I think the real threat for the holy trinity is the trend towards improved monster-AI. Both EQN and ESO will have more intelligent mobs that can cooperate among each other and react to the tactic the players are using.
The problem with the trinity is that it calls for a very dump AI. It the mobs don't do the same thing every time it stops working. So I believe that players will prefer more diverse fights over the trinity which is always the same.
You have to consider that the trinity in fact only is a cheap trick that exploits a weak mob AI. You trick the mobs into attacking the heavy armored guy that basically does no damage, while distracting him from the guys that do the real harm. Its build into the game that way, but it's still only a trick, not the natural way a fight does run.
My vision is that the holy trinity never has to die out completely, but that it becomes one tactic in a whole toolkit of different tactics players could use in certain situation. The trinity could be a great tactic for fighting really brainless opponents like slimes or zombies, but orcs for example would maybe fall for it the first time but then they would adapt and go straight for the guys in robes. And then the players would need a different tactic.
I think your logic is a bit flawed. First, just because a game has lame AI doesn't mean it's the trinitys fault. Wow dumbed down their AI to get a more casual gamer to play mmos. EQ had mobs that would run away and bring back help, many times higher level help and you had to adjust tactics to compensate. Also, EQ trinity was actually 4- along with support/cc, which newer games took out. Trinity can adjust to any AI if they make the classes more robust and flexible. Such as tank having many options to protect others in group, besides the pretty lame taunt mechanic-collision, trip, bash/knockdown, take hit meant for caster, etc. and give the squishier classes some temp skills to avoid or defend so they don't immediately die if they are targeted. How does a zergish, everyone watches out for themselves system make it any easier to adjust to different tactics? Trinity is about playing a role, not necessarily having to do it in just one way. Give the classes some option to play their role and we could stop calling it a trinity, as new roles could be developed and we'd have more than 3-cc, support, hybrid, leadership, etc.
I do agree devs have been lazy for the most part by making AI needlessly predictable, so that any, not just trinity, styles can beat most mobs/quests.
Honestly.. it seems like you agree with him.. what you are describing would no longer be called the trinity. and no one really hates the trinity.. they hate the lame taunt/agro mechanic... in real fights whether in a fantasy world or otherwise..... most battles are man to man(the exception being when you outnumber ur opponent) so a tank mechanic is pointless.. the only time tanks really come into play is in massive battles when they are on the front lines or in narrow surroundings where the tank could effectively stand in front and protect everyone...
to be fair.. real fights are zergs or seem to be some semblance of it... but to me that is what makes them interesting. in a real fight.. you have to watch out for urself AND your team mate.. but in the trinity u typically only have to watch out for no one.. unless u are the healer or tank...
I think that in the open world the trinity should be removed..I don't mean the roles should be removed... but i think that encounters involving more than 1 mob should not have the trinity employed unless there is a tank for every mob.. the trinity should only be employed in tight quarters or when your facing a boss mob...
otherwise the battle should go like this...... the squishies. avoid combat while supporting who ever they can... the dps guy takes the least armored person or if he is free because they out number the enemy he helps against the enemy with the most hp.. and the tank.. he attack and keeps the guy with the most dmg/most hp busy until help arrives... its more realistic.. and everyone would still have a role. yes combat would be a little more chaotic.. but combat is chaotic by nature... sooooo.. i don't see the problem.
You do realise this right? I you truely want realistic.. Every melee would be a dps/tank hybrid blocking the path to the archers, whi btw.. would no longer should anything near their own (melee) allies to avoid hitting their own troops. (why do you think the artillery stops shooting when the grunts go on the assault), There wont be any magical classes nor any healing.
This has been proven by pretty much every battlefield in history. Even if we leave magical users in, the same principle applies.
Edit : even the Original EQ took this into acount, a wizard couldnt hit his target unless he had a actual clear LoS, though later they patched in shock based spells which no longer required a unobscured LoS
Honestly.. i already know this.. and i don't see a problem with it working like that.. more realistic combat is actually more tactical... and archers can fight in a real system.. they just have to have good accurarcy and timing.. just like mages would have to.. so there is no problem.
edit.: also healers would exist.. ppl forget that when you say realistic... i mean at least... realistic in a fantasy setting... healers do exist.. and archers do have to be careful.. which is why they usually fight as a ranger.. or from high ground.. switching to melee when the enemy closes ground.
Take a random ruleset. Some archtypes will be better at some tasks than others. Roles will emerge. Groups will be assembled around an optimal collection of roles and people playing those roles will ask for more tools to help them.
Even UO, as freeform as it was/is, constantly struggled with the emergence of pseudoclasses and roles in high-end encounters. If you look up guides for boss strategies, they talk in terms of collection of healers, archers and dexers - essentially the traditional trinity.
I think the real threat for the holy trinity is the trend towards improved monster-AI. Both EQN and ESO will have more intelligent mobs that can cooperate among each other and react to the tactic the players are using.
The problem with the trinity is that it calls for a very dump AI. It the mobs don't do the same thing every time it stops working. So I believe that players will prefer more diverse fights over the trinity which is always the same.
You have to consider that the trinity in fact only is a cheap trick that exploits a weak mob AI. You trick the mobs into attacking the heavy armored guy that basically does no damage, while distracting him from the guys that do the real harm. Its build into the game that way, but it's still only a trick, not the natural way a fight does run.
My vision is that the holy trinity never has to die out completely, but that it becomes one tactic in a whole toolkit of different tactics players could use in certain situation. The trinity could be a great tactic for fighting really brainless opponents like slimes or zombies, but orcs for example would maybe fall for it the first time but then they would adapt and go straight for the guys in robes. And then the players would need a different tactic.
I think your logic is a bit flawed. First, just because a game has lame AI doesn't mean it's the trinitys fault. Wow dumbed down their AI to get a more casual gamer to play mmos. EQ had mobs that would run away and bring back help, many times higher level help and you had to adjust tactics to compensate. Also, EQ trinity was actually 4- along with support/cc, which newer games took out. Trinity can adjust to any AI if they make the classes more robust and flexible. Such as tank having many options to protect others in group, besides the pretty lame taunt mechanic-collision, trip, bash/knockdown, take hit meant for caster, etc. and give the squishier classes some temp skills to avoid or defend so they don't immediately die if they are targeted. How does a zergish, everyone watches out for themselves system make it any easier to adjust to different tactics? Trinity is about playing a role, not necessarily having to do it in just one way. Give the classes some option to play their role and we could stop calling it a trinity, as new roles could be developed and we'd have more than 3-cc, support, hybrid, leadership, etc.
I do agree devs have been lazy for the most part by making AI needlessly predictable, so that any, not just trinity, styles can beat most mobs/quests.
Honestly.. it seems like you agree with him.. what you are describing would no longer be called the trinity. and no one really hates the trinity.. they hate the lame taunt/agro mechanic... in real fights whether in a fantasy world or otherwise..... most battles are man to man(the exception being when you outnumber ur opponent) so a tank mechanic is pointless.. the only time tanks really come into play is in massive battles when they are on the front lines or in narrow surroundings where the tank could effectively stand in front and protect everyone...
to be fair.. real fights are zergs or seem to be some semblance of it... but to me that is what makes them interesting. in a real fight.. you have to watch out for urself AND your team mate.. but in the trinity u typically only have to watch out for no one.. unless u are the healer or tank...
I think that in the open world the trinity should be removed..I don't mean the roles should be removed... but i think that encounters involving more than 1 mob should not have the trinity employed unless there is a tank for every mob.. the trinity should only be employed in tight quarters or when your facing a boss mob...
otherwise the battle should go like this...... the squishies. avoid combat while supporting who ever they can... the dps guy takes the least armored person or if he is free because they out number the enemy he helps against the enemy with the most hp.. and the tank.. he attack and keeps the guy with the most dmg/most hp busy until help arrives... its more realistic.. and everyone would still have a role. yes combat would be a little more chaotic.. but combat is chaotic by nature... sooooo.. i don't see the problem.
So we agree, that was my point is that in trinity you have roles. Without trinity, you don't. Everyone seems to do their own thing with no tactics. People call EQ combat the trinity, but it had 4 (maybe 5) roles, with cc and support, so it was never a trinity anyway. Devs could just expand on this while having roles but not narrow like trinity. The newer action combat their don't seem to have roles, people defend or heal themselves, there is no dependency or tactics. And the role combat style shouldn't hinge on just having 3 types where you wait around for a cleric. Combos with backup healers, cc, support,dps should be just as viable if each individual role has enough tools at their disposal, but still need tactics and teamwork. I'm tired of these games where no one groups, or if they do its so easy or zergy no one talks or uses strategy.
I agree and disagree.. the problem here is that it is called a trinity. its semantics.. the point is that everyone in the party wants to be valuable.. not just the tank and healer... in a real fight.. everyone is valuable. so you are right.. we do agree.. its just that what you are describing would no long be the trinity.. it would have to be called something else.
Very few people want to play "all roles", particularly leadership style roles, at all - just as in real life just as in game.
The trinity will be around for a very long time and makes sense - the boss or mobs attack the thing that is the highest threat to it life (albeit a mechanic). Makes sense in game makes sense in real life. A boss running around zerging everyone ignoring the biggest threat to its life isn't realistic at all. People should be focusing on making it more attractive for tanks and healers rather than dps trying to find a way to eliminate the class.
You have a major flaw in your logic. Who IS the biggest threat? The guy in heavy armor that does the lowest amount amount of damage, which by the way, is in no way historically accurate, the healers, or the guys running around behind him to attack from behind? Who would you attack? The idiot insulting your mom to build agro, or the healer, or the squishes trying to take you down from behind?
If you say the tank, you are either an idiot, which I seriously doubt, or don't want to admit that the mechanic is old and outdated.
The guy who continuesly keeps blocking your way to another, By slamming a shield in your face for instance.
ANd yes even historicly speaking you wouldnt walk past the guy in plate to try to get to archers, he'll plant that sword straight in your back while you are trying to get there. Granted in RL you dont have a X health pool to run through before you die.
sorry guy... but they don't disagree with you.. the point they are making... is that tanks don't play the way you describe in most mmos... if they did.. no one would complain about how the trinity mechanics work.
In a sense they do, for practical reasons (probebly) you dont have to continuesly keep following the boss around to block his path. There are so many ways in combat to force you on me, without having to follow and jump in front of you.
Even if distance is the only obstruction its still hard to get to your said target to go for the healer in the back or that mage or archer. pvp has proven that.
But kinna offtopic.. the people who are complaining about the realism.. how many play a mage/wizard?
well.. I never play magic classes or ranged classes period.. i play tanks or some variation of dps. and honestly... gaming is easy.. so if i wanted to i could play any class and be successful.. but just to put it out there.. i'm an avid reader... so i'd prefer fantasy combat to play out as it does in the books i read.. and the way combat stands in mmos.. its not even close.. which is why eqn combat brings hope.
Very few people want to play "all roles", particularly leadership style roles, at all - just as in real life just as in game.
The trinity will be around for a very long time and makes sense - the boss or mobs attack the thing that is the highest threat to it life (albeit a mechanic). Makes sense in game makes sense in real life. A boss running around zerging everyone ignoring the biggest threat to its life isn't realistic at all. People should be focusing on making it more attractive for tanks and healers rather than dps trying to find a way to eliminate the class.
You have a major flaw in your logic. Who IS the biggest threat? The guy in heavy armor that does the lowest amount amount of damage, which by the way, is in no way historically accurate, the healers, or the guys running around behind him to attack from behind? Who would you attack? The idiot insulting your mom to build agro, or the healer, or the squishes trying to take you down from behind?
If you say the tank, you are either an idiot, which I seriously doubt, or don't want to admit that the mechanic is old and outdated.
The guy who continuesly keeps blocking your way to another, By slamming a shield in your face for instance.
ANd yes even historicly speaking you wouldnt walk past the guy in plate to try to get to archers, he'll plant that sword straight in your back while you are trying to get there. Granted in RL you dont have a X health pool to run through before you die.
sorry guy... but they don't disagree with you.. the point they are making... is that tanks don't play the way you describe in most mmos... if they did.. no one would complain about how the trinity mechanics work.
fact is, yes that is indeed how tanks play in mmos nowadays. even without an aggro system/taunt, tanks still generally have a shield slam ability that has a chance to stun or will interrupt casting or knockdown etc. the tank is still always right there in front of the mob and in most games tanks even have abilities that take damage in place of party members. so yes, tanks still play the way he said which is why tanks are just that, tanks. tanks arent tanks because of aggro/taunt, they're tanks because they're the ones built to take alot of damage and to keep the monster away from everyone else.
well.. honestly i don't hate the trinity.. i hate boring combat.. trinity doesn't make c ombat boring... but the thing is a lot of ppl on this site.. don't want active combat.... and they equate active combat with killing the trinity... but i disagree.. in addition.. tanks aren't the only ppl who can use shield bashes or knock oppenents down.. but that is the way devs make the classes...
also i believe eqn.. will employ tanks.. just not taunting tanks.. and the same ppl.. don't like that.
Honestly.. it seems like you agree with him.. what you are describing would no longer be called the trinity. and no one really hates the trinity.. they hate the lame taunt/agro mechanic... in real fights whether in a fantasy world or otherwise..... most battles are man to man(the exception being when you outnumber ur opponent) so a tank mechanic is pointless.. the only time tanks really come into play is in massive battles when they are on the front lines or in narrow surroundings where the tank could effectively stand in front and protect everyone...
to be fair.. real fights are zergs or seem to be some semblance of it... but to me that is what makes them interesting. in a real fight.. you have to watch out for urself AND your team mate.. but in the trinity u typically only have to watch out for no one.. unless u are the healer or tank...
I think that in the open world the trinity should be removed..I don't mean the roles should be removed... but i think that encounters involving more than 1 mob should not have the trinity employed unless there is a tank for every mob.. the trinity should only be employed in tight quarters or when your facing a boss mob...
otherwise the battle should go like this...... the squishies. avoid combat while supporting who ever they can... the dps guy takes the least armored person or if he is free because they out number the enemy he helps against the enemy with the most hp.. and the tank.. he attack and keeps the guy with the most dmg/most hp busy until help arrives... its more realistic.. and everyone would still have a role. yes combat would be a little more chaotic.. but combat is chaotic by nature... sooooo.. i don't see the problem.
You do realise this right? I you truely want realistic.. Every melee would be a dps/tank hybrid blocking the path to the archers, whi btw.. would no longer should anything near their own (melee) allies to avoid hitting their own troops. (why do you think the artillery stops shooting when the grunts go on the assault), There wont be any magical classes nor any healing.
This has been proven by pretty much every battlefield in history. Even if we leave magical users in, the same principle applies.
Edit : even the Original EQ took this into acount, a wizard couldnt hit his target unless he had a actual clear LoS, though later they patched in shock based spells which no longer required a unobscured LoS
Honestly.. i already know this.. and i don't see a problem with it working like that.. more realistic combat is actually more tactical... and archers can fight in a real system.. they just have to have good accurarcy and timing.. just like mages would have to.. so there is no problem.
Real life disagrees with you how archers still could work, look at trench warfair or even (sorry to bring this up) nam.. when the enemy gets too close to the front line, the backers had to sease fire on the opposing front, every singe war has proven the fact that if they didnt they would hit more of their own troops their their opposers.
Depending on how the terain was situated, the troops having the high ground would be able to fire the incoming troups, trying to elimited or minimize the amounth of enemies making it to their front line. This is a historicly proven fact.
Im not against more complexity, infact Im all for it. I LOVED how every class had their own role in EQ, 2 types of support (buff-debuff-cc's) , tanking, healing, dps , bust-dps . Planning your group/raid location due to body pushing.
But.. funny enough your post isnt really against the trinity, your complain is the lack of complexity to it. And you are right, there should be more to hitting taunt (IF you have to at all see WoW) and the mob is on you permanently. But the options to fix that are plentyfull and do not require the actual elimination of the trinity.
The guy who continuesly keeps blocking your way to another, By slamming a shield in your face for instance.
ANd yes even historicly speaking you wouldnt walk past the guy in plate to try to get to archers, he'll plant that sword straight in your back while you are trying to get there. Granted in RL you dont have a X health pool to run through before you die.
sorry guy... but they don't disagree with you.. the point they are making... is that tanks don't play the way you describe in most mmos... if they did.. no one would complain about how the trinity mechanics work.
Thats on the devs to not be lazy and put the effort into each class to make it unique, while giving more options. I just don't see how an 8 skill zerg is going to be better. I want more choices not less. And not all the skills on the bar are even attacks. I don't want my warrior spinning whirlwind every other attack like the demo showed. Not very tactical or fun just using a few attacks.
and thats the rub.. they could of changed it without doing the 8 skill thing or the few attacks.. that was the dev's choice. i still believe that combat should be active and to me that has nothing to do with the trinity.. it as you say has to do with how the devs design the game. but i still would prefer the trinity to be gone.. as a REQUIREMENT... those roles should stay.. and more roles should be created and as they say.. it should be up to the group to decide how to face content.
Honestly.. it seems like you agree with him.. what you are describing would no longer be called the trinity. and no one really hates the trinity.. they hate the lame taunt/agro mechanic... in real fights whether in a fantasy world or otherwise..... most battles are man to man(the exception being when you outnumber ur opponent) so a tank mechanic is pointless.. the only time tanks really come into play is in massive battles when they are on the front lines or in narrow surroundings where the tank could effectively stand in front and protect everyone...
to be fair.. real fights are zergs or seem to be some semblance of it... but to me that is what makes them interesting. in a real fight.. you have to watch out for urself AND your team mate.. but in the trinity u typically only have to watch out for no one.. unless u are the healer or tank...
I think that in the open world the trinity should be removed..I don't mean the roles should be removed... but i think that encounters involving more than 1 mob should not have the trinity employed unless there is a tank for every mob.. the trinity should only be employed in tight quarters or when your facing a boss mob...
otherwise the battle should go like this...... the squishies. avoid combat while supporting who ever they can... the dps guy takes the least armored person or if he is free because they out number the enemy he helps against the enemy with the most hp.. and the tank.. he attack and keeps the guy with the most dmg/most hp busy until help arrives... its more realistic.. and everyone would still have a role. yes combat would be a little more chaotic.. but combat is chaotic by nature... sooooo.. i don't see the problem.
You do realise this right? I you truely want realistic.. Every melee would be a dps/tank hybrid blocking the path to the archers, whi btw.. would no longer should anything near their own (melee) allies to avoid hitting their own troops. (why do you think the artillery stops shooting when the grunts go on the assault), There wont be any magical classes nor any healing.
This has been proven by pretty much every battlefield in history. Even if we leave magical users in, the same principle applies.
Edit : even the Original EQ took this into acount, a wizard couldnt hit his target unless he had a actual clear LoS, though later they patched in shock based spells which no longer required a unobscured LoS
Honestly.. i already know this.. and i don't see a problem with it working like that.. more realistic combat is actually more tactical... and archers can fight in a real system.. they just have to have good accurarcy and timing.. just like mages would have to.. so there is no problem.
Real life disagrees with you how archers still could work, look at trench warfair or even (sorry to bring this up) nam.. when the enemy gets too close to the front line, the backers had to sease fire on the opposing front, every singe war has proven the fact that if they didnt they would hit more of their own troops their their opposers.
Depending on how the terain was situated, the troops having the high ground would be able to fire the incoming troups, trying to elimited or minimize the amounth of enemies making it to their front line. This is a historicly proven fact.
Im not against more complexity, infact Im all for it. I LOVED how every class had their own role in EQ, 2 types of support (buff-debuff-cc's) , tanking, healing, dps , bust-dps . Planning your group/raid location due to body pushing.
But.. funny enough your post isnt really against the trinity, your complain is the lack of complexity to it. And you are right, there should be more to hitting taunt (IF you have to at all see WoW) and the mob is on you permanently. But the options to fix that are plentyfull and do not require the actual elimination of the trinity.
i agree. with everything u said.. and i edited my post.. guess i didn't get to it before you did.. but i was basically saying that archers would have to have high ground to be effective... or they would have to switch to melee.. or they could choose to stay ranged but be gimped. its all about tactics.
ur right i don't hate the trinity.. i hate the way it is implemented which makes every other class invalid.. and makes it seem like somehow the tank and healer are more important than everyone else.. i believe every class should be important. and able to really contribute. and i wouldn't want it eliminated.. as i stated in another post... its about semantics.. if what you and i want is implemented.. than it would no longer be the trinity.. because everyone would not be pidgeonholed into being one of those 3 classes.. but all of the roles would still exist.
I think the real threat for the holy trinity is the trend towards improved monster-AI. Both EQN and ESO will have more intelligent mobs that can cooperate among each other and react to the tactic the players are using.
The problem with the trinity is that it calls for a very dump AI. It the mobs don't do the same thing every time it stops working. So I believe that players will prefer more diverse fights over the trinity which is always the same.
You have to consider that the trinity in fact only is a cheap trick that exploits a weak mob AI. You trick the mobs into attacking the heavy armored guy that basically does no damage, while distracting him from the guys that do the real harm. Its build into the game that way, but it's still only a trick, not the natural way a fight does run.
My vision is that the holy trinity never has to die out completely, but that it becomes one tactic in a whole toolkit of different tactics players could use in certain situation. The trinity could be a great tactic for fighting really brainless opponents like slimes or zombies, but orcs for example would maybe fall for it the first time but then they would adapt and go straight for the guys in robes. And then the players would need a different tactic.
I think your logic is a bit flawed. First, just because a game has lame AI doesn't mean it's the trinitys fault. Wow dumbed down their AI to get a more casual gamer to play mmos. EQ had mobs that would run away and bring back help, many times higher level help and you had to adjust tactics to compensate. Also, EQ trinity was actually 4- along with support/cc, which newer games took out. Trinity can adjust to any AI if they make the classes more robust and flexible. Such as tank having many options to protect others in group, besides the pretty lame taunt mechanic-collision, trip, bash/knockdown, take hit meant for caster, etc. and give the squishier classes some temp skills to avoid or defend so they don't immediately die if they are targeted. How does a zergish, everyone watches out for themselves system make it any easier to adjust to different tactics? Trinity is about playing a role, not necessarily having to do it in just one way. Give the classes some option to play their role and we could stop calling it a trinity, as new roles could be developed and we'd have more than 3-cc, support, hybrid, leadership, etc.
I do agree devs have been lazy for the most part by making AI needlessly predictable, so that any, not just trinity, styles can beat most mobs/quests.
So you say the taunt-mechanic is lame. Then I believe we are both pretty much in the same boat. Its just a definition problem. I was talking about classical tanking like in WoW, where the tank is holding aggro to attract all mobs.
I don't say there shouldn't be a guy that is protective and has a lot of crowd control to block stun and push away opponents. But this pretty much describes the warrior in GW2 and that one can't really protect the group. The problem is that one guy just can't protect a group of five against a horde of enemies. He can't be everywhere at once. This only works if all mobs directly come to him and ignore everyone else.
What the players the would have to do is to either fall back to a doorway that the single CC-guy could block or to have several characters that can ward off enemies that try to circle the group.
If people want to get rid of the trinity why not allow Armor to have a Hitpoint value?
For instance a guy wanting to play a tank type would wear plate and therefore the armor have a base hp value of 1000
Where as some other guy/girl wants to play a Ranger type but wants a Dual weild agi style so they wear leather increaseing movement speed and giving the armor a value of say 600..
so on and so on, form a system around that instead of healers only healing hps ect? Instead of healers have people who can repair armor after fights or after a dungeon this is just a short example of what I'm thinking of. why couldn't something like this work?
I think the real threat for the holy trinity is the trend towards improved monster-AI. Both EQN and ESO will have more intelligent mobs that can cooperate among each other and react to the tactic the players are using.
The problem with the trinity is that it calls for a very dump AI. It the mobs don't do the same thing every time it stops working. So I believe that players will prefer more diverse fights over the trinity which is always the same.
You have to consider that the trinity in fact only is a cheap trick that exploits a weak mob AI. You trick the mobs into attacking the heavy armored guy that basically does no damage, while distracting him from the guys that do the real harm. Its build into the game that way, but it's still only a trick, not the natural way a fight does run.
My vision is that the holy trinity never has to die out completely, but that it becomes one tactic in a whole toolkit of different tactics players could use in certain situation. The trinity could be a great tactic for fighting really brainless opponents like slimes or zombies, but orcs for example would maybe fall for it the first time but then they would adapt and go straight for the guys in robes. And then the players would need a different tactic.
I think your logic is a bit flawed. First, just because a game has lame AI doesn't mean it's the trinitys fault. Wow dumbed down their AI to get a more casual gamer to play mmos. EQ had mobs that would run away and bring back help, many times higher level help and you had to adjust tactics to compensate. Also, EQ trinity was actually 4- along with support/cc, which newer games took out. Trinity can adjust to any AI if they make the classes more robust and flexible. Such as tank having many options to protect others in group, besides the pretty lame taunt mechanic-collision, trip, bash/knockdown, take hit meant for caster, etc. and give the squishier classes some temp skills to avoid or defend so they don't immediately die if they are targeted. How does a zergish, everyone watches out for themselves system make it any easier to adjust to different tactics? Trinity is about playing a role, not necessarily having to do it in just one way. Give the classes some option to play their role and we could stop calling it a trinity, as new roles could be developed and we'd have more than 3-cc, support, hybrid, leadership, etc.
I do agree devs have been lazy for the most part by making AI needlessly predictable, so that any, not just trinity, styles can beat most mobs/quests.
So you say the taunt-mechanic is lame. Then I believe we are both pretty much in the same boat. Its just a definition problem. I was talking about classical tanking like in WoW, where the tank is holding aggro to attract all mobs.
I don't say there shouldn't be a guy that is protective and has a lot of crowd control to block stun and push away opponents. But this pretty much describes the warrior in GW2 and that one can't really protect the group. The problem is that one guy just can't protect a group of five against a horde of enemies. He can't be everywhere at once. This only works if all mobs directly come to him and ignore everyone else.
What the players the would have to do is to either fall back to a doorway that the single CC-guy could block or to have several characters that can ward off enemies that try to circle the group.
what you are saying is exactly what i have been trying to say.. but the problem is that..(as far as I can tell) the supporters of the trinity don't want active combat.. they are in favor of staring at skill bars and doing rotations... otherwise i think everyone would be happy with this because.. it seems that most who don't like the trinity don't actually hate the trinity.. they hate how the mechanics work and the fact that everyone is in one spot.. the combat is static and every encounter ends up being the same.
If people want to get rid of the trinity why not allow Armor to have a Hitpoint value?
For instance a guy wanting to play a tank type would wear plate and therefore the armor have a base hp value of 1000
Where as some other guy/girl wants to play a Ranger type but wants a Dual weild agi style so they wear leather increaseing movement speed and giving the armor a value of say 600..
so on and so on, form a system around that instead of healers only healing hps ect? Instead of healers have people who can repair armor after fights or after a dungeon this is just a short example of what I'm thinking of. why couldn't something like this work?
it would be an interesting mechanic but it would take away the role of healers. Also, how would healing in combat work? because if i can repair armor that means that i would have to be next to the guy who's fighting working on his armor while he fights in order to heal him..and I'm not sure everyone wants to get rid of the roles of healing and tanking... i think they want to feel like every char is important.
for the guys in robes. And then the players would need a different tactic.
So you say the taunt-mechanic is lame. Then I believe we are both pretty much in the same boat. Its just a definition problem. I was talking about classical tanking like in WoW, where the tank is holding aggro to attract all mobs.
I don't say there shouldn't be a guy that is protective and has a lot of crowd control to block stun and push away opponents. But this pretty much describes the warrior in GW2 and that one can't really protect the group. The problem is that one guy just can't protect a group of five against a horde of enemies. He can't be everywhere at once. This only works if all mobs directly come to him and ignore everyone else.
What the players the would have to do is to either fall back to a doorway that the single CC-guy could block or to have several characters that can ward off enemies that try to circle the group.
what you are saying is exactly what i have been trying to say.. but the problem is that..(as far as I can tell) the supporters of the trinity don't want active combat.. they are in favor of staring at skill bars and doing rotations... otherwise i think everyone would be happy with this because.. it seems that most who don't like the trinity don't actually hate the trinity.. they hate how the mechanics work and the fact that everyone is in one spot.. the combat is static and every encounter ends up being the same.
Well said, thats pretty much what combat has come down to, the roles have been replaced by hockey pokey style combat.
Personally Id love a modernized version of the Original EQ class/role concept. Atleast back then classes felt unique and functional instead of today's mmo standard generic roles doing the hokey pokey.
I think the real threat for the holy trinity is the trend towards improved monster-AI. Both EQN and ESO will have more intelligent mobs that can cooperate among each other and react to the tactic the players are using.
The problem with the trinity is that it calls for a very dump AI. It the mobs don't do the same thing every time it stops working. So I believe that players will prefer more diverse fights over the trinity which is always the same.
You have to consider that the trinity in fact only is a cheap trick that exploits a weak mob AI. You trick the mobs into attacking the heavy armored guy that basically does no damage, while distracting him from the guys that do the real harm. Its build into the game that way, but it's still only a trick, not the natural way a fight does run.
My vision is that the holy trinity never has to die out completely, but that it becomes one tactic in a whole toolkit of different tactics players could use in certain situation. The trinity could be a great tactic for fighting really brainless opponents like slimes or zombies, but orcs for example would maybe fall for it the first time but then they would adapt and go straight for the guys in robes. And then the players would need a different tactic.
I think your logic is a bit flawed. First, just because a game has lame AI doesn't mean it's the trinitys fault. Wow dumbed down their AI to get a more casual gamer to play mmos. EQ had mobs that would run away and bring back help, many times higher level help and you had to adjust tactics to compensate. Also, EQ trinity was actually 4- along with support/cc, which newer games took out. Trinity can adjust to any AI if they make the classes more robust and flexible. Such as tank having many options to protect others in group, besides the pretty lame taunt mechanic-collision, trip, bash/knockdown, take hit meant for caster, etc. and give the squishier classes some temp skills to avoid or defend so they don't immediately die if they are targeted. How does a zergish, everyone watches out for themselves system make it any easier to adjust to different tactics? Trinity is about playing a role, not necessarily having to do it in just one way. Give the classes some option to play their role and we could stop calling it a trinity, as new roles could be developed and we'd have more than 3-cc, support, hybrid, leadership, etc.
I do agree devs have been lazy for the most part by making AI needlessly predictable, so that any, not just trinity, styles can beat most mobs/quests.
Honestly.. it seems like you agree with him.. what you are describing would no longer be called the trinity. and no one really hates the trinity.. they hate the lame taunt/agro mechanic... in real fights whether in a fantasy world or otherwise..... most battles are man to man(the exception being when you outnumber ur opponent) so a tank mechanic is pointless.. the only time tanks really come into play is in massive battles when they are on the front lines or in narrow surroundings where the tank could effectively stand in front and protect everyone...
to be fair.. real fights are zergs or seem to be some semblance of it... but to me that is what makes them interesting. in a real fight.. you have to watch out for urself AND your team mate.. but in the trinity u typically only have to watch out for no one.. unless u are the healer or tank...
I think that in the open world the trinity should be removed..I don't mean the roles should be removed... but i think that encounters involving more than 1 mob should not have the trinity employed unless there is a tank for every mob.. the trinity should only be employed in tight quarters or when your facing a boss mob...
otherwise the battle should go like this...... the squishies. avoid combat while supporting who ever they can... the dps guy takes the least armored person or if he is free because they out number the enemy he helps against the enemy with the most hp.. and the tank.. he attack and keeps the guy with the most dmg/most hp busy until help arrives... its more realistic.. and everyone would still have a role. yes combat would be a little more chaotic.. but combat is chaotic by nature... sooooo.. i don't see the problem.
So we agree, that was my point is that in trinity you have roles. Without trinity, you don't. Everyone seems to do their own thing with no tactics. People call EQ combat the trinity, but it had 4 (maybe 5) roles, with cc and support, so it was never a trinity anyway. Devs could just expand on this while having roles but not narrow like trinity. The newer action combat their don't seem to have roles, people defend or heal themselves, there is no dependency or tactics. And the role combat style shouldn't hinge on just having 3 types where you wait around for a cleric. Combos with backup healers, cc, support,dps should be just as viable if each individual role has enough tools at their disposal, but still need tactics and teamwork. I'm tired of these games where no one groups, or if they do its so easy or zergy no one talks or uses strategy.
I agree and disagree.. the problem here is that it is called a trinity. its semantics.. the point is that everyone in the party wants to be valuable.. not just the tank and healer... in a real fight.. everyone is valuable. so you are right.. we do agree.. its just that what you are describing would no long be the trinity.. it would have to be called something else.
True, I see it as a role specific system,not a trinity, but with many roles not just 3. And no one role should be so over valuable that you can't survive without it. I'm sure someone would come up with a new name for it if it existed. Trinity seems to be used as a catch all term-like sandbox that isn't necessarily accurate-like with EQ having more roles than heal, tank, dps. It seems like those opposed to the having set roles, instead of every character having ability to do everything, just call it a trinity whether it has 3 roles or more. We could call it role-playing...wait, that's already taken.
I think the real threat for the holy trinity is the trend towards improved monster-AI. Both EQN and ESO will have more intelligent mobs that can cooperate among each other and react to the tactic the players are using.
The problem with the trinity is that it calls for a very dump AI. It the mobs don't do the same thing every time it stops working. So I believe that players will prefer more diverse fights over the trinity which is always the same.
You have to consider that the trinity in fact only is a cheap trick that exploits a weak mob AI. You trick the mobs into attacking the heavy armored guy that basically does no damage, while distracting him from the guys that do the real harm. Its build into the game that way, but it's still only a trick, not the natural way a fight does run.
My vision is that the holy trinity never has to die out completely, but that it becomes one tactic in a whole toolkit of different tactics players could use in certain situation. The trinity could be a great tactic for fighting really brainless opponents like slimes or zombies, but orcs for example would maybe fall for it the first time but then they would adapt and go straight for the guys in robes. And then the players would need a different tactic.
I think your logic is a bit flawed. First, just because a game has lame AI doesn't mean it's the trinitys fault. Wow dumbed down their AI to get a more casual gamer to play mmos. EQ had mobs that would run away and bring back help, many times higher level help and you had to adjust tactics to compensate. Also, EQ trinity was actually 4- along with support/cc, which newer games took out. Trinity can adjust to any AI if they make the classes more robust and flexible. Such as tank having many options to protect others in group, besides the pretty lame taunt mechanic-collision, trip, bash/knockdown, take hit meant for caster, etc. and give the squishier classes some temp skills to avoid or defend so they don't immediately die if they are targeted. How does a zergish, everyone watches out for themselves system make it any easier to adjust to different tactics? Trinity is about playing a role, not necessarily having to do it in just one way. Give the classes some option to play their role and we could stop calling it a trinity, as new roles could be developed and we'd have more than 3-cc, support, hybrid, leadership, etc.
I do agree devs have been lazy for the most part by making AI needlessly predictable, so that any, not just trinity, styles can beat most mobs/quests.
So you say the taunt-mechanic is lame. Then I believe we are both pretty much in the same boat. Its just a definition problem. I was talking about classical tanking like in WoW, where the tank is holding aggro to attract all mobs.
I don't say there shouldn't be a guy that is protective and has a lot of crowd control to block stun and push away opponents. But this pretty much describes the warrior in GW2 and that one can't really protect the group. The problem is that one guy just can't protect a group of five against a horde of enemies. He can't be everywhere at once. This only works if all mobs directly come to him and ignore everyone else.
What the players the would have to do is to either fall back to a doorway that the single CC-guy could block or to have several characters that can ward off enemies that try to circle the group.
what you are saying is exactly what i have been trying to say.. but the problem is that..(as far as I can tell) the supporters of the trinity don't want active combat.. they are in favor of staring at skill bars and doing rotations... otherwise i think everyone would be happy with this because.. it seems that most who don't like the trinity don't actually hate the trinity.. they hate how the mechanics work and the fact that everyone is in one spot.. the combat is static and every encounter ends up being the same.
The good thing is, that we are the majority and the developers have noticed that.
I would still only call it holy trinity if it involves the tank generating aggro. If trinity just means, that there is a mage that throws spells, a priest who heals and a fighter with a big shield, then every game would have the the trinity to some extend, because these characters belong in every fantasy game.
True, I see it as a role specific system,not a trinity, but with many roles not just 3. And no one role should be so over valuable that you can't survive without it. I'm sure someone would come up with a new name for it if it existed. Trinity seems to be used as a catch all term-like sandbox that isn't necessarily accurate-like with EQ having more roles than heal, tank, dps. It seems like those opposed to the having set roles, instead of every character having ability to do everything, just call it a trinity whether it has 3 roles or more. We could call it role-playing...wait, that's already taken.
the reason why "tank-healer-dps-cc-support" is still seen as trinity is because nowadays cc and support is mixed in with the 3 basic roles. sure, you can make a character that does nothing but cc or support in many games, but lets not pretend that it can't also dps sufficiently enough to be put into the damage dealer role.
Hell even healers nowadays can do enough damage to kill mobs by themselves. So all this "coming up with a new name" talk is a bit stupid in my honest opinion. It all boils down to 3 roles. You're either tanking, healing or damaging. All 3 of those roles can at one point or another support the other party members a various amount of ways, and all 3 of those roles can at one point or another perform crowd control on the enemies.
And no, that does not fall inline with "characters having the ability to do everything" like GW2. You don't see priests tanking or rogues tanking(unless its a special mob and the only effective way to tank is evasion tanking. even then druids would be doing that). Most often, people will be in control of 1 role specifically, but that doesn't mean they can't temporarily use an ability that belongs to another role. That doesn't change your primary role of healer or tank or damage.
True, I see it as a role specific system,not a trinity, but with many roles not just 3. And no one role should be so over valuable that you can't survive without it. I'm sure someone would come up with a new name for it if it existed. Trinity seems to be used as a catch all term-like sandbox that isn't necessarily accurate-like with EQ having more roles than heal, tank, dps. It seems like those opposed to the having set roles, instead of every character having ability to do everything, just call it a trinity whether it has 3 roles or more. We could call it role-playing...wait, that's already taken.
the reason why "tank-healer-dps-cc-support" is still seen as trinity is because nowadays cc and support is mixed in with the 3 basic roles. sure, you can make a character that does nothing but cc or support in many games, but lets not pretend that it can't also dps sufficiently enough to be put into the damage dealer role.
Hell even healers nowadays can do enough damage to kill mobs by themselves. So all this "coming up with a new name" talk is a bit stupid in my honest opinion. It all boils down to 3 roles. You're either tanking, healing or damaging. All 3 of those roles can at one point or another support the other party members a various amount of ways, and all 3 of those roles can at one point or another perform crowd control on the enemies.
And no, that does not fall inline with "characters having the ability to do everything" like GW2. You don't see priests tanking or rogues tanking(unless its a special mob and the only effective way to tank is evasion tanking. even then druids would be doing that). Most often, people will be in control of 1 role specifically, but that doesn't mean they can't temporarily use an ability that belongs to another role. That doesn't change your primary role of healer or tank or damage.
so ... do you like the trinity or not like it.. I'm confused?... i wanted to respond but i don't know what your stance is.
well.. I never play magic classes or ranged classes period.. i play tanks or some variation of dps. and honestly... gaming is easy.. so if i wanted to i could play any class and be successful.. but just to put it out there.. i'm an avid reader... so i'd prefer fantasy combat to play out as it does in the books i read.. and the way combat stands in mmos.. its not even close.. which is why eqn combat brings hope.
I'm with you on that. I wish devs would take more from fantasy writing and put aside the fact they are making a game. And I know, they have to make certain allowances for limitations and game mechanics, but they seems to do the simplest, most boring things they can get a way with. Salvatore had a whole church full of battle clerics that couldn't even heal and they fought better than most soldiers in the story. I don't think I've ever seen a battle cleric possible in mmos, because they make they group so dependent on having max out healing or tanking. Many fantasy books or DnD, had clerics/priests that worshipped combat gods and did little healing. It wouldn't be too hard to do. So it would be a tank, with some back up heals and still have a viable role in group. Or a Ranger that was built for CC and backup heals. Combat would still be dynamic, with variety to classes, but could cover problems with having to wait for a healer cleric or enchanter. I hope EQN is thinking of this with their class building system, yes take out the trinity dependency but not the need for roles to be filled to combat their more advanced AI.
True, I see it as a role specific system,not a trinity, but with many roles not just 3. And no one role should be so over valuable that you can't survive without it. I'm sure someone would come up with a new name for it if it existed. Trinity seems to be used as a catch all term-like sandbox that isn't necessarily accurate-like with EQ having more roles than heal, tank, dps. It seems like those opposed to the having set roles, instead of every character having ability to do everything, just call it a trinity whether it has 3 roles or more. We could call it role-playing...wait, that's already taken.
the reason why "tank-healer-dps-cc-support" is still seen as trinity is because nowadays cc and support is mixed in with the 3 basic roles. sure, you can make a character that does nothing but cc or support in many games, but lets not pretend that it can't also dps sufficiently enough to be put into the damage dealer role.
Hell even healers nowadays can do enough damage to kill mobs by themselves. So all this "coming up with a new name" talk is a bit stupid in my honest opinion. It all boils down to 3 roles. You're either tanking, healing or damaging. All 3 of those roles can at one point or another support the other party members a various amount of ways, and all 3 of those roles can at one point or another perform crowd control on the enemies.
And no, that does not fall inline with "characters having the ability to do everything" like GW2. You don't see priests tanking or rogues tanking(unless its a special mob and the only effective way to tank is evasion tanking. even then druids would be doing that). Most often, people will be in control of 1 role specifically, but that doesn't mean they can't temporarily use an ability that belongs to another role. That doesn't change your primary role of healer or tank or damage.
so ... do you like the trinity or not like it.. I'm confused?... i wanted to respond but i don't know what your stance is.
I'm pro trinity, but i'm against the current implementation of the trinity. The way it was back in EQ and WoW Vanilla-Burning Crusade, the difficulty was there. It wasn't uncommon(its downright impossible nowadays) for a healer or dps to pull aggro off the tank and the boss wrecking everyones faces and whooping ass before the tank could get aggro again.
You actually had to use crowd control to get through a simple dungeon. I remember wiping in Deadmines, DEADMINES if we didn't sap 1 mob and sheep another or if we pulled a pat while finishing off another group. Now it doesn't matter. Tank just runs through a third of the instance or up to first boss and tank every single mob like its nothing.
With combat being as easy as i have described above, OF COURSE the trinity will look like shit. But it wasn't always that easy. The trinity was perfect before, its just devs dumbed down the mobs/game and to the state that its in now. The AI wasn't dumbed down as a limitation of the trinity. The Ai was dumbed down because the newer generation of mmo's are lazy and overall just suck compared to mmo players of yesteryear.
People over the years kept complaining things were to hard as more and more players got into the mmo scene and thus now we have watered down versions of what used to be amazing games and mechanics.
Ill say it again. There is nothing flawed with the trinity. It is merely the current implementation that makes it look bad. Make encounters actually worth something and it'll shine once again.
True, I see it as a role specific system,not a trinity, but with many roles not just 3. And no one role should be so over valuable that you can't survive without it. I'm sure someone would come up with a new name for it if it existed. Trinity seems to be used as a catch all term-like sandbox that isn't necessarily accurate-like with EQ having more roles than heal, tank, dps. It seems like those opposed to the having set roles, instead of every character having ability to do everything, just call it a trinity whether it has 3 roles or more. We could call it role-playing...wait, that's already taken.
the reason why "tank-healer-dps-cc-support" is still seen as trinity is because nowadays cc and support is mixed in with the 3 basic roles. sure, you can make a character that does nothing but cc or support in many games, but lets not pretend that it can't also dps sufficiently enough to be put into the damage dealer role.
Hell even healers nowadays can do enough damage to kill mobs by themselves. So all this "coming up with a new name" talk is a bit stupid in my honest opinion. It all boils down to 3 roles. You're either tanking, healing or damaging. All 3 of those roles can at one point or another support the other party members a various amount of ways, and all 3 of those roles can at one point or another perform crowd control on the enemies.
And no, that does not fall inline with "characters having the ability to do everything" like GW2. You don't see priests tanking or rogues tanking(unless its a special mob and the only effective way to tank is evasion tanking. even then druids would be doing that). Most often, people will be in control of 1 role specifically, but that doesn't mean they can't temporarily use an ability that belongs to another role. That doesn't change your primary role of healer or tank or damage.
Really? That's the best description your limited vocabulary can come up with. If you don't like it, it's stupid. I could say thats childish. I was joking about a new name, just pointing out that the trinity is just a dumbed down version of having roles to play opposed to everyone can do anything. And no it doesn't boil down to just 3 roles, unless lazy devs make it that way for casuals. And I have no problem with clerics or other classes tanking, as long as roles are necessary to combat. and it is possible to have combat where other combos of roles can handle mobs, than just you narrow 3 class definition, if the devs would take the time and effort to give us more with mob AI, class building, tactics, etc. instead of just the barebones do more damage than u take and win.
True, I see it as a role specific system,not a trinity, but with many roles not just 3. And no one role should be so over valuable that you can't survive without it. I'm sure someone would come up with a new name for it if it existed. Trinity seems to be used as a catch all term-like sandbox that isn't necessarily accurate-like with EQ having more roles than heal, tank, dps. It seems like those opposed to the having set roles, instead of every character having ability to do everything, just call it a trinity whether it has 3 roles or more. We could call it role-playing...wait, that's already taken.
the reason why "tank-healer-dps-cc-support" is still seen as trinity is because nowadays cc and support is mixed in with the 3 basic roles. sure, you can make a character that does nothing but cc or support in many games, but lets not pretend that it can't also dps sufficiently enough to be put into the damage dealer role.
Hell even healers nowadays can do enough damage to kill mobs by themselves. So all this "coming up with a new name" talk is a bit stupid in my honest opinion. It all boils down to 3 roles. You're either tanking, healing or damaging. All 3 of those roles can at one point or another support the other party members a various amount of ways, and all 3 of those roles can at one point or another perform crowd control on the enemies.
And no, that does not fall inline with "characters having the ability to do everything" like GW2. You don't see priests tanking or rogues tanking(unless its a special mob and the only effective way to tank is evasion tanking. even then druids would be doing that). Most often, people will be in control of 1 role specifically, but that doesn't mean they can't temporarily use an ability that belongs to another role. That doesn't change your primary role of healer or tank or damage.
so ... do you like the trinity or not like it.. I'm confused?... i wanted to respond but i don't know what your stance is.
I'm pro trinity, but i'm against the current implementation of the trinity. The way it was back in EQ and WoW Vanilla-Burning Crusade, the difficulty was there. It wasn't uncommon(its downright impossible nowadays) for a healer or dps to pull aggro off the tank and the boss wrecking everyones faces and whooping ass before the tank could get aggro again.
You actually had to use crowd control to get through a simple dungeon. I remember wiping in Deadmines, DEADMINES if we didn't sap 1 mob and sheep another or if we pulled a pat while finishing off another group. Now it doesn't matter. Tank just runs through a third of the instance or up to first boss and tank every single mob like its nothing.
With combat being as easy as i have described above, OF COURSE the trinity will look like shit. But it wasn't always that easy. The trinity was perfect before, its just devs dumbed down the mobs/game and to the state that its in now. The AI wasn't dumbed down as a limitation of the trinity. The Ai was dumbed down because the newer generation of mmo's are lazy and overall just suck compared to mmo players of yesteryear.
People over the years kept complaining things were to hard as more and more players got into the mmo scene and thus now we have watered down versions of what used to be amazing games and mechanics.
Ill say it again. There is nothing flawed with the trinity. It is merely the current implementation that makes it look bad. Make encounters actually worth something and it'll shine once again.
It's strange you just argued with my points and on this response you agreed with me.
And if you had been following Neo and I conversation, Im pro-trinity just not the simplified 3 class version. I think with the advancements in game design it should be expanded upon with new roles, other class able to do a role (not switch around, but be built for one role, with maybe a little backup help on another role-EQ had backup healers and cc). Groups should not be dependent on one role or they fail. Games should advance.
i way rather play with trinity personally. Simply every mmo i have played without the trinity just doesn't end up captivating people like my self, guildwars2 for instance can't stand it its so boring combat you get use to then end game is just grind of dungeon without any difficulty, tera was some pretty fun combat but then you get use to it and the end game is the same dungeon over and over again. So if theirs a mmo that will come out that will release actual content with raiding in it then i will play it regardless of trinity but then how do you make the non trinity work without a dedicate tank. The so called tank would be bouncing around to people so would be just a ton of dps and a ton of healers/supporty people kiting or sitting in place whatever it may be, that may be fun for some people but theirs people out their that like being the dedicated tank who tanks the dammage for everyone, and the non trinity system kind of removes that for alot of those people, so yea. I just think its harder to input mechanics, such as random spots poping up with toranadoes and crap if you don't know whos gonna be tanking and you might get the boss would be a ton of RNG instead of progression to beat difficulty
well.. I never play magic classes or ranged classes period.. i play tanks or some variation of dps. and honestly... gaming is easy.. so if i wanted to i could play any class and be successful.. but just to put it out there.. i'm an avid reader... so i'd prefer fantasy combat to play out as it does in the books i read.. and the way combat stands in mmos.. its not even close.. which is why eqn combat brings hope.
I'm with you on that. I wish devs would take more from fantasy writing and put aside the fact they are making a game. And I know, they have to make certain allowances for limitations and game mechanics, but they seems to do the simplest, most boring things they can get a way with. Salvatore had a whole church full of battle clerics that couldn't even heal and they fought better than most soldiers in the story. I don't think I've ever seen a battle cleric possible in mmos, because they make they group so dependent on having max out healing or tanking. Many fantasy books or DnD, had clerics/priests that worshipped combat gods and did little healing. It wouldn't be too hard to do. So it would be a tank, with some back up heals and still have a viable role in group. Or a Ranger that was built for CC and backup heals. Combat would still be dynamic, with variety to classes, but could cover problems with having to wait for a healer cleric or enchanter. I hope EQN is thinking of this with their class building system, yes take out the trinity dependency but not the need for roles to be filled to combat their more advanced AI.
I'm glad someone understands.. cause I usually say the combat should be more realistic.. and ppl assume real life realistic... I mean realistic as far as lore and fantasy goes. What you mention is perfectly viable and I agree.. I love elves especially dark elves.. drizzt and zacknafein..(however u spell it) FTW. and drizzt could be considered a rogue.. but he's not.. he is a warrior with rogue abilities.. and i feel more games should embrace that.. a warrior who has limited cloak abilities.. ( he can only do it at night in dark places) and has incredible speed and evasion.. i would love to play an evasive dual wielding warrior..( i don't even need the stealth). in fact i would be satified at having a good parry mechanic in place of the evasion.. but games don't offer that...
I just feel that dev's have went the wrong way in mmorp gaming.. I believe that instead of scaling hp an dmg... that games should focus more on scaling the defense and evasion of mobs and bosses. because in those stories there were healers and there were tanks... but they weren't always available... and the chars never got one hit KO by even the most powerful enemies. i feel that they could also change it by keeping hp low for the players and forcing the players to rely on blocking/evasion/parrying all dmg mitigation skills.. so that mobs could easily kill you.. but if you were a good player you could mitigate a lot of the dmg. but just to be safe healers were still available to add dps or to heal when you weren't quick enough to defend..
my main real combat scenario is for most combat to be in a war form/ mini war.. that each battle would have at least equal or 1.5 to 2x the number of enemies. that way trinity combat would not be boring. also the combat should be active. that way with the other things i layed out above.. in order to defeat the enemy you have to bring down his defenses/ or get attacks of opportunity to take them down. having crazy amounts of dmg output and chipping away at the mobs 1 mill points of hp is over done. i think combat should be more akin to sword play.. if you attack and i evade or block.. and i am faster than you.. then you are left open and i can land a killing blow... but if you react in time.. you take less dmg because you mitigated at least some of the force.
True, I see it as a role specific system,not a trinity, but with many roles not just 3. And no one role should be so over valuable that you can't survive without it. I'm sure someone would come up with a new name for it if it existed. Trinity seems to be used as a catch all term-like sandbox that isn't necessarily accurate-like with EQ having more roles than heal, tank, dps. It seems like those opposed to the having set roles, instead of every character having ability to do everything, just call it a trinity whether it has 3 roles or more. We could call it role-playing...wait, that's already taken.
the reason why "tank-healer-dps-cc-support" is still seen as trinity is because nowadays cc and support is mixed in with the 3 basic roles. sure, you can make a character that does nothing but cc or support in many games, but lets not pretend that it can't also dps sufficiently enough to be put into the damage dealer role.
Hell even healers nowadays can do enough damage to kill mobs by themselves. So all this "coming up with a new name" talk is a bit stupid in my honest opinion. It all boils down to 3 roles. You're either tanking, healing or damaging. All 3 of those roles can at one point or another support the other party members a various amount of ways, and all 3 of those roles can at one point or another perform crowd control on the enemies.
And no, that does not fall inline with "characters having the ability to do everything" like GW2. You don't see priests tanking or rogues tanking(unless its a special mob and the only effective way to tank is evasion tanking. even then druids would be doing that). Most often, people will be in control of 1 role specifically, but that doesn't mean they can't temporarily use an ability that belongs to another role. That doesn't change your primary role of healer or tank or damage.
Really? That's the best description your limited vocabulary can come up with. If you don't like it, it's stupid. I could say thats childish. I was joking about a new name, just pointing out that the trinity is just a dumbed down version of having roles to play opposed to everyone can do anything. And no it doesn't boil down to just 3 roles, unless lazy devs make it that way for casuals. And I have no problem with clerics or other classes tanking, as long as roles are necessary to combat. and it is possible to have combat where other combos of roles can handle mobs, than just you narrow 3 class definition, if the devs would take the time and effort to give us more with mob AI, class building, tactics, etc. instead of just the barebones do more damage than u take and win.
The trinity is not a dumbed down version of having roles to play. In the trinity i explained you still have those same roles that people tend to play, just when you strip things down to the very base of their core. There are only 3 things you are truly doing. Tanking, Healing, or Damaging. All 3 of those like i said at some point can and will play a support role and provide cc. There are also classes that will fully specialize in support type role but still fall under a healer or dps category even if their main job is to be support.
So yes, it really does boil down to just those 3 roles. Lazy devs or not.
And i agree with you, devs SHOULD take the time and effort(like EQN seemingly are doing) to give us more with mob AI, tactics and class building, but just keep the trinity. Having one does not mean you have to exclude the other.
Comments
Honestly.. i already know this.. and i don't see a problem with it working like that.. more realistic combat is actually more tactical... and archers can fight in a real system.. they just have to have good accurarcy and timing.. just like mages would have to.. so there is no problem.
edit.: also healers would exist.. ppl forget that when you say realistic... i mean at least... realistic in a fantasy setting... healers do exist.. and archers do have to be careful.. which is why they usually fight as a ranger.. or from high ground.. switching to melee when the enemy closes ground.
Trinities happen.
Take a random ruleset. Some archtypes will be better at some tasks than others. Roles will emerge. Groups will be assembled around an optimal collection of roles and people playing those roles will ask for more tools to help them.
Even UO, as freeform as it was/is, constantly struggled with the emergence of pseudoclasses and roles in high-end encounters. If you look up guides for boss strategies, they talk in terms of collection of healers, archers and dexers - essentially the traditional trinity.
I agree and disagree.. the problem here is that it is called a trinity. its semantics.. the point is that everyone in the party wants to be valuable.. not just the tank and healer... in a real fight.. everyone is valuable. so you are right.. we do agree.. its just that what you are describing would no long be the trinity.. it would have to be called something else.
well.. I never play magic classes or ranged classes period.. i play tanks or some variation of dps. and honestly... gaming is easy.. so if i wanted to i could play any class and be successful.. but just to put it out there.. i'm an avid reader... so i'd prefer fantasy combat to play out as it does in the books i read.. and the way combat stands in mmos.. its not even close.. which is why eqn combat brings hope.
well.. honestly i don't hate the trinity.. i hate boring combat.. trinity doesn't make c ombat boring... but the thing is a lot of ppl on this site.. don't want active combat.... and they equate active combat with killing the trinity... but i disagree.. in addition.. tanks aren't the only ppl who can use shield bashes or knock oppenents down.. but that is the way devs make the classes...
also i believe eqn.. will employ tanks.. just not taunting tanks.. and the same ppl.. don't like that.
Real life disagrees with you how archers still could work, look at trench warfair or even (sorry to bring this up) nam.. when the enemy gets too close to the front line, the backers had to sease fire on the opposing front, every singe war has proven the fact that if they didnt they would hit more of their own troops their their opposers.
Depending on how the terain was situated, the troops having the high ground would be able to fire the incoming troups, trying to elimited or minimize the amounth of enemies making it to their front line. This is a historicly proven fact.
Im not against more complexity, infact Im all for it. I LOVED how every class had their own role in EQ, 2 types of support (buff-debuff-cc's) , tanking, healing, dps , bust-dps . Planning your group/raid location due to body pushing.
But.. funny enough your post isnt really against the trinity, your complain is the lack of complexity to it. And you are right, there should be more to hitting taunt (IF you have to at all see WoW) and the mob is on you permanently. But the options to fix that are plentyfull and do not require the actual elimination of the trinity.
and thats the rub.. they could of changed it without doing the 8 skill thing or the few attacks.. that was the dev's choice. i still believe that combat should be active and to me that has nothing to do with the trinity.. it as you say has to do with how the devs design the game. but i still would prefer the trinity to be gone.. as a REQUIREMENT... those roles should stay.. and more roles should be created and as they say.. it should be up to the group to decide how to face content.
i agree. with everything u said.. and i edited my post.. guess i didn't get to it before you did.. but i was basically saying that archers would have to have high ground to be effective... or they would have to switch to melee.. or they could choose to stay ranged but be gimped. its all about tactics.
ur right i don't hate the trinity.. i hate the way it is implemented which makes every other class invalid.. and makes it seem like somehow the tank and healer are more important than everyone else.. i believe every class should be important. and able to really contribute. and i wouldn't want it eliminated.. as i stated in another post... its about semantics.. if what you and i want is implemented.. than it would no longer be the trinity.. because everyone would not be pidgeonholed into being one of those 3 classes.. but all of the roles would still exist.
I don't say there shouldn't be a guy that is protective and has a lot of crowd control to block stun and push away opponents. But this pretty much describes the warrior in GW2 and that one can't really protect the group. The problem is that one guy just can't protect a group of five against a horde of enemies. He can't be everywhere at once. This only works if all mobs directly come to him and ignore everyone else.
What the players the would have to do is to either fall back to a doorway that the single CC-guy could block or to have several characters that can ward off enemies that try to circle the group.
If people want to get rid of the trinity why not allow Armor to have a Hitpoint value?
For instance a guy wanting to play a tank type would wear plate and therefore the armor have a base hp value of 1000
Where as some other guy/girl wants to play a Ranger type but wants a Dual weild agi style so they wear leather increaseing movement speed and giving the armor a value of say 600..
so on and so on, form a system around that instead of healers only healing hps ect? Instead of healers have people who can repair armor after fights or after a dungeon this is just a short example of what I'm thinking of. why couldn't something like this work?
what you are saying is exactly what i have been trying to say.. but the problem is that..(as far as I can tell) the supporters of the trinity don't want active combat.. they are in favor of staring at skill bars and doing rotations... otherwise i think everyone would be happy with this because.. it seems that most who don't like the trinity don't actually hate the trinity.. they hate how the mechanics work and the fact that everyone is in one spot.. the combat is static and every encounter ends up being the same.
it would be an interesting mechanic but it would take away the role of healers. Also, how would healing in combat work? because if i can repair armor that means that i would have to be next to the guy who's fighting working on his armor while he fights in order to heal him..and I'm not sure everyone wants to get rid of the roles of healing and tanking... i think they want to feel like every char is important.
Well said, thats pretty much what combat has come down to, the roles have been replaced by hockey pokey style combat.
Personally Id love a modernized version of the Original EQ class/role concept. Atleast back then classes felt unique and functional instead of today's mmo standard generic roles doing the hokey pokey.
True, I see it as a role specific system,not a trinity, but with many roles not just 3. And no one role should be so over valuable that you can't survive without it. I'm sure someone would come up with a new name for it if it existed. Trinity seems to be used as a catch all term-like sandbox that isn't necessarily accurate-like with EQ having more roles than heal, tank, dps. It seems like those opposed to the having set roles, instead of every character having ability to do everything, just call it a trinity whether it has 3 roles or more. We could call it role-playing...wait, that's already taken.
I would still only call it holy trinity if it involves the tank generating aggro. If trinity just means, that there is a mage that throws spells, a priest who heals and a fighter with a big shield, then every game would have the the trinity to some extend, because these characters belong in every fantasy game.
the reason why "tank-healer-dps-cc-support" is still seen as trinity is because nowadays cc and support is mixed in with the 3 basic roles. sure, you can make a character that does nothing but cc or support in many games, but lets not pretend that it can't also dps sufficiently enough to be put into the damage dealer role.
Hell even healers nowadays can do enough damage to kill mobs by themselves. So all this "coming up with a new name" talk is a bit stupid in my honest opinion. It all boils down to 3 roles. You're either tanking, healing or damaging. All 3 of those roles can at one point or another support the other party members a various amount of ways, and all 3 of those roles can at one point or another perform crowd control on the enemies.
And no, that does not fall inline with "characters having the ability to do everything" like GW2. You don't see priests tanking or rogues tanking(unless its a special mob and the only effective way to tank is evasion tanking. even then druids would be doing that). Most often, people will be in control of 1 role specifically, but that doesn't mean they can't temporarily use an ability that belongs to another role. That doesn't change your primary role of healer or tank or damage.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
so ... do you like the trinity or not like it.. I'm confused?... i wanted to respond but i don't know what your stance is.
I'm with you on that. I wish devs would take more from fantasy writing and put aside the fact they are making a game. And I know, they have to make certain allowances for limitations and game mechanics, but they seems to do the simplest, most boring things they can get a way with. Salvatore had a whole church full of battle clerics that couldn't even heal and they fought better than most soldiers in the story. I don't think I've ever seen a battle cleric possible in mmos, because they make they group so dependent on having max out healing or tanking. Many fantasy books or DnD, had clerics/priests that worshipped combat gods and did little healing. It wouldn't be too hard to do. So it would be a tank, with some back up heals and still have a viable role in group. Or a Ranger that was built for CC and backup heals. Combat would still be dynamic, with variety to classes, but could cover problems with having to wait for a healer cleric or enchanter. I hope EQN is thinking of this with their class building system, yes take out the trinity dependency but not the need for roles to be filled to combat their more advanced AI.
I'm pro trinity, but i'm against the current implementation of the trinity. The way it was back in EQ and WoW Vanilla-Burning Crusade, the difficulty was there. It wasn't uncommon(its downright impossible nowadays) for a healer or dps to pull aggro off the tank and the boss wrecking everyones faces and whooping ass before the tank could get aggro again.
You actually had to use crowd control to get through a simple dungeon. I remember wiping in Deadmines, DEADMINES if we didn't sap 1 mob and sheep another or if we pulled a pat while finishing off another group. Now it doesn't matter. Tank just runs through a third of the instance or up to first boss and tank every single mob like its nothing.
With combat being as easy as i have described above, OF COURSE the trinity will look like shit. But it wasn't always that easy. The trinity was perfect before, its just devs dumbed down the mobs/game and to the state that its in now. The AI wasn't dumbed down as a limitation of the trinity. The Ai was dumbed down because the newer generation of mmo's are lazy and overall just suck compared to mmo players of yesteryear.
People over the years kept complaining things were to hard as more and more players got into the mmo scene and thus now we have watered down versions of what used to be amazing games and mechanics.
Ill say it again. There is nothing flawed with the trinity. It is merely the current implementation that makes it look bad. Make encounters actually worth something and it'll shine once again.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Really? That's the best description your limited vocabulary can come up with. If you don't like it, it's stupid. I could say thats childish. I was joking about a new name, just pointing out that the trinity is just a dumbed down version of having roles to play opposed to everyone can do anything. And no it doesn't boil down to just 3 roles, unless lazy devs make it that way for casuals. And I have no problem with clerics or other classes tanking, as long as roles are necessary to combat. and it is possible to have combat where other combos of roles can handle mobs, than just you narrow 3 class definition, if the devs would take the time and effort to give us more with mob AI, class building, tactics, etc. instead of just the barebones do more damage than u take and win.
It's strange you just argued with my points and on this response you agreed with me.
And if you had been following Neo and I conversation, Im pro-trinity just not the simplified 3 class version. I think with the advancements in game design it should be expanded upon with new roles, other class able to do a role (not switch around, but be built for one role, with maybe a little backup help on another role-EQ had backup healers and cc). Groups should not be dependent on one role or they fail. Games should advance.
There are plenty of games without using the trinity. Diablo 3, DDO to some extent, STO, ....
Trinity will survive. There is (and will be) a great deal of variation in combat mechanics and gameplay.
I'm glad someone understands.. cause I usually say the combat should be more realistic.. and ppl assume real life realistic... I mean realistic as far as lore and fantasy goes. What you mention is perfectly viable and I agree.. I love elves especially dark elves.. drizzt and zacknafein..(however u spell it) FTW. and drizzt could be considered a rogue.. but he's not.. he is a warrior with rogue abilities.. and i feel more games should embrace that.. a warrior who has limited cloak abilities.. ( he can only do it at night in dark places) and has incredible speed and evasion.. i would love to play an evasive dual wielding warrior..( i don't even need the stealth). in fact i would be satified at having a good parry mechanic in place of the evasion.. but games don't offer that...
I just feel that dev's have went the wrong way in mmorp gaming.. I believe that instead of scaling hp an dmg... that games should focus more on scaling the defense and evasion of mobs and bosses. because in those stories there were healers and there were tanks... but they weren't always available... and the chars never got one hit KO by even the most powerful enemies. i feel that they could also change it by keeping hp low for the players and forcing the players to rely on blocking/evasion/parrying all dmg mitigation skills.. so that mobs could easily kill you.. but if you were a good player you could mitigate a lot of the dmg. but just to be safe healers were still available to add dps or to heal when you weren't quick enough to defend..
my main real combat scenario is for most combat to be in a war form/ mini war.. that each battle would have at least equal or 1.5 to 2x the number of enemies. that way trinity combat would not be boring. also the combat should be active. that way with the other things i layed out above.. in order to defeat the enemy you have to bring down his defenses/ or get attacks of opportunity to take them down. having crazy amounts of dmg output and chipping away at the mobs 1 mill points of hp is over done. i think combat should be more akin to sword play.. if you attack and i evade or block.. and i am faster than you.. then you are left open and i can land a killing blow... but if you react in time.. you take less dmg because you mitigated at least some of the force.
The trinity is not a dumbed down version of having roles to play. In the trinity i explained you still have those same roles that people tend to play, just when you strip things down to the very base of their core. There are only 3 things you are truly doing. Tanking, Healing, or Damaging. All 3 of those like i said at some point can and will play a support role and provide cc. There are also classes that will fully specialize in support type role but still fall under a healer or dps category even if their main job is to be support.
So yes, it really does boil down to just those 3 roles. Lazy devs or not.
And i agree with you, devs SHOULD take the time and effort(like EQN seemingly are doing) to give us more with mob AI, tactics and class building, but just keep the trinity. Having one does not mean you have to exclude the other.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!