Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The trinity may not be outdated, but perhaps the roles are
Aeander
Member LegendaryPosts: 8,067
Now, I'm of the crowd that loves innovation. I want to see games move forward and improve - or at least branch out into greater variety.
It is not the case, however, that I condemn the trinity as a mechanic. It has merit. It has a place. It works. Systems that do not use a hard trinity (such as that of Guild Wars 2) also have a place, assuming the devs are willing to put enough time and effort in to make these systems work well.
My issue with the trinity as it currently stands is that, while the trinity is not necessarily outdated, the way roles play out certainly is.
With that said, here are some of my basic caveats regarding design:
1) The game should be made challenging.
2) Gameplay must be an intense series of interactions between the team members and their foes. It should not, under any circumstances, be a controlled scenario that hinges on one or two people (the tank and the healer) for success.
3) Your character's role should be intuitive and interactive with every other player in your group.
4) Roles should be conducive to team work and social interaction.
5) Every class should be useful (if not balanced) in every game format.
So how does the current trinity, as it all too often is, fail in these regards.
1) DPS - Mind-numbing.
Damage dealing is a one-dimensional process. It all too often comes across as mindless rather than involved. A few repetitive rotations sub in for actual player involvement. Certainly, the existence of such rotations tends to lean towards outdated design, as it is skill use that is standard rather than adaptive.
2) Support - A good thought with two core problems.
The first of these is that they are overly defined and rarely have much variety in their functionality. A support is a healer, so much so that is typically referred to as one. Guild Wars 1 did it best, with Healing and Protection being valuable and different support functions, though even it still has great room for improvement in this regard.
The second is that it is a process that, while typically quite involving, is rarely centered on one's group-mates. But wait, isn't helping the group what being a support is all about? Well, yes. But I am referring to the methodology through which skills are typically used. Rarely does a support interact with another player so much as they interact with their health bar. Hell, in some MMOs, I've single-handedly kept a team alive after the tank failed their job, all while seeing nothing but the health bars on the side of the screen. That shouldn't be the case - healing should be a process that focuses on discerning where harm is occuring and to which team member(s) while developing a personal connection to teammates. If you don't even need to see their characters or know where they are to heal them, something is wrong with the entire process.
3) Tank - this is where the design is at its worst.
Tanks are the most fundamentally weak part of the trinity's design. Ironically, they are also frequently the crux of the trinity. Allow me to explain.
The pinnacle of bad tank design is the threat-generation tank. It's the classic way of doing things, but it's ill-founded. Threat generation and long-duration AoE taunts serve a multi-fold problem. The most obvious of these is that such mechanics are useless in PvP - in few games do these taunts work on other players at all and threat is useless against a foe that can actually choose to ignore it. Even ignoring this, however, the threat-generator still has issues, even in PvE. Primarily, it is too one-dimensional and simple. It doesn't require the kind of adaptability and decision making that one would expect from a role in a good video game. That is not to say that tanking is "easy," as it is often the most difficult role on the team, but it is certainly repetitive, dull, predictable, and not conducive to good immersion. Furthermore, the idea that a tank holds a team together and that the group will absolutely fail if the tank should fail, in many MMOs, is in itself a rather poor circumstance.
But is there an alternative?
I favor of a system that I call the "evolved trinity." It utilizes the aspects of the trinity that players tend to enjoy but does so in ways that are more interactive and involved.
The Obstructor - the tank
This role is derived from the MOBA/ARTS genre, for it has shown how tanking can be modified to work even against players.
The new tank is structured around three basic goals: crowd control, interception, and "walling."
Crowd control involves short-duration taunts, disruption, and the classic forms of CC - stuns, knockdowns/knockups, silences, roots, and slows.
Interception is the facet that makes the Obstructor what it is. It involves moving between allies and enemies to block projectiles, absorb damage, and keep melee enemies off of them.
"Walling" is the cousin of interception, but it is different in practice. It is interception that is centered on the foe. This involves path-blocking and it interacts with the crowd-control facet of the Obstructor.
The Oppressor - the debuffer
This role is derived from the Mesmer and Necromancer of Guild Wars 1. It is focused on shutting down enemies by being the "anti-class." It reduces opposing effectiveness and punishes them for taking specific actions. It, like the Obstructor, is focused on three basic goals: crowd contol, disruption, and punishment.
The Support - the self-explanatory
An evolved form of the classic healer, the Support is now much more vague. It CAN be a healer, and that would certainly be a valuable path, but it can also specialize in damage-prevention and buffing, among other things. It focuses on directly interacting with teammates through area support skills, skillshots, and targeted skills that target allies, not health bars. The traditional support is the least "outdated" part of the trinity.
But why didn't I list damage?
Because damage, is, in my opinion, a misguided part of the trinity. It's something that everyone wants to do and which everyone should be able to contribute in fair numbers. To call it a role is boring.
It is not the case, however, that everyone should deal damage in the same way. Done poorly, you get the result of Guild Wars 2 - mindless dps'ing with dodge rolling and the occasional AoE support skill casually thrown in.
I advocate something entirely different. Damage should be an extension of your class's natural identity. If you are an Obstructor, you deal damage through melee attacks, reflection, traps, and various other means, both direct and indirect.
If you are an Oppressor, you deal damage through skills that punish and weaken foes.
If you are a support, you deal damage by improving the damage capabilities of others and through skills that hurt foes around allies, whether it be through heals, reflects, redirects, or debuff-removal.
If you are a hybrid class, you deal damage through a combination of these, uniquely tailored to your class's specific roles.
Now, does this rule out the direct damage classes from the equation? Not really. A classic Ranger can easily be any of the above three roles - and it can do so through highly direct means that are as much in line with classic definitions of its identity than anything else. The difference here is not in how it defines itself but rather in what it contributes to the team. Herbal knowledge can heal allies and remove debuffs. A pet can obstruct, or a sword-wielding ranger could do so themselves. That fire arrow may do damage, but it can also create a wall or ring that applies effective area denial, buffs allied projectiles that pass through, or even melts opposing projectiles. Various and specific poisons may deal damage, but they can also apply a plethora of debuffs. Heavy arrows may knock foes down. Leg shots may slow them. Etc. Etc. All of these are involved and simple processes that are forms of direct damage while also serving some other means.
Now, as a basic disclaimer, the roles that I set forth may not be the proper or the only ones, but they certainly set forth a foundation towards developing new games and inventing new role systems that work just as well, if not better.
Comments
depends on your definition of trinity
for Classic EQ the trinity was defined by Primary encounter functions
Tank, Crowd Control (read: chanter/bard), Healer
or Tank, Slow Debuffer, Healer --- Damage classes were never part of EQ Classic trinity
for WOW the trinity is defined by primary class roles (for all classes)
Tank, Damage Dealer, Healer (not support)
EQ2 fan sites
Where does de-buff come into all this.
In Darkfall de-buffing was fun.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I'm certainly of the crowd that would prefer the Classic EQ trinity, though even it could see some updating (as should be expected of a game that is over a decade old).
The WoW trinity has been successful in appealing to its crowd, but it is a trinity that, in my opinion, is so deeply ingrained into defining WoW that other games that utilize it will not be able to reach that level of success or escape WoW's shortcomings without being massively better games than WoW is. And that is certainly something that has yet to be seen.
@Shawn
Debuffing is "the Oppressor." Call it what you will. I certainly see it as a valuable part of any roles system.
That's preferable, honestly. Moving away towards the role-blame game would be for everyone's benefit.
Obstructor/Tank and Oppressor/Debuffer. Perhaps all three roles. CC is and should be a valuable part of the genre.
Don't get me wrong. I adore Guild Wars 2 and admire its efforts in creating the first "no-trinity" (or, more accurately, "soft trinity") game. I thoroughly believe that the concepts it sets forth are grand and have great potential. I believe that such games can become things of true beauty if done well.
But until that happens, the "no-trinity" system is vapor. It's beautiful and intriguing, but we need to see it work. And it really doesn't work in Guild Wars 2, save in rare circumstances - mainly open-world content that is experienced by a group of 2-10 players. In other words, almost never, given how the community of Guild Wars 2 tends to play (which is, in turn, a result of the way rewards have been distributed through content).
+1 I second this.
I think that besides these roles for small scale fights there should also be roles for large scales battles.
I GW2 there is the problem that the fights against world bosses or in battlegrounds get boring because it all becomes one giant zerg.
It would be much more fun if the challenge was to form this mob of players into an organized fighting force.
Some players form a shield wall while others perform a magical ritual behind it or something like that.
This would also bring the community closer together because the players had to coordinate their actions.
I like the way you think on the tank but for the others not quite sure. I think a trinity can be updated but without losing the trinity.
Keep the healer, dps roles but add new roles like the support roles, no real need adding them to the healer.
I think part of the problem is the game designs. If you design a game for just the trinity, sure it gets boring and if designed for the GW2 system it also gets boring (dps race). Design the game (especially dungeons/raids) where you need ALL the roles. One encounter maybe is tank & spank but next encounter needs the debuffer and the next requires a good protector. Maybe even the boss requires a combo off all of the skills used in correct sequence.
Anyway, don't get rid of the trinity, add new rolls to it. Make it a quad or a quint instead.
You've got your terms all mixed up (atleast in your topic there). "Holy trinity" is the triangle between tank, DPS and healer, usually based on aggro manipulation (it is the name of that specific setup of roles). Roles, in general, exist in any game where you can have any sort of meaningful* specialization.
If you can only carry a single weapon in a first-person shooter game and that weapon is a shotgun, that makes you a close-quarters expert. If you pick up a long range rifle instead, you're a sniper. And as easy as that - you have roles.
Also, nothing says there has to be (or can only be) 3 roles.
*(meaning balanced)
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Tank and Support play need not be boring and one-dimensional play if the game designs it well. I would agree that a DPS role can be mind-numbing, especially when the goal is to only dish out damage and nothing else. However, there'll always be min-maxers on the dps side, which naturally results players slotting into this "boring DPS" role.
The way I see it, the issue is largely the shift in utility skills from Tank and Support into the DPS. DPS could have been given a large variety of styles with damage types and resist types, with damage synergy between skills. However, it seems that it's more balanced around the solo control and utility skills nowadays, especially on the "action" based games that have been coming about lately. As pointed out in some other posts, there are more roles than just a classic trinity, or rather, people can define it quite differently. What I think is that the DPS design has heavily changed, and taken too much from the others.
Very often you mentioned Guild Wars (the real one, not GW2). Indeed, this game got it right. Or at least, it got closer than any other in my opinion. The class system of GW is amazing. The game was really a blast to play in 2005~9.
I wish there is some crazy developer which would do something similar. It got so many things right! Crafting was (almost) non existend, it was fully instanced, no housing, no jumping, no open world. But still, the classes of GW1 and gameplay mechanics rocked the universe.
Every single class could do good DPS. Every class could tank. For example, for some time the best tanking build was a monk with 105 HP, later with 55 HP, when the normal for most classes was 480+!! Mages (elementalists) could also tank niche dungeons and mobs.
I wish someone would get inspired by this game.
I agree OP..
I think gaming has gotten so lazy anymore, devs only seem to focus on a 3 role trinity, or a no role game.. Personally I would love to see many roles.. EQ1 was the first and best that I played that did this, but it did have issues as some groups and guilds demanded certain make-ups and nothing else was allowable.. I dream game would allow every class to be solo friendly with one on one fighting with mobs.. However I would like to see 50% of a characters skills and abilities to be class defining such as the cleric's "complete heal" or rez.. or chanters KEI or mass mez.. or a necro's summon corpse or leaching..
Even when I was playing WoW a long time ago, I loved my warlock and his abilities to dot and support, without getting attention from the mobs.. But then I enjoyed my times on my mage nuking everything east of the Mississippi. LOL But most of all, I miss my EQ Druid.. "If I can snare it, I own it".. I so miss kiting..
Not that raids are any difficult, all events are scripted to the second or %health; you see a 50ft not so bright scripted nasty giant focus all of his attention on 1 single player -duuuuh- the entire fight who spams taunts, all the healer has to do is keep his health above 0%.
rest just shoot DPS on the mob, rinse&repeat till mob is 0%.................trinity at it's best.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
@OP
You are as hired game designer for the next good MMO
PS
Unfortunately we only want to make WOW clones for now
what if I'm simply Godlike with a basic pistol from all ranges?
I mean, dem headshots and all
I think your 'evolved' trinity needs some work. Especially if you're going to be using MOBAs as an example of how they work. (which is not to say that they aren't an excellent example of how to structure a game without having a trinity).
For one 'tank' isn't really a role in MOBAs. This is a misconception, and usually made by those who frankly don't know what they are doing. You can have 'tanky' characters, but it's not a role. It's a way of building your character (stacking defense/regen). That said:
You have support (which can also be your tank, though it doesn't have to be). Supports help your team as best they can. They provide buffs to allies, heals if they have them, they can initiate fights if needed, and they can also disengage (which is something most people forget about entirely).
You have damage / offense (sustained, burst)
You have control.
These may seem generalized (and they are), but most games with well fleshed out combat (which also have roles) consist of these 3 categories. Tanks, as a role / class, are really a very outdated (and honestly silly) design, that only really belong in military shooters (that actually have tanks as a vehicle).
To go back to MOBAs, again, as an example you can look at games like DotA and see 'tanky' characters, but what they offer is more than just being a giant punching bag. They are mostly there to disrupt, support, or offer highly sustainable damage. All of which fall into the above 3 categories. When you look at games like Chivalry or War of the Roses, you can have tanky knights, who don full platemail, however it's not their defenses that make them useful to the team. It's there ability to stay in the fight long enough to pump out crazy damage, whereas the archers die if people get too close.
- As for the other roles, I think one of the main issues w/ most trinity games atm is a lack of interaction between the player & the targets. Few bosses have mechanics that involve multiple ways of disruption, or force the players to change the way they play their class to tackle a specific boss over another. Perhaps the closest game to actually providing this was GW1, (though technically not an MMO) which tackled difficulty by providing bosses & enemies with varying skill combinations that required varied counters to overcome.
If pistols work best for all ranges, then the weapons are not very well balanced, are they? There is no meaningful specialization (see the paragraph before the one you quoted).
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You might want to brush up on the topic a bit before posting further.
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
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
You are almost correct in saying that tank is not a role in the MOBA genre. The term utilized there is "initiator," as the role of the "tank" in a moba is not to absorb fire, but to start a fight and blow their load to set things up in their team's favor. I do mean "almost right," however. There are characters who can, even if only briefly, classify as true tanks. A tank, as it is classified in gaming, after all, is any character that specializes in absorbing damage by forcing foes to attack it. This is very much the case for a few characters in the MOBA/ARTS genre - those who have taunts and certain other special cases.
Though you would be entirely right if you were to say that there are not enough of these to form an actual 'tank' role in the genre. Still, they function in a way that shows how one can work.
Perhaps I should have mentioned the specific characters which I was basic the Obstructor off of.
Though I tend to be more partial to character designs from DotA, it's based primarily off of Braum from League of Legends. He's certainly one of the most interesting and dynamic supports in the genre, working like a true tank. He disrupts foes, leaps to allies and shields them, and gets in the way of incoming attacks to block hits. Throw in some Axe or Rammus for short-duration-taunt-based CC and then throw in a classic wall character like Clockwerk and you've basically got the Obstructor role in a nutshell.
And, in essence, the roles of the 'evolved trinity' are meant to come across as generalized and, in some regards, blended with one another. This is to make hybrid-role playstyles more natural and to emphasize that a player's playstyle has much more to do with their build than with their label.
Get rid of the arbitrary criteria added at the end and you're spot on!
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
I agree
i've seen PVP game mechanics where players lose their target (due to taunt) but that's a weak simulation
EQ2 fan sites