There is no problem with the holy trinity of mmos. Infact there is something like 9-10 million WoW players, not to mention players in AIon, Lotro, AOC, WAR and a few others out there enjoying the holy trinity. This talk about how the holy trinity of mmos is crippling mmos is a bunch of nonsense. People love knowing their role and sticking with it.
Change is always scary and the oldest form of fear is fear of the unknown. Development crews aren't likely to take big risks; especially not in this economy and considering the size of the budgets associated to MMO's. Change will come in small steps. As more and more people switch to the action based systems; thier friends will follow.
I really enjoy the healer role so i don't like it being gone either, doesn't mean i won't play guild wars 2 - But i enjoy being needed, gives you a reason to group up
I don't want to be able to solo things, i like being dependant on others.
you don't need the trinity to group up. People group up in D3 because it makes the encounter easier .. and there is no trinity.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't know why everyone is happy about the demise of the holy trinity. I personally see it as a good thing, it gives me a sense of purpose and role in an MMO.
I know that a lot of people will disagree, what with the release of the second coming of christ (GW2). Tbh, i really think thats what has put me off GW2, i need to know that im needed and not just an interchangeable part of a machine.
So, what do you guys think? Pro-trinity or not?
The holy trinity is the core of real MMOs.
Of course casual games like GW2 can live without, but if you look carefully, GW2 has a holy trinity, it is just well conceived (Try to play a Water Elementalist.................you will discover he is an healer)
There is no real MMORPG without the holy trinity, without the 3 different ROLES of Tank, DPS and Healer (and I could add a fourth, the Support or Buffer) there is no RPG in the MMORPG.
Don't worry, the Holy Trinity is alive and kicking, just don't expect to find it in every MMO
You misunderstood what I meant. If you have tanks and healers the developer has to take those 2 roles into consideration when they design the encounter. Or else you'd have raid leaders that'll say things like..."The hell do we need a tank for? Let's just kite him around the room. If he switches aggro, start running and keep kiting". If all the damage is avoidable; why bring a healer?
You certainly are wrong, and not aware of facts.
Case in point, faction champion encounter in WOTLK tier 9 .. no aggro table, anyone can be targetted.
Case in point, blood queen encounter where in a phase she hovers and shoot at everyone.
The point is that the developer is NOT constrained to have the 2 roles (tank/heal) *all* the time. As long as they are needed as tank/heal in *some* part of the encounter, it is enough.
There are plenty of examples where tank/heal roles are not strictlly adhered to in every part of an encounter. In fact, kiting is used in many encounters (like the bird in Magistrate Terrace back in BC).
The faction champ boss encoutner in WoW was rejected by the community as a very badly designed encounter. Most people hated it except the PVPers. I enjoyed it a lot until we figured out how the aggro table worked. WoW devs have to be careful because they tread on a thin line. If they design encounters that require less input from tanks and healers, the user base will begin to question the existance of these roles and the game will start to have holes in it. Like a sinking ship filling up with water.
You misunderstood what I meant. If you have tanks and healers the developer has to take those 2 roles into consideration when they design the encounter. Or else you'd have raid leaders that'll say things like..."The hell do we need a tank for? Let's just kite him around the room. If he switches aggro, start running and keep kiting". If all the damage is avoidable; why bring a healer?
Sure, but the burden would be on you to prove those types of encounters are deeper than existing tank+healer fights.
I know they potentially can be just as deep, but when someone challenges a functional (and deep) norm, they need to be prepared to actually explain why their alternative solution will be just as deep.
Because if bosses were always kitable and/or all damage was avoidable, at face value that's a far shallower combat experience than existing bosses.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You misunderstood what I meant. If you have tanks and healers the developer has to take those 2 roles into consideration when they design the encounter. Or else you'd have raid leaders that'll say things like..."The hell do we need a tank for? Let's just kite him around the room. If he switches aggro, start running and keep kiting". If all the damage is avoidable; why bring a healer?
Sure, but the burden would be on you to prove those types of encounters are deeper than existing tank+healer fights.
I know they potentially can be just as deep, but when someone challenges a functional (and deep) norm, they need to be prepared to actually explain why their alternative solution will be just as deep.
Because if bosses were always kitable and/or all damage was avoidable, at face value that's a far shallower combat experience than existing bosses.
I disagree. Firstly, the flow of the encounter would feel smoother. If tank dies, just wipe. Well if there is no tank, 1 person dying is not the end of the world, anyone can ressurect him. Slower ressurection penatly can be applied for frequent deaths. Moving out of the way or dodging is reactive and requires timing and situational awarness; as oppose to just standing there and getting hit knowing that your healer friend will clean up after your mess. If all damage was avoidable; players would not only be required to use thier toolbox to survive but also help thier friends to survive. This would require communication and coordination. Especially if the skills are on cooldowns.
the trinity is fine... It's how the encounters are designed that matters.
if the problem was the trinity, every encounter would be boring... but that is not the case, some encounters are boring and some are fun.
so the problem is the effort put into these encounters by the developers.
Believe it or not but, developers are restricted in what they can do based on the existance of the tank and healer. It's not like the developer can create an encounter where the boss is 40 yards into the air and shoots fireballs at the ground one-shotting anyone than didn't move out of the way. If they did, tanks and healers would not be necessary to succeed in this encounter.
hmm they did. Look at the Blood Queen enounter in WOTLK. There *is* a phase where the boss did exactly that.
I'm not talking about a phase; I'm talking about the whole encounter.
It dosnt matter if it's tank-n-spank or anything else, after people have experianced it so many times, it gets boring. If I've never played a holy trinity encounter before, it would be fresh and exciting. My entertainment comes from the encounter itself, it has nothing to do whether it's Trinity or anything else. Is it exciting?Is it fun? or is it something I've seen a hundred times before. Any new Non-Trinity hybrid style of encounter's will end up with the same fate.
The more we have seen and experianced.... The harder we are to impress.
It dosnt matter if it's tank-n-spank or anything else, after people have experianced it so many times, it gets boring. If I've never played a holy trinity encounter before, it would be fresh and exciting. My entertainment comes from the encounter itself, it has nothing to do whether it's Trinity or anything else. Is it exciting?Is it fun? or is it something I've seen a hundred times before. Any new Non-Trinity hybrid style of encounter's will end up with the same fate.
The more we have seen and experianced.... The harder we are to impress.
I'm inclined to agree, when we see the same events/thing over and over we get bored. This applies to mechanics, gameplay, scenarios, quests/missions and visuals. For example I recently played TSW I loved the fresh feel of the environment, the mood and how everything was cohesive, but foremost it wasn't another fantasy rpg filled with dragons, elves etc. But once the I got into the dungeons and PVP it was still the same scenarios that were seen before and in some situations a lack of due to the quality of design. This usual comes down to the dev choosing to focus in one area then trying to fix others later on but not being able since both are interconnected and should have been dealt at the beginning of the core design of the game.
I disagree. Firstly, the flow of the encounter would feel smoother. If tank dies, just wipe. Well if there is no tank, 1 person dying is not the end of the world, anyone can ressurect him. Slower ressurection penatly can be applied for frequent deaths. Moving out of the way or dodging is reactive and requires timing and situational awarness; as oppose to just standing there and getting hit knowing that your healer friend will clean up after your mess. If all damage was avoidable; players would not only be required to use thier toolbox to survive but also help thier friends to survive. This would require communication and coordination. Especially if the skills are on cooldowns.
Well that's just it. (A) Modern MMORPGs tend to not have as strong an ultimatum of "if the tank dies, just wipe" because there are options for recovery (although things are seriously in trouble still), and (B) A situation where one player dying is trivial isn't going to necessarily be a deeper game, and (C) dodging already exists in modern MMORPGs (play TSW, just about every creature has a dodgeable attack) and (D) WOW priests already pull their friends away from these dodgeable game mechanics.
So really all of what you're requesting does exist, except for (B) which actually makes the game shallower because there's more room for error and individual players lack important roles.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I disagree. Firstly, the flow of the encounter would feel smoother. If tank dies, just wipe. Well if there is no tank, 1 person dying is not the end of the world, anyone can ressurect him. Slower ressurection penatly can be applied for frequent deaths. Moving out of the way or dodging is reactive and requires timing and situational awarness; as oppose to just standing there and getting hit knowing that your healer friend will clean up after your mess. If all damage was avoidable; players would not only be required to use thier toolbox to survive but also help thier friends to survive. This would require communication and coordination. Especially if the skills are on cooldowns.
Well that's just it. (A) Modern MMORPGs tend to not have as strong an ultimatum of "if the tank dies, just wipe" because there are options for recovery (although things are seriously in trouble still), and (B) A situation where one player dying is trivial isn't going to necessarily be a deeper game, and (C) dodging already exists in modern MMORPGs (play TSW, just about every creature has a dodgeable attack) and (D) WOW priests already pull their friends away from these dodgeable game mechanics.
So really all of what you're requesting does exist, except for (B) which actually makes the game shallower because there's more room for error and individual players lack important roles.
In almost every MMO, when the main tank dies, or the Healer dies, its an Automatic Wipe. This mentality is whats wrong with the Trinity. The importance of 2 roles that totally over shadows the third role regardless of how good each player is.
When the whole world believed that the world was flat, it doesn't necessary proved that the world is flat. You just need one person to prove that the world was round then everyone else will follow.
So when over 10 millions of players are currently enjoying the Trinity, it doesn't mean that Trinity is the only way to go, it just means that we need that 1 different way of playing and if its fun, others will start to join.
Trinity needs to be redone so that we can feel the true strategy of tactical battles, does GW2 does that, I think they opened the door for it, but not necessary the best way of doing it. As long as other developers continue down the path that GW2 opened, soon we will be seeing different variations of the trinity that eventually we will find that one method where it will make each encounter different, exciting and fun. But if we stay still and never challenge the norm, then it will never change.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
I disagree. Firstly, the flow of the encounter would feel smoother. If tank dies, just wipe. Well if there is no tank, 1 person dying is not the end of the world, anyone can ressurect him. Slower ressurection penatly can be applied for frequent deaths. Moving out of the way or dodging is reactive and requires timing and situational awarness; as oppose to just standing there and getting hit knowing that your healer friend will clean up after your mess. If all damage was avoidable; players would not only be required to use thier toolbox to survive but also help thier friends to survive. This would require communication and coordination. Especially if the skills are on cooldowns.
Well that's just it. (A) Modern MMORPGs tend to not have as strong an ultimatum of "if the tank dies, just wipe" because there are options for recovery (although things are seriously in trouble still), and (B) A situation where one player dying is trivial isn't going to necessarily be a deeper game, and (C) dodging already exists in modern MMORPGs (play TSW, just about every creature has a dodgeable attack) and (D) WOW priests already pull their friends away from these dodgeable game mechanics.
So really all of what you're requesting does exist, except for (B) which actually makes the game shallower because there's more room for error and individual players lack important roles.
In almost every MMO, when the main tank dies, or the Healer dies, its an Automatic Wipe. This mentality is whats wrong with the Trinity. The importance of 2 roles that totally over shadows the third role regardless of how good each player is.
When the whole world believed that the world was flat, it doesn't necessary proved that the world is flat. You just need one person to prove that the world was round then everyone else will follow.
So when over 10 millions of players are currently enjoying the Trinity, it doesn't mean that Trinity is the only way to go, it just means that we need that 1 different way of playing and if its fun, others will start to join.
Trinity needs to be redone so that we can feel the true strategy of tactical battles, does GW2 does that, I think they opened the door for it, but not necessary the best way of doing it. As long as other developers continue down the path that GW2 opened, soon we will be seeing different variations of the trinity that eventually we will find that one method where it will make each encounter different, exciting and fun. But if we stay still and never challenge the norm, then it will never change.
Very well said.
I would also like to add that; I think the reason Blizzard cancelled Blizzcon 2012 is to not show Titan yet. They want to see how popular Guild Wars 2 will be. If they change anything drastic in Titan; it will be because of how the community responded to Guild Wars 2.
the trinity is fine... It's how the encounters are designed that matters.
if the problem was the trinity, every encounter would be boring... but that is not the case, some encounters are boring and some are fun.
so the problem is the effort put into these encounters by the developers.
Believe it or not but, developers are restricted in what they can do based on the existance of the tank and healer. It's not like the developer can create an encounter where the boss is 40 yards into the air and shoots fireballs at the ground one-shotting anyone than didn't move out of the way. If they did, tanks and healers would not be necessary to succeed in this encounter.
hmm they did. Look at the Blood Queen enounter in WOTLK. There *is* a phase where the boss did exactly that.
I'm not talking about a phase; I'm talking about the whole encounter.
So they are not restricted in some part of the encounter .. so what is your point? If you point is that you have to have some tank & spank .. so yes .. it is true.
But that does nto restrict the devs to make it interesting. There are plenty of examples of tanking is not needed (or relevant) in part of the fight. So in that sense, there is no restriction of what the dev can do in part of an encounter.
Because if bosses were always kitable and/or all damage was avoidable, at face value that's a far shallower combat experience than existing bosses.
People talk as if you only have one mob (boss) and the mechanics is all of nothing.
There are examples where you fight the boss, but have to kite an add. Or that damage from a particular source is avoidable.
Just kiting may be shallow .. in combination with other stuff (tank & spank, damage avoidance .. and other mechanics) is not. There is in fact, no reason not to use many of these mechanics at the same time.
Having different roles is fun and encourages cooperation and teamwork. In fact, I'd like to see more roles brough back, like the CC, puller, debuff, etc, roles that we saw in games like EQ.
One thing I will agree on is I am a little sick of taunt abilities, as they cause NPCs to behave stupidly. I have seen games that still have tanks but lack taunt abilities, they just require using tactics to make sure the NPC is beating on the fully armored warrior with the sword and shield rather than the frail mage with the robe and staff - casters stand further away, find a ledge to stand on, etc. Works great in games that actually have a collision system.
In almost every MMO, when the main tank dies, or the Healer dies, its an Automatic Wipe. This mentality is whats wrong with the Trinity. The importance of 2 roles that totally over shadows the third role regardless of how good each player is.
When the whole world believed that the world was flat, it doesn't necessary proved that the world is flat. You just need one person to prove that the world was round then everyone else will follow.
So when over 10 millions of players are currently enjoying the Trinity, it doesn't mean that Trinity is the only way to go, it just means that we need that 1 different way of playing and if its fun, others will start to join.
Trinity needs to be redone so that we can feel the true strategy of tactical battles, does GW2 does that, I think they opened the door for it, but not necessary the best way of doing it. As long as other developers continue down the path that GW2 opened, soon we will be seeing different variations of the trinity that eventually we will find that one method where it will make each encounter different, exciting and fun. But if we stay still and never challenge the norm, then it will never change.
With the world being round, there's one absolute truth.
With trinity vs. alternatives, there are varying degrees of fun to be had. Trinity is fun, so if someone's proposing alternatives the burden is indeed on them to prove those alternatives are more fun.
I'm the first one to point out that players will go wild over a genuinely new game, but if that game turns out shallower or less fun than the one they're tired of, it's still not going to solve anything.
As for the importance of tanks and healers, that's not really a huge issue. In fact, their importance is part of what makes the trinity puzzle provide deep, fun gameplay! Games certainly need to keep trying to make those playstyles fun, just as they need to make the DPS playstyle fun.
As for GW2, I guess you're saying it gets better? Because certainly in my first weekend of play I never found any challenges to the group world PVE. And without challenge, a game by definition is shallow. I'm not necessarily judging the game yet, because you don't find WOW's challenges in the first weekend either (it's more like the second month that you advance far enough to find challenging gameplay...well I guess apart from Cataclysm's quests actually killing me a lot more than pre-Cata quests did while leveling.)
But still...I hope you're saying that at some point in GW2 things become instanced, and therefore are capable of being interesting, deep challenges.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm sure I'm over simplifying it all, but the reoccurring theme amongst most posts in this thread is the desire for diversity...
People who dislike the Trinity system, typically dislike it because of the lack of diversity that an individual has when locked into this system - i.e. the reliance upon a tank/healer combo in order to succeed.
People who like the Trinity system, typically like it because of the diversity they feel the system brings to encounters and replayability - i.e. everyone has a specific role, encounters based upon roles add additional layers of complexity; as well as if you've played one role your entire gaming career, switching to a new role is a refreshing change (thus increased replayability)
Personally, I think everyone is wrong - approaching this conversation from a "personal experience" perspective, will just end up in constant bickering back and forth and ultimately land nowhere.
Why not instead, approach the conversation from a game mechanics perspective. Taking into account that the Trinity system is really only specific to "Boss" type content (as it's normal in almost all MMOs now that you can level solo). So, people should first define what makes a good Boss encounter in their mind.
The normal impacting events within a Boss enounter are:
- Positioning: Should this exist? It requires control of the boss somehow to exist, and thus a person would need to be able to manipulate the movement of the boss for it to exist. We know how this is done in the Trinity world (Tank), but how does this look in a non-trinity system? Or, should bosses simply stay static or walk along a predefined path.
- Adds: Should this exist? Again, typically adds require control of some sort - however, this can be manipulated through either a tank system, CC system or heavy dps burn system. How would add control look in a non-trinity system?
- Ground Effects: Should this exist? This is the only neutral mechanic, agnostic to Trinity/Non-Trinity as both systems handle ground/environmental avoidance the same way.
- Boss Centric AOE Effects: Should this exist? typically, the more interesting versions of this system again require control - in theTrinity system the tank must make sure there is proper positioning associated to the Boss Centric AOE effects (breathing etc..). However, there are some encounters where the Boss anchors themselves and broadcasts what is about to happen in a specific direction (or maybe spins around in a fixed patter). The anchor system is agnostic to the Trinity/non-Trinity... but how would the non-anchor boss centric aoe look in a non-trinity system?
- Player Afflicted States: Should this exist? Should bosses even be allowed to do unavoidable damage to all members of the raid, and thus require a cleanse/heal/purge etc... We know how this is handled in the Trinity System (Heal/Support)... but how would this look in the non-trinity system?
- Boss Buffs: Should this exist? Understand that there are addressable and non-addressable buffs - and I'm talking specifically about addressable ones (i.e. you can dispel, purge etc.. to remove the buff) - as I consider non addressable buffs as part of the Boss Centric Effects. We know how these are addressed in the Trinity system (support assigned to debuff), but how would this look in the non-trinity system?
I'm sure I'm missing some fight mechanics specific to Boss fights, so please feel free to pipe in. I really think addressing how encounters occur and what they might look like Trinity vs. non-trinity will shed much more light on this whole conversation than the "from my experience.." conversation.
I'm sure I'm over simplifying it all, but the reoccurring theme amongst most posts in this thread is the desire for diversity...
People who dislike the Trinity system, typically dislike it because of the lack of diversity that an individual has when locked into this system - i.e. the reliance upon a tank/healer combo in order to succeed.
People who like the Trinity system, typically like it because of the diversity they feel the system brings to encounters and replayability - i.e. everyone has a specific role, encounters based upon roles add additional layers of complexity; as well as if you've played one role your entire gaming career, switching to a new role is a refreshing change (thus increased replayability)
Personally, I think everyone is wrong - approaching this conversation from a "personal experience" perspective, will just end up in constant bickering back and forth and ultimately land nowhere.
Why not instead, approach the conversation from a game mechanics perspective. Taking into account that the Trinity system is really only specific to "Boss" type content (as it's normal in almost all MMOs now that you can level solo). So, people should first define what makes a good Boss encounter in their mind.
The normal impacting events within a Boss enounter are:
- Positioning: Should this exist? It requires control of the boss somehow to exist, and thus a person would need to be able to manipulate the movement of the boss for it to exist. We know how this is done in the Trinity world (Tank), but how does this look in a non-trinity system? Or, should bosses simply stay static or walk along a predefined path.
- Adds: Should this exist? Again, typically adds require control of some sort - however, this can be manipulated through either a tank system, CC system or heavy dps burn system. How would add control look in a non-trinity system?
- Ground Effects: Should this exist? This is the only neutral mechanic, agnostic to Trinity/Non-Trinity as both systems handle ground/environmental avoidance the same way.
- Boss Centric AOE Effects: Should this exist? typically, the more interesting versions of this system again require control - in theTrinity system the tank must make sure there is proper positioning associated to the Boss Centric AOE effects (breathing etc..). However, there are some encounters where the Boss anchors themselves and broadcasts what is about to happen in a specific direction (or maybe spins around in a fixed patter). The anchor system is agnostic to the Trinity/non-Trinity... but how would the non-anchor boss centric aoe look in a non-trinity system?
- Player Afflicted States: Should this exist? Should bosses even be allowed to do unavoidable damage to all members of the raid, and thus require a cleanse/heal/purge etc... We know how this is handled in the Trinity System (Heal/Support)... but how would this look in the non-trinity system?
- Boss Buffs: Should this exist? Understand that there are addressable and non-addressable buffs - and I'm talking specifically about addressable ones (i.e. you can dispel, purge etc.. to remove the buff) - as I consider non addressable buffs as part of the Boss Centric Effects. We know how these are addressed in the Trinity system (support assigned to debuff), but how would this look in the non-trinity system?
I'm sure I'm missing some fight mechanics specific to Boss fights, so please feel free to pipe in. I really think addressing how encounters occur and what they might look like Trinity vs. non-trinity will shed much more light on this whole conversation than the "from my experience.." conversation.
My 2 cents.
The word boss gets thrown around a lot. I think we're all so used to engaging a giant 10 story high monster where we're all swinging our little toothpicks at his feet. I would much rather engage in an event rather than a boss. Without going into specifics; I would like to see more use of enviromental dynamics. Example: Walking on walls, swinging like indiana jones, punching through walls, creating distractions ect. I would love to see a sandbox with many different elements rather than a boss fight.
Suppose the objective is to resure the king's daughter from a heavily fortified keep. But you only have 5 ninjas in your group. You can infiltrate the keep via stealth, create distractions and engage enemies at multiple fronts. You'd have to be wary of deadly traps. Find the key to open the cell where the kings daughter is held captive. Depending on how you've approached this event; the warden (boss) might be waiting in the cell for you.
Suppose the objective is to resure the king's daughter from a heavily fortified keep. But you only have 5 ninjas in your group. You can infiltrate the keep via stealth, create distractions and engage enemies at multiple fronts. You'd have to be wary of deadly traps. Find the key to open the cell where the kings daughter is held captive. Depending on how you've approached this event; the warden (boss) might be waiting in the cell for you.
DDO already does this kind of dungeons, with scripted events. I do agree that dungeon encounters do not have to be focus on boss fights.
- LF Healer (20 minutes later...) LF Healer, found one, do you have the X skill? No sorry.. I could still try to contribute. No get out! LF Healer!
LF DPS or LF Tank ends up on the same which leads partially to hours of waiting, frustration and hurt feelings at parts when one wants to desperately do a dungeon but no one takes him/her in a group because he/she isnt the class they need or looking for.
- No real diversity cause every Class is set in one role and has to stick with it till the end
- Some classes are often useless outside of a group and very hard to level
- Bad blood/behaviour between players "you didn't heal properly! You suck! Noob!", "You didn't tank properly and I got killed!" "Idiot! and so on...
- Failing a dungeon or other content only because a certain class isn't in the group
"Positives"
- people that enjoy to have the limitations a holy trinity approach offers, feel more comfortable with such a system
My question is:
Do they feel comfortable with it because they are THAT used to such a system through all the years, that they are feeling too insecure to try something new?
Comments
Change is always scary and the oldest form of fear is fear of the unknown. Development crews aren't likely to take big risks; especially not in this economy and considering the size of the budgets associated to MMO's. Change will come in small steps. As more and more people switch to the action based systems; thier friends will follow.
you don't need the trinity to group up. People group up in D3 because it makes the encounter easier .. and there is no trinity.
The holy trinity is the core of real MMOs.
Of course casual games like GW2 can live without, but if you look carefully, GW2 has a holy trinity, it is just well conceived (Try to play a Water Elementalist.................you will discover he is an healer)
There is no real MMORPG without the holy trinity, without the 3 different ROLES of Tank, DPS and Healer (and I could add a fourth, the Support or Buffer) there is no RPG in the MMORPG.
Don't worry, the Holy Trinity is alive and kicking, just don't expect to find it in every MMO
The faction champ boss encoutner in WoW was rejected by the community as a very badly designed encounter. Most people hated it except the PVPers. I enjoyed it a lot until we figured out how the aggro table worked. WoW devs have to be careful because they tread on a thin line. If they design encounters that require less input from tanks and healers, the user base will begin to question the existance of these roles and the game will start to have holes in it. Like a sinking ship filling up with water.
Sure, but the burden would be on you to prove those types of encounters are deeper than existing tank+healer fights.
I know they potentially can be just as deep, but when someone challenges a functional (and deep) norm, they need to be prepared to actually explain why their alternative solution will be just as deep.
Because if bosses were always kitable and/or all damage was avoidable, at face value that's a far shallower combat experience than existing bosses.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I disagree. Firstly, the flow of the encounter would feel smoother. If tank dies, just wipe. Well if there is no tank, 1 person dying is not the end of the world, anyone can ressurect him. Slower ressurection penatly can be applied for frequent deaths. Moving out of the way or dodging is reactive and requires timing and situational awarness; as oppose to just standing there and getting hit knowing that your healer friend will clean up after your mess. If all damage was avoidable; players would not only be required to use thier toolbox to survive but also help thier friends to survive. This would require communication and coordination. Especially if the skills are on cooldowns.
I'm not talking about a phase; I'm talking about the whole encounter.
It dosnt matter if it's tank-n-spank or anything else, after people have experianced it so many times, it gets boring. If I've never played a holy trinity encounter before, it would be fresh and exciting. My entertainment comes from the encounter itself, it has nothing to do whether it's Trinity or anything else. Is it exciting? Is it fun? or is it something I've seen a hundred times before. Any new Non-Trinity hybrid style of encounter's will end up with the same fate.
The more we have seen and experianced.... The harder we are to impress.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I'm inclined to agree, when we see the same events/thing over and over we get bored. This applies to mechanics, gameplay, scenarios, quests/missions and visuals. For example I recently played TSW I loved the fresh feel of the environment, the mood and how everything was cohesive, but foremost it wasn't another fantasy rpg filled with dragons, elves etc. But once the I got into the dungeons and PVP it was still the same scenarios that were seen before and in some situations a lack of due to the quality of design. This usual comes down to the dev choosing to focus in one area then trying to fix others later on but not being able since both are interconnected and should have been dealt at the beginning of the core design of the game.
Gnomon Workshop Nov 2016, 3rd Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop April 2014, 1st Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop February 2013, 1st Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop December 2012, 3rd Place 3D Contest Winner
Well that's just it. (A) Modern MMORPGs tend to not have as strong an ultimatum of "if the tank dies, just wipe" because there are options for recovery (although things are seriously in trouble still), and (B) A situation where one player dying is trivial isn't going to necessarily be a deeper game, and (C) dodging already exists in modern MMORPGs (play TSW, just about every creature has a dodgeable attack) and (D) WOW priests already pull their friends away from these dodgeable game mechanics.
So really all of what you're requesting does exist, except for (B) which actually makes the game shallower because there's more room for error and individual players lack important roles.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In almost every MMO, when the main tank dies, or the Healer dies, its an Automatic Wipe. This mentality is whats wrong with the Trinity. The importance of 2 roles that totally over shadows the third role regardless of how good each player is.
When the whole world believed that the world was flat, it doesn't necessary proved that the world is flat. You just need one person to prove that the world was round then everyone else will follow.
So when over 10 millions of players are currently enjoying the Trinity, it doesn't mean that Trinity is the only way to go, it just means that we need that 1 different way of playing and if its fun, others will start to join.
Trinity needs to be redone so that we can feel the true strategy of tactical battles, does GW2 does that, I think they opened the door for it, but not necessary the best way of doing it. As long as other developers continue down the path that GW2 opened, soon we will be seeing different variations of the trinity that eventually we will find that one method where it will make each encounter different, exciting and fun. But if we stay still and never challenge the norm, then it will never change.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Very well said.
I would also like to add that; I think the reason Blizzard cancelled Blizzcon 2012 is to not show Titan yet. They want to see how popular Guild Wars 2 will be. If they change anything drastic in Titan; it will be because of how the community responded to Guild Wars 2.
So they are not restricted in some part of the encounter .. so what is your point? If you point is that you have to have some tank & spank .. so yes .. it is true.
But that does nto restrict the devs to make it interesting. There are plenty of examples of tanking is not needed (or relevant) in part of the fight. So in that sense, there is no restriction of what the dev can do in part of an encounter.
People talk as if you only have one mob (boss) and the mechanics is all of nothing.
There are examples where you fight the boss, but have to kite an add. Or that damage from a particular source is avoidable.
Just kiting may be shallow .. in combination with other stuff (tank & spank, damage avoidance .. and other mechanics) is not. There is in fact, no reason not to use many of these mechanics at the same time.
Having different roles is fun and encourages cooperation and teamwork. In fact, I'd like to see more roles brough back, like the CC, puller, debuff, etc, roles that we saw in games like EQ.
One thing I will agree on is I am a little sick of taunt abilities, as they cause NPCs to behave stupidly. I have seen games that still have tanks but lack taunt abilities, they just require using tactics to make sure the NPC is beating on the fully armored warrior with the sword and shield rather than the frail mage with the robe and staff - casters stand further away, find a ledge to stand on, etc. Works great in games that actually have a collision system.
i think they just need to get rid of "pure dps" type classes aka filler classes.
all classes should be based in tanking, healing or crowd control and all classes should have similar dps potential.
think about it.
With the world being round, there's one absolute truth.
With trinity vs. alternatives, there are varying degrees of fun to be had. Trinity is fun, so if someone's proposing alternatives the burden is indeed on them to prove those alternatives are more fun.
I'm the first one to point out that players will go wild over a genuinely new game, but if that game turns out shallower or less fun than the one they're tired of, it's still not going to solve anything.
As for the importance of tanks and healers, that's not really a huge issue. In fact, their importance is part of what makes the trinity puzzle provide deep, fun gameplay! Games certainly need to keep trying to make those playstyles fun, just as they need to make the DPS playstyle fun.
As for GW2, I guess you're saying it gets better? Because certainly in my first weekend of play I never found any challenges to the group world PVE. And without challenge, a game by definition is shallow. I'm not necessarily judging the game yet, because you don't find WOW's challenges in the first weekend either (it's more like the second month that you advance far enough to find challenging gameplay...well I guess apart from Cataclysm's quests actually killing me a lot more than pre-Cata quests did while leveling.)
But still...I hope you're saying that at some point in GW2 things become instanced, and therefore are capable of being interesting, deep challenges.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm sure I'm over simplifying it all, but the reoccurring theme amongst most posts in this thread is the desire for diversity...
People who dislike the Trinity system, typically dislike it because of the lack of diversity that an individual has when locked into this system - i.e. the reliance upon a tank/healer combo in order to succeed.
People who like the Trinity system, typically like it because of the diversity they feel the system brings to encounters and replayability - i.e. everyone has a specific role, encounters based upon roles add additional layers of complexity; as well as if you've played one role your entire gaming career, switching to a new role is a refreshing change (thus increased replayability)
Personally, I think everyone is wrong - approaching this conversation from a "personal experience" perspective, will just end up in constant bickering back and forth and ultimately land nowhere.
Why not instead, approach the conversation from a game mechanics perspective. Taking into account that the Trinity system is really only specific to "Boss" type content (as it's normal in almost all MMOs now that you can level solo). So, people should first define what makes a good Boss encounter in their mind.
The normal impacting events within a Boss enounter are:
- Positioning: Should this exist? It requires control of the boss somehow to exist, and thus a person would need to be able to manipulate the movement of the boss for it to exist. We know how this is done in the Trinity world (Tank), but how does this look in a non-trinity system? Or, should bosses simply stay static or walk along a predefined path.
- Adds: Should this exist? Again, typically adds require control of some sort - however, this can be manipulated through either a tank system, CC system or heavy dps burn system. How would add control look in a non-trinity system?
- Ground Effects: Should this exist? This is the only neutral mechanic, agnostic to Trinity/Non-Trinity as both systems handle ground/environmental avoidance the same way.
- Boss Centric AOE Effects: Should this exist? typically, the more interesting versions of this system again require control - in theTrinity system the tank must make sure there is proper positioning associated to the Boss Centric AOE effects (breathing etc..). However, there are some encounters where the Boss anchors themselves and broadcasts what is about to happen in a specific direction (or maybe spins around in a fixed patter). The anchor system is agnostic to the Trinity/non-Trinity... but how would the non-anchor boss centric aoe look in a non-trinity system?
- Player Afflicted States: Should this exist? Should bosses even be allowed to do unavoidable damage to all members of the raid, and thus require a cleanse/heal/purge etc... We know how this is handled in the Trinity System (Heal/Support)... but how would this look in the non-trinity system?
- Boss Buffs: Should this exist? Understand that there are addressable and non-addressable buffs - and I'm talking specifically about addressable ones (i.e. you can dispel, purge etc.. to remove the buff) - as I consider non addressable buffs as part of the Boss Centric Effects. We know how these are addressed in the Trinity system (support assigned to debuff), but how would this look in the non-trinity system?
I'm sure I'm missing some fight mechanics specific to Boss fights, so please feel free to pipe in. I really think addressing how encounters occur and what they might look like Trinity vs. non-trinity will shed much more light on this whole conversation than the "from my experience.." conversation.
My 2 cents.
The word boss gets thrown around a lot. I think we're all so used to engaging a giant 10 story high monster where we're all swinging our little toothpicks at his feet. I would much rather engage in an event rather than a boss. Without going into specifics; I would like to see more use of enviromental dynamics. Example: Walking on walls, swinging like indiana jones, punching through walls, creating distractions ect. I would love to see a sandbox with many different elements rather than a boss fight.
Suppose the objective is to resure the king's daughter from a heavily fortified keep. But you only have 5 ninjas in your group. You can infiltrate the keep via stealth, create distractions and engage enemies at multiple fronts. You'd have to be wary of deadly traps. Find the key to open the cell where the kings daughter is held captive. Depending on how you've approached this event; the warden (boss) might be waiting in the cell for you.
DDO already does this kind of dungeons, with scripted events. I do agree that dungeon encounters do not have to be focus on boss fights.
Holy Trinity in my opinion:
Negatives
- LF Healer (20 minutes later...) LF Healer, found one, do you have the X skill? No sorry.. I could still try to contribute. No get out! LF Healer!
LF DPS or LF Tank ends up on the same which leads partially to hours of waiting, frustration and hurt feelings at parts when one wants to desperately do a dungeon but no one takes him/her in a group because he/she isnt the class they need or looking for.
- No real diversity cause every Class is set in one role and has to stick with it till the end
- Some classes are often useless outside of a group and very hard to level
- Bad blood/behaviour between players "you didn't heal properly! You suck! Noob!", "You didn't tank properly and I got killed!" "Idiot! and so on...
- Failing a dungeon or other content only because a certain class isn't in the group
"Positives"
- people that enjoy to have the limitations a holy trinity approach offers, feel more comfortable with such a system
My question is:
Do they feel comfortable with it because they are THAT used to such a system through all the years, that they are feeling too insecure to try something new?