did the Anti-Trinity fad die yet?

MMOExposed

I remember before Guild Wars 2 release, and all the Anet statements, around these boards and others, "Trinity" became somewhat of a bad word. Then more and more games abandoned the Trinity. I knew most games like this would turn into Zerg fest. 

I am curious if that recent surge of Non Trinity MMOs has killed the Anti-Trinity fad. Because the Anti-Trinity rage was boarderline Anti-WoW levels on these MMOs forums.

Phry

Some games do better than others, not sure the anti trinity thing was more than just fans of specific games rather than a type of gameplay, solo centric vs group centric, the trinity is more about interdependance, whereas none trinity is more about independance, the need for other players is far less.

TheScavenger

I liked oldschool MMOs

It wasn't tank/dps/heals

It was tank/CC/buff/DPS/Heals/other support

crowd control abilities are god damn useless in MMOs in any group activity, so useless the companies make them not work in dungeons/raids. The stupidest design decision in any game. And buffs are way weaker than MMOs of old.

Tank/DPS/heals themselves is super casual compared to all the roles one could do in old MMOs

And non-trinity is just lazy design made for zergfests and 100% soloists

Caffynated

There were other MMORPGs besides GW2 that were anti-trinity? I must have missed them. Sure a lot of games softened things a bit so that healers had more DPS and DPS could survive a bit more, but they didn't just completely dump the concept.

Leiloni

Caffynated said:

There were other MMORPGs besides GW2 that were anti-trinity? I must have missed them. Sure a lot of games softened things a bit so that healers had more DPS and DPS could survive a bit more, but they didn't just completely dump the concept.

BDO and BnS both had softer role systems, but they were also designed differently than other games so it sort of works. But in general I think most games stick with the trinity. It works really well and people generally like it. Games without a trinity tend to have problems with grouping not working well and having any real cohesiveness or teamplay. Even GW2 at this point has a more well defined trinity so that grouping is less bad.

Rusque

I think the problem with non-trinity games is that they bundled that concept with fast, twitch-based combat, leaving little room for interaction and tactical play which I'm pretty sure would have made non-trinity much more appealing and fun.

GW2 has some combo field stuff, but anyone who has played it knows how small the window is to really take advantage of this system. It's conceptually a great idea, it's the implementation of fast combat that spoils it.

The reason trinity systems work well is because encounters have known variables and can be built around those roles operating in a specific way. In order for non-trinity games to offer the same complexity of encounters, they would have to slow down gameplay a bit so that tactical interaction could take place, otherwise it devolves into a button-mashing zergfest.

I'd love to see some more thought put into non-trinity systems as they have a lot of unrealized potential.

Caffynated

Leiloni said:

Caffynated said:

There were other MMORPGs besides GW2 that were anti-trinity? I must have missed them. Sure a lot of games softened things a bit so that healers had more DPS and DPS could survive a bit more, but they didn't just completely dump the concept.

BDO and BnS both had softer role systems, but they were also designed differently than other games so it sort of works. But in general I think most games stick with the trinity. It works really well and people generally like it. Games without a trinity tend to have problems with grouping not working well and having any real cohesiveness or teamplay. Even GW2 at this point has a more well defined trinity so that grouping is less bad.

Even BDO and B&S had strong elements of the trinity.

In B&S you had Blade Master and Kung Fu Master as the tanks. Other classes struggled to hold aggro and survive against bosses like Black Wyrm. There wasn't a designated healer but a few classes did have the ability to heal their allies. It was softened but not eliminated.

BDO does (or did pre-awakening) have a trinity basis for the classes. You had tanky classes like Valk, healers like wizard and the the straight DPS classes like ranger. The bigger issue there was that the content was just so easy you never needed to care about it. Again, it was certainly a softer trinity but it wasn't non-trinity.

Dibdabs

The Trinity still hangs around in various forms, somewhat like a fart in a spacesuit, but one day I hope it fades completely.  It is a rigid, by-the-numbers playstyle that wore out its welcome long ago.

DKLond

I think a lot of people realised, finally, that taking away the trinity without adding something better - doesn't actually improve the experience.

I certainly hope GW2 demonstrated for most people how combat wasn't better without tangible tactical roles.

Kyleran

DMKano said:

There was never a "fad".

There are just games that have more clearly group defined roles, than others.

Both "trinity" and "non-trinity" games continue to exist just fine 

I'd be interested in knowing which modern (last 5 years) MMORPGs have clearly defined group roles, along the lines of EQ1 or DAOC?

I can't think of any.

cheyane

Kyleran said:

DMKano said:

There was never a "fad".

There are just games that have more clearly group defined roles, than others.

Both "trinity" and "non-trinity" games continue to exist just fine 

I'd be interested in knowing which modern (last 5 years) MMORPGs have clearly defined group roles, along the lines of EQ1 or DAOC?

I can't think of any.

If you mean Warrior,Enchanter and Cleric than no but if you mean Tank,Healer and DPS then you have ESO and FFXIV for a start. Wildstar definitely.

cameltosis

I'm anti-trinity, but I'm not anti-role. 

I find the trinity far too limiting. When everything boils down to tank, dps and heals, combat becomes very samey. Tactics are always very similar, group setup is always the same, it makes for a very monotonous experience. 

However, I don't advocate removing specific roles. I wouldn't play a game like GW2 where everyone is basically the same, because without roles it does become a zerg fest and you lose the need to be cooperative. 


What I advocate is more roles. Dedicated CC, debuffers, buffers etc. I've often heard this referred to as trinity+, as it has the trinity but it has other roles on top of it. What this does is keep the defined roles, encouraging cooperation, but it opens up the tactics and design of the game so that everything has tons more options. 

LotRO is (was?) a great example of trinity+. It had tank, healer and dps, but it also had 3 support classes: Captain (buffer), Loremaster (CC) and Burglar (debuffer). What this meant is that you had far more options for how you approached a fight. You could just stick with the trinity for everything. This was known as "brute forcing" a fight - it lacked finesse and relied on overwhelming DPS to win. Or, start mixing in support classes to open up more options. 

For 6man content, you could completely get rid of the trinity classes. By clever use of support classes, you didn't need to bring tanks and healers. You needed to be highly skilled to do so, but it was possible and a lot of fun. We used to do fun runs where we'd do a 6man dungeon with 6 captains, or 6 loremasters! I have even seen videos of raids being completed without tanks - something only possible by having support classes in game. 

Of course, there is always a tradeoff when having weird group makeups. Generally, you either lost survivability or speed. But, that is what made the game great! You could form a group of 6 for a dungeon out of pretty much anything and then just adjust your tactics accordingly. The designers of LotRO were extremely skilled at designing content. They didn't rely on stupid gear checks or enrage timers or any bollocks like that. You beat the content through player skill and tactics. 

Lokero

DKLond said:

I think a lot of people realised, finally, that taking away the trinity without adding something better - doesn't actually improve the experience.

I certainly hope GW2 demonstrated for most people how combat wasn't better without tangible tactical roles.

Well, considering GW2 basically added in a full-time healing class with Druid in the expansion... I'm thinking even ArenaNet changed their minds on some of those things.

DKLond

Lokero said:

DKLond said:

I think a lot of people realised, finally, that taking away the trinity without adding something better - doesn't actually improve the experience.

I certainly hope GW2 demonstrated for most people how combat wasn't better without tangible tactical roles.

Well, considering GW2 basically added in a full-time healing class with Druid in the expansion... I'm thinking even ArenaNet changed their minds on some of those things.

I definitely think the game could have been a lot better if the developers had been slightly more talented and modest

Kyleran

TheScavenger said:

I liked oldschool MMOs

It wasn't tank/dps/heals

It was tank/CC/buff/DPS/Heals/other support

crowd control abilities are god damn useless in MMOs in any group activity, so useless the companies make them not work in dungeons/raids. The stupidest design decision in any game. And buffs are way weaker than MMOs of old.

Tank/DPS/heals themselves is super casual compared to all the roles one could do in old MMOs

And non-trinity is just lazy design made for zergfests and 100% soloists

You forgot debuffing and pulling. Having gone back to old school DAOC recently, I rediscovered the importance and interdependence clearly defined roles offer.

Your example of crowd control is great, as the mezzers count thru the cadence of which targets on 1st mezz, 2nd mezz, etc.

They also identify which targets resisted so the tanks/off tanks can taunt/peel them off the messers/healers who will be under attack at this point. Optionally the rooters/snarers can step in to stop or slow targets as needed 

Last but not least are single target stunners like my hybrid, with up to a 9 second stun which buys time to mez, root, taunt or stun again.

All of these have both a resistance factor as well as they are cumulative. 1st mez might last its full 52 sec duration (less for higher level targets) while 3rd mez rarely goes longer than 10 sec. (there is no fourth mez)

Almost every mechanic can be broken down this way, some are situational, vary between PVE and RVR (where counters, resistances and immunities come more into play) and can greatly be made more effective with well coordinated group play and individual player skill.

So you really "had to be there" to understand why people say this is largely missing from modern MMOs.

Kunai_Vax

Dibdabs said:

The Trinity still hangs around in various forms, somewhat like a fart in a spacesuit, but one day I hope it fades completely.  It is a rigid, by-the-numbers playstyle that wore out its welcome long ago.

I think it still have a place in some future games, diversity is always good.
By the way, i love your avatar

Kunai_Vax

DKLond said:

I think a lot of people realised, finally, that taking away the trinity without adding something better - doesn't actually improve the experience.

I certainly hope GW2 demonstrated for most people how combat wasn't better without tangible tactical roles.

Its a matter of opinion. Personally i love GW2 combat.  There's so much variety in the classes.

SavageHorizon

Anyone remember Chronicles Of The Spellborn, that system was way before it's time. Really loved that mmo, the atmosphere was awesome and the fact that armour and weapons had no stats. 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=cQ2bWLWGF4XE6QTf6oDICA&q=Chronicles+of+the+Spellborn+pvp&oq=Chronicles+of+the+Spellborn+pvp&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0i22i30k1.41522.42890.0.44092.7.6.0.0.0.0.313.1267.0j1j2j2.5.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..2.5.1265...0j35i39k1.hSc4FEBZIrU

JudgeUK

The result of non-trinity games was more often than not, the removal of the healing class. And what replaced it?
Potions, running through glowy bits, or just dpsing as fast as possible.
What the developers realized is that a reduction in roles means a reduction in mechanics, saving them the trouble of developing complex dungeons and raids. Replaced with dps races, not against the boss but against the clock.
And there was an anti-trinity fad. Dps players moaning that they had to wait to get in groups - ignoring the basic fact that whilst they where quite happy playing a fast leveling class, their demand for instant groups would not be realized.

DKLond

Kunai_Vax said:

DKLond said:

I think a lot of people realised, finally, that taking away the trinity without adding something better - doesn't actually improve the experience.

I certainly hope GW2 demonstrated for most people how combat wasn't better without tangible tactical roles.

Its a matter of opinion. Personally i love GW2 combat.  There's so much variety in the classes.

We're not talking about combat being good or bad. We're talking about whether taking away the trinity was good or bad.

Do you think GW2 would be worse with a trinity?

SavageHorizon

I prefer trinity, looking forward to Pantheon. 

cheyane

Even though I cut my teeth in this genre with Everquest I think I always loved the choices City of Heroes/Villains gave us. The powers in that game and that game had crowd control up the wazoo were so amazing. It affected so many things on a map and it was amazing how we could all use our skills through that chaos in spite of the tanks getting mad at all the blasters knocking mobs out of their range. Then the innovative healing and wonderful use of physics. Yes City of X we loved you.

Aeander

Lokero said:

DKLond said:

I think a lot of people realised, finally, that taking away the trinity without adding something better - doesn't actually improve the experience.

I certainly hope GW2 demonstrated for most people how combat wasn't better without tangible tactical roles.

Well, considering GW2 basically added in a full-time healing class with Druid in the expansion... I'm thinking even ArenaNet changed their minds on some of those things.

Did they? Or did they just rightly observe that making their raid content work without a healer would require more work than simply implementing a healer? 

These forums judge the entirety of the potential for other group paradigms to work based on the very first incarnation of a non-trinity game - essentially the beta test of an entire possible design philosophy. That's the equivalent of judging all art by the standards of cave paintings or judging a book by its rough draft. I don't expect much from the MMORPG.com community, but the complete lack of intuition from the vast majority of the forum on a concept so basic as this is disappointing. 

Kunai_Vax

DKLond said:

Kunai_Vax said:

DKLond said:

I think a lot of people realised, finally, that taking away the trinity without adding something better - doesn't actually improve the experience.

I certainly hope GW2 demonstrated for most people how combat wasn't better without tangible tactical roles.

Its a matter of opinion. Personally i love GW2 combat.  There's so much variety in the classes.

We're not talking about combat being good or bad. We're talking about whether taking away the trinity was good or bad.

Do you think GW2 would be worse with a trinity?

You were talking about combat not being better without a tangible tactical role.
I replied and said i liked the combat. I like the variety and not being forced to play a certain role at the expense of being nerfed in other areas. 

I heard someone say that in the end game (if you're raiding) you're often forced to pick certain builds and play a certain role. I dont know how accurate that is as im just casually leveling right now but i have to say im having a lot of fun and feel like i have a lot of freedom to play how i want to play. 

From what ive seen so far i dont think having a trinity would be a good move for GW2. 

DKLond

Kunai_Vax said:

DKLond said:

Kunai_Vax said:

DKLond said:

I think a lot of people realised, finally, that taking away the trinity without adding something better - doesn't actually improve the experience.

I certainly hope GW2 demonstrated for most people how combat wasn't better without tangible tactical roles.

Its a matter of opinion. Personally i love GW2 combat.  There's so much variety in the classes.

We're not talking about combat being good or bad. We're talking about whether taking away the trinity was good or bad.

Do you think GW2 would be worse with a trinity?

You were talking about combat not being better without a tangible tactical role.
I replied and said i liked the combat. I like the variety and not being forced to play a certain role at the expense of being nerfed in other areas. 

I heard someone say that in the end game (if you're raiding) you're often forced to pick certain builds and play a certain role. I dont know how accurate that is as im just casually leveling right now but i have to say im having a lot of fun and feel like i have a lot of freedom to play how i want to play. 

From what ive seen so far i dont think having a trinity would be a good move for GW2. 

No need to repeat what you've already said.

Thanks for answering my question, though.

Fair enough, you're a casual player with limited experience - and I will take your response in kind. You like characters that can do everything and you don't enjoy having a role in combat.

That's cool - and GW2 is definitely for you in that case

Daikuru

Holy Multrinity.