Well if it's anything like GW, then every class will have the same amount of health/energy and the player will decide what to pump. i.e. In GW you had runes. An elementalist could have as much life as a Warrior, 600 say, but then he would have like 20 energy because he used hp runes instead of mp ones. So, the choice was there, even if it didn't make much sense practically.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
by simply removing the arggo system that focuses on threat, the trinity is broken, this happened in Guild Wars one as well. Warriors had more HP and ELE has the higest engery pool. But I "tank" with my ele all the time.
Numbers mean nothing, play the game and see for youself.
I'm not sure I have a problem with different hit points. A class that has lots of avoidance abilities will have less hitpoint, and a class that has little avoidance should have more hitpoints. Some classes might absorb damage, some other classes might avoid damage. I don't really think this has anything to do with the trinity... as "tanking" has nothing to do with hitpoints, and everything to do with "aggro". If aggro in GW2 is anything like in GW1, then there won't be any "tanking" (which is what the devs said). Control, on the other hand, can be done with an elementalist or a warrior - and hit points has nothing to do with the matter.
Problem is, people are trying to force their old & outdated way of thinking onto this new game... and it's simply not going to work, since this game isn't gonna work like the old games. I know it might be scary, but people need to let go...
I'm not sure I have a problem with different hit points. A class that has lots of avoidance abilities will have less hitpoint, and a class that has little avoidance should have more hitpoints. Some classes might absorb damage, some other classes might avoid damage. I don't really think this has anything to do with the trinity... as "tanking" has nothing to do with hitpoints, and everything to do with "aggro". If aggro in GW2 is anything like in GW1, then there won't be any "tanking" (which is what the devs said). Control, on the other hand, can be done with an elementalist or a warrior - and hit points has nothing to do with the matter.
Problem is, people are trying to force their old & outdated way of thinking onto this new game... and it's simply not going to work, since this game isn't gonna work like the old games. I know it might be scary, but people need to let go...
its not even about the Trinity, its really about what works, and im not seeing anything that answers even that basic a question, admittedly the game isnt released yet, so nothing is really solid, but this game still has more questions than answers.. and the combat mechanics is definitely one of them.
I'm not sure I have a problem with different hit points. A class that has lots of avoidance abilities will have less hitpoint, and a class that has little avoidance should have more hitpoints. Some classes might absorb damage, some other classes might avoid damage. I don't really think this has anything to do with the trinity... as "tanking" has nothing to do with hitpoints, and everything to do with "aggro". If aggro in GW2 is anything like in GW1, then there won't be any "tanking" (which is what the devs said). Control, on the other hand, can be done with an elementalist or a warrior - and hit points has nothing to do with the matter.
Problem is, people are trying to force their old & outdated way of thinking onto this new game... and it's simply not going to work, since this game isn't gonna work like the old games. I know it might be scary, but people need to let go...
its not even about the Trinity, its really about what works, and im not seeing anything that answers even that basic a question, admittedly the game isnt released yet, so nothing is really solid, but this game still has more questions than answers.. and the combat mechanics is definitely one of them.
Well they're creating entirely new combat mechanics. I'm not sure how they can be expected to fully explain and appease their fans before the public has access to the game.
Of course, they've explained it using their theoretical definitions, but that's clearly not good enough for people. But really... what exactly can they do before the game is released? (Not much, in my opinion. People will just have to wait and see.)
I'm not sure I have a problem with different hit points. A class that has lots of avoidance abilities will have less hitpoint, and a class that has little avoidance should have more hitpoints. Some classes might absorb damage, some other classes might avoid damage. I don't really think this has anything to do with the trinity... as "tanking" has nothing to do with hitpoints, and everything to do with "aggro". If aggro in GW2 is anything like in GW1, then there won't be any "tanking" (which is what the devs said). Control, on the other hand, can be done with an elementalist or a warrior - and hit points has nothing to do with the matter.
Problem is, people are trying to force their old & outdated way of thinking onto this new game... and it's simply not going to work, since this game isn't gonna work like the old games. I know it might be scary, but people need to let go...
QFT.
IRT Malickie
Anet isn't the one asking for trouble. I've posted the explanation for how they explained their new trinity MANY times and Romantor0 just did it again. It is the media's fault for not explaining how there are still roles and how they are more flexible than before. Anet has done their job, the media have failed to communicate it properly and the people have failed to research it thoroughly.
they are killing the f%&&$ boring triniy not the fucking classes aspect.
it´s still the rock,paper&scizors mechanics...
warrior: lots fo hp, slow attack, minimun damage
mage: minimun hp, ranged attack, lots of dps.
I see no problem there, balance in mmos shoulde be focused on the MMO part, if they change the basic aspect that identify a fantasy RPG class it indicates for ME that they are going the wrong way... which so far they dont seems to.
now: GW2 (11 80s). Dark Souls 2. future: Mount&Blade 2 BannerLord. "Bro, do your even fractal?" Recommends: Guild Wars 2, Dark Souls, Mount&Blade: Warband, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.
they are killing the f%&&$ boring triniy not the fucking classes aspect.
it´s still the rock,paper&scizors mechanics...
warrior: lots fo hp, slow attack, minimun damage
mage: minimun hp, ranged attack, lots of dps.
I see no problem there, balance in mmos shoulde be focused on the MMO part, if they change the basic aspect that identify a fantasy RPG class it indicates for ME that they are going the wrong way... which so far they dont seems to.
Mage goes into earth mode:
lots of armor, melee/ranged attack, medium dps........ See what I did there?
@Malickie.. YES roles exist and they will laways exist. NO warrior is not a dedicated tank because you DON'T have any aggro skills to make them hit you and some hp numbers don't mean anything. YES all professions can play any role at any given time. I thought you had more knowledge of the game since you post quite a lot in these forums. Or was I being trolled?
Same stuff over and over again. When will people learn..
What is leading to such confusion is Anets wording on the matter, all they had to say was we're doing it a tad different and spreading it out, that's not how it's reading to many. Removing the tank role and Healer role doesn't remove the trinity, those roles just get spread out. Everyone takes their burden. People seem to expect it to play completely different than typical MMO's. I don't see that, as typical RPG functions seem to be in place.
My point is I think Anet is looking for trouble in how they're presenting their game, it's leading to many over expectations. As I also said before the only way to truly remove the trinity is to discontinue class mixing as that's what needs the trinity in the first place.
Just google no trinity GW2, there are tons of articles on this subject many seem to suggest the trinity is gone, they're doing away with it etc.. That's where I got that idea from as well untill I actually got curious about it of course.
Okay, well, Arenanet said EXACTLY what they're doing, over a year ago, in the Death & Healing article. Since then, in every interview, they've patiently re-explained it. You won't find any halfway-informed GW2 fan talking about there being no roles and no trinity (Unless they're referring to the holy trinity), you mostly find uniformed people saying things like 'How can this work with no roles? It can't!'
You can't hold Arenanet responsible for those people anymore than you can hold Bioware responsible for people thinking SW:ToR is a 300 million dollar single player game.
They are in fact, doing away with the holy trinity though. You can't have a dedicated tank, you can't have a dedicated healer. There's no aggro-manipulation skills, so you can't get the enemies to focus fire on one guy, and you can't have somebody focus-heal that person, so he would just die in a pool of burning shame anyway.
They've already explained that there is a trinity, but it specifically focuses on the roles of damage (DPS), control and support. Also, every (good) player is responsible for bringing their share of it when necessary. It's not 'Nobody does damage, nobody takes damage, nobody mitigates damage, oh my god, nobody does anything, there's no roles!', it's 'everybody has the capability, within their class, to do everything in some form or another. The game is specifically designed so you can usually switch between at least two of them on the fly'.
Why do I know this? Because that's how they explained it every time they write an article about it, it's how they explain it in every interview, and it's how knowledgable people who played the demo explained how it works.
So... yeah. Apparently being semi-informed is the cure to making mistaken statements about the Arenanet combat system. (I find your comment about them declaring no trinity then waking up in a panic going 'omg omg' to be particularly telling, as it shows that 1. You're not aware they did some of the things they're talking about now in GW1 already, like the lack of taunts and aggro control 2. They never said there would be no trinity, and they explained how they would replace the old one and 3. Hey, it seems to work like they said, insofar as the demo and press weekend went. Fancy that.) Well, hopefully now you're a little more informed. If you still don't understand any point, TRUST me, I'd be more than happy to say as many rambling walls of text as it takes to explain every bit of minutiea.
Now for something completely different.
So what roles DO GW2 characters perform, and what sets them apart? I'M GLAD YOU ASKED.
The warrior: They specialize in having an extremely wide variety of weapon skills and types to pick from. They can specialize in inflicting bleeding and crippling conditions with the sword, multiple target damage with the greatsword, stuns and dazes with the mace, higher damage output with axes, single ranged damage with a gun or area effect ranged fire damage with the bow. They also have one of the two highest default armor levels, and the highest amount of hitpoints. This is because their role is often to get RIGHT in somebody's face. If you're exchanging blows face to face with a warrior, you're playing their game, and you shouldn't be surprised if you lose. Contrary to popular belief, they are NOT doing sad, low DPS, their DPS is pretty good, much like the classic D&D warrior who could output steady damage in combat.
The elementalist: Diversity. The Elementalist has at his beck and call four different roles (Rather than 2, like with weapon swaps) at any given time. Generally it's fire for AoE damage, lightning for single target damage and some conditions, (Fire has conditions, but it's usually 'burning', as in 'that person just set me on fire') water for some low level healing and some control and earth for (... support and raising own defense? They haven't had earth attunement in the demo yet). While they excel in breadth of skills, they fail at breadth of range. Since they're limited to one weapon type at a time, they are generally stuck in whatever range their particular weapon is good at, whether it's short/medium or long. So an elementalist is at his best when he can control his distance from him to you, and makes sure to use the abilities that best fit what the group is missing at the time.
The ranger: Oddly enough, they're really good at ranged attacks. They're also fairly mobile, and have a lot of ways to slow, stun, and generally screw with their opponents, including a variety of traps. They're also surprisingly good at melee, with some strong positioning abilities from their melee. Also, they have a pet, and all the benefits that come from that. Which apparently dies a lot, but Arenanet swears they're working on the pet AI, so hopefully the primary feature of the class won't end up being embarrassingly useless. Their role is generally to move about and disrupt their enemies.
The necromancer: Life drains, lots of very bad conditions and minions. ... and they're shockingly sturdy, with nearly as many hit points as the warrior AND death shroud, which allows them to use stored up energy (Which they gain from people dying near them, naturally) and convert to another form with its OWN pool of health. So yeah, they're probably one of the sturdiest classes despite wearing cloth. Maybe it's just the necromancers I've seen playing, but they seem to be very good at being a front line caster, or at least mid line. Nobody wants to stand next to a hostile necromancer anyway, they're full of plague and horrible blood-draining things. Their role mostly seems to be making sure bad things happen to enemies and/or supplying a lot of confusion and damage sinks with the various minions. They're supposed to be good at support, but I think making minions explode is so much fun that the players in the demos keep forgetting that.
The guardian: They wear plate, so they must be awesome tanks, right? Except they have some of the lowest hp around. Luckily, they have an amusing variety of ways to stop opponents from hitting... well, anybody. Including themselves. They can drop forcefields that block enemies or projectiles... or both. They can use aegis, which automatically blocks the next attack. They can cause blind, which automatically makes the enemy miss. They are particularly support oriented, with most weapons having at least an area buff or two. They are good at making good things happen to their friends, and doing literal area control in a way that any other skills like fire wall doesn't quite match (You COULD go through a firewall if you want to take the hit... forcefield is just plain impenetrable.)
The thief: Okay, so yes. I'll admit it. They're squishy. Especially for a sometimes melee class. That's because they have a bag full of avoidance tricks that surpasses every other class, from the looks of it. Dodging back, dodging forward, blinding, going invisible... blinding AoE WHILE going invisible... their skills are supposed to save you from the embarrassing pain of getting hit in the face. They are what I like to call 'burst flexibility'. THeir initiative ability means they can do any weapon skill they like back to back. Sometimes three times in a row. Other classes have timers and cool down, so have to wait to do a skill more than once, but if a thief wants to hit REALLY hard twice in a row? Go for it. Want to cripple people with your crippling skill? Whack a few people in a row, spread the crippling love! Of course, this uses up initiative like crazy, so that's why it's burst... but they do have the choice to repeat skills, and spending initiative wisely is like a little minigame all its own. They are basically on the other end of the melee spectrum from warrior. Warrior wants to hit face to face... ranger likes to move around some, can still trade some hits... a thief is constantly moving in and out of range.
The engineer: Actually, when I said the elementalist was about flexibility? Well, the engineer seems like it may be even more so. They have a really wide variety of skills and abilities, especially with their utility skills, so they seem to be about picking the right abilities for the situation, ahead of time, then working your strategy around it. For a simple example... grab a bunch of turret skills and mines if you're planning on holding a position from enemy attack. They're very flexible, and can fill a variety of roles.
Utility skills and traits: Remember everything I said? All incomplete and partially misleading. Sorry I tricked you. I hardly touched utility skills, I didn't even do some profession's special profession abilities, and I didn't mention traits at all. ... but I gave a rough example of how all the different classes can do different roles in different ways. ... but you can't get a warrior to be a thief, and you can't get a ranger to do what an elementalist does.
Nobody can lay down a forcefield like a guardian can, nobody can summon minions or go into death shroud mode like a necromancer. Everybody can do different roles, but nobody does it exactly like anybody else. Everybody will need to perform roles. The need to have damage being dealt has not gone away. You'll still want somebody kiting that enemy anyway from the people being rezzed. Roles exist, but they exist to be filled by whoever is willing to take up the task, not to be filled by the one person whose class specifically fits that role.
Already was mentioned thieves won't have as mucha s wars - actually not much hp and armor and warrs the most with guardians. However i don't imagine thief with its insane mobility having same hp as warrior.
Originally posted by Malickie
Originally posted by Meowhead
At work, on phone, can't say much on break. Anwt never said they were getting rid of trinity or roles. Will explain better later, but I defy you to find article by anet saying they will have no trinity or roles.
What is leading to such confusion is Anets wording on the matter, all they had to say was we're doing it a tad different and spreading it out, that's not how it's reading to many. Removing the tank role and Healer role doesn't remove the trinity, those roles just get spread out. Everyone takes their burden. People seem to expect it to play completely different than typical MMO's. I don't see that, as typical RPG functions seem to be in place.
My point is I think Anet is looking for trouble in how they're presenting their game, it's leading to many over expectations. As I also said before the only way to truly remove the trinity is to discontinue class mixing as that's what needs the trinity in the first place.
Just google no trinity GW2, there are tons of articles on this subject many seem to suggest the trinity is gone, they're doing away with it etc.. That's where I got that idea from as well untill I actually got curious about it of course.
Sorry but you either a) were gone for few years with no internet or b) can't read/use internet.
This has been know and told hundreds of times already for past 2 years.
Just google no trinity GW2, there are tons of articles on this subject many seem to suggest the trinity is gone, they're doing away with it etc.. That's where I got that idea from as well untill I actually got curious about it of course.
Sorry but you either a) were gone for few years with no internet or b) can't read/use internet.
This has been know and told hundreds of times already for past 2 years.
I think you missed my point, when I got curious enough I actually read anets stand on the matter, which is how I learned the trinity is not gone, just changed. Before that I just read what articles, and forum postings had to say on the matter. Which many of have the wrong idea.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
At work, on phone, can't say much on break. Anwt never said they were getting rid of trinity or roles. Will explain better later, but I defy you to find article by anet saying they will have no trinity or roles.
What is leading to such confusion is Anets wording on the matter, all they had to say was we're doing it a tad different and spreading it out, that's not how it's reading to many. Removing the tank role and Healer role doesn't remove the trinity, those roles just get spread out. Everyone takes their burden. People seem to expect it to play completely different than typical MMO's. I don't see that, as typical RPG functions seem to be in place.
My point is I think Anet is looking for trouble in how they're presenting their game, it's leading to many over expectations. As I also said before the only way to truly remove the trinity is to discontinue class mixing as that's what needs the trinity in the first place.
Just google no trinity GW2, there are tons of articles on this subject many seem to suggest the trinity is gone, they're doing away with it etc.. That's where I got that idea from as well untill I actually got curious about it of course.
If you are saying that GW2 will involve taking damage (tanking), doing damage (DPS), and removing damage (healing), then yes.
But I mean...really? Any RPG combat involves these things, in fact, most other games involving combat have these things as well (Fighting, FPS, etc.). I don't think you can say that GW2 will be the same just because it involves RPG combat staples that are in just about every CRPG ever released.
What makes the trinity the trinity is that you are basically relegated to specialize in one particular role during each combat. From what I've read, GW2 will not have anything like this. Players should be able to fill whatever function the party needs to survive at any moment.
At work, on phone, can't say much on break. Anwt never said they were getting rid of trinity or roles. Will explain better later, but I defy you to find article by anet saying they will have no trinity or roles.
What is leading to such confusion is Anets wording on the matter, all they had to say was we're doing it a tad different and spreading it out, that's not how it's reading to many. Removing the tank role and Healer role doesn't remove the trinity, those roles just get spread out. Everyone takes their burden. People seem to expect it to play completely different than typical MMO's. I don't see that, as typical RPG functions seem to be in place.
My point is I think Anet is looking for trouble in how they're presenting their game, it's leading to many over expectations. As I also said before the only way to truly remove the trinity is to discontinue class mixing as that's what needs the trinity in the first place.
Just google no trinity GW2, there are tons of articles on this subject many seem to suggest the trinity is gone, they're doing away with it etc.. That's where I got that idea from as well untill I actually got curious about it of course.
If you are saying that GW2 will involve taking damage (tanking), doing damage (DPS), and removing damage (healing), then yes.
But I mean...really? Any RPG combat involves these things, in fact, most other games involving combat have these things as well (Fighting, FPS, etc.). I don't think you can say that GW2 will be the same just because it involves RPG combat staples that are in just about every CRPG ever released.
What makes the trinity the trinity is that you are basically relegated to specialize in one particular role during each combat. From what I've read, GW2 will not have anything like this. Players should be able to fill whatever function the party needs to survive at any moment.
In addition, players will be unable to fully focus on one role.
At work, on phone, can't say much on break. Anwt never said they were getting rid of trinity or roles. Will explain better later, but I defy you to find article by anet saying they will have no trinity or roles.
What is leading to such confusion is Anets wording on the matter, all they had to say was we're doing it a tad different and spreading it out, that's not how it's reading to many. Removing the tank role and Healer role doesn't remove the trinity, those roles just get spread out. Everyone takes their burden. People seem to expect it to play completely different than typical MMO's. I don't see that, as typical RPG functions seem to be in place.
My point is I think Anet is looking for trouble in how they're presenting their game, it's leading to many over expectations. As I also said before the only way to truly remove the trinity is to discontinue class mixing as that's what needs the trinity in the first place.
Just google no trinity GW2, there are tons of articles on this subject many seem to suggest the trinity is gone, they're doing away with it etc.. That's where I got that idea from as well untill I actually got curious about it of course.
If you are saying that GW2 will involve taking damage (tanking), doing damage (DPS), and removing damage (healing), then yes.
But I mean...really? Any RPG combat involves these things, in fact, most other games involving combat have these things as well (Fighting, FPS, etc.). I don't think you can say that GW2 will be the same just because it involves RPG combat staples that are in just about every CRPG ever released.
What makes the trinity the trinity is that you are basically relegated to specialize in one particular role during each combat. From what I've read, GW2 will not have anything like this. Players should be able to fill whatever function the party needs to survive at any moment.
In addition, players will be unable to fully focus on one role.
Good point, because if you could, you know it would devolve into someone just saying "you be healer, you be tank" before a dungeon crawl or whatever.
The numbers are incomplete and not balanced yet. Paying attention to them is pointless at this time. They do not represent the final version of the game.
You could be right, you could be wrong /shrug. Wont know till the games release.
However, everytime I have seen test servers and people make similar claims, something to the effect of, "This wont go live, its completely ridiculous the way it is now" ---9 times out of 10, it went live.
It's not a deal breaker for me but something I would like to seen done away with. If a warrior has surival abilities that make him tougher than my soft class, then those are his tools. Thats what he gets, nothing more, nothing less. Handing someone free hit points has always felt unfair. And since we dont have tank's, do away with it.
There are no tanks because there is no taunt mechanic. However, it's entirely possible that some professsions will be expected to be frontliners and stand in the middle of a melee, while others try to stay at range (Elementalists) or dance in and out of it (Thieves). Guardians in particular look like a profession that will serve as an anchor in combat, which means holding a location and giving others a focal point for their attacks. This probably involves soaking up a lot of AoE and initial direct attacks, even though they have no ability to force mobs to attack them. Their position up front will simply invite incoming damage. For this reason, additional health is entirely justified and has nothing to do with tanking.
As for the realism aspect, some brawny specimen who's spent years soldiering and training physically will be tougher and more resilient than a scholar who's spent his years pouring over dusty books and parchments. Higher health is reflective of this.
That's just a possibility, but it seems to make sense.
Well to me that sounds like Warriors are basically tanks and Elementists are basically glass cannons, as warriors most likely have less damage and Elementists dish out more. Not sure how this is all that different than the trinity they're trying to avoid?
If essentially Warriors have higher HP, and probably a stronger armor rating to boot. And a caster class or rogue class has less, while most likely having higher dps output, or a strong support role. What separates this from the trinity? As I thought everything was based on loadout essentially in what role you took?
If my Thief sucks at taking damage what's the point in him having a role other than what he's typically meant for?
I figured they were leveling the playing field so to speak, instead it just seems like the trinity under a different name.
Honestly people, do a bit of research on the first game. Elementalists for instance, had lower armor rating and lower HP than warriors, but could tank even more effectively in some areas due to the nature of their Earth spells.
Everyone needs to stop trying to figure out GW2 as if it ran by the rules of a typical MMO. Anet did things VERY differently with GW1, and not just with it being instanced; the powers, the way classes functioned, the way people benefitted from each other regardless of their classes. An Elementalist in GW2 is going to have less HP and lower armor than a warrior of course, they're a mage and are a bit more squishy than someone who runs around in plate armor and has the constitution to wield huge 2handed weapons, but that doesn't mean they're relegated to glass cannon roles.
Actually, I'm not sure why any of this seems so far-fetched to people. Did none of you play pnp AD&D? Having a lot of health and heavy armor didn't necessarily make you the best tank, it just made you an adequate one. Developers have been running with this idea for a long time.
Pull your heads out of the WoW box, the world is quite large outside of it.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Okay, well, Arenanet said EXACTLY what they're doing, over a year ago, in the Death & Healing article. Since then, in every interview, they've patiently re-explained it. You won't find any halfway-informed GW2 fan talking about there being no roles and no trinity (Unless they're referring to the holy trinity), you mostly find uniformed people saying things like 'How can this work with no roles? It can't!'
You can't hold Arenanet responsible for those people anymore than you can hold Bioware responsible for people thinking SW:ToR is a 300 million dollar single player game.
They are in fact, doing away with the holy trinity though. You can't have a dedicated tank, you can't have a dedicated healer. There's no aggro-manipulation skills, so you can't get the enemies to focus fire on one guy, and you can't have somebody focus-heal that person, so he would just die in a pool of burning shame anyway.
They've already explained that there is a trinity, but it specifically focuses on the roles of damage (DPS), control and support. Also, every (good) player is responsible for bringing their share of it when necessary. It's not 'Nobody does damage, nobody takes damage, nobody mitigates damage, oh my god, nobody does anything, there's no roles!', it's 'everybody has the capability, within their class, to do everything in some form or another. The game is specifically designed so you can usually switch between at least two of them on the fly'.
Why do I know this? Because that's how they explained it every time they write an article about it, it's how they explain it in every interview, and it's how knowledgable people who played the demo explained how it works.
So... yeah. Apparently being semi-informed is the cure to making mistaken statements about the Arenanet combat system. (I find your comment about them declaring no trinity then waking up in a panic going 'omg omg' to be particularly telling, as it shows that 1. You're not aware they did some of the things they're talking about now in GW1 already, like the lack of taunts and aggro control 2. They never said there would be no trinity, and they explained how they would replace the old one and 3. Hey, it seems to work like they said, insofar as the demo and press weekend went. Fancy that.) Well, hopefully now you're a little more informed. If you still don't understand any point, TRUST me, I'd be more than happy to say as many rambling walls of text as it takes to explain every bit of minutiea.
I'll freely admit I was wrong there, but that's because I was going on statements I've seen to the contrary, such as articles claiming the game to be doing away with the trinity. There's a difference between being uninformed and informed through the wrong venues, I'm in the latter bracket. I hadn't read the healing and death section of their blog, so that's my mistake, after I did I see where people have gotten the wrong idea and either A wrote without knowing exactly what they were talking about or B: applied their own imaginative ideal in their writings.
One thing I'll give Bioware credit for is they frequently get themseleves into trouble by sarcastically addressing misconceptions and shooting down imaginative what ifs.
Now before I knew there was still a trinity, I figured there would be something similar, so I'm not disappointed in finding out there is, actually I'm quite relieved.
As for Anets wording I'm refering to their design manifesto. Their statements in regard to everyone doing it wrong, and they're the answer to everyones prayers paraphrasing of course.
This is what I'm refering to as being bad, it's no different than what funcom was doing with their AOC is the steak and everyone else is mcdonalds. This type of talk leads to over expectations, and can seriously bite them in the ass at release. It's this sort of thing that also leads to the media raising peoples perceptions to too high a level.
Will changing the trinity really change the experience all that much? Not in my opinion, as taking tank abilities away doesn't change the purpose of a tank class, as in GW1 a warrior was still your frontline warrior instead of using an ability they used they're greater hitpoints to harrass players, and keep their attention off squishier classes. It's really the same thing, minus a hotbar ability.
The average person doesn't go reading every single blog entry, they don't bother informing themseleves about every single little thing going into a game, most just read previews and that's about it. I'm that average person, I'd put money on a bet the average person thinks Anet is doing away with the trinity, because that perception is abundantly out there, one search on it will show that, even bigger sites have articles stating as much, such as Tentonhammer..etc
Blame me for not being a gotta read everything type of person, I don't read everything about any game I have no time for that, if I did it for every game I am watching I wouldn't have time for anything else. I haven't read every blog about TOR yet I kow enough about it to know what to expect. I really can't say that for GW2 which I've actually read just as much about, that's because they have this slogan everything will be so different and new, yet I am not seeing that in much of what they are showing.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm not seeing how people can expect a class wearing robes to take close to the amount of damage that a warrior wearing heavy armor has. Unless they create classes of their own like a warrior that casts spells mainly, or a heavy armor wearing elementalist, than I can't see how people expect that to make sense. OH NO MY GUY WEARING THIS HUGE ARMOR TAKES LESS DAMAGE THAN THE ROGUE WEARING LEATHER? BLASPHEMY
I'm not seeing how people can expect a class wearing robes to take close to the amount of damage that a warrior wearing heavy armor has. Unless they create classes of their own like a warrior that casts spells mainly, or a heavy armor wearing elementalist, than I can't see how people expect that to make sense. OH NO MY GUY WEARING THIS HUGE ARMOR TAKES LESS DAMAGE THAN THE ROGUE WEARING LEATHER? BLASPHEMY
How about skills that boost one's defensive capabilities? Does that make sense to you?
Well to me that sounds like Warriors are basically tanks and Elementists are basically glass cannons, as warriors most likely have less damage and Elementists dish out more. Not sure how this is all that different than the trinity they're trying to avoid?
If essentially Warriors have higher HP, and probably a stronger armor rating to boot. And a caster class or rogue class has less, while most likely having higher dps output, or a strong support role. What separates this from the trinity? As I thought everything was based on loadout essentially in what role you took?
If my Thief sucks at taking damage what's the point in him having a role other than what he's typically meant for?
I figured they were leveling the playing field so to speak, instead it just seems like the trinity under a different name.
Honestly people, do a bit of research on the first game. Elementalists for instance, had lower armor rating and lower HP than warriors, but could tank even more effectively in some areas due to the nature of their Earth spells.
Everyone needs to stop trying to figure out GW2 as if it ran by the rules of a typical MMO. Anet did things VERY differently with GW1, and not just with it being instanced; the powers, the way classes functioned, the way people benefitted from each other regardless of their classes. An Elementalist in GW2 is going to have less HP and lower armor than a warrior of course, they're a mage and are a bit more squishy than someone who runs around in plate armor and has the constitution to wield huge 2handed weapons, but that doesn't mean they're relegated to glass cannon roles.
Actually, I'm not sure why any of this seems so far-fetched to people. Did none of you play pnp AD&D? Having a lot of health and heavy armor didn't necessarily make you the best tank, it just made you an adequate one. Developers have been running with this idea for a long time.
Pull your heads out of the WoW box, the world is quite large outside of it.
I played WOW for about as long as it takes to install it, so no my head is no WOW box. GW1 did not feel all that fresh or new to me, it was still basically the same thing as other MMO combat at least in my opinion.
What's the difference between a tank in GW1 and a tank in other games? An aggro ability and that's about it, it still functions almost the same way. Harrass and keep attention off squishier players, same concept as normal minus an ability.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm not seeing how people can expect a class wearing robes to take close to the amount of damage that a warrior wearing heavy armor has. Unless they create classes of their own like a warrior that casts spells mainly, or a heavy armor wearing elementalist, than I can't see how people expect that to make sense. OH NO MY GUY WEARING THIS HUGE ARMOR TAKES LESS DAMAGE THAN THE ROGUE WEARING LEATHER? BLASPHEMY
How about skills that boost one's defensive capabilities? Does that make sense to you?
Yes, but then what would the point of armor be? Just for show?
Comments
Well if it's anything like GW, then every class will have the same amount of health/energy and the player will decide what to pump. i.e. In GW you had runes. An elementalist could have as much life as a Warrior, 600 say, but then he would have like 20 energy because he used hp runes instead of mp ones. So, the choice was there, even if it didn't make much sense practically.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
by simply removing the arggo system that focuses on threat, the trinity is broken, this happened in Guild Wars one as well. Warriors had more HP and ELE has the higest engery pool. But I "tank" with my ele all the time.
Numbers mean nothing, play the game and see for youself.
I'm not sure I have a problem with different hit points. A class that has lots of avoidance abilities will have less hitpoint, and a class that has little avoidance should have more hitpoints. Some classes might absorb damage, some other classes might avoid damage. I don't really think this has anything to do with the trinity... as "tanking" has nothing to do with hitpoints, and everything to do with "aggro". If aggro in GW2 is anything like in GW1, then there won't be any "tanking" (which is what the devs said). Control, on the other hand, can be done with an elementalist or a warrior - and hit points has nothing to do with the matter.
Problem is, people are trying to force their old & outdated way of thinking onto this new game... and it's simply not going to work, since this game isn't gonna work like the old games. I know it might be scary, but people need to let go...
its not even about the Trinity, its really about what works, and im not seeing anything that answers even that basic a question, admittedly the game isnt released yet, so nothing is really solid, but this game still has more questions than answers.. and the combat mechanics is definitely one of them.
it's pretty final.
Wrong.
-> Total health values (base health + base vitality + vitality bonuses from gear & traits) of each profession at L28:
Warrior - 4,722
Necromancer - 4,522
Ranger - 3,837
Thief - 2,948
Guardian - 2,768
Elementalist - 2,598
These values only represent the total health of the characters provided at PAX East!
http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/showpost.php?p=756099&postcount=1
And the amount of health you have is mostly dependant on the points you have invested in your "vitality" attribute.
Well they're creating entirely new combat mechanics. I'm not sure how they can be expected to fully explain and appease their fans before the public has access to the game.
Of course, they've explained it using their theoretical definitions, but that's clearly not good enough for people. But really... what exactly can they do before the game is released? (Not much, in my opinion. People will just have to wait and see.)
QFT.
IRT Malickie
Anet isn't the one asking for trouble. I've posted the explanation for how they explained their new trinity MANY times and Romantor0 just did it again. It is the media's fault for not explaining how there are still roles and how they are more flexible than before. Anet has done their job, the media have failed to communicate it properly and the people have failed to research it thoroughly.
This is not a game.
they are killing the f%&&$ boring triniy not the fucking classes aspect.
it´s still the rock,paper&scizors mechanics...
warrior: lots fo hp, slow attack, minimun damage
mage: minimun hp, ranged attack, lots of dps.
I see no problem there, balance in mmos shoulde be focused on the MMO part, if they change the basic aspect that identify a fantasy RPG class it indicates for ME that they are going the wrong way... which so far they dont seems to.
now: GW2 (11 80s).
Dark Souls 2.
future: Mount&Blade 2 BannerLord.
"Bro, do your even fractal?"
Recommends: Guild Wars 2, Dark Souls, Mount&Blade: Warband, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.
Mage goes into earth mode:
lots of armor, melee/ranged attack, medium dps........ See what I did there?
@Malickie.. YES roles exist and they will laways exist. NO warrior is not a dedicated tank because you DON'T have any aggro skills to make them hit you and some hp numbers don't mean anything. YES all professions can play any role at any given time. I thought you had more knowledge of the game since you post quite a lot in these forums. Or was I being trolled?
Same stuff over and over again. When will people learn..
Eat me!
Okay, well, Arenanet said EXACTLY what they're doing, over a year ago, in the Death & Healing article. Since then, in every interview, they've patiently re-explained it. You won't find any halfway-informed GW2 fan talking about there being no roles and no trinity (Unless they're referring to the holy trinity), you mostly find uniformed people saying things like 'How can this work with no roles? It can't!'
You can't hold Arenanet responsible for those people anymore than you can hold Bioware responsible for people thinking SW:ToR is a 300 million dollar single player game.
They are in fact, doing away with the holy trinity though. You can't have a dedicated tank, you can't have a dedicated healer. There's no aggro-manipulation skills, so you can't get the enemies to focus fire on one guy, and you can't have somebody focus-heal that person, so he would just die in a pool of burning shame anyway.
They've already explained that there is a trinity, but it specifically focuses on the roles of damage (DPS), control and support. Also, every (good) player is responsible for bringing their share of it when necessary. It's not 'Nobody does damage, nobody takes damage, nobody mitigates damage, oh my god, nobody does anything, there's no roles!', it's 'everybody has the capability, within their class, to do everything in some form or another. The game is specifically designed so you can usually switch between at least two of them on the fly'.
Why do I know this? Because that's how they explained it every time they write an article about it, it's how they explain it in every interview, and it's how knowledgable people who played the demo explained how it works.
So... yeah. Apparently being semi-informed is the cure to making mistaken statements about the Arenanet combat system. (I find your comment about them declaring no trinity then waking up in a panic going 'omg omg' to be particularly telling, as it shows that 1. You're not aware they did some of the things they're talking about now in GW1 already, like the lack of taunts and aggro control 2. They never said there would be no trinity, and they explained how they would replace the old one and 3. Hey, it seems to work like they said, insofar as the demo and press weekend went. Fancy that.) Well, hopefully now you're a little more informed. If you still don't understand any point, TRUST me, I'd be more than happy to say as many rambling walls of text as it takes to explain every bit of minutiea.
Now for something completely different.
So what roles DO GW2 characters perform, and what sets them apart? I'M GLAD YOU ASKED.
The warrior: They specialize in having an extremely wide variety of weapon skills and types to pick from. They can specialize in inflicting bleeding and crippling conditions with the sword, multiple target damage with the greatsword, stuns and dazes with the mace, higher damage output with axes, single ranged damage with a gun or area effect ranged fire damage with the bow. They also have one of the two highest default armor levels, and the highest amount of hitpoints. This is because their role is often to get RIGHT in somebody's face. If you're exchanging blows face to face with a warrior, you're playing their game, and you shouldn't be surprised if you lose. Contrary to popular belief, they are NOT doing sad, low DPS, their DPS is pretty good, much like the classic D&D warrior who could output steady damage in combat.
The elementalist: Diversity. The Elementalist has at his beck and call four different roles (Rather than 2, like with weapon swaps) at any given time. Generally it's fire for AoE damage, lightning for single target damage and some conditions, (Fire has conditions, but it's usually 'burning', as in 'that person just set me on fire') water for some low level healing and some control and earth for (... support and raising own defense? They haven't had earth attunement in the demo yet). While they excel in breadth of skills, they fail at breadth of range. Since they're limited to one weapon type at a time, they are generally stuck in whatever range their particular weapon is good at, whether it's short/medium or long. So an elementalist is at his best when he can control his distance from him to you, and makes sure to use the abilities that best fit what the group is missing at the time.
The ranger: Oddly enough, they're really good at ranged attacks. They're also fairly mobile, and have a lot of ways to slow, stun, and generally screw with their opponents, including a variety of traps. They're also surprisingly good at melee, with some strong positioning abilities from their melee. Also, they have a pet, and all the benefits that come from that. Which apparently dies a lot, but Arenanet swears they're working on the pet AI, so hopefully the primary feature of the class won't end up being embarrassingly useless. Their role is generally to move about and disrupt their enemies.
The necromancer: Life drains, lots of very bad conditions and minions. ... and they're shockingly sturdy, with nearly as many hit points as the warrior AND death shroud, which allows them to use stored up energy (Which they gain from people dying near them, naturally) and convert to another form with its OWN pool of health. So yeah, they're probably one of the sturdiest classes despite wearing cloth. Maybe it's just the necromancers I've seen playing, but they seem to be very good at being a front line caster, or at least mid line. Nobody wants to stand next to a hostile necromancer anyway, they're full of plague and horrible blood-draining things. Their role mostly seems to be making sure bad things happen to enemies and/or supplying a lot of confusion and damage sinks with the various minions. They're supposed to be good at support, but I think making minions explode is so much fun that the players in the demos keep forgetting that.
The guardian: They wear plate, so they must be awesome tanks, right? Except they have some of the lowest hp around. Luckily, they have an amusing variety of ways to stop opponents from hitting... well, anybody. Including themselves. They can drop forcefields that block enemies or projectiles... or both. They can use aegis, which automatically blocks the next attack. They can cause blind, which automatically makes the enemy miss. They are particularly support oriented, with most weapons having at least an area buff or two. They are good at making good things happen to their friends, and doing literal area control in a way that any other skills like fire wall doesn't quite match (You COULD go through a firewall if you want to take the hit... forcefield is just plain impenetrable.)
The thief: Okay, so yes. I'll admit it. They're squishy. Especially for a sometimes melee class. That's because they have a bag full of avoidance tricks that surpasses every other class, from the looks of it. Dodging back, dodging forward, blinding, going invisible... blinding AoE WHILE going invisible... their skills are supposed to save you from the embarrassing pain of getting hit in the face. They are what I like to call 'burst flexibility'. THeir initiative ability means they can do any weapon skill they like back to back. Sometimes three times in a row. Other classes have timers and cool down, so have to wait to do a skill more than once, but if a thief wants to hit REALLY hard twice in a row? Go for it. Want to cripple people with your crippling skill? Whack a few people in a row, spread the crippling love! Of course, this uses up initiative like crazy, so that's why it's burst... but they do have the choice to repeat skills, and spending initiative wisely is like a little minigame all its own. They are basically on the other end of the melee spectrum from warrior. Warrior wants to hit face to face... ranger likes to move around some, can still trade some hits... a thief is constantly moving in and out of range.
The engineer: Actually, when I said the elementalist was about flexibility? Well, the engineer seems like it may be even more so. They have a really wide variety of skills and abilities, especially with their utility skills, so they seem to be about picking the right abilities for the situation, ahead of time, then working your strategy around it. For a simple example... grab a bunch of turret skills and mines if you're planning on holding a position from enemy attack. They're very flexible, and can fill a variety of roles.
Utility skills and traits: Remember everything I said? All incomplete and partially misleading. Sorry I tricked you. I hardly touched utility skills, I didn't even do some profession's special profession abilities, and I didn't mention traits at all. ... but I gave a rough example of how all the different classes can do different roles in different ways. ... but you can't get a warrior to be a thief, and you can't get a ranger to do what an elementalist does.
Nobody can lay down a forcefield like a guardian can, nobody can summon minions or go into death shroud mode like a necromancer. Everybody can do different roles, but nobody does it exactly like anybody else. Everybody will need to perform roles. The need to have damage being dealt has not gone away. You'll still want somebody kiting that enemy anyway from the people being rezzed. Roles exist, but they exist to be filled by whoever is willing to take up the task, not to be filled by the one person whose class specifically fits that role.
Woah nice post Meow.. going to reference it next time someone asks the dreaded question about the holy trinity again.
Eat me!
They won't have similar hp.
Already was mentioned thieves won't have as mucha s wars - actually not much hp and armor and warrs the most with guardians. However i don't imagine thief with its insane mobility having same hp as warrior.
Sorry but you either a) were gone for few years with no internet or b) can't read/use internet.
This has been know and told hundreds of times already for past 2 years.
Great Post Meow--that was a nice run down of classes.
I think you missed my point, when I got curious enough I actually read anets stand on the matter, which is how I learned the trinity is not gone, just changed. Before that I just read what articles, and forum postings had to say on the matter. Which many of have the wrong idea.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If you are saying that GW2 will involve taking damage (tanking), doing damage (DPS), and removing damage (healing), then yes.
But I mean...really? Any RPG combat involves these things, in fact, most other games involving combat have these things as well (Fighting, FPS, etc.). I don't think you can say that GW2 will be the same just because it involves RPG combat staples that are in just about every CRPG ever released.
What makes the trinity the trinity is that you are basically relegated to specialize in one particular role during each combat. From what I've read, GW2 will not have anything like this. Players should be able to fill whatever function the party needs to survive at any moment.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
In addition, players will be unable to fully focus on one role.
Good point, because if you could, you know it would devolve into someone just saying "you be healer, you be tank" before a dungeon crawl or whatever.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
There are no tanks because there is no taunt mechanic. However, it's entirely possible that some professsions will be expected to be frontliners and stand in the middle of a melee, while others try to stay at range (Elementalists) or dance in and out of it (Thieves). Guardians in particular look like a profession that will serve as an anchor in combat, which means holding a location and giving others a focal point for their attacks. This probably involves soaking up a lot of AoE and initial direct attacks, even though they have no ability to force mobs to attack them. Their position up front will simply invite incoming damage. For this reason, additional health is entirely justified and has nothing to do with tanking.
As for the realism aspect, some brawny specimen who's spent years soldiering and training physically will be tougher and more resilient than a scholar who's spent his years pouring over dusty books and parchments. Higher health is reflective of this.
That's just a possibility, but it seems to make sense.
Honestly people, do a bit of research on the first game. Elementalists for instance, had lower armor rating and lower HP than warriors, but could tank even more effectively in some areas due to the nature of their Earth spells.
Everyone needs to stop trying to figure out GW2 as if it ran by the rules of a typical MMO. Anet did things VERY differently with GW1, and not just with it being instanced; the powers, the way classes functioned, the way people benefitted from each other regardless of their classes. An Elementalist in GW2 is going to have less HP and lower armor than a warrior of course, they're a mage and are a bit more squishy than someone who runs around in plate armor and has the constitution to wield huge 2handed weapons, but that doesn't mean they're relegated to glass cannon roles.
Actually, I'm not sure why any of this seems so far-fetched to people. Did none of you play pnp AD&D? Having a lot of health and heavy armor didn't necessarily make you the best tank, it just made you an adequate one. Developers have been running with this idea for a long time.
Pull your heads out of the WoW box, the world is quite large outside of it.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
I'll freely admit I was wrong there, but that's because I was going on statements I've seen to the contrary, such as articles claiming the game to be doing away with the trinity. There's a difference between being uninformed and informed through the wrong venues, I'm in the latter bracket. I hadn't read the healing and death section of their blog, so that's my mistake, after I did I see where people have gotten the wrong idea and either A wrote without knowing exactly what they were talking about or B: applied their own imaginative ideal in their writings.
One thing I'll give Bioware credit for is they frequently get themseleves into trouble by sarcastically addressing misconceptions and shooting down imaginative what ifs.
Now before I knew there was still a trinity, I figured there would be something similar, so I'm not disappointed in finding out there is, actually I'm quite relieved.
As for Anets wording I'm refering to their design manifesto. Their statements in regard to everyone doing it wrong, and they're the answer to everyones prayers paraphrasing of course.
This is what I'm refering to as being bad, it's no different than what funcom was doing with their AOC is the steak and everyone else is mcdonalds. This type of talk leads to over expectations, and can seriously bite them in the ass at release. It's this sort of thing that also leads to the media raising peoples perceptions to too high a level.
Will changing the trinity really change the experience all that much? Not in my opinion, as taking tank abilities away doesn't change the purpose of a tank class, as in GW1 a warrior was still your frontline warrior instead of using an ability they used they're greater hitpoints to harrass players, and keep their attention off squishier classes. It's really the same thing, minus a hotbar ability.
The average person doesn't go reading every single blog entry, they don't bother informing themseleves about every single little thing going into a game, most just read previews and that's about it. I'm that average person, I'd put money on a bet the average person thinks Anet is doing away with the trinity, because that perception is abundantly out there, one search on it will show that, even bigger sites have articles stating as much, such as Tentonhammer..etc
Blame me for not being a gotta read everything type of person, I don't read everything about any game I have no time for that, if I did it for every game I am watching I wouldn't have time for anything else. I haven't read every blog about TOR yet I kow enough about it to know what to expect. I really can't say that for GW2 which I've actually read just as much about, that's because they have this slogan everything will be so different and new, yet I am not seeing that in much of what they are showing.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm not seeing how people can expect a class wearing robes to take close to the amount of damage that a warrior wearing heavy armor has. Unless they create classes of their own like a warrior that casts spells mainly, or a heavy armor wearing elementalist, than I can't see how people expect that to make sense. OH NO MY GUY WEARING THIS HUGE ARMOR TAKES LESS DAMAGE THAN THE ROGUE WEARING LEATHER? BLASPHEMY
How about skills that boost one's defensive capabilities? Does that make sense to you?
I played WOW for about as long as it takes to install it, so no my head is no WOW box. GW1 did not feel all that fresh or new to me, it was still basically the same thing as other MMO combat at least in my opinion.
What's the difference between a tank in GW1 and a tank in other games? An aggro ability and that's about it, it still functions almost the same way. Harrass and keep attention off squishier players, same concept as normal minus an ability.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yes, but then what would the point of armor be? Just for show?