Everyone admitting or saying the term "Trinity" (meaning Tank, Healer and DPS) is either a fool/stupid or never played an MMORPG before World of Warcraft.
For anyone who even want to reduce "roles" in MMORPGs even MORE. WoW made them 3 and people want to make them one; I say to you... you folk are too different from me. We both seek too different games. Nothing wrong with that. But I hope you know what you want because I damn sure know what I want.
My first mmo was Everquest 1 and it deffinitely utilized the tirnity, albeit a broader more diverse one, but it still came down to tank, heals, dps.
The fans of this game and the haters of TESO are like the websites version of religious fanatics to me. Any critique of their position results in some sort of E-jihad.
For me it is the critiques based on false information.
Originally posted by yewsef
Everyone admitting or saying the term "Trinity" (meaning Tank, Healer and DPS) is either a fool/stupid or never played an MMORPG before World of Warcraft.
For anyone who even want to reduce "roles" in MMORPGs even MORE. WoW made them 3 and people want to make them one; I say to you... you folk are too different from me. We both seek too different games. Nothing wrong with that. But I hope you know what you want because I damn sure know what I want.
So what do you want?
A game where you have a Swordsman Class, a Axeman Class, an AoE Healer Class, a Single Target Heal Class, a Fire Caster, an Ice Caster, a Rifleman, a Gunslinger, a DoT class, etc?
Actually, while you may consider it a reduction, having a class that can fulfil more aspects during a combat makes the playstyle of the character more diverse and demanding for the player.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
You're right, in a medieval battle everyone is dps. That is history, these games are fantasy. I imagine merlin was a bit more than dps. Medussa had some serious crowd control ability. Hercules may have been the greatest tank of all time.
I am not saying that gw2 is going to suck. I am not saying it is going to be good. I just find the worship it receives to be reminiscent of swtor, the last game that was going to revolutionize the genre. I am saying that there are concerns here. I am saying that no matter how you spin it they've repplaced three distinct roles with one role. I am saying so long as the content is good I am ok with that, but make no mistake that is what they've done.
The fans of this game and the haters of TESO are like the websites version of religious fanatics to me. Any critique of their position results in some sort of E-jihad.
Go has way more tactics and strategy than your average MMORPG. There's only a single role. Little black (or white) stone.
Don't be confused by the amount of roles a game has. I could easily design a really shitty easy nearly tactics-free game with 15 distinct different roles that are all 100% neccessary.
I'm not saying GW2 is going to totally pwnzor all (Notice, I'm hardly talking about GW2 actually, and that I'm also not denigrating the holy trinity).
What I'm saying is that you're oversimplifying how game design works. GW2 is not a holy trinity game with the holy trinity just yanked out wholesale and just DPS people hanging around pewpewing nonstop.
Fair enough, like i said i am going to try the game, I am not a hater, it just has several concerns for me. I hope my concerns are totally unfounded, we shall see.
While there are new games coming out that revalue the role of the trinity, I seriously doubt the model is going permanently out of style. It feels like things are going in cycles, always in flux. UO and AC had classless character systems that increased skills through use. Then EQ came and changed that, prefering to use archetypes. This was the dominant trend throughout most MMOs up til recent years. Now we have DF, MO and soon GW2 and Archeage where you choose the general direction you want your character progress. Both approaches to character development have their advantages and disadvantages, and make for very different gameplay experiences.
In a few years some people will get bored with the directionlessness of the new generation of MMOs which largely reward the polymath player, and instead want to play their favorite healing or tank class. Neither system is new or dated, it is our desires that shift
Whenever I see a game say it won't have required classes, or required builds, I shake my head. Required classes/builds are never something the designers add on purpose...it's the result of millions of people min-maxing a system. It's one of the reasons something like GearScore is so polarizing, and it will never go away.
'That isn't true.
Certainly games have been designed with certain classes being required for A or B.
Can you not bring a tank or a healer in a game as WoW to do a dungeon/raid (that you don't out level/out gear)?
Of course. 5 good Hunters could do a dungeon - especially if they fought GW2-style, with each Hunter switching off aggro, healing, trapping, kiting and feigning. It wouldn't be as easy as bringing a tank and healer, but it could be done. 5 Paladins could do it, 5 Druids could do it (duh), 5 Warlocks could do it, 5 Death Knights, etc, etc.
Arguably, the only classes that couldn't 5-man a dungeon are those without a heal of some sort, and that's pretty much Rogues and Mages.
There are other aspects in GW2 that contribute for profession flexibility such as weapon swapping and environmental weapons.
You need knocks to fight "The lovers". In most games that would mean certain classes with access to knocks were required - in GW2 it just means someone needs to go pick up one of the rocks scattered around so you can knock them.
Or there is boss A that is really good vs meelee or boss b that is really good vs ranged attacks - in some games that would mean certain classes wouldn't be taken for those encounters. In GW2 it just means the warrior equip a rifle or the ranger equips a greatsword.
And this goes to my point. How does "wouldn't be taken" have anything to do with the developers? That's a player decision, min-maxing of group composition.
The prevailing viewpoint in this thread seems to be that GW2 classes are so completely flexible as to be 100% interchangable in any situation. That there is absolutely zero advantage to bringing one class over another. Notwithstanding the fact that this implies class is meaningless in GW2, it also presumes that millions of players to come will never discover/exploit such advantages. That's a VERY hard position to jusitfy for a game that isn't even out of Beta.
As a case in point, WoW devs have stated on many occaisions that they want tanking classes to be roughly equivalent. That doesn't stop players from pigeonholing tanks based on the slightest percieved superiority. One patch, Paladins get a small boost, and you see a surge of Paladins tanking. Druids get a threat buff, and warriors start being displaced. Death Knights get a better heal, and they become the tank du jour. These are not dev decisions, it's the playerbase.
Right now you've got the most motivated and most experimental players the game will ever see. Of course people are willing to play differently. It'll be interesting to see how that stands once the min-maxers and theorycrafters hit the scene (assuming it gets that popular).
Whenever I see a game say it won't have required classes, or required builds, I shake my head. Required classes/builds are never something the designers add on purpose...it's the result of millions of people min-maxing a system. It's one of the reasons something like GearScore is so polarizing, and it will never go away.
'That isn't true.
Certainly games have been designed with certain classes being required for A or B.
Can you not bring a tank or a healer in a game as WoW to do a dungeon/raid (that you don't out level/out gear)?
Of course. 5 good Hunters could do a dungeon - especially if they fought GW2-style, with each Hunter switching off aggro, healing, trapping, kiting and feigning. It wouldn't be as easy as bringing a tank and healer, but it could be done. 5 Paladins could do it, 5 Druids could do it (duh), 5 Warlocks could do it, 5 Death Knights, etc, etc.
Arguably, the only classes that couldn't 5-man a dungeon are those without a heal of some sort, and that's pretty much Rogues and Mages.
There are other aspects in GW2 that contribute for profession flexibility such as weapon swapping and environmental weapons.
You need knocks to fight "The lovers". In most games that would mean certain classes with access to knocks were required - in GW2 it just means someone needs to go pick up one of the rocks scattered around so you can knock them.
Or there is boss A that is really good vs meelee or boss b that is really good vs ranged attacks - in some games that would mean certain classes wouldn't be taken for those encounters. In GW2 it just means the warrior equip a rifle or the ranger equips a greatsword.
And this goes to my point. How does "wouldn't be taken" have anything to do with the developers? That's a player decision, min-maxing of group composition.
The prevailing viewpoint in this thread seems to be that GW2 classes are so completely flexible as to be 100% interchangable in any situation. That there is absolutely zero advantage to bringing one class over another. Notwithstanding the fact that this implies class is meaningless in GW2, it also presumes that millions of players to come will never discover/exploit such advantages. That's a VERY hard position to jusitfy for a game that isn't even out of Beta.
As a case in point, WoW devs have stated on many occaisions that they want tanking classes to be roughly equivalent. That doesn't stop players from pigeonholing tanks based on the slightest percieved superiority. One patch, Paladins get a small boost, and you see a surge of Paladins tanking. Druids get a threat buff, and warriors start being displaced. Death Knights get a better heal, and they become the tank du jour. These are not dev decisions, it's the playerbase.
Right now you've got the most motivated and most experimental players the game will ever see. Of course people are willing to play differently. It'll be interesting to see how that stands once the min-maxers and theorycrafters hit the scene (assuming it gets that popular).
1) Any proof of 5 hunters clearing a dungeon where they don't outgear/out level the dungeon (especially max level ones)?
And of course hybrid professions could clear a dungeon.
And if it isn't by design, why does the dungeon finder search for a tank, a healer and 3 dps?
2) That is the point of GW2 - classes being meaningless for the group success. Not only the success or fail, but also similar completion speeds.
That doesn't mean they are meaningless for the players - they provide different playstyles and approaches.
It is fun people keep hammering that this system make classes irrelevant, as if playing an unique but underpowered class groups don't want is a better gaming experience. Classes are unique by their playstyle not their role.
3) Of course it is up to the developers - it escaped their testing and balance team. If a class is considerably more powerful or less powerful, the devs did something wrong an need to intervene.
Actually, who the hell added to the dungeon a Boss or mobs that fare better vs ranged than melee or vice versa? The players? Why didn't they create a section that is really hard for ranged characters vs a section that is really hard for melee characts and then a section that is really hard for magic users?
Don't often developrs add mechnics to a dungeon that requires a single skill from a single class,making that class required for a certain dungeon/raid?
Is that good design?
4) A game like GW2 that is designed to be completed by 5 of any class, well it won't be pretty. But that will be restricted to dungeons and sPvP since the players have no saying on what classes players bring on the majority of the content.
On the other hand GW2 has a higher focus on mechanical and battle awareness skill rather than statistical advantages, meaning min/max is only haf the story.
As an example of mechanical skill requirements holding back statistical advantages, look at StarCraft. Starcraft is filled with overpowered abilities and units, but they are so hard to use and frail that it is balanced. If you ported those units/spells to StarCraft 2, since the Ai and the controls are much better/easier to use, it would be completely overpowered.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Everyone admitting or saying the term "Trinity" (meaning Tank, Healer and DPS) is either a fool/stupid or never played an MMORPG before World of Warcraft.
For anyone who even want to reduce "roles" in MMORPGs even MORE. WoW made them 3 and people want to make them one; I say to you... you folk are too different from me. We both seek too different games. Nothing wrong with that. But I hope you know what you want because I damn sure know what I want.
My first mmo was Everquest 1 and it deffinitely utilized the tirnity, albeit a broader more diverse one, but it still came down to tank, heals, dps.
Gotta jump in here. EQ's Holy Trinity was Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter. Tank, Healer, CC. And for the most part it was those classes specifically, not roles. Nobody wanted Paladins or SK's to tank, they wanted Warriors. Same for healers, they wanted Clerics for rez and CHeal.
It was the same in DAoC. Whoever could Mezz first won. CC was king.
Tank, healer dps as a trinity is something that WoW cemented as far as I can remember. I certainly don't remember anything before it that had DPS in that third role. Everybody did DPS. In EQ Warriors were the de facto standard of melee DPS that all other melee chars were adjusted from. More for Monks and Rogues, less for Paladins and SK's. It was WoW that shafted tanks into doing pathetic dps and forcing the change to the trinity.
Everyone admitting or saying the term "Trinity" (meaning Tank, Healer and DPS) is either a fool/stupid or never played an MMORPG before World of Warcraft.
For anyone who even want to reduce "roles" in MMORPGs even MORE. WoW made them 3 and people want to make them one; I say to you... you folk are too different from me. We both seek too different games. Nothing wrong with that. But I hope you know what you want because I damn sure know what I want.
My first mmo was Everquest 1 and it deffinitely utilized the tirnity, albeit a broader more diverse one, but it still came down to tank, heals, dps.
Gotta jump in here. EQ's Holy Trinity was Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter. Tank, Healer, CC. And for the most part it was those classes specifically, not roles. Nobody wanted Paladins or SK's to tank, they wanted Warriors. Same for healers, they wanted Clerics for rez and CHeal.
It was the same in DAoC. Whoever could Mezz first won. CC was king.
Tank, healer dps as a trinity is something that WoW cemented as far as I can remember. I certainly don't remember anything before it that had DPS in that third role. Everybody did DPS. In EQ Warriors were the de facto standard of melee DPS that all other melee chars were adjusted from. More for Monks and Rogues, less for Paladins and SK's. It was WoW that shafted tanks into doing pathetic dps and forcing the change to the trinity.
One would guess that DPS requires less decision making than CC. so that is why it was changed.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Comments
My first mmo was Everquest 1 and it deffinitely utilized the tirnity, albeit a broader more diverse one, but it still came down to tank, heals, dps.
For me it is the critiques based on false information.
Originally posted by yewsef
Everyone admitting or saying the term "Trinity" (meaning Tank, Healer and DPS) is either a fool/stupid or never played an MMORPG before World of Warcraft.
For anyone who even want to reduce "roles" in MMORPGs even MORE. WoW made them 3 and people want to make them one; I say to you... you folk are too different from me. We both seek too different games. Nothing wrong with that. But I hope you know what you want because I damn sure know what I want.
So what do you want?
A game where you have a Swordsman Class, a Axeman Class, an AoE Healer Class, a Single Target Heal Class, a Fire Caster, an Ice Caster, a Rifleman, a Gunslinger, a DoT class, etc?
Actually, while you may consider it a reduction, having a class that can fulfil more aspects during a combat makes the playstyle of the character more diverse and demanding for the player.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Go has way more tactics and strategy than your average MMORPG. There's only a single role. Little black (or white) stone.
Don't be confused by the amount of roles a game has. I could easily design a really shitty easy nearly tactics-free game with 15 distinct different roles that are all 100% neccessary.
I'm not saying GW2 is going to totally pwnzor all (Notice, I'm hardly talking about GW2 actually, and that I'm also not denigrating the holy trinity).
What I'm saying is that you're oversimplifying how game design works. GW2 is not a holy trinity game with the holy trinity just yanked out wholesale and just DPS people hanging around pewpewing nonstop.
Holy trinity <> tactics
That's all.
Fair enough, like i said i am going to try the game, I am not a hater, it just has several concerns for me. I hope my concerns are totally unfounded, we shall see.
Just get rid of the hotbars and make skyrim online and we will all be fine lol. AND DONT SAY MORTAL ONLINE
The combat in skyrim was the worst part of that game.
While there are new games coming out that revalue the role of the trinity, I seriously doubt the model is going permanently out of style. It feels like things are going in cycles, always in flux. UO and AC had classless character systems that increased skills through use. Then EQ came and changed that, prefering to use archetypes. This was the dominant trend throughout most MMOs up til recent years. Now we have DF, MO and soon GW2 and Archeage where you choose the general direction you want your character progress. Both approaches to character development have their advantages and disadvantages, and make for very different gameplay experiences.
In a few years some people will get bored with the directionlessness of the new generation of MMOs which largely reward the polymath player, and instead want to play their favorite healing or tank class. Neither system is new or dated, it is our desires that shift
1) Any proof of 5 hunters clearing a dungeon where they don't outgear/out level the dungeon (especially max level ones)?
And of course hybrid professions could clear a dungeon.
And if it isn't by design, why does the dungeon finder search for a tank, a healer and 3 dps?
2) That is the point of GW2 - classes being meaningless for the group success. Not only the success or fail, but also similar completion speeds.
That doesn't mean they are meaningless for the players - they provide different playstyles and approaches.
It is fun people keep hammering that this system make classes irrelevant, as if playing an unique but underpowered class groups don't want is a better gaming experience. Classes are unique by their playstyle not their role.
3) Of course it is up to the developers - it escaped their testing and balance team. If a class is considerably more powerful or less powerful, the devs did something wrong an need to intervene.
Actually, who the hell added to the dungeon a Boss or mobs that fare better vs ranged than melee or vice versa? The players? Why didn't they create a section that is really hard for ranged characters vs a section that is really hard for melee characts and then a section that is really hard for magic users?
Don't often developrs add mechnics to a dungeon that requires a single skill from a single class,making that class required for a certain dungeon/raid?
Is that good design?
4) A game like GW2 that is designed to be completed by 5 of any class, well it won't be pretty. But that will be restricted to dungeons and sPvP since the players have no saying on what classes players bring on the majority of the content.
On the other hand GW2 has a higher focus on mechanical and battle awareness skill rather than statistical advantages, meaning min/max is only haf the story.
As an example of mechanical skill requirements holding back statistical advantages, look at StarCraft. Starcraft is filled with overpowered abilities and units, but they are so hard to use and frail that it is balanced. If you ported those units/spells to StarCraft 2, since the Ai and the controls are much better/easier to use, it would be completely overpowered.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Gotta jump in here. EQ's Holy Trinity was Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter. Tank, Healer, CC. And for the most part it was those classes specifically, not roles. Nobody wanted Paladins or SK's to tank, they wanted Warriors. Same for healers, they wanted Clerics for rez and CHeal.
It was the same in DAoC. Whoever could Mezz first won. CC was king.
Tank, healer dps as a trinity is something that WoW cemented as far as I can remember. I certainly don't remember anything before it that had DPS in that third role. Everybody did DPS. In EQ Warriors were the de facto standard of melee DPS that all other melee chars were adjusted from. More for Monks and Rogues, less for Paladins and SK's. It was WoW that shafted tanks into doing pathetic dps and forcing the change to the trinity.
One would guess that DPS requires less decision making than CC. so that is why it was changed.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders