yourself to WoW and WoW clone approaches to the Trinity.

    People like you need to stop acting like WoW isn't just like EQ was with more than the primary 3 roles of the trinity.

     

    You agreed with the guy but act like he said nothing but lies. He said a slower is at best a debuffer but CURRENTLY that is someone that has a mechanic to slow the movement speed of a target.

     

    YOU said a slower slow attack speed and in older games was given to debuffers(a role you dont see anymore in games). and slowing makes content extremely difficult to balance around and WE DON'T SEE THEM MUCH ANYMORE.

     

    So you agree you don't see a class who's sole job is to debuff enemies anymore, they delegated the role of debuffer to the other classes by giving them the mechanics that a debuffer used to have. just like the guy said, you yourself recognize that you don't see debuffers anymore.

     

    Holy paladins are the best tank healers in the game. Druid healers can't be touched when it comes to their heal over times to keep up the group. Shamans can't be touched with their insane instant heals via chain heal. Rogues are the kings of burst dps. Warriors are the kings of high dmg numbers.

     

    All those are those classes pluses, they have those pluses at the cost of other capabilities. Rogues don't have nearly as much aoe capability as other classes. As long as you can play keep away from a warrior, you're fine as they don't have pretty much any ranged attacks. Shamans don't do so well tank healing. etcetc. Stop acting like EQ is sooo much better than WoW cause its not, they're pretty much the same when it comes to classes cause they both use the trinity.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

Sign In or Register to comment.