Filling the void left by the trinity: Is 'zerging what we're left with?

ChicagoCub · September 2017

Maybe this isn't new but nn the wake of the mad rush away from the tank/dps/healer group dynamic it seems the only, or at least the easiest, solution was to make everyone do everything but is this really better? Runs seems to have lost any depth, strategy, or even player interaction. PVP has become just a series of 1v1 fights. Classes have lost any significant distinctions, and it all seems like everyone is doing the same thing but in a different way, in the best cases, and in virtually the exact same way in most cases. So I ask, is this a case of "be careful what you wish for" or is this actually enjoyable to majority of you?

cheyane · September 2017

I feel that that implementation allowing every class to do almost everything like healing themselves was only one way they approached this idea to change how the trinity worked. However there are other ways to handle it and handle it with both variety and interesting group mechanics was such a case in both City of Heroes and Villains.

Let me illustrate by example. In City of Villains the healing was extremely limited to Corruptors who had before they introduced Pain Domination powers there was only the pitiful heal from cauterize in the Thermal Radiation power set. Hardly anyone could rely on such a small heal nor did they need to. The game included various shields and buffs that mitigated the damage that came in coupled with ways to debuff the mobs that in concert sought to make it possible to play without tanks or healers. It also included various forms of crowd control that minimized the need to tank or heal not to mention with the introduction of Masterminds that had so many pets it was really a wonderful chaotic mess that strangely had a method in its madness.

Not that you did not have tanks as in City of Heroes you did have tanks called humorously enough as Tankers and the tanking in City of Heroes was a truly a work of art as it involved some very innovative ways to tank. That included using a fire shield to keep and gain aggro and it would also heal and damage or Dark Miasma that had resistances and life taps of sorts to name a few . However you did not need to use this tank and healer archetype in the game to handle the content. It was possible to play the game without using the holy trinity and it was also a lot of fun to run very unorthodox group combinations to succeed.

I think that merely suggesting that zerging is the result of removing the holy trinity of Tank/healer/crowd control or DPS as it has been known as later on its life a rather narrow view of what games can actually offer.

Games can offer a variety of ways to handle content and this has been amply shown in the sadly cancelled game of City of Heroes/Villains. I understand that Guildwars 2 too has some very interesting group dynamics that someone with a better understanding might illustrate.

Wizardry · September 2017

I don't believe the thought to change the way gaming has gone is for any positive reason or any real thought.I believe it was simply to facilitate EASIER cheaper game designs.
Zergs are even less than the Trinity,99% of all combat now is simple no brainer spam killing to the point animations and characters look fake and dumb at the same time.

There was never a reason to try and avoid the Trinity,just smarter people and better implementation,hence why when Arena.net was spewing nonsense about needing to change was ONLY for selfish reasons to promote THEIR own product.

Perhaps FFXi will go down as the last true grouping game with zero hand holding,nothing else like it.Now everyone wants their hands held,told where to go what to do and don't mind getting tons of super easy xp just to get excited about a level number.
Arena.net was imo one of the first real bad developers to try and feed us a lot of bull to support their own product.Dynamic questing,another idea they seemed to think needed changing no gear grinds when real reason was less effort in designing assets for the game.
So the real problem right now is cheap ass developers telling us how difficult things are,money is tough,LAZY designs called ACTION combat,it is all to try and force a system on us of lazy cheap game design and getting us to fit the bill which is even more pathetic.

Bottom line,quit supporting all these lame developers,yes even your fave developer,why give money to someone trying to scam or rip you off?

Will it all change back,will we once again see passionate game design or wil lit all remain business first gaming second,idk we can only hope.

jimmywolf · September 2017

your asking a question with lot variables an meshing it into a simple thing.

short answers yes, i guess it better in the sense you have more creativity freedom of how you want a game to play out.

long answer, flip a coin for a outcome on better or not. since most will be divided on better or not an you get a different outcome with new opinion on why it good or bad depending on who you asked an how it interpreted.

for myself i enjoyed the tank, healer, dps. add to that complexity with CC, buff/debuffer an you got a good game that require a minimum of 3 decent players up to 5 for anyone to progress an you have a social environment were a game can thrive least in theory.

in truth trolls, casuals, elitist, broke the mold an hurt the games overall no one of them is a bad thing an am sure their all needed for a game to function but to many of any of them breaks a game.

so everyone rushed to build a game/mmo to play how you want mode, dumb it all down, pretty the graphics up an let everyone win just by playing. short term most were happy perhaps most still are but anyone looking for depth now is in the niche market an not worth much $$$.

so they get pushed aside in favor of easy cash why phone market booming with cheap games that you can play for free anywhere long as you want but "pay" for little things that adds up lot more then the $15 a month most cried about.

overall am hopeful as time passes an cuasuls grow up wanting more then a i win button that we will come full circle an more games with depth will rise again.

moosecatlol · September 2017

cheyane said:

Let me illustrate by example. In City of Villains the healing was extremely limited to Corruptors who had before they introduced Pain Domination powers there was only the pitiful heal from cauterize in the Thermal Radiation power set. Hardly anyone could rely on such a small heal nor did they need to. The game included various shields and buffs that mitigated the damage that came in coupled with ways to debuff the mobs that in concert sought to make it possible to play without tanks or healers. It also included various forms of crowd control that minimized the need to tank or heal not to mention with the introduction of Masterminds that had so many pets it was really a wonderful chaotic mess that strangely had a method in its madness.

Not that you did not have tanks as in City of Heroes you did have tanks called humorously enough as Tankers and the tanking in City of Heroes was a truly a work of art as it involved some very innovative ways to tank. That included using a fire shield to keep and gain aggro and it would also heal and damage or Dark Miasma that had resistances and life taps of sorts to name a few . However you did not need to use this tank and healer archetype in the game to handle the content. It was possible to play the game without using the holy trinity and it was also a lot of fun to run very unorthodox group combinations to succeed.

Ms. Liberty Task Force without tanks or healers? Ghost widow alone would shut that shit down.

Also after they introduced Pain Domination it was more of a "Why play heroes." when you can cheese everything with Enforce, Conduit, and Painbringer. Also brutes were busted in terms of clear speed.

As for group dynamics, they definitely exist, though they're not always restrictive like the holy trinity.

Even a game like MH has group roles.

delete5230 · September 2017

Wizardry said:

I don't believe the thought to change the way gaming has gone is for any positive reason or any real thought.I believe it was simply to facilitate EASIER cheaper game designs.
Zergs are even less than the Trinity,99% of all combat now is simple no brainer spam killing to the point animations and characters look fake and dumb at the same time.

There was never a reason to try and avoid the Trinity,just smarter people and better implementation,hence why when Arena.net was spewing nonsense about needing to change was ONLY for selfish reasons to promote THEIR own product.

Perhaps FFXi will go down as the last true grouping game with zero hand holding,nothing else like it.Now everyone wants their hands held,told where to go what to do and don't mind getting tons of super easy xp just to get excited about a level number.
Arena.net was imo one of the first real bad developers to try and feed us a lot of bull to support their own product.Dynamic questing,another idea they seemed to think needed changing no gear grinds when real reason was less effort in designing assets for the game.
So the real problem right now is cheap ass developers telling us how difficult things are,money is tough,LAZY designs called ACTION combat,it is all to try and force a system on us of lazy cheap game design and getting us to fit the bill which is even more pathetic.

Bottom line,quit supporting all these lame developers,yes even your fave developer,why give money to someone trying to scam or rip you off?

Will it all change back,will we once again see passionate game design or wil lit all remain business first gaming second,idk we can only hope.

A lot in this explains it all.

Every few days you come across a well written posting that describes the nasty turn of events of what ripped mmos apart and made them into mindless simple path to end game that VERY few enjoy. But then you have the few so called open minded posters saying it's all good, when infact 99% would agree theirs a BIG PROBLEM.

I can't add much to this post other than "easy", and follow the path story telling.

EASY game play destroyed mmos in so many ways.
- Why be that healer or tank ?
- Why craft ?
- Why care about abilities ?
- Why care about friends and Guilds ?

HOW CAN ANYONE dispute this !!!

Phry · September 2017

The lack of a 'trinity' in MMO's really enables them to be more solo centric, the need for grouping is less, and if your not interested in dungeons or raids then there is absolutely zero need for groups, i think GW2 really nailed this part of it, where you didn't need to group with others, but you could 'join in' whenever something was happening nearby, for solo players its probably one of the best games out there, though i could be wrong as lots of games are 'solo centric' these days BDO for one, at least outside of the PVP and if your not interested in node wars or guild v guild wars in the game, then you need never ever group with anyone as the PVE content, you only really group for if you want to 'speed grind'.
The trinity is really for games with more group orientated gameplay.

immodium · September 2017

delete5230 said:

EASY game play destroyed mmos in so many ways.
- Why be that healer or tank ?
- Why craft ?
- Why care about abilities ?
- Why care about friends and Guilds ?

HOW CAN ANYONE dispute this !!!

Because games like Everquest had easy combat. MMO's have never had challenging PvE leveling content from late 90's onwards.

Everquests combat was so unstimulating you could easily read a book or text chat whilst engaged in combat.

Eldurian · September 2017

The trinity as we know it is an invention of MMORPGs. This can be debated until people are blue in the face but the fact is when you play pre-MMO RPGs such as Dungeons and Dragons you can't group all players into three distinct roles. Not just because more than three roles exist, but because most characters are not one dimensional in that their purpose is summed up by a single role such as healer, tank or DPS.

Your cleric or druid can be a frontline fighter who soaks up damage but also is a major healer/buffer for the party. Your barbarian may be a frontline fighter who soaks up damage but one of your primary DPSers as well.

Fitting characters distinctly within three little pigeon holed roles is something that happens in MMOs, and when people who have played too many MMO try to apply it to other formats where it doesn't work as well.

So my answer on how to fill the void left by the trinity is this:

What void? Just look back to Dungeons and Dragons if you want to see how you can have a game where characters fill different purposes without having the need to fill codified roles.

EDIT: And when you look a D&D and why everyone in post-trinity MMOs is the same one answer really stands out. They took away the non-combat roles. You don't need a ranger or barbarian for survival, a bard for social skills, or a rogue to pick the locks and find/disable the traps. You just tank and spank everything. And there is your problem.

someforumguy · September 2017

I never had something against combat requiring healers and CC. But I always hated the aggro magnets which they call tanks. Those made combat way too predictable and cheesy imo. It led to stupid jumping to hoops encounters (raids) that introduced more cheesy mechanics trying to bring challenge back. Once mastered those then become boring repetitive encounters where the main challenge lies into trying to herd a bunch of dps cats (aka PUG).

But then I prefer twitch based combat with required healers and CC to make combat challenging. Not tab based spreadsheet combat.

Some old school vets would probably call me an ADD kiddie for that. But I think I am probably just a new school vet instead. I do hate zerging though, but I think the problem here is more about the silly hybrid combat that some games have (GW2 for example).

Phry · September 2017

Eldurian said:

The trinity as we know it is an invention of MMORPGs. This can be debated until people are blue in the face but the fact is when you play pre-MMO RPGs such as Dungeons and Dragons you can't group all players into three distinct roles. Not just because more than three roles exist, but because most characters are not one dimensional in that their purpose is summed up by a single role such as healer, tank or DPS.

Your cleric or druid can be a frontline fighter who soaks up damage but also is a major healer/buffer for the party. Your barbarian may be a frontline fighter who soaks up damage but one of your primary DPSers as well.

Fitting characters distinctly within three little pigeon holed roles is something that happens in MMOs, and when people who have played too many MMO try to apply it to other formats where it doesn't work as well.

So my answer on how to fill the void left by the trinity is this:

What void? Just look back to Dungeons and Dragons if you want to see how you can have a game where characters fill different purposes without having the need to fill codified roles.

D&D is/was a prime example of a trinity game honestly, true a Cleric can wear heavy armour the same as a fighter can, but where a fighter had a d10 for health/level the Cleric only had a d6/level, and thats without the weapon restrictions, clerics mostly limited to 1h blunt weapons, so while they couldn't do the job of a fighter they could assist, and of course, they could heal/buff, Wizards d4/level health were primarily crowd control and the heavy dps, Thieves d4/level health were there to support also, finding traps, scouting, and sneak attacks doing high damage to vulnerable targets of opportunity. D&D was a very role orientated game, its where the trinity originated.

Shinami · September 2017

I remember that for AD&D the optimal party was having a fighter or paladin on the front line supported offensively by a wizard; A cleric for defensive support and cure light wound+ spells; and a rogue to backstab threats, remove traps, and pick locks.

We went from needing four to needing three.
Now unless we play P2P games, the holy trinity is mostly gone.

AD&D was so extreme in required roles that other RPG systems were marketed on the idea of beimg different and not so role-centric. It was the stereotypes on what the roles did which cemented their legacy and had MMO developers try to clone the social and magic that D&D had, considering nothing quite captured D&Ds magic than all of those Role Playing Gamers Association events ran in the past and their promotion. Its true that MUDs became popular later, but not everyone could afford $2,000 - $4,000 for early computers.

When I was in middle school, even lower class individuals in electives could buy a single player's handbook, summarize the rule set and help a group make their characters. The group that I ran consisting of 12 players only had 2 player's handbooks, 1 Dungeon Master's guide, and 1 Monster Compendium, and lots of paper to have our maps and character sheets.

No one spoke of computerized RPGs around us, people knew to stay away from the geeks, dorks, and "idiots" of the time as those were the labels given to us for playing D&D. We grew up and companies tried to recapture the magic for us through MMOs. Now we are a lot older and can look back and the magic today (speaking for myself) just doesn't seem to be there today as it once was.

Octagon7711 · September 2017

I remember playing trinity groups and going through a few wipes because we had a new player who was learning the ropes. So it put a lot of pressure on knowing your role. Open dynamic groups, not so much because players could cover for others and fill in with tanking, healing, or DPS as needed. Much more forgiving for newer players or players doing content with strangers. Plus with the trinity if a player had to go that was usually the end of that if you couldn't find a replacement.

Eldurian · September 2017

Phry said:

Eldurian said:

The trinity as we know it is an invention of MMORPGs. This can be debated until people are blue in the face but the fact is when you play pre-MMO RPGs such as Dungeons and Dragons you can't group all players into three distinct roles. Not just because more than three roles exist, but because most characters are not one dimensional in that their purpose is summed up by a single role such as healer, tank or DPS.

Your cleric or druid can be a frontline fighter who soaks up damage but also is a major healer/buffer for the party. Your barbarian may be a frontline fighter who soaks up damage but one of your primary DPSers as well.

Fitting characters distinctly within three little pigeon holed roles is something that happens in MMOs, and when people who have played too many MMO try to apply it to other formats where it doesn't work as well.

So my answer on how to fill the void left by the trinity is this:

What void? Just look back to Dungeons and Dragons if you want to see how you can have a game where characters fill different purposes without having the need to fill codified roles.

D&D is/was a prime example of a trinity game honestly, true a Cleric can wear heavy armour the same as a fighter can, but where a fighter had a d10 for health/level the Cleric only had a d6/level, and thats without the weapon restrictions, clerics mostly limited to 1h blunt weapons, so while they couldn't do the job of a fighter they could assist, and of course, they could heal/buff, Wizards d4/level health were primarily crowd control and the heavy dps, Thieves d4/level health were there to support also, finding traps, scouting, and sneak attacks doing high damage to vulnerable targets of opportunity. D&D was a very role orientated game, its where the trinity originated.

3.5 Dwarven Cleric

It's pretty lengthy but to sum it up, by playing a dwarf and going first level fighter this guy becomes a tanky little bastard who wields a dwarven waraxe.

Low hit dice is really a very simple issue to overcome because of con bonus. Plus your overall survivability is made up of your HP, AC, Saves, DR, SR etc.

Eldurian · September 2017

All I can say at all these people saying "We played D&D as a trinity game".

If your wizard is a primary DPS, he was being played wrong. Wizards are a utility class that happens to do decent AoEs and can be strong against high AC characters. Wizards are there just as much for things like:

Dimension Door
Identify
Magnificent Mansion

Etc.

In-fact in our current party the wizard is an illusionist who banned the evocation school (The school you use to do damage).

If your cleric is a primary healer, you are playing it wrong. As you can see in the link I gave to the dwarven cleric. He fills many roles. The primary of which is a buffer. In D&D in general midfight healing is not considered an essential role. Afterfight healing is. And after fight healing can be accomplished by having any character who can cast cure light as a first level spell (Paladins and Bards Included) and getting them a ton of first level pearls of power. You could even have a ranger do it be it at a slightly higher cost. In-fight healing, as often as it is truly needed, can easily be done with potions.

If your paladin or fighter is just a tank, you are doing it wrong. A paladin can be a powerful damage dealer, or an excellent healer in addition to being hard to kill. A fighter can be one of the best DPSers as well as seriously good CC if they take feats such as improved disarm.

And if your rogue is being counted on as the primary DPSer than they are being played wrong for sure. Rogues are a skill based character. They are not very good tanks, they are not very good healers (Though they can be your healer through use magic device and a cure light wand), and their DPS is very situational. It's built more for sneaking up on and taking targets unaware than being a main DPS in the final boss fight. Even your primary DPS rogue build (dual wielder who uses flanking for sneak attacks) generally does not want to be a part of the fight if it involves the target living past their full round attack as they are squishy bastards and aggro doesn't exist in D&D. Rogues are all about hide, move silently, disable device, open lock, search etc.

TLDR - If you are using these classes as trinity roles, then you were doing it wrong and your party must have sucked.

FrodoFragins · September 2017

Rhoklaw said:

MMOs with specific roles = you have value

MMOs where everyone can do everything = you have no value

overly simplistic.

Eldurian · September 2017

The idea that the party has a need for a variety of skills and that the different party members need to fill different party needs does originate from D&D.

The idea that you you need a min-maxed tank, a min-maxed DPS, and min-maxed healing (AKA the trinity) is unique to MMOs. D&D has never played that way. Even if you do build a party that way it's almost guaranteed to be sub-optimal.

Sovrath · September 2017

Eldurian said:

All I can say at all these people saying "We played D&D as a trinity game".

If your wizard is a primary DPS, he was being played wrong. Wizards are a utility class that happens to do decent AoEs and can be strong against high AC characters. Wizards are there just as much for things like:

Dimension Door
Identify
Magnificent Mansion

Etc.

TLDR - If you are using these classes as trinity roles, then you were doing it wrong and your party must have sucked.

That's a bit intense isn't it?

And yes, we had players who usually boned up on destruction spells and we had a blast (no pun intended but amused that it's there). I don't think there is a right/wrong way to play Dungeons and Dragons.

And if you are saying there is a right/wrong way to play Dungeons and Dragons then I question how much of a "blast" you were having and probably playing it wrong.

Also, if you are a rules monger then you are playing it wrong.

Albatroes · September 2017

Wizardry said:

I don't believe the thought to change the way gaming has gone is for any positive reason or any real thought.I believe it was simply to facilitate EASIER cheaper game designs.
Zergs are even less than the Trinity,99% of all combat now is simple no brainer spam killing to the point animations and characters look fake and dumb at the same time.

There was never a reason to try and avoid the Trinity,just smarter people and better implementation,hence why when Arena.net was spewing nonsense about needing to change was ONLY for selfish reasons to promote THEIR own product.

Perhaps FFXi will go down as the last true grouping game with zero hand holding,nothing else like it.Now everyone wants their hands held,told where to go what to do and don't mind getting tons of super easy xp just to get excited about a level number.
Arena.net was imo one of the first real bad developers to try and feed us a lot of bull to support their own product.Dynamic questing,another idea they seemed to think needed changing no gear grinds when real reason was less effort in designing assets for the game.
So the real problem right now is cheap ass developers telling us how difficult things are,money is tough,LAZY designs called ACTION combat,it is all to try and force a system on us of lazy cheap game design and getting us to fit the bill which is even more pathetic.

Bottom line,quit supporting all these lame developers,yes even your fave developer,why give money to someone trying to scam or rip you off?

Will it all change back,will we once again see passionate game design or wil lit all remain business first gaming second,idk we can only hope.

I love that you brought up FFXI. Another core element that FFXI did that almost no mmorpg currently does was make "end game" accessible at a relatively early level. You could helpful at various levels depending on what you were playing and only certain things were locked behind levels in order to enter. This rush rush rush to the end makes anything until then pretty much useless in the current market. Also FFXI's expansions added a lot of things for all levels, not just add a new endgame grind. You would get new leveling areas, or even get level capped things that allowed you to get end game stuff while leveling a low level, so it was pretty well designed to include something for everyone and not just make people thing the game really begins once you reach the end. I'd go into the merit system and such but honestly I'd be typing a whole paper if I went into everything the game did right (could write a whole paper on what it did wrong as well sadly). Unfortunately, a majority of the current market just wants instant gratification and to not be left behind because of "life" so they need to have things worked around them instead of working with others to accomplish things.

Eldurian · September 2017

Sovrath said:

That's a bit intense isn't it?

And yes, we had players who usually boned up on destruction spells and we had a blast (no pun intended but amused that it's there). I don't think there is a right/wrong way to play Dungeons and Dragons.

And if you are saying there is a right/wrong way to play Dungeons and Dragons then I question how much of a "blast" you were having and probably playing it wrong.

Also, if you are a rules monger then you are playing it wrong.

If your wizard min-max dumped everything to do more damage and filled all his spell slots with blasting spells then yeah, your party probably only survived if your DM took pity on you. For one thing, if I was your DM that wizard would probably die to a goblin with a bow in the first encounter.

If the wizard was effective though, then I'm fairly certain that isn't the way he was built.

Building a wizard for pure DPS is like building a rogue as a pure healer. If you are facing things at your CR played by a DM who's actually trying to kill you it just isn't going to work.

aliven · September 2017

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

skadad said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Rhoklaw said:

MMOs with specific roles = you have value

MMOs where everyone can do everything = you have no value

I guess that's why the chat channels in ESO, a game without the trinity, are full of people asking for specific classes and specializations for the hardest dungeons, right?

ESO does not have trinity, interesting.

There's no "tank" per se. There are taunts and CC, but no real "agro" like in EQ/WoW clones. All participant have to take care of themself.

Ofc they are. One handed and shield weapon set. For example.

Only difference from wow is that even sorcerer can make effective and viable tank, not min maxed one, but perfectly viable. Or Nightblade can be magic nuker. Or Templar running with bow and sniping with light.

While some classes excel as either magic dps, or stamina dps, or tanks doesnt mean ONLY THEY can be viable in said roles. Hell, im playing argonian stamina nightblade. Im unoptimized race/class wise as hell. From min max standpoint Argonians can either be tanks or healers. And yet i will be effective dmg dealer. Not min maxed but still viable.

Also, to all others who believe D&D bring set roles like tanks etc.

You CANT create effective tank in D&D. It is extremely ineffective to create high def, armor, health character with pityfull dmg. Because you dont fight mindless AI and any enemy would just ignore that blob of steel and kill squishy. D&D system is the most playstyle friendly system i can believe. You can create everything you want, and somewhere there is class/feat/spells/magic items who take you concept of a character and make it strong mechanically without sacrificing your fantasy about character. Sure, system is heaven for munchkins both there should DM step up, or dont. Maybe you want play mechanically broken characters.

Also, if somebody would tell me he want to create a strong damage dealing character i would say, they dont want a character but gimmick. Come back when you want make character.

ConstantineMerus · September 2017

If you can take about any class with any builds that means zerging. If in anyway you need to plan your party then it's not zerging. Trinity would be one of the endless possible mechanics.
My humble opinion of course.

kitarad · September 2017

I thought zerging was where you threw endless numbers at something. Starcraft zerglings.

If you use strategy which you must if people play roles then that is not zerging. Those roles don't have to be trinity. Just because a character can play different roles and switch between them does not mean there is zerging unless the game also supports mindlessly throwing everything at the content. If it requires a group to work together with whatever roles they decide and play with strategy that is definitely not zerging.

I really honestly think that people have simply labelled stuff zerging because that word instantly connotes no thinking involved so best burn possible for a game they dislike. However if a game just does not have the trinity but instead employs roles that can crowd control,tank or heal or buff and debuff and so forth the game cannot be described as zerg based at all.

KnightFalz · September 2017

Rhoklaw said:

MMOs with specific roles = you have value

MMOs where everyone can do everything = you have no value

MMOs with specific roles = a need for guilds

MMOs where everyone can do everything = solo friendly

There's no right or wrong answer. Trinity was designed based off table top D&D where most of the time, you tackled content with a group of adventurers. Times changed and people don't like the idea of having to wait for a healer or a tank in order to do raids. See, back in the day, when we didn't have a full group, we used to do those "other" things offered to pass the time, called <gasp> crafting, fishing or <cough> socializing <cough>.

MMOs where everyone can do everything = Everyone has independent value while nobody has indispensable value.

That doesn't mean a single character will have enough value to conquer everything. There will still be some content better faced by groups and guilds will remain a good place to find them.

It does mean a rigid party composition constraint isn't required for group content.

Eldurian · September 2017

KnightFalz said:

MMOs where everyone can do everything = Everyone has independent value while nobody has indispensable value.

That doesn't mean a single character will have enough value to conquer everything. There will still be some content better faced by groups and guilds will remain a good place to find them.

It does mean a rigid party composition constraint isn't required for group content.

I'm not anti-trinity because I hate variety. I'm anti-trinity because I want variety. The same people telling us that if we take away the trinity then everyone will be the same are the people telling us "It's a good thing they removed skilltrees because everyone just ran the same min-max build anyway!" When your three roles are min-maxed DPS, min-maxed Tanks, and min-maxed heals then there is no authentic variety there. In PvE all builds are just different takes on the same three concepts for the most part. Recent MMOs have even tended to remove CC and Support roles entirely just giving a few support/CC options to classes that fill trinity roles.

That is why I steadfastly deny that D&D is a trinity based game. D&D has more roles than can easily be enumerated, and each character fills multiple roles. There are no essential roles just a general idea that a good party avoids redundancy and needs the ability to deal with the enemy while surviving their attacks. That generally means most D&D characters have some capacity for surviving attacks (Because aggro doesn't exist) and most of them have some way of either dealing damage or powerful crowd control. Beyond that, builds differ immensely, generally in the way they tackle non-combat challenges.

For a D&D dungeon you might kill all the boss's minions or force him into some other compromised position then force the boss into a surrender through intimidation. You might set traps at the exit to his chamber then provoke him out into the hallway. You might just have the rogue sneak past him and grab the loot or pickpocket it off of him. You could even use diplomacy to turn him to your side. There might not even be a boss. The traps and perils of the dungeon or the general NPCs may be the entire challenge.

The trinity is what gave rise to the term "Tank and spank" which is the solution to every problem. Kick in the door and kill everything while the tank soaks up the damage and the healer removes it. The most challenging PvE is all about boss fights which all boil down to tanking and spanking the boss while avoiding the boss's special moves. Everything else is "trash" mobs which you can easily clear your way through.

There are many reasons MMOs have moved this direction, but they all have solutions:

Problem 1: D&D parties are built to compliment each other. You know who your group is and what roles they need filled. In MMOs where your party changes a lot, this is not the case.
Solution 1: If an MMO were to have many roles, then changing your role should be simple. Using a classless system where your build is based largely on gear, then making gear more disposable and easily changed (As in EVE or Darkfall) solves this problem.

Problem 2: Dungeons are predictable. People will just switch to the best builds for each individual dungeon before running it.
Solution 2: Runescape's dungeoneering demonstrates a model for dungeons which is not predictable. It randomizes the layout of the dungeon and challenges found within. Other MMOs could implement their own versions of fully or partially randomized dungeons.

Problem 3: Non-combat challenges tend to not be worth it. It's easier to just tank and spank.
Solution 3: Make them worth it.

Problem 4: Challenges such as traps become useless when you can just heal away their damage or respawn.
Solution 4: Make resurrections more limited, and potentially healing as well. If there is no respawn and your healer only has 1-3 uses of resurrect before you need to exit and restart the dungeon, people are going to start caring about things like traps.

Overall the reason we are so dependent on the trinity is because we are so intent on replicating WoW over, and over, and over. Make an MMO that isn't WoW and you can have role diversity without the trinity.

Iselin · September 2017

aliven said:

Only difference from wow is that even sorcerer can make effective and viable tank, not min maxed one, but perfectly viable. Or Nightblade can be magic nuker. Or Templar running with bow and sniping with light.

No, there's a bigger difference: no AOE aggro so you don't have the WOW-like tanking where you just aggro everything.

It's something that a lot of noob tanks or tank wannabes in ESO struggle with. A good tank in ESO has to be also good at CC, gathering and rooting packs, positioning, etc. in addition to aggroing.

The harder the content and the better the players in ESO, the more it functions like a traditional trinity game. You can cheese normal dungeon runs with hardly a need for trinity game play but in vet dungeons and trials you can't.