Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Holy trinity

245

Comments

  • SephirosoSephiroso Member RarePosts: 2,020
    Originally posted by evilastro
    I personally felt that the removal was fantastic for PvP, terrible for PvE. Would be great for a game with open world PvP focus but I found it made dungeons and open world feel zergy.

    This is the general consensus. Its a great idea for PvP but quite horrible for PvE. anyone who says otherwise is just a GW2 diehard fan.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • AroukosAroukos Member Posts: 571
    Originally posted by zwei2
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    Sad thing is that other developers are taking the same route right now, copying GW2 features like non trinity, with nothing to replace the removal of a tactical and strategical layer from the gameplay.

    Let them do it. Eventually gamers will get fed up of the meaningless zergs and non-trinity nonsense, and companies will just switch back to trinity format. Gamers are known to be the most fickle bunch out of all shoppers.

     

    +1

  • SephirosoSephiroso Member RarePosts: 2,020
    Originally posted by Aroukos
    Originally posted by zwei2
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    Sad thing is that other developers are taking the same route right now, copying GW2 features like non trinity, with nothing to replace the removal of a tactical and strategical layer from the gameplay.

    Let them do it. Eventually gamers will get fed up of the meaningless zergs and non-trinity nonsense, and companies will just switch back to trinity format. Gamers are known to be the most fickle bunch out of all shoppers.

     

    +1

    -1

     

    Im pretty sure people said the same thing about people getting fed up with pay-to-win cash shop f2ps and just overall copypasta f2ps yet copypasta f2p games crop up one after another and still make hundreds of thousands(at the cost of maybe ten thousand) or millions at the cost of a couple hundred thousand, in their lifetime. And before one is even in its deaththroes, another is there to take its place.

     

    People get fed up, but they'll keep throwing their money at the companies and the companies will continue to toss out garbage.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066

    GW2 problem is not the lack of trinity.

    The game is too reliant on the dodge/block/bubbles/invulnerable frames and powerful boss attacks - that mean the absolute best tactic for every player is to deal as much damage as possible and correctly dodge all the powerful attacks.

    Crowd control is too weak.

    Those are the problems.

     

    I've played holy trinity games but they are just a shadow of GW1 (yes, the original).

    I prefer the actual movement and feel of the combat in GW2 over GW1 (GW1 combat is a bit static like the holy trinity games, you just need to move out of AoE and to be in range of the enemy) but in terms of team working together feel, GW1 beats GW2 and games like WoW.

    Playing GW1 with my GF and AI bots felt more team like than playing in a full party in WoW.

    There was no threat mechanic, there was some heals, but buff removal, buff stacking (both offensive but also stacking defense like Protective Spirit, Spirit Bond, Shield of Absorption and the likes of Aegis/There is Nothing to Fear/Save yourselves), debuffing for spiking, etc, was much more interesting and led to frontline-midline-backline gameplay.

    Of course instanced world allowed smarter and stronger AI.

     

    But GW2 can still be more like GW1 - just remove the importance of invulnerable frames and increase the importance of sustain, buff removal and CC.

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Member RarePosts: 9,686
    Originally posted by Avison

    I think we can all agree that GW2 was far from perfect in how it handled classes. I'm sure we can all agree a pure trinity system isn't the way we should be heading.

    But in a game like mmos people need defined roles/specialization and they all need to feel impactful in those roles. I haven't seen a game find this new ground quite yet but I believe the current generation of games in development will slowly allow us to narrow in on what it truly is.

    Basically in the future classes will have a choice of roles/specs to which they can switch on the fly...  These will work like stances, and you cam switch stance like tank/healer/cc/melleedps/rangeDps/support on the fly, every character would be able to switch between 2 or 3 roles... Content will force players to change roles when they want to be efficient or succesfull in certain cases.  

    So there might be fights that work best with 6 times dps, while other fights might require 2 tanks and 2 healers, or other fights that can only be overcome by crowd controll or even just plain AoE dps.   

     

    I think some things where very good in Gw2 but this part went to far, they need to take a single step back..

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • Ender4Ender4 Member UncommonPosts: 2,247

    GW2 doesn't give you enough tools to protect your group mates which is where the only failure is. You don't need a true holy trinity but GW2 doesn't give enough control either. Smarter mob AI is a big key to making this work too and GW2 isn't particularily good.

    My biggest issues with the game are still the downleveling in lower zones and lack of a real PvP server but oh well, neither of those are ever going to change.

  • KenaoshiKenaoshi Member UncommonPosts: 1,022
    Originally posted by Ender4

    GW2 doesn't give you enough tools to protect your group mates which is where the only failure is. You don't need a true holy trinity but GW2 doesn't give enough control either. Smarter mob AI is a big key to making this work too and GW2 isn't particularily good.

    My biggest issues with the game are still the downleveling in lower zones and lack of a real PvP server but oh well, neither of those are ever going to change.

    Well, my friend, that part is one of the things i like on the game. there is no babysitting bad players.

    The AI part sure can be improved here and there, but some part of the game, like TA, has been shown some improvement.

    Now the downleveling part. I STILL dont get it. my high levels still pretty much faceroll everything that is not a group content intended, yet some are doable.

    now: GW2 (11 80s).
    Dark Souls 2.
    future: Mount&Blade 2 BannerLord.
    "Bro, do your even fractal?"
    Recommends: Guild Wars 2, Dark Souls, Mount&Blade: Warband, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    Originally posted by Ender4

     

    My biggest issues with the game are still the downleveling in lower zones

    Get someone in full exotic beserker gear and just blow everything with 1 or 2 shots.

    It is barely any challenge unless you aggro 10 or more mobs (or champs and still some classes have a cakewalk running around the champs and soloing them) - you can still die but the mobs die so fast you are basically invincible.

    Or get yourself in full exotic with defensive stats like vit/toug/healing with a spec with a bunch of regens and stay there taking barely any damage.

     

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    Originally posted by Kenaoshi
    Now the downleveling part. I STILL dont get it. my high levels still pretty much faceroll everything that is not a group content intended, yet some are doable.

    Most people that complained about that didn't have a full exotic character with a decent build.

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • Ender4Ender4 Member UncommonPosts: 2,247

    I just don't like the concept. First off I prefer to not touch all of the content on each character, leave some of the world for alts. I also enjoy going back to old dungeons and blow through them alone or with a friend etc. It is just something that makes the game feel wrong to me.

    As for babysitting bad players, there is nothing wrong with that. You don't need to do it with a tank and full heals though. A "tank" should be able to shield players to lower damage on them, a "healer" can put a blessing on them to lower damage on them etc. Mobs should attack more intelligently and go after softer targets and those that are hurting them more etc. GW2 is on the right path, the execution just doesn't work as well as it could.

  • VikingGamerVikingGamer Member UncommonPosts: 1,350

    Action combat with defined roles (not necessarily trinity) works well I think. Tera and NW do it right in this regard. We need to realize that action combat doesn't have to be roleless. They are two different things.

    Just because GW2 is doing well doesn't mean necessarily that the combat paradigm is a good one. I think that it does well despite the limitations of roleless combat because the rest of the game is simply THAT good. Also, admittedly RvR style combat can be  (but isn't always) rather disorganized and this setup does lend itself well to that environment.

    What I would like to see from GW2 is choices. Create some classes or class builds that allow for true tanking, healing and controlling (DPS shouldn't be separate part, it should be baked into every other role) along side the existing and let people choose how they want to play. I would come back for that.

    All die, so die well.

  • FlyinDutchman87FlyinDutchman87 Member UncommonPosts: 336

    The creator of FFXIV said in an interview that action combat would never work in MMO's. He's said that It would be too taxing on players for every encounter to be difficult and action packed, and by creating the game in such a way companies would drive players away from the game...

     

    When I read that I wanted to laugh..... It really is a ludicrous thing to say.

     

    It seems however that at least to most of the people here he had it right. 

     

    Seriously? Who WANTS combat to be boring? Who WANTS PvE mobs to not hit so hard against tanks?

     

    I leveled a warrior as prot in wow.... I leveled him by walking backwards through every zone with a shield spike. Mobs would aggro to me, I would auto attack them while they beat on my shield for block, they would die, and I would keep walking backwards. Mobs my level weren't even capable of hurting me. I could fight 8-10 at once..... Without even coming close to dieing.  I didn't have to watch the screen. I didn't have to use any abilities. How is THAT better game design?

     

    In GW2 my 80 warrior has 2400 toughness.... And I can STILL die to 2 mobs if I don't fight well. THAT is exciting. I HAVE to be paying attention or I'll get killed. 

  • evilastroevilastro Member Posts: 4,270

    I think I prefer a soft trinity. Games where you just watch health bars are bad. Games where you can hold aggro 100% of the time unless there are scripted mem-wipes are also bad. But removing both completely just doesn't work for me.

     

    While it is acceptable for these roles to exist, there does need to be more emphasis on self survival and culpability for damage and support classes. 

     

    Tanks should work for aggro, and only be able to maintain it for short periods of time, making timing important.  Healers should be able to heal and support, but again it should be sporadic emergency healing, not topping up green bars.

     

    I think these should make optimal groups, but if you are skilled enough it should be possible to do the content without these roles.

     

  • HalandirHalandir Member UncommonPosts: 773
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

    Sad thing is that other developers are taking the same route right now, copying GW2 features like non trinity, with nothing to replace the removal of a tactical and strategical layer from the gameplay.

     

    I don't see why that is sad? Developers have just realized that a lot of people are fed up with the traditional trinity and idiotic CC abilities.

    There is still a lot of trinity games being developed and I am not saddened by choices. It would be quite sad if nothing broke the horrible trinity mold we have been spoonfed ever since the first few games became financially successful on that recipe.

    With all the choices available I simply don't understand why some people insist on turning everything into the exact same thing!

    And just because some people either don't understand the point of fields and finishers does not translate into the game not having tactical layers - It simply means that some people fail to see/adjust to different mechanics.

     

    We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
    (repeat ad infinitum)

  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136

     I don't see a lack of the Trinity in Guild Wars 2 , I see more options and the dumbing down of content to the point that running standard  roles isn't essential. This isn't the step forward people thought it would be, nor is it a step forward at all. Systems which maintain this removal of a hard trinity will continually suffer, not because the players don't know how to adapt ... but because without the core principles of a trinity system in place ... everything becomes a mosh; balance ,  content ,  and pvp. If the end goal is the next evolution in casual game play, ala the WoW era , then this soft trinity systems a step forward for those it applies to.

     

     

  • dontadowdontadow Member UncommonPosts: 1,005

    The great thing about not having a holy trinity (1 single tactic for every creature) is that instead of stepping into a predefined role, you develop your own role and figure out how that works with the other roles you're with. 

    I love dungeons, they are so much fresher than I've ever experienced. In most games you can sleepwalk through a dungeon, bunch of mobs, then, tanking, where do i stand, when do i push my macro.  

    You just don't get that in GW2.  Figuring out how new dungeons work with a group is refreshing. I almost pity the groups who only want to run with a guardian or elemental for the extra defense. I love going in with random classes and figuring the interaction between the two. 

    I only wish they'd allow multiple builds ala Rift that can be switched between.  The ability to switch weapons and skills helps but reassigning traits on the fly would be nice, 

    Those people claiming that GW2 is some zerg fest wouldn't last 5 minutes in one of the non 1st level dungeons.  True dumbing down is being a cog in the machine and taking on a predefined role that has had the same defintion for 10 years. I see other games  I just see autotoms. What you see in GW2 is true co

     

    mbat. In the tabletop game of dnd you find people defining their own roles and seeing how they play with others.  Reminds me of the 1st final fantasy where you would mix different classes and see how well you could do.  

  • dontadowdontadow Member UncommonPosts: 1,005
    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    Originally posted by Siphaed

    The "trinity" is a crutch.  It makes the player a non-hero entity of a collaboration of The Sword (DPS), The Shield (tank) , and The Body (healer).  You're nothing without the other two, and games penalize you otherwise.   

     This is a bad thing how? In an mmo, to depend on others is bad?

    Leveling in a trinity based game is a nightmare for anything other than a DPS, unless you have direct friends (because honestly, even in those games the open world content is hardly grouped; only dungeons/raids get grouped).  Healers die far too much, killing nearly nothing, and even in groups hardly get XP (thanks to healing not counting, but damage to mob only).  Tanks just take forever to kill something, making leveling them a rather slow affair. 

     FFXIV, Tera, WoW, RIft, all these are trinity based games and all of them was easy to level as a tank, a dps, or healer. didn't matter what your role was, was still easy to level.

    "But, but ...leveling doesn't matter!  End-game is all that matters!!1!!111!".  That's one of the biggest bullshit statements that I've always hated.  Leveling is as much as a part of the game as other parts are; it's also the area that teaches the players the fundamentals of the game's mechanics.

     Your logic was still flawed as i stated in previous statement. Also dungeons are what teach a player the fundamentals of the game's mechanics, not solo questing.

    As for a direct response related to GW2, I'd say it's alternative mechanics have done wonders as a substitution for Trinity.  The most basic of them is that everyone gets their own heal, and that means everyone is directly responsible for their own healthbar.   The second mechanic of note is the dodge mechanic, which helps inflate movement's importance; staying out of the red circles, watching the boss's animations for the big one-hitters, and so on.   This again puts the player's responsibility for themselves at the forefront.    The last mechanic of note is the  ability of everyone -including NPC's- to be able to resurrect downed and dead allies.  That last one helps garner player friendliness amongst those within the same server.

     No, GW2 is far from a substitution for the trinity. It's 5 times worse than the trinity. Also half of what you said is present in trinity games, 'movement's importance, staying out of red circles, watching boss animations for big one hitters and so on' are all in trinity based games. Also, while you may not be able to use a skill that gives you invincibility frames while the animation is going(dodge in gw2) its not like thats any different from physically moving away from an aoe or bomb projectile like you can in some WoW fights for instance. Also giving everyone ability to res everyone doesn't garner player friendliness, sorry but GW2 does not in anyway shape or form promote people being social, it infact promotes people to be anti-social.

    To sum up what's mentioned above:  GW2 applies self responsibility to the individual player.  A far better system than that of being a "crutch" or just a broken piece of a puzzle.

    GW2 does not apply self responsibility as much as it applies a zerg mentality to the sum of players. It is hardly a better system to the trinity as even people who enjoy GW2 will tell you, the class system is not a good substitute at all.

     

    Never met, talked to or partied with a person whose ever prefered the holy trinity to GW2.  I am 3/4 of the way through all of the 20+ dungeons in GW2 and (side of ascalon main story and ascalon path 3) i have experienced one that didnt rely on figuring out my individual characters tactics, the team mates tactics and adjusting for the various conditions of the dungeon. 

    This is so different than every other dungeon i've played, where my role pretty much just summed up to where do i stand to get healed and get dammage dealers to do their thing.  Some people love paying pac man, thye love it, to them that's the best game mechanics in the world. The holy trinity is pack man.  I prefer my games to have a little more bite. 

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,857

    The ultimate problem is that the Trinity wasn't put in place to compensate for coding or development. It isn't needed to get around lazy developers. It's needed to overcome the human element. The weakness is in the human side. To take control over the encounter, to adapt, to use tactics All these things require a system of some kind to be in place that will allow for this. 

  • ThorkuneThorkune Member UncommonPosts: 1,969
    I too am pro trinity. But, there needs to be something put in place to incentivize roles in grouping in dungeon finder formats. Queueing up for groups and having to wait forever if you are DPS gets old.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,857
    Originally posted by Thorkune
    I too am pro trinity. But, there needs to be something put in place to incentivize roles in grouping in dungeon finder formats. Queueing up for groups and having to wait forever if you are DPS gets old.

    The only reason I am "Pro Trinity" is because I am not convinced anyone has come up with a better solution yet. I am all for it. But it has to be a system when boss fights can be scaled beyond the lowest common denominator where the average strength of what would be the weakest member of the group has to be the baseline when planning on taking hits from bosses.

     

    Currently, most unavoidable damage in current group content is based on gear check AOE attacks to determine the strength of the healer and to some degree the "squishy"'s gear. Other than that, if you are good enough, you shouldn't take much damage and thus the big hits of a boss can be scaled up.

    In GW2, bosses hide behind walls, ads, weak AOEs, fear, fear and more fear.

    (At least they did while I still played)

  • ZeroxinZeroxin Member UncommonPosts: 2,515
    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    Originally posted by evilastro
    I personally felt that the removal was fantastic for PvP, terrible for PvE. Would be great for a game with open world PvP focus but I found it made dungeons and open world feel zergy.

    This is the general consensus. Its a great idea for PvP but quite horrible for PvE. anyone who says otherwise is just a GW2 diehard fan.

    Lol, so anyone who has a different opinion to you is a diehard fan? Then I'll gladly be called a diehard fan.

    Anyway, a PvE game can do without the trinity. The only thing they need to design well when they don't have a trinity is a good set of mob skills that force players to think and have a direction, a common goal and to reach that common goal each individual player has to try to rack his brain to find out how he can best support the team.

    Like I've said loads of times, the new dungeons exemplify this extremely well. But quite a few of you talking probably haven't tried the new dungeon.

    This is not a game.

  • ZeroxinZeroxin Member UncommonPosts: 2,515
    Originally posted by Ender4

    I just don't like the concept. First off I prefer to not touch all of the content on each character, leave some of the world for alts. I also enjoy going back to old dungeons and blow through them alone or with a friend etc. It is just something that makes the game feel wrong to me.

    As for babysitting bad players, there is nothing wrong with that. You don't need to do it with a tank and full heals though. A "tank" should be able to shield players to lower damage on them, a "healer" can put a blessing on them to lower damage on them etc. Mobs should attack more intelligently and go after softer targets and those that are hurting them more etc. GW2 is on the right path, the execution just doesn't work as well as it could.

    Protection, Weakness, Frost Aura, Aegis.

    In the new Twilight dungeon, when the boss enrages it punches the ground about 6 times and with my Guardian, I place Protection and time my aegises for each time he pulses an attack essentially nullifying the damage for my team.

    I personally think the execution works really well, people just haven't figured out how to work it.

    I recently made a build for my Guardian that has the ability to keep up weakness on my enemies and Protection on my allies for a long time and some guy came into the thread saying it wasn't better support than a build that is mainly supposed to keep the Guardian alive (more so than his teammates), all I could do was laugh. Shows you how little people really know about support.

    This is not a game.

  • observerobserver Member RarePosts: 3,685
    The problem isn't the lack of a tank or healer role in GW2.  The real problem is that encounters are still being based on trinity mechanics. 
  • didjeramadidjerama Member Posts: 201
    Originally posted by observer
    The problem isn't the lack of a tank or healer role in GW2.  The real problem is that encounters are still being based on trinity mechanics. 

    SOmewhat like that, problem is ANet did dungeons poorly (well poorly for skilled people, lots of people still have problems) and not taking advantages of their combat system.

    Theres so much you can do when you dont have to follow unavoidable the rules of the trinity that hold you back, maybe once in the future ANet will deliver.

  • loulakiloulaki Member UncommonPosts: 944
    Originally posted by Siphaed

     

    To sum up what's mentioned above:  GW2 applies self responsibility to the individual player.  A far better system than that of being a "crutch" or just a broken piece of a puzzle.

     

    this ^

     

    thats why i love GW2 and doing dungeons with friends or with people where we talk what to do on our next move, also getting specific roles in WvW or in sPvP that are closer to real life than a trinity system, where the damage comes from all together and there are people who control area, who deliver area for support, who blast fields, who engage the enemy, who scout, who finished the downed, and the list can go on ... 

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.