Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

2456714

Comments

  • RoxtarrRoxtarr Member CommonPosts: 1,122

    I don't mind if a game is going to remove the "Holy Trinity" but lip-service won't prove that group combat won't be a chaotic hot mess. EQNext has been telling people to avoid saying it's combat is like GW2's, but haven't done anything to show that it isn't or that it will be better. You can't remove something and then offer nothing to replace it with. Again, lip-service to an advanced AI is just market-speak without proof. 

    Heck, even with WildStar's beta update post, tons of people ignored the changes and just read the words "pure-support characters" and the fact that their group system will support it and were thrilled that at least one game on the horizon will still support traditional MMO combat.

    If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
    image

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Originally posted by botrytis
    Originally posted by Brenelael
    Originally posted by botrytis

    Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.

     

    The trinity was of a time when the MOB AI was limited (all they could do was increase XP of the mob or give them one strong attack, buff, debuff, etc). AI's can be more complex and there are fights in GW2, for example in higher  level Fractals, where a Trinity group would be absolutely wiped out with one hit.

    Um... No, it's called a personal opinion.

     

    I find it very hard to believe that a mob that could wipe a trinity group in one hit wouldn't do the same to any other type of group. This has nothing to do with mob AI and everything to do with making group dynamics a thing of the past.

     

    Bren

    No - it is a red herring argument . Just because you are NOT FORCED to group, doesn't mean it is a solo game. You didn't state it was personal opinion. There are many posts on this forum where people state the exact same thing as you did - so now it is personal opinion but  that is not how you stated it.

     

    Nice back-pedaling and CYA move

    all statements made here unless their backed up by a link, are personal opinions. But i do agree that for PVE games at least, the trinity was a way of encouraging grouping, or to put it another way, to encourage interdependance. Games that are more than just PVE though, it becomes problematic to get the balance right when there is PVP involved, the trinity is hard to balance under those circumstances, so its easier for devs to develope different flavours of dps than try to balance healers/tanks/dps outside of the pve environments, plus a lot of players these days seem to want to play solo more often than not, and the trinity does get in the way of this. I think it was in GW2 that this really is more noticeable, players arent really dependant on each other, although they do play alongside each other at times, making the game more about 'playing the game' and the social aspects minimised on the back of it. Where games are steadily becoming more about the solo experience then the trinity is a hindrance, and this is something that does seem to be on the rise, games are becoming less social, less persistant world and more instanced areas and phasing. Trinity vs Solo isnt really about game or AI complexity, its just about what the players themselves are tending to do, which is play solo more. and as i havent linked to another website etc, this is of course my own opinion image

  • nottunednottuned Member Posts: 92
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Brenelael
    Originally posted by botrytis

    Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.

     

    The trinity was of a time when the MOB AI was limited (all they could do was increase XP of the mob or give them one strong attack, buff, debuff, etc). AI's can be more complex and there are fights in GW2, for example in higher  level Fractals, where a Trinity group would be absolutely wiped out with one hit.

    Um... No, it's called a personal opinion.

     

    I find it very hard to believe that a mob that could wipe a trinity group in one hit wouldn't do the same to any other type of group. This has nothing to do with mob AI and everything to do with making group dynamics a thing of the past.

     

    Bren

     

    I'm afraid he's right Bren. Let's put it this way... if the AI is smart enough to not be taunted and kill the "healer" first, what happens to your trinity?

    You would CC the mobs....

    which leads to my point. The only issue I see going forward with removing the trinity is you loose a bit of tactic and strategy. I like to play mmo's for working with teams developing start and what have you. there are multiplayer games without the holy trinity "hack and slash"

    Not saying im not open to the idea and would love to see what they come up with. There is room for both types of games...

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Brenelael   
    I agree that the Trinity is getting very old but I don't believe the answer is to get rid of class interdependency entirely. This destroys at least 75% of the reasons to group at all. What is the correct answer to the problem? I don't really know. I do know that destroying class interdependence entirely is not the answer however. 

    Bren

    If 75% of your players are only playing together because they have to, not because they want to, then there are greater problems in the game design to address. 

    In my opinion, the tethered interdependence of the Trinity doesn't fit how people actually function, and such a restriction probably shouldn't be based on an irreversible button click during character creation -  it should be based on social interaction and common player interests.

    • In UO, if I didn't have taming and wanted a pair of dire wolves, I had to see a player who was a tamer to get them.
    • In SWG, if I wanted to regen some, I'd head to the cantina and watch the dancers.
    • In ATITD, if I want to contribute to the building of a monument or machine, I could do so by getting involved and getting tasks I can do to help.

    These are examples of players needing other players, but not having to be joined at the hip with them in order to accomplish the core tasks needed for progression.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • SteelhelmSteelhelm Member UncommonPosts: 330

    For me the problem isn't the holy trinity but it's appearance as a meta game feature or even as a class. Who wants to play a tank? that's not even a valid fantasy class like a paladin, ranger or sorcerer etc. The problem in my opinion is the fact that a character has to specialize in tanking, healing or dpsing through a mini game, a meta game feature like a skill tree or through meta game feats that boost you for becoming a better at a trinity role, leaving only three viable classes. The realism that a character with a shield is more protected than a character without a shield has been dismissed. The same goes for wearing armor. A person could hide behind a shield from dragon fire, but a mage could also resist elements through a spell. Also companions can hide behind a paladins shield. There is nothing wrong with holy trinity but the fact that the more armor you are wearing the more physical damage you can withstand in a standard fantasy, but this has been forgotten by many game developers and they have steered towards meta game features that allow people to become tanks, healers or dps's instead of looking at what armour a character is wearing, is he wearing a shield, with what kinds of spells is he protected with etc. I also thing the problem is the PvP balancing of these three classes.

    Another thing is the meta game taunt... I guess it could work for me with proper animation and voicing, but not in an area form.

    Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Phry

    all statements made here unless their backed up by a link, are personal opinions.

    And this is the only place on the planet where that's an acceptable answer.

    People who like the trinity are prone to suicide and drug use.

    Back that up with a link?  I don't have to. *shrug* it's my opinion.

     

    People who like the trinity are prone to suicide and drug use.

     

     

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • RattenmannRattenmann Member UncommonPosts: 613

    GW2 is the prime example how do NOT replace the holy trinity.

    I am open for new stuff, but i want to keep the dependence on my teammates, the teamwork. The trinity does an awesome job at that and is by far not as static as some make it out to be. What the trinity actually is depends on the game, but it can easily be expandet to 4 or 5 roles. Tank, Heal, CC, Debuffs, DD.... maybe even add scouting, pulling whatever.

    As i said: GW2 is the obvious choice to compare. Teamplay in GW2? Uhm, no. It is a pure zergfest. You don't need to know the others, don't need to talk, don't need to play your class well. All you need to do is avoid red circles and do damage. Everyone on the team does that and it is like soloing, just with the added effect of some other soloists next to you.

    Fun? Hell no! I prefer the old trinity over GW2 style by a longshot. The trinity is nothing bad, the main concept adds what is needed in MMOs, social interaction. THAT is fun and that is actually the only reason for a MMO in the first place.

    Again: I am open for ideas and innovations, but not at the cost of social aspects. I am not going to play a "MMO" without social interaction and i have no fun in a group if it does not matter who the other guys / girls are. Depending on others, being needed by others is a huge pillar for an MMO in my eyes. The trinity does an awesome job in that aspect, depending on how it is done in the game in question of corse. Some games are just bad, but removing the trinity would not help those games as well :-)

    MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.

    Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?

  • ApraxisApraxis Member UncommonPosts: 1,509
    Originally posted by Brenelael

    It has to do with making MMOs even more solo friendly. If there is no interdependence between classes than there is no need to group at all except for raiding. This has taken MMOs even further down the road to single player games. The really sad part of it is it seems to be what the majority of today's MMO gamers want so they will continue to add mechanics that will make MMO even more single player. In today's MMOs the vast majority of the content is designed for a single player to accomplish. Isn't that the very definition of a single player game? image

     

    Bren

    In my humble opinion it is not about to make games more single player friendly(there are really a lot of other options available) or to get rid of any group interdependence.. it is even more to enhance group interdependence and make it more flexible.

    Take as example the most simple group encounter with let say 4 players just for sake of  simplicity.

    In the old trinity two spots are instantly occupied. The healer and the tank. The two remaining places will be filled with the most effective dps class available. And now the problem begins. Let say you have a system with 10 or more different classes with different roles, like Crowd Control, Buff/Debuff, Burst DPS, Overtime DPS, AOE DPS, Puller and more or a mix of them.

    Out of your 10 classes, 2 have a certain spot, and for the other spots DPS will be preferred. This reduces automatically your strategical options, and the usefullness of some classes. In a lot of games, especially in the early times of MMORPGs, as the trinity wasn't as forced, you got sometimes different group composition and tactics, but as time passed it was more and more reduced to the holy trinity.

    Or exxagerated said, with the trinity you just need 3 classes. Healer, Tank, DPS all other classes are just a bonus, and only  will get play time in parties, where enough place is available, but are almost always just second rate. And that is the inherent problem of the holy trinity.

    Another problem is the simplicity of the taunt/aggro mechanism. Tank holds all aggro. Healer can focus to only heal tank. All other do damage. If the encounter is not specially created to break up some of those mechanism, you can basicly play asleep. And in fact, i can remember sessions were we did exactly that until very early in the morning everyone either completely drunk or fall asleep... but the pulling, tanking, healing, dps machine worked automatically.. because basicly everyone in the most simpliest form only had to press 1 button. 

    And it is common place in modern MMORPGs, that you never die, never wipe as long as you follow those basic path. Ok there are exceptions, but those encouters often work, that the aggro mechanism don't work, or that healing is disabled for some time.. basicly they become more difficult, because the holy trinity will be deactivated on purpose.

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by nottuned
    Originally posted by Volkon Originally posted by Brenelael Originally posted by botrytis Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.   The trinity was of a time when the MOB AI was limited (all they could do was increase XP of the mob or give them one strong attack, buff, debuff, etc). AI's can be more complex and there are fights in GW2, for example in higher  level Fractals, where a Trinity group would be absolutely wiped out with one hit.
    Um... No, it's called a personal opinion.   I find it very hard to believe that a mob that could wipe a trinity group in one hit wouldn't do the same to any other type of group. This has nothing to do with mob AI and everything to do with making group dynamics a thing of the past.   Bren
      I'm afraid he's right Bren. Let's put it this way... if the AI is smart enough to not be taunted and kill the "healer" first, what happens to your trinity?
    You would CC the mobs....

    which leads to my point. The only issue I see going forward with removing the trinity is you loose a bit of tactic and strategy. I like to play mmo's for working with teams developing start and what have you. there are multiplayer games without the holy trinity "hack and slash"

    Not saying im not open to the idea and would love to see what they come up with. There is room for both types of games...




    You can still have strategic combat without the trinity. In fact, if the AI is responsive and makes decisions, and in general makes good decisions, having strategies is going to be necessary. They just won't be based on the idea of having a tank taunt, the healer heal and the dps wailing away on a boss.

    It might involve having the ranged dps hide out of sight of the boss, along with the support players, while the melee tanks all attack the boss at once. It might require a lot more movement as the players need to run away while a lone player leads the boss someplace. There might even be a chance to lead the bad guys into a canyon trap. How cool would that be?

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

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Member UncommonPosts: 3,821
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by SamuraiXIV

    Games becoming more solo is the main reason. When EQ1 came out there was no competition now there are more games then actual gamers so what the devs do offer scam free to play cash store games easy to solo cause no one sticks around long in these crappy free to play games so you can't find groups. So solo becomes mandatory and hence no trinity.

    Trinity = group play or strategic fun and social play.

    No trinity = solo boring unsocial.

    Most players solo the trinity games as well.

    The reason people solo is because MMOs have become so easy you can and because it usually rewards you at least as much XP and loot when you solo. 

    In the old days it was a lot harder and you needed dungeon gear from the time you get out of the noob zone and forward. You also got more XP for doing group stuff, now you actually level faster by just running soloquests.

    Raise the difficulty, it is the real problem here.

    I can agree to this to a point but I don't think it's the only issue that makes solo play more seductive in today's MMOs. Upping the difficulty would be a good start however. Also giving more reward for tackling content as a group than doing it solo would also be a good way to encourage grouping but whenever it's mention you have a whole herd of solo players crying foul. The main problem is the players themselves as they have no idea what they are really asking for. In MMO's today a single player can steamroll 90% of the content without breaking a sweat. Is this really what players want?

     

    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Member UncommonPosts: 3,821
    Originally posted by Apraxis
    Originally posted by Brenelael

    It has to do with making MMOs even more solo friendly. If there is no interdependence between classes than there is no need to group at all except for raiding. This has taken MMOs even further down the road to single player games. The really sad part of it is it seems to be what the majority of today's MMO gamers want so they will continue to add mechanics that will make MMO even more single player. In today's MMOs the vast majority of the content is designed for a single player to accomplish. Isn't that the very definition of a single player game? image

     

    Bren

    In my humble opinion it is not about to make games more single player friendly(there are really a lot of other options available) or to get rid of any group interdependence.. it is even more to enhance group interdependence and make it more flexible.

    Take as example the most simple group encounter with let say 4 players just for sake of  simplicity.

    In the old trinity two spots are instantly occupied. The healer and the tank. The two remaining places will be filled with the most effective dps class available. And now the problem begins. Let say you have a system with 10 or more different classes with different roles, like Crowd Control, Buff/Debuff, Burst DPS, Overtime DPS, AOE DPS, Puller and more or a mix of them.

    Out of your 10 classes, 2 have a certain spot, and for the other spots DPS will be preferred. This reduces automatically your strategical options, and the usefullness of some classes. In a lot of games, especially in the early times of MMORPGs, as the trinity wasn't as forced, you got sometimes different group composition and tactics, but as time passed it was more and more reduced to the holy trinity.

    Or exxagerated said, with the trinity you just need 3 classes. Healer, Tank, DPS all other classes are just a bonus, and only  will get play time in parties, where enough place is available, but are almost always just second rate. And that is the inherent problem of the holy trinity.

    Another problem is the simplicity of the taunt/aggro mechanism. Tank holds all aggro. Healer can focus to only heal tank. All other do damage. If the encounter is not specially created to break up some of those mechanism, you can basicly play asleep. And in fact, i can remember sessions were we did exactly that until very early in the morning everyone either completely drunk or fall asleep... but the pulling, tanking, healing, dps machine worked automatically.. because basicly everyone in the most simpliest form only had to press 1 button. 

    And it is common place in modern MMORPGs, that you never die, never wipe as long as you follow those basic path. Ok there are exceptions, but those encouters often work, that the aggro mechanism don't work, or that healing is disabled for some time.. basicly they become more difficult, because the holy trinity will be deactivated on purpose.

     

    As I said in a later post I agree the Trinity system is far from perfect and should be replaced with something better. I just don't think destroying class interdependence is the best way to do it as it just makes the game slant even more toward the single player side of things.

     

    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry

    all statements made here unless their backed up by a link, are personal opinions.

    And this is the only place on the planet where that's an acceptable answer.

    People who like the trinity are prone to suicide and drug use.

    Back that up with a link?  I don't have to. *shrug* it's my opinion.

     

    People who like the trinity are prone to suicide and drug use.

     

     

     

    Well it might explain the number of people leaving WoW and  not moving over to other MMO's  image

  • botrytisbotrytis Member RarePosts: 3,068
    Originally posted by Zaradoom

    GW2 is the prime example how do NOT replace the holy trinity.

    I am open for new stuff, but i want to keep the dependence on my teammates, the teamwork. The trinity does an awesome job at that and is by far not as static as some make it out to be. What the trinity actually is depends on the game, but it can easily be expandet to 4 or 5 roles. Tank, Heal, CC, Debuffs, DD.... maybe even add scouting, pulling whatever.

    As i said: GW2 is the obvious choice to compare. Teamplay in GW2? Uhm, no. It is a pure zergfest. You don't need to know the others, don't need to talk, don't need to play your class well. All you need to do is avoid red circles and do damage. Everyone on the team does that and it is like soloing, just with the added effect of some other soloists next to you.

    Fun? Hell no! I prefer the old trinity over GW2 style by a longshot. The trinity is nothing bad, the main concept adds what is needed in MMOs, social interaction. THAT is fun and that is actually the only reason for a MMO in the first place.

    Again: I am open for ideas and innovations, but not at the cost of social aspects. I am not going to play a "MMO" without social interaction and i have no fun in a group if it does not matter who the other guys / girls are. Depending on others, being needed by others is a huge pillar for an MMO in my eyes. The trinity does an awesome job in that aspect, depending on how it is done in the game in question of corse. Some games are just bad, but removing the trinity would not help those games as well :-)

    UH - it is not a complete zergfest. If you know what you are doing, especially with World Bosses, it is not a zerg fest. Poeple like to use the term 'Zerg' but that term was used in PvP gaming when you had a group of lower lvl characters killing a max lvl character - that was a zerg. 

    The trinity really didn't help with social aspects, people tell you what to do and you do it. In GW2 instances, if you go in with a good group, everything is discussed and that is more social than what you get with a Trinity game. I prefer GW2 over ANY trinity game and the reason is, you don't have to wait for a tank, a healer, etc. Who ever came up with the Trinity mechanics should be shot as it is so limiting and that is all people want  in game is limits. OH, unless they want their sandbox game with the trinity........

    image

    "In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."
    by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum

  • thinktank001thinktank001 Member UncommonPosts: 2,144
    Originally posted by botrytis

    No - it is a red herring argument . Just because you are NOT FORCED to group, doesn't mean it is a solo game. You didn't state it was personal opinion. There are many posts on this forum where people state the exact same thing as you did - so now it is personal opinion but  that is not how you stated it.

     

    Nice back-pedaling and CYA move

     

    It isn't a red herring.   It is simply because publishers have shifted focus from targeting groups to the individual player.   A large part of this is because of microtransactions, but also to follow the leader.   Not to mention, there isn't a publisher out there that doesn't want to emulate WOW's success with it's solo friendly leveling.    

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Trinity-style specialization is almost required for any modern team-based game.  You should vary the details, but to completely ditch the asymmetry of specialized players relying on one another is just a bad design (with few (and limited) exceptions like how L4D had solid teamplay due to how reliant you were on the other players -- but that's a limited exception because it would've been even better with pronounced, asymmetric roles.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • Shadowguy64Shadowguy64 Member Posts: 848

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

     

    Probably a DPS who was sick and tired of waiting to find a tank and healer to do group content.

    It has nothing to do with realism or AI and has everything to do with pleasing the majority of players. Make the game more enjoyable for the majority. The majority are players playing DPS toons.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Shadowguy64
    Who decided that the Holy Trinity of class dynamics was a bad thing? Probably a DPS who was sick and tired of waiting to find a tank and healer to do group content.It has nothing to do with realism or AI and has everything to do with pleasing the majority of players. Make the game more enjoyable for the majority. The majority are players playing DPS toons.

    It was me. Sorry guys. My bad.

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

  • Shadowguy64Shadowguy64 Member Posts: 848
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Shadowguy64
    Who decided that the Holy Trinity of class dynamics was a bad thing?

     

     

    Probably a DPS who was sick and tired of waiting to find a tank and healer to do group content.

    It has nothing to do with realism or AI and has everything to do with pleasing the majority of players. Make the game more enjoyable for the majority. The majority are players playing DPS toons.



    It was me. Sorry guys. My bad.

     

    I knew it!!

     

  • botrytisbotrytis Member RarePosts: 3,068
    Originally posted by Shadowguy64

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

     

    Probably a DPS who was sick and tired of waiting to find a tank and healer to do group content.

    It has nothing to do with realism or AI and has everything to do with pleasing the majority of players. Make the game more enjoyable for the majority. The majority are players playing DPS toons.

    I totally disagree. If taunts can't get a mob to focus on the tank and the Mob is mobile (besides following a set pattern) then the trinity breaks down quickly. Sure you can snare but that doesn't gain you as much as you think. 

     

    The trinity was based on plant and use yours skills not move and use skills.

    image

    "In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."
    by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,323

    an mmo that has a heavy focus on trinity will never have decent AI. Because of the trinity, the npc mobs only can be coded in one way. Waiting for the tank to get aggro and the entire fight is based on that.

     

    Even if the trinity is in the game (Healer roles, dps roles, tanking roles) the focus of requiring all three roles for pve content should not be mandatory in order for the game to have better AI that doesnt revolve around just aggoing the tank until it dies.

     

    The three roles will always be in the games in one way or another. Just dont make them a requirement to succeed and your game will be much better, more challenging, more fun, and a lot more varied since the npc mobs can have a lot more variety of mechanics by not being stuck with the tank.

     

    Lack of mandatory roles also make the healers actually play the game instead of playing heal-a-mole with the health bars.





  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 6,717

    I hate to say this even though I have loved playing a healer in many games but in Everquest I remember enchanters in guilds would hold them hostage. They would threaten to leave unless something went their way and since I played a wizard then and ever since then I have always played a healer class as a result of the lesson I learnt in Everquest. DPS has very little value to a guild. I did not like the politics that ensued as a result of the fear of losing an enchanter in my guild.

     

    Players should have a value commiserate to their skill and not their class. I have no real problem with removing the trinity but  a game must have roles and not every class can heal that I think is an awful idea. You can do what was done in City of Villains/Heroes where much of the content could be done without tanks or healers with a combination of debuffs,buffs,small area heals,shields,crowd control and smart tactics that involved actual discussion in the group to pull off. I have in this game experienced one of the most enjoyable missions because we played outside the trinity but we still had roles. I cannot however say the same about GW 2 so if games are moving out of the trinity they should try to do what City of X managed.

    image
  • maplestonemaplestone Member UncommonPosts: 3,099
    Originally posted by cheyane

    I hate to say this even though I have loved playing a healer in many games but in Everquest I remember enchanters in guilds would hold them hostage.

    Thank you for this - I'm curious about the moments/events people experienced where they first started to notice they didn't like trinities.

  • Shadowguy64Shadowguy64 Member Posts: 848
    Originally posted by botrytis
    Originally posted by Shadowguy64

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

     

    Probably a DPS who was sick and tired of waiting to find a tank and healer to do group content.

    It has nothing to do with realism or AI and has everything to do with pleasing the majority of players. Make the game more enjoyable for the majority. The majority are players playing DPS toons.

    I totally disagree. If taunts can't get a mob to focus on the tank and the Mob is mobile (besides following a set pattern) then the trinity breaks down quickly. Sure you can snare but that doesn't gain you as much as you think. 

     

    The trinity was based on plant and use yours skills not move and use skills.

     

    I'm not trying to be funny (for once), but I fail to see how your argument about taunts, movement and skill usage has anything to do with my argument about time/inconvenience of finding a tank and healer to do group content.

     

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by maplestone
    Originally posted by cheyane I hate to say this even though I have loved playing a healer in many games but in Everquest I remember enchanters in guilds would hold them hostage.
    Thank you for this - I'm curious about the moments/events people experienced where they first started to notice they didn't like trinities.


    Even though I've rightfully taken the blame for deciding the trinity was bad, I've never really had an issue with it. It did suck sometimes being the only healer available when I wanted to go do something else. I think giving players the option to choose how they play a scenario out will lead more to players being pulled for the skill, not their class, which I am all for.

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

  • DrakephireDrakephire Member UncommonPosts: 451
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Brenelael
    Originally posted by botrytis

    Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.

     

    The trinity was of a time when the MOB AI was limited (all they could do was increase XP of the mob or give them one strong attack, buff, debuff, etc). AI's can be more complex and there are fights in GW2, for example in higher  level Fractals, where a Trinity group would be absolutely wiped out with one hit.

    Um... No, it's called a personal opinion.

     

    I find it very hard to believe that a mob that could wipe a trinity group in one hit wouldn't do the same to any other type of group. This has nothing to do with mob AI and everything to do with making group dynamics a thing of the past.

     

    Bren

     

    I'm afraid he's right Bren. Let's put it this way... if the AI is smart enough to not be taunted and kill the "healer" first, what happens to your trinity?

    This.

    Talk of eliminating the Trinity goes back to at least the development of LOTRO. I remember the long rants by certain people who HATED the fact that Turbine was continuing the Trinity mechanic.

     

    Put another way, when I play PnP games, the GM nearly always goes after the squishies first -- the DPS dealers and the healers -- at least when the enemies are smart. If they are dumb enemies, the GM will make it more random, or have the enemy attack the player who caused it pain.

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.