Originally posted by Bladestrom Focus on combo fields and reacting with correct triggers depending on what is needed by others. The team work is there- a lot more than 1 person tanking. 3 dpsing and 1 healing. I find a lot of my time spent laying stuff down to Protect Others - Aren't you doing this?
Yep combo fields are definitely under-rated, but can make or break a group.
Necromancers are often seen as the weakest class, but they have the strongest combo fields in the form of lifestealing.
If I recall correctly the trinity in EQ was more tank/healer/crowd control. Been a long time so I maybe mis-remebering, but a enchanter could make or break a group.
I think alot of the problems with EQ's trinity was at the time I was playing, the cleric was the only class that would rez, (necros could but it required essence emeralds), and the only class that could complete heal. So they were far and above the most desired healing class, and enchanters were the go to for crowd control. Sure monks could split mobs, but I also recall that being a little iffy, and very dependant on the monks skill. I never really grouped with bards so I am not overly sure how well they could crowd control.
So you ended up with a very hard set trinity, as 2 group roles were mostly reserved for 2 classes. Sk and paladins could tank well enough that the tank role was a lot more flexible for xp groups. The death penalty also made you quite risk adverse, so if you filled those 2 roles with anyone other than Enc/Cleric especially in a pug you were taking quite a risk.
The trinty isn't really a problem for me, I like the fact that if you are the tank/healer/CC you step up and take responsabilty for how you play in a group, this also made the dps more responsable for their aggro management.
It's not unavoidable, but I do think it can make for a better group dynamic. If everyone has a role in a group then you actually need people to step up and fill that role. It's not really the trinty but how flexible that is, and how much variety in the tasks outside of it are.
If I recall correctly the trinity in EQ was more tank/healer/crowd control. Been a long time so I maybe mis-remebering, but a enchanter could make or break a group. I think alot of the problems with EQ's trinity was at the time I was playing, the cleric was the only class that would rez, (necros could but it required essence emeralds), and the only class that could complete heal. So they were far and above the most desired healing class, and enchanters were the go to for crowd control. Sure monks could split mobs, but I also recall that being a little iffy, and very dependant on the monks skill. I never really grouped with bards so I am not overly sure how well they could crowd control.So you ended up with a very hard set trinity, as 2 group roles were mostly reserved for 2 classes. Sk and paladins could tank well enough that the tank role was a lot more flexible for xp groups. The death penalty also made you quite risk adverse, so if you filled those 2 roles with anyone other than Enc/Cleric especially in a pug you were taking quite a risk. The trinty isn't really a problem for me, I like the fact that if you are the tank/healer/CC you step up and take responsabilty for how you play in a group, this also made the dps more responsable for their aggro management. It's not unavoidable, but I do think it can make for a better group dynamic. If everyone has a role in a group then you actually need people to step up and fill that role. It's not really the trinty but how flexible that is, and how much variety in the tasks outside of it are.
All the things i loved about EQ every clsss had it's role, you realised at an early stage that knowing your class reaped the rewards. A wizard and druid were the only classes that could transport you round the world up until POP.
I really hope smed goes back to basics with EQNext, he has already said the classes will have more in common with EQ than EQ2 just like Vanguards classes are more akin to EQ.
If I recall correctly the trinity in EQ was more tank/healer/crowd control. Been a long time so I maybe mis-remebering, but a enchanter could make or break a group.
I think alot of the problems with EQ's trinity was at the time I was playing, the cleric was the only class that would rez, (necros could but it required essence emeralds), and the only class that could complete heal. So they were far and above the most desired healing class, and enchanters were the go to for crowd control. Sure monks could split mobs, but I also recall that being a little iffy, and very dependant on the monks skill. I never really grouped with bards so I am not overly sure how well they could crowd control.
So you ended up with a very hard set trinity, as 2 group roles were mostly reserved for 2 classes. Sk and paladins could tank well enough that the tank role was a lot more flexible for xp groups. The death penalty also made you quite risk adverse, so if you filled those 2 roles with anyone other than Enc/Cleric especially in a pug you were taking quite a risk.
The trinty isn't really a problem for me, I like the fact that if you are the tank/healer/CC you step up and take responsabilty for how you play in a group, this also made the dps more responsable for their aggro management.
It's not unavoidable, but I do think it can make for a better group dynamic. If everyone has a role in a group then you actually need people to step up and fill that role. It's not really the trinty but how flexible that is, and how much variety in the tasks outside of it are.
All the things i loved about EQ every clsss had it's role, you realised at an early stage that knowing your class reaped the rewards. A wizard and druid were the only classes that could transport you round the world up until POP. I really hope smed goes back to basics with EQNext, he has already said the classes will have more in common with EQ than EQ2 just like Vanguards classes are more akin to EQ.
I agree. I love the trinity, to me an essential part of any RPG. I also like playing each role, usually a tank more than most.
To answer the OP's question .........to me it is unavoidable, for me. It takes away traditional RPG elements, and thats why I play these MMORPG'S. If I wanted to play a straight dps game, well, I play plenty of BF3
i dont like the running back either and that is why i believe tweaks are necessary. Healing is too weak, and pve crowd control is also far to weak. There is also little defence against mass aoe other than dodging. However i think the premise of active combat is far better than the trinity so i think it needs to be tweaked, not written off.
You have to have strong crowd control in a game where you dont have the trinity and i think they missed the mark on that point. Healing is actually not bad, but its a little weak. i think they would of been better off not having a healing skill and just adding 10k hp to everyone to let them last a few more hits.
i would wager if you gave everyone the extra 10k from the heal skill, uppped healing by 10-15% and increased pve crowd control by a factor of 5x or so the game would be alot smoother in the dungeons.
You know rungard, the point of weak healing was to promote proactive defense over reactive defense. Weak healing is intetional. They want you to actively avoid damage not just take it and repair it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The problem with GW2 is not the lack of roles in GW2, and its not that the designers do not know how to design good dungeons or group content.
The Problem with GW2 is that 95% of the players do not seem to realize that they are hybrids, That each and every person needs to be using their group uitlity spells/abilties and their group heals and not just DPS spamming. However everyone wants to be the DPS hero in the game. I am playing an Elementalist as my main (what an awesome class by the way) and You know what I spend a large amount of time watching the life bars of not only myself but my group mates. I swap out to my water sphere as soon as i see people are in need and begin help, and start putting some healing on the board.
I think alot of people need to stop trying to blame the game design and instead start looking in the mirror.
With all this being said dont get me wrong. I love playing a PURE class from time to time. However GW2 has hit a sweet spot for me, unfortunately playing with tards that only care about how much damage they can put out (which are apparently in the majority) is not going to help any.
So do we need the holy trinity. I would say GW2 has proven we do not. What we need are better players that actually try to work as a group and realize their characters were never designed to be one dimensional DPS gods. Or that you should stay in heal mode all the time or defense mode, because DPS still needs to be put on the board.
Ultima Online doesn't use a trinity system what so ever. There is no need for a tank/heal/dps since you can be all three of those thing if you choose. I played UO for years and had no idea what a tank even was until I played EQ.
If I recall correctly the trinity in EQ was more tank/healer/crowd control. Been a long time so I maybe mis-remebering, but a enchanter could make or break a group.
I think alot of the problems with EQ's trinity was at the time I was playing, the cleric was the only class that would rez, (necros could but it required essence emeralds), and the only class that could complete heal. So they were far and above the most desired healing class, and enchanters were the go to for crowd control. Sure monks could split mobs, but I also recall that being a little iffy, and very dependant on the monks skill. I never really grouped with bards so I am not overly sure how well they could crowd control.
So you ended up with a very hard set trinity, as 2 group roles were mostly reserved for 2 classes. Sk and paladins could tank well enough that the tank role was a lot more flexible for xp groups. The death penalty also made you quite risk adverse, so if you filled those 2 roles with anyone other than Enc/Cleric especially in a pug you were taking quite a risk.
The trinty isn't really a problem for me, I like the fact that if you are the tank/healer/CC you step up and take responsabilty for how you play in a group, this also made the dps more responsable for their aggro management.
It's not unavoidable, but I do think it can make for a better group dynamic. If everyone has a role in a group then you actually need people to step up and fill that role. It's not really the trinty but how flexible that is, and how much variety in the tasks outside of it are.
All the things i loved about EQ every clsss had it's role, you realised at an early stage that knowing your class reaped the rewards. A wizard and druid were the only classes that could transport you round the world up until POP. I really hope smed goes back to basics with EQNext, he has already said the classes will have more in common with EQ than EQ2 just like Vanguards classes are more akin to EQ.
I agree. I love the trinity, to me an essential part of any RPG. I also like playing each role, usually a tank more than most.
To answer the OP's question .........to me it is unavoidable, for me. It takes away traditional RPG elements, and thats why I play these MMORPG'S. If I wanted to play a straight dps game, well, I play plenty of BF3
the problem is that 70% of players play dps, so the vast majority of players play the dps game whether they play the trinity or not.
i think the real answer is just to eliminate aggro altogether and focus on crowd control. There is nothing wrong with having tanky classes with high armor, but i do not agree they should have this magic "keep your attention on me button" . It should be alot more difficult and dynamic than that. Give them a lasso, give them cripple abilities, slam abilities but no "easymode button"
Ive played healers my whole gaming life from eq1 cleric to GW2 guardian and i think the answer is somewhere inbetween there for healing. Not every class should have healing abilities, and no one class should have an untimate heal. Bar watching should be avoided and healers should rely more on passive and combat healing than direct castable heals. Im not saying to remove them, they should be for emergency use not standard use. Focus on protection rather than healing. Healing should be secondary.
Crowd control is horrible in GW2 and is the real reason that many dont get that system. You should be able to park mobs, but not forever or remove them completely. A root is a good example. it parks them but they can still switch to ranged combat. Similarly a blind doesnt prevent combat but reduces effectiveness. Every class should have both short term (6 seconds), meduim term (12 seconds) and long term crowd control (24 seconds) for pve. The shorter the duration the more powerful the effect. Some classes should have more options than others.
its a fine balance but i think there is space for something that isnt really a trinity and isnt really GW2 either. You can keep tanking to a degree (not easymode tanking), crowd control and healing/support but you absolutely have to remove "DPS" as a role because 70% of players will automatically choose that role believing it is is the easiest role. Every player should be able to dps and every player should have 2 other functions.
easymode trinity is not going to cut it anymore. It needs to be more dynamic than that. Much of the issues with this type of game play can be avoided by using 3 man squads rather than 6. It mathamatically solves most of the issues.
I like options, i like for example if all (most) classes can be able to tank, or heal, or do damage, but not having the possibility to (and even worse, being forced to) do everything at the same time. That does not make things better or greater, it just makes them messy, and the many (as expected) failures resulting from the mess makes ppl think "OMG this game is hard, challenging, revolutionary", when it's actually just a big stinking mess. It's like football (soccer) with everyone just forgetting their role and everyone jumping on the ball. Of course the team who does that will lose, it's just stupid. In fact, any real life team game has set roles, and there's a reason for that. Anyone in an army has a set roie, and there's a reason for that.
Lack of trinity strongly contradicts even the term Role-Playing, you know, playing a role - playing the role of a brave front line warrior, playing the role of a holy person who repairs wounds, playing the role of an evil conjuror who summouns elements of darkness etc. Everybody heals, everybody tanks, everybody does damage, i'm sorry, that's just lame and really not needed. It's a clear loss in character identity, why would any RPG player need that?
Most of all, if something works well, for decades, in terms of gameplay, lore, group forming, encounter design, why change it? People did not get bored of the trinity, people got bored of junk games based on the trinity idea.
it doesnt work well as you say. You have to wait for groups. you need specific classes, using your analogy your tank has a chain wrapped around the soccer ball so it cant get away.
i also agree with having roles, but i believe when you make dps a role and allow easymode tanking, you are devaluing the experience. I am certainly not saying that gW2 is the be all and end all because it is not, but in a more active gameplay environment the trinity in its incarnations for the last 10 years doesnt make sense. Something needs to change for sure.
It's not "necessary", but it's not as dated or dead as some people like to think. Personally, the reason I appreciate GW2 so much in this regard is that it isn't trying to replace the Trinity, but it's giving people who were bored with it a much needed break from its mechanics. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their version of the Trinity, which, since you can't heal or tank, is NOT the "holy" Trinity.
But no, it's not unavoidable. It's just that people have become more likely to believe it is in the past 8 or so years. I think GW2 has great ideas, but they're far from perfect. However, the attempt leads us towards more variety on the horizon and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Also, like others have said, the dungeons in GW2 can be completed just like dungeons in any other game, ie: some players will "get" it and minimize deaths, others will fail. It's not necessarily a fault of the system in place. The same thing happens in Trinity games, for different reasons.
The thought of GW2 was exciting but the reality was completely different once I did my first dungeons. I realized then that I preferred the trinity system. I love playing healers and I love the lore connected to the role. I like that I can focus on exceling at it. THe GW2 dungeons were simply put, a clusterf--k. Thye completely turned me off of the game. DId we each know how to play our classes? Yep. Did we try different strats and try to coordinate? Yep. It still ended up a mess due to the aggro issue being all over the place.
Maybe instead of saying that the "Trinity" is a MUST or "Trinitys arent a must, just Learn to Play", accept the fact that we have different playstyles. GW2 is a great game, but for players that prefer PVE Trinity and roles, its not the game for them.
Well I for one am liking the hybrid mode and trust me the character classes in no way play the same so the person above making that argument is completely incorrect.
now for a game that had "dedicated" roles and still allowed for flexibility on a single player that got it right was Champions online. Where players could jump into different modes. RIFT in some ways did a. Ok job as well.
Now as I said before I enjoy dedicated roles, however Blaming the design of GW2 instead of where the tru problem lies and that being crappy players who don't understand the mechanics of the game or how to play as a team in it is makes no sense. GW2 is revolutionary and the for the people who can actually wrap their heads around the fact that everyone has to participate in keeping the group alive instead of " OMG did you see how much damage I can do" will walk away with a great Experiance.
Well I for one am liking the hybrid mode and trust me the character classes in no way play the same so the person above making that argument is completely incorrect.
now for a game that had "dedicated" roles and still allowed for flexibility on a single player that got it right was Champions online. Where players could jump into different modes. RIFT in some ways did a. Ok job as well.
Now as I said before I enjoy dedicated roles, however Blaming the design of GW2 instead of where the tru problem lies and that being crappy players who don't understand the mechanics of the game or how to play as a team in it is makes no sense. GW2 is revolutionary and the for the people who can actually wrap their heads around the fact that everyone has to participate in keeping the group alive instead of " OMG did you see how much damage I can do" will walk away with a great Experiance.
i actually think that gw2's biggest flaw was the use of a timer system over a stamina/mana bar. I fully agree that everyone should have to participate at keeping the group alive. I advocate not having dps a role because it causes too many problems since the vast majority of players will choose that role over all others perceiving it as less work with high ownage factor.
i like roles myself ( my guardian in GW2 is support specced) and i also like how there is no aggro in GW2 ( aggro makes no sense). What i dont like is that you get a very limited number of skills to use and are further hamstringed in that most of them only ever get one use in combat because of their timers. Had they went with a stamina system to let you use your skills when you wanted, it would be a very different game imo, and a better one.
I personally hate the trinity but a friend of mine has argued somewhat convincingly that you cannot escape the trinity in MMORPGs.
Argument: In GW2 the dungeons seem to involve a lot of dying and rezzing to respawn point because there is no tank to soak all of the damage and slow things down. My friend argues that this demonstrates the need for the trinity in order to avoid the high rate of attrition and respawn in boss fights compared to other games.
Anyone agree with that idea?
Nope. Look at Diablo 3 ... no trinity works well in small group dungeons there. So what if you die a lot and rezz a lot. That is another kind of gameplay.
Now to be fair, you *can* use a tank in D3 .. but that is not mandatory, and certainly there is no healing class.
The trinity is completely avoidable. What isn't avoidable and where I think GW2 went wrong is you need two types of classes. Melee classes that can absorb damage in some way with agro tools and range classes that either support or heal. When creating any class your first question should be "how does this class do damage" if it can't do damage then it will not work in a combat based game. Scrap it and start over.
AC1 had no trinity, and it had some really hard dungeons. Worked fine. So no trinity is an aberration pushed by developers that want a very simple game.
It's not unavoidable, but it is probably the most effective way to encourage group play. It's basic logic: create multiple roles that have specific weaknesses and strengths, then balance things so that the strengths of one role compensate for the weaknesses of another. Bam. Instant group gestalt.
I think we have all figured out that you need several things to make a successful MOG, one of which is a sense of community involvement. Why pay for an online game if you are playing it as a single player game? Why play WoW by yourself when you can play Skyrim, which is, I think we would all agree, a far superior single-player experience. You want a MOG to succeed, you have to get a lot of people not only to play the game, but to play it together. The trinity is just the easiest way to do that.
It's not unavoidable, but it is probably the most effective way to encourage group play. It's basic logic: create multiple roles that have specific weaknesses and strengths, then balance things so that the strengths of one role compensate for the weaknesses of another. Bam. Instant group gestalt.
I think we have all figured out that you need several things to make a successful MOG, one of which is a sense of community involvement. Why pay for an online game if you are playing it as a single player game? Why play WoW by yourself when you can play Skyrim, which is, I think we would all agree, a far superior single-player experience. You want a MOG to succeed, you have to get a lot of people not only to play the game, but to play it together. The trinity is just the easiest way to do that.
That is the wrong premise.
An online game is better when it is compeling as a SP game. D3, Starcraft 2, Borderlands 1 & 2, are all good examples. In fact, SKYRIM is a good example of why an online/MMO version is being made.
I personally hate the trinity but a friend of mine has argued somewhat convincingly that you cannot escape the trinity in MMORPGs.
Argument: In GW2 the dungeons seem to involve a lot of dying and rezzing to respawn point because there is no tank to soak all of the damage and slow things down. My friend argues that this demonstrates the need for the trinity in order to avoid the high rate of attrition and respawn in boss fights compared to other games.
Anyone agree with that idea?
Originally posted by colddog04 In Gw2 dungeons, people die a lot because they suck a lot - not because there is no trinity.
What can players do if there are no aggro mechanics like in "trinity games"?
You can have a dedicated scout/puller which will try to pull as few opponents as possible (success depends on opponents' AI and if groups of opponents are linked or not linked, but this comes with experience of the content at hand).
You can split up into ranged and melee combatants. The ranged party members will have the advantage of extra seconds to realise they got aggro or not. Melees don't have those extra seconds.
If the ranged get aggro they can start to kite if the other party members are still busy with their opponents. The ranged player should have as much expertise to estimate if he/she can kill the opponent before it reaches him/her. If that's not possible then it's running around until the others come to help.
If melees get hurt badly they should try to retreat from the melee zone and heal up/get healed. Ideally the melee player should anticipate when he/she can still retreat from the melee zone without being killed.
Use crowd control if possible.
Use target priority and focus fire. It really depends on the opponent group setup. Sometimes it can be kill the low hp opponents first and then afterwards kill the big hp opponents last. Or vice versa. Or kill the opponent casters first if they have some nasty tricks up their sleeves. It just depends on the circumstances which priority is required. But after experiencing the content a few times people should get aquainted with what they fight.
So probably @colddog04 is right with his/her statement. The lack of the trinity is not the true reason why some people die often. Bad group play mixed with bad individual play skill is to blame then. But there is a remedy. Training and experimenting (provided you don't want to be carried through by skilled or better equipped players).
The drawback of a trinity or any other more sophisticated roles requirement is that players will complain about groups taking ages to form when there is a lack of certain specialists.
You can do a lot of that in a trinty system as well. An I expect alot of people that play badly outside of a trinity system would play badly inside a trinity system I used to see all sorts of poor playing when I tanked pugs in WoW just after the release of TBC. Honestly I think a lot of it is going to come down to personal preference.
The Trinity is avoidable but not using GW2s combat model. A true action combat model is required to not have a Trinity.
The biggest problem with GW2s combat is that it is till very much rooted in the EQ/WoW turn based model. Yeah, you dont have to be tab targeted onto a monster to attack it or there is no real auto attack, thats not the problem. The problem lies in how monsters attack you not how you attack them.
Cant tell you how many times I dodged away from a projectile attack in GW2 and be 20 yards away from the point of impact only to have it damage me anyway. This isnt action combat.
Trinity combat needs a Tank and a Healer because most attacks from the monster are unavoidable. However, if all attacks from the monster were avoidable then you wouldnt need a Tank to take the hits and you wouldnt need Healer to restore health after the hit was taken. Everyone would just avoid the hits as best they could and skilled players would take no damage at all.
Comments
Yep combo fields are definitely under-rated, but can make or break a group.
Necromancers are often seen as the weakest class, but they have the strongest combo fields in the form of lifestealing.
If I recall correctly the trinity in EQ was more tank/healer/crowd control. Been a long time so I maybe mis-remebering, but a enchanter could make or break a group.
I think alot of the problems with EQ's trinity was at the time I was playing, the cleric was the only class that would rez, (necros could but it required essence emeralds), and the only class that could complete heal. So they were far and above the most desired healing class, and enchanters were the go to for crowd control. Sure monks could split mobs, but I also recall that being a little iffy, and very dependant on the monks skill. I never really grouped with bards so I am not overly sure how well they could crowd control.
So you ended up with a very hard set trinity, as 2 group roles were mostly reserved for 2 classes. Sk and paladins could tank well enough that the tank role was a lot more flexible for xp groups. The death penalty also made you quite risk adverse, so if you filled those 2 roles with anyone other than Enc/Cleric especially in a pug you were taking quite a risk.
The trinty isn't really a problem for me, I like the fact that if you are the tank/healer/CC you step up and take responsabilty for how you play in a group, this also made the dps more responsable for their aggro management.
It's not unavoidable, but I do think it can make for a better group dynamic. If everyone has a role in a group then you actually need people to step up and fill that role. It's not really the trinty but how flexible that is, and how much variety in the tasks outside of it are.
All the things i loved about EQ every clsss had it's role, you realised at an early stage that knowing your class reaped the rewards. A wizard and druid were the only classes that could transport you round the world up until POP.I really hope smed goes back to basics with EQNext, he has already said the classes will have more in common with EQ than EQ2 just like Vanguards classes are more akin to EQ.
I agree. I love the trinity, to me an essential part of any RPG. I also like playing each role, usually a tank more than most.
To answer the OP's question .........to me it is unavoidable, for me. It takes away traditional RPG elements, and thats why I play these MMORPG'S. If I wanted to play a straight dps game, well, I play plenty of BF3
You know rungard, the point of weak healing was to promote proactive defense over reactive defense. Weak healing is intetional. They want you to actively avoid damage not just take it and repair it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The problem with GW2 is not the lack of roles in GW2, and its not that the designers do not know how to design good dungeons or group content.
The Problem with GW2 is that 95% of the players do not seem to realize that they are hybrids, That each and every person needs to be using their group uitlity spells/abilties and their group heals and not just DPS spamming. However everyone wants to be the DPS hero in the game. I am playing an Elementalist as my main (what an awesome class by the way) and You know what I spend a large amount of time watching the life bars of not only myself but my group mates. I swap out to my water sphere as soon as i see people are in need and begin help, and start putting some healing on the board.
I think alot of people need to stop trying to blame the game design and instead start looking in the mirror.
With all this being said dont get me wrong. I love playing a PURE class from time to time. However GW2 has hit a sweet spot for me, unfortunately playing with tards that only care about how much damage they can put out (which are apparently in the majority) is not going to help any.
So do we need the holy trinity. I would say GW2 has proven we do not. What we need are better players that actually try to work as a group and realize their characters were never designed to be one dimensional DPS gods. Or that you should stay in heal mode all the time or defense mode, because DPS still needs to be put on the board.
Some people love being a healer class.
Taking away the trinity is making all classes the same, wich would be very boring.
the problem is that 70% of players play dps, so the vast majority of players play the dps game whether they play the trinity or not.
i think the real answer is just to eliminate aggro altogether and focus on crowd control. There is nothing wrong with having tanky classes with high armor, but i do not agree they should have this magic "keep your attention on me button" . It should be alot more difficult and dynamic than that. Give them a lasso, give them cripple abilities, slam abilities but no "easymode button"
Ive played healers my whole gaming life from eq1 cleric to GW2 guardian and i think the answer is somewhere inbetween there for healing. Not every class should have healing abilities, and no one class should have an untimate heal. Bar watching should be avoided and healers should rely more on passive and combat healing than direct castable heals. Im not saying to remove them, they should be for emergency use not standard use. Focus on protection rather than healing. Healing should be secondary.
Crowd control is horrible in GW2 and is the real reason that many dont get that system. You should be able to park mobs, but not forever or remove them completely. A root is a good example. it parks them but they can still switch to ranged combat. Similarly a blind doesnt prevent combat but reduces effectiveness. Every class should have both short term (6 seconds), meduim term (12 seconds) and long term crowd control (24 seconds) for pve. The shorter the duration the more powerful the effect. Some classes should have more options than others.
its a fine balance but i think there is space for something that isnt really a trinity and isnt really GW2 either. You can keep tanking to a degree (not easymode tanking), crowd control and healing/support but you absolutely have to remove "DPS" as a role because 70% of players will automatically choose that role believing it is is the easiest role. Every player should be able to dps and every player should have 2 other functions.
easymode trinity is not going to cut it anymore. It needs to be more dynamic than that. Much of the issues with this type of game play can be avoided by using 3 man squads rather than 6. It mathamatically solves most of the issues.
I like options, i like for example if all (most) classes can be able to tank, or heal, or do damage, but not having the possibility to (and even worse, being forced to) do everything at the same time. That does not make things better or greater, it just makes them messy, and the many (as expected) failures resulting from the mess makes ppl think "OMG this game is hard, challenging, revolutionary", when it's actually just a big stinking mess. It's like football (soccer) with everyone just forgetting their role and everyone jumping on the ball. Of course the team who does that will lose, it's just stupid. In fact, any real life team game has set roles, and there's a reason for that. Anyone in an army has a set roie, and there's a reason for that.
Lack of trinity strongly contradicts even the term Role-Playing, you know, playing a role - playing the role of a brave front line warrior, playing the role of a holy person who repairs wounds, playing the role of an evil conjuror who summouns elements of darkness etc. Everybody heals, everybody tanks, everybody does damage, i'm sorry, that's just lame and really not needed. It's a clear loss in character identity, why would any RPG player need that?
Most of all, if something works well, for decades, in terms of gameplay, lore, group forming, encounter design, why change it? People did not get bored of the trinity, people got bored of junk games based on the trinity idea.
it doesnt work well as you say. You have to wait for groups. you need specific classes, using your analogy your tank has a chain wrapped around the soccer ball so it cant get away.
i also agree with having roles, but i believe when you make dps a role and allow easymode tanking, you are devaluing the experience. I am certainly not saying that gW2 is the be all and end all because it is not, but in a more active gameplay environment the trinity in its incarnations for the last 10 years doesnt make sense. Something needs to change for sure.
It's not "necessary", but it's not as dated or dead as some people like to think. Personally, the reason I appreciate GW2 so much in this regard is that it isn't trying to replace the Trinity, but it's giving people who were bored with it a much needed break from its mechanics. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their version of the Trinity, which, since you can't heal or tank, is NOT the "holy" Trinity.
But no, it's not unavoidable. It's just that people have become more likely to believe it is in the past 8 or so years. I think GW2 has great ideas, but they're far from perfect. However, the attempt leads us towards more variety on the horizon and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Also, like others have said, the dungeons in GW2 can be completed just like dungeons in any other game, ie: some players will "get" it and minimize deaths, others will fail. It's not necessarily a fault of the system in place. The same thing happens in Trinity games, for different reasons.
The thought of GW2 was exciting but the reality was completely different once I did my first dungeons. I realized then that I preferred the trinity system. I love playing healers and I love the lore connected to the role. I like that I can focus on exceling at it. THe GW2 dungeons were simply put, a clusterf--k. Thye completely turned me off of the game. DId we each know how to play our classes? Yep. Did we try different strats and try to coordinate? Yep. It still ended up a mess due to the aggro issue being all over the place.
Maybe instead of saying that the "Trinity" is a MUST or "Trinitys arent a must, just Learn to Play", accept the fact that we have different playstyles. GW2 is a great game, but for players that prefer PVE Trinity and roles, its not the game for them.
Current Games: WOW, EVE Online
Paladins could Rez in EQ1.
Well I for one am liking the hybrid mode and trust me the character classes in no way play the same so the person above making that argument is completely incorrect.
now for a game that had "dedicated" roles and still allowed for flexibility on a single player that got it right was Champions online. Where players could jump into different modes. RIFT in some ways did a. Ok job as well.
Now as I said before I enjoy dedicated roles, however Blaming the design of GW2 instead of where the tru problem lies and that being crappy players who don't understand the mechanics of the game or how to play as a team in it is makes no sense. GW2 is revolutionary and the for the people who can actually wrap their heads around the fact that everyone has to participate in keeping the group alive instead of " OMG did you see how much damage I can do" will walk away with a great Experiance.
i actually think that gw2's biggest flaw was the use of a timer system over a stamina/mana bar. I fully agree that everyone should have to participate at keeping the group alive. I advocate not having dps a role because it causes too many problems since the vast majority of players will choose that role over all others perceiving it as less work with high ownage factor.
i like roles myself ( my guardian in GW2 is support specced) and i also like how there is no aggro in GW2 ( aggro makes no sense). What i dont like is that you get a very limited number of skills to use and are further hamstringed in that most of them only ever get one use in combat because of their timers. Had they went with a stamina system to let you use your skills when you wanted, it would be a very different game imo, and a better one.
Nope. Look at Diablo 3 ... no trinity works well in small group dungeons there. So what if you die a lot and rezz a lot. That is another kind of gameplay.
Now to be fair, you *can* use a tank in D3 .. but that is not mandatory, and certainly there is no healing class.
The trinity is completely avoidable. What isn't avoidable and where I think GW2 went wrong is you need two types of classes. Melee classes that can absorb damage in some way with agro tools and range classes that either support or heal. When creating any class your first question should be "how does this class do damage" if it can't do damage then it will not work in a combat based game. Scrap it and start over.
It's not unavoidable, but it is probably the most effective way to encourage group play. It's basic logic: create multiple roles that have specific weaknesses and strengths, then balance things so that the strengths of one role compensate for the weaknesses of another. Bam. Instant group gestalt.
I think we have all figured out that you need several things to make a successful MOG, one of which is a sense of community involvement. Why pay for an online game if you are playing it as a single player game? Why play WoW by yourself when you can play Skyrim, which is, I think we would all agree, a far superior single-player experience. You want a MOG to succeed, you have to get a lot of people not only to play the game, but to play it together. The trinity is just the easiest way to do that.
That is the wrong premise.
An online game is better when it is compeling as a SP game. D3, Starcraft 2, Borderlands 1 & 2, are all good examples. In fact, SKYRIM is a good example of why an online/MMO version is being made.
What can players do if there are no aggro mechanics like in "trinity games"?
So probably @colddog04 is right with his/her statement. The lack of the trinity is not the true reason why some people die often. Bad group play mixed with bad individual play skill is to blame then. But there is a remedy. Training and experimenting (provided you don't want to be carried through by skilled or better equipped players).
The drawback of a trinity or any other more sophisticated roles requirement is that players will complain about groups taking ages to form when there is a lack of certain specialists.
You can do a lot of that in a trinty system as well. An I expect alot of people that play badly outside of a trinity system would play badly inside a trinity system I used to see all sorts of poor playing when I tanked pugs in WoW just after the release of TBC. Honestly I think a lot of it is going to come down to personal preference.
The Trinity is avoidable but not using GW2s combat model. A true action combat model is required to not have a Trinity.
The biggest problem with GW2s combat is that it is till very much rooted in the EQ/WoW turn based model. Yeah, you dont have to be tab targeted onto a monster to attack it or there is no real auto attack, thats not the problem. The problem lies in how monsters attack you not how you attack them.
Cant tell you how many times I dodged away from a projectile attack in GW2 and be 20 yards away from the point of impact only to have it damage me anyway. This isnt action combat.
Trinity combat needs a Tank and a Healer because most attacks from the monster are unavoidable. However, if all attacks from the monster were avoidable then you wouldnt need a Tank to take the hits and you wouldnt need Healer to restore health after the hit was taken. Everyone would just avoid the hits as best they could and skilled players would take no damage at all.