Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

1246714

Comments

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

    Well the alternatives are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,979

    Anyways...

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

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

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

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

     

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

     

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

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

  • dave6660dave6660 Member UncommonPosts: 2,699

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

    Plus the trinity breaks down in PvP.

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

  • Nemesis7884Nemesis7884 Member UncommonPosts: 1,023
    trinity is as boring as watching paint dry...
  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066

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

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

    News at 11!

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

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504

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

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

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

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

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

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

    Plus the trinity breaks down in PvP.

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

     

    MOBA's are much better suited to PvP.

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

  • EndariokEndariok Member UncommonPosts: 12
    Originally posted by Axehilt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • aesperusaesperus Member UncommonPosts: 5,135

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • EndariokEndariok Member UncommonPosts: 12
    Originally posted by aesperus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Plus the trinity breaks down in PvP.

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

     

    MOBA's are much better suited to PvP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    TO put it all into chess:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You see, even tirnity games employ NON trinity elements to make trinity games have some semblance of difficulty, since nothing you listed is connected to trinity, those are NON trinity related elements.

    And yes, inserting non trinity elemnts in trinity fights is hardest task, BUT they are still chained/limited to be withing framework of trinity and cannot overstep those because it would break the encounter

    but im glad that you see that its actually NON trinity elements make things interesting, and im glad you can concluse that trnity "works" BECAUSE its simple.

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

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

     

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

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

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

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

    UO not being a 3D game puts it in a special category, as you can do things with a 2D game that aren't as simple with a 3D game.

    Compared to the level of something you can do in a controlled environment, MMOs' AI and collision detection are miles behind.

    One just needs to compare GW1 to GW2.

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

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    Originally posted by Malabooga
     

    but im glad that you see that its actually NON trinity elements make things interesting, and im glad you can concluse that trnity "works" BECAUSE its simple.

    The holy trinity came to life exactly because it is the simpler to code for MMO environment.

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

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Originally posted by joeballs
    Originally posted by NightHaveN
    Group content is good when there is a constant flux of players. But after 2 or 3 years when a MMO starts getting old, and not that many players are leveling around you start having problems finding a group to do group content.

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

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

    Actually its other way around: other online multiplayer games got multiplayer right and MMOs have to resort to solo design but are still failing because they insist still having some "old school" inherent flaws implemented in them.

  • NightfyreNightfyre Member UncommonPosts: 205

    Trinity is nice, I have enjoyed them.  Least the healer part, where I know what my main role is.  The downside to it if any of you have played WoW is the queue.  If you are a DPS, you can expect a long wait time as compared to a Healer and the near Instant Queue Tank.

    Games like Guild Wars 2 where any combination of character make-up can play together is a quick way of starting a group. 

    As long as their is some form of regeneration or support basis in games where Trinity is excluded, I'm okay with it.  I think Guild Wars 2 did a decent job of that, by giving at least everyone some form of group regeneration or buffing ability.  With a couple classes that were slightly better at it.

    Trinity isn't bad, you know your role and what you should be doing; but it's a forced role.  Where as games without this, don't punish you for not having the Tank or Healer.  They at least nudge you in a way to say, it's going to be more helpful if you have someone who has the ability to lessen damage, take a few enemies out of combat for the moment, or at least be able to regenerate your parties hit points as the battle progresses.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,824

    Trinity is the superior combat mechanic because there is no other. :)

    If not using trinity a free-for-all approach is used. There are exceptions but they need a different style of gameplay like Planetside which is a MMOFPS.

    Give us another actual group combat mechanic and we may find trinity is not tops. But that will not happen, the drive to solo play means you have to diminish the importance of groups, which is why trinity was dropped in the first place.

Sign In or Register to comment.