The "trinity is aggro" crowd are simply the vocal group of players who are tired of aggro mechanics and are mis-using the term (usually because they haven't put much thought into what trinity is.)
What are the issues you have with Bartle's history or definition? I'm interested in why you feel he is incorrect.
In my opinion, he is correct, while you are not.
"I don't believe for a moment I'd have gone with what we have, which is the "trinity" of tank, heals and dps."
He knows trinity is those three roles. He does muddle things up, though, later on in his argument. I think he's a bit confused himself, honestly.
The real problem with mmorpg combat systems is that, instead of expanding on the 6 role system in EverQuest, games went to 3 role system and now to a 1 role hybridized, bastardized system.
EQ set the stage with tank, heals, dps, puller, cc, and support. Each of those roles were diverse and made combat dynamic and much more interesting. Yet here we are with all dps classes that have a little tanking or healing on the side or are simply self-sufficient because they design classes to fill all roles or allow multi-classing or instant respecs.
Sad how far in the wrong direction things have gone.
There are two ways people keep mentioning trinity, one is about core mechanics for the game and the other is about group roles, and people never seem to separate the two.
If we speak core mechanics, its essentially how threat mechanism works and how they force you to rely on tank(s) and healer(s) and its a design used for most mmorpg's. This however isn't always the case so its better to call it aggro/hate/threat based combat.
Group roles is different and changes for each game. The most common explanation for holy trinity is an extremely influential post made by ghostcrawler for WoW. Holy trinity as explained by ghostcrawler is a change in class and dungeon design philosopy. Class specs were rebalanced so that they would perform equally as either tanks, healers and damage dealers and dungeons were created for 1 tank, 1 healer and 3 damage dealers.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
The "trinity is aggro" crowd are simply the vocal group of players who are tired of aggro mechanics and are mis-using the term (usually because they haven't put much thought into what trinity is.)
What are the issues you have with Bartle's history or definition? I'm interested in why you feel he is incorrect.
In my opinion, he is correct, while you are not.
"I don't believe for a moment I'd have gone with what we have, which is the "trinity" of tank, heals and dps."
He knows trinity is those three roles. He does muddle things up, though, later on in his argument. I think he's a bit confused himself, honestly.
Unfortunately, you stopped reading once you got to a sentence that, out of context, made sense to you. He goes on to explain what is meant by 'tank' there and how that is different from the previous definition of tank. He then explains how the tank in that scenario is what defines the trinity. It is defined by the aggro system that DikuMUD and subsequent DikuMUD-based MMOs adopted.
Under any other aggro system, that tank is useless.
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
The "trinity is aggro" crowd are simply the vocal group of players who are tired of aggro mechanics and are mis-using the term (usually because they haven't put much thought into what trinity is.)
What are the issues you have with Bartle's history or definition? I'm interested in why you feel he is incorrect.
In my opinion, he is correct, while you are not.
"I don't believe for a moment I'd have gone with what we have, which is the "trinity" of tank, heals and dps."
He knows trinity is those three roles. He does muddle things up, though, later on in his argument. I think he's a bit confused himself, honestly.
Unfortunately, you stopped reading once you got to a sentence that, out of context, made sense to you. He goes on to explain what is meant by 'tank' there and how that is different from the previous definition of tank. He then explains how the tank in that scenario is what defines the trinity. It is defined by the aggro system that DikuMUD and subsequent DikuMUD-based MMOs adopted.
Under any other aggro system, that tank is useless.
That's why I said I think he's a bit confused. He gives a definition of trinity (tank, healer and dps), then gives a definition of tank, healer and dps ("The tank takes all the damage issued by the opponent, the healer reduces this damage, and the dps gives damage to the opponent") and finally he rejects both these premises when he talks about how to drop the trinity. He raises good points, but his argument is flawed because it contraddicts its own explanations and it's not self-consistent.
You can have the tank and not have the trinity. If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? Would anyone?
The trinity exists with tank + healer + dps (currently). That's the base of it.
We can debate over what makes a tank a tank, now. You could say that only a tank in an aggro system (with taunt and other such things) is a tank that can help form the trinity. I disagree. Let's take physical blocking as an example. A character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning is still a tank, in my view of things, and paired it with a healer and a dps, it still forms the trinity. Would you agree with that?
The "trinity is aggro" crowd are simply the vocal group of players who are tired of aggro mechanics and are mis-using the term (usually because they haven't put much thought into what trinity is.)
What are the issues you have with Bartle's history or definition? I'm interested in why you feel he is incorrect.
In my opinion, he is correct, while you are not.
"I don't believe for a moment I'd have gone with what we have, which is the "trinity" of tank, heals and dps."
He knows trinity is those three roles. He does muddle things up, though, later on in his argument. I think he's a bit confused himself, honestly.
Unfortunately, you stopped reading once you got to a sentence that, out of context, made sense to you. He goes on to explain what is meant by 'tank' there and how that is different from the previous definition of tank. He then explains how the tank in that scenario is what defines the trinity. It is defined by the aggro system that DikuMUD and subsequent DikuMUD-based MMOs adopted.
Under any other aggro system, that tank is useless.
That's why I said I think he's a bit confused. He gives a definition of trinity (tank, healer and dps), then gives a definition of tank, healer and dps ("The tank takes all the damage issued by the opponent, the healer reduces this damage, and the dps gives damage to the opponent") and finally he rejects both these premises when he talks about how to drop the trinity. He raises good points, but his argument is flawed because it contraddicts its own explanations and it's not self-consistent.
You can have the tank and not have the trinity. If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? Would anyone?
The trinity exists with tank + healer + dps (currently). That's the base of it.
We can debate over what makes a tank a tank, now. You could say that only a tank in an aggro system (with taunt and other such things) is a tank that can help form the trinity. I disagree. Let's take physical blocking as an example. A character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning is still a tank, in my view of things, and paired it with a healer and a dps, it still forms the trinity. Would you agree with that?
You're confusing tank with 'defense'. Yes, defense exists in a combat scenario. No one is arguing that.
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
The "trinity is aggro" crowd are simply the vocal group of players who are tired of aggro mechanics and are mis-using the term (usually because they haven't put much thought into what trinity is.)
What are the issues you have with Bartle's history or definition? I'm interested in why you feel he is incorrect.
In my opinion, he is correct, while you are not.
"I don't believe for a moment I'd have gone with what we have, which is the "trinity" of tank, heals and dps."
He knows trinity is those three roles. He does muddle things up, though, later on in his argument. I think he's a bit confused himself, honestly.
Unfortunately, you stopped reading once you got to a sentence that, out of context, made sense to you. He goes on to explain what is meant by 'tank' there and how that is different from the previous definition of tank. He then explains how the tank in that scenario is what defines the trinity. It is defined by the aggro system that DikuMUD and subsequent DikuMUD-based MMOs adopted.
Under any other aggro system, that tank is useless.
That's why I said I think he's a bit confused. He gives a definition of trinity (tank, healer and dps), then gives a definition of tank, healer and dps ("The tank takes all the damage issued by the opponent, the healer reduces this damage, and the dps gives damage to the opponent") and finally he rejects both these premises when he talks about how to drop the trinity. He raises good points, but his argument is flawed because it contraddicts its own explanations and it's not self-consistent.
You can have the tank and not have the trinity. If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? Would anyone?
The trinity exists with tank + healer + dps (currently). That's the base of it.
We can debate over what makes a tank a tank, now. You could say that only a tank in an aggro system (with taunt and other such things) is a tank that can help form the trinity. I disagree. Let's take physical blocking as an example. A character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning is still a tank, in my view of things, and paired it with a healer and a dps, it still forms the trinity. Would you agree with that?
You're confusing tank with 'defense'. Yes, defense exists in a combat scenario. No one is arguing that.
This is why we need clear and as-widely-accepted-as-possible definitions, right?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
If you wanted to describe the three roles you would not be without in a tank'n'spank eq group, it would not be tank heal dps, tank heal cc, but instead it would be tank heal slower. Without a slower you are just too inefficient, fortunately there were several slower classes with other support roles aswell.
But you really cant put eq into a trinity definition, because there were much more roles, many of those roles were shared by various classes, and on top of that different situations, locations, mob affinities opened up new roles (for example kiting, rooting, quadding, swarming, etc).
The trinity definition as it is today is born out of the continous process of simplifying roles. WoW has done much work in the simplification process, but others aswell. Therefore I think trinity means tank heal dps.
The holy trinity is a player created response to threat-table based enemy behavior. It was later incorporated into design by devs but it started with the players. One group to keep attention with taunt mechanics, one group to heal the first and a third devoted to doing as much damage as possible without jumping to the top of the threat table. It works fine, but I won't be sorry to see it go as it'll mean we finally get better AI than the simple shit we've had for a decade and a half now.
The only people who need to define gameplay mechanics are the ones making the games. Everyone else can define it as they want but it doesn't mean anything. As has been obvious way before this thread and will be afterwards, forums can't agree on anything. Same as the sandbox definition. By the time a group starts to find common ground in their idea of a definition of whatever, the developers come out with a slightly different take (with a new game, patch, update, whatever...) than what was previous, in attempt to catch lightning in a bottle. By the time you guys all come to a consensus, which due to the nature of these forums means it will never happen, the concept will probably change again in some form or another.
Reading these forums is a lot like watching a dog chase it's tail sometimes. Very seldom does he catch it, and when he does he often just changes direction.
Originally posted by sketocafe The holy trinity is a player created response to threat-table based enemy behavior. It was later incorporated into design by devs but it started with the players. One group to keep attention with taunt mechanics, one group to heal the first and a third devoted to doing as much damage as possible without jumping to the top of the threat table.
Was it player-created, though? It is based on the taunt mechanic, so that mechanic would have to be created by the developers in order for players to respond that way. Without that mechanic in place, the high defense, low attack character would only be of value in scenarios where position had an effect on combat. It's been a long time so I don't remember. I thought most of the combat was generally room/initiative based. Was position a factor early on?
To be clear, I am not trying to be rhetorical. I genuinely don't know.
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
The only people who need to define gameplay mechanics are the ones making the games. Everyone else can define it as they want but it doesn't mean anything. As has been obvious way before this thread and will be afterwards, forums can't agree on anything. Same as the sandbox definition. By the time a group starts to find common ground in their idea of a definition of whatever, the developers come out with a slightly different take (with a new game, patch, update, whatever...) than what was previous, in attempt to catch lightning in a bottle. By the time you guys all come to a consensus, which due to the nature of these forums means it will never happen, the concept will probably change again in some form or another.
Reading these forums is a lot like watching a dog chase it's tail sometimes. Very seldom does he catch it, and when he does he often just changes direction.
The problem with that is that this is a discussion forum. And with every discussion, if the 2+ participants don't understand each other, the conversation becomes bonkers. It stops being a dog chasing its tail, to use your analogy, and it becomes a dog that can't decide whether to chase its tail, the cat passing by, the mailman or the car down the road. And then it just licks its own balls.
It is neither,it is about ROLES in general,not just 3.
You can have a role to buff and debuff/dispel ,heal, tank/taunt ,puller,dps,enfeebles,and although i wouldn't say CC is a role it is a role one with the skill would use if needed.I say as needed because imo the best combat structure is one at a time not multiple foes always needing CC,that is imo sloppier combat and no way a tank could taunt 5/6/7/8 creatures at once,although games do have aoe taunts which i don't believe is a realistic mechanic,aoe damage shoudl serve that role.
I guess to sum it up even easier,non Trinity is just sloppy uncontrolled combat,no hate control random healing which is often very non realistic in form of do some maneuver and you auto heal the group or do a somersault and auto heal nearby players,always just something dumb looking.I think non Trinity is more a LAZY cheap design because nobody iun real life would go into any combat situation uncontrolled in a frenzy sort of fashion.Combat should always be controlled and organized,not each person does their maximum dps and uses some cheap mechanic to auto heal,that to me is amateur game design.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by sketocafe The holy trinity is a player created response to threat-table based enemy behavior. It was later incorporated into design by devs but it started with the players. One group to keep attention with taunt mechanics, one group to heal the first and a third devoted to doing as much damage as possible without jumping to the top of the threat table. It works fine, but I won't be sorry to see it go as it'll mean we finally get better AI than the simple shit we've had for a decade and a half now.
Mechinic was defined by developers who implemented certain skills/class characteristics and then "fine tuned" by players.
It was never ever player defined. Your helaer didnt have taunts/high damage mitigation no matter how much you wanted it and your tank didnt have heals.
Players played how devs wanted (in most cases) and if something jumped out it was "fixed".
Todays trinity is just refinement of that trinity and number or required roles was axed due to practicality (early games were completey borked in balance), and even today theres huge lack of certain roles with only 3 required roles and favorable role ratios.
CC was axed because it completely trivializes content or what actually matters became immune to CC (so players cant trivialize it)
It is neither,it is about ROLES in general,not just 3.
You can have a role to buff and debuff/dispel ,heal, tank/taunt ,puller,dps,enfeebles,and although i wouldn't say CC is a role it is a role one with the skill would use if needed.I say as needed because imo the best combat structure is one at a time not multiple foes always needing CC,that is imo sloppier combat and no way a tank could taunt 5/6/7/8 creatures at once,although games do have aoe taunts which i don't believe is a realistic mechanic,aoe damage shoudl serve that role.
I guess to sum it up even easier,non Trinity is just sloppy uncontrolled combat,no hate control random healing which is often very non realistic in form of do some maneuver and you auto heal the group or do a somersault and auto heal nearby players,always just something dumb looking.I think non Trinity is more a LAZY cheap design because nobody iun real life would go into any combat situation uncontrolled in a frenzy sort of fashion.Combat should always be controlled and organized,not each person does their maximum dps and uses some cheap mechanic to auto heal,that to me is amateur game design.
Only noobs and bads go in combat in uncontrolled frenzy situation and trinity games with its simplistic system are full of that too even when game tells them what they have to do.
In fact you mentioning "uncontrolled and frenzy" says more about you than anything else.
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
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
Originally trinity was tank, healer, cc. DPS was just something that happened. There was a turning point though where instead of going further down the rabbit hole and creating MORE distinct roles, the roles became increasingly merged for simplicity's sake.
Eventually CC gave way to full on DPS as people didn't like being left out due to class choice. Sure, developers could have just given out more CC options, buffs and debuffs for all the classes, but again - it was much easier and simpler to just nix it and let dps reign.
And then it went a step further. DPS does essentially nothing but DPS now and buffs/debuffs are auto-applied and shared amongst classes, so Trinity has been reduced to "tank holds aggro" whereas it use to be, tank controls flow of battle and CC/buffs/debuffs are employed to assist the group in order to succeed.
That being said, trinity does allow for better encounter design as you have more variables to work with, but when you are dealing with very shallow trinity mechanics, they automatically influence encounter design and reduce complexity instead of increase it.
100% this. Making things as simple as possible for new players has lead to making things too simple. I dont mind simple like FFXIV simple, if you are a Pali you are a tank, If you are a WHM your a healer, if you are a Bard you DPS. The problem is we simplified this roles too far to the point that if its not easy mode DPS or Easy Mode Tank then people cannot adapt.
That's a good point, the specialization around the whole "tank holds aggro" design has created a very distilled version of the system over time, and some of the complexity of earlier (ex: EQ) versions has gotten lost in favor of accessibility.
Yes it is. I would like to see more Boss fights like Moroes was in Kara. YES you could CC 3 of the mobs if you have 3 priest. However I normally had 1 priest in my Kara raid group sometimes 2 one was shadow.
Anyway we had a Hunter Trap one and Kite the other, we Shackled the 3rd add, the Main tank held aggro on the boss and the off tank had some aggro on the boss and the 4th add. It was a complex fight vs Group them up tank AOE all the ADDS down kill the boss. The Current trinity is crap, again we dont need CC heavy fights but having the ability to have an off tank hold an add or two, or range kite is not too much for players because then you filled 1 role or in some hunters who were very good at their class 2 roles. Most Average players in the Vanilla TBC days had 1 role to fill that role was easy because there were no tight DPS rotations which if you didnt hit on all your spells you could drop dps for the rest of the fight.
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
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
Originally posted by Horusra CC went away because of PvP it seems.
PVP certainly played a part in the disappearance of CC. Some MMOs (ex: UO) created different rulesets based on target to compensate for that, but for the most part CC seemed to fade away because of the move away from the single-mob, camp/pull gameplay of EQ and DAoC. The more action there is to the combat and the more mobs that a player can fight at once makes CC less necessary. Note, I say less necessary, not less desirable. I think there's a certain group of players that would love to see more CC in PvE, just not sure how big that group is.
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
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
Its called like that for 15 years now, it was always the same and always used same taunt/gimped class system.
Its you who tries to redefine it.
Trinity in MMOs: tank (heavy armor high mitigation, low damage no healing, taunt/high threat) DPS (low damage mitigation, high damage, no healing) healer (low damage mitigation, low damage, healin)
and it wouldnt work without TAUNT which is defining characteristic
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
Again taking a phrase out of context and spinning it. Really? Challenge accepted, I guess. I specifically stated when "talking to a coworker or colleague".
Do you actually want to discuss what the trinity is and why it exists or are you just looking to argue? It seems the latter.
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
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
Its called like that for 15 years now, it was always the same and always used same taunt/gimped class system.
Its you who tries to redefine it.
Trinity in MMOs: tank (heavy armor high mitigation, low damage no healing, taunt/high threat) DPS (low damage mitigation, high damage, no healing) healer (low damage mitigation, low damage, healin)
and it wouldnt work without TAUNT which is defining characteristic
Comments
In my opinion, he is correct, while you are not.
"I don't believe for a moment I'd have gone with what we have, which is the "trinity" of tank, heals and dps."
He knows trinity is those three roles. He does muddle things up, though, later on in his argument. I think he's a bit confused himself, honestly.
The real problem with mmorpg combat systems is that, instead of expanding on the 6 role system in EverQuest, games went to 3 role system and now to a 1 role hybridized, bastardized system.
EQ set the stage with tank, heals, dps, puller, cc, and support. Each of those roles were diverse and made combat dynamic and much more interesting. Yet here we are with all dps classes that have a little tanking or healing on the side or are simply self-sufficient because they design classes to fill all roles or allow multi-classing or instant respecs.
Sad how far in the wrong direction things have gone.
There are two ways people keep mentioning trinity, one is about core mechanics for the game and the other is about group roles, and people never seem to separate the two.
If we speak core mechanics, its essentially how threat mechanism works and how they force you to rely on tank(s) and healer(s) and its a design used for most mmorpg's. This however isn't always the case so its better to call it aggro/hate/threat based combat.
Group roles is different and changes for each game. The most common explanation for holy trinity is an extremely influential post made by ghostcrawler for WoW. Holy trinity as explained by ghostcrawler is a change in class and dungeon design philosopy. Class specs were rebalanced so that they would perform equally as either tanks, healers and damage dealers and dungeons were created for 1 tank, 1 healer and 3 damage dealers.
Unfortunately, you stopped reading once you got to a sentence that, out of context, made sense to you. He goes on to explain what is meant by 'tank' there and how that is different from the previous definition of tank. He then explains how the tank in that scenario is what defines the trinity. It is defined by the aggro system that DikuMUD and subsequent DikuMUD-based MMOs adopted.
Under any other aggro system, that tank is useless.
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
That's why I said I think he's a bit confused. He gives a definition of trinity (tank, healer and dps), then gives a definition of tank, healer and dps ("The tank takes all the damage issued by the opponent, the healer reduces this damage, and the dps gives damage to the opponent") and finally he rejects both these premises when he talks about how to drop the trinity. He raises good points, but his argument is flawed because it contraddicts its own explanations and it's not self-consistent.
You can have the tank and not have the trinity. If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? Would anyone?
The trinity exists with tank + healer + dps (currently). That's the base of it.
We can debate over what makes a tank a tank, now. You could say that only a tank in an aggro system (with taunt and other such things) is a tank that can help form the trinity. I disagree. Let's take physical blocking as an example. A character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning is still a tank, in my view of things, and paired it with a healer and a dps, it still forms the trinity. Would you agree with that?
You're confusing tank with 'defense'. Yes, defense exists in a combat scenario. No one is arguing that.
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
This is why we need clear and as-widely-accepted-as-possible definitions, right?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
If you wanted to describe the three roles you would not be without in a tank'n'spank eq group, it would not be tank heal dps, tank heal cc, but instead it would be tank heal slower. Without a slower you are just too inefficient, fortunately there were several slower classes with other support roles aswell.
But you really cant put eq into a trinity definition, because there were much more roles, many of those roles were shared by various classes, and on top of that different situations, locations, mob affinities opened up new roles (for example kiting, rooting, quadding, swarming, etc).
The trinity definition as it is today is born out of the continous process of simplifying roles. WoW has done much work in the simplification process, but others aswell. Therefore I think trinity means tank heal dps.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
The only people who need to define gameplay mechanics are the ones making the games. Everyone else can define it as they want but it doesn't mean anything. As has been obvious way before this thread and will be afterwards, forums can't agree on anything. Same as the sandbox definition. By the time a group starts to find common ground in their idea of a definition of whatever, the developers come out with a slightly different take (with a new game, patch, update, whatever...) than what was previous, in attempt to catch lightning in a bottle. By the time you guys all come to a consensus, which due to the nature of these forums means it will never happen, the concept will probably change again in some form or another.
Reading these forums is a lot like watching a dog chase it's tail sometimes. Very seldom does he catch it, and when he does he often just changes direction.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Was it player-created, though? It is based on the taunt mechanic, so that mechanic would have to be created by the developers in order for players to respond that way. Without that mechanic in place, the high defense, low attack character would only be of value in scenarios where position had an effect on combat. It's been a long time so I don't remember. I thought most of the combat was generally room/initiative based. Was position a factor early on?
To be clear, I am not trying to be rhetorical. I genuinely don't know.
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
The problem with that is that this is a discussion forum. And with every discussion, if the 2+ participants don't understand each other, the conversation becomes bonkers. It stops being a dog chasing its tail, to use your analogy, and it becomes a dog that can't decide whether to chase its tail, the cat passing by, the mailman or the car down the road. And then it just licks its own balls.
It is neither,it is about ROLES in general,not just 3.
You can have a role to buff and debuff/dispel ,heal, tank/taunt ,puller,dps,enfeebles,and although i wouldn't say CC is a role it is a role one with the skill would use if needed.I say as needed because imo the best combat structure is one at a time not multiple foes always needing CC,that is imo sloppier combat and no way a tank could taunt 5/6/7/8 creatures at once,although games do have aoe taunts which i don't believe is a realistic mechanic,aoe damage shoudl serve that role.
I guess to sum it up even easier,non Trinity is just sloppy uncontrolled combat,no hate control random healing which is often very non realistic in form of do some maneuver and you auto heal the group or do a somersault and auto heal nearby players,always just something dumb looking.I think non Trinity is more a LAZY cheap design because nobody iun real life would go into any combat situation uncontrolled in a frenzy sort of fashion.Combat should always be controlled and organized,not each person does their maximum dps and uses some cheap mechanic to auto heal,that to me is amateur game design.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Mechinic was defined by developers who implemented certain skills/class characteristics and then "fine tuned" by players.
It was never ever player defined. Your helaer didnt have taunts/high damage mitigation no matter how much you wanted it and your tank didnt have heals.
Players played how devs wanted (in most cases) and if something jumped out it was "fixed".
Todays trinity is just refinement of that trinity and number or required roles was axed due to practicality (early games were completey borked in balance), and even today theres huge lack of certain roles with only 3 required roles and favorable role ratios.
CC was axed because it completely trivializes content or what actually matters became immune to CC (so players cant trivialize it)
Only noobs and bads go in combat in uncontrolled frenzy situation and trinity games with its simplistic system are full of that too even when game tells them what they have to do.
In fact you mentioning "uncontrolled and frenzy" says more about you than anything else.
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
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
Yes it is. I would like to see more Boss fights like Moroes was in Kara. YES you could CC 3 of the mobs if you have 3 priest. However I normally had 1 priest in my Kara raid group sometimes 2 one was shadow.
Anyway we had a Hunter Trap one and Kite the other, we Shackled the 3rd add, the Main tank held aggro on the boss and the off tank had some aggro on the boss and the 4th add. It was a complex fight vs Group them up tank AOE all the ADDS down kill the boss. The Current trinity is crap, again we dont need CC heavy fights but having the ability to have an off tank hold an add or two, or range kite is not too much for players because then you filled 1 role or in some hunters who were very good at their class 2 roles. Most Average players in the Vanilla TBC days had 1 role to fill that role was easy because there were no tight DPS rotations which if you didnt hit on all your spells you could drop dps for the rest of the fight.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
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
PVP certainly played a part in the disappearance of CC. Some MMOs (ex: UO) created different rulesets based on target to compensate for that, but for the most part CC seemed to fade away because of the move away from the single-mob, camp/pull gameplay of EQ and DAoC. The more action there is to the combat and the more mobs that a player can fight at once makes CC less necessary. Note, I say less necessary, not less desirable. I think there's a certain group of players that would love to see more CC in PvE, just not sure how big that group is.
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
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
Its called like that for 15 years now, it was always the same and always used same taunt/gimped class system.
Its you who tries to redefine it.
Trinity in MMOs: tank (heavy armor high mitigation, low damage no healing, taunt/high threat) DPS (low damage mitigation, high damage, no healing) healer (low damage mitigation, low damage, healin)
and it wouldnt work without TAUNT which is defining characteristic
Again taking a phrase out of context and spinning it. Really? Challenge accepted, I guess. I specifically stated when "talking to a coworker or colleague".
Do you actually want to discuss what the trinity is and why it exists or are you just looking to argue? It seems the latter.
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
Its called like that for 15 years now, it was always the same and always used same taunt/gimped class system.
Its you who tries to redefine it.
Trinity in MMOs: tank (heavy armor high mitigation, low damage no healing, taunt/high threat) DPS (low damage mitigation, high damage, no healing) healer (low damage mitigation, low damage, healin)
and it wouldnt work without TAUNT which is defining characteristic