Originally posted by Amjoco If the trinity system would have never been invented this genre would have been much better off imho. Imagine if mmorpgs had started out non-trinity to begin with we would have all learned to play that way. If a developer came along later and said "look, we have this new system called Holy Trinity" we all would have dismissed it quickly. It is unnatural to me, and loses game immersity when you have to have a certain team to fight an enemy. A band of players should be able to just gather together and go fight for glory!
The system GW2 has in place needs fixing, but in general I like what they have started. I'm not sure I could answer the OPs question right off, but there just isn't one reason I would want to play it other than that is what the norm is.
I like the defined roles. It creates multiple experiences of the same content. Running a dungeon as a healer vs tank vs dps vs support/cc can offer a fresh perspective on the same content. Needing a specific skill set to overcome a group challenge is a cornerstone of fantasy role playing. Goes back to the beginning; "But we have the white wizard. That's got to count for something."
And was that white wizard DPS or heals?
Because as i remember he was pure HYBRID And he soloed big baddie
No, it hasn't. Nor has a Trinity game ever made me more interested in such a thing.
Edit:
Actually after thinking about it there is one "Trinity" game that went in a postive direction, I actually enjoyed playing Medic in Global Agenda. Beyond that its been a steady slide from a "Meh I can see what they're going for" reaction to pure lip sneering disgust.
Fun in groups? Not for me, way too chaotic and uncontrolled. Too loose, not enough specialization... I don't know, I'm sure others would disagree that gave it more time/effort to understand and excel at the system, but I was instantly and I mean instantly turned off by it so much in my first dungeon run in GW2 - I've never actually done another. Ever.
If I play another MMORPG with Trinity combat, all I will get is the feeling that I've been here a billion times while feeling any sense of elvoving as a genre in the combat aspect. Rotations are quickly mastered because the skills, no matter how cosmetically different they appear to be, are the same from game to game. All around the word the same song...
Non trinity chaotic? Yes, extremely... but that's battle to me. As a matter of my opinion, I can't recall any sort of battle/war entertainment that endorses the value of tank, spank, and band-aid other than MMORPGs. Maybe because the trinity concept alone is extremely stupid when you draw out the mechanics... and this lunacy only magnifies exponentially on dance... errr... long choreographed boss fights.
Originally posted by Malabooga Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by AmjocoIf the trinity system would have never been invented this genre would have been much better off imho. Imagine if mmorpgs had started out non-trinity to begin with we would have all learned to play that way. If a developer came along later and said "look, we have this new system called Holy Trinity" we all would have dismissed it quickly. It is unnatural to me, and loses game immersity when you have to have a certain team to fight an enemy. A band of players should be able to just gather together and go fight for glory!The system GW2 has in place needs fixing, but in general I like what they have started. I'm not sure I could answer the OPs question right off, but there just isn't one reason I would want to play it other than that is what the norm is.
I like the defined roles. It creates multiple experiences of the same content. Running a dungeon as a healer vs tank vs dps vs support/cc can offer a fresh perspective on the same content. Needing a specific skill set to overcome a group challenge is a cornerstone of fantasy role playing. Goes back to the beginning; "But we have the white wizard. That's got to count for something." And was that white wizard DPS or heals?
Because as i remember he was pure HYBRID And he soloed big baddie
Hehe well I'm taking about abilities that he brought to the table that his companions did not have. Things that if he weren't there to use those unique abilities, the group would have failed. Same with the rest of that group
No trinty games (and they are older than MMOs, D&D was no trinity, trinty is purely MMO invention) just reinforced how stupid trinty is and that its limiting factor in every way.
Trinity is just dumbed down regular combat. The more you "specialize" the more you dumb down combat/content.
D&D had roles like tanks/healers/damage dealers. Not sure what you are going on about?
Originally posted by Malabooga
Originally posted by fivoroth The main one will have to be GW2, I can't actually think of any others. I didn't like that the combat felt cheap and simplistic in dungeons. It didn't feel like the next step forward, it felt like they got rid of all roles but dps. DPS involving tons of dodging and running around like idiots. As I usually tend to play a tank or healer in MMORPGs, GW2's system was a complete turn off. It's not that I don't like dps but when dps is all there is, it just feels bland, boring and limited.
Yah it can be hard to switch from preset role that is mandated to you by the game and figuring your role on your own.
And going out of trinity box. And adapting to something new and more complex.
"it made me miss the trinity"="it reminded me how lazy i am"
Really? Figuring out my role on my own? Cause the only role there is in GW2 is dps and everyone has 1/2 support skills. Not really much to figure out. Dungeons are a freaking mess where everyone goes for high damage builds, e.g. berseker.
GW2's combat is new but it is certainly not more complex. The only people who seem to be happy with it are people who play dps in other MMORPGs to begin with. This way they can have an all dps party.
YOu're last line is just crap. I dropped the game cause it was crap, nothing to do with how lazy/not lazy I am. Condenscendng much?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Na, not really. Trinity was a simple solution to old game problems. Too simple, and less interesting to me than more advanced attempts at solutions. I prefer classless systems anyway. Some folks don't.
And no, D&D didn't have a trinity system. (though there are tons of threads arguing it back and forth on MMORPG) In D&D you had positional blocking, and far more diverse roles. Even with the typically haphazard and murky game structure.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I'll take trinity over 50 shades of dps. But neither is inherently complex. It's all about the complexity of the encounter and the utilities at your disposal to deal with it.
Na, not really. Trinity was a simple solution to old game problems. Too simple, and less interesting to me than more advanced attempts at solutions. I prefer classless systems anyway. Some folks don't.
And no, D&D didn't have a trinity system. (though there are tons of threads arguing it back and forth on MMORPG) In D&D you had positional blocking, and far more diverse roles. Even with the typically haphazard and murky game structure.
Last time I played a D&D game you had clear roles. There was no taunt skills to manage aggro per se but my warriors tanked the damage. Mages could get one shot but dealt sick damage, priests healed. How's that not a role system? If anything this whole role based system originated from those D&D CRPGs. By positional blocking you mean send in your tanks first. There were lots of roles but you always had someone tank the majority of the damage, you always had a mage who nuked the hell out of everything and you had some kind of cleric/druid to heal/buff/res.
Now in D&D games it was much more flued because you could build one class for different purposes. However, what we have seen in games like GW2 we didn't have more diversity or choice, we just got limited to only one role.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
No trinty games (and they are older than MMOs, D&D was no trinity, trinty is purely MMO invention) just reinforced how stupid trinty is and that its limiting factor in every way.
Trinity is just dumbed down regular combat. The more you "specialize" the more you dumb down combat/content.
Well defined class roles are the exact opposite of dumbing down gameplay. Well defined class roles force players to work together to overcome obstacles. The original EQ was a shining example of class roles requiring a deep understanding of the class to be successful. The zerg in more modern MMO's would have never successfully advanced to level cap, much less completed more difficult content.
Dumbing down is a game like GW2, where any random group simply zergs content and DPS is the only ability that matters.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Na, not really. Trinity was a simple solution to old game problems. Too simple, and less interesting to me than more advanced attempts at solutions. I prefer classless systems anyway. Some folks don't.
And no, D&D didn't have a trinity system. (though there are tons of threads arguing it back and forth on MMORPG) In D&D you had positional blocking, and far more diverse roles. Even with the typically haphazard and murky game structure.
D&D did not have a trinity.
D&D had four distinct roles: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard
*To be fair, EQ had four roles, but DPS was not part of the holy trinity of Tank / Cleric / CC
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Actually the opposite for me. Seeing that there was finally a non-trinity game (other than SWG) got me interested in MMOs again. If I wanted to play a trinity game I can choose 95% of the MMOs currently out. I'm glad there is at least one, maybe two games that dare to break from that tired system.
Na, not really. Trinity was a simple solution to old game problems. Too simple, and less interesting to me than more advanced attempts at solutions. I prefer classless systems anyway. Some folks don't.
And no, D&D didn't have a trinity system. (though there are tons of threads arguing it back and forth on MMORPG) In D&D you had positional blocking, and far more diverse roles. Even with the typically haphazard and murky game structure.
D&D did not have a trinity.
D&D had four distinct roles: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard
*To be fair, EQ had four roles, but DPS was not part of the holy trinity of Tank / Cleric / CC
Actually those D&D roles were more like archetypes since you could multiclass. But you are right, there was no trinity in D&D. It's just a mechanic that were created for MMOs and for some reason stuck. Just like every fantasy MMO has to have elves, orcs, and dragons.
Na, not really. Trinity was a simple solution to old game problems. Too simple, and less interesting to me than more advanced attempts at solutions. I prefer classless systems anyway. Some folks don't.
And no, D&D didn't have a trinity system. (though there are tons of threads arguing it back and forth on MMORPG) In D&D you had positional blocking, and far more diverse roles. Even with the typically haphazard and murky game structure.
D&D did not have a trinity.
D&D had four distinct roles: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard
I am not even sure I would call those "roles" in an MMORPG discussion. I mean they had various roles in that only thieves would climb walls or hide in shadows (let us ignore monks and assassins for a second and especially ignore 1st edition bards).
But at the same time Clerics were just as tough as fighters and fought quite well. Fighters had no taunts etc. I mean they had special stuff they each did but they were not defined by that one role.
A good example of how it just doesn't fit the MMO mould is that basically Clerics/Druids kill everyone else as a "solo" class in D&D. There are some variations that might compare but a Cleric does not need a tank in D&D, in fact they tank quite well.
D&D when run well by good players and a good DM was for the most built to be more richly tactical than "What role are you". Now some roles did line up to certain classes fairly strictly but it was much more rich than the simplistic crap of MMORPGs, of "what's yer role brah"? And importantly many "roles" were things out of combat.
No trinty games (and they are older than MMOs, D&D was no trinity, trinty is purely MMO invention) just reinforced how stupid trinty is and that its limiting factor in every way.
Trinity is just dumbed down regular combat. The more you "specialize" the more you dumb down combat/content.
Well defined class roles are the exact opposite of dumbing down gameplay. Well defined class roles force players to work together to overcome obstacles. The original EQ was a shining example of class roles requiring a deep understanding of the class to be successful. The zerg in more modern MMO's would have never successfully advanced to level cap, much less completed more difficult content.
Dumbing down is a game like GW2, where any random group simply zergs content and DPS is the only ability that matters.
A highly difficult fight with many different hybrid roles all working together is more difficult than that of 3 roles, especially when the essence of trinity is to control the fight to remove the chaotic nature that comes from fluid group structures - to make it predicable and 'optimisable' in effect. That's another problem bought in by wow, it simplified class variation (and continues to do so) to allow them to balance ever more complex boss attack patterns, instead of doing both - because unfortunately the meter metrics drives out this behaviour (and no-one cares about hybrid performance in a meter where a game is all about killing asap)
Rote memorisation of attack patterns v reacting to the way an encounter evolved depending on group dynamics in a tightly tuned fight, its obvious which demands the greater skill.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Considering I started playing mmos via a non-trinity game, Asheron's Call, no...non-trinity has never made me miss trinity. Both have their uses, and both have their place within the genre.
I will say that when they are designed properly, I have found boss fights in non-trinity games to be far more entertaining than they are in trinity games.
The marionette fight in GW2 was a good example of a non-trinity fight done well. It was tough for groups who weren't organized at all (the event failed on a pretty regular basis), but when you had a good commander or two getting people organized it was doable.
I would say the biggest issue with GW2's earlier content was that the developers weren't designing the content properly for their combat system. Yeah, champ train in queensdale was utter chaos, events were filled with people spamming skills on cooldown. However, after 2.5 years, things have gotten better with the newer designed fights. People outside of the organized groups would have a tough time seeing past the chaos and looking at the things people are doing to support the group as a whole.
Things like, warriors rotating their banners to keep constant buffs up on folks. Elementalists dropping water fields and having themselves and others blast those fields to create aoe healing effects on everyone. Guardians and Necromancers pulling conditions from people in their immediate area and then either cleansing themselves or passing those conditions on to their targets. Thieves using venomshare to allow people around them to also poisons their targets, and a myriad of other things that happen without people immediately knowing.
Personally, I am pretty excited to see what ANet comes up with in HoT. They've come a long way since launch with how they've designed a lot of their PvE content, it'll be interesting to see what else they've come up with.
Has a Non-Trinity MMO ever made you more interested in the Trinity?
If so, how did it do so?
Nope, non-trinity just need more improvement. I doubt ill ever switch from GW2 to a full on role restricted trinity. GW2 just needs s healing based weapon similar to what ESO did. Maybe different skills per class on said weapon to make it more varied. But thats it. I refuse to ever play another mmo where heavy armored melee fighters can only be tanks. I dont mind having all 3 roles in the game, just dont force specific class to specific roles. Let me build my role with the class that i want.
I have yet to play a non-trinty game that did not result in a massive zerg on the PvE side of things.
In my eyes the trinity is the foundation of group game play in a mmo. The roles make you work as a team because alone you cannot function in a serious fight. This is good design. If you are a tank/healer/dps all in 1 why do you even need others to help you, besides just pumping out more dps on the boss. This is my example of bad design.
GW2 seemed like a good idea until I started playing it. Dungeons were a mess, the open world dynamic events were a complete free for all cluster F. GW2 is a game I looked forward to but I have to say it made me realize how important teamwork is to making a mmo fun in groups, and how the trinity enforces teamwork. For me the lack of trinity probably has put GW2 almost near the top of the worst AAA mmos I have played.
Can it work, maby. GW2 I would say failed at the group aspect of the game hardcore. Now many disagree with me but this is my opinion. Developers trying to remove the trinity is not a good idea, if anything more group related functionality should be added not taken away.
The problem with non-trinity game is how do you make grouping work? So far no mmo has made a non-trinity group based mmo, aleast in the PvE side of things. PvP is another story where I can see it actually working better once refined. PvE though I cannot see how you can make it work at all.
Guild Wars 2 definitely made me miss Tank, Healer, Support and Control. How it made it through development i don't know, but it was a mess especially in dungeons. If only they hadn't been blinded by dollar signs, then maybe they could've improved upon the first game instead.
I'm not going to defend GW2 because i agree the PVE was a complete mess as far as group dynamics go. I will disagree with those that say there were no group dynamics at all.
I really enjoyed the cross class combos but it was probably because they were the only semblance of a semi-trinity left. The groups that understood them and used them ran far more smoothly than those that did not. They just weren't enough for me to leave a full trinity game behind. There wasn't enough "order" in them for me.
Originally posted by AmjocoIf the trinity system would have never been invented this genre would have been much better off imho. Imagine if mmorpgs had started out non-trinity to begin with we would have all learned to play that way. If a developer came along later and said "look, we have this new system called Holy Trinity" we all would have dismissed it quickly. It is unnatural to me, and loses game immersity when you have to have a certain team to fight an enemy. A band of players should be able to just gather together and go fight for glory!The system GW2 has in place needs fixing, but in general I like what they have started. I'm not sure I could answer the OPs question right off, but there just isn't one reason I would want to play it other than that is what the norm is.
I like the defined roles. It creates multiple experiences of the same content. Running a dungeon as a healer vs tank vs dps vs support/cc can offer a fresh perspective on the same content. Needing a specific skill set to overcome a group challenge is a cornerstone of fantasy role playing. Goes back to the beginning; "But we have the white wizard. That's got to count for something."
And was that white wizard DPS or heals?
Because as i remember he was pure HYBRID And he soloed big baddie
Hehe well I'm taking about abilities that he brought to the table that his companions did not have. Things that if he weren't there to use those unique abilities, the group would have failed. Same with the rest of that group
And none of them had specific role, and if you had to transfer it to MMO they were all hybrids.
As i said, trinity was dumbing down combat to make it simplistic. trinity "works" because its simple, but its also very limiting because every encounter has to be designed in one way - trinity way, no surpises no nothing. Some people wants to take it slow and easy and they have trinity, others want more complex fights and there trinity doesnt cut it any more (because any complexity in design used in trinity can be used without the trinity)
And when you talk about group dynamics thats also super simplified in trinity because its preset and cant be changed in any way because of strictly designed preset roles.
Just take GW2 and combo fields. You dont have to strictly be buff bot that spams buffs to put down fire field, and you dont have to strictly be buff bot to blast it. But you have much higher requirement to get buffed than buff bot spamming same button over and over again. Same goes for every other role.
And when you talk about group dynamics thats also super simplified in trinity because its preset and cant be changed in any way because of strictly designed preset roles.
Let's go back to EQ, a strongly role focused game.
If the players were skilled, creative, and worked well together the trinity could be broken. Not only could the trinity be broken, but for specific content more efficient groups could be designed.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Comments
And was that white wizard DPS or heals?
Because as i remember he was pure HYBRID
And he soloed big baddie
No, it hasn't. Nor has a Trinity game ever made me more interested in such a thing.
Edit:
Actually after thinking about it there is one "Trinity" game that went in a postive direction, I actually enjoyed playing Medic in Global Agenda. Beyond that its been a steady slide from a "Meh I can see what they're going for" reaction to pure lip sneering disgust.
As others have said - GW2.
The non-trinity combat just... no, not for me.
Fun solo? For sure.
Fun in groups? Not for me, way too chaotic and uncontrolled. Too loose, not enough specialization... I don't know, I'm sure others would disagree that gave it more time/effort to understand and excel at the system, but I was instantly and I mean instantly turned off by it so much in my first dungeon run in GW2 - I've never actually done another. Ever.
Not really...
If I play another MMORPG with Trinity combat, all I will get is the feeling that I've been here a billion times while feeling any sense of elvoving as a genre in the combat aspect. Rotations are quickly mastered because the skills, no matter how cosmetically different they appear to be, are the same from game to game. All around the word the same song...
Non trinity chaotic? Yes, extremely... but that's battle to me. As a matter of my opinion, I can't recall any sort of battle/war entertainment that endorses the value of tank, spank, and band-aid other than MMORPGs. Maybe because the trinity concept alone is extremely stupid when you draw out the mechanics... and this lunacy only magnifies exponentially on dance... errr... long choreographed boss fights.
And was that white wizard DPS or heals?
Because as i remember he was pure HYBRID
And he soloed big baddie
Hehe well I'm taking about abilities that he brought to the table that his companions did not have. Things that if he weren't there to use those unique abilities, the group would have failed. Same with the rest of that group
Really? Figuring out my role on my own? Cause the only role there is in GW2 is dps and everyone has 1/2 support skills. Not really much to figure out. Dungeons are a freaking mess where everyone goes for high damage builds, e.g. berseker.
GW2's combat is new but it is certainly not more complex. The only people who seem to be happy with it are people who play dps in other MMORPGs to begin with. This way they can have an all dps party.
YOu're last line is just crap. I dropped the game cause it was crap, nothing to do with how lazy/not lazy I am. Condenscendng much?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Na, not really. Trinity was a simple solution to old game problems. Too simple, and less interesting to me than more advanced attempts at solutions. I prefer classless systems anyway. Some folks don't.
And no, D&D didn't have a trinity system. (though there are tons of threads arguing it back and forth on MMORPG) In D&D you had positional blocking, and far more diverse roles. Even with the typically haphazard and murky game structure.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I'll take trinity over 50 shades of dps. But neither is inherently complex. It's all about the complexity of the encounter and the utilities at your disposal to deal with it.
Last time I played a D&D game you had clear roles. There was no taunt skills to manage aggro per se but my warriors tanked the damage. Mages could get one shot but dealt sick damage, priests healed. How's that not a role system? If anything this whole role based system originated from those D&D CRPGs. By positional blocking you mean send in your tanks first. There were lots of roles but you always had someone tank the majority of the damage, you always had a mage who nuked the hell out of everything and you had some kind of cleric/druid to heal/buff/res.
Now in D&D games it was much more flued because you could build one class for different purposes. However, what we have seen in games like GW2 we didn't have more diversity or choice, we just got limited to only one role.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Well defined class roles are the exact opposite of dumbing down gameplay. Well defined class roles force players to work together to overcome obstacles. The original EQ was a shining example of class roles requiring a deep understanding of the class to be successful. The zerg in more modern MMO's would have never successfully advanced to level cap, much less completed more difficult content.
Dumbing down is a game like GW2, where any random group simply zergs content and DPS is the only ability that matters.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
D&D did not have a trinity.
D&D had four distinct roles: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard
*To be fair, EQ had four roles, but DPS was not part of the holy trinity of Tank / Cleric / CC
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Actually those D&D roles were more like archetypes since you could multiclass. But you are right, there was no trinity in D&D. It's just a mechanic that were created for MMOs and for some reason stuck. Just like every fantasy MMO has to have elves, orcs, and dragons.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
I am not even sure I would call those "roles" in an MMORPG discussion. I mean they had various roles in that only thieves would climb walls or hide in shadows (let us ignore monks and assassins for a second and especially ignore 1st edition bards).
But at the same time Clerics were just as tough as fighters and fought quite well. Fighters had no taunts etc. I mean they had special stuff they each did but they were not defined by that one role.
A good example of how it just doesn't fit the MMO mould is that basically Clerics/Druids kill everyone else as a "solo" class in D&D. There are some variations that might compare but a Cleric does not need a tank in D&D, in fact they tank quite well.
D&D when run well by good players and a good DM was for the most built to be more richly tactical than "What role are you". Now some roles did line up to certain classes fairly strictly but it was much more rich than the simplistic crap of MMORPGs, of "what's yer role brah"? And importantly many "roles" were things out of combat.
A highly difficult fight with many different hybrid roles all working together is more difficult than that of 3 roles, especially when the essence of trinity is to control the fight to remove the chaotic nature that comes from fluid group structures - to make it predicable and 'optimisable' in effect. That's another problem bought in by wow, it simplified class variation (and continues to do so) to allow them to balance ever more complex boss attack patterns, instead of doing both - because unfortunately the meter metrics drives out this behaviour (and no-one cares about hybrid performance in a meter where a game is all about killing asap)
Rote memorisation of attack patterns v reacting to the way an encounter evolved depending on group dynamics in a tightly tuned fight, its obvious which demands the greater skill.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Considering I started playing mmos via a non-trinity game, Asheron's Call, no...non-trinity has never made me miss trinity. Both have their uses, and both have their place within the genre.
I will say that when they are designed properly, I have found boss fights in non-trinity games to be far more entertaining than they are in trinity games.
The marionette fight in GW2 was a good example of a non-trinity fight done well. It was tough for groups who weren't organized at all (the event failed on a pretty regular basis), but when you had a good commander or two getting people organized it was doable.
I would say the biggest issue with GW2's earlier content was that the developers weren't designing the content properly for their combat system. Yeah, champ train in queensdale was utter chaos, events were filled with people spamming skills on cooldown. However, after 2.5 years, things have gotten better with the newer designed fights. People outside of the organized groups would have a tough time seeing past the chaos and looking at the things people are doing to support the group as a whole.
Things like, warriors rotating their banners to keep constant buffs up on folks. Elementalists dropping water fields and having themselves and others blast those fields to create aoe healing effects on everyone. Guardians and Necromancers pulling conditions from people in their immediate area and then either cleansing themselves or passing those conditions on to their targets. Thieves using venomshare to allow people around them to also poisons their targets, and a myriad of other things that happen without people immediately knowing.
Personally, I am pretty excited to see what ANet comes up with in HoT. They've come a long way since launch with how they've designed a lot of their PvE content, it'll be interesting to see what else they've come up with.
Nope, non-trinity just need more improvement. I doubt ill ever switch from GW2 to a full on role restricted trinity. GW2 just needs s healing based weapon similar to what ESO did. Maybe different skills per class on said weapon to make it more varied. But thats it. I refuse to ever play another mmo where heavy armored melee fighters can only be tanks. I dont mind having all 3 roles in the game, just dont force specific class to specific roles. Let me build my role with the class that i want.
I was over the trinity when i decided to move to GW2.
It made me realize just how much i enjoy it.
I have yet to play a non-trinty game that did not result in a massive zerg on the PvE side of things.
In my eyes the trinity is the foundation of group game play in a mmo. The roles make you work as a team because alone you cannot function in a serious fight. This is good design. If you are a tank/healer/dps all in 1 why do you even need others to help you, besides just pumping out more dps on the boss. This is my example of bad design.
GW2 seemed like a good idea until I started playing it. Dungeons were a mess, the open world dynamic events were a complete free for all cluster F. GW2 is a game I looked forward to but I have to say it made me realize how important teamwork is to making a mmo fun in groups, and how the trinity enforces teamwork. For me the lack of trinity probably has put GW2 almost near the top of the worst AAA mmos I have played.
Can it work, maby. GW2 I would say failed at the group aspect of the game hardcore. Now many disagree with me but this is my opinion. Developers trying to remove the trinity is not a good idea, if anything more group related functionality should be added not taken away.
The problem with non-trinity game is how do you make grouping work? So far no mmo has made a non-trinity group based mmo, aleast in the PvE side of things. PvP is another story where I can see it actually working better once refined. PvE though I cannot see how you can make it work at all.
I'm not going to defend GW2 because i agree the PVE was a complete mess as far as group dynamics go. I will disagree with those that say there were no group dynamics at all.
I really enjoyed the cross class combos but it was probably because they were the only semblance of a semi-trinity left. The groups that understood them and used them ran far more smoothly than those that did not. They just weren't enough for me to leave a full trinity game behind. There wasn't enough "order" in them for me.
And none of them had specific role, and if you had to transfer it to MMO they were all hybrids.
As i said, trinity was dumbing down combat to make it simplistic. trinity "works" because its simple, but its also very limiting because every encounter has to be designed in one way - trinity way, no surpises no nothing. Some people wants to take it slow and easy and they have trinity, others want more complex fights and there trinity doesnt cut it any more (because any complexity in design used in trinity can be used without the trinity)
And when you talk about group dynamics thats also super simplified in trinity because its preset and cant be changed in any way because of strictly designed preset roles.
Just take GW2 and combo fields. You dont have to strictly be buff bot that spams buffs to put down fire field, and you dont have to strictly be buff bot to blast it. But you have much higher requirement to get buffed than buff bot spamming same button over and over again. Same goes for every other role.
No, not at all. The trinity have become worse and worse for many years anyways, now it is so dumbed down that it is neither challenging nor fun.
If a game have trinity or not doesn't really matter as long as it have group dynamics. I can adapt to new ways, no problem.
What is a problem is any game where you can skill rotate through through most or all of the content.
Let's go back to EQ, a strongly role focused game.
If the players were skilled, creative, and worked well together the trinity could be broken. Not only could the trinity be broken, but for specific content more efficient groups could be designed.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin