Guild Wars 2

I prefer the “no-trinity” apprach in GW2.

-no more “GLF healer/tank”

-no more blaming others when they missed the taunt/heal etc

The gameplay is much smoother and relaxed.

On the other side I feel the combat [in GW2] is now somewhat flat and now its basically all DPS in PvE (=90% content) with just a few exceptions where a PVT build has its moments (like molten bosses or tower of nightmare).

But as I said, I prefer it without trinity, but there is much room for improvement

I like the combat system, but right now it favors damage too much over support and control. If ANet wants to really bring more versatility to the game, they need to buff both support and control aspects of combat in PvE. One of my suggestions was to give heals (like regeneration buffs) the ability to critically heal. Counterplay to this would be that the condition Poison would stop heals from being able to critically heal.

I like the system as it is. It just needs a few tweaks to bring out more build diversity and bosses need some more thought provoking mechanics.

I think WvW would benefit the most from trinity. Right now you get a lot of people running when their skills are down, or they’re close to losing, but I feel trinity would encourage fighting.

Holy Trinity is boring as hell, it’s just that special fight mechanism hide this fact.

Tank just move out of AoE and wait the moment to buff himself with a shield to counter boss special attack.
Healer spam heal on Tank, AoE heal when the boss blasted an area full of DPS because they can’t avoid.
DPS spam attacks on boss, leaving the area when they sey that the boss is casting a mortal blasting during ten seconds.

Today I was in dungeon. I have to manage my life and alterations, help fallen mates, check that my banners are healing everyone, sacrifice my life to save a mate that has few HP and pass the baton when I’m taking too much damages. All of that when ensuring my part of the DPS.

If you play well in GW2, you can do the content easily and if one of the group die, you can continue. If you don’t know what to do or do stupid things you will die soon.
The stress is for all !

In an other MMO if the heal or the tank die… You can jump in the first AoE and retry from the beginning. You have no choice than die and retry until people do no mistake at all. I’ve played Heal and Tank already and it’s boring as hell when it happen. And it happen many times because of the 999 999 999 HP boss have that make a fight “epic” with half an hour of fighting a giant dragon… It’s not hard to spam heal or shield spell, but easy to miss one in a long fight.

GW2 could and should have fight improvement and new fight mechanism for boss, but let them work on it and suggest things instead of asking to rebuild the game from the beginning.

I regret to inform you OP but you have purchased the wrong game. =/

You have essentially walked into a pizza joint, ordered a pizza and now you want to send it back because it’s not a cheeseburger.

Chopps.5047:

Trinity sucks dude. You’ll find no sympathy here.

I couldn’t have stated this more eloquently if I tried.

woofdang.6397:

I noticed a lot of people in GW2 have all the old shcool MMO definitions wrong. I met a really nice young guy who was helping me in GW2 by taking time to show me around and explain the system and kept using terms like CONTROL and UTILITY and it took me awhile that what he considers utility and control is different than what me and my old school MMO players meant by it. I tried to explain to him that I understood what all he meant though and explain that he is using utility in place of healing or support and control was not real control as he was referring to it as dodge and locking down a player or NPC in a fight. He was super excited about GW2 and assumed all other MMOs did not have these things and I can only guess he got his info from GW2 fanboys because he never played any other MMOs. I tried to assure him these things in GW2 are nothing new and that you have all these features minus the dodge in other MMOs and even more skill branching and customization. I don’t think he got it though. SO anyways I guess my point is that when Fanboys skew others perspective then it does not help them.

Someone who disagrees with you is not a fanboy. Just a person with a different opinion, and ours are not absolutes.

Believe it or not, there are actually people playing GW2 that dislike the so-called trinity not just because they haven’t played “enough” MMOs, but just because they do.

On another subject, I disagree that non-trinity makes combat all about DPS-it is all about specific encounters, and most of these were designed when the system was rather new (and in a way, it STILL is new.) Surely there must be ways to improve the current system without adding any trinity-esque elements and discouraging all offense/no defense stats “requirements” for groups.

You don’t necessarily a Trinity, but there should definitely be role system (Like some classes are better at control, some others are better at pure-damage, some others are better at disabling ennemy)

You’re posting this thread in GW2’s forums and expecting majority support? Would you expect support if you posted anti-trinity support on WoW’s forums? You’re not likely to get it.

That being said, I’ve had mostly decent to good experiences within the trinity system. The majority of the problems people have run into here were things I avoided by carefully choosing a guild and becoming significantly active within it. If I wanted to be DPS, there was no queue time, if I wanted to tank, I knew the extent of my group’s abilities. Something as simple as a tank or healer dying once or twice wasn’t enough to wipe an organized group that knew the fight. Off tank would pick up the boss and mitigate damage, healer b-rezzes, tank swaps back in.

I also am left wondering why people are talking about spamming taunt or simply maintaining aggro or spamming heals and DPS skills. If I wanted to, I could simplify GW2 down to DPS, dodge, heal sometimes, but it isn’t actually that simple. It isn’t that simple within the trinity system unless you’re playing at the rock bottom of the skill level. Even when DPSing I was off healing, managing raid wide cooldowns, correctly positioning myself, managing my holy power, and preparing to pick up the boss or and adds that spawned. When I was tanking, I basically did all that while doing all my damage mitigation skills. Just like GW2 is more than dodging while DPSing, other games are more than just spamming a couple abilities.

I don’t think they need to add any trinity elements into the game, but I don’t think the trinity is a bad thing. At the end of the day, they both need the same things: interesting fights built around the system that is being used.

The people who waited in ques or begged guildmates to party/raid with for hours because they only wanted to play the damage role flocked to GW2 and are praising it for the lack of trinity.

I love trinity and I always will because its the core of roleplaying games, where people select a role and face challenges, not ping-pong dps omg zerker some dumb npc with one-shot abilities.

Onisuo.8607:

The people who waited in ques or begged guildmates to party/raid with for hours because they only wanted to play the damage role flocked to GW2 and are praising it for the lack of trinity.

I love trinity and I always will because its the core of roleplaying games, where people select a role and face challenges, not ping-pong dps omg zerker some dumb npc with one-shot abilities.

Don’t generalise.

My favourite ‘role’ to play is subversion which isn’t in GW2 but isn’t part of the ‘Trinity’ either. Failing that, I don’t like to be boxed in to any role and I like the flexibility of some of the classes in GW2. Now, I would prefer proactive support and control to play a greater role but that’s not a failure in concept so much as implimentation.

Onisuo.8607:

The people who waited in ques or begged guildmates to party/raid with for hours because they only wanted to play the damage role flocked to GW2 and are praising it for the lack of trinity.

I love trinity and I always will because its the core of roleplaying games, where people select a role and face challenges, not ping-pong dps omg zerker some dumb npc with one-shot abilities.

The core focus on DPS isn’t because roles don’t exist. It’s because functions such as control or support are not required for most of the content available in the game. Also, I’ll point to the imbalanced multiplier that is +X% critical damage existing on gear.

• It’d be impossible to remove Berserker or Assassin’s gear out of the game entirely, and for all the traits and what not to be redesigned. I honestly propose Anet to assign a new kind of “armored” buff or whatever to all bosses (maybe all mobs in general for instances) that would allow the mob to reduce bonus crit damage by a flat percent (monster only buff, separate from Protection in its current form). The idea would be – Glass Cannons are only reduced in power for the one area of the game where they pretty much eliminate the need for other builds (Instances/Fractals/Speedclearing).

• The proper use of Vulnerability Stacking would allow the +X% crit damage builds/gear to reach adequate levels of damage again, but never at the amount that builds can get today with +200% crit damage and 25 Vuln.

I would just like to see more ability to build roles into each class. DPS, Tank, Support, and Healing roles should be more defined with in each class. I think Rift did a nice job with this. But if you say want to make a healing build with a guardian, well it is pretty lame, and you don’t get any credit being support or healing compared to DPS.

No trinity. It’s not needed to facetank something when you can dodge and use other strategies. Why would you want to reduce the options you have as a player anyways? O.o

I’m all for new stuff that would require different tactics though

Star Ace.5207:

woofdang.6397:

I noticed a lot of people in GW2 have all the old shcool MMO definitions wrong. I met a really nice young guy who was helping me in GW2 by taking time to show me around and explain the system and kept using terms like CONTROL and UTILITY and it took me awhile that what he considers utility and control is different than what me and my old school MMO players meant by it. I tried to explain to him that I understood what all he meant though and explain that he is using utility in place of healing or support and control was not real control as he was referring to it as dodge and locking down a player or NPC in a fight. He was super excited about GW2 and assumed all other MMOs did not have these things and I can only guess he got his info from GW2 fanboys because he never played any other MMOs. I tried to assure him these things in GW2 are nothing new and that you have all these features minus the dodge in other MMOs and even more skill branching and customization. I don’t think he got it though. SO anyways I guess my point is that when Fanboys skew others perspective then it does not help them.

Someone who disagrees with you is not a fanboy. Just a person with a different opinion, and ours are not absolutes.

Believe it or not, there are actually people playing GW2 that dislike the so-called trinity not just because they haven’t played “enough” MMOs, but just because they do.

On another subject, I disagree that non-trinity makes combat all about DPS-it is all about specific encounters, and most of these were designed when the system was rather new (and in a way, it STILL is new.) Surely there must be ways to improve the current system without adding any trinity-esque elements and discouraging all offense/no defense stats “requirements” for groups.

I think what many people are saying is not that taking out the trinity is bad. I personally don’t mind. And it also does not mean non-trinity makes combat all about DPS.

As long as you replace it with other roles (something I expected when Anet was telling about how they had no trinity) that it’s fine. The problem is that that did not really happen in GW2.

So they did end up with pretty much only DPS and a combat where you are just smashing keys but are not required to do your specific role and so work as a good team. It also means that another class gives you totally other task what is very nice for the variation.

However I must say I also do not have everything against the trinity, main problem I hear people about is waiting for a healer or a tank. Not something I ever had a problem with, I just queued up and did my thing in PvE but I guess that if you are somebody who likes to farm dungeons all the time that that is a real problem.

I geuss that when they would have replace it with other roles you might still have the problem of having to wait for a not so popular role you need in your part. So yes they fixed that problem but it resulted in duller combat, and people can say it’s really not but GW2 is pretty much the only game I play in windowed mode while also doing other stuff because the game simply allows it (easy) and the combat is kinda boring.

Anyway, no non-trinity is not a problem as long as you still have specific task / roles however GW2 ended up with a system that did not really have specific roles and task and that is what many people dislike..

A large part of the reason that there’s little depth to PvE is that the game is balanced entirely around PvP, so you have a couple stupidly overpowered PvE builds which trivialize the already relatively easy content.

Feels like better only zerk warriors than give people at least the choice of 3 roles/professions.

No trinity, please.

The trinity is old, tired, and restrictive.

ANet, please do not change things. We don’t need the trinity.

Sytherek.7689:

No trinity, please.

The trinity is old, tired, and restrictive.

ANet, please do not change things. We don’t need the trinity.

We do not NEED trinity indeed. But we need roles.

Whether that are the trinity roles or other roles I personally don’t care but we really need specific roles.

And yes having roles mean you are restrictive in your own role.. That is what makes things interesting. However as long as you can make all classes you want there is no real restrictiveness, you want to get another tole? Get another class.

Well instead of trinity you get septinity:warrior,mesmer,guardian,thief,elementalist,ranger,engineer.

robertul.3679:

Well instead of trinity you get septinity:warrior,mesmer,guardian,thief,elementalist,ranger,engineer.

Yet none of them has a real unique definitive role that is required in any combat situation. You know, like in the trinity you need a tank, you need a healer and you need DPS.

Now as long as everybody dodges enough and deals DPS it’s fine.

If only Warrior was really a required role in stead of just a class and guardian was and thief was and elementalist was and ranger was and engineer was, then it would become very interesting. But they are not, they are different classes that all fulfill the same general role..

Devata.6589:

robertul.3679:

Well instead of trinity you get septinity:warrior,mesmer,guardian,thief,elementalist,ranger,engineer.

Yet none of them has a real unique definitive role that is required in any combat situation. You know, like in the trinity you need a tank, you need a healer and you need DPS.

Now as long as everybody dodges enough and deals DPS it’s fine.

If only Warrior was really a required role in stead of just a class and guardian was and thief was and elementalist was and ranger was and engineer was, then it would become very interesting. But they are not, they are different classes that all fulfill the same general role..

Warrior is only easier to deal with PvE contents not that they are required. It is a very important concept you have to understand. Required means a certain class or role MUST present in order to finish the content, tell me which part of the game require a warrior?

Eliminate trinity is to remove the MUST present of healer and tank role completely and break down the needs of tank and healing to every party member. Yes, certain high skill players / party are well understand the mechanics and able to reduces the need od heal and tank, I think this is an issue of encounter generally in PvE. As i can see more different approach Anet is trying and testing around in LS, looks like more interesting encounter and new defined roles is on the way.

Well before we have more refined encounter encourage more different spec other than zerkers, I for one prefer no clear and defined roles rather than any contents that REQUIRES a specific class or role in order to finish. I don’t enjoy elitist or speedrun but i love the casual nature that any player/class combination is a go to any contents.

Crossaber.8934:

Devata.6589:

robertul.3679:

Well instead of trinity you get septinity:warrior,mesmer,guardian,thief,elementalist,ranger,engineer.

Yet none of them has a real unique definitive role that is required in any combat situation. You know, like in the trinity you need a tank, you need a healer and you need DPS.

Now as long as everybody dodges enough and deals DPS it’s fine.

If only Warrior was really a required role in stead of just a class and guardian was and thief was and elementalist was and ranger was and engineer was, then it would become very interesting. But they are not, they are different classes that all fulfill the same general role..

Warrior is only easier to deal with PvE contents not that they are required. It is a very important concept you have to understand. Required means a certain class or role MUST present in order to finish the content, tell me which part of the game require a warrior?

Eliminate trinity is to remove the MUST present of healer and tank role completely and break down the needs of tank and healing to every party member. Yes, certain high skill players / party are well understand the mechanics and able to reduces the need od heal and tank, I think this is an issue of encounter generally in PvE. As i can see more different approach Anet is trying and testing around in LS, looks like more interesting encounter and new defined roles is on the way.

Well before we have more refined encounter encourage more different spec other than zerkers, I for one prefer no clear and defined roles rather than any contents that REQUIRES a specific class or role in order to finish. I don’t enjoy elitist or speedrun but i love the casual nature that any player/class combination is a go to any contents.

“Warrior is only easier to deal with PvE contents not that they are required. It is a very important concept you have to understand. Required means a certain class or role MUST present in order to finish the content, tell me which part of the game require a warrior?”

I said IF ONLY Warrior was really… implying it’s not just as all the other classes are not a required role.

I was afraid that sentence was maybe not completely clear but yeah I an trying to say what you are saying.

“Eliminate trinity is to remove the MUST present” However the MUST also means there is an important task for that role. Thats exactly what makes the combat more interesting and requires more teamwork.

Now everybody is a Jack of all trades, master of none.

“I for one prefer no clear and defined roles rather than any contents that REQUIRES a specific class or role in order to finish. I don’t enjoy elitist or speedrun but i love the casual nature that any player/class combination is a go to any contents.”

I don’t see how defined roles (and if you have roles they should somehow be required) would mean elitist or speedruns. I don’t care about both but would love to see roles simply because they make combat more interesting (so less like a speedrun! More a run where you need to plan your approach). I even think speedruns get increased with the elimination of roles because you do not have to wait to find that one role you need but only a few people play. So less waiting is more speed-runs in a day.

1) I feel GW2’s system has more potential for true teamwork, group-play and depth than the standard Trinity, since you aren’t forced into a role or spec. Someone could go full damage, or sacrifice a bit of damage to bring some control if things go pear-shaped.

2) I don’t feel that ‘role’ needs to be limited to aspects of combat (control, damage, support), and that you can have multiple roles in the fight, even if they focus on the same thing. Look at the Effigy in CoF. There are 2 roles: damaging the boss and destroying the crystals. Just because they don’t need control or support, doesn’t change the fact there are roles in that fight.

However, the issue with this brings me onto my next point.

3) I don’t think it isn’t the fault of the actual combat system itself so much as the encounter design.

The best example imo is what The Lover’s could be. You’d have a few roles here: 2 people to keep them away from each other, while the others deal damage. Maybe support as well to help those who are keeping them apart. However, all that is circumvented by:

• The boulder’s in the room
• The mechanic doesn’t trigger often enough

Now, if you removed the boulders and had the mechanic trigger so often that people would have to share the responsibility of CC, I feel this fight would be much improved.

I think people are missing the point of removing the trinity system. The trinity system has a tendency to make certain players feel more or less important based on their role. This also causes a problem when you get an inexperienced player filling one of the specialty roles (tank or heals). Having just one of these players be inexperienced can make for a poor experience for all other players. Getting rid of the trinity system resolves that issue.

Is the GW2 system perfect? No. But I think on this topic, perfection isn’t achievable. I realize some find the GW2 system to be less rewarding, which in some cases, I agree. But it also creates a more fun experience overall IMO.

I played WoW, a lot. I was a healer or a tank on all of my characters. The reason was because I liked to feel important. I felt insignificant as a DPS. GW2 allows me to finally do DPS because I know longer feel like any one person is more important than me. We are all equals. It sounds dumb and cliche, but it’s psychology and it is just the way some people’s psychology works.

Lastly, I do think the roles are still present, just much more subtle. I play Guardian. I feel my role is to stay alive, help keep others alive, and take the majority of the damage when I can. As opposed to when I play thief my thief, my role is to do as much DPS output as I can. It’s there, it just isn’t as drastic. Having people take on these subtle roles benefits groups even if you don’t see it. Just because it’s possible without them, doesn’t mean it isn’t beneficial.

TheDaiBish.9735:

1) I feel GW2’s system has more potential for true teamwork, group-play and depth than the standard Trinity, since you aren’t forced into a role or spec. Someone could go full damage, or sacrifice a bit of damage to bring some control if things go pear-shaped.

2) I don’t feel that ‘role’ needs to be limited to aspects of combat (control, damage, support), and that you can have multiple roles in the fight, even if they focus on the same thing. Look at the Effigy in CoF. There are 2 roles: damaging the boss and destroying the crystals. Just because they don’t need control or support, doesn’t change the fact there are roles in that fight.

However, the issue with this brings me onto my next point.

3) I don’t think it isn’t the fault of the actual combat system itself so much as the encounter design.

The best example imo is what The Lover’s could be. You’d have a few roles here: 2 people to keep them away from each other, while the others deal damage. Maybe support as well to help those who are keeping them apart. However, all that is circumvented by:

• The boulder’s in the room
• The mechanic doesn’t trigger often enough

Now, if you removed the boulders and had the mechanic trigger so often that people would have to share the responsibility of CC, I feel this fight would be much improved.

Well in 1 you use words as potential and could so you already seem to agree that the teamwork is not in GW2. I think it’s partly because of the encounters but also because the roles are not defined enough. There are no hard roles.

2 When it’s not limited at all there is not definitive role anymore. Then it once more becomes jack of all trades master of none. You refer to the ability to have 2 roles with one class, but in the end you still have to go for one of the roles or a combination of those two but you are still limited. Jack of 2 master of 1, or master in one, but never jack of all master of none.

However giving the option to choose two roles (or a mix) with one class is not something that is possible because of the GW2 system. WoW has a trinity system but there are classes that give you the option to go for 2 roles or a mix of two. However when going for the mix you pretty much need a second person do to the same.

smokermj.6149:

I think people are missing the point of removing the trinity system. The trinity system has a tendency to make certain players feel more or less important based on their role. This also causes a problem when you get an inexperienced player filling one of the specialty roles (tank or heals). Having just one of these players be inexperienced can make for a poor experience for all other players. Getting rid of the trinity system resolves that issue.

Is the GW2 system perfect? No. But I think on this topic, perfection isn’t achievable. I realize some find the GW2 system to be less rewarding, which in some cases, I agree. But it also creates a more fun experience overall IMO.

I played WoW, a lot. I was a healer or a tank on all of my characters. The reason was because I liked to feel important. I felt insignificant as a DPS. GW2 allows me to finally do DPS because I know longer feel like any one person is more important than me. We are all equals. It sounds dumb and cliche, but it’s psychology and it is just the way some people’s psychology works.

Lastly, I do think the roles are still present, just much more subtle. I play Guardian. I feel my role is to stay alive, help keep others alive, and take the majority of the damage when I can. As opposed to when I play thief my thief, my role is to do as much DPS output as I can. It’s there, it just isn’t as drastic. Having people take on these subtle roles benefits groups even if you don’t see it. Just because it’s possible without them, doesn’t mean it isn’t beneficial.

I have to agree and at the same time disagree. I never see it like somebody is more important in a game like WoW but on the same hand, yes if somebody does not do his task (role) like he should everybody is more likely to die. Plus there need to be teamwork because a tank might be able to tank but still need to get healed and if some mob go’s for the healer but the tank is not able to get his attention it’s the duty of a DPSer to do that. So everybody is watching everybody.

It requires more teamwork and so everybody is important. Yes you can say DPS are a little less because if there are 3 DPSers in a party and one is just not as good then you still manage while a bad healer is a bigger problem. However thats now the case for everybody in GW2. If you are not so good well no problem. Exactly what you said why you did not like being DPS in a game like WoW.

If however everybody would be just as important because of it’s role then you would still have the more interesting combat and everybody was just as important (something you also say you think is important).

So taking away the trinity is not persé bad in my option, but they should still have definitive roles and that not the case at all. Thats what is bad imho.

Devata.6589:

TheDaiBish.9735:

1) I feel GW2’s system has more potential for true teamwork, group-play and depth than the standard Trinity, since you aren’t forced into a role or spec. Someone could go full damage, or sacrifice a bit of damage to bring some control if things go pear-shaped.

2) I don’t feel that ‘role’ needs to be limited to aspects of combat (control, damage, support), and that you can have multiple roles in the fight, even if they focus on the same thing. Look at the Effigy in CoF. There are 2 roles: damaging the boss and destroying the crystals. Just because they don’t need control or support, doesn’t change the fact there are roles in that fight.

However, the issue with this brings me onto my next point.

3) I don’t think it isn’t the fault of the actual combat system itself so much as the encounter design.

The best example imo is what The Lover’s could be. You’d have a few roles here: 2 people to keep them away from each other, while the others deal damage. Maybe support as well to help those who are keeping them apart. However, all that is circumvented by:

• The boulder’s in the room
• The mechanic doesn’t trigger often enough

Now, if you removed the boulders and had the mechanic trigger so often that people would have to share the responsibility of CC, I feel this fight would be much improved.

Well in 1 you use words as potential and could so you already seem to agree that the teamwork is not in GW2. I think it’s partly because of the encounters but also because the roles are not defined enough. There are no hard roles.

2 When it’s not limited at all there is not definitive role anymore. Then it once more becomes jack of all trades master of none. You refer to the ability to have 2 roles with one class, but in the end you still have to go for one of the roles or a combination of those two but you are still limited. Jack of 2 master of 1, or master in one, but never jack of all master of none.

However giving the option to choose two roles (or a mix) with one class is not something that is possible because of the GW2 system. WoW has a trinity system but there are classes that give you the option to go for 2 roles or a mix of two. However when going for the mix you pretty much need a second person do to the same.

1) Oh, I think there is teamwork in GW2, it’s just lacking in the PvE side of things (outside of ressing). There’s a video somewhere where a group of 5 players drive off a zerg of around 30 players in WvW. Heck, me and 3 mats drove off a group of around 10 in WvW before. The teamwork and co-ordination (or at least the systems for it) is there, it’s just most of the content doesn’t require the full use of these systems.

2. You misread what I said. What I was on about is that a ‘role’ in the literal sense is your purpose in the group. Expanding on this, you could also say that it’s your purpose during that encounter. This, however, doesn’t have to be limited in terms of you have to have one control, one support and three damage. Defined roles can easily be built into the fight (like keeping the Lover’s away from each other) without forcing the players into pre-defined group setup.

Not only does building the roles into the encounters allow the devs more freedom in creating their encounters (maybe one encounter requires a lot of control, while the next needs condition removal and damage), but it also allows for depth in the system we have now – we’d have to make meaningful choices out of our skillsets, where we allocate our trait points, without delegating a profession to a role.

So, to TL:DR – Roles built into encounters, not forcing a particular group setup before they even get into the dungeon, adds more variety and depth than requiring a set group for every dungeon ever.

Support builds are around. It just so happens that support stats are nearly useless. When you have guard popping WoR at the right time or a thief using SB to keep weakness up on trash mobs or an engineer using healing turret to cleanse conditions and heal for the party (same thing with healing spring on ranger) then you have support. From banners to might stacks support has a place. too many players get caught up on the stats on the armor vs the actual purpose of the build. How many guardians do you see running around in meditation builds in PvE for damage? Truth is many players go full zerker or mostly zerker due to the fact that after many months of play they got good at dodging and evading incoming damage through evade frames, and knowing when to go ranged. Even if you make bosses in dungeons much harder once you understand what to look for then likely players will maximize their DPS in regard to their uptime. It really is that simple.

As far as role based play it is already in the game. I doubt the majority really wants to have healers, tanks, and dps when you can pug with any build and be ok. There are many mmos with that set up already in fact it is the majority why would this game which prides itself on not needing that in anyway want to go down that path? Players are rewarded for learning combat routines and playing smart.

Zerker is not the defacto armor set for PvE. In lower level dungeons crit damage actually doesn’t scale well so you can build more tanky. VS constructs (think AC paths 1 and 3) it has no use. Building purely power is fine. Same with world bosses. Fact is many players will switch gear for the occasions or play what they are comfortable with. The elitist speed runners have got many people thinking ti is the only way to play. That not going zerker makes you a noob. Truth is not every run needs to be a speed run and champ trains and properly playing the AH will net you more gold than dungeon running.

Devata.6589:

smokermj.6149:

I think people are missing the point of removing the trinity system. The trinity system has a tendency to make certain players feel more or less important based on their role. This also causes a problem when you get an inexperienced player filling one of the specialty roles (tank or heals). Having just one of these players be inexperienced can make for a poor experience for all other players. Getting rid of the trinity system resolves that issue.

Is the GW2 system perfect? No. But I think on this topic, perfection isn’t achievable. I realize some find the GW2 system to be less rewarding, which in some cases, I agree. But it also creates a more fun experience overall IMO.

I played WoW, a lot. I was a healer or a tank on all of my characters. The reason was because I liked to feel important. I felt insignificant as a DPS. GW2 allows me to finally do DPS because I know longer feel like any one person is more important than me. We are all equals. It sounds dumb and cliche, but it’s psychology and it is just the way some people’s psychology works.

Lastly, I do think the roles are still present, just much more subtle. I play Guardian. I feel my role is to stay alive, help keep others alive, and take the majority of the damage when I can. As opposed to when I play thief my thief, my role is to do as much DPS output as I can. It’s there, it just isn’t as drastic. Having people take on these subtle roles benefits groups even if you don’t see it. Just because it’s possible without them, doesn’t mean it isn’t beneficial.

I have to agree and at the same time disagree. I never see it like somebody is more important in a game like WoW but on the same had, yes if somebody does not do his task (role) like he should everybody is more likely to die. Plus there need to be teamwork because a tank might be able to tank but still need to get healed and if some mob go’s for the healer but the tank is not able to get his attention it’s the duty of a DPSer to do that. So everybody is watching everybody.

It requires more teamwork and so everybody is important. Yes you can say DPS are a little less because if there are 3 DPSers in a party and one is just not as good then you still manage while a bad healer is a bigger problem. However thats now the case for everybody in GW2. If you are not so good well no problem. Exactly what you said why you did not like being DPS in a game like WoW.

If however everybody would be just as important because of it’s role then you would still have the more interesting combat and everybody was just as important (something you also say you think is important).

So taking away the trinity is not persé bad in my option, but they should still have definitive roles and that not the case at all. Thats what is bad imho.

Personally, I think the aspect of team work should be handled more so based off of the fight mechanics as opposed to roles. Make the fights more challenging in that regard where it requires team work. I don’t feel like having different roles is really the answer.

The biggest flaw with GW2 system is there isn’t much of a way to gauge who is doing their job and who isn’t. A game like WoW with the trinity system, it is fairly easy to tell most of the time. I think this could be resolved by adding meters that display DPS done, healing done, and damage taken. This will let us know who is and isn’t performing in the group. I just don’t think definitive roles is necessary the solution. I think it would solve some things, but cause other issues that are present in games that do have the trinity system.

If we had the dps, heal, and damage taken meter, this would open up the ability to have different roles, but not make it so that they are necessary for success. What I mean is, players would figure out that it would be ideal to have someone that takes on more of a support role, 3 dps, and someone with high damage tolerance. This would ultimately make roles defined, but not necessary for success which I think is very important.

Over time, people would learn what the best and most effective play styles to have in a group are, giving you a sense of having that definitive role, albeit one that is not necessary. I know it sounds silly, as what I am saying is nothing more than a display of numbers. But it will give users more of a sense of significance when in a group, without taking a step backward and using the trinity system.

TheDaiBish.9735:

Devata.6589:

TheDaiBish.9735:

1) I feel GW2’s system has more potential for true teamwork, group-play and depth than the standard Trinity, since you aren’t forced into a role or spec. Someone could go full damage, or sacrifice a bit of damage to bring some control if things go pear-shaped.

2) I don’t feel that ‘role’ needs to be limited to aspects of combat (control, damage, support), and that you can have multiple roles in the fight, even if they focus on the same thing. Look at the Effigy in CoF. There are 2 roles: damaging the boss and destroying the crystals. Just because they don’t need control or support, doesn’t change the fact there are roles in that fight.

However, the issue with this brings me onto my next point.

3) I don’t think it isn’t the fault of the actual combat system itself so much as the encounter design.

The best example imo is what The Lover’s could be. You’d have a few roles here: 2 people to keep them away from each other, while the others deal damage. Maybe support as well to help those who are keeping them apart. However, all that is circumvented by:

• The boulder’s in the room
• The mechanic doesn’t trigger often enough

Now, if you removed the boulders and had the mechanic trigger so often that people would have to share the responsibility of CC, I feel this fight would be much improved.

Well in 1 you use words as potential and could so you already seem to agree that the teamwork is not in GW2. I think it’s partly because of the encounters but also because the roles are not defined enough. There are no hard roles.

2 When it’s not limited at all there is not definitive role anymore. Then it once more becomes jack of all trades master of none. You refer to the ability to have 2 roles with one class, but in the end you still have to go for one of the roles or a combination of those two but you are still limited. Jack of 2 master of 1, or master in one, but never jack of all master of none.

However giving the option to choose two roles (or a mix) with one class is not something that is possible because of the GW2 system. WoW has a trinity system but there are classes that give you the option to go for 2 roles or a mix of two. However when going for the mix you pretty much need a second person do to the same.

1) Oh, I think there is teamwork in GW2, it’s just lacking in the PvE side of things (outside of ressing). There’s a video somewhere where a group of 5 players drive off a zerg of around 30 players in WvW. Heck, me and 3 mats drove off a group of around 10 in WvW before. The teamwork and co-ordination (or at least the systems for it) is there, it’s just most of the content doesn’t require the full use of these systems.

2. You misread what I said. What I was on about is that a ‘role’ in the literal sense is your purpose in the group. Expanding on this, you could also say that it’s your purpose during that encounter. This, however, doesn’t have to be limited in terms of you have to have one control, one support and three damage. Defined roles can easily be built into the fight (like keeping the Lover’s away from each other) without forcing the players into pre-defined group setup.

Not only does building the roles into the encounters allow the devs more freedom in creating their encounters (maybe one encounter requires a lot of control, while the next needs condition removal and damage), but it also allows for depth in the system we have now – we’d have to make meaningful choices out of our skillsets, where we allocate our trait points, without delegating a profession to a role.

So, to TL:DR – Roles built into encounters, not forcing a particular group setup before they even get into the dungeon, adds more variety and depth than requiring a set group for every dungeon ever.

Requireing a specific group is something else then requires specific roles.

’ but it also allows for depth in the system we have now – we’d have to make meaningful choices out of our skillsets, where we allocate our trait points, without delegating a profession to a role"

The depth in the system we have now? Aren’t the most complains about the combat or about not having a trinity is indeed the fact that there is no depth in the system.

We do NOT have to make meaningful choices. It’s just a spam of buttons that does not require a lot of teamwork, thinking or preparation at all.

Everything you are saying now we have because of the current system is escalate what many people are missing because of the currency system.

I never really have to think a lot in the combat in GW2, I don’t even have to pay much attention to it. If I do a dungeon 90% of the times I have GW2 windowed while reading some websites or watching a movie. Most combat games would not allow me to do so because they require my full attention.

smokermj.6149:

Devata.6589:

smokermj.6149:

~

I have to agree and at the same time disagree. I never see it like somebody is more important in a game like WoW but on the same had, yes if somebody does not do his task (role) like he should everybody is more likely to die. Plus there need to be teamwork because a tank might be able to tank but still need to get healed and if some mob go’s for the healer but the tank is not able to get his attention it’s the duty of a DPSer to do that. So everybody is watching everybody.

It requires more teamwork and so everybody is important. Yes you can say DPS are a little less because if there are 3 DPSers in a party and one is just not as good then you still manage while a bad healer is a bigger problem. However thats now the case for everybody in GW2. If you are not so good well no problem. Exactly what you said why you did not like being DPS in a game like WoW.

If however everybody would be just as important because of it’s role then you would still have the more interesting combat and everybody was just as important (something you also say you think is important).

So taking away the trinity is not persé bad in my option, but they should still have definitive roles and that not the case at all. Thats what is bad imho.

Personally, I think the aspect of team work should be handled more so based off of the fight mechanics as opposed to roles. Make the fights more challenging in that regard where it requires team work. I don’t feel like having different roles is really the answer.

The biggest flaw with GW2 system is there isn’t much of a way to gauge who is doing their job and who isn’t. A game like WoW with the trinity system, it is fairly easy to tell most of the time. I think this could be resolved by adding meters that display DPS done, healing done, and damage taken. This will let us know who is and isn’t performing in the group. I just don’t think definitive roles is necessary the solution. I think it would solve some things, but cause other issues that are present in games that do have the trinity system.

If we had the dps, heal, and damage taken meter, this would open up the ability to have different roles, but not make it so that they are necessary for success. What I mean is, players would figure out that it would be ideal to have someone that takes on more of a support role, 3 dps, and someone with high damage tolerance. This would ultimately make roles defined, but not necessary for success which I think is very important.

Over time, people would learn what the best and most effective play styles to have in a group are, giving you a sense of having that definitive role, albeit one that is not necessary. I know it sounds silly, as what I am saying is nothing more than a display of numbers. But it will give users more of a sense of significance when in a group, without taking a step backward and using the trinity system.

But the role itself is also fun. Everybody having his task and people depending on each others task is fun. All doing sort of the same is just less fun. Even if it’s hard in the end if there are no defined roles then all it comes down it is making sure everybody keeps standing and fighting. And then means teamwork will not go much further then ressing each other.

Yes the trinity requires good players but isn’t that part of the fun as well? No need for the good players means no need to pay much attention yourself. No sitting on the edge of your chair.

Yes trinity has it’s problems (like the Que’s) the question is, do those problems outweigh the extra elements is gives to the combat? And again.. Trinity is a nice and all but personally I am just talking about defined roles whether that are the trinity ones or other ones.

We traded trinity for singularity. That’s all we did. Nothing extra was added to make up for the loss either.

I have yet to find someone that can tell me the difference between requiring 1 tank 1 healer and 1-3 dps and requiring 4 warriors and a Mesmer. There is no difference, just less reliance on each other and less strategy for the sake of quicker queues and quicker runs.

Thus why I have never bothered with dungeons in this game beyond the first 1 or 2 I did. It’s the same “trinity” system we always had, just even more broken.

Devata.6589:

Requireing a specific group is something else then requires specific roles.

’ but it also allows for depth in the system we have now – we’d have to make meaningful choices out of our skillsets, where we allocate our trait points, without delegating a profession to a role"

The depth in the system we have now? Aren’t the most complains about the combat or about not having a trinity is indeed the fact that there is no depth in the system.

We do NOT have to make meaningful choices. It’s just a spam of buttons that does not require a lot of teamwork, thinking or preparation at all.

Everything you are saying now we have because of the current system is escalate what many people are missing because of the currency system.

I never really have to think a lot in the combat in GW2, I don’t even have to pay much attention to it. If I do a dungeon 90% of the times I have GW2 windowed while reading some websites or watching a movie. Most combat games would not allow me to do so because they require my full attention.

You took that quote out entirely, completely out of context.

That quote wasn’t saying that we currently use the depth. That part was attached to an argument as to why roles should be built into the encounter’s themselves, thus improving them to make use of the depth of the system.

There is depth (that is, the amount of meaningful choices you can make) in the system itself – it’s just the content doesn’t require it.

If you come up to a boss, wiped, and you swapped a single skill, trait, whatever out that makes that encounter easier (say, going from a passive Power increase to an Immobilize), that’s a meaningful choice. That’s where the depth is in the system.

On the opposite side, forcing people into set, defined roles (like the Trinity), doesn’t give players the opportunity to think of their approach, thus takes away from the meaningful choices. Each role would have to take skills X, Y and Z. No choice =/= no depth. The only choice is when to use them, and then it tends to be in a rotation.

This is why I say that, for the most part (excluding Defiant), it’s encounter design that is at fault, not the actual system. It doesn’t force us to adapt and think how we can use the tools we have. Set roles would also cause the same problem, because if you’re a Control player, you don’t need to adapt your build – you take whatever traits and skills provide you with the tools to control.

Nick.6972:

Wukunlin.8461:

This is what I know about the trinity:
tanks: spam taunt skills, put something heavy on the key mapped to that skill
healers: spam heal skills, put something heavy on the key mapped to that skill
dps; dps rotation

what do people like it so much?

…Actually requires you to know your role?
…Whole team relies on you?
…If you fail, everyone fails?
Challenge? Coordination? Team work?

Pretty much! Here’s how it’s usually balanced:

A DPS class has low survivability, high damage, and high potential to cause a lot of aggro very fast. They can “aggro spike” as much as they can damage spike. They’re dangerous, and enemies know it. In PvP, you will NOT let that Rogue, Warlock, or whatever run amok of your team. That’s why they’re so squishy: because letting something so powerful also be so durable is just not balanced (and NOT FUN TO KILL AT ALL, as GW2’s dungeon bosses gladly show us). In PvE it’s the same way… except this is where the Tank comes in.

A “Tank” class is a class that has medium-to-high survivability, medium-to-low damage, and a high, consistent rate of generating aggro due to having skills that do nothing BUT that. They’re the ones meant to stack Vitality, Toughness, etc. because it works best on them. They are the reason your squishy butt hasn’t been pulverized yet by the enemy mobs while you continually pelt fireballs and wonder why they’re still attacking the Tank. Thank Your Tank, darnit. Medium entry point, medium-to-high skill ceiling. But, you wonder, how do you keep that tank alive if he’s taking the brunt of who knows how many conditions, afflictions, hexes, etc.? Say hello to your Healer.

A “Healer” (I prefer “Utility”) class is one that does just that: they heal, primarily keeping the Tank and the DPSs alive, and strip any bad things placed on either one. They’re the reason why, even when your squishy butt IS pulverized, you can get right back up and into the fray again. They have VERY low survivability, damage in various ranges as it’s become popular that healers can now damage stuff, and medium-to-high aggro. potential. If the healer is focused on healing, then once there is aggro on them, there is nothing they can do; they MUST rely on either the Tank to draw aggro back to them or the DPSs to a) burst them down ASAP or b) try to pull the enemies away from the healer. Again, if the DPSs die, the Healer can get them patched up again quick. If the Healer dies, welcome to SOL Town, population: you. Low entry point, high skill ceiling, lots and lots of pressure.

So there you go. That is the Holy Trinity, defined in a way that someone who knows the rudimentary basics of an MMO can understand. Tl;dr, it helps balance classes around three key factors:

1. How annoying someone is to an enemy mob
2. How much punishment can they take
3. How powerful they are

Of course, this is based around a system where aggro actually exists and can be commonly defined and broken down into numbers. When it doesn’t, this system naturally falls apart.

So then, my opinion on the trinity? Of COURSE the trinity has problems! Things like a high supply of DPSs versus the high demand for healers and tanks, the dilemma of “if the Healer falls, we’re all boned,” the sheer reluctance of people playing healers or tanks compared to DPSs (again adding to the problem of low healer/tank supply but high demand), and so on. But there’s no way to fix this concretely because you have to scrap everything you’ve learned about class interaction in order to make a new system, and this system has been around for almost as long as MMOs requiring party/group efforts have.

ANet didn’t think this through, only (shoddily) hacking off the Tank and Healer branches and left DPS alive bleeding with stumps. In trying to create a game without a trinity, they simply hyper-enforced one branch of it. Meanwhile, their past success has literally done their dream goal of GW2 but better, not because it enforces the trinity, but because it encourages creativity and experimentation of combining DPS, Tank, and Healer. Monks didn’t HAVE to be vulnerable when they were healing. Tanks didn’t HAVE to do mediocre damage. DPSs weren’t stuck to the same cookie-cutter builds.

You can work AROUND the Trinity. For example, SMT: IMAGINE has the Tank and Healer be the player’s pet, which everyone has due to what the series is. And there’s PLENTY of variety in what kind of tank or healer you want. But you can’t get rid of it. Because, unless you have another system, what will the PC do?!

TheDaiBish.9735:

Devata.6589:

Requireing a specific group is something else then requires specific roles.

’ but it also allows for depth in the system we have now – we’d have to make meaningful choices out of our skillsets, where we allocate our trait points, without delegating a profession to a role"

The depth in the system we have now? Aren’t the most complains about the combat or about not having a trinity is indeed the fact that there is no depth in the system.

We do NOT have to make meaningful choices. It’s just a spam of buttons that does not require a lot of teamwork, thinking or preparation at all.

Everything you are saying now we have because of the current system is escalate what many people are missing because of the currency system.

I never really have to think a lot in the combat in GW2, I don’t even have to pay much attention to it. If I do a dungeon 90% of the times I have GW2 windowed while reading some websites or watching a movie. Most combat games would not allow me to do so because they require my full attention.

You took that quote out entirely, completely out of context.

That quote wasn’t saying that we currently use the depth. That part was attached to an argument as to why roles should be built into the encounter’s themselves, thus improving them to make use of the depth of the system.

There is depth (that is, the amount of meaningful choices you can make) in the system itself – it’s just the content doesn’t require it.

If you come up to a boss, wiped, and you swapped a single skill, trait, whatever out that makes that encounter easier (say, going from a passive Power increase to an Immobilize), that’s a meaningful choice. That’s where the depth is in the system.

On the opposite side, forcing people into set, defined roles (like the Trinity), doesn’t give players the opportunity to think of their approach, thus takes away from the meaningful choices. Each role would have to take skills X, Y and Z. No choice =/= no depth. The only choice is when to use them, and then it tends to be in a rotation.

This is why I say that, for the most part (excluding Defiant), it’s encounter design that is at fault, not the actual system. It doesn’t force us to adapt and think how we can use the tools we have. Set roles would also cause the same problem, because if you’re a Control player, you don’t need to adapt your build – you take whatever traits and skills provide you with the tools to control.

I think it’s a combination of both and feel like both are missing in GW2. About that each role would have to take skill X, Y and Z? No even with roles there any multiple ways but yeah if your role would be healer nearly all skills you use will be heal related. Just like most of what you are using now is DPS related and then there is the healing yourself or friends to compensate for not having that healer-class. There is now just one role and thats a DPS role with some healing abilities.

FirebrandFrog.7603

Pretty much! Here’s how it’s usually balanced:

A DPS class has low survivability, high damage, and high potential to cause a lot of aggro very fast. They can “aggro spike” as much as they can damage spike. They’re dangerous, and enemies know it. In PvP, you will NOT let that Rogue, Warlock, or whatever run amok of your team. That’s why they’re so squishy: because letting something so powerful also be so durable is just not balanced (and NOT FUN TO KILL AT ALL, as GW2’s dungeon bosses gladly show us). In PvE it’s the same way… except this is where the Tank comes in.

A “Tank” class is a class that has medium-to-high survivability, medium-to-low damage, and a high, consistent rate of generating aggro due to having skills that do nothing BUT that. They’re the ones meant to stack Vitality, Toughness, etc. because it works best on them. They are the reason your squishy butt hasn’t been pulverized yet by the enemy mobs while you continually pelt fireballs and wonder why they’re still attacking the Tank. Thank Your Tank, darnit. Medium entry point, medium-to-high skill ceiling. But, you wonder, how do you keep that tank alive if he’s taking the brunt of who knows how many conditions, afflictions, hexes, etc.? Say hello to your Healer.

A “Healer” (I prefer “Utility”) class is one that does just that: they heal, primarily keeping the Tank and the DPSs alive, and strip any bad things placed on either one. They’re the reason why, even when your squishy butt IS pulverized, you can get right back up and into the fray again. They have VERY low survivability, damage in various ranges as it’s become popular that healers can now damage stuff, and medium-to-high aggro. potential. If the healer is focused on healing, then once there is aggro on them, there is nothing they can do; they MUST rely on either the Tank to draw aggro back to them or the DPSs to a) burst them down ASAP or b) try to pull the enemies away from the healer. Again, if the DPSs die, the Healer can get them patched up again quick. If the Healer dies, welcome to SOL Town, population: you. Low entry point, high skill ceiling, lots and lots of pressure.

So there you go. That is the Holy Trinity, defined in a way that someone who knows the rudimentary basics of an MMO can understand. Tl;dr, it helps balance classes around three key factors:

1. How annoying someone is to an enemy mob
2. How much punishment can they take
3. How powerful they are

Of course, this is based around a system where aggro actually exists and can be commonly defined and broken down into numbers. When it doesn’t, this system naturally falls apart.

So then, my opinion on the trinity? Of COURSE the trinity has problems! Things like a high supply of DPSs versus the high demand for healers and tanks, the dilemma of “if the Healer falls, we’re all boned,” the sheer reluctance of people playing healers or tanks compared to DPSs (again adding to the problem of low healer/tank supply but high demand), and so on. But there’s no way to fix this concretely because you have to scrap everything you’ve learned about class interaction in order to make a new system, and this system has been around for almost as long as MMOs requiring party/group efforts have.

ANet didn’t think this through, only (shoddily) hacking off the Tank and Healer branches and left DPS alive bleeding with stumps. In trying to create a game without a trinity, they simply hyper-enforced one branch of it. Meanwhile, their past success has literally done their dream goal of GW2 but better, not because it enforces the trinity, but because it encourages creativity and experimentation of combining DPS, Tank, and Healer. Monks didn’t HAVE to be vulnerable when they were healing. Tanks didn’t HAVE to do mediocre damage. DPSs weren’t stuck to the same cookie-cutter builds.

You can work AROUND the Trinity. For example, SMT: IMAGINE has the Tank and Healer be the player’s pet, which everyone has due to what the series is. And there’s PLENTY of variety in what kind of tank or healer you want. But you can’t get rid of it. Because, unless you have another system, what will the PC do?!

This post perfectly describes why the Trinity exists and why you can’t just remove it from the genre and expect the game to succeed.

Well posted, +1

Devata.6589:

I think it’s a combination of both and feel like both are missing in GW2. About that each role would have to take skill X, Y and Z? No even with roles there any multiple ways but yeah if your role would be healer nearly all skills you use will be heal related. Just like most of what you are using now is DPS related and then there is the healing yourself or friends to compensate for not having that healer-class. There is now just one role and thats a DPS role with some healing abilities.

But surely that would make healing exactly like the current state DPS? Just different flavours of heals. So instead of damage with a condition, damage with another effect, it’d be a heal with a boon, a heal with a cleanse, a heal with some other effect.

Again, if we take ‘role’ to mean your purpose in the group, and on a deeper level, your purpose during that encounter, then the roles can come from the encounters themselves, and with great variety, without needing to jam everyone into three generic roles that will never change.

Not to mention you’d have to tune all content around having a support character, thus forcing groups to take a support, as well as a control, since the support would have to have the highest aggro to make the content difficult. Granted, because of the lack of aggro-keeping skills, it would be a step up from the traditional Trinity.

However, I don’t feel set, defined roles that are made and organised before you even enter the dungeon are the way to go, rather roles that are unique to that encounter and that are created by the mechanics of the encounter itself, so you have to adapt while you’re in that dungeon.

IMO, more variety in what roles there are, so more opportunity to make choices, so more depth.

Aeonblade.8709:

We traded trinity for singularity. That’s all we did. Nothing extra was added to make up for the loss either.

I have yet to find someone that can tell me the difference between requiring 1 tank 1 healer and 1-3 dps and requiring 4 warriors and a Mesmer. There is no difference, just less reliance on each other and less strategy for the sake of quicker queues and quicker runs.

Thus why I have never bothered with dungeons in this game beyond the first 1 or 2 I did. It’s the same “trinity” system we always had, just even more broken.

In trinity play, tank-heal-3 dps is the standard. The only variation is in what classes and builds produce the best DPS. Group defenses are all either self-only on the tank, or are heals administered by the healer. Buffs are mostly self-only, with the rare buff-others on very long CD. Everyone plays a singular role.

In GW2 play, different professions provide different buffs, debuffs and defenses, as well as the ability to heal themselves, and potentially others. 4 warriors and 1 mesmer is passe. The elite meta has moved on to include other classes, precisely because they provide either offensive or defensive buffs. Everyone plays different roles depending on the encounter.

In a trinity set-up, 3 out of 5 people are doing most of the killing. In a GW2 setup, all 5 can do all of the killing. That’s the biggest difference. The second biggest difference is that the trinity game dungeon encounters are designed around the trinity mechanic. GW2 dungeons, unfortunately, were designed around the idea that all group compositions can complete the dungeon — with the side-effect that players who use the teamwork mechanics have a much easier and faster run. The third biggest difference is that in GW2 all 5 spots are effected by changes in the meta, whereas in trinity play, it’s almost always only the DPS that faces such shifts.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Aeonblade.8709:

We traded trinity for singularity. That’s all we did. Nothing extra was added to make up for the loss either.

I have yet to find someone that can tell me the difference between requiring 1 tank 1 healer and 1-3 dps and requiring 4 warriors and a Mesmer. There is no difference, just less reliance on each other and less strategy for the sake of quicker queues and quicker runs.

Thus why I have never bothered with dungeons in this game beyond the first 1 or 2 I did. It’s the same “trinity” system we always had, just even more broken.

In trinity play, tank-heal-3 dps is the standard. The only variation is in what classes and builds produce the best DPS. Group defenses are all either self-only on the tank, or are heals administered by the healer. Buffs are mostly self-only, with the rare buff-others on very long CD. Everyone plays a singular role.

In GW2 play, different professions provide different buffs, debuffs and defenses, as well as the ability to heal themselves, and potentially others. 4 warriors and 1 mesmer is passe. The elite meta has moved on to include other classes, precisely because they provide either offensive or defensive buffs. Everyone plays different roles depending on the encounter.

In a trinity set-up, 3 out of 5 people are doing most of the killing. In a GW2 setup, all 5 can do all of the killing. That’s the biggest difference. The second biggest difference is that the trinity game dungeon encounters are designed around the trinity mechanic. GW2 dungeons, unfortunately, were designed around the idea that all group compositions can complete the dungeon — with the side-effect that players who use the teamwork mechanics have a much easier and faster run. The third biggest difference is that in GW2 all 5 spots are effected by changes in the meta, whereas in trinity play, it’s almost always only the DPS that faces such shifts.

I was mostly being sarcastic, but this may help out someone else newer to the game. Good post!

TheDaiBish.9735:

Devata.6589:

I think it’s a combination of both and feel like both are missing in GW2. About that each role would have to take skill X, Y and Z? No even with roles there any multiple ways but yeah if your role would be healer nearly all skills you use will be heal related. Just like most of what you are using now is DPS related and then there is the healing yourself or friends to compensate for not having that healer-class. There is now just one role and thats a DPS role with some healing abilities.

But surely that would make healing exactly like the current state DPS? Just different flavours of heals. So instead of damage with a condition, damage with another effect, it’d be a heal with a boon, a heal with a cleanse, a heal with some other effect.

Again, if we take ‘role’ to mean your purpose in the group, and on a deeper level, your purpose during that encounter, then the roles can come from the encounters themselves, and with great variety, without needing to jam everyone into three generic roles that will never change.

Not to mention you’d have to tune all content around having a support character, thus forcing groups to take a support, as well as a control, since the support would have to have the highest aggro to make the content difficult. Granted, because of the lack of aggro-keeping skills, it would be a step up from the traditional Trinity.

However, I don’t feel set, defined roles that are made and organised before you even enter the dungeon are the way to go, rather roles that are unique to that encounter and that are created by the mechanics of the encounter itself, so you have to adapt while you’re in that dungeon.

IMO, more variety in what roles there are, so more opportunity to make choices, so more depth.

Problem is that you mainly have to be watching yourself not somebody else and the overall difficulty go’s down because there is less reliance on you specifically because of your special role. thats simply how it works out in GW2 at this moment.

You don’t feel the need of defined roles but then lest for a second not look at GW2 but at normal life. When working towards one goal you put people together with all there own specialties. They might have brother knowledge but all have there own specialties so together they can complete there goal. You are not putting together a group of people who are all able of doing everything but are not specialist in anything.

Even in real combat situations there are many roles including healers (medics), tanks (tanks and other infantry), dps and many other roles at well. All working together and that just makes good teamwork.

Devata.6589:

Problem is that you mainly have to be watching yourself not somebody else and the overall difficulty go’s down because there is less reliance on you specifically because of your special role. thats simply how it works out in GW2 at this moment.

1) In the Trinity you’re focusing on what you’re doing, relying on others to do their job. It’s exactly the same. The healer doesn’t focus on what the Tank or DPS are doing, right?

2) If them mechanics that create the roles in the encounters needed to be performed in order to beat the encounter, how is that any different to the Trinity?

Devata.6589:

Even in real combat situations there are many roles including healers (medics), tanks (tanks and other infantry), dps and many other roles at well. All working together and that just makes good teamwork.

However, let’s imagine one of those soldiers got injured. Suddenly, another soldier (usually DPS) becomes support to help get the wounded soldier out or to cover, while the other soldiers lay down suppresive fire (control) to give them a chance.

Or maybe a field medic took a bullet to the arm. One of them soldiers can easily switch from firing his gun (DPS) to helping that medic out with basic first aid (support).

They aren’t fixed into their roles, and they can freely adapt to the situation.

Kind of like the GW2 combat system is currently.

Someone goes down, and suddenly someone could potentially bring out some CC in order to give some other players the chance to revive the downed player.

More similar to the situation than strict role dependency, where if one role fails it’s the end.

Yes, there are specialties in any work place. However, more often than not, someone else will be able to fill that role, even if it’s for a short time, while the person who was originally manning that role returns.

TheDaiBish.9735:

Devata.6589:

Problem is that you mainly have to be watching yourself not somebody else and the overall difficulty go’s down because there is less reliance on you specifically because of your special role. thats simply how it works out in GW2 at this moment.

1) In the Trinity you’re focusing on what you’re doing, relying on others to do their job. It’s exactly the same. The healer doesn’t focus on what the Tank or DPS are doing, right?

2) If them mechanics that create the roles in the encounters needed to be performed in order to beat the encounter, how is that any different to the Trinity?

Devata.6589:

Even in real combat situations there are many roles including healers (medics), tanks (tanks and other infantry), dps and many other roles at well. All working together and that just makes good teamwork.

However, let’s imagine one of those soldiers got injured. Suddenly, another soldier (usually DPS) becomes support to help get the wounded soldier out or to cover, while the other soldiers lay down suppresive fire (control) to give them a chance.

Or maybe a field medic took a bullet to the arm. One of them soldiers can easily switch from firing his gun (DPS) to helping that medic out with basic first aid (support).

They aren’t fixed into their roles, and they can freely adapt to the situation.

Kind of like the GW2 combat system is currently.

Someone goes down, and suddenly someone could potentially bring out some CC in order to give some other players the chance to revive the downed player.

More similar to the situation than strict role dependency, where if one role fails it’s the end.

Yes, there are specialties in any work place. However, more often than not, someone else will be able to fill that role, even if it’s for a short time, while the person who was originally manning that role returns.

“The healer doesn’t focus on what the Tank or DPS are doing, right?” Not right. There are keeping an eye on everybody making sure nobodies heal drops and keeping there own cool-down for skins in mind.

The tank is checking the mobs and having a look at the DPS and the healer to check if they are not being attacked. Especially when the healer is being attacked he needs to make sure he takes the aggro.

The DPS guys are mainly keeping an eye on the overall fight, also making sure mobs don’t get close to the healer and using trying to prevent the mobs / boss from doing specific attacks.

So yes, when there are those roles everybody has an eye on everybody. But even if that would not be directly the case it would be indirectly.
In a FPS with a sniper, a soldier and a engineer, the soldier is helping the engineer to be able to place a bomb (or whatever he needs to do) while a sniper is laying at a distance using his bullets for the kills the soldiers can get or the ‘life saving kills’’ . Well life saving for your team.

I am not sure what you mean with 2. But the difference between having roles or not is that without the fight simply becomes less interesting. More of smashing keys then actually thinking about the fight, keeping an eye on things (except for your own HP).

And yes they all have some overlapping skills but thats nothing like it is in GW2 where they all have the same role but do have some difference in classes / skills. What you describe in your combat and work situation is the opposite of what we see in GW2.

Multiple roles but some overlapping skills (so you are indeed at least temporary able to take over another role) vs One role but some variability in skills.

Devata.6589:

“The healer doesn’t focus on what the Tank or DPS are doing, right?”

Not right. There are keeping an eye on everybody making sure nobodies heal drops and keeping there own cool-down for skins in mind.

I am not sure what you mean with 2. But the difference between having roles or not is that without the fight simply becomes less interesting. More of smashing keys then actually thinking about the fight, keeping an eye on things (except for your own HP).

And yes they all have some overlapping skills but thats nothing like it is in GW2 where they all have the same role but do have some difference in classes / skills. What you describe in your combat situation is the opposite of what we see in GW2.

I guess my experience with the Trinity differs from yours then (I’ve played all three roles at one point or another).

I guess you’re right about the healer (although part of the responsibility for both the DPS and Tank lies with themselves to not stand in the fire).

However, IMO it’s the DPS’s responsibility to manage their own aggro to keep it below the Tank’s, thus not get attacked.

As for tanks keeping an eye on mobs, yes. They keep an eye on mobs. Not every teammate to make sure they aren’t being attacked. Again, the responsibility to let the Tank know that something is happening to them, especially if the Tank doesn’t have a view of them.

The amount of times where a run has gone wrong because of certain team-members (Healer OOM and Tank not listening, DPS just standing in the fire, DPS attacking before tank has aggro / going full out right at the start ect), certain parts where you’ve said the responsibility lies with someone else, I couldn’t count.

Also, for number 2, I’m referring to what I’ve been referring to all along; roles within encounters instead of pre-defined roles.

Let’s use CoF1, changed up a little, as an example:

• Crystals grant regen (affected by Poison), damage reduction and condition removal every x seconds, with a shorter cooldown the more crystals there are (thus, giving more importance to this mechanic). Breaking these crystals will apply a stacking debuff that does a DoT that increases in intensity. This only kicks in when there are more than x amount of crystals.
• Effigy will try to attack the person breaking the crystals when the amount gets to the point he isn’t receiving the buff anymore.

You can have a number of roles in this fight:

• Someone to break the crystals. This role needs to be swapped throughout the fight because of the DoT. This requires either communication, or people to keep an eye on the guy breaking the crystals to know when to swap, with an order worked out before the fight (Damage)
• People to use CC when the amount of crystals. However, this is a part-time role, since it’s dependent on the amount of crystals, thus shouldn’t have a person dedicated to it at all times. (CC, Damage and Support)
• Damage to whittle down the bosses health. (Damage)
• To make it easier, someone to apply Poison to reduce the effect of the regen. (Debuff)

Now, in this fight, even though there are two damage ‘roles’, them two roles are different, and unique to this fight.

Now, lets compare it to, say, the Lover’s fight:

• The Lover’s gain health regen, damage reduction and increasing stats when within a certain radius of each other, with increasing potency. They try to move to each other on frequent occasions, but will give up after x amount of seconds.
• The Mesmer has a skill that deals damage based on how many conditions you have on you.
• The Ele has a skill that summons mini elementals, each applying a different condition (burn, chill, blind, bleed).

In this fight, you have completely different roles to the CoF fight:

• 2 Dedicated CC to keep the Lover’s away from each other OR 2 people to each lover, and they share responsibility of CCing, with one extra on the Elementalist in order to clear the elementals.
• 3 Damage dealers, who have dual responsibilities of damaging the lovers and killing the mini elementals.
• Condition removal, which is a shared responsibility due to how frequent the skill is cast, meaning players have to time their condition removal.

(An example of choice, and how players can choose their approach)

Now, as you see, the roles of the CoF Effigy fight and the AC Lover’s fight are different, created by the mechanics of the fight.

This is what I mean by having the encounters create mechanics, and not pre-ordaining groups to 1 control, 1 support and 3 dps.

As for your last comment about not seeing it in GW2, whenever my group first done instanced content, we’d always have one or two people with either a control weapon set, or a few control utilities, so if someone did go down, they could function as a controller until they got the person up. That’s where I got the example from.