Howdy, Stranger!

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

No Trinity, No Tanks, No Thanks

1246715

Comments

  • evilastroevilastro Member Posts: 4,270
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Laughing-man

    Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'

    Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?

    Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed.  Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.

    Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.

     

    Terrible analogy, comparing something that is necessary and something that has been a recent change.  If you had said 'scented air' or 'flavoured pancakes' you would have been correct.

    The trinity isn't required for RPGs. There was no trinity in Dungeons and Dragons or any other tabletop RPG.  It was just a lazy way to make things work with limited artificial intelligence in old video games.  Now that EQN is moving beyond limited AI, its time for the trinity to go away too.

    actually, D&D invented the Trinity,  Fighters (tanks) thieves+magic users (dps) and clerics (healing) of course back then there was no AI, just the DM, but that at least, was where it all started.

    and the guys analogy is about as correct as it goes, but it should be said, that the Trinity is not the only way to do things, its just a very popular one, the most popular one in fact, maybe because it has its roots in tabletop games like oddly enough, D&D. image

     

    No, fighters were not 'tanks'. They did not 'taunt' and 'hold aggro'.

    They had to position themselves physically in front of the people if they wanted to shield them, which was usually only possible in very confined spaces (corridors essentially), which also stopped the rest of the group from participating in combat (since arrows didn't magically fly through the 'tank' and hit the thing he is fighting).  There was no magical angry shout ability for them to stop something from attacking the Cleric or Wizard.

    Granted your DM could have chosen to play that way, but fighters were just melee DPS who had armour to protect themselves from having going in close combat, similar to how rogues used dexterity.   They were not turned into 'tanks' as we know them until the 4th edition, which was influenced by MMOs.

  • evilastroevilastro Member Posts: 4,270
    Originally posted by Apraxis
    Originally posted by Laughing-man

    Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'

    Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?

    Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed.  Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.

    Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.

    The problem with the old trinity system (heal, taunt tank, dps) is that it is very predictable, and not really suited to use against some more advanced combat AI. Because the trintity system with the taunt eleminates any AI requirement, and you can just add some scripted variations(in which you break up the trinity for a certain time in most cases).

    You don't have the holy trinity in any pvp game, because players can't be taunted, and/or it would be ridiculous silly and not a lot of fun. Why do you think a lot of people avoid pve, avoid raids? Because they are predictable and in the long run not challenging.. if you have beat one encounter, if you have a strategy against that any difficultiy is gone.. and therefore it is not really challenging for a lot of people.

     

    For a laugh, go play EQ2 PvP... you actually can taunt players as a tank and its horrible.  Every second you will be targeting the tank again, you basically need to smash a 'previous target' macro to function in PvP.  Just further proof of how dumb the mechanic is.

  • BetaguyBetaguy Member UncommonPosts: 2,614
    Originally posted by Latronus
    Originally posted by drkoracle

    If you haven't seen it yet and are interested in the game go and have a quick look at the Class Panel Video.

    Part 1

    Part 2

    Once they get to the Q&A section you will notice a large amount of the questions are the same thing that made me go WTF, they are ditching the Trinity System and instead going with a GW2 like build. Personally I much prefer structured play, I don't have any qualms about multi-class characters or not needing alts but there is no way I am going trough another GW2 or NWO style dungeon run where everyone zergs in, some may like it but not for me.

    They say that they have "systems in place" to make sure any group can complete content no matter there make up, all this translates to in my opinion and experience is  people who want to play the two support roles "tank & healer" will be snubbed for another dps, because whether you can complete content with a balanced group or not, you can complete it faster with 5 people in full dps mode.

    The trinity system has it's flaws granted but I believe it is still superior to the system that they are planning to implement, I still want to try the game, but after hearing the same PR bull from the GW2 team I am more than a little sceptical that this game will cater to it's intended market

     

    Well, GW2 didn't do the no trinity combat system well at all, at least in my opinion anyway.  That being said, the trinity is old, outdated, and nothing more than a lazy developers dream.  It was developed because technology wouldn't support intelligent AI but now it "should" be doable.   Besides, real combat is chaos and why in god's green earth would you attack a big armored buffoon that couldn't kill a swamp rat by himself over a leather wearing back stabber that could one shot you or a dress and pointy hat wearing caster that could nuke your ass before you turned your attention to the guy insulting your momma?  You wouldn't so why do support that kind of system?   It's because it's easy, convenient, and that's the way we've always done it.

    All that being said, you don't like the direction $OE is going? No worries, no one likes every game.  Wait for something more your style or play something that's a better fit.

     Offer a real solution to No Trinity.... just give me an example?

    image

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Laughing-man

    Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'

    Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?

    Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed.  Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.

    Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.

     

    Terrible analogy, comparing something that is necessary and something that has been a recent change.  If you had said 'scented air' or 'flavoured pancakes' you would have been correct.

    The trinity isn't required for RPGs. There was no trinity in Dungeons and Dragons or any other tabletop RPG.  It was just a lazy way to make things work with limited artificial intelligence in old video games.  Now that EQN is moving beyond limited AI, its time for the trinity to go away too.

    actually, D&D invented the Trinity,  Fighters (tanks) thieves+magic users (dps) and clerics (healing) of course back then there was no AI, just the DM, but that at least, was where it all started.

    and the guys analogy is about as correct as it goes, but it should be said, that the Trinity is not the only way to do things, its just a very popular one, the most popular one in fact, maybe because it has its roots in tabletop games like oddly enough, D&D. image

     

    No, fighters were not 'tanks'. They did not 'taunt' and 'hold aggro'.

    They had to position themselves physically in front of the people if they wanted to shield them, which was usually only possible in very confined spaces (corridors essentially), which also stopped the rest of the group from participating in combat (since arrows didn't magically fly through the 'tank' and hit the thing he is fighting).  There was no magical angry shout ability for them to stop something from attacking the Cleric or Wizard.

    Granted your DM could have chosen to play that way, but fighters were just melee DPS who had armour to protect themselves from having going in close combat, similar to how rogues used dexterity.   They were not turned into 'tanks' as we know them until the 4th edition, which was influenced by MMOs.

    they may not have had the skill 'taunt' but that didnt mean they couldn't actually shout at the monsters to get their attention, and there was CC, the mage spell sleep was great for that, and while arrows couldn't hit while the fighter was in melee the magic missile spell certainly could image

     thieves were almost always there to backstab the enemy for double damage etc, as for the various editions, i never progressed beyond 2nd edition rule set for AD&D. image

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,746
    GW2 taught me why I loved the trinity. GW2 turned into a zerg fest without it, from PvP too Dungeon runs. SoE say that have something different then GW2 and it will be nothing alike. I have been a SoE fan forever so I will wait and see what they think they have thats so special. They did say they have defense skills but that did make me think of GW2 more so I dont know.



  • MpfiveMpfive Member UncommonPosts: 308
    Oh look, the hate train has departed ESO station and arrived at everquest next
  • EcocesEcoces Member UncommonPosts: 879
    Originally posted by Thunder073

    @ OP:

    I agree 100% bud. Check out Pantheon. It's exactly up our ally. This is the game for us, not all this crap thats come out since 2002. Finally a game going back to the roots. Where players actually interact and group to defeat harder monsters that takes skill, not one shotting 100 mobs in 3 mins.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1588672538/pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen

     

    haha you all are buying back into Mcquaids BS already huh? i remember when vanguard supporters were saying the same thing. Mcquaid even coined the term "core gamers", which was defined as players who wanted to go back to the "core" of what MMORPGs were.

     

    and people believe in that nonsense they even spouted it on other game forums as if that made them "better" players "im a core MMORPG player", and insulting any game or gamer that wasn't going to play Vanguard.

     

    and you all are so gullible you are buying into the same nonsense again.

     

    getting back to the point, if what they say is true and the class roles will be more MOBA style instead of typical MMORPG. I can live with that. 

  • zevianzevian Member UncommonPosts: 403
    Originally posted by Alders

    If anything is outdated, it's the taunt and force taunt mechanic.  We didn't have that in FFXI and i believe it's threat system was far superior to anything since. 

    While we had a "Provoke" skill on a 30 sec cooldown, all it did was increase enmity.  There were far better ways to build enmity such as healing and CC.  What this system allowed was for other classes to actually have to work with the tank to ensure he/she holds threat.  

    Go nuts DPS wise?  You're going to die.  Over-heal or use the wrong heal?  You're going to die.  Spam Sleep or other CC's? Those mobs are going to be glued to you until you die.

    What this system also allowed was for certain classes that were not originally designed as tanks, to actually fulfill the role. Now this was probably attributed to the fact that armor and defense meant nothing in that game, but the options were there thanks to the system.

    What i guess I'm trying to say is that the Trinity is fine and it works.  We need the system expanded upon mechanics wise instead of simply eliminating it, and it has to start with a larger group/party size to allow for more flexibility.

    Youve just described the trinity, and how it used to work in WoW even.   The group had to watch their actions or the person who can take the most abuse loses that monster attacking them.      You can Provoke "taunt"   causing the mosnter to focus on your for a moment at which time you can increase your emninty (threat aggro) against them, so it hopefully doesnt run off and attack the player not focusing on the tanks main target.   

    You used to have to focus on a specific mob and kill it before moving on to the next,  the way WoW for example plays out today is a free for all, and it gets tired,   It was done to make the game easier so more people could play.  

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Apraxis
    Originally posted by Laughing-man

    Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'

    Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?

    Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed.  Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.

    Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.

    The problem with the old trinity system (heal, taunt tank, dps) is that it is very predictable, and not really suited to use against some more advanced combat AI. Because the trintity system with the taunt eleminates any AI requirement, and you can just add some scripted variations(in which you break up the trinity for a certain time in most cases).

    You don't have the holy trinity in any pvp game, because players can't be taunted, and/or it would be ridiculous silly and not a lot of fun. Why do you think a lot of people avoid pve, avoid raids? Because they are predictable and in the long run not challenging.. if you have beat one encounter, if you have a strategy against that any difficultiy is gone.. and therefore it is not really challenging for a lot of people.

     

    For a laugh, go play EQ2 PvP... you actually can taunt players as a tank and its horrible.  Every second you will be targeting the tank again, you basically need to smash a 'previous target' macro to function in PvP.  Just further proof of how dumb the mechanic is.

     

    Oh my god! I can't believe you even said that. Doesn't that just prove that taunts in PvP work? The fact that it's annoying means it's working! What about stun locking? Freezing? They are based on the same premise. You may not have to switch targets, but the fact that you actually have to go back to your initial target makes it all the more compelling to attack the tanking target first. Isn't that the expressed purpose of the tank role? 

     

    My favorite argument, though, is about realism. We're playing a game with magical spells! Want something more realistic? Ok, what about a chain? If I throw a chain around the moster and pull it towards me, does that make it more realistic? If I'm holding a monster with a chain and it can't attack anyone else, what's it going to do? It'll attack me. Shoot, look at the military. You've got differentiation in roles there, too, and that's real-real. Like, sure, everyone is going to have some self-heal ability, we've got healing potions, or food or something for minor wounds, but if our leg gets blown off, we'll probably need someone a little more specialized to help. Snipers strike from afar. They are ultimately vulnerable to attack because they're less mobile, but are invaluable in taking enemies out. Infantry are your tanks. They might not have magical spells and they sure as hell don't get the credit they deserve, but they're in the shit drawing fire, whether they like it or not. Sorry, it doesn't get any more real than that. 

     

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,608
    For me, Trinity is a strong negative, and other parts of the game have to be real good to compensate for the character lockdown.  Personally, free ranging skill systems are my preference, with some sort of point cap, so everyone is not the best at everything.   Classic taunt-aggro tanking for basic warrior types makes next to no sense to me.  It's a gamification.  The whole thing feels much more like checkers than chess, to reverse a previous comment.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • Colt47Colt47 Member UncommonPosts: 549
    Actually, having a taunt skill that makes a monster redirect an attack to the guy using the skill sounds a lot more interesting than having an aggro table based taunt.   There would still be a tank, just his purpose would be to eat attacks that would possibly down other players.
  • BadOrbBadOrb Member UncommonPosts: 791

    It's funny really as I hadn't even heard of the trinity system until SWTOR came out in 2011 and I had played MMO's for about 11 years up to that date. So who cares , if the game is great then trinity doesn't matter in the slightest.

    Cheers,

    BadOrb.

    PSO 4 years , EQOA 4 months , PSU 7 years , SWTOR launch ongoing , PSO2 SEA launch ongoing , Destiny 360 launch ongoing.
    "SWG was not fun. Let it go buddy." quote from iiNoSkillzii 10/18/13
    The original propoganda pixie dust villain :[]

  • leoo88556leoo88556 Member Posts: 135

    I wish everyone can just have a little more patient... We haven't even see how things are going to work yet! Any estimation right now is like rating the game with a random number generator!

    The game can potentially be bad, just like everything else. But unless you've played the game, everything you say is just... rant.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,746
    Originally posted by leoo88556

    I wish everyone can just have a little more patient... We haven't even see how things are going to work yet! Any estimation right now is like rating the game with a random number generator!

    The game can potentially be bad, just like everything else. But unless you've played the game, everything you say is just... rant.

    Could be good or bad, I agree but the fact remains. Games without the trinity have not done nearly as well as have that have them. Match it up for number of subs, currently playing or how much money made. Trinity is the winning system. Does SoE have something? Guess we will have to wait and see.



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

     Offer a real solution to No Trinity.... just give me an example?

    "PVP" with roles/classes in _____ game. Honestly there is no example, it hasn't been done.

    While roles and classes have lost some of their originality over the years, I know at least in DAoC, a Tank was a Tank and a Healer was a Healer in PVP, regardless if they were doing DPS, CC, Support. Everyone still had their defined role, but worked within it and together. Countless other PVP oriented games have done decently as well, with games like Smite doing "okay" in the MOBA arena, although I'm assuming EQN will have more defined roles for classes.

    Even GW2 does PVP and roles decently with all it's issues, but PVE was done horribly. Doesn't prove Trinity is the only way to go, just proves GW2 has crap for PVE.

    It all comes down to the AI. If what they are hyping falls flat on it's face, game over. Will still be a great game with a lot of neat features, but combat won't be amazing. If it lives up to the hype, the trinity can see itself out.

    The only thing more boring then mindless dps zerging is hard-lined trinity. Show up with XYZ class/build/gear, shut up and listen to the leader, memorize the pattern, don't mess up. I did my time in EQ/WoW and am amazed at how long some people have been doing the same old thing, day in day out for so many years. 

    Besides the first guilds/players to attempt something, anyone that comes after and "learns" from others takes the vast majority of the excitement and challenge away. There is little room for creativity or experimenting. Even those stupid videos of the guy screaming at people "MORE DOTS" in WoW is an example where the only issue is people being dumb. They knew exactly what to do and could do it, people were just stupid.

    I want a game where learning what to do isn't as easy as 123. Only way I see this happening is with a real increase in AI.

    No we won't be fighting human-like intelligence, but for some people, that wouldn't be too hard to mimic...

    While I still feel it is quite possible to have the essence of "trinity", it shouldn't require to have XYZ in every battle nor basing the majority of the game on it with a few "fun" challenges that let pet classes tank or some hybrid spec fill in for a real XYZ.

    I think it is hard for many to wrap their heads around what SOE is promising because we've never really seen it before. PVP is an "okay" example, but really until we see some AI kicking ass, it is all just talk. I have a lot of faith though. The tech is there, the creativity is there, it is just a matter of putting it all together and having it actually work in a real environment, not some pretty tech demo.

    We shall see. Until then, all the comparison to games from the last 15+ years is pointless. What has/hasn't worked in one game, has no impact on another. SOE is promising something never before seen, we can go in glass half full, half empty, or bring a bowl. None of it matters. Obviously if people prefer the no room for variation trinity route, EQN probably not the best game. Good thing there are 15+ years worth of games to choose from with many more on the way.

    Now back to grumble about LM servers being down =(

  • aspekxaspekx Member UncommonPosts: 2,167
    Originally posted by Betaguy
    Originally posted by Latronus
    Originally posted by drkoracle

     

     Offer a real solution to No Trinity.... just give me an example?

    i dunno maybe every tabletop rpg system since Dungeons and Dragons first released in the whitebox edition?

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Member Posts: 379
    Originally posted by Sikhander
    Originally posted by Swids2010
    So in retrospect for me I still believe that games without the trinity can work but you have to give us class building options that can make them usefull to groups.

    I will be a bit naughty here and point out that the above paragraph is not possible - and that is the core of the problem.

    What trinity means is specialisation.

    What trinity means is "3."  Having 5 specialized and viable roles is no more a trinity than having just one is.

    Holy Trinity is the specific trinity set of "Tank DPS Heal."  Trinity (capitalized) is a common shortform of Holy Trinity. 

  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Member Posts: 379
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Laughing-man

    Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'

    Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?

    Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed.  Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.

    Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.

     

    Terrible analogy, comparing something that is necessary and something that has been a recent change.  If you had said 'scented air' or 'flavoured pancakes' you would have been correct.

    The trinity isn't required for RPGs. There was no trinity in Dungeons and Dragons or any other tabletop RPG.  It was just a lazy way to make things work with limited artificial intelligence in old video games.  Now that EQN is moving beyond limited AI, its time for the trinity to go away too.

    actually, D&D invented the Trinity,  Fighters (tanks) thieves+magic users (dps) and clerics (healing) of course back then there was no AI, just the DM, but that at least, was where it all started.

    Trinity implies you could replace the mage with a second thief, or vice-versa, because they're both the same role. 

    Also, your description goes a bit beyond simplification.  Fighters tanked *and* did DPS.  1e Thieves had good alpha if they could set up for it, but crap DPS after that - you brought them along to break traps, open doors and gain initiative.  Mages did everything - DPS, buffing, id'ing loot, even light tanking with the right spells - but were limited by consumable slots.  Clerics, admittedly, were usually relegated to healing but could really do so much more if they were given room to.

  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Member Posts: 379
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Apraxis
    Originally posted by Laughing-man

    Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'

    Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?

    Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed.  Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.

    Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.

    The problem with the old trinity system (heal, taunt tank, dps) is that it is very predictable, and not really suited to use against some more advanced combat AI. Because the trintity system with the taunt eleminates any AI requirement, and you can just add some scripted variations(in which you break up the trinity for a certain time in most cases).

    You don't have the holy trinity in any pvp game, because players can't be taunted, and/or it would be ridiculous silly and not a lot of fun. Why do you think a lot of people avoid pve, avoid raids? Because they are predictable and in the long run not challenging.. if you have beat one encounter, if you have a strategy against that any difficultiy is gone.. and therefore it is not really challenging for a lot of people.

     

    For a laugh, go play EQ2 PvP... you actually can taunt players as a tank and its horrible.  Every second you will be targeting the tank again, you basically need to smash a 'previous target' macro to function in PvP.  Just further proof of how dumb the mechanic is.

     

    Oh my god! I can't believe you even said that. Doesn't that just prove that taunts in PvP work? The fact that it's annoying means it's working! What about stun locking? Freezing? They are based on the same premise. You may not have to switch targets, but the fact that you actually have to go back to your initial target makes it all the more compelling to attack the tanking target first. Isn't that the expressed purpose of the tank role? 

     

    My favorite argument, though, is about realism. We're playing a game with magical spells! Want something more realistic? Ok, what about a chain? If I throw a chain around the moster and pull it towards me, does that make it more realistic? If I'm holding a monster with a chain and it can't attack anyone else, what's it going to do? It'll attack me.

    If "realism," then "answer varies."

    For example, any BigFatBoss type monster should, realistically, just grab that chain himself and start swinging you around as a makeshift weapon against the rest of the party.

    Shoot, look at the military. You've got differentiation in roles there, too, and that's real-real. Like, sure, everyone is going to have some self-heal ability, we've got healing potions, or food or something for minor wounds, but if our leg gets blown off, we'll probably need someone a little more specialized to help. Snipers strike from afar. They are ultimately vulnerable to attack because they're less mobile, but are invaluable in taking enemies out. Infantry are your tanks. They might not have magical spells and they sure as hell don't get the credit they deserve, but they're in the shit drawing fire, whether they like it or not. Sorry, it doesn't get any more real than that. 

    Armoured vehicles are your tanks. It's literally where the term was adopted from :p

    But going further.  Field engineers are... er... healers for your tanks?  Okay.  Now, where does signal corps fit?  Scouts?

    Yes, there is definately differentiation in roles.  But narrowing it down into a trinity is a massive case of cramming a size-10 foot into a size-4 shoe, with a heavy does of creative interpretation and a fair bit of disregarding various roles entirely.  A procedure I'd call comparable to that used by advocates of the Geocentric Solar System model to make planetary rotation fit the theory.

  • Niall18Niall18 Member Posts: 31

    Lolz truely awesome topic name. 

    As for the rest. I love Guild Wars 2, always have and always will but.... I agree Gw2 would have been AMAZING if the Trinity was into. Theres just that to say. The Trinity makes the game your playing fun, And depending what your doing you feel needed and that your doing something. 

    if your the healer you KNOW your keeping everyone alive & its cause of YOU that you finished that raid. 

    If your a Tank you KNOW your keeping your DPS alive & its cause of YOU that every Raid guild wants you.

    If your the DPS you KNOW your a badass who can do 100k crits & its cause of YOU that your group hold the fastest guild run time.

    I can forgive ArenaNet for for leaving the Trinity to a point. But this is Everquest, Everquest players basically founded the Trinity. Why take that away? If its not broke then dont fix it.

    Check out my Blog for MMO News, Rants & Fun!

    http://MMO-Elitist.blogger.com

  • WarlyxWarlyx Member RarePosts: 2,882

    i agree, the games w/o trinity arent fun for me , usually a zerg fest ...no strat at all other than if u are going to die RUN RUN RUN until some1 gets agro....

    trinity isnt perfect but way better than no trinity at all.

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852

    The topic has been talked before, but I"m assuming too far back that others missed it..  anyways..

    I see nothing wrong with a class role system..  Life is all about roles people play.. Whether it be Govt operations, or a Private business, people perform roles to benefit the group or community..  Fireman do not do police work, and clerks don't fight fires, and the Mayor does what he does.. Military is all about roles as well..  Almost every major sport is based on roles..

    Anyways

  • DihoruDihoru Member Posts: 2,731
    Originally posted by Rydeson

    The topic has been talked before, but I"m assuming too far back that others missed it..  anyways..

    I see nothing wrong with a class role system..  Life is all about roles people play.. Whether it be Govt operations, or a Private business, people perform roles to benefit the group or community..  Fireman do not do police work, and clerks don't fight fires, and the Mayor does what he does.. Military is all about roles as well..  Almost every major sport is based on roles..

    Anyways

    True but it is a freefrom role system in real life unless you wanna go with a caste system. So while a fireman does not do police work usually it does not mean some do not do both or that the whole class cannot do it, merely a matter of choice.

    image
  • RattenmannRattenmann Member UncommonPosts: 613
    As a die hard EQ fan.... sadly... i agree with the OP. I simply like the trinity and unless they come up with something that works just as well AND does not kill community and depending on other people, ill skip EQN.

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

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

  • HatefullHatefull Member EpicPosts: 2,185


    Originally posted by DamonVile
    I'm going to wait and see how it plays before I decide if it's good or bad. It's going to be f2p so I risk nothing doing so.If it ends up like GW2 and everything is just a rez zerg I'll pass on the game. If it actually has some type of trinity mechanic even a soft one and it's fun, I'll continue to play and probably sub if it has the option.


    Pretty much this. I wasn't very excited about EQL/N anyway so I can wait.

    If you want a new idea, go read an old book.

Sign In or Register to comment.