I like the trinity myself, but I am not going to rant, throw a hissy fit, and tell them that their game's combat sucks, without seeing it and playing it.
I worry about the game being too casual, but I can't say it will be, or make a post saying it is, when me nor anyone else has played it or knows.
I didn't like any GW2 class I tried, and I thought that the game was too cluttered, if EQN delivers the same, I won't be playing it. I have liked games without a trinity before, UO is one of my top 2 mmos of all time, and it didn't. I gotta wait and see.
I donated to Pantheon, because I miss trinity play, enchanter type classes, and loved VG/EQ, but I don't refuse to play something if it is made by company 'x'.
I feel like I could have posted this word for word. I agree 100%
I love games like EQ and VG with the trinity at the core of their foundation. And then I also love UO and AC1 which had no trinity. Either way, it comes down to the gameplay for me.
Originally posted by KhinRunite No hard trinity is the best idea to come in multiplayer games. I can just gather up my friends and we can go on our adventure without forcing anyone to log in as their tank or healer.
Yeah everyone wins every time, never a losing strategy with the new system. Just log in and you get a award.
The term 'rez-zerg' suggests that people keep dying in boss encounters, so where are you pulling that kind of thinking? There's actually a bigger chance of failing because people have to adapt to situations on the fly.
Originally posted by KhinRunite No hard trinity is the best idea to come in multiplayer games. I can just gather up my friends and we can go on our adventure without forcing anyone to log in as their tank or healer.
It's actually the worst idea. But carry on.
I don't see it. Maybe you like playing a tank or healer, or you always have enough people online to group with, so looking for specific classes isn't a pain for you.
The thrill of an encounter doesn't depend on the trinity. It depends on the boss design. I've had great experiences both with trinity and non-trinity MMO. Non trinity is just more convenient for grouping.
Originally posted by KhinRunite No hard trinity is the best idea to come in multiplayer games. I can just gather up my friends and we can go on our adventure without forcing anyone to log in as their tank or healer.
To me, it just makes it feel like MMO's went from being Chess to Checkers. For anyone who actually enjoys playing a tank or healer, this whole no-trinity trend is pretty crappy.
Everyone complaining about this needs to go look at how Dungeons & Dragons Online wound up dealing with the trinity in a multiclass scheme:
You don't need a "tank" in DDO; or rather, the status of "tank" has less to do with your class and more to do with your build and gear. The tank is whoever is keeping aggro and living through the experience. My monk/ranger/rogue archer tanks high level raids because I deal huge amounts of damage and am about impossible to hit. You'll see wizards and clerics tanking, sometimes.
Everyone is DPS; even healers have a couple of nasty DoTs and some extended-range direct damage spells, not to mention a pretty good melee tree, plus they can splash another class in to get access to its enhancement tree. Bards are probably the worst DPS, but they make up for it by increasing everyone else's damage.
Healers are nice, but really only mandatory for raids (and there are ways around even that), and clerics can keep up healing automatically, leaving them free to debuff enemies, cast offensive spells, physically attack, etc, while druids have HoTs for much the same purpose. Everyone can heal themselves to a greater or lesser extent, through some combination of potions, scrolls, hirelings, feats, racial abilities, class powers, or epic destiny gifts.
You see groups looking for crowd control and trappers as often as anything else, because those are actually class restricted.
I can see from a "be able to do anything" point of view that 5 mages say would be fun to grp, but from an immersive point of view how are they going to stand up to say a Dragon?
With brains instead of stupid meatshields. Speaking from a conglomeration of magic history rather than any clue what mages can actually do in-game: Teleport-kiting or spammed illusions to keep him from hitting anyone in melee, and buffs or well-timed magic barriers to negate ranged attacks.
(Of course, I'll admit to the obvious problem with that: 'conglomeration of magic history' gives mages godlike power that obsoletes everyone else over time.)
Trinity, done rightly or wrongly has the idea of placing the big plate wearing melee fighter in the front line.
Which works fine against enemies who have to break through the line. But the only reason your hypothetical Dragon doesn't just fly past him to the softer (but more dangerous) targets is because the game scripted that possibility out to allow for Trinity play.
And the only reason that big plate wearing guy is actually 'less dangerous' is because allowing him to hit as hard as his size and weapon would imply would be cutting into the DPS' role... so instead of doing actual damage, he generates threat.
Healers is a means to an end, but casters could be more support play with like magical shields to prevent damage, abilities to magically freeze targets, charm targets and the like while still doing damage. Rangers should trap and hinder etc etc. Trouble is this is all to hard to manage in confined dungeon space with fast action combat.
Underlined portions had to be nerfed, because if they're too effective they negate the need for a tank...
Me personally, I'll stick with the Trinity til someone makes something better that works
You won't get to 'something better that works' without people willing to put in the effort of trying different things and working on the rough edges. Fortunately, I'm content to be part of that effort.
FTR, I have no problem with Trinity-based games existing. I have a problem with them being the *only* type of game in town.
Whether it has trinity or not i will still play it. With that said, if it has trinity i hope its very soft. Im sick of every single mmorpg having a forced trinity, specially when the classes are limited to a specific role.
As long as every character can do any role then they can have all the trinity they want.
Once they get to the Q&A section you will notice a large amount of the questions are the same thing that made me go WTF, they are ditching the Trinity System and instead going with a GW2 like build. Personally I much prefer structured play, I don't have any qualms about multi-class characters or not needing alts but there is no way I am going trough another GW2 or NWO style dungeon run where everyone zergs in, some may like it but not for me.
They say that they have "systems in place" to make sure any group can complete content no matter there make up, all this translates to in my opinion and experience is people who want to play the two support roles "tank & healer" will be snubbed for another dps, because whether you can complete content with a balanced group or not, you can complete it faster with 5 people in full dps mode.
The trinity system has it's flaws granted but I believe it is still superior to the system that they are planning to implement, I still want to try the game, but after hearing the same PR bull from the GW2 team I am more than a little sceptical that this game will cater to it's intended market
Well, GW2 didn't do the no trinity combat system well at all, at least in my opinion anyway. That being said, the trinity is old, outdated, and nothing more than a lazy developers dream. It was developed because technology wouldn't support intelligent AI but now it "should" be doable. Besides, real combat is chaos and why in god's green earth would you attack a big armored buffoon that couldn't kill a swamp rat by himself over a leather wearing back stabber that could one shot you or a dress and pointy hat wearing caster that could nuke your ass before you turned your attention to the guy insulting your momma? You wouldn't so why do support that kind of system? It's because it's easy, convenient, and that's the way we've always done it.
All that being said, you don't like the direction $OE is going? No worries, no one likes every game. Wait for something more your style or play something that's a better fit.
While I agree that it feels somewhat artificial if a big bad ass monster sticks to the most hard to kill opponent, I think that the trinity is a major aspect of success when it comes to fun. Given boss monsters could easily defeat every opposing force just by killing the most vital raid members first and to be honest, there is no fun in dying over and over again. This is one of the reasons why many players left Guild Wars 2.
What is more important is that boss monsters become more unpredictable, so that players in a trinity system actually have to change their tactics while the battle is underway.
MMORPG style games without the trinity just arent fun to me.
The trinity provides a level of order and structure a group setting needs, It also allows everyone to feel like the hero or feel important at some point during their playtime. It allows you to develop an attachment to a character that a simple zerg style group setting doesnt provide.
In the trinity everyone has an important role, and something they can be proud of, "wow i tanked the whole instance without losing aggro" "sweet i managed to heal through that super intense fight" " Man look at all that dps and that cc i did really saved the groups arse from wiping"
In a non trinity setup you dont have that instead of focusing on whats best for everyone you worry more about yourself.
1) We actually know very little about combat in EQN. We just know there won't be tanks with taunts.
2) There has only been a single MMO recently that tried to go without a hard trinity - GW2 - and it did not have the same artificial AI that EQN is touting, meaning that combat was a bit of a hot mess.
3) We don't know the extent of heals and support available in EQN. Previous games without tanks with magical taunts, but with healing and support have done very well without the trinity (GW1).
4) EQN has been shown to have more significant crowd control skills than GW2 offers, meaning more tactical gameplay without needing a healer.
So you might as well just take a chill pill and see how the combat plays out when we get more info / hands on experience. I know some of you are scared of change in general, but they are aiming to be different with this one. There are plenty of games around already (and coming soon) with the safe existing trinity for you to continue playing, not every game needs to be designed solely for you. Some people would actually like to see more options available in a genre which has barely changed in over a decade.
If no-one takes chances, this genre will just get stagnant.
A lot of people keep referencing GW2 failed attempt at removing the trinity I have a few things I would like to mention on this when I first heard that GW2 was going without the trinity I was really excited and the wait for launch from hearing this was a long one turned out it wasn't so great. It was as many people said Zerg which is true 4 warrior and a Mesmer was about all that was wanted in party's.
Now I am quite lucky when it comes to groups as I have 2 brothers and 2 good mates that I have played with for a long time so we tried to experiment with groups setups especially when getting into high lvl fractuals we tried building tanky class's we even tried building class that could give us healing but that was what was exactly wrong with this if you spec and took stats to make you tough/tanky or to try and give off more healing you were just gimping the group because it just didn't matter how much you wanted to you couldn't make a class that could effectively tank or heal.
So in retrospect for me I still believe that games without the trinity can work but you have to give us class building options that can make them usefull to groups.
So in retrospect for me I still believe that games without the trinity can work but you have to give us class building options that can make them usefull to groups.
I will be a bit naughty here and point out that the above paragraph is not possible - and that is the core of the problem.
What trinity means is specialisation. We think and write about it as tank, DPS and heal but you can really put any specialised roles in a list and it is from any angle the 'trinity' from a design point of view since characters are specialised at different tasks and those tasks are meaningful/useful.
The moment you allow specialisation and that such specialisation is useful (as stated above) the design team of a game has a choice to make:
- Either such specialisation is required to complete the dungeon (at normal gear etc level). This is the case with every game from EQ onwards apart from GW2. The game has the 'trinity' or variants thereof.
- ...or every group composition should be able to complete the dungeon with the effect that IF you run the dungeon with the right useful (!) specialisations it becomes ridiculously easy.
The statements from the EQN team makes me quite nervous since what GW2 showed us is that it is very hard to create meaningful character development paths and fun dungeon runs without useful (and required) specialisations.
Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'
Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?
Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed. Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.
Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.
And you are wrong with it.. there are specialisations, roles, group tactics albeit the usual trinity, with the magical taunt.
Look to games like DAoC.. the PvP part of it. There were different group builds with different group tactics and different roles required.. and no magical taunt tank.
Also look at games like DotA2 were you can do the same thing form different group builds with different roles, without the magical taunt tank and be effective.
In a good and deep system there is not always one group setup to beat everything, but much more different setups may do better against different encounter, or a well balanced setup(and there may be many of them, like we have seen in DAoC and see it now in DotA2) can do well(not necessary the best counter to a specific encounter) against a lot of enemies.
If all that is trinity for you.. EQN will most probably have trintity.. especially because they hinted towards DotA or generally MOBAs.
Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'
Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?
Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed. Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.
Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.
The problem with the old trinity system (heal, taunt tank, dps) is that it is very predictable, and not really suited to use against some more advanced combat AI. Because the trintity system with the taunt eleminates any AI requirement, and you can just add some scripted variations(in which you break up the trinity for a certain time in most cases).
You don't have the holy trinity in any pvp game, because players can't be taunted, and/or it would be ridiculous silly and not a lot of fun. Why do you think a lot of people avoid pve, avoid raids? Because they are predictable and in the long run not challenging.. if you have beat one encounter, if you have a strategy against that any difficultiy is gone.. and therefore it is not really challenging for a lot of people.
In a good and deep system there is not always one group setup to beat everything, but much more different setups may do better against different encounter, or a well balanced setup(and there may be many of them, like we have seen in DAoC and see it now in DotA2) can do well(not necessary the best counter to a specific encounter) against a lot of enemies.
If all that is trinity for you.. EQN will most probably have trintity.. especially because they hinted towards DotA or generally MOBAs.
As long as they...
1) allow meaningful/useful specialisations, and
2) balance PvE content around using the specialisations
...I am fine.
And for me that is the trinity from a design point of view - with or without the tank role (it is just a well known specialisation that can be buried just like the buffer/debuffer/mezer from EQ that disappeared in PvE in WoW).
If anything is outdated, it's the taunt and force taunt mechanic. We didn't have that in FFXI and i believe it's threat system was far superior to anything since.
While we had a "Provoke" skill on a 30 sec cooldown, all it did was increase enmity. There were far better ways to build enmity such as healing and CC. What this system allowed was for other classes to actually have to work with the tank to ensure he/she holds threat.
Go nuts DPS wise? You're going to die. Over-heal or use the wrong heal? You're going to die. Spam Sleep or other CC's? Those mobs are going to be glued to you until you die.
What this system also allowed was for certain classes that were not originally designed as tanks, to actually fulfill the role. Now this was probably attributed to the fact that armor and defense meant nothing in that game, but the options were there thanks to the system.
What i guess I'm trying to say is that the Trinity is fine and it works. We need the system expanded upon mechanics wise instead of simply eliminating it, and it has to start with a larger group/party size to allow for more flexibility.
Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'
Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?
Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed. Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.
Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.
Terrible analogy, comparing something that is necessary and something that has been a recent change. If you had said 'scented air' or 'flavoured pancakes' you would have been correct.
The trinity isn't required for RPGs. There was no trinity in Dungeons and Dragons or any other tabletop RPG. It was just a lazy way to make things work with limited artificial intelligence in old video games. Now that EQN is moving beyond limited AI, its time for the trinity to go away too.
Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'
Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?
Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed. Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.
Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.
Terrible analogy, comparing something that is necessary and something that has been a recent change. If you had said 'scented air' or 'flavoured pancakes' you would have been correct.
The trinity isn't required for RPGs. There was no trinity in Dungeons and Dragons or any other tabletop RPG. It was just a lazy way to make things work with limited artificial intelligence in old video games. Now that EQN is moving beyond limited AI, its time for the trinity to go away too.
actually, D&D invented the Trinity, Fighters (tanks) thieves+magic users (dps) and clerics (healing) of course back then there was no AI, just the DM, but that at least, was where it all started.
and the guys analogy is about as correct as it goes, but it should be said, that the Trinity is not the only way to do things, its just a very popular one, the most popular one in fact, maybe because it has its roots in tabletop games like oddly enough, D&D.
Now that EQN is moving beyond limited AI, its time for the trinity to go away too.
Let's not count our eggs before they hatch. Just because that's what they want to do, doesn't mean it will
a) work
b) work the way you're thinking
c) be a better experience than trinity gameplay
Right now it's a dream and a hope with a touch of marketing for good measure. Once it's live, playable and we can experience it first hand, then we'll know if they delivered. But let's not be overly hasty.
If anything is outdated, it's the taunt and force taunt mechanic. We didn't have that in FFXI and i believe it's threat system was far superior to anything since.
While we had a "Provoke" skill on a 30 sec cooldown, all it did was increase enmity. There were far better ways to build enmity such as healing and CC. What this system allowed was for other classes to actually have to work with the tank to ensure he/she holds threat.
Go nuts DPS wise? You're going to die. Over-heal or use the wrong heal? You're going to die. Spam Sleep or other CC's? Those mobs are going to be glued to you until you die.
What this system also allowed was for certain classes that were not originally designed as tanks, to actually fulfill the role. Now this was probably attributed to the fact that armor and defense meant nothing in that game, but the options were there thanks to the system.
What i guess I'm trying to say is that the Trinity is fine and it works. We need the system expanded upon mechanics wise instead of simply eliminating it, and it has to start with a larger group/party size to allow for more flexibility.
This. FFXI was a fun game to play a tank in. Reliance on mechanics based exclusively on DPS and the maximization of DPS is a bigger problem then the trinity system, all members of a group should be aware of agro, not just the tank.
Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'
Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?
Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed. Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.
Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.
Terrible analogy, comparing something that is necessary and something that has been a recent change. If you had said 'scented air' or 'flavoured pancakes' you would have been correct.
The trinity isn't required for RPGs. There was no trinity in Dungeons and Dragons or any other tabletop RPG. It was just a lazy way to make things work with limited artificial intelligence in old video games. Now that EQN is moving beyond limited AI, its time for the trinity to go away too.
actually, D&D invented the Trinity, Fighters (tanks) thieves+magic users (dps) and clerics (healing) of course back then there was no AI, just the DM, but that at least, was where it all started.
and the guys analogy is about as correct as it goes, but it should be said, that the Trinity is not the only way to do things, its just a very popular one, the most popular one in fact, maybe because it has its roots in tabletop games like oddly enough, D&D.
No, fighters were not 'tanks'. They did not 'taunt' and 'hold aggro'.
They had to position themselves physically in front of the people if they wanted to shield them, which was usually only possible in very confined spaces (corridors essentially), which also stopped the rest of the group from participating in combat (since arrows didn't magically fly through the 'tank' and hit the thing he is fighting). There was no magical angry shout ability for them to stop something from attacking the Cleric or Wizard.
Granted your DM could have chosen to play that way, but fighters were just melee DPS who had armour to protect themselves from having going in close combat, similar to how rogues used dexterity. They were not turned into 'tanks' as we know them until the 4th edition, which was influenced by MMOs.
Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'
Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?
Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed. Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.
Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.
The problem with the old trinity system (heal, taunt tank, dps) is that it is very predictable, and not really suited to use against some more advanced combat AI. Because the trintity system with the taunt eleminates any AI requirement, and you can just add some scripted variations(in which you break up the trinity for a certain time in most cases).
You don't have the holy trinity in any pvp game, because players can't be taunted, and/or it would be ridiculous silly and not a lot of fun. Why do you think a lot of people avoid pve, avoid raids? Because they are predictable and in the long run not challenging.. if you have beat one encounter, if you have a strategy against that any difficultiy is gone.. and therefore it is not really challenging for a lot of people.
For a laugh, go play EQ2 PvP... you actually can taunt players as a tank and its horrible. Every second you will be targeting the tank again, you basically need to smash a 'previous target' macro to function in PvP. Just further proof of how dumb the mechanic is.
Comments
I feel like I could have posted this word for word. I agree 100%
I love games like EQ and VG with the trinity at the core of their foundation. And then I also love UO and AC1 which had no trinity. Either way, it comes down to the gameplay for me.
The term 'rez-zerg' suggests that people keep dying in boss encounters, so where are you pulling that kind of thinking? There's actually a bigger chance of failing because people have to adapt to situations on the fly.
I don't see it. Maybe you like playing a tank or healer, or you always have enough people online to group with, so looking for specific classes isn't a pain for you.
The thrill of an encounter doesn't depend on the trinity. It depends on the boss design. I've had great experiences both with trinity and non-trinity MMO. Non trinity is just more convenient for grouping.
To me, it just makes it feel like MMO's went from being Chess to Checkers. For anyone who actually enjoys playing a tank or healer, this whole no-trinity trend is pretty crappy.
You make me like charity
Everyone complaining about this needs to go look at how Dungeons & Dragons Online wound up dealing with the trinity in a multiclass scheme:
You don't need a "tank" in DDO; or rather, the status of "tank" has less to do with your class and more to do with your build and gear. The tank is whoever is keeping aggro and living through the experience. My monk/ranger/rogue archer tanks high level raids because I deal huge amounts of damage and am about impossible to hit. You'll see wizards and clerics tanking, sometimes.
Everyone is DPS; even healers have a couple of nasty DoTs and some extended-range direct damage spells, not to mention a pretty good melee tree, plus they can splash another class in to get access to its enhancement tree. Bards are probably the worst DPS, but they make up for it by increasing everyone else's damage.
Healers are nice, but really only mandatory for raids (and there are ways around even that), and clerics can keep up healing automatically, leaving them free to debuff enemies, cast offensive spells, physically attack, etc, while druids have HoTs for much the same purpose. Everyone can heal themselves to a greater or lesser extent, through some combination of potions, scrolls, hirelings, feats, racial abilities, class powers, or epic destiny gifts.
You see groups looking for crowd control and trappers as often as anything else, because those are actually class restricted.
With brains instead of stupid meatshields. Speaking from a conglomeration of magic history rather than any clue what mages can actually do in-game: Teleport-kiting or spammed illusions to keep him from hitting anyone in melee, and buffs or well-timed magic barriers to negate ranged attacks.
(Of course, I'll admit to the obvious problem with that: 'conglomeration of magic history' gives mages godlike power that obsoletes everyone else over time.)
Which works fine against enemies who have to break through the line. But the only reason your hypothetical Dragon doesn't just fly past him to the softer (but more dangerous) targets is because the game scripted that possibility out to allow for Trinity play.
And the only reason that big plate wearing guy is actually 'less dangerous' is because allowing him to hit as hard as his size and weapon would imply would be cutting into the DPS' role... so instead of doing actual damage, he generates threat.
Underlined portions had to be nerfed, because if they're too effective they negate the need for a tank...
You won't get to 'something better that works' without people willing to put in the effort of trying different things and working on the rough edges. Fortunately, I'm content to be part of that effort.
FTR, I have no problem with Trinity-based games existing. I have a problem with them being the *only* type of game in town.
Whether it has trinity or not i will still play it. With that said, if it has trinity i hope its very soft. Im sick of every single mmorpg having a forced trinity, specially when the classes are limited to a specific role.
As long as every character can do any role then they can have all the trinity they want.
While I agree that it feels somewhat artificial if a big bad ass monster sticks to the most hard to kill opponent, I think that the trinity is a major aspect of success when it comes to fun. Given boss monsters could easily defeat every opposing force just by killing the most vital raid members first and to be honest, there is no fun in dying over and over again. This is one of the reasons why many players left Guild Wars 2.
What is more important is that boss monsters become more unpredictable, so that players in a trinity system actually have to change their tactics while the battle is underway.
MMORPG style games without the trinity just arent fun to me.
The trinity provides a level of order and structure a group setting needs, It also allows everyone to feel like the hero or feel important at some point during their playtime. It allows you to develop an attachment to a character that a simple zerg style group setting doesnt provide.
In the trinity everyone has an important role, and something they can be proud of, "wow i tanked the whole instance without losing aggro" "sweet i managed to heal through that super intense fight" " Man look at all that dps and that cc i did really saved the groups arse from wiping"
In a non trinity setup you dont have that instead of focusing on whats best for everyone you worry more about yourself.
Here's how it is:
1) We actually know very little about combat in EQN. We just know there won't be tanks with taunts.
2) There has only been a single MMO recently that tried to go without a hard trinity - GW2 - and it did not have the same artificial AI that EQN is touting, meaning that combat was a bit of a hot mess.
3) We don't know the extent of heals and support available in EQN. Previous games without tanks with magical taunts, but with healing and support have done very well without the trinity (GW1).
4) EQN has been shown to have more significant crowd control skills than GW2 offers, meaning more tactical gameplay without needing a healer.
So you might as well just take a chill pill and see how the combat plays out when we get more info / hands on experience. I know some of you are scared of change in general, but they are aiming to be different with this one. There are plenty of games around already (and coming soon) with the safe existing trinity for you to continue playing, not every game needs to be designed solely for you. Some people would actually like to see more options available in a genre which has barely changed in over a decade.
If no-one takes chances, this genre will just get stagnant.
A lot of people keep referencing GW2 failed attempt at removing the trinity I have a few things I would like to mention on this when I first heard that GW2 was going without the trinity I was really excited and the wait for launch from hearing this was a long one turned out it wasn't so great. It was as many people said Zerg which is true 4 warrior and a Mesmer was about all that was wanted in party's.
Now I am quite lucky when it comes to groups as I have 2 brothers and 2 good mates that I have played with for a long time so we tried to experiment with groups setups especially when getting into high lvl fractuals we tried building tanky class's we even tried building class that could give us healing but that was what was exactly wrong with this if you spec and took stats to make you tough/tanky or to try and give off more healing you were just gimping the group because it just didn't matter how much you wanted to you couldn't make a class that could effectively tank or heal.
So in retrospect for me I still believe that games without the trinity can work but you have to give us class building options that can make them usefull to groups.
I will be a bit naughty here and point out that the above paragraph is not possible - and that is the core of the problem.
What trinity means is specialisation. We think and write about it as tank, DPS and heal but you can really put any specialised roles in a list and it is from any angle the 'trinity' from a design point of view since characters are specialised at different tasks and those tasks are meaningful/useful.
The moment you allow specialisation and that such specialisation is useful (as stated above) the design team of a game has a choice to make:
- Either such specialisation is required to complete the dungeon (at normal gear etc level). This is the case with every game from EQ onwards apart from GW2. The game has the 'trinity' or variants thereof.
- ...or every group composition should be able to complete the dungeon with the effect that IF you run the dungeon with the right useful (!) specialisations it becomes ridiculously easy.
The statements from the EQN team makes me quite nervous since what GW2 showed us is that it is very hard to create meaningful character development paths and fun dungeon runs without useful (and required) specialisations.
Why do people think the Trinity is 'old and outdated?'
Do you guys think oxygen is old and outdated?
Just because something has been around a while, doesn't mean it needs changed. Sometimes, the 'horrible terrible old and outdated thing' is actually a staple of that exact same thing.
Next you'll say you want pancakes that doesn't use eggs, because eggs are... you know... So old outdated and passe.
@Sikhander:
And you are wrong with it.. there are specialisations, roles, group tactics albeit the usual trinity, with the magical taunt.
Look to games like DAoC.. the PvP part of it. There were different group builds with different group tactics and different roles required.. and no magical taunt tank.
Also look at games like DotA2 were you can do the same thing form different group builds with different roles, without the magical taunt tank and be effective.
In a good and deep system there is not always one group setup to beat everything, but much more different setups may do better against different encounter, or a well balanced setup(and there may be many of them, like we have seen in DAoC and see it now in DotA2) can do well(not necessary the best counter to a specific encounter) against a lot of enemies.
If all that is trinity for you.. EQN will most probably have trintity.. especially because they hinted towards DotA or generally MOBAs.
The problem with the old trinity system (heal, taunt tank, dps) is that it is very predictable, and not really suited to use against some more advanced combat AI. Because the trintity system with the taunt eleminates any AI requirement, and you can just add some scripted variations(in which you break up the trinity for a certain time in most cases).
You don't have the holy trinity in any pvp game, because players can't be taunted, and/or it would be ridiculous silly and not a lot of fun. Why do you think a lot of people avoid pve, avoid raids? Because they are predictable and in the long run not challenging.. if you have beat one encounter, if you have a strategy against that any difficultiy is gone.. and therefore it is not really challenging for a lot of people.
As long as they...
1) allow meaningful/useful specialisations, and
2) balance PvE content around using the specialisations
...I am fine.
And for me that is the trinity from a design point of view - with or without the tank role (it is just a well known specialisation that can be buried just like the buffer/debuffer/mezer from EQ that disappeared in PvE in WoW).
If anything is outdated, it's the taunt and force taunt mechanic. We didn't have that in FFXI and i believe it's threat system was far superior to anything since.
While we had a "Provoke" skill on a 30 sec cooldown, all it did was increase enmity. There were far better ways to build enmity such as healing and CC. What this system allowed was for other classes to actually have to work with the tank to ensure he/she holds threat.
Go nuts DPS wise? You're going to die. Over-heal or use the wrong heal? You're going to die. Spam Sleep or other CC's? Those mobs are going to be glued to you until you die.
What this system also allowed was for certain classes that were not originally designed as tanks, to actually fulfill the role. Now this was probably attributed to the fact that armor and defense meant nothing in that game, but the options were there thanks to the system.
What i guess I'm trying to say is that the Trinity is fine and it works. We need the system expanded upon mechanics wise instead of simply eliminating it, and it has to start with a larger group/party size to allow for more flexibility.
Terrible analogy, comparing something that is necessary and something that has been a recent change. If you had said 'scented air' or 'flavoured pancakes' you would have been correct.
The trinity isn't required for RPGs. There was no trinity in Dungeons and Dragons or any other tabletop RPG. It was just a lazy way to make things work with limited artificial intelligence in old video games. Now that EQN is moving beyond limited AI, its time for the trinity to go away too.
welcome to the era of mmo console focus..
Where the pc gamers will be limited due to focus of the console..
limiting skills in combat is the worst... gameplay is boring
actually, D&D invented the Trinity, Fighters (tanks) thieves+magic users (dps) and clerics (healing) of course back then there was no AI, just the DM, but that at least, was where it all started.
and the guys analogy is about as correct as it goes, but it should be said, that the Trinity is not the only way to do things, its just a very popular one, the most popular one in fact, maybe because it has its roots in tabletop games like oddly enough, D&D.
Let's not count our eggs before they hatch. Just because that's what they want to do, doesn't mean it will
a) work
b) work the way you're thinking
c) be a better experience than trinity gameplay
Right now it's a dream and a hope with a touch of marketing for good measure. Once it's live, playable and we can experience it first hand, then we'll know if they delivered. But let's not be overly hasty.
This. FFXI was a fun game to play a tank in. Reliance on mechanics based exclusively on DPS and the maximization of DPS is a bigger problem then the trinity system, all members of a group should be aware of agro, not just the tank.
No, fighters were not 'tanks'. They did not 'taunt' and 'hold aggro'.
They had to position themselves physically in front of the people if they wanted to shield them, which was usually only possible in very confined spaces (corridors essentially), which also stopped the rest of the group from participating in combat (since arrows didn't magically fly through the 'tank' and hit the thing he is fighting). There was no magical angry shout ability for them to stop something from attacking the Cleric or Wizard.
Granted your DM could have chosen to play that way, but fighters were just melee DPS who had armour to protect themselves from having going in close combat, similar to how rogues used dexterity. They were not turned into 'tanks' as we know them until the 4th edition, which was influenced by MMOs.
For a laugh, go play EQ2 PvP... you actually can taunt players as a tank and its horrible. Every second you will be targeting the tank again, you basically need to smash a 'previous target' macro to function in PvP. Just further proof of how dumb the mechanic is.