Lots of good points. BUT... I keep seeing this same word over and over... accountability. How is that determined? The guy that dies the most is held accountable? The one with the least amount of DPS on the DPS meters is going to be held accountable? Or the least HPM? What if there are no meters? Then at what/who do you point the finger at? I've played with outstanding players, much more talented than I, that died often, didn't top the charts, or heal the most, but they were a huge part of our success. If nothing else, this may cause MORE finger pointing in GW2 than in the holy trinity, because again, at least everyone had a role, and it was easy(er) to find the weakness.
Besides the obvious answer of blaming the idiot who Leeroy Jenkins the room, or the guy who keeps running into the wall or dodging off a cliff, how is accountabiilty going to be really determined once we are in the game???
And once that has been determined, then what? Kick the player out, like you would with someone not fulfilling their old trinity role? At least with the trinity, you knew where the weakspots were, and thats a big part of finding a solution. If a group is playing in GW2 and keeps failing, where are the fingers going to be pointed? Based on what? And then at that point, once someone is held accountable, then what? Change roles? To what? Something that they are even less used to playing?
Don't get me wrong. I can't wait for GW2, and I am looking forward to almost all aspects of the game. But I am skeptical that much will change in the long run, and the trinity will always be in place much more than most people think or hope. Again, I am not trying to stir the pot, or be devil's advocate, but I think 1 yr from now, as far as the trinity goes, little will have changed.
I am hoping combat and gameplay is as innovative and exciting as ever. I hope it changes the way we look at things. I'm just doubtful it will. Hopefully I will be very wrong.
As for your point on accountability, I agree. It will definitely be harder to determine who is responsible for failure just because everything isn't as clear cut as the trinity system. Personally, I don't think it's a huge deal though, and it would be nice to have someone other than the tank of the healer take the blame for once .
As for whether GW2 will essentially become a "trinity" game...I seriously, seriously doubt this. Here's why...
Trinity combat is not a natural phenomenon that just happens in social gaming situations. In order for trinity combat to work the game has to be designed with trinity combat in mind. Someone has to be able to control aggro and soak a lot of damage, someone has to be able to outheal the damage that several mobs are inflicting on the tank. Without these elements, the trinity system just won't work.
And the fact of the matter is that GW2 has no method to control aggro. No taunts, no simple damage based aggro mechanic. So even if you create a party where people manage to spec their character in traditional trinity roles, it's all going to fall apart once the mob ignores the tank and starts beating on the healer. Imagine how WoW combat would go without any aggro generation abilities...the trinity would fall apart.
So basically, I don't think you're ever going to see the trinity rearing its head in GW2 because the game just isn't designed for it. Without the ability to control aggro, no one can ever tank no matter how defensive they are, and no matter how good the healer is.
But on the negative side, this makes it more difficult for groups to work together. Some people just want to casually blaze through a dungeon, and all of a sudden it becomes a much bigger time and mental investment. Communication is also a double edged sword. In a trinity system you can go through an entire dungeon with a jerk and possibly never even realize that he's a jerk because there is no need to talk. But in a non-trinity system, his jerkness will probably be well known to you.
Personally...I prefer a non-trinity system.
I remember the best dungeon run I ever had was in Rift when 2 of our group members (including the main healer!) bailed and the remaining three of us (warrior and two rogues) decided to try to finish the dungeon. We actually communicated about strategy, and had the one rogue switch to a tanking build so he and I could switch off tanking the boss while the other rogue switched to bard for support heals. Miraculously, we actually beat the dungeon, and I actually felt a feeling of real accomplishment for once.
We had beaten the dungeon in a way the designers really didn't intend by thinking of a clever solution. The trinity system normally robs you of that. It gives you the solution, you never need to think of it...you just need to not royally F up your role and you will win.
I'm really looking forward to a system that actually makes me think again.
To me in a sense it seems morel ike you are comparing say...
Me using the Dungeon Finder in WoW... ending up with a party that likely knows the dungeon.. is over geared and there is no challege. So they want me (the tank) to simply blast through as fast as we can.. with no talking.. to get the currency reward at the end.
With the Rift scenario you are not talking about a Non Trinity example... tho you seem to be implying that you are. You pre-defined two people as Tank, off tank/dps and the bard as dps/support. That's a trinity no matter how you look at it... and the only thing Rift offered you over any other game... was the Soul System so you had some role flexibility.
Beyond that... you put yourself in a situation in Rift where you were not going to win by default and had to come up with a strategy.
Which would be no different than the WoW dungeon finder group... if they were doing content over their heads.. that they were under geared for... and had to "play it right" to win.
My first MMO was Ultima Online... There was no Holy Trinity tho I would almost argue every player could be a trinity unto themselves. At least in the early years it was hard to communicate.. and we pretty much never communicated in battle (no voice chat.. limited range in game communication... many used programs like icq and you had to tab over to use that).
As well as the fact we had no in game grouping tool... we just hunted in the same area. Which means we had no little UI thing floating to the side to make it easier to keep track of friends health.
So the "no trinity" system does not for any reason require more communication... simply because in UO which imho is the best "no trinity" example you are going to find... it was almost impossible to communicate in battle. On top of that UO was a FFA PvP game with no instances.
Meaning that if we were fighting the biggest baddest monster you could find... you might get jumped at any moment. The only thing required was awareness and the ability to adapt to an ever changing situation.
Another view could be... If you look at UO and compare it to Rift. What is the difference in regards to trinity? In Rift you use the Soul System to alter your Role depending on needs at the time. In UO .. you didn't change your skill spec on the fly during combat or before. You simply altered the way you were playing depending on what the situation required.
Friends low on health? Cast heal or use bandages depending.
Rift? as per your example... the one person switches their role so they can support heal.
To me the real the implication of a true "no trinity" system would be... the way encounters have worked for a quite a while... would have to be totally redesigned.
Most of the "tricks" developers use... wouldn't even phase a true "no trinity" group.... who cares if a mob dumps aggro in a game with no pre defined tank? I mean in Ultima Online you didn't have anyone holding aggro... as I said earlier you just adapted to the situation. In Trinity or role defined MMO's... you have to deal with all that bs of the tank reaquiring aggro... etc
So to me that's the real implication of "no trinity"... developers would totally have to rethink encounters.
To me in a sense it seems morel ike you are comparing say...
Me using the Dungeon Finder in WoW... ending up with a party that likely knows the dungeon.. is over geared and there is no challege. So they want me (the tank) to simply blast through as fast as we can.. with no talking.. to get the currency reward at the end.
With the Rift scenario you are not talking about a Non Trinity example... tho you seem to be implying that you are. You pre-defined two people as Tank, off tank/dps and the bard as dps/support. That's a trinity no matter how you look at it... and the only thing Rift offered you over any other game... was the Soul System so you had some role flexibility.
Beyond that... you put yourself in a situation in Rift where you were not going to win by default and had to come up with a strategy.
Which would be no different than the WoW dungeon finder group... if they were doing content over their heads.. that they were under geared for... and had to "play it right" to win.
My first MMO was Ultima Online... There was no Holy Trinity tho I would almost argue every player could be a trinity unto themselves. At least in the early years it was hard to communicate.. and we pretty much never communicated in battle (no voice chat.. limited range in game communication... many used programs like icq and you had to tab over to use that).
As well as the fact we had no in game grouping tool... we just hunted in the same area. Which means we had no little UI thing floating to the side to make it easier to keep track of friends health.
So the "no trinity" system does not for any reason require more communication... simply because in UO which imho is the best "no trinity" example you are going to find... it was almost impossible to communicate in battle. On top of that UO was a FFA PvP game with no instances.
Meaning that if we were fighting the biggest baddest monster you could find... you might get jumped at any moment. The only thing required was awareness and the ability to adapt to an ever changing situation.
Another view could be... If you look at UO and compare it to Rift. What is the difference in regards to trinity? In Rift you use the Soul System to alter your Role depending on needs at the time. In UO .. you didn't change your skill spec on the fly during combat or before. You simply altered the way you were playing depending on what the situation required.
Friends low on health? Cast heal or use bandages depending.
Rift? as per your example... the one person switches their role so they can support heal.
To me the real the implication of a true "no trinity" system would be... the way encounters have worked for a quite a while... would have to be totally redesigned.
Most of the "tricks" developers use... wouldn't even phase a true "no trinity" group.... who cares if a mob dumps aggro in a game with no pre defined tank? I mean in Ultima Online you didn't have anyone holding aggro... as I said earlier you just adapted to the situation. In Trinity or role defined MMO's... you have to deal with all that bs of the tank reaquiring aggro... etc
So to me that's the real implication of "no trinity"... developers would totally have to rethink encounters.
Nah, I know Rift is a trinity system, that wasn't really what I meant.
What I was saying was that my Rift group was thrown into a situation where the traditional trinity tactic of 1 tank, 1 heal, rest DPS simply wasn't going to work. We had no main healer (just a "support" heal), and essentially two tanks. In order to succeed, we had to keep bouncing MOBs between the two tanks so that we didn't get killed.
It's still a trinity game, no doubt. And when you have a full group it is no different from WoW in that regard. But in that specific situation, we had to branch out from the trinity system to succeed. So I wasn't trying to hold Rift up as an example of a non-trinity game. I just wanted to show an example of how having to branch out and using a non-standard tactic can be fun.
Also, UO was my first game as well. But the combat in UO was not really group oriented. When you fought in a group, it basically boiled down to just blasting the mob and running back to heal when needed (or just use the blade spirit I win button). The mobs in UO were all pretty slow if you had a broadband connection so it really wasn't difficult to get the MOB out of your screen so it couldn't get you while you healed or bandaged.
Of course...you could also make a box fort and just win that way as well . The point is that UO combat wasn't really difficult enough to require a group dynamic to succeed. If you wanted to group in UO it was just for fun and that's it. PvP was a bit different I guess, but once again, it was more like "chaotic battles" than any kind of strategy.
I just remembered something, and this is probably my one issue with the non trinity thing.. and I guess atm would be a GW2 thing. The bosses in the dungeon seem to do a huge amount of melee damage that is unavoidable... now I am going off the badly done videos we have all seen but even when they are dodging and moving back out of red circles and big moves they are getting their a$$es handed to them... I think that the bosses at least should do less melee damage for those up in their face and playing well.
I also noticed that in those groups, players weren't rolling out of combat and letting others take over in the front while they recuperate, not to mention, there never seems to be a lot damage mitigation sklls being used either, just a whole lot of DPS. That's a problem right there which has a lot to do with player inexperience and unfamiliarity with their characters.
Another problem I saw, especially during the fights with Adelbern, players were getting hit with the Foefire DoT while at low health and it looked certain they were going to die, but they would stay in the front, going toe-to-toe with the king. Of course, they would get downed right at the king's feet, making rezzing them difficult for their team mates. If they'd rolled to the rear before they were downed, their buddies would have had a much easier time getting them back on their feet, while also taking less of a risk.
Finally, I can't count the number of times I've seen players running around at half health but not using their personal heal. Instead, they'd save it until they were at 10-20% health before using it, which would get them back up to half again. They should be using that heal whenever it is off cooldown if their health isn't full, instead of waiting until they are on death's door.
So there are several things that players could be doing better overall, to make these encounters smoother. They are still going to be tough, but I don't believe they need to be wipe-a-thons if players were actually working together as they should and playing their characters to their full potential. Right now, that's happening very rarely, but it will improve over time. The level of difficulty as it stands right now looks pretty close to spot on.
that is definitely true, it will probably be fine in the end once melee have figured out how to dodge and work the GW2 battle system.
Lots of good points. BUT... I keep seeing this same word over and over... accountability. How is that determined? ...
I am hoping combat and gameplay is as innovative and exciting as ever. I hope it changes the way we look at things. I'm just doubtful it will. Hopefully I will be very wrong.
Trinity combat is not a natural phenomenon that just happens in social gaming situations. In order for trinity combat to work the game has to be designed with trinity combat in mind. Someone has to be able to control aggro and soak a lot of damage, someone has to be able to outheal the damage that several mobs are inflicting on the tank. Without these elements, the trinity system just won't work.
Yeah, this is really good point that I had not weighed as heavily as you. And yes, I do agree that the trinity did not happen naturally. Countering that, however, is that it WAS created for a reason. And a reason that has lasted a really, really long time in the gaming world. Also, it wasn't an accident, the development of the trinity.
If GW2's system is better, because the designers can control it that much, then more power to them. I'll be the first to doff my hat. But not holding my breath LOL. Finally, just to re-state it... I don't think it will be an all trinity system - I just think the old school trinity we are used to is going to have a larger presence than what most are thinking.
Lots of good points. BUT... I keep seeing this same word over and over... accountability. How is that determined? ...
I am hoping combat and gameplay is as innovative and exciting as ever. I hope it changes the way we look at things. I'm just doubtful it will. Hopefully I will be very wrong.
Trinity combat is not a natural phenomenon that just happens in social gaming situations. In order for trinity combat to work the game has to be designed with trinity combat in mind. Someone has to be able to control aggro and soak a lot of damage, someone has to be able to outheal the damage that several mobs are inflicting on the tank. Without these elements, the trinity system just won't work.
Yeah, this is really good point that I had not weighed as heavily as you. And yes, I do agree that the trinity did not happen naturally. Countering that, however, is that it WAS created for a reason. And a reason that has lasted a really, really long time in the gaming world. Also, it wasn't an accident, the development of the trinity.
If GW2's system is better, because the designers can control it that much, then more power to them. I'll be the first to doff my hat. But not holding my breath LOL. Finally, just to re-state it... I don't think it will be an all trinity system - I just think the old school trinity we are used to is going to have a larger presence than what most are thinking.
Cheers~
Yeah, I think it all depends on what you consider the "trinity" to really mean. If you are just saying that players will likely create builds suited to specific roles, then I would be inclined to agree with you. I'm pretty sure people are going to try to make the ultimate "control" Guardian. Or the ultimate "DPS" thief.
But I don't think we're going to see anything similar to the "tank holds aggro, while healer heals, and DPS kills" mechanic that's in so many other games.
I think someone touch on something quite important above. It seems there are a few different interpetations to what "Holy Trinity" refers too. I have seen some say it refers to the roles in combat, healing, tanking,dps. Others I have seen say that the term only applies when the classes are DEDICATED healing,tanking,dps.
My thoughts are that GW2 does have a trinity of roles. Being Control, support, dps. But the way in which you approach this new trinity is way different then the "holy trinity". No taunts or aggroing skills, instead cc/slows/physical barriers. When you compare that to my warrior tank in wow. It's hard to call it tanking, its more like protecting. Then there is support which seems to offer minor hots and buffs/shields. Again comparing that to the healing role in wow is not even fair, sure you have buffs and shields in wow. But they supplement you playing whack-a-mole with incredibily powerful heals. Where as "support" in gw2 is the main focus with actual restoration of heath playing second fiddle. And of course dps is dps.
So I do believe you could say GW2 has a trinity system of sorts if you are simply referring to the 3 possible roles that ANY CLASS can take up and be effective at. But the key there for me is ANY CLASS. What makes this game non-trinity in my personal opinion is the fact that I can use any profession I wish and still fufill any role that my group needs. Whereas in the classic trinity setup if your class is caster, you can never tank and you can never heal.(perhaps a tiny bit, but not enough to fufill that role in grp play.)
Lots of good points. BUT... I keep seeing this same word over and over... accountability. How is that determined? ...
I am hoping combat and gameplay is as innovative and exciting as ever. I hope it changes the way we look at things. I'm just doubtful it will. Hopefully I will be very wrong.
Trinity combat is not a natural phenomenon that just happens in social gaming situations. In order for trinity combat to work the game has to be designed with trinity combat in mind. Someone has to be able to control aggro and soak a lot of damage, someone has to be able to outheal the damage that several mobs are inflicting on the tank. Without these elements, the trinity system just won't work.
Yeah, this is really good point that I had not weighed as heavily as you. And yes, I do agree that the trinity did not happen naturally. Countering that, however, is that it WAS created for a reason. And a reason that has lasted a really, really long time in the gaming world. Also, it wasn't an accident, the development of the trinity.
If GW2's system is better, because the designers can control it that much, then more power to them. I'll be the first to doff my hat. But not holding my breath LOL. Finally, just to re-state it... I don't think it will be an all trinity system - I just think the old school trinity we are used to is going to have a larger presence than what most are thinking.
Cheers~
Yeah, I think it all depends on what you consider the "trinity" to really mean. If you are just saying that players will likely create builds suited to specific roles, then I would be inclined to agree with you. I'm pretty sure people are going to try to make the ultimate "control" Guardian. Or the ultimate "DPS" thief.
But I don't think we're going to see anything similar to the "tank holds aggro, while healer heals, and DPS kills" mechanic that's in so many other games.
I guess it's just a question of semantics .
Yes. You said it better than I did in your first paragraph. We all know the term aggro means something different in GW2, but we'll still see people pushing the roles of their main, such as you suggested. You can almost look at it a different way. I imagine many will go into a dungeon thinking "OK, my specialty is "tanking", so I will tank first, and I will tank best when it's my turn. And I will end up tanking the longest amount of in-game time." In essence, they will see themselves as a tank, even if they are backing off, rotating, DPSing, healing, etc. So much so, they might still use the word tank in describing themselves.
Next time I have a halfway decent thought, I'll contact you so you can put it in writing.
Watching the Spotlight videos on Warrior and Guardian, you will realize that there really is nothing that would steal aggro to keep the mob's attention on you. Therefore, without aggro, there is no Trinity.
Unless ArenaNet added aggro, you will never have a trinity. Regardless of whether or not you have a healer.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Lots of good points. BUT... I keep seeing this same word over and over... accountability. How is that determined? ...
I am hoping combat and gameplay is as innovative and exciting as ever. I hope it changes the way we look at things. I'm just doubtful it will. Hopefully I will be very wrong.
Trinity combat is not a natural phenomenon that just happens in social gaming situations. In order for trinity combat to work the game has to be designed with trinity combat in mind. Someone has to be able to control aggro and soak a lot of damage, someone has to be able to outheal the damage that several mobs are inflicting on the tank. Without these elements, the trinity system just won't work.
Yeah, this is really good point that I had not weighed as heavily as you. And yes, I do agree that the trinity did not happen naturally. Countering that, however, is that it WAS created for a reason. And a reason that has lasted a really, really long time in the gaming world. Also, it wasn't an accident, the development of the trinity.
If GW2's system is better, because the designers can control it that much, then more power to them. I'll be the first to doff my hat. But not holding my breath LOL. Finally, just to re-state it... I don't think it will be an all trinity system - I just think the old school trinity we are used to is going to have a larger presence than what most are thinking.
Cheers~
Yeah, I think it all depends on what you consider the "trinity" to really mean. If you are just saying that players will likely create builds suited to specific roles, then I would be inclined to agree with you. I'm pretty sure people are going to try to make the ultimate "control" Guardian. Or the ultimate "DPS" thief.
But I don't think we're going to see anything similar to the "tank holds aggro, while healer heals, and DPS kills" mechanic that's in so many other games.
I guess it's just a question of semantics .
Yes. You said it better than I did in your first paragraph. We all know the term aggro means something different in GW2, but we'll still see people pushing the roles of their main, such as you suggested. You can almost look at it a different way. I imagine many will go into a dungeon thinking "OK, my specialty is "tanking", so I will tank first, and I will tank best when it's my turn. And I will end up tanking the longest amount of in-game time." In essence, they will see themselves as a tank, even if they are backing off, rotating, DPSing, healing, etc. So much so, they might still use the word tank in describing themselves.
Next time I have a halfway decent thought, I'll contact you so you can put it in writing.
Thanks, you are too kind, but I thought you explained it pretty well. I just wanted to more or less reiterate what I thought you meant to make sure we were on the same page, and it looks like we are .
I think someone touch on something quite important above. It seems there are a few different interpetations to what "Holy Trinity" refers too. I have seen some say it refers to the roles in combat, healing, tanking,dps. Others I have seen say that the term only applies when the classes are DEDICATED healing,tanking,dps.
My thoughts are that GW2 does have a trinity of roles. Being Control, support, dps. But the way in which you approach this new trinity is way different then the "holy trinity". No taunts or aggroing skills, instead cc/slows/physical barriers. When you compare that to my warrior tank in wow. It's hard to call it tanking, its more like protecting. Then there is support which seems to offer minor hots and buffs/shields. Again comparing that to the healing role in wow is not even fair, sure you have buffs and shields in wow. But they supplement you playing whack-a-mole with incredibily powerful heals. Where as "support" in gw2 is the main focus with actual restoration of heath playing second fiddle. And of course dps is dps.
So I do believe you could say GW2 has a trinity system of sorts if you are simply referring to the 3 possible roles that ANY CLASS can take up and be effective at. But the key there for me is ANY CLASS. What makes this game non-trinity in my personal opinion is the fact that I can use any profession I wish and still fufill any role that my group needs. Whereas in the classic trinity setup if your class is caster, you can never tank and you can never heal.(perhaps a tiny bit, but not enough to fufill that role in grp play.)
I actually see this in much simpler terms. You could say that GW2 has a "trinity of roles" and you would be completely right. BUT, you could also just say that it has three roles and also be correct because the word "trinity" is what everyone seems to be stumbing over.
But what really makes GW2 a non-trinity game is that you don't always need all three roles, all the time. Sometimes you you can succeed without *anyone* dropping AoE heals, thus no healer and you're running a, what -- a binity (not really a word but should be)? Same thing for your tank, or whatever passes for it. If everyone is taking damage equally and no one character is designated to take the brunt of it for everyone else, there is no tank and you're back to a binity. And that's assuming you have a "healer" or two dropping AoE regens. If not, then you've got a unity (what else could it be?). Everyone is DPSing, using their personal heals, mitigating damage as needed and rolling in and out of the spotlight. There's only one clear role being performed and that's damage.
That's why saying this game uses the trinity is kind of meaningless. You'd be just as accurate calling it a binity or a unity since those are group configurations that will all be valid at one time or another. As far as I'm concerned, WoW would be a trinity game because you must have all those roles represented to succeed. If any of them are missing, the whole thing will inevitably collapse. And usually it's even more calcified than that because you must have exactly one tank, and one healer to succeed. Otherwise, you aren't burning down the enemy fast enough and eventually the healer runs dry, the tank topples, followed closely by everyone else.
So trinity? Sure. But I prefer binity. It's just as appropriate to use, but will also make a few people open a dictionary, and that's always positive thing.
I think a non-trinity will result in more proactive (and maybe more skilled) players in general. In too many games I can say "I'm X so my job is to do Y" and then responsibility falls on other players to accomplish the other tasks. If I must constantly be aware of the situation and change my role accordingly, I have a feeling it will force me to improve as a player instead of sitting in my little bubble and relying on others to hopefully do their job. I can actually be proactive in non-trinity and pick up the slack where we might be lacking without blaming, pointing the finger, etc. I can just do what needs to be done.
Anyways, that is what I hope will happen!
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Trinity or no trinity doesn't really worry me. What made GW as good as any mmorpg and better than most was the fact that DPS wasn't the only currency of the realm. The presence of the Mesmer, Protection monks, and a host of damage-reversing/negating skills, hexes, and conditions, ensured that one couldn't just spam "I win" skills mindlessly.
That's why I have mixed feelings about the loss of the Monk. I like the fact that it means no more "LF Healz" spam, but I worry that GW will fall into the rat race for more DPS.
Oh the fail WILL come. I intend to enjoy it though. Alot of the reason a fail group could make me rage so hard in the past is how much of a hassle it can be to find another tank/healer. I think taking that annoyance out of the equation will allow me to bask in the fail and perhaps even participate in it. as I am no means some kind of mmo pro!
On the plus side, this will probably encourage more communication the players won't have a single "monkey wrench" tactic that they can apply to any situation and win. They will need to actively discuss strategy when a hard challenge is encountered...running in blindly will likely not work due to lack of coordination.
I think that they have already achieved this in GW1. To be honest, in GW1 I think the skill system is the best skill system I have ever seen in any mmorpg: you can totally choose your own skills and if it doesn't work you can easily change it. You can easily make more builds and save them.
So, the absence of holy trinity is indeed awesome because skills become independent of other players' fixed builds. It all gets more flexible and creative which I think is really, really nice.
Comments
As for your point on accountability, I agree. It will definitely be harder to determine who is responsible for failure just because everything isn't as clear cut as the trinity system. Personally, I don't think it's a huge deal though, and it would be nice to have someone other than the tank of the healer take the blame for once
.
As for whether GW2 will essentially become a "trinity" game...I seriously, seriously doubt this. Here's why...
Trinity combat is not a natural phenomenon that just happens in social gaming situations. In order for trinity combat to work the game has to be designed with trinity combat in mind. Someone has to be able to control aggro and soak a lot of damage, someone has to be able to outheal the damage that several mobs are inflicting on the tank. Without these elements, the trinity system just won't work.
And the fact of the matter is that GW2 has no method to control aggro. No taunts, no simple damage based aggro mechanic. So even if you create a party where people manage to spec their character in traditional trinity roles, it's all going to fall apart once the mob ignores the tank and starts beating on the healer. Imagine how WoW combat would go without any aggro generation abilities...the trinity would fall apart.
So basically, I don't think you're ever going to see the trinity rearing its head in GW2 because the game just isn't designed for it. Without the ability to control aggro, no one can ever tank no matter how defensive they are, and no matter how good the healer is.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
To me in a sense it seems morel ike you are comparing say...
Me using the Dungeon Finder in WoW... ending up with a party that likely knows the dungeon.. is over geared and there is no challege. So they want me (the tank) to simply blast through as fast as we can.. with no talking.. to get the currency reward at the end.
With the Rift scenario you are not talking about a Non Trinity example... tho you seem to be implying that you are. You pre-defined two people as Tank, off tank/dps and the bard as dps/support. That's a trinity no matter how you look at it... and the only thing Rift offered you over any other game... was the Soul System so you had some role flexibility.
Beyond that... you put yourself in a situation in Rift where you were not going to win by default and had to come up with a strategy.
Which would be no different than the WoW dungeon finder group... if they were doing content over their heads.. that they were under geared for... and had to "play it right" to win.
My first MMO was Ultima Online... There was no Holy Trinity tho I would almost argue every player could be a trinity unto themselves. At least in the early years it was hard to communicate.. and we pretty much never communicated in battle (no voice chat.. limited range in game communication... many used programs like icq and you had to tab over to use that).
As well as the fact we had no in game grouping tool... we just hunted in the same area. Which means we had no little UI thing floating to the side to make it easier to keep track of friends health.
So the "no trinity" system does not for any reason require more communication... simply because in UO which imho is the best "no trinity" example you are going to find... it was almost impossible to communicate in battle. On top of that UO was a FFA PvP game with no instances.
Meaning that if we were fighting the biggest baddest monster you could find... you might get jumped at any moment. The only thing required was awareness and the ability to adapt to an ever changing situation.
Another view could be... If you look at UO and compare it to Rift. What is the difference in regards to trinity? In Rift you use the Soul System to alter your Role depending on needs at the time. In UO .. you didn't change your skill spec on the fly during combat or before. You simply altered the way you were playing depending on what the situation required.
Friends low on health? Cast heal or use bandages depending.
Rift? as per your example... the one person switches their role so they can support heal.
To me the real the implication of a true "no trinity" system would be... the way encounters have worked for a quite a while... would have to be totally redesigned.
Most of the "tricks" developers use... wouldn't even phase a true "no trinity" group.... who cares if a mob dumps aggro in a game with no pre defined tank? I mean in Ultima Online you didn't have anyone holding aggro... as I said earlier you just adapted to the situation. In Trinity or role defined MMO's... you have to deal with all that bs of the tank reaquiring aggro... etc
So to me that's the real implication of "no trinity"... developers would totally have to rethink encounters.
Nah, I know Rift is a trinity system, that wasn't really what I meant.
What I was saying was that my Rift group was thrown into a situation where the traditional trinity tactic of 1 tank, 1 heal, rest DPS simply wasn't going to work. We had no main healer (just a "support" heal), and essentially two tanks. In order to succeed, we had to keep bouncing MOBs between the two tanks so that we didn't get killed.
It's still a trinity game, no doubt. And when you have a full group it is no different from WoW in that regard. But in that specific situation, we had to branch out from the trinity system to succeed. So I wasn't trying to hold Rift up as an example of a non-trinity game. I just wanted to show an example of how having to branch out and using a non-standard tactic can be fun.
Also, UO was my first game as well. But the combat in UO was not really group oriented. When you fought in a group, it basically boiled down to just blasting the mob and running back to heal when needed (or just use the blade spirit I win button). The mobs in UO were all pretty slow if you had a broadband connection so it really wasn't difficult to get the MOB out of your screen so it couldn't get you while you healed or bandaged.
Of course...you could also make a box fort and just win that way as well
. The point is that UO combat wasn't really difficult enough to require a group dynamic to succeed. If you wanted to group in UO it was just for fun and that's it. PvP was a bit different I guess, but once again, it was more like "chaotic battles" than any kind of strategy.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
that is definitely true, it will probably be fine in the end once melee have figured out how to dodge and work the GW2 battle system.
Yeah, this is really good point that I had not weighed as heavily as you. And yes, I do agree that the trinity did not happen naturally. Countering that, however, is that it WAS created for a reason. And a reason that has lasted a really, really long time in the gaming world. Also, it wasn't an accident, the development of the trinity.
If GW2's system is better, because the designers can control it that much, then more power to them. I'll be the first to doff my hat. But not holding my breath LOL. Finally, just to re-state it... I don't think it will be an all trinity system - I just think the old school trinity we are used to is going to have a larger presence than what most are thinking.
Cheers~
Yeah, I think it all depends on what you consider the "trinity" to really mean. If you are just saying that players will likely create builds suited to specific roles, then I would be inclined to agree with you. I'm pretty sure people are going to try to make the ultimate "control" Guardian. Or the ultimate "DPS" thief.
But I don't think we're going to see anything similar to the "tank holds aggro, while healer heals, and DPS kills" mechanic that's in so many other games.
I guess it's just a question of semantics
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
FACT: If you go into GW2 thinking youre going to tank you will die a lot.
-I am here to perform logic
I think someone touch on something quite important above. It seems there are a few different interpetations to what "Holy Trinity" refers too. I have seen some say it refers to the roles in combat, healing, tanking,dps. Others I have seen say that the term only applies when the classes are DEDICATED healing,tanking,dps.
My thoughts are that GW2 does have a trinity of roles. Being Control, support, dps. But the way in which you approach this new trinity is way different then the "holy trinity". No taunts or aggroing skills, instead cc/slows/physical barriers. When you compare that to my warrior tank in wow. It's hard to call it tanking, its more like protecting. Then there is support which seems to offer minor hots and buffs/shields. Again comparing that to the healing role in wow is not even fair, sure you have buffs and shields in wow. But they supplement you playing whack-a-mole with incredibily powerful heals. Where as "support" in gw2 is the main focus with actual restoration of heath playing second fiddle. And of course dps is dps.
So I do believe you could say GW2 has a trinity system of sorts if you are simply referring to the 3 possible roles that ANY CLASS can take up and be effective at. But the key there for me is ANY CLASS. What makes this game non-trinity in my personal opinion is the fact that I can use any profession I wish and still fufill any role that my group needs. Whereas in the classic trinity setup if your class is caster, you can never tank and you can never heal.(perhaps a tiny bit, but not enough to fufill that role in grp play.)
Yes. You said it better than I did in your first paragraph. We all know the term aggro means something different in GW2, but we'll still see people pushing the roles of their main, such as you suggested. You can almost look at it a different way. I imagine many will go into a dungeon thinking "OK, my specialty is "tanking", so I will tank first, and I will tank best when it's my turn. And I will end up tanking the longest amount of in-game time." In essence, they will see themselves as a tank, even if they are backing off, rotating, DPSing, healing, etc. So much so, they might still use the word tank in describing themselves.
Next time I have a halfway decent thought, I'll contact you so you can put it in writing.
Watching the Spotlight videos on Warrior and Guardian, you will realize that there really is nothing that would steal aggro to keep the mob's attention on you. Therefore, without aggro, there is no Trinity.
Unless ArenaNet added aggro, you will never have a trinity. Regardless of whether or not you have a healer.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Thanks, you are too kind, but I thought you explained it pretty well. I just wanted to more or less reiterate what I thought you meant to make sure we were on the same page, and it looks like we are
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Damn Healers.
Always texting and gossiping during pulls.
I actually see this in much simpler terms. You could say that GW2 has a "trinity of roles" and you would be completely right. BUT, you could also just say that it has three roles and also be correct because the word "trinity" is what everyone seems to be stumbing over.
But what really makes GW2 a non-trinity game is that you don't always need all three roles, all the time. Sometimes you you can succeed without *anyone* dropping AoE heals, thus no healer and you're running a, what -- a binity (not really a word but should be)? Same thing for your tank, or whatever passes for it. If everyone is taking damage equally and no one character is designated to take the brunt of it for everyone else, there is no tank and you're back to a binity. And that's assuming you have a "healer" or two dropping AoE regens. If not, then you've got a unity (what else could it be?). Everyone is DPSing, using their personal heals, mitigating damage as needed and rolling in and out of the spotlight. There's only one clear role being performed and that's damage.
That's why saying this game uses the trinity is kind of meaningless. You'd be just as accurate calling it a binity or a unity since those are group configurations that will all be valid at one time or another. As far as I'm concerned, WoW would be a trinity game because you must have all those roles represented to succeed. If any of them are missing, the whole thing will inevitably collapse. And usually it's even more calcified than that because you must have exactly one tank, and one healer to succeed. Otherwise, you aren't burning down the enemy fast enough and eventually the healer runs dry, the tank topples, followed closely by everyone else.
So trinity? Sure. But I prefer binity. It's just as appropriate to use, but will also make a few people open a dictionary, and that's always positive thing.
I think a non-trinity will result in more proactive (and maybe more skilled) players in general. In too many games I can say "I'm X so my job is to do Y" and then responsibility falls on other players to accomplish the other tasks. If I must constantly be aware of the situation and change my role accordingly, I have a feeling it will force me to improve as a player instead of sitting in my little bubble and relying on others to hopefully do their job. I can actually be proactive in non-trinity and pick up the slack where we might be lacking without blaming, pointing the finger, etc. I can just do what needs to be done.
Anyways, that is what I hope will happen!
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Trinity or no trinity doesn't really worry me. What made GW as good as any mmorpg and better than most was the fact that DPS wasn't the only currency of the realm. The presence of the Mesmer, Protection monks, and a host of damage-reversing/negating skills, hexes, and conditions, ensured that one couldn't just spam "I win" skills mindlessly.
That's why I have mixed feelings about the loss of the Monk. I like the fact that it means no more "LF Healz" spam, but I worry that GW will fall into the rat race for more DPS.
First time dungeon runs at launch are going to be such epic fail... I can't wait.
Hopefully 30 levels of playing before the first story dungeon will train people well enough to avoid the massive fail the press beta videos showed lol
Completely new mind set than trinity group dynamics.
Oh the fail WILL come. I intend to enjoy it though. Alot of the reason a fail group could make me rage so hard in the past is how much of a hassle it can be to find another tank/healer. I think taking that annoyance out of the equation will allow me to bask in the fail and perhaps even participate in it. as I am no means some kind of mmo pro!
I think that they have already achieved this in GW1. To be honest, in GW1 I think the skill system is the best skill system I have ever seen in any mmorpg: you can totally choose your own skills and if it doesn't work you can easily change it. You can easily make more builds and save them.
So, the absence of holy trinity is indeed awesome because skills become independent of other players' fixed builds. It all gets more flexible and creative which I think is really, really nice.