Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Trinity is still the superior combat mechanic, by a large margin.

1246715

Comments

  • I am not a fan of threat based tanking.  It is just plain stupid on almost every level.

     

    I am not a fan of firehose healers with no mechanics except straight additives to health (including shields).

     

    Most Trinity games use both of these things heavily and therefore they suck.

     

    There is nothing wrong with having roles in general.  Whether there needs to be exactly 3 roles is something else.  Why bother limiting yourself? 

  • simmihisimmihi Member UncommonPosts: 706
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by simmihi
    "No trinity" means that groups are easier to create - yay, joy! Until people realized that you still had to be a specific class with a specific build and specific gear to be accepted in progression groups, because a perfect balance between skills and classes etc. is very hard to implement.

    Why would someone do progression content and expect their decisions not to matter?

    • Progression content implies challenge.
    • Challenge implies only a narrow set of the right decisions will result in success.
    • The wrong decisions (including the wrong combination of class specializations) will fail.

    If you want trivial decisions (ie playing any damn class you want) then play a game's trivial challenges.  Every game has em.

     


    Yep, you're right, I've seen how this works. The game launches. You play the class you choose to the top level, class X. The people realize that class Y does roughly 20% more damage than class X. You are forced to reroll into class Y. Now 80% of the population is class Y, as there is only one role, and why not roll Y, if Y is the most powerful. Great game design, will play again.
  • MuntzMuntz Member UncommonPosts: 332

    It seems to me it's a way to simplify things for a large group encounters (raids for example) .

    One of it's major downsides for me is the lack of flexiblity for the player.  Every trinity game I've played there seems to be one build per class for the content the trinity is needed for. Certainly, everyone could point to players who play outside the box. In general though if you are class X you are expected to be configured one way only.  If you want to enjoy other aspects of these games out side of raiding, which I do (PvP for example), you need that game to offer free multiple configurations or you have to live those aspects through alts (undesirable for me).  I often like the hybrid or odd ball classes and these rarely fit into any single trinity role. It's obvious that this is a player creation that the devs over time have catered to at the expense of more varity in classes. 

    It also seems a little dull and overdone at this point. I understand people don't like change but I do. It doesn't have to be perfect or far superior for me as different offers it's own challenges. 

    For a majority of the mobs there AI is kind of simple so running the trinity reduces it to tank and spank. I don't see the fun in that but to each his own. 

    A superior combat mechanic, I guess if your into raiding I could see your point. I think MMOs are more then large group encounters.  I'd rather see investment in creativity across the breadth of what an MMO has to offer. Deciding from the get go that a game will have the trinity then building from there seem is pretty limited IMHO. 

  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    Originally posted by gestalt11

    I am not a fan of threat based tanking.  It is just plain stupid on almost every level.

     

    I am not a fan of firehose healers with no mechanics except straight additives to health (including shields).

     

    Most Trinity games use both of these things heavily and therefore they suck.

     

    There is nothing wrong with having roles in general.  Whether there needs to be exactly 3 roles is something else.  Why bother limiting yourself? 

    For strategy sake I guess.  It's similar to each chess piece doing something different on the chess board.  If all pieces are the same/similar then there's not much room for strategy.  It's more of a DPS zerg.

    I don't believe many battles were of type zerg.  Maybe a long time ago.  Even in the middle ages it was based on strategy.  Early on they used sword and shields with mail because it was most effective.  Then they moved on to two handed swords when plate armor became available.  The two handed swords and clubs would be much more effective against plate more then a one handed sword and shield.  After that they had the crossbow which could pierce plate making it less useful.  The Romans used a formation to lock large shields together and stab with their spears.  Rarely did people just run in and hack at each other except for in the more primitive societies.  Even those societies used weapons and strategies.  Usually clubs/maces were very effective for zerg type combat.  Some might wear something scary to unnerve their opponents.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by simmihi 
    Yep, you're right, I've seen how this works. The game launches. You play the class you choose to the top level, class X. The people realize that class Y does roughly 20% more damage than class X. You are forced to reroll into class Y. Now 80% of the population is class Y, as there is only one role, and why not roll Y, if Y is the most powerful. Great game design, will play again.

    Well the alternatives are:

    • ...a game without challenge.  The class with 20% less DPS is viable because everything is so easy that none of your decisions matter.
    • ...a game where everyone's the same. Since only class Y can DPS, all DPS players are exactly balanced.
    The first type of game is pointless, and the second type of game is often far less interesting (because there are less playstyles to experiment with.)

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

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,979
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by BadSpock

    It doesn't have a better community or better players...

    XBox live chat makes WoW's "barrens chat" look like an intelligent and mature discussion between rocket scientists...

    But then, most multiplayer FPS games on PC have utterly bad, stupid and/or rude player bases, just like on consoles.

    I still think MMORPGs have much better communities than consoles though.

    Not sure what games you've been playing on XBL - but for me, rarely do I play console games with strangers, and when I do it is almost always in an FPS game, and playing with strategy and communication is about 10% to the 90% that is twitch skills. 

    I almost never turn on the team chat unless I'm playing w/ friends.

    The modern FPS has enough teamwork enabling features on the UI/HUD to do 90% of the strategy/communication anyway.

    All kinds of indicators and warning messages etc. for objective based games, markers for enemies, markers for team deaths, radar.... unless you are playing at the ultra competitive level, your twitch skills will carry you a LOT further than communication.

    It's also very easy to mute people in like 9/10 console FPS games.

    I've had far, far, far worse experiences with PUGs in PC MMOs, especially in PvP where the toxicity reaches heights I thought were only reserved for message boards :)

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,979

    Anyways...

    Difficulty is not tied to trinity vs. non-trinity.

    While trinity based combat is easier to understand for some as the roles are clear and well defined / structured, they can be quite confusing and even intimidating for newer players.

    Generally the solo-friendly quest/open world gameplay is really poor at training players on how each role works inside of the group-focused activities like dungeons, raids, etc. .

    FFXIV actually has a wonderful tutorial-esque system in place with the Guildhests to give players some pointers and opportunity to practice trinity-based group dynamics in safer, more forgiving settings and time frames.

     

    Likewise, for players who are already attuned to the dynamics of trinity-style play - non-trinity play can be just as confusing and intimidating.

     

    In the situation where the player is familiar and experienced with both, the difficulty is more on the game itself and the specifics of the encounter(s) than the combat model.

    As to which is "better" is based on personal preference, but the trinity model is based upon D&D style archetypes so in a sense it is far more "traditional" and fits in well to a lot of players preconceived notions of say what a Warrior should do vs. what a Wizard should do, etc.

  • dave6660dave6660 Member UncommonPosts: 2,699

    I really liked the "trinity" system 25 years ago when I play D&D regularly.  But there's a limit to the number of times you can play games that use the same system over and over again.  For me it's gotten stale.

    Plus the trinity breaks down in PvP.

    “There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.”
    -- Herman Melville

  • Nemesis7884Nemesis7884 Member UncommonPosts: 1,023
    trinity is as boring as watching paint dry...
  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,065

    People that like to fit the heal role complaining of no healing role in certain games.

    People that dislike the heal role enthusiastically supporting games without heal roles.

    News at 11!

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504

    Playing to Lose by Soren Johnson does a brief snippet on MMORPG AI, and hits upon the reason it's designed like it is. Essentially it's a puzzle to be solved.  

    Threat-based AI is the equivalent of "match 3 shapes" in Bejeweled.  So criticizing it as "too simple" sort of misses the point.  The basic rules of a puzzle game are supposed to be understandable.   The depth lies in the nuance of the system.

    Now we can clearly identify why players are less accepting of one system vs. the other: in Bejeweled things are clearly abstract, while in a MMORPG it's a intelligent-looking opponent you're engaging.  But it's really serving the same exact purpose.

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

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,065
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    ...collision detection, smart AI, skill-based systems, turn-based systems...

     

    But you go ahead and write your own history. You're doing juuust fine. 

    Unfortunately still far from being a reality in a open world massive environment.

    When they can do it though, things will be fun.

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    ...collision detection, smart AI, skill-based systems, turn-based systems...

     

    But you go ahead and write your own history. You're doing juuust fine. 

    Unfortunately still far from being a reality in a open world massive environment.

    When they can do it though, things will be fun.

    I guess UO, AC, EVE, and Wizard 101 are now no longer MMOs. 

    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

  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    Originally posted by dave6660

    Plus the trinity breaks down in PvP.

    It's a good thing a large segment of the MMORPG player base prefers PvE.

     

    MOBA's are much better suited to PvP.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • EndariokEndariok Member UncommonPosts: 12
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Playing to Lose by Soren Johnson does a brief snippet on MMORPG AI, and hits upon the reason it's designed like it is. Essentially it's a puzzle to be solved.  

    Threat-based AI is the equivalent of "match 3 shapes" in Bejeweled.  So criticizing it as "too simple" sort of misses the point.  The basic rules of a puzzle game are supposed to be understandable.   The depth lies in the nuance of the system.

    Now we can clearly identify why players are less accepting of one system vs. the other: in Bejeweled things are clearly abstract, while in a MMORPG it's a intelligent-looking opponent you're engaging.  But it's really serving the same exact purpose.

    I enjoyed Soren's presentation.  It makes sense from a gameplay perspective to build AI that presents a puzzle to work out but isn't explicitly designed to win.  However, sometimes I would like to encounter an AI that is playing to win.  That would be an entirely different puzzle, one who's pieces keep changing.  It might be more challenging; like a game of Starcraft, Killer Instinct, or chess.  That is a form of gameplay that, I think, would provide more meaningful choices while also giving us a deeper pattern to master.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Endariok
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Playing to Lose by Soren Johnson does a brief snippet on MMORPG AI, and hits upon the reason it's designed like it is. Essentially it's a puzzle to be solved.  

    Threat-based AI is the equivalent of "match 3 shapes" in Bejeweled.  So criticizing it as "too simple" sort of misses the point.  The basic rules of a puzzle game are supposed to be understandable.   The depth lies in the nuance of the system.

    Now we can clearly identify why players are less accepting of one system vs. the other: in Bejeweled things are clearly abstract, while in a MMORPG it's a intelligent-looking opponent you're engaging.  But it's really serving the same exact purpose.

    I enjoyed Soren's presentation.  It makes sense from a gameplay perspective to build AI that presents a puzzle to work out but isn't explicitly designed to win.  However, sometimes I would like to encounter an AI that is playing to win.  That would be an entirely different puzzle, one who's pieces keep changing.  It might be more challenging; like a game of Starcraft, Killer Instinct, or chess.  That is a form of gameplay that, I think, would provide more meaningful choices while also giving us a deeper pattern to master.

    Then you'll probably like the Drifters of EVE Online. They're not just playing to win, but to loot your corpse. To clarify, not loot the stuff off your corpse, but loot your corpse itself

     

    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

  • NightHaveNNightHaveN Member UncommonPosts: 1,051
    Omg are you dumb. Didn't read my previous post.

    Action combat has nothing to do with trinity.

    Action combat is the opposite of tab targeting mechanic dated way back to the 80's.

    Wildstar has action combat, and has a trinity.

    Tera has action combat and has a trinity.

    The Secret World has action combat and has a trinity. Here only 1 char can fill the trinity. No other game action or tab allow this.

    Jade Dynasty from Perfect World is tab targeting, but lacks a trinity. They have classes classified as healers (Skysong, Celan), but the amount and effectiveness of heals is a joke. The game mechanics rely in heal pots.

    Again, if you don't like action combat is fine. But stop the excuse that it has something to do with the trinity. Even if GW2 lacks a full heal role (has other options if you really look), is far from the all action combat games lacking the trinity.
  • NightHaveNNightHaveN Member UncommonPosts: 1,051
    And STO. 3 ships where you can be:

    dps - tactical
    Cc, debuff, cleanse, regen shields - science
    Tank - engineer
    Heal - engineer (different build)

    So that one goes beyond the trinity with the full 4 roles, even if only have 3 classes.
  • aesperusaesperus Member UncommonPosts: 5,135

    What the trinity is superior at, is providing a combat experience for people who want familiar roles, that they don't have to think much about. That might sound harsh, but it's absolutely true.

    What the trinity doesn't do is add depth to combat (in fact it actively seeks to do the exact opposite), it doesn't add complexity, and it only adds the bare minimum of strategy.

    While I won't argue that (when it comes to MMOs) many of the newer games trying to break away from the trinity mold haven't done the best job of it; this doesn't automatically mean that the trinity model is the only option. An opinion which the OP (and many others) seems to default to.

    There are games without trinities that have amazing combat. People like to point to GW2 as a a failed experiment, but it's ironically not. The biggest problem w/ GW2 is that much of the AI from launch was done poorly (which you cannot have in non-trinity games). With the newer content they've actively been fixing this one step at a time, and the game actually is having more varied boss encounters, with mechanics that require a multitude of specs, strategies, and approaches to beat.

    And there in lies the problem and main difference between the two. The trinity is by far the easiest model to implement. It's about as simplistic as you can possibly get, which means that designers don't really have to flex their brain as much to get a functional trinity system in play. Non-trinity models are much less tread ground. There's a lot more room for experimentation, but there's also a lot more room for error. It's much easier to screw up a non-trinity game than it is to ruin a trinity one.

    Imho, I prefer non-trinity models. They're still improving sure, but they add more depth to the combat. There's a lot more potential for interesting fights, and they force you to think and use your imagination more. All things I look for in games I play. I like using my brain when I play, I don't like games that have you unplug and play in a semi-coma state of satisfaction.

  • aesperusaesperus Member UncommonPosts: 5,135
    Originally posted by NightHaveN
    And STO. 3 ships where you can be:

    dps - tactical
    Cc, debuff, cleanse, regen shields - science
    Tank - engineer
    Heal - engineer (different build)

    So that one goes beyond the trinity with the full 4 roles, even if only have 3 classes.

    Funnily enough, what you're describing is actually where the trinity came from (the classic trinity in a way, though it is 4 roles not 3).

    Once WoW released, however, games stopped providing controller classes. Thus giving birth to the typical 3-class roles.

  • EndariokEndariok Member UncommonPosts: 12
    Originally posted by aesperus

    What the trinity is superior at, is providing a combat experience for people who want familiar roles, that they don't have to think much about. That might sound harsh, but it's absolutely true.

    What the trinity doesn't do is add depth to combat (in fact it actively seeks to do the exact opposite), it doesn't add complexity, and it only adds the bare minimum of strategy.

    While I won't argue that (when it comes to MMOs) many of the newer games trying to break away from the trinity mold haven't done the best job of it; this doesn't automatically mean that the trinity model is the only option. An opinion which the OP (and many others) seems to default to.

    There are games without trinities that have amazing combat. People like to point to GW2 as a a failed experiment, but it's ironically not. The biggest problem w/ GW2 is that much of the AI from launch was done poorly (which you cannot have in non-trinity games). With the newer content they've actively been fixing this one step at a time, and the game actually is having more varied boss encounters, with mechanics that require a multitude of specs, strategies, and approaches to beat.

    And there in lies the problem and main difference between the two. The trinity is by far the easiest model to implement. It's about as simplistic as you can possibly get, which means that designers don't really have to flex their brain as much to get a functional trinity system in play. Non-trinity models are much less tread ground. There's a lot more room for experimentation, but there's also a lot more room for error. It's much easier to screw up a non-trinity game than it is to ruin a trinity one.

    Imho, I prefer non-trinity models. They're still improving sure, but they add more depth to the combat. There's a lot more potential for interesting fights, and they force you to think and use your imagination more. All things I look for in games I play. I like using my brain when I play, I don't like games that have you unplug and play in a semi-coma state of satisfaction.

    Insisting these things are true does not make them true.  My opinion differs from your's regarding which system I would rather play; but stating the fact that one is inherently superior, more complex, or easier than another is going to require more than what you've presented here.

    In an encounter involving trinity mechanics, only the least successful players turn off their brains which brings with it the potential (depending on the encounter) to wipe the entire group.  There are constant decisions that need to be made to in order to succeed.  It takes execution and skill with character mechanics, environmental mechanics, and NPC mechanics.  Having played both systems, I would say they require a similar level of execution and skill.  Different roles in different encounters can be daunting.  There are fights that challenge singular roles more than others and many fights that challenge them all equally.

    From a development perspective, I would not say that crafting intricate and interesting boss encounters was simplistic.  Consider all the mechanics that the devs need to implement and keep track of, not just encounter mechanics but interactions with character mechanics.  If this was simple, we would see it done with great success much more often.  To be sure, there are plenty failures proving that it is not as simple as some assume.

    Of course, it depends on the game.  Some games are crap, with little development time put into anything.  In the case of little care given to encounter or character development, which would be easier?  Creating three distinct roles and designing characters to fill them, or creating one roll with minor variations and the only requirement to succeed at that role being to survive?  I would contend that the task involving more variables was more complex.

    Personally, I had great hopes for GW2 when it launched and i continue to support those hopes.  It is clear that Arenanet put a great deal of time and care into their craft, and I am sure they can create a compelling experience without the trinity.  It just isn't compelling for me, yet.

  • joeballsjoeballs Member UncommonPosts: 163
    Originally posted by NightHaveN
    Group content is good when there is a constant flux of players. But after 2 or 3 years when a MMO starts getting old, and not that many players are leveling around you start having problems finding a group to do group content.

    And f2p model doesn't fix that. Swtor has constant flux of players early. But from Alderaan and later is very difficult to get one.

    At that point, if the game is that unpopular, I wouldn't even want to play solo. It's called massively "multiplayer" for a reason. It's really sad that a lot of the current designs are geared toward the solo player. Aren't there enough open world single player games these days? If that's your thing, go play those. Mmo game design needs to back-peddle several years when they started to get the multiplayer game design right. They really lost it along the way. Now they're just single player games with players running around and individually hammering through the content. 

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Originally posted by Nightbringe1
    Originally posted by dave6660

    Plus the trinity breaks down in PvP.

    It's a good thing a large segment of the MMORPG player base prefers PvE.

     

    MOBA's are much better suited to PvP.

    Yes, because MMOs provided PvE games with joke of PvP that serves just as another grind for gear for PvEers.

    And MOBAs/FPSs numbers has swallen big time in recent years and MMOs numbers have been steadily falling. In fact if you remove WoW from the equasion, PvP MMOs are BY FAR more popular than PvE ones.

    And yes, MMO PvE IS one of the issues (trinity included with all its problems)

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Playing to Lose by Soren Johnson does a brief snippet on MMORPG AI, and hits upon the reason it's designed like it is. Essentially it's a puzzle to be solved.  

    Threat-based AI is the equivalent of "match 3 shapes" in Bejeweled.  So criticizing it as "too simple" sort of misses the point.  The basic rules of a puzzle game are supposed to be understandable.   The depth lies in the nuance of the system.

    Now we can clearly identify why players are less accepting of one system vs. the other: in Bejeweled things are clearly abstract, while in a MMORPG it's a intelligent-looking opponent you're engaging.  But it's really serving the same exact purpose.

    Yeah, and while fun AI is all nice and dandy even Soren says that GOOD AI is suted for multiplayer and fun AI is duited for single player.

    TO put it all into chess:

    GOOD chess AI: plays chess as it was supposed to be played

    FUN chess AI: makes same moves every time and lets you win once you know what moves to counter EVERY time.

    Now, why fun AI is bad: once you know the moves it gets uber boring very quickly and MMOs require you to repeat exactly SAME chess match dozens of times (even with non gameplay related hurdles and mandatory gear grind)

    You should listen what he actually says. If you want any longeivety in MMO good AI is way to go, because among other stuff it wouldnt invalidate "old" encounters

    He also says that in order to have FUN AI you have to leave lot of stuff off the table (thats where trinity comes in) so even before you start designing encounters youre already severly limited in what you can do - because of trinity.

    the thing is that by swelling of other online genres (and sub genres) its quite clear vast majority of people prefer GOOD (human like) AI in their online games over DUMB (fun?) AI MMOs provide. So, that will be one of the aspects that will have to be rethinked if the genre is to be revitalized.

    And thats directly tied to trinity as you can only have dumb AI for trinity combat system, smart AI breaks the trinity (just like it happens in PvP)

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Originally posted by aesperus

    What the trinity is superior at, is providing a combat experience for people who want familiar roles, that they don't have to think much about. That might sound harsh, but it's absolutely true.

    What the trinity doesn't do is add depth to combat (in fact it actively seeks to do the exact opposite), it doesn't add complexity, and it only adds the bare minimum of strategy.

    While I won't argue that (when it comes to MMOs) many of the newer games trying to break away from the trinity mold haven't done the best job of it; this doesn't automatically mean that the trinity model is the only option. An opinion which the OP (and many others) seems to default to.

    There are games without trinities that have amazing combat. People like to point to GW2 as a a failed experiment, but it's ironically not. The biggest problem w/ GW2 is that much of the AI from launch was done poorly (which you cannot have in non-trinity games). With the newer content they've actively been fixing this one step at a time, and the game actually is having more varied boss encounters, with mechanics that require a multitude of specs, strategies, and approaches to beat.

    And there in lies the problem and main difference between the two. The trinity is by far the easiest model to implement. It's about as simplistic as you can possibly get, which means that designers don't really have to flex their brain as much to get a functional trinity system in play. Non-trinity models are much less tread ground. There's a lot more room for experimentation, but there's also a lot more room for error. It's much easier to screw up a non-trinity game than it is to ruin a trinity one.

    Imho, I prefer non-trinity models. They're still improving sure, but they add more depth to the combat. There's a lot more potential for interesting fights, and they force you to think and use your imagination more. All things I look for in games I play. I like using my brain when I play, I don't like games that have you unplug and play in a semi-coma state of satisfaction.

    The problem is that ANet ws thinking trinity way when they designed those long time ago. It isnt easy even for devs to change their premises if all they ever designed was trinity.

    But yeah, progress is there, they even hired AI specialist recenty, and you dont relly need that for trinity ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.