Howdy, Stranger!

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

Trinity vs. Non-Trinity

2456710

Comments

  • Neo_LibertyNeo_Liberty Member UncommonPosts: 437
    Originally posted by czombie

    I'd love to see a game someday where a group of mages could go into a dungeon and using only spells and tactical teamwork do just as well as a trinity group.  Unfortunately, MMO's have not reached the complexity yet to do this.  That's why I'm so excited about the destructible environment as it opens up even more crowd control options so that tanks are unnecessary.  I'd love it just as much if a group of tanks could do a dungeon too.  I'm not against trinity roles as much as I am the fact that you always need to have tank, DPS, healer to be effective in group PvE.  The more tactical options the better the way I see it.  Football or any other sport would be dull if every team used the exact same strategy because it is the only one that was effective.

    exactly my point.. I completely agree. they aren't taking the system away as much as they are building upon it.. they said it themselves.. you can use the trinity if you want... but if you don't want to, u don't have to.

    image
  • TraugarTraugar Member UncommonPosts: 183
    Originally posted by Kiyoris

    Trinity is the best system so far still for me. I think it also slows gameplay down a bit so you can add strategy.

    When I play non-trinity games you are constantly rushing mobs and it becomes a free for all faceroll game.

    A group in a non-trinity game doesn't feel like a group, it feels like button mashing solo game, your group members might not even be there.

    Also no one talks in non-trinity games, everyone is too busy facerolling mobs.

    What trinity games are you playing where people aren't rushing the mobs, and take the time to use strategy?  I haven't seen one in years.  I think the last one I played like that was EQ2 at launch.  Too bad they didn't keep it that way.  

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by czombie

    I'd love to see a game someday where a group of mages could go into a dungeon and using only spells and tactical teamwork do just as well as a trinity group.  Unfortunately, MMO's have not reached the complexity yet to do this.  That's why I'm so excited about the destructible environment as it opens up even more crowd control options so that tanks are unnecessary.  I'd love it just as much if a group of tanks could do a dungeon too.  I'm not against trinity roles as much as I am the fact that you always need to have tank, DPS, healer to be effective in group PvE.  The more tactical options the better the way I see it.  Football or any other sport would be dull if every team used the exact same strategy because it is the only one that was effective.

    You should of played the original EQ back in the day.. A group of 6 mages could do EXACTLY that.. A group of 6 Necro's were unbelievable.. I can't remember the last time I saw a player class "charm" a mob and make it their pet for 30 minutes or longer..  You would laugh your buff off watching a Bard kite.. Classes back then were unique and special..  But over the years instead of celebrating those class defining abilities, spells and skills were drowned by the cry of NERF..

  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130
    Originally posted by Traugar
    Originally posted by Kiyoris

    Trinity is the best system so far still for me. I think it also slows gameplay down a bit so you can add strategy.

    When I play non-trinity games you are constantly rushing mobs and it becomes a free for all faceroll game.

    A group in a non-trinity game doesn't feel like a group, it feels like button mashing solo game, your group members might not even be there.

    Also no one talks in non-trinity games, everyone is too busy facerolling mobs.

    What trinity games are you playing where people aren't rushing the mobs, and take the time to use strategy?  I haven't seen one in years.  I think the last one I played like that was EQ2 at launch.  Too bad they didn't keep it that way.  

    Well EQ. You never rush mobs there.

    And in the trinity games where you do rush like in Rift, the rush is still much slower than in non-trinity games. The game speed is slowed down.

    You are right that most game are now rush games..........but games now have little community now and very bad raids too.

    Well, just my opinion.

  • RusqueRusque Member RarePosts: 2,783
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    They mentioned how monster AI is suppose to be smart so I think this kind of scenario will happen. A orc is charged a ranger who is pelting the orc with arrows. Out of no where a Shield wielding warrior type jumps in to block its path, initially ignoring the warrior the orc continues but then the warrior jumps in front again and shield bashes the orc gaining its attention as its a target right in front of him, a bigger threat. Now this could be wishful thinking but when I think of Smart AI i think of that.

    Well that's the entire purpose of the trinity system, it was designed to give structure to combat.

    In your example if the AI decides to attack the person who is nearest and hindering it from reaching it's target, so it stops to fight that person, but then there's essentially no difference between smart AI and a trinity system. That's because the trinity aggro system is supposed to simulate this type of scenario.

     

    The other reason that combat automatically turns into GW2 style if you don't have a trinity system is because it's expected that the "tank" won't be able to control ALL the mobs. So each person needs to be survivable on their own. And this leads to optimization. If everyone can survive by avoiding attacks, then that's all you need, the tank automatically becomes superfluous. Why bring a tank if everyone knows how not to get hit? So everyone stacks DPS because it's the most efficient way to clear content.

    It's not that you can't build a really tanky character in GW2 (they call them bunker builds), stack vitality and toughtness, boons and such and you can tank for most of the time. Same goes for healing, certain classes have weapon sets that allow them to make a pretty good healer if they stack +healing power. But again, it's expected that you know how to dodge (aka move out of the fire).

    And if you know how to dodge, you don't need to be healed, if you don't need to be healed, no one needs to heal, if no one needs to heal, then no one needs to protect the healer, so the tank also goes dps along with the healer and everyone avoids damage while dps'ing.

    That's why no trinity is a slippery slope. I honestly can't think of AI that will somehow behave in a manner that isn't one or the other. It's either controlled hard trinity style or dps chaos.

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by Neo_Liberty
    Originally posted by Ezbee

    the problem is theyve replaced the trinity with a unity (if you get what  i mean).

    3 roles has now gone down to one tank/healer/dps -> dps.

    I dont think the trinity needs to be used but the system they use to replace it has to have some sort of dependance on other characters otherwise there wont be any real teamwork.

    it changes teamwork to everyone is doing dps on the same target and tries to survive.

    i don't understand the ranting... the ppl who are complaining about the lack of trinity must not have watched the full char panel video.. they showed some of the alternatives to traditional tank/healer/dps.. in a fantasy universe warriors are not the only chars that can tank.. or cc. priests/mages aren't the only ones who can heal. there is nothing wrong with breaking the traditional mold and making it something more. mages use the environment to create shields... that has a lot of potential.. why ignore that fact? i'm sure they  have even more planned...

    I for one read lots of fantasy books.. and I've never seen a single situation.. where a tank stands in front of a mob.. doesn't move.. and maintains its attention until the battle is over.. .it doesn't happen. they want to get everyone involved in the combat... nothing is wrong with that... as long as the char abilities support and sustain each other in group play there isn't a problem.

    Let me know which awesome class in EQN will allow me to quad kite , or charm mobs to do my bidding.. I'll be watching.. I would assume with 40 classes, one has to be in there somewhere.. Right?

  • stevebombsquadstevebombsquad Member UncommonPosts: 884
    I think the trinity makes it much easier to program complex fights with established group mechanics. This was something that GW2 was severely lacking in. I do think that SOE has a lot more resources than ArenaNet did, so I am very interested in seeing how it plays out. Hopefully this enhanced AI can lead to some engaging fights. 

    James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?

  • stayBlindstayBlind Member UncommonPosts: 511
    Originally posted by Rusque
    Originally posted by DSWBeef
    They mentioned how monster AI is suppose to be smart so I think this kind of scenario will happen. A orc is charged a ranger who is pelting the orc with arrows. Out of no where a Shield wielding warrior type jumps in to block its path, initially ignoring the warrior the orc continues but then the warrior jumps in front again and shield bashes the orc gaining its attention as its a target right in front of him, a bigger threat. Now this could be wishful thinking but when I think of Smart AI i think of that.

    Well that's the entire purpose of the trinity system, it was designed to give structure to combat.

    In your example if the AI decides to attack the person who is nearest and hindering it from reaching it's target, so it stops to fight that person, but then there's essentially no difference between smart AI and a trinity system. That's because the trinity aggro system is supposed to simulate this type of scenario.

     

    The other reason that combat automatically turns into GW2 style if you don't have a trinity system is because it's expected that the "tank" won't be able to control ALL the mobs. So each person needs to be survivable on their own. And this leads to optimization. If everyone can survive by avoiding attacks, then that's all you need, the tank automatically becomes superfluous. Why bring a tank if everyone knows how not to get hit? So everyone stacks DPS because it's the most efficient way to clear content.

    It's not that you can't build a really tanky character in GW2 (they call them bunker builds), stack vitality and toughtness, boons and such and you can tank for most of the time. Same goes for healing, certain classes have weapon sets that allow them to make a pretty good healer if they stack +healing power. But again, it's expected that you know how to dodge (aka move out of the fire).

    And if you know how to dodge, you don't need to be healed, if you don't need to be healed, no one needs to heal, if no one needs to heal, then no one needs to protect the healer, so the tank also goes dps along with the healer and everyone avoids damage while dps'ing.

    That's why no trinity is a slippery slope. I honestly can't think of AI that will somehow behave in a manner that isn't one or the other. It's either controlled hard trinity style or dps chaos.

    The GW2 system is bad because you are not penalized for running a full party of DPS. Heck, more than half of the crowd control skills are utterly useless on dungeon bosses.

    The fault was the way ArenaNet handled the game mechanics not the mechanics themselves.

    The only problem that I have with the trinity system is how STRUCTURED it is. If the only thing keeping an enemy from attacking your DPS or HEALS is that the tanks ONE PUSH HIT ME BUTTON wears off I would have to say that is as bad as utter DPS madness.

    Why can't we have a game where AI acts like players would in PVP?

    Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.

  • Neo_LibertyNeo_Liberty Member UncommonPosts: 437
    Originally posted by Kiyoris
    Originally posted by Traugar
    Originally posted by Kiyoris

    Trinity is the best system so far still for me. I think it also slows gameplay down a bit so you can add strategy.

    When I play non-trinity games you are constantly rushing mobs and it becomes a free for all faceroll game.

    A group in a non-trinity game doesn't feel like a group, it feels like button mashing solo game, your group members might not even be there.

    Also no one talks in non-trinity games, everyone is too busy facerolling mobs.

    What trinity games are you playing where people aren't rushing the mobs, and take the time to use strategy?  I haven't seen one in years.  I think the last one I played like that was EQ2 at launch.  Too bad they didn't keep it that way.  

    Well EQ. You never rush mobs there.

    And in the trinity games where you do rush like in Rift, the rush is still much slower than in non-trinity games. The game speed is slowed down.

    You are right that most game are now rush games..........but games now have little community now and very bad raids too.

    Well, just my opinion.

    I think i'm starting to understand.. it seems it's just a difference in mentality.... those who like trinity.. might prefer gameplay similar to rts style play.. you feel like you are a general or the king on the battle field.. you don't really get involved you just supervise the battle...

    those who don't want the trinity... are those who want to be in the middle of the battle experiencing the action for themselves... fighting on the front lines is a lot different from coordinating the attacks and retreats..

    image
  • EzbeeEzbee Member Posts: 31
    Originally posted by Neo_Liberty
    Originally posted by Ezbee

    the problem is theyve replaced the trinity with a unity (if you get what  i mean).

    3 roles has now gone down to one tank/healer/dps -> dps.

    I dont think the trinity needs to be used but the system they use to replace it has to have some sort of dependance on other characters otherwise there wont be any real teamwork.

    it changes teamwork to everyone is doing dps on the same target and tries to survive.

    i don't understand the ranting... the ppl who are complaining about the lack of trinity must not have watched the full char panel video.. they showed some of the alternatives to traditional tank/healer/dps.. in a fantasy universe warriors are not the only chars that can tank.. or cc. priests/mages aren't the only ones who can heal. there is nothing wrong with breaking the traditional mold and making it something more. mages use the environment to create shields... that has a lot of potential.. why ignore that fact? i'm sure they  have even more planned...

    I for one read lots of fantasy books.. and I've never seen a single situation.. where a tank stands in front of a mob.. doesn't move.. and maintains its attention until the battle is over.. .it doesn't happen. they want to get everyone involved in the combat... nothing is wrong with that... as long as the char abilities support and sustain each other in group play there isn't a problem.

    I dont mind there being hybrids and classes that can heal/tank, but the problem is theyre removing the dedicated classes completely.

    If they had both I would be happier, you could easily design a system where tanks/healers and hybrids could fulfill the roles interchangeably ie 1 healers = 2 healer/dps hybrids working together.

    Also the system doesnt necessarily have to be a traditional system. eg a tank can lose the attention due to the mob deciding it wants to kill the dps, but then you could have it so the tank has to get in front of him and shield bash + stun him to stop him to distract him and force the mob to try and get the tank out of the way.

    The attitude coming from the panels is that by healing and tanking you arent 'getting involved' and theyre doing us a favour by removing these classes, but i love healing to me dps i boring. if this is all thats going to be the game then unfortunately its not the game for me which sucks because i like the sound of everything else.

  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,196
    The question was asked whether they were making a mistake, because it didnt work in gw2.  They answered that they know it didnt work in gw2 but they have a way to make it work here.  So now you either give them some credibility and wait and see or you are calling them liars and then what are you even doing here?
  • ropeniceropenice Member UncommonPosts: 588
    Or

     

    Absolutely. Giving everyone in a group the tools to Control mobs, mitigate damage, heal a little bit and still do damage brings a much more dynamic and interactive group scenario, why would you need any one person in the group to fill one specific task. The trinity is highly restrictive and very boring where non trinity group play is more about coordination a tactics. In my opinion Teamwork exists more in a non trinity system.

    Not sure I see how non-trin is better teamwork. In a trinity (or 4rinity with cc), everyone has to depend on each other or it falls apart. You can't just dps everything and resurrect the people who die and keep going. Even the dps has to control how much damage he does to not draw agro (and if he does healer has to adjust or cc save him, tank has to re-engage mob). Non-trin seems to be everyone out for self, all able to defend/dodge or heal themselves. Not saying trinity is perfect (it could use improvement to make more dynamic, but it does foster more teamwork-group usually wiped if people not good at their role. I believe non-trin could work well if improved upon to create some dependency on each other, or maybe some type of combining parts of both ideas, like giving more classes ability to do other roles to support each other-backup healer with dps, or wizzie that could buff self temporarily to help tank, or other-should  be possible in EQN since they will have multiclassing skills (i think i read that.)

  • stayBlindstayBlind Member UncommonPosts: 511
    Originally posted by ropenice
    Or

     

    Absolutely. Giving everyone in a group the tools to Control mobs, mitigate damage, heal a little bit and still do damage brings a much more dynamic and interactive group scenario, why would you need any one person in the group to fill one specific task. The trinity is highly restrictive and very boring where non trinity group play is more about coordination a tactics. In my opinion Teamwork exists more in a non trinity system.

    Not sure I see how non-trin is better teamwork. In a trinity (or 4rinity with cc), everyone has to depend on each other or it falls apart. You can't just dps everything and resurrect the people who die and keep going. Even the dps has to control how much damage he does to not draw agro (and if he does healer has to adjust or cc save him, tank has to re-engage mob). Non-trin seems to be everyone out for self, all able to defend/dodge or heal themselves. Not saying trinity is perfect (it could use improvement to make more dynamic, but it does foster more teamwork-group usually wiped if people not good at their role. I believe non-trin could work well if improved upon to create some dependency on each other, or maybe some type of combining parts of both ideas, like giving more classes ability to do other roles to support each other-backup healer with dps, or wizzie that could buff self temporarily to help tank, or other-should  be possible in EQN since they will have multiclassing skills (i think i read that.)

    'The tank re-engaging' is handled in such a boring way though. It is so predictable it becomes boring.

     

    Tanks do not use taunt mechanics in PVP, why should they be forced to use them in PVE?

    Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.

  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,088
    Originally posted by TyranusPrime

    So, one of the primary topics now seems to be the lack of a trinity (or possible lack of it) for EQNext.. It wasn't very long ago that a great number of people (many of them being tired of WoW's mechanics) were screaming and yelling about being rid of the trinity all together.. This discontent seemed to almost directly spawn the genesis of GW2, which many heralded as amazing for its lack of trinity.. But now, hilariously enough, EQNext's not-too-clear stance on the trinity has brought out throngs of trinity-loving statements all over the place..

     

    So.. If you were able to discuss the trinity with the next generation of game developers, what would you say? Where do you stand on the whole trinity issue.. Are you for it? Against it?

    To me, the system they are suggesting is much more complex then the basic trinity and will require a lot more communication and teamwork.

    It won't be as simple as having X tanks X dps X healers and everyone standing in a particular spot hitting the right sequence of buttons. It is why raiding becomes a chore for many. Everyone knows exactly what to do and just checks out while playing. Once the learning phase is passed, it no longer becomes a challenge.

    If you come across a mob that applies a DOT that ticks 25% of your life every 5 seconds and you can't DPS it down before everyone dies, a healer will be needed. They haven't gone to far in to it, but I'm assuming you can't have the best of all worlds on one character at one time as you only get 8 abilities. So you can't be a super tank, dps, healer, cc at once.

    We will need people to play a particular role to be successful. But anyone can play that role an isn't forced into it.

    Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe they said you can just faceroll everything with DPS without any other type of support (CC, Healing, Tanks, Debuffs, etc).

    Maybe you have a good chance at DPSing certain mobs down, but it isn't easy and adding in a healer would make it many times easier. Take it a step further, adding in CC, Debuffs, other Support makes it easier and easier.

    Trinity isn't gone, just re-imagined, sort of like the entire game...

    GW2 has horrible AI and is a DPS fest. Do not doubt that EQN devs haven't played and seen what else is out there and player reactions. They are gamers too and aren't blind.

    EQN AI hopefully really is next-gen and keeps everyone on their toes. 

  • stevebombsquadstevebombsquad Member UncommonPosts: 884
    Originally posted by ropenice
    Or

     

    Absolutely. Giving everyone in a group the tools to Control mobs, mitigate damage, heal a little bit and still do damage brings a much more dynamic and interactive group scenario, why would you need any one person in the group to fill one specific task. The trinity is highly restrictive and very boring where non trinity group play is more about coordination a tactics. In my opinion Teamwork exists more in a non trinity system.

    Not sure I see how non-trin is better teamwork. In a trinity (or 4rinity with cc), everyone has to depend on each other or it falls apart. You can't just dps everything and resurrect the people who die and keep going. Even the dps has to control how much damage he does to not draw agro (and if he does healer has to adjust or cc save him, tank has to re-engage mob). Non-trin seems to be everyone out for self, all able to defend/dodge or heal themselves. Not saying trinity is perfect (it could use improvement to make more dynamic, but it does foster more teamwork-group usually wiped if people not good at their role. I believe non-trin could work well if improved upon to create some dependency on each other, or maybe some type of combining parts of both ideas, like giving more classes ability to do other roles to support each other-backup healer with dps, or wizzie that could buff self temporarily to help tank, or other-should  be possible in EQN since they will have multiclassing skills (i think i read that.)

    The thing is that I think a lot of these people never raided, or if they did, they did it in PUGS. They don't understand the mechanics behind it, or they wouldn't make statements like giving everyone all the abilities makes for more teamwork.......

    James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?

  • fyerwallfyerwall Member UncommonPosts: 3,240
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by TawClaw

    Guild Wars 2 was originally praised for its lack of trinity because it seemed like a good idea, an innovative idea.

     

    It turns out, we were wrong. Did you play GW2? The group play was awful. The dungeons were awful. There was no reason to focus on being a support player, leaving everyone to just build a max DPS character. In dungeons, it was every man/woman for him/herself just spamming attacks and running around in chaos. No tactics. No group play. No coordination. Sure, there might be a few minor exceptions on very specific dungeons, but in a nutshell, spamming keys and running was all it was.

     

    In light of that, we know all know that the trinity is good for group gameplay. It encourages things like I mentioned earlier; tactics and coordination. The complexity of dungeons in trinity-based games vastly exceeds the level of complexity in a non-trinity game. There is just such better combat and more potential for exciting dungeons.

    Well you certainly mastered the inductive fallacy. You can't assume because one game's attempt to remove the trinity is imperfect or even bad, that another game's attempt to remove the trinity is automatically bad.

    Agreed.

    If anything GW2 was a lesson on how not to do it. I am sure devs from SOE considered that when creating EQNs system. Even they understood that people will want  the ability to play certain roles and have stated they will be able to (Heal if they wish, tank if they wish) but also warned them that, unlike GW2, EQN AI will learn and adapt within an encounter. Where GW2 Mobs stood there and did the same actions over and over, EQNs will say "F-This..." and change tactics.

    Now if this all works out as they planned is yet to be seen...

    There are 3 types of people in the world.
    1.) Those who make things happen
    2.) Those who watch things happen
    3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


  • aesperusaesperus Member UncommonPosts: 5,135
    Originally posted by TyranusPrime
    (Let's add to the mix here.. Say the game being discussed isn't an 8 button masher type, but more of the multi-ability of Warcraft or Rift or something.. Does the addition of abilities and tactics change your view on trinity-use?)

    Well, a few things to consider about the Trinity debate.

    1) It's already been proven that the Trinity is not necessary to have a good RPG. Non-MMO RPGs have been doing this for over a decade now, and there have even been a few MMOs to pull this off successfully (and yes, GW2 is one).

    2) MMO gamers, as much as they won't admit it, are extremely opposed to any real change. This is something many developers have learned over the years, and one of the main reasons why we don't get many games that are 'too different'. Other genres have been showing viable alternatives to the trinity system, but heres the thing:

    - The trinity system is easy. You don't have to think much in a trinity setup. You have your tank, your healer, and your damage. There is no grey areas, there's very little needed customization. You get your optimal group and win. The tank & the healer take on most of the responsibility for the group, while everyone else just mashes their DPS rotations.

    - Non trinity systems put more responsibility on each individual. If you screw up, it's on you, and everyone knows it. This makes a lot of players feel stupid, bad, or cheated when they can't get a hang of the system. We've seen this a lot w/ GW2 for example.

    - Non trinity systems also take away the feeling certain players get of being irreplaceable. In non-trinity games it's usually skill that determines who is needed, and who is not. This means people used to being the tank, or healer, are no longer that class that a party NEEDS if they want to complete anything.

    Neither way is necessarily better than the other, but they ARE  matters of preference. Personally, I prefer games that are challenging, that make you think, buildcraft, and have to figure out new ways to approach each encounter. While both methods can have this to some degree, I find that non-trinity games do this to a much greater degree.

    That said, I also enjoy more traditional trinity games. They're a lot simpler, and easy to hop into and just have fun. There's a lot less thinking involved.

    - My only wish is that more people would stop being so close minded towards MMO mechanics, and start embracing or experimenting with new game mechanics. Otherwise, we have no one to blame but ourselves when we don't have interesting enough games.

  • Neo_LibertyNeo_Liberty Member UncommonPosts: 437
    Originally posted by Ezbee
    Originally posted by Neo_Liberty
    Originally posted by Ezbee

    the problem is theyve replaced the trinity with a unity (if you get what  i mean).

    3 roles has now gone down to one tank/healer/dps -> dps.

    I dont think the trinity needs to be used but the system they use to replace it has to have some sort of dependance on other characters otherwise there wont be any real teamwork.

    it changes teamwork to everyone is doing dps on the same target and tries to survive.

    i don't understand the ranting... the ppl who are complaining about the lack of trinity must not have watched the full char panel video.. they showed some of the alternatives to traditional tank/healer/dps.. in a fantasy universe warriors are not the only chars that can tank.. or cc. priests/mages aren't the only ones who can heal. there is nothing wrong with breaking the traditional mold and making it something more. mages use the environment to create shields... that has a lot of potential.. why ignore that fact? i'm sure they  have even more planned...

    I for one read lots of fantasy books.. and I've never seen a single situation.. where a tank stands in front of a mob.. doesn't move.. and maintains its attention until the battle is over.. .it doesn't happen. they want to get everyone involved in the combat... nothing is wrong with that... as long as the char abilities support and sustain each other in group play there isn't a problem.

    I dont mind there being hybrids and classes that can heal/tank, but the problem is theyre removing the dedicated classes completely.

    If they had both I would be happier, you could easily design a system where tanks/healers and hybrids could fulfill the roles interchangeably ie 1 healers = 2 healer/dps hybrids working together.

    Also the system doesnt necessarily have to be a traditional system. eg a tank can lose the attention due to the mob deciding it wants to kill the dps, but then you could have it so the tank has to get in front of him and shield bash + stun him to stop him to distract him and force the mob to try and get the tank out of the way.

    The attitude coming from the panels is that by healing and tanking you arent 'getting involved' and theyre doing us a favour by removing these classes, but i love healing to me dps i boring. if this is all thats going to be the game then unfortunately its not the game for me which sucks because i like the sound of everything else.

    I don't think they meant they were removing them completely.. I think they were removing tanks/heals/dps... meaning that what they are creating wouldn't fit the strict mold of what everyone considers a tank... most ppl when they think tank.. they tank taunts... so if you remove taunts you are effectively removing the tank role.. I feel they just simplified their terminology and just didn't give out much info..

    Its difficult to decide what the combat will be like when the dev's chose to leave the audience without information. I feel that everyone should reserve their judgement until the dev's describe what mechanic they are replacing it with.

    but honestly your description sounds like what the game will play like... to me a tank can tank without taunting.. there are other mechanics that can be used instead. the point is that the tanking won't be 100% fool proof and that it will be more like 60-70% effective, which will add an element of danger and excitement to the game.

    image
  • QuorinaQuorina Member Posts: 41
    Originally posted by Slyther_Zero

     


    Originally posted by TawClaw
    Guild Wars 2 was originally praised for its lack of trinity because it seemed like a good idea, an innovative idea.

     

     

    It turns out, we were wrong. Did you play GW2? The group play was awful. The dungeons were awful. There was no reason to focus on being a support player, leaving everyone to just build a max DPS character. In dungeons, it was every man/woman for him/herself just spamming attacks and running around in chaos. No tactics. No group play. No coordination. Sure, there might be a few minor exceptions on very specific dungeons, but in a nutshell, spamming keys and running was all it was.

     

    In light of that, we know all know that the trinity is good for group gameplay. It encourages things like I mentioned earlier; tactics and coordination. The complexity of dungeons in trinity-based games vastly exceeds the level of complexity in a non-trinity game. There is just such better combat and more potential for exciting dungeons.


     

     

    Lack of Trinity is a good thing I believe as it allows players to play the way they want, not be restricted to "tanking" or "dps". Being free of the shackles of the "trinity" has opened up doors, making dungeons not as predictable nowadays.

     

    Erm, except lack of a trinity, as seen in GW2, pigeon-holes everyone into the DPS role, so I'm not sure what freedom you're referring to?

    Personally I love to play tanks/healers/support, and not just stand there and mash buttons to damage the boss. Boring, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    Oh, and the same could be said for your "go play WoW" jab, go play GW2 if you like everything being 100% DPS and no trinity!

  • LemacsLemacs Member UncommonPosts: 121

    WOW = Trinity

    SWG = non-trinity

     

    I had more fun playing non-trinity MMO's.

    UO-EQ1-SWG-DAOC-WOW-EQ2-WAR-GW2-RIFT

  • ropeniceropenice Member UncommonPosts: 588
    Originally posted by stayBlind
    Originally posted by ropenice
    Or

     

    Absolutely. Giving everyone in a group the tools to Control mobs, mitigate damage, heal a little bit and still do damage brings a much more dynamic and interactive group scenario, why would you need any one person in the group to fill one specific task. The trinity is highly restrictive and very boring where non trinity group play is more about coordination a tactics. In my opinion Teamwork exists more in a non trinity system.

    Not sure I see how non-trin is better teamwork. In a trinity (or 4rinity with cc), everyone has to depend on each other or it falls apart. You can't just dps everything and resurrect the people who die and keep going. Even the dps has to control how much damage he does to not draw agro (and if he does healer has to adjust or cc save him, tank has to re-engage mob). Non-trin seems to be everyone out for self, all able to defend/dodge or heal themselves. Not saying trinity is perfect (it could use improvement to make more dynamic, but it does foster more teamwork-group usually wiped if people not good at their role. I believe non-trin could work well if improved upon to create some dependency on each other, or maybe some type of combining parts of both ideas, like giving more classes ability to do other roles to support each other-backup healer with dps, or wizzie that could buff self temporarily to help tank, or other-should  be possible in EQN since they will have multiclassing skills (i think i read that.)

    'The tank re-engaging' is handled in such a boring way though. It is so predictable it becomes boring.

     

    Tanks do not use taunt mechanics in PVP, why should they be forced to use them in PVE?

    I do agree with that 100%, thats why I never played a tank in EQ. Bored me to tears. They could make tanking much more dynamic. One way would be to give warriors damage bonus for attacks on mob not facing them-do so much damage the mob has to turn and face them to defend. or lock up the mob for a second to let the dps/caster get away. Anything except for yelling at the mob (taunt).

  • stevebombsquadstevebombsquad Member UncommonPosts: 884
    Originally posted by aesperus
    Originally posted by TyranusPrime
    (Let's add to the mix here.. Say the game being discussed isn't an 8 button masher type, but more of the multi-ability of Warcraft or Rift or something.. Does the addition of abilities and tactics change your view on trinity-use?)

    Well, a few things to consider about the Trinity debate.

    1) It's already been proven that the Trinity is not necessary to have a good RPG. Non-MMO RPGs have been doing this for over a decade now, and there have even been a few MMOs to pull this off successfully (and yes, GW2 is one).

    2) MMO gamers, as much as they won't admit it, are extremely opposed to any real change. This is something many developers have learned over the years, and one of the main reasons why we don't get many games that are 'too different'. Other genres have been showing viable alternatives to the trinity system, but heres the thing:

    - The trinity system is easy. You don't have to think much in a trinity setup. You have your tank, your healer, and your damage. There is no grey areas, there's very little needed customization. You get your optimal group and win. The tank & the healer take on most of the responsibility for the group, while everyone else just mashes their DPS rotations.

    - Non trinity systems put more responsibility on each individual. If you screw up, it's on you, and everyone knows it. This makes a lot of players feel stupid, bad, or cheated when they can't get a hang of the system. We've seen this a lot w/ GW2 for example.

    - Non trinity systems also take away the feeling certain players get of being irreplaceable. In non-trinity games it's usually skill that determines who is needed, and who is not. This means people used to being the tank, or healer, are no longer that class that a party NEEDS if they want to complete anything.

    Neither way is necessarily better than the other, but they ARE  matters of preference. Personally, I prefer games that are challenging, that make you think, buildcraft, and have to figure out new ways to approach each encounter. While both methods can have this to some degree, I find that non-trinity games do this to a much greater degree.

    That said, I also enjoy more traditional trinity games. They're a lot simpler, and easy to hop into and just have fun. There's a lot less thinking involved.

    - My only wish is that more people would stop being so close minded towards MMO mechanics, and start embracing or experimenting with new game mechanics. Otherwise, we have no one to blame but ourselves when we don't have interesting enough games.

    1. Of course there is no trinity in a single player game. It is after all a single player game. The mechanics are completely different when  you include other people and desire them to team up for content. If you don't have mechanics to match that then you end up with the GW2 feeling where a lot of people feel like they are playing around other people and not with them. 

    2. You obviously never raided in a progression guild at a high level or you wouldn't say that. It takes some skill even to play DPS effectively and that goes without saying when it comes to healing and tanking. 

    James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?

  • intrinscintrinsc Member UncommonPosts: 98

    A trinity is a class system where there are specific tank, dps, and heal classes. GW2 has none of those.

    To see the success of non trinity games all you have to do is look at numbers and quality of PVE. WoW has a trinity and has almost 8 million subs and the best PVE content on the planet. The best of the best PVE players in the world play this game. Look at GW2. It's mostly a PVP game with tournaments, etc. If the trinity was orgasmic, then you'd have a much more even split or more PVE than PVP. Same with games like Rift and TERA. Both of those have clearly defined trinities and that gameplay thrives.

     

     

     

  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,040
    I like the trinity...It gives players a defined role to play (remember role playing game).......Non trinity to me that everyone deals damage as fast as they can and you handle your own healing....That isnt roleplaying....Thats a lazy way to make players overpowered and take away the RPG part of the game.
  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by ropenice

    I do agree with that 100%, thats why I never played a tank in EQ. Bored me to tears. They could make tanking much more dynamic. One way would be to give warriors damage bonus for attacks on mob not facing them-do so much damage the mob has to turn and face them to defend. or lock up the mob for a second to let the dps/caster get away. Anything except for yelling at the mob (taunt).

    Then you haven't played the right game and the right tank..  Even WoW's tanking can be fun with the right AI

Sign In or Register to comment.