I played EQ for years with just a Druid,enchanter,best lord and wizzy and we were able to take down near every group content in the game because we adapted the so called trinity to our play style. Sure in some cases it took us way longer than if we had a tank,cleric group but it was probably one of the reason we still play today. We lost some but we never gave up and it made us better players and we had huge fun in trying. We have tried most every game out there the four of us but beside wow,eq2,rift and SWG there was no game that could hold us for longer than the first month and it was because the use of healers and tanks had been reduced by making the mobs easy and gave everybody the ability to self heal. We all felt while playing that we weren't helping each other but we were soloing in the same place. If you remove Argo and taunting and healing then I don't care what the mobs ai is like everybody will have to have self tanking,self healing and good dps. That will mean everybody will be basically the same and being grouped will be more of a inconvenice than doing it solo unless they make the mobs harder and you need the extra DPS.
To me the trinity has to be unless you want a solo experience even if you are grouped.
I don't understand this argument. In this thread. The whole point is for progress forward. The evolution of the genre. Move forward. And the only working example of a non-trinity system of a recently released game isn't really a great example of why we should get rid of it. So, in order to make the argument seem reasonable, you go back to a 15 year old game with an even more archaic system, for the best example of how to move forward? How does that equal progress? UO really is not the shining example you are looking for. In fact, it seems to me that's exactly what EQ did. Move the genre forward from UO.
And there are plenty of ways to move the genre forward without contrived mechanics such as taunt.
No argument. I'd love to see a system where agro is managed by how everyone in the team works together. Where the tank is defined by who's best managing the mob's agro. Where anyone not thinking or not paying attention can easily pull agro. I don't want to restrict DPS or healing. where they can't go all out, but it has to be balanced against what others in the team are doing. and just going balls to the wall will get you killed fast.
The way to do so is to start from the opposite end from where the EQers want to start - with the mobs. You then build your combat to counter mob behavior. After all, that's how the players developed the trinity back when this DikuMUD morass of taunt-based combat began.
again, maybe it was progress that brought UO from that, maybe not. Regardless, I don't see the Trinity as a way for players to deal with mobs, but rather a way for the mobs to deal with players. in other words. The trinity exists because of the human limitation, not the software. I've always believed mobs could have been made smarter. That was obvious from day one in MMOs. But when that's done, players can't deal. This isn't going to change. Unless the AI is built from that standpoint. Then yes, Improving AI to deal with the limits of gamer's ability to act in a coordinated manor in the middle of chaos while still seeming realistic and not allowing the encounter to devolve into a zerg fest is exactly what MMOs need. Otherwise more advanced scripting with seemingly intelligent mobs is going to seriously out hink most groups. and not really help. Yeah it will be creative and funny. But it will kill strategy and take control from teh players and make the players almost 100% reactionary.
But, to your post, you don't understand because you are taking an out of context reply to another person's particular post and trying to apply it to the main discussion. You also probably were confused because, much like the guy that thought EQers invented the zerg, you think that EQ is where the trinity started. It began before UO in the DikuMUDs that EQ copied.
I understand that EQN is going in an entirely new direction than any of these old games. Personally, I'd rather a return, but that's my and my subjective opinion. I will still assert that UO is not a good example for an argument against the Trinity in a game such as EQN. It does not represent a good picture of the progress SoE is after.
I have been reading a lot recently about how the 'holy trinity' needs to disappear from mmo's. I know the idea has been tossed around for years but never in such force. Now, developers and games have started to make the shift.
I guess my question is: Is this the problem with MMO's today, the Holy Trinity, and by eliminating it will the MMO's be better?
people hate wow so much, they come up with every shit to differ from it. as simple.
and no, games surely won't be better without.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
The reason why the trinity works is efficiency, and any combat system that tries something new, still can't come up with anything more efficient. I'm all for a new style of combat, as long as it doesn't turn a 6 minute fight it would take a trinity to a 20 minute fight of a non trinity.
So many people argue that the trinity needs to go away to make games more solo friendly and enhance group dynamic but I find the opposite to be true (probably from too much pugging). Without the trinity and defined roles, everyone seems to suck LOL The don't try and get better at their main role because they don't really have one.
As a healer primarily, I like having a defined role of keeping the party alive. I like having a tank because usually they seem to be the party leader as well, marking mobs and directing dps, pulling the instance in a coordinated way (if they're good) so that the party has less reactive healing thrown and more organized dps on targets.
Dissolving the trinity seemed to make group make up and dynamic more chaotic. I've wiped a lot more often in non trinity groups than I have where everyone has predefined responsibilities.
I don't understand this argument. In this thread. The whole point is for progress forward. The evolution of the genre. Move forward. And the only working example of a non-trinity system of a recently released game isn't really a great example of why we should get rid of it. So, in order to make the argument seem reasonable, you go back to a 15 year old game with an even more archaic system, for the best example of how to move forward? How does that equal progress? UO really is not the shining example you are looking for. In fact, it seems to me that's exactly what EQ did. Move the genre forward from UO.
And there are plenty of ways to move the genre forward without contrived mechanics such as taunt.
No argument. I'd love to see a system where agro is managed by how everyone in the team works together. Where the tank is defined by who's best managing the mob's agro. Where anyone not thinking or not paying attention can easily pull agro. I don't want to restrict DPS or healing. where they can't go all out, but it has to be balanced against what others in the team are doing. and just going balls to the wall will get you killed fast.
The way to do so is to start from the opposite end from where the EQers want to start - with the mobs. You then build your combat to counter mob behavior. After all, that's how the players developed the trinity back when this DikuMUD morass of taunt-based combat began.
again, maybe it was progress that brought UO from that, maybe not. Regardless, I don't see the Trinity as a way for players to deal with mobs, but rather a way for the mobs to deal with players. in other words. The trinity exists because of the human limitation, not the software. I've always believed mobs could have been made smarter. That was obvious from day one in MMOs. But when that's done, players can't deal. This isn't going to change. Unless the AI is built from that standpoint. Then yes, Improving AI to deal with the limits of gamer's ability to act in a coordinated manor in the middle of chaos while still seeming realistic and not allowing the encounter to devolve into a zerg fest is exactly what MMOs need. Otherwise more advanced scripting with seemingly intelligent mobs is going to seriously out hink most groups. and not really help. Yeah it will be creative and funny. But it will kill strategy and take control from teh players and make the players almost 100% reactionary.
But, to your post, you don't understand because you are taking an out of context reply to another person's particular post and trying to apply it to the main discussion. You also probably were confused because, much like the guy that thought EQers invented the zerg, you think that EQ is where the trinity started. It began before UO in the DikuMUDs that EQ copied.
I understand that EQN is going in an entirely new direction than any of these old games. Personally, I'd rather a return, but that's my and my subjective opinion. I will still assert that UO is not a good example for an argument against the Trinity in a game such as EQN. It does not represent a good picture of the progress SoE is after.
There are other ways to get rid of the contrivance of taunt without just trying to created super advanced AIs for the mobs. Some (not all) are adding collision detection, identifying/attacking a more logical player target, mob interaction, or... dare I suggest... changing the purpose of mobs entirely from just being xp dispensers and loot pinatas. I don't know why you keep reiterating the UO thing, as I didn't say that's something we need to move forward to, however it is one of many other systems to look toward to see that organized group combat can exist and does exist without magical neenerneener skills to make it work.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Without the trinity and defined roles, everyone seems to suck LOL :)
That's kind of the point... The Trinity means you do not have to think about strategy. That's why I hate it so much. People just get one for free and all they have to do before a fight is be like: "Um... well. I'm tank. I keep aggro. Yeah. I don't do anything else. Ever. All fights are the same."
So people really got used to it.
Now you give them something where the Trinity is not guaranteed to work, of course the suck! They are not used to have to sit down and think about what they're going to do, or what roles they're going to decide at this moment. Why nobody talks in PUG's? Because the game already told them what to do. The game already said: "This encounter needs 5 people, 1 tank, 1 healer, and 3 DPS. Get those and you're good." That's insanely dumb. It's this dumbness that makes a lot of people antsy with the Trinity. It's a hyper-gamification, hyper-simplification of reality.
This needs to be punished. They need to fail. People who refuse to think. Must lose. And die. And wipe. And, eventually, after that happens, maybe they'll realize they need to come up with their own "Trinity" before they go in.
The UO example someone brought up here sounds great. YOU decide how many people you bring. YOU decide what classes or whatever they are. YOU decide what you all do, together.
If you refuse to do any of that, why does it surprise you that you horribly suck and die? Since when going somewhere unprepared if it's even remotely difficult results in success?
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
I wouldn't say the trinity is broken. It was a response to a specific environment, and it obviously worked. A lot of people are happy with it. SOE is changing the environment, and in revisiting the combat, they opted to try something other than trinity combat. I can agree with the sentiment. I don't know if I agree with their final choice though, because I haven't seen it.
We don't have a good idea of what they are going to do. It could be something like trinity combat where players are sometimes tanks, sometimes dps or sometimes healers. It could be that players are either dps or support. We just don't know.
I would say it's entirely possible that there are a lot of people who are tired of trinity combat because they've been doing it for years and it doesn't matter what a company does with trinity combat, it won't feel new, and those players will be tired of it. I would also say that new players coming into the genre may not be hip to trinity style combat because it's not what they're used to. SOE thinks there are more people who would be hip to whatever their coming up with than trinity combat.
That's about all I can say on the subject.
I think its this more than anything else mentioned in this thread. SOE doesn't want the same player base that has been bouncing from mmo to mmo. Seems to me they are targeting 'gamers' that don't/won't or never have play(ed) the current mmo market. This way they can change the landscape of traditional group dynamics without having to cater to those that have played mmo's for years.
I don't understand this argument. In this thread. The whole point is for progress forward. The evolution of the genre. Move forward. And the only working example of a non-trinity system of a recently released game isn't really a great example of why we should get rid of it. So, in order to make the argument seem reasonable, you go back to a 15 year old game with an even more archaic system, for the best example of how to move forward? How does that equal progress? UO really is not the shining example you are looking for. In fact, it seems to me that's exactly what EQ did. Move the genre forward from UO.
And there are plenty of ways to move the genre forward without contrived mechanics such as taunt.
No argument. I'd love to see a system where agro is managed by how everyone in the team works together. Where the tank is defined by who's best managing the mob's agro. Where anyone not thinking or not paying attention can easily pull agro. I don't want to restrict DPS or healing. where they can't go all out, but it has to be balanced against what others in the team are doing. and just going balls to the wall will get you killed fast.
The way to do so is to start from the opposite end from where the EQers want to start - with the mobs. You then build your combat to counter mob behavior. After all, that's how the players developed the trinity back when this DikuMUD morass of taunt-based combat began.
again, maybe it was progress that brought UO from that, maybe not. Regardless, I don't see the Trinity as a way for players to deal with mobs, but rather a way for the mobs to deal with players. in other words. The trinity exists because of the human limitation, not the software. I've always believed mobs could have been made smarter. That was obvious from day one in MMOs. But when that's done, players can't deal. This isn't going to change. Unless the AI is built from that standpoint. Then yes, Improving AI to deal with the limits of gamer's ability to act in a coordinated manor in the middle of chaos while still seeming realistic and not allowing the encounter to devolve into a zerg fest is exactly what MMOs need. Otherwise more advanced scripting with seemingly intelligent mobs is going to seriously out hink most groups. and not really help. Yeah it will be creative and funny. But it will kill strategy and take control from teh players and make the players almost 100% reactionary.
But, to your post, you don't understand because you are taking an out of context reply to another person's particular post and trying to apply it to the main discussion. You also probably were confused because, much like the guy that thought EQers invented the zerg, you think that EQ is where the trinity started. It began before UO in the DikuMUDs that EQ copied.
I understand that EQN is going in an entirely new direction than any of these old games. Personally, I'd rather a return, but that's my and my subjective opinion. I will still assert that UO is not a good example for an argument against the Trinity in a game such as EQN. It does not represent a good picture of the progress SoE is after.
There are other ways to get rid of the contrivance of taunt without just trying to created super advanced AIs for the mobs. Some (not all) are adding collision detection, identifying/attacking a more logical player target, mob interaction, or... dare I suggest... changing the purpose of mobs entirely from just being xp dispensers and loot pinatas. I don't know why you keep reiterating the UO thing, as I didn't say that's something we need to move forward to, however it is one of many other systems to look toward to see that organized group combat can exist and does exist without magical neenerneener skills to make it work.
I only reiterate UO because it's been the "Go To" canned response people are throwing around this topic in numerous threads as an example to substantiate a non-trinity system. It was the subject of my earlier post. And I called BS on that. That's all. And while I cannot argue that it is in fact a system that can be referenced, to include it, you also have to include all the limitations that came with it. Then, use it as the example if it fits.
EDIT: Let me rephrase. it was the subject of my initial post, if we moved off that, then I missed the queue, We can move on then,.
SOE doesn't want the same player base that has been bouncing from mmo to mmo. Seems to me they are targeting 'gamers' that don't/won't or never have play(ed) the current mmo market. This way they can change the landscape of traditional group dynamics without having to cater to those that have played mmo's for years.
I agree with this.
I do think they are listening to MMO vets as well though.
Part of the restructuring involves their AI. They say traditional Holy Trinity doesn't work in their game because of the AI. I think they're actually looking into and treating their game(s) like virtual worlds. As opposed to making land, cobbled together with some half-assed lore and game mechanics that have no connection to either of the two aforementioned. But hey at least they have all the bells and whistles of a traditional themepark game.
Those players that are looking for the 'traditional modern themepark' are the ones not wanted. Because those are the type of players looking to burn through all the content as quickly as possible so they can move on to the next game. That type of gaming and those type of players is not sustainable.
I'm sure the trinity dynamic is good for some people. Plenty of people just don't want or can't handle change even though it's the only constant in life. For me, I figured out after the third or fourth MMO I played over the course of a few years that the trinity was just a boring and old mechanic that forced people into roles. Sure roles can be good, but when you spam LFM1Tank or LFM1Healer for hours on end to finally get a scrub to fill that role who is self centered and sucky to boot, it kind of makes that whole trinity mechanic just tiring and not worth it on top of how silly it actually is when you think about the mechanics (to me of course).
Yes, trinity is very "basic" and "easy" in the most simple of encounter designs:
Tank holds aggro, prevents other players from taking damage, uses skills to reduce the damage they take.
Healer heals tank, heals random damage to others and self.
DPS nukes down the mob(s), tries to avoid taking damage so the healer can focus on the tank and not OOM.
But beyond a few encounters here and there in low level instances or specific "gear check" tank n' spank fights - how often is a boss fight a simple tank n' spank?!
Have predictable roles and situations allows the encounter designers to invent and implement crazy complex and fun challenges that play to the strengths of the system, testing both the individual players skill at playing their chosen role, and the overall communication and coordination of the group as a whole.
Or, they can specifically design mechanics that change or alter these predictable roles and situations, adding further variety and enjoyment to an encounter.
There are always exceptions. The exceptional game. And there are certainly games that do more with the trinity model than others. However, that doesn't change the fact that we've already seen what the trinity model has to offer. We've had over 20 years of the trinity. To expect it to magically be different is kind of wishful thinking.
Heck, TSW had some pretty interesting encounters (though I know the game's not as hardcore as some of the people on this thread are asking). However, that didn't stop the game from bleeding out subs, and it didn't really solve any of the problems we've mentioned.
It has to do with making MMOs even more solo friendly. If there is no interdependence between classes than there is no need to group at all except for raiding. This has taken MMOs even further down the road to single player games. The really sad part of it is it seems to be what the majority of today's MMO gamers want so they will continue to add mechanics that will make MMO even more single player. In today's MMOs the vast majority of the content is designed for a single player to accomplish. Isn't that the very definition of a single player game?
Bren
I did not realize that no game with the Holy Trinity was solo friendly.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
Im all for keeping the trinity. I am not bored of it. I believe its an important part of the mmorpg genre. How do the alternatives really work?...
1) Remove effective class roles and standard threat mechanics altogether and make everyone a solo bundle of fun acting along side a load of other solo'ers to simulate grouping. I havnt played gw2, but from what everyone is saying thats pretty much how it works there and its fail.
2) Keep class roles but remove threat and allow the mobs to use 'AI' to decide who to attack. Unless that AI is in fact just random, or actually using poor intelligence, isnt it going to make its decisions based on how it needs to survive? To live longest it needs to remove who is doing most damage. To do this it first has to kill the healer thats keeping them alive. So now its attack pattern is: Healers, squishy dps, other dps, tank. Whos guna want to play a healer when they have to assume the role of tank first, but arnt built for it. Who wants to be top dps when they will just be next to die? it doesnt make sense.
In option 1, add to that action combat (another trending mechanic!), and you havnt innovated the genre, you've just made a game that actually sits in a different genre and called it an mmorpg
In options 2, you have made a complete mockery of the genre by trying to be more realistic. Great, the boss is smart enough not to be fooled via threat into attacking the tank. Now its AI means nobody gets to enjoy the game. Sweet!.....
I just feel the trinity is part of the genre now. Its just my opinion and wanted to put it out there, but i struggle to get my head around how things can work without the trinity, but still feel like the same genre of game
Heck, TSW had some pretty interesting encounters (though I know the game's not as hardcore as some of the people on this thread are asking). However, that didn't stop the game from bleeding out subs, and it didn't really solve any of the problems we've mentioned.
Or may be they are losing subs because sub is a thing of the past. When there are so many F2P games, any sub game will lose subs, including WOW.
its a heroic thing in my opinion as well as a gameplay thing
think about it, there is no heroic feeling when you play a wizard and have to run like a little girl if the tank doesn't do his job. "I AM ECOCES THE ALL POWERFUL WIZARD! FEAR ME .... as long as you aren't paying attention to me!"
*BOOM, Ecoces has grabbed agro of the brittle skeleton*
"OH GOD GET OUT OF MY WAY ITS CHASING ME!!!! TRAIN TO ZONE TRAIN TO ZONE!"
Heck, TSW had some pretty interesting encounters (though I know the game's not as hardcore as some of the people on this thread are asking). However, that didn't stop the game from bleeding out subs, and it didn't really solve any of the problems we've mentioned.
Or may be they are losing subs because sub is a thing of the past. When there are so many F2P games, any sub game will lose subs, including WOW.
Come on, what a sweeping generality that is frankly wrong.
in the past few years:
WoW still has 7M Subs
SWTOR had 2M people willing to sub when it launched
Rift had over 1M at launch.
EVE still has 1/2M
FF14 had 1.5M asking to be in Beta, I've no idea what the preorders are at this point, but it appears as though it's going to have a solid number of players at launch.
You can't look at the current state of those games to blame the business model. When an MMO releases, people still line up to buy with the intention to sub if it's good. The fact that most of these games failed to deliver a long term experience and they lost those large numbers is not the business's models fault.
It has to do with making MMOs even more solo friendly. If there is no interdependence between classes than there is no need to group at all except for raiding.
Trinity is effective at what it does. The problem is that if you have beyond the basic characters there's a hard balance between hybrids. Then you have specialty classes that become group depended or overpowered. Hybrids then suffer from not doing anything well or doing stuff too well.
Without the trinity you have more rounded characters but generally content is going to be weaker.
Its broken because too many people wanted to be everything to everybody. Tanks started screaming they were the most important while healers echod back " Oh yea?..here's some band aids.". Mages became dps whores in direct competition with assassins and bards were phased out because 250% speed cash shop mounts took their buffs place.
The masses cry babied for "easy' and naturally someone figured a way to make money of those folks while supplying everything ...for everybody...all at the same time.
This is why you have tanks that can sort of heal and healers that can sort of cast magic and Mages who can sort of CC and assassins who finally won the GODmode competition and can now tank.
IMHO its watering down the class..not making it stronger.(or more desirable)
P.S. there is nothing more ignorant than blindly throwing new ingredients into a tried and true recipe hoping for the same result as the first time it was used..(or the first 30 years its been used in this case.)
Eh, giving a tank 5k worth of self-healing in a boss fight which requires 200k healing doesn't exactly free the tank from needing a healer. That's the necessary element for the trinity to work: reliance on others' specializations.
As for throwing new ingredients into a tried and true formula? That's an absolute requirement of new game design, actually. Design stagnation leads to business stagnation. You don't always have to mix up every single mechanic (in fact it's nearly always a bad idea to do so) but you need to mix up some core elements to keep players interested.
You need time for the new ingredients to bake, but you need those new ingredients (and probably to remove some old ones, since inflating a game's complexity on its own tends to be the wrong move.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Without the trinity role system.. and when I say that, I don't mean just taunt and heals, I'm talking about CLASS DEFINING ROLES.. You have problems with squishies being vulnerable and dead much more often.. Without some form of control, whether that control be CC or tauting, you end up with chaos in where every person is out for themselves trying to survive a battle.. How else do you plan to save and protect the weak classes? UNLESS you wish to make the game where there is little difference between a cloth and plate..
Using EQN as the new example of non-trinity, people argue that a smart AI knows who the weakest link is.. Well 1) I sure as hell hope there is no such thing as smart wolves and bears.. They are stupid animals that has no clue what or who a healer is.. 2).. Assuming the mobs is a smart humanoid and goes after the weakest link, how do you protect and prevent that? You have 3 options and 3 options only..
You CC the mob using root, barriers or some form of stuns.. Well there you go.. Just another artificial program mechanic that replaced the taunt button.. Root becomes the new taunt.. or stuns become the new taunt.. You can call it what you will, implicated it however you like, but the end result is still the same.. KEEP mob off squishy..
You DPS zerg the mob before they kill your squishy that has agro.. IF the squishy is able to run some, then you end up with kiting, and once again you use kiting as the NEW taunt mechanic..
Squishy is strong enough to become the tank himself and needs no help.. WHY even bother grouping them? At this point it's a solo game then, occasional events where a bunch of solo people get together.. and zerg the hard mobs.. Oh sure you can toss in a small amount of role features like a defense shield that last 3 seconds.. or some AOE heal that is 5% effective, but those roles are basically only cosmetic only..
The only problem that trinity role system had was HOW it was implemented by the devs into the game.. Bliizzard was the worst offender in this.. With the overuse of AOE taunting that was OP, it turned the trinity into a faceroll.. That doe sneed to be addressed, but in no way should be the poster child example why trinity fails..
The idea of team or group interaction HAS to be role driven doesn't hold either.. Just look at todays pro sports.. The 4 biggest US sports Football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey are all formed around and operate using ROLES.. If you remove those roles, the sports fail to be those sports.. I always joked around that if you remove roles from Football you end up with Rugby.. Rugby is a fine sport, but it truly is just a group of individuals resembling a team playing keep a way from the other team.. LOL But to say that ROLES in Football is stupid and they should be abolished is crazy..
Without the trinity role system.. and when I say that, I don't mean just taunt and heals, I'm talking about CLASS DEFINING ROLES.. You have problems with squishies being vulnerable and dead much more often.. Without some form of control, whether that control be CC or tauting, you end up with chaos in where every person is out for themselves trying to survive a battle.. How else do you plan to save and protect the weak classes? UNLESS you wish to make the game where there is little difference between a cloth and plate..
Using EQN as the new example of non-trinity, people argue that a smart AI knows who the weakest link is.. Well 1) I sure as hell hope there is no such thing as smart wolves and bears.. They are stupid animals that has no clue what or who a healer is.. 2).. Assuming the mobs is a smart humanoid and goes after the weakest link, how do you protect and prevent that? You have 3 options and 3 options only..
You CC the mob using root, barriers or some form of stuns.. Well there you go.. Just another artificial program mechanic that replaced the taunt button.. Root becomes the new taunt.. or stuns become the new taunt.. You can call it what you will, implicated it however you like, but the end result is still the same.. KEEP mob off squishy..
You DPS zerg the mob before they kill your squishy that has agro.. IF the squishy is able to run some, then you end up with kiting, and once again you use kiting as the NEW taunt mechanic..
Squishy is strong enough to become the tank himself and needs no help.. WHY even bother grouping them? At this point it's a solo game then, occasional events where a bunch of solo people get together.. and zerg the hard mobs.. Oh sure you can toss in a small amount of role features like a defense shield that last 3 seconds.. or some AOE heal that is 5% effective, but those roles are basically only cosmetic only..
The only problem that trinity role system had was HOW it was implemented by the devs into the game.. Bliizzard was the worst offender in this.. With the overuse of AOE taunting that was OP, it turned the trinity into a faceroll.. That doe sneed to be addressed, but in no way should be the poster child example why trinity fails..
The idea of team or group interaction HAS to be role driven doesn't hold either.. Just look at todays pro sports.. The 4 biggest US sports Football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey are all formed around and operate using ROLES.. If you remove those roles, the sports fail to be those sports.. I always joked around that if you remove roles from Football you end up with Rugby.. Rugby is a fine sport, but it truly is just a group of individuals resembling a team playing keep a way from the other team.. LOL But to say that ROLES in Football is stupid and they should be abolished is crazy..
You still seem to be confusing the desire for a different system other than taunt-based combat with some kind of interest in eradicating roles. People who dislike the trinity are asking for the former, not the latter. How are you this far into the conversation and still struggling with that, man?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
I played EQ for years with just a Druid,enchanter,best lord and wizzy and we were able to take down near every group content in the game because we adapted the so called trinity to our play style. Sure in some cases it took us way longer than if we had a tank,cleric group but it was probably one of the reason we still play today. We lost some but we never gave up and it made us better players and we had huge fun in trying. We have tried most every game out there the four of us but beside wow,eq2,rift and SWG there was no game that could hold us for longer than the first month and it was because the use of healers and tanks had been reduced by making the mobs easy and gave everybody the ability to self heal. We all felt while playing that we weren't helping each other but we were soloing in the same place. If you remove Argo and taunting and healing then I don't care what the mobs ai is like everybody will have to have self tanking,self healing and good dps. That will mean everybody will be basically the same and being grouped will be more of a inconvenice than doing it solo unless they make the mobs harder and you need the extra DPS.
To me the trinity has to be unless you want a solo experience even if you are grouped.
people hate wow so much, they come up with every shit to differ from it. as simple.
and no, games surely won't be better without.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
So many people argue that the trinity needs to go away to make games more solo friendly and enhance group dynamic but I find the opposite to be true (probably from too much pugging). Without the trinity and defined roles, everyone seems to suck LOL
The don't try and get better at their main role because they don't really have one.
As a healer primarily, I like having a defined role of keeping the party alive. I like having a tank because usually they seem to be the party leader as well, marking mobs and directing dps, pulling the instance in a coordinated way (if they're good) so that the party has less reactive healing thrown and more organized dps on targets.
Dissolving the trinity seemed to make group make up and dynamic more chaotic. I've wiped a lot more often in non trinity groups than I have where everyone has predefined responsibilities.
No bitchers.
There are other ways to get rid of the contrivance of taunt without just trying to created super advanced AIs for the mobs. Some (not all) are adding collision detection, identifying/attacking a more logical player target, mob interaction, or... dare I suggest... changing the purpose of mobs entirely from just being xp dispensers and loot pinatas. I don't know why you keep reiterating the UO thing, as I didn't say that's something we need to move forward to, however it is one of many other systems to look toward to see that organized group combat can exist and does exist without magical neenerneener skills to make it work.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
I think its this more than anything else mentioned in this thread. SOE doesn't want the same player base that has been bouncing from mmo to mmo. Seems to me they are targeting 'gamers' that don't/won't or never have play(ed) the current mmo market. This way they can change the landscape of traditional group dynamics without having to cater to those that have played mmo's for years.
I only reiterate UO because it's been the "Go To" canned response people are throwing around this topic in numerous threads as an example to substantiate a non-trinity system. It was the subject of my earlier post. And I called BS on that. That's all. And while I cannot argue that it is in fact a system that can be referenced, to include it, you also have to include all the limitations that came with it. Then, use it as the example if it fits.
EDIT: Let me rephrase. it was the subject of my initial post, if we moved off that, then I missed the queue, We can move on then,.
I agree with this.
I do think they are listening to MMO vets as well though.
Part of the restructuring involves their AI. They say traditional Holy Trinity doesn't work in their game because of the AI. I think they're actually looking into and treating their game(s) like virtual worlds. As opposed to making land, cobbled together with some half-assed lore and game mechanics that have no connection to either of the two aforementioned. But hey at least they have all the bells and whistles of a traditional themepark game.
Those players that are looking for the 'traditional modern themepark' are the ones not wanted. Because those are the type of players looking to burn through all the content as quickly as possible so they can move on to the next game. That type of gaming and those type of players is not sustainable.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
There are always exceptions. The exceptional game. And there are certainly games that do more with the trinity model than others. However, that doesn't change the fact that we've already seen what the trinity model has to offer. We've had over 20 years of the trinity. To expect it to magically be different is kind of wishful thinking.
Heck, TSW had some pretty interesting encounters (though I know the game's not as hardcore as some of the people on this thread are asking). However, that didn't stop the game from bleeding out subs, and it didn't really solve any of the problems we've mentioned.
I did not realize that no game with the Holy Trinity was solo friendly.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
Im all for keeping the trinity. I am not bored of it. I believe its an important part of the mmorpg genre. How do the alternatives really work?...
1) Remove effective class roles and standard threat mechanics altogether and make everyone a solo bundle of fun acting along side a load of other solo'ers to simulate grouping. I havnt played gw2, but from what everyone is saying thats pretty much how it works there and its fail.
2) Keep class roles but remove threat and allow the mobs to use 'AI' to decide who to attack. Unless that AI is in fact just random, or actually using poor intelligence, isnt it going to make its decisions based on how it needs to survive? To live longest it needs to remove who is doing most damage. To do this it first has to kill the healer thats keeping them alive. So now its attack pattern is: Healers, squishy dps, other dps, tank. Whos guna want to play a healer when they have to assume the role of tank first, but arnt built for it. Who wants to be top dps when they will just be next to die? it doesnt make sense.
In option 1, add to that action combat (another trending mechanic!), and you havnt innovated the genre, you've just made a game that actually sits in a different genre and called it an mmorpg
In options 2, you have made a complete mockery of the genre by trying to be more realistic. Great, the boss is smart enough not to be fooled via threat into attacking the tank. Now its AI means nobody gets to enjoy the game. Sweet!.....
I just feel the trinity is part of the genre now. Its just my opinion and wanted to put it out there, but i struggle to get my head around how things can work without the trinity, but still feel like the same genre of game
Or may be they are losing subs because sub is a thing of the past. When there are so many F2P games, any sub game will lose subs, including WOW.
its a heroic thing in my opinion as well as a gameplay thing
think about it, there is no heroic feeling when you play a wizard and have to run like a little girl if the tank doesn't do his job. "I AM ECOCES THE ALL POWERFUL WIZARD! FEAR ME .... as long as you aren't paying attention to me!"
*BOOM, Ecoces has grabbed agro of the brittle skeleton*
"OH GOD GET OUT OF MY WAY ITS CHASING ME!!!! TRAIN TO ZONE TRAIN TO ZONE!"
yeah not very heroic.
Nothing wrong with trinity, never was.
On the other hand there is a whole lot of wrong with the current crop of casual action MMO with a nonexistent community.
Come on, what a sweeping generality that is frankly wrong.
in the past few years:
WoW still has 7M Subs
SWTOR had 2M people willing to sub when it launched
Rift had over 1M at launch.
EVE still has 1/2M
FF14 had 1.5M asking to be in Beta, I've no idea what the preorders are at this point, but it appears as though it's going to have a solid number of players at launch.
You can't look at the current state of those games to blame the business model. When an MMO releases, people still line up to buy with the intention to sub if it's good. The fact that most of these games failed to deliver a long term experience and they lost those large numbers is not the business's models fault.
+1
Trinity is effective at what it does. The problem is that if you have beyond the basic characters there's a hard balance between hybrids. Then you have specialty classes that become group depended or overpowered. Hybrids then suffer from not doing anything well or doing stuff too well.
Without the trinity you have more rounded characters but generally content is going to be weaker.
Eh, giving a tank 5k worth of self-healing in a boss fight which requires 200k healing doesn't exactly free the tank from needing a healer. That's the necessary element for the trinity to work: reliance on others' specializations.
As for throwing new ingredients into a tried and true formula? That's an absolute requirement of new game design, actually. Design stagnation leads to business stagnation. You don't always have to mix up every single mechanic (in fact it's nearly always a bad idea to do so) but you need to mix up some core elements to keep players interested.
You need time for the new ingredients to bake, but you need those new ingredients (and probably to remove some old ones, since inflating a game's complexity on its own tends to be the wrong move.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Without the trinity role system.. and when I say that, I don't mean just taunt and heals, I'm talking about CLASS DEFINING ROLES.. You have problems with squishies being vulnerable and dead much more often.. Without some form of control, whether that control be CC or tauting, you end up with chaos in where every person is out for themselves trying to survive a battle.. How else do you plan to save and protect the weak classes? UNLESS you wish to make the game where there is little difference between a cloth and plate..
Using EQN as the new example of non-trinity, people argue that a smart AI knows who the weakest link is.. Well 1) I sure as hell hope there is no such thing as smart wolves and bears.. They are stupid animals that has no clue what or who a healer is.. 2).. Assuming the mobs is a smart humanoid and goes after the weakest link, how do you protect and prevent that? You have 3 options and 3 options only..
You still seem to be confusing the desire for a different system other than taunt-based combat with some kind of interest in eradicating roles. People who dislike the trinity are asking for the former, not the latter. How are you this far into the conversation and still struggling with that, man?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre