Guild Wars 2

I don’t understand the idea of trinity balance.

Does that means that healer can defeat a fighter? That’s not balance, that’s making healer OP.

One thing I miss about not having the holy trinity is running a tank in a new game, super easy to get groups and level up. One thing I’ll never miss, having to wait with like 30 other DPS trying to find a group. Being able to just grab several people of different classes and rolling into a dungeon is nice, aside from the other issues of dungeons.

You can play a pure tank, DPS and healer in GW2 already… warrior or guardian can tank really really well when properly built, a zerker warrior can be your DPS and elementalist/necromancer your healer.
ktnxbye

i am surprised that no one posted this video yet:

And i totally agree about the lack of dedicated roles.
Another problem for me is that the distribution of unique support/controll is nearly non existent.

Warrior for example should not have access to that much furry buffs.
Every class needs something they can do best.

something like this:

Warrior: might, cripple
Ranger: furry, immobilize
Thief: vigor, vulnerability
Elementalist: regeneration, chill
Mesmer: quickness, confusion
Guardian: protection, knock back
Engineer: swiftness, blind
Necromancer: weakness, fear

So warriors can buff the party with 25 might stacks while a ranger can give permanent furry to the party. Other professions should have way weaker might / furry buffs.
This would need alot of balancing but would make each profession way more valueable to the party.

Instead of playing warrior only to get perma 25 might and perma furry you would need a ranger for the furry. To accomplish that, the warriors furry would need to bee a selfbuff only and the duration needs to be reduced and stuff like that.

crouze.3078:

i am surprised that no one posted this video yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBxStGB6-UE

And i totally agree about the lack of dedicated roles.
Another problem for me is that the distribution of unique support/controll is nearly non existent.

Warrior for example should not have access to that much furry buffs.
Every class needs something they can do best.

something like this:

Warrior: might, cripple
Ranger: furry, immobilize
Thief: vigor, vulnerability
Elementalist: regeneration, chill
Mesmer: quickness, confusion
Guardian: protection, knock back
Engineer: swiftness, blind
Necromancer: weakness, fear

So warriors can buff the party with 25 might stacks while a ranger can give permanent furry to the party. Other professions should have way weaker might / furry buffs.
This would need alot of balancing but would make each profession way more valueable to the party.

Instead of playing warrior only to get perma 25 might and perma furry you would need a ranger for the furry. To accomplish that, the warriors furry would need to bee a selfbuff only and the duration needs to be reduced and stuff like that.

Except that your furry is personal, not group wide, thats why Elementalists shine in the current meta. Might at 25 cap and 1 minute furry for the whole party and great damage.

“Another problem for me is that the distribution of unique support/controll is nearly non existent.”

Care to explain it?

edit:

Also as a warrior you can have “only” 6 blast finishers (longbow3, warhorn5, 2 banners and #5 on both banners) and FGJ for another 3 stacks of might if needed and it still won’t reach 25. Just sayin’.

SkyShroud.2865:

I don’t understand the idea of trinity balance.

Does that means that healer can defeat a fighter? That’s not balance, that’s making healer OP.

Your right, it would. Balance would be each not being able to kill the other. A tank is suppose to be good at taking damage without dying and not dish it out (that’s the dps job). A healer is suppose to heal damage and not dish it out. A tank vs healer, if balanced and all variables equal (eg. player skill), should result in a stalemate. The healer doesn’t do enough damage to break a tank’s…well…tank and the tank can’t out damage the healer’s healing.

Deamhan.9538:

SkyShroud.2865:

I don’t understand the idea of trinity balance.

Does that means that healer can defeat a fighter? That’s not balance, that’s making healer OP.

Your right, it would. Balance would be each not being able to kill the other. A tank is suppose to be good at taking damage without dying and not dish it out (that’s the dps job). A healer is suppose to heal damage and not dish it out. A tank vs healer, if balanced and all variables equal (eg. player skill), should result in a stalemate. The healer doesn’t do enough damage to break a tank’s…well…tank and the tank can’t out damage the healer’s healing.

And the third leg of the trinity? The DPSer? Can’t out-DPS heals or tankiness either? Or DPS can kill both. That sounds OP to me. And probably why the DPS:tank:healer ratio in trinity games is always terrible, causing groups to wait around forever just to get a group together.

GW2 doesn’t need the Trinity. It needs fights that make use of ALL of the class roles. Because if I ever see Reflects Conditions again, I might have to choke a kitten.

It’s already hard to justify bringing heavy-CC, condition, or high-crit builds into world boss fights against monoliths (one giant boss). Giving the players more things to hit during a fight would give other builds plenty to do. Tri-Wurm is actually not a terrible fight in that respect. (It is in others, but I think that’s just the mob scaling…)

Draknar.5748:

And probably why the DPS:tank:healer ratio in trinity games is always terrible, causing groups to wait around forever just to get a group together.

It’s usually terrible because DPS level faster when away from dungeons. Quick fights, quick quest completion, and overall general autonomy.

But, more importantly, tanking and healing are jobs. Jobs dependent on (usually) four other people, and you catch a lot of flak for them if the group fails. DPS are generally free of responsibility.
Healing just gets frustrating, because you spend most of your time spamming your low heal so the tank doesn’t die, praying the DPS don’t stand in the fire, then having to waste time and mana scraping them off the floor when they do. But mostly, healers end up babysitting and playing reverse-whack-a-mole with HP bars. Some people like it because they feel “supportive”, and others are really into the resource management.
I personally get those same jollies from my water-Ele, but maybe that’s just me.

I remember my paladin tank from a few years ago.

Taunt.
Cycle through skills 1 – 5, alternating between 9 and 6 second cooldown skills.

Yeah, that would really liven things up in GW2, eh?

Dalanor.5387:

“Another problem for me is that the distribution of unique support/control is nearly non existent.”

Care to explain it?

I meant that there is not a single class that is superior to others with support or control effects.

There are not many support/control things that a class is superior enough compared to other classes.

If you want might stacks for your party then most professions can buff it.
For me it feels like the professions are missing something to support the group in a unique way.

crouze.3078:

Dalanor.5387:

“Another problem for me is that the distribution of unique support/control is nearly non existent.”

Care to explain it?

I meant that there is not a single class that is superior to others with support or control effects.

There are not many support/control things that a class is superior enough compared to other classes.

If you want might stacks for your party then most professions can buff it.
For me it feels like the professions are missing something to support the group in a unique way.

There shouldn’t be. Every class should be able to contribute to support and/or control in their own ways and all should be viable. In WvW I have a support/control heavy mesmer for example. I prevent a lot of damage from reaching allies with reflects and blinds, help remove conditions from allies and boons from foes, add conditions to foes and boons to allies, deal direct and indirect damage, it’s a good, supporting build to help the group out. Why would it make sense for me to be pushed out of that build because on paper it looks like someone else does support/control mathematically better than I do?

The problem, of course, is not the absence of the trinity, it’s the absence of meaningful combat roles. What we are left with is the most primitive form of combat imaginable, the berserker battlefield, where everyone just enrages and goes for it. That is the current state of combat in GW2.

crouze.3078:

Dalanor.5387:

“Another problem for me is that the distribution of unique support/control is nearly non existent.”

Care to explain it?

I meant that there is not a single class that is superior to others with support or control effects.

There are not many support/control things that a class is superior enough compared to other classes.

If you want might stacks for your party then most professions can buff it.
For me it feels like the professions are missing something to support the group in a unique way.

As VOLKON said, there shouldn’t be, however there are exceptions.
For example Feedback as it works far more superior to any other reflects and more importantly it’s just one of the projectile mitigation tool of Mesmers, thus they are the best at it. As a side note, Guardians can handle projectiles too, but not all their stuff is reflect.
Same as in my example, the buffing capabilities of Elementalists via boons is far superior to other classes. Sure, you can drop any fire field and blast it with a wide variety if skills, such as Cluster bomb from Thief, but Ele is a compact buff machine.
Warrior is also superior along with Ranger with their unique, stackable buffs.
Guardians can perma apply perma protection just by doing a auto attack rotation, if you build for it and has great acces to aoe stability.
Chain stealth is also unique for Thieves, however for a small amount Mesmers can do it too or you can apply it via consumables, but it’s less efficient than a Thief.
Thieves can strip defiant rapidly with little to no effort.

Draknar.5748:

Deamhan.9538:

SkyShroud.2865:

I don’t understand the idea of trinity balance.

Does that means that healer can defeat a fighter? That’s not balance, that’s making healer OP.

Your right, it would. Balance would be each not being able to kill the other. A tank is suppose to be good at taking damage without dying and not dish it out (that’s the dps job). A healer is suppose to heal damage and not dish it out. A tank vs healer, if balanced and all variables equal (eg. player skill), should result in a stalemate. The healer doesn’t do enough damage to break a tank’s…well…tank and the tank can’t out damage the healer’s healing.

And the third leg of the trinity? The DPSer? Can’t out-DPS heals or tankiness either? Or DPS can kill both. That sounds OP to me. And probably why the DPS:tank:healer ratio in trinity games is always terrible, causing groups to wait around forever just to get a group together.

That’s funny , because in WoW my dungeon wait times are less than 10 minutes as a dps and I don’t need to wait for raids because of guild/flex/Oqueue/open raid, etc.

Indeed, like some said, gw2 lack roles.

The trinity system define the roles and they build the game around those roles. You want to level up, you need to bring a healer for faster leveling. You want even faster leveling, you need a tank to lure all the mobs to do aoe or to fight much higher level monsters. DPS is just there to help kill faster before the mobs overwhelm the party. Trinity system enforce teamwork or team play.

Gw2 tries to balance everything in term of combative level. For what purpose? For the almighty e-sports. Gw2’s trinity will never work if gw2 continue to balance according to combative level, trinity is about teamwork and not about individual.

Vexander.9850:

Jski.6180:

No.
Your more or less asking for ppl to play the way you want and not let them have the freedom to chose how they play.

It goes both ways you know. In games I love playing a healer. Can’t do that here.

Depends. how you define playing a healer… if by healer you mean sitting in a corner handing out targeted heals based on bars going up and down then no you can not. But if you want to just help and support your group that is more than possible.

GW2 doesn’t allow players to let someone else manage their health completely for them, but I have been saved several times by other players (guardians cone heal in particular, but also others).

reads “communist style gameplay” lolwut?

SkyShroud.2865:

Indeed, like some said, gw2 lack roles.

The trinity system define the roles and they build the game around those roles. You want to level up, you need to bring a healer for faster leveling. You want even faster leveling, you need a tank to lure all the mobs to do aoe or to fight much higher level monsters. DPS is just there to help kill faster before the mobs overwhelm the party. Trinity system enforce teamwork or team play.

Gw2 tries to balance everything in term of combative level. For what purpose? For the almighty e-sports. Gw2’s trinity will never work if gw2 continue to balance according to combative level, trinity is about teamwork and not about individual.

The Trinity system is irrelevant in leveling. I don’t know why you brought it up. The Trinity is relevant in organized PVE of Dungeons and Raids.

I see that people still don’t get that:

1. Roles do not have be something you practice all the time, in every fight.
2. Roles don’t have to be exclusive to a given player/character.
3. Roles don’t have to be bound to professions.
4. Roles don’t have to be bound to gear.

Lankybrit.4598:

The Trinity system is irrelevant in leveling. I don’t know why you brought it up. The Trinity is relevant in organized PVE of Dungeons and Raids.

It depend on the games designs and you don’t seems to have played much games. Deploying trinity affect the design of the game as a whole. There are game that force you to level up by partying with others. There are games that give their priest class one uber AOE skill so they can slowly grind themselves. End game might be the most important factor to most people but that doesn’t mean that the progressiveness from level 1 to max level can be ignored.

If gw2 is to have the classic trinity, gw2 has to redesign the entire game completely. Of course, everyone should know that it is impossible. Gw2 do have their forms of trinity, but because a class is capable of providing both damage and support needs, most people wanted something more defined. That’s what I interpreted from the complains.

SkyShroud.2865:

Deploying trinity affect the design of the game as a whole.

I don’t understand why more people don’t seem to get this. If you need a tanky person and a healy person and some DPS people and a CC person to do fulfill specific roles and certain levels, then the entire concept of allowing any number of random people with more or less any reasonable gear and skill level to jump in or out of world boss fights, and allowing most any group of players to be able to hook up and run a dungeon goes out the window, and with that the fundamental design criteria around which the dungeon and world bosses and their mechanics are built.

You’d basically have to re-design all the professions, skills, talents, dungeons, gear, and bosses around a whole new concept of how they should work.

Dark Catalyst.1028:

That’s funny , because in WoW my dungeon wait times are less than 10 minutes as a dps and I don’t need to wait for raids because of guild/flex/Oqueue/open raid, etc.

10 years after the game’s release…..

And they did that because of the exact issues we are talking about. Disparity with trinity roles. People were waiting around forever, or just plain giving up. It is a shortcoming of the trinity system. So much so that Blizzard had to develop a very complicated (and IMO successful) system to try to alleviate this.

Considering the number of players who play WoW and that groups are handled with the flex/OQ system now, 10min still seems like a relatively long time to wait to get a group. (Also I will assume 15min, because when it comes to forums, people tend to fudge numbers to try and make a point. If shorter time helps make your point stronger, then I add time, if longer makes your point stronger, I subtract time—just the way forums work). It shows that even with millions of players and using a complex matching system, there’s still a pretty substantial wait time to get into a group for DPSers.

Are we seriously doing this yet again? This is becoming a near every day thing. It’s like who needs “The Young and the Restless” anymore, when you can find “As the Holy Trinity Turns” on the GW2 Forums.

From Day 1, they said were moving away from the Trinity. Talking it to death, comparing it to communism (which makes absolutely no sense what so ever,) and constantly carrying on how they are losing players because of it will not change a thing. Make your peace with it. You can choose to continue playing GW2 the way it currently is and look forward to the changes to come or GTFO.

What is the point of investing your time and energy into a game if you aren’t enjoying yourself and have nothing but grievances about it? I’m really not trying to be harsh here, but come on, there’s a difference between pointing out what would make the game more enjoyable and being obviously so discontented with it. It’s quite clear that we passed that distinction multiple threads ago.

DavidH.7380:

SkyShroud.2865:

Deploying trinity affect the design of the game as a whole.

I don’t understand why more people don’t seem to get this. If you need a tanky person and a healy person and some DPS people and a CC person to do fulfill specific roles and certain levels, then the entire concept of allowing any number of random people with more or less any reasonable gear and skill level to jump in or out of world boss fights, and allowing most any group of players to be able to hook up and run a dungeon goes out the window, and with that the fundamental design criteria around which the dungeon and world bosses and their mechanics are built.

You’d basically have to re-design all the professions, skills, talents, dungeons, gear, and bosses around a whole new concept of how they should work.

This is actually the main problem I had on FF14. They have dynamic event ‘bosses’ as well (although their dynamic events are a bit of a joke compared to GW2’s).

At the start of the game, it was okay because people are everywhere and you’ll always find a tank and a healer. But after a while, you get a lot of events where there’s just no tanks or no healers around, meaning that if the event has a boss, it’ll just be impossible.

Even with its flaws, the combat system in GW2 is orders of magnitude better than the tank&spank setup.

Xae Isareth.1364:

This is actually the main problem I had on FF14. They have dynamic event ‘bosses’ as well (although their dynamic events are a bit of a joke compared to GW2’s).

At the start of the game, it was okay because people are everywhere and you’ll always find a tank and a healer. But after a while, you get a lot of events where there’s just no tanks or no healers around, meaning that if the event has a boss, it’ll just be impossible.

Or an Arcanist. :P I’ve solo’d boss events before, but not always had enough DPS to finish it.

As for all the logical fallacies above where “allow build diversity for tank/heal/support” translates to “MUST HAVE TRINITY OR I’M GOING HOME”… Some of us just want to see the game improve and be more inclusive to diverse build roles. It’s not about “zomg Trinity is a deal breaker qqqq!”

I don’t overly care for the Trinity. I’ve done the DPS-wait with my thumb up my kitten. It’s really unfun (though occasionally profitable when farming mats). I love being able to grab any 5 or 25 people to lob myself at content. (Especially with the new boss rotation schedule~)

But we’re running into the issue of many boss/champs get auto-attacked, not because the players are dim, but because, in many cases, boss defenses invalidate almost everything on their weapon bar. Or they’re waiting for the right time to use their defensive/support abilities.

The meta for PvE is very in favor of Berserker and PVT builds, so it’s much more of a mercenary approach. I can’t even call it DPS, since the best damage builds that include crit are blunted against world bosses.

I knew 3 years before the game was released it had no traditional trinity
But the game was not announced to have 1 viable build full berserker.
there is no tradional trinity in sense that forexample
you need to have 1 preist to heal 1 warrior to tank 1 mage to dps.
There is a soft trinity which is control , dps , support. That any class can do.
But control dosent work with all the defiant stacks and support heal for 5x less than the average damage on mobs in full healing powers.

I just want control and support to actually be relevant not just something to carry bads with but the difference between winning or losing.

tom.7468:

But the game was not announced to have 1 viable build full berserker.

Because every gear set is viable. If you define efficiency as faster killing times, yeah zerker is the most optimal. Don’t spread bullkitten. Thanks! =)

But control dosent work with all the defiant stacks[…]

Because you have to remove it first and use CC in an intelligent way.

[…]and support heal for 5x less than the average damage on mobs in full healing powers.

Healing isn’t the only way of support. Just sayin’.

I just want control and support to actually be relevant not just something to carry bads with but the difference between winning or losing.

Educate yourself and stop spreading misinformation or leave the conversation please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNMltxyvAvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2VhmwLwvrM
And a direct quote from hendo from the previous page:

hendo.1940:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwyRh95-oLA

The mesmer will be removing stacks in group settings too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBtFWy-ccTk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d1-rF2Q3uw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHKQtrOVR7w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfLHcyA9Cgc

(6:20 – 7:15, 10:50 – 12:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzILYccc_NM&list=UUr8DAsjA7r5s2bLlXv_SbwA (condition cleansing, aegis, reflects, might stacking, quickness, etc.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IaySIyZh4o (offensive buff stacking, projectile reflection, stability, aegis, quickness)

People like you are why I started recording things like this – I’m sick of people spreading the misinformation that support and control roles don’t exist. They do – it’s just you can’t be a CC spammer or a buffbot. You need to do CC, support and DPS.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I see that people still don’t get that:

1. Roles do not have be something you practice all the time, in every fight.
2. Roles don’t have to be exclusive to a given player/character.
3. Roles don’t have to be bound to professions.
4. Roles don’t have to be bound to gear.

Have you ever noticed that all human activities around achieving objectives are roles-based? And, I mean everything from scavenger hunts to brain surgery. The important takeaway is that humans go about objectives through roles. And, of course, that you ignore human behaviour at your peril when designing a game.

Edit: But of course you are right in all your distinctions about the nature of roles. My point would simply be that roles are a human way of doing things.

Raine.1394:

IndigoSundown.5419:

I see that people still don’t get that:

1. Roles do not have be something you practice all the time, in every fight.
2. Roles don’t have to be exclusive to a given player/character.
3. Roles don’t have to be bound to professions.
4. Roles don’t have to be bound to gear.

Have you ever noticed that all human activities around achieving objectives are roles-based? And, I mean everything from scavenger hunts to brain surgery. The important takeaway is that humans go about objectives through roles. And, of course, that you ignore human behaviour at your peril when designing a game.

Edit: But of course you are right in all your distinctions about the nature of roles. My point would simply be that roles are a human way of doing things.

Since there are roles in GW2 combat, it seems that the trinity controversy is bringing different human tendencies into play, such as resistance to change, desire to stand out, jumping on the bandwagon and failure to adapt.

Human endeavor is indeed moving towards greater specialization in a lot of fields. One factor that drives this is that many skills have become too complex to allow for a more generalized approach. However, the tendency towards specialization exclusivity is more pronounced the larger the group and/or the more training is required to prepare for a role.

Some small team endeavors often give individuals roles, but changes in situation may require that any of the members might be required to act in more than their primary role. Fire companies would be one example, especially as cost cuts have reduced company size. Everyone has a role but might have to perform different roles as needed — and is trained and equipped to do so. Soldiers in Special Forces A Teams are all cross-trained.

GW2 small group combat at its best can be like those examples. In that sense, GW2 small group mechanics are closer to what occurs in some real small group activities than are trinity mechanics. However, that does hold true across all small group activities. In a surgical team, the anesthesiologist does not step in to finish the surgery when the surgeon has a problem. Then again, MMO combat is hardly brain surgery, in either type of game.

hendo.1940:

What these players want is not necessarily trinity. They want to do things like like run support traits in Shadow Arts on a Thief and be considered an asset instead of a burden for it.

So if their concept of support isn’t actually support, why should that playstyle be supported? Why should ANet allow their builds to be just as good as people who take support traits that actually contribute significantly to supporting the team?

They also likely despise the fact that the optimal way to play PvE in GW2 is to stack in a “safe” spot, as Dalanor’s videos demonstrate

But it’s not. If you watch our streams (Death and Taxes) we don’t safe spot Mossman, we don’t afk range Bloomhunger, we don’t use some safe spot for Alphard, we don’t do any of that. And we’re one of the top dungeon guilds. Safe spots are not optimal at all, and stacking =/= safe spot. People who claim this just watch too many of our videos and think “oh well it’s faceroll since they stack in a corner”, ignoring the actual tactics involved (I’ve joined a COE group that stacked for Alpha and then were confused why he wasn’t dying – spoiler – it’s because their DPS was atrocious and stacking isn’t an auto win).

They crave Active, Dynamic and Frantic combat and the game gives them the tools for it, unfortunately the enemies are too stupid to provide the challenge necessary.

No, they crave passive combat where they can function as tanks, healers and buffbots. What you may or may not have noticed, but it’s the elite, using full berserker gear who take full advantage of the active combat in this game by performing solos of Lupicus, the entire Arah dungeon and some open world bosses (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeXr0S3Cdfo watch this and claim it isn’t active combat).

I really wish people would stop claiming this game was faceroll, the amount of groups I’ve been in for Arah that have almost or have partially disbanded because they just flat out can’t perform skips or bosses is insane considering the content has been available to play for almost two years.

The problem is that the core game design has removed the need for support and control roles in PVE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwyRh95-oLA

The mesmer will be removing stacks in group settings too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBtFWy-ccTk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d1-rF2Q3uw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHKQtrOVR7w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfLHcyA9Cgc

(6:20 – 7:15, 10:50 – 12:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzILYccc_NM&list=UUr8DAsjA7r5s2bLlXv_SbwA (condition cleansing, aegis, reflects, might stacking, quickness, etc.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IaySIyZh4o (offensive buff stacking, projectile reflection, stability, aegis, quickness)

People like you are why I started recording things like this – I’m sick of people spreading the misinformation that support and control roles don’t exist. They do – it’s just you can’t be a CC spammer or a buffbot. You need to do CC, support and DPS.

I’m literally fed up of people ignoring my posts and spreading this myth of the game just being DPS – and I’m going to repeatedly link these videos until people stop claiming it. I recommend people saving links like these as bookmarks too to whip them out when people start making this false claim.

This. Every fight boils down to stack on a point and dodge.

And every trinity game involves DPS-ers spamming a rotation, tanks holding aggro and healers healing. See? I can simplify games too! I want you to “stack on a point and dodge” Lupicus and Alphard. Please record.

Actually agree that this game is not all about DPS. But will forever disagree with the notion of “only this gear is good for PvE-otherwise you are a selfish baddie.” Current recommended meta Dungeon PvE gear choices just make it look as if DPS is all that matters, even though the support in those builds is also there.

Do not waste time trying to win arguments-it’s rather pointless. Sometimes it’s best to agree to forever disagree. You are not better or worse than another for believing different things, however convinced you may be of your current position.

I have posted numerous times about how ANet never intended the game to devolve into DPS races, yet people think it is so because there’s no by “holy” trinity. :P Will never convince them otherwise, no matter what I could state.

To be fair, ANet did rather recently say that they don’t agree that “killing it faster”=“support”. So there’s a bit of truth from each opposite perspective.

Do not be offended, and play your way, however. I didn’t post anything to prove anyone here right or wrong. I know what I believe in, and why. If you don’t agree with it, so be it, but I would not want an angry reply over just a game.

Raine.1394:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raine.1394:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raine.1394:

IndigoSundown.5419:

I see that people still don’t get that:

1. Roles do not have be something you practice all the time, in every fight.
2. Roles don’t have to be exclusive to a given player/character.
3. Roles don’t have to be bound to professions.
4. Roles don’t have to be bound to gear.

Have you ever noticed that all human activities around achieving objectives are roles-based? And, I mean everything from scavenger hunts to brain surgery. The important takeaway is that humans go about objectives through roles. And, of course, that you ignore human behaviour at your peril when designing a game.

Edit: But of course you are right in all your distinctions about the nature of roles. My point would simply be that roles are a human way of doing things.

Since there are roles in GW2 combat, it seems that the trinity controversy is bringing different human tendencies into play, such as resistance to change, desire to stand out, jumping on the bandwagon and failure to adapt.

Human endeavor is indeed moving towards greater specialization in a lot of fields. One factor that drives this is that many skills have become too complex to allow for a more generalized approach. However, the tendency towards specialization exclusivity is more pronounced the larger the group and/or the more training is required to prepare for a role.

Some small team endeavors often give individuals roles, but changes in situation may require that any of the members might be required to act in more than their primary role. Fire companies would be one example, especially as cost cuts have reduced company size. Everyone has a role but might have to perform different roles as needed — and is trained and equipped to do so. Soldiers in Special Forces A Teams are all cross-trained.

GW2 small group combat at its best can be like those examples. In that sense, GW2 small group mechanics are closer to what occurs in some real small group activities than are trinity mechanics. However, that does hold true across all small group activities. In a surgical team, the anesthesiologist does not step in to finish the surgery when the surgeon has a problem. Then again, MMO combat is hardly brain surgery, in either type of game.

Actually much simpler than that.Humans always prefer role-based solutions to objectives. Simply the way we are made. No more, no less.

And, if you watched Norman Schwarzkopf describing the the initiation of the battle in Iraq you would have seen graphics of infantry, armored units, air power, etc. as those are the major roles played on the battlefield. This is actually very simple and straightforward and everyone should understand this. No one talks about silly things like cross training, everyone talks about the big boxes you move around the battlefield—the major roles involved. Again, everyone should know this and understand this.

Except that MMO small group endeavors do not involve big boxes moved around the battlefield. At best, it mimics a squad, not an army, or even a platoon.

We are actually talking about combat and combat roles after all. That is precisely the deficiency with GW2.

OK, except we are talking about combat roles in a small group. While there are deficiencies in GW2 combat, lack of roles is not one of them — except insofar as the combats allow for flexible assumptions of roles and do not enforce static role assumption.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raine.1394:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raine.1394:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raine.1394:

IndigoSundown.5419:

I see that people still don’t get that:

1. Roles do not have be something you practice all the time, in every fight.
2. Roles don’t have to be exclusive to a given player/character.
3. Roles don’t have to be bound to professions.
4. Roles don’t have to be bound to gear.

Have you ever noticed that all human activities around achieving objectives are roles-based? And, I mean everything from scavenger hunts to brain surgery. The important takeaway is that humans go about objectives through roles. And, of course, that you ignore human behaviour at your peril when designing a game.

Edit: But of course you are right in all your distinctions about the nature of roles. My point would simply be that roles are a human way of doing things.

Since there are roles in GW2 combat, it seems that the trinity controversy is bringing different human tendencies into play, such as resistance to change, desire to stand out, jumping on the bandwagon and failure to adapt.

Human endeavor is indeed moving towards greater specialization in a lot of fields. One factor that drives this is that many skills have become too complex to allow for a more generalized approach. However, the tendency towards specialization exclusivity is more pronounced the larger the group and/or the more training is required to prepare for a role.

Some small team endeavors often give individuals roles, but changes in situation may require that any of the members might be required to act in more than their primary role. Fire companies would be one example, especially as cost cuts have reduced company size. Everyone has a role but might have to perform different roles as needed — and is trained and equipped to do so. Soldiers in Special Forces A Teams are all cross-trained.

GW2 small group combat at its best can be like those examples. In that sense, GW2 small group mechanics are closer to what occurs in some real small group activities than are trinity mechanics. However, that does hold true across all small group activities. In a surgical team, the anesthesiologist does not step in to finish the surgery when the surgeon has a problem. Then again, MMO combat is hardly brain surgery, in either type of game.

Actually much simpler than that.Humans always prefer role-based solutions to objectives. Simply the way we are made. No more, no less.

And, if you watched Norman Schwarzkopf describing the the initiation of the battle in Iraq you would have seen graphics of infantry, armored units, air power, etc. as those are the major roles played on the battlefield. This is actually very simple and straightforward and everyone should understand this. No one talks about silly things like cross training, everyone talks about the big boxes you move around the battlefield—the major roles involved. Again, everyone should know this and understand this.

Except that MMO small group endeavors do not involve big boxes moved around the battlefield. At best, it mimics a squad, not an army, or even a platoon.

We are actually talking about combat and combat roles after all. That is precisely the deficiency with GW2.

OK, except we are talking about combat roles in a small group. While there are deficiencies in GW2 combat, lack of roles is not one of them — except insofar as the combats allow for flexible assumptions of roles and do not enforce static role assumption.

Small group/large group is an utterly useless distinction. Do you remember when I said scavenger hunts were conducted in a role-based manner. All human group activity when pursuing an objective is role-based. The size of the group is irrelevant. If combat in GW2 ignores this facet of human nature, it will suffer to the degree it does.

Bryzy.2719:

- Bad balancing + communist style gameplay = boring = loss of players
- If trinity was in place, player skill is still a key factor in winning pvp/wvw

I think this game has good balance, could be so much worse. It’s not easy you know, making these games. We need more challenges and harder content, that’s for sure… And player skill is a key factor right now.

Raine.1394:

Small group/large group is an utterly useless distinction. Do you remember when I said scavenger hunts were conducted in a role-based manner. All human group activity when pursuing an objective is role-based. The size of the group is irrelevant. If combat in GW2 ignores this facet of human nature, it will suffer to the degree it does.

What is relevant is the roles played by group members. A military ToO involving infantry, artillery and armor is not the same as an infantry squad. Yes, there are roles in both, but roles in an infantry squad are different from those across various branches of an army.

Your point is irrelevant because there are roles in GW2. They manifest differently from roles in trinity MMO’s. they are prepared for differently, and they are executed differently. Bottom line, some people just don’t like the way it’s been done. That’s their prerogative, but mid-identification of the problem is not going to help.

Raine.1394:

1. Never suggested I spoke for every human. Just me and a very small group at that.

2. People grouping ad hoc in various ways is not what we are talking about. In combat we talk about major roles like infantry, artillery, air power, etc. This is obvious in our experience and doesn’t really need to be defended.

3. So no, I’m not wrong as you have not demonstrated any way in which I am wrong. But thank you for the opportunity to continue this conversation.

4. In a battle of elite soldiers? How about an actual battle as I described with the initiation of the battle with Iraq. It was a battle described by roles because that’s the way we conceptualize combat. Obviously.

Not sure exactly what your contribution to the discussion is, but thank you for it!

Ok, let me take it back to the OP because debating random wars, doesnt seem that relevant in this case

Not everyone likes, or needs a trinity system or a required role system to solve battle problems. Not everyone wants to play those types of games, or feels like combat should always be about that. There are many ways players can work together.

Guild wars battle system is actually pretty good, and they should expand on its strengths instead of turning it into something else. Enemy design and encounters are a different issue.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raine.1394:

Small group/large group is an utterly useless distinction. Do you remember when I said scavenger hunts were conducted in a role-based manner. All human group activity when pursuing an objective is role-based. The size of the group is irrelevant. If combat in GW2 ignores this facet of human nature, it will suffer to the degree it does.

What is relevant is the roles played by group members. A military ToO involving infantry, artillery and armor is not the same as an infantry squad. Yes, there are roles in both, but roles in an infantry squad are different from those across various branches of an army.

Your point is irrelevant because there are roles in GW2. They manifest differently from roles in trinity MMO’s. they are prepared for differently, and they are executed differently. Bottom line, some people just don’t like the way it’s been done. That’s their prerogative, but mid-identification of the problem is not going to help.

This is where you are wrong. There are no meaningful roles in GW2. This in true without contradistinction. All roles are window dressing. Control? Give me a break…what control. Support? Well portals were pretty cool but seriously there is no serious support. Nice try, but no, sorry. You are simply wrong in your assertion. And, anyone playing the game knows this.

phys.7689:

Raine.1394:

1. Never suggested I spoke for every human. Just me and a very small group at that.

2. People grouping ad hoc in various ways is not what we are talking about. In combat we talk about major roles like infantry, artillery, air power, etc. This is obvious in our experience and doesn’t really need to be defended.

3. So no, I’m not wrong as you have not demonstrated any way in which I am wrong. But thank you for the opportunity to continue this conversation.

4. In a battle of elite soldiers? How about an actual battle as I described with the initiation of the battle with Iraq. It was a battle described by roles because that’s the way we conceptualize combat. Obviously.

Not sure exactly what your contribution to the discussion is, but thank you for it!

Ok, let me take it back to the OP because debating random wars, doesnt seem that relevant in this case

Not everyone likes, or needs a trinity system or a required role system to solve battle problems. Not everyone wants to play those types of games, or feels like combat should always be about that. There are many ways players can work together.

Guild wars battle system is actually pretty good, and they should expand on its strengths instead of turning it into something else. Enemy design and encounters are a different issue.

Who wants to debate a random war?=

I have no particular love for the trinity and obviously am not arguing for it. My issue is simply with the lack of meaningful combat roles.

And, if you were paying attention the GW2 battle “system” is pretty bad. That’s why we have all these threads. Debate a random war? Whatever does that mean?

Raine.1394:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raine.1394:

Small group/large group is an utterly useless distinction. Do you remember when I said scavenger hunts were conducted in a role-based manner. All human group activity when pursuing an objective is role-based. The size of the group is irrelevant. If combat in GW2 ignores this facet of human nature, it will suffer to the degree it does.

What is relevant is the roles played by group members. A military ToO involving infantry, artillery and armor is not the same as an infantry squad. Yes, there are roles in both, but roles in an infantry squad are different from those across various branches of an army.

Your point is irrelevant because there are roles in GW2. They manifest differently from roles in trinity MMO’s. they are prepared for differently, and they are executed differently. Bottom line, some people just don’t like the way it’s been done. That’s their prerogative, but mid-identification of the problem is not going to help.

This is where you are wrong. There are no meaningful roles in GW2. This in true without contradistinction. All roles are window dressing. Control? Give me a break…what control. Support? Well portals were pretty cool but seriously there is no serious support. Nice try, but no, sorry. You are simply wrong in your assertion. And, anyone playing the game knows this.

It’s not my fault that you (and some others) want to say that meaning must consist of the same old same old. As to “anyone playing the game,” ask the players who are actually using the GW2 roles their opinion. Or better yet, just look at posts and videos in this thread. Conventional wisdom is not all it’s cracked up to be. Dislike the way roles work in GW2 all you like, but anyone who plays the game well knows they’re there.

Raine.1394:

Who wants to debate a random war?=

I have no particular love for the trinity and obviously am not arguing for it. My issue is simply with the lack of meaningful combat roles.

And, if you were paying attention the GW2 battle “system” is pretty bad. That’s why we have all these threads. Debate a random war? Whatever does that mean?

you are conflating battle system with battle.
Basketball doesnt have a flawed system just because i play at the kiddie park.

the flaw in the system is that enemies, and encounters are designed too simply to make good use of the combat system.
The proof of this is by looking at the most difficult encounters, and looking at PVP that shows you what the battle system is capable of. And yes there are roles, and people play them based on what type of roles they want to play/be good at, and who they expect to be playing with.

What type of roles are you looking for?

I’m not looking for any given roles. Only appropriate meaningful roles.

But if we all take the zergling role, then there is no need for a trinity! Just brute force all the things!

To the original question: absolutely not. It is the trinity what bores me to death and to make a MMO game without it was a very good idea. There is a lot of trinity MMOs so possibility to play one without it is indeed a very welcome.
If you want an excellent trinity game, try TSW, if you must have a high fantasy setting, then AOC, even if the latter is rather an unlimited trial much like SWTOR, the failed attempt to imitate WOW

Dark Catalyst.1028:

But if we all take the zergling role, then there is no need for a trinity! Just brute force all the things!

There is no trinity in the real combat, and I think the clever strategist wins the battles not the brute force (although the brute force helps a lot). We are just used to trinity way too much.
The problem we may have here is that the enemies are still very much trinity like. Trinity typicaly works with a big and mighty boss which the tanks keeps busy while the dps kills it and healers keeps tank alive.
A no trinity game should rather support something like a numerous enemies of rather normal strength against a warband of players.

Fext.3614:

To the original question: absolutely not. It is the trinity what bores me to death and to make a MMO game without it was a very good idea. There is a lot of trinity MMOs so possibility to play one without it is indeed a very welcome.
If you want an excellent trinity game, try TSW, if you must have a high fantasy setting, then AOC, even if the latter is rather an unlimited trial much like SWTOR, the failed attempt to imitate WOW

or the new attempt to imitate WoW….Wildstar!

Mmmm.

If I’m playing an FPS, playing a Medic is much different experience than playing a Sniper. If I’m playing a MOBA, playing a Support is much different experience than playing a Carry. If I’m playing a trinity RPG, playing a Healer is much different experience than playing a Tank.

In GW2, if I change my armor traits and utilities from a glass cannon to a support, it’s the same experience. Sure, you have new tools with which to approach combat, and you can certainly use them. But without actually receiving new overarching goals and superstructure that delineates good and bad play, it fails to honestly recontextualize the experience or cause you to approach the same content from a different perspective.

It’s a very insincere representation of a role structure.
I can’t say it’s doing replayability many favors, so it’s understandable it might feel boring.

But, The Holy Trinity? Bah.
There’s no reason to limit yourself, you can make roles any old thing you want. Jungle, Mana Regen, Crowd Control, Off-tank, Leader, Scout. I can’t tell you how many of these things I’ve seen over the years.

Hmm. That’s very interesting Bryzy.
In my musing I find that I don’t necessarily want a strict holy trinity system to be implemented into GW2, but I also don’t want what has become standard in GW2: “DPS or go home”.
The game claims you have freedom to play whatever you want, but you don’t. I’ve found it is much harder to get event participation if you are built for aid and healing others, or if you are built to be a tanky distraction, or if you are built to focus on conditions. (Though it’s healers that have the hardest time for sure) It’s also really hard to be accepted into groups if you are arranged for one of those roles. Rare is the party that wants a tank and a healer with them, and yet when I do find a group with one healer, one tank, and 3 dps variety characters we succeed at challenges far better than any other arrangement.
We all know Anet is working on balancing berzerkers, and many have brought the conditions specialist concerns up (weak against objects). But what about the tanks and the healers out there? I don’t know how difficult it would be programming-wise, but I at least would find it wonderful if the engine could be adjusted to take into account the efforts of players who focus their time and their builds into helping other player characters. Whether that be endless direct healing, or through toughness enough to body block a threat from reaching a ranged dps character, or carefully weakening a foe so that damage focused players are even more effective. If the rewards were more equal across all the build combinations, then players really would be free to play what they want and to try out all sorts of different options.

phys.7689:

What type of roles are you looking for?

I think I would like to see more content that creates an opportunity for a (single)ranged DPS character to shine – a situation where the optimal strategies is a certain amount of kiting of the boss, but a critical switch/location that one character needs to stay near. that is about 900 for where the boss will be handled. A job any character can handle, but a ranged damage character can handle while still contributing some damage.

In the Fractals thread I suggested a boss encounter with the boss being closely followed around by 3 henchmen that have 100% retaliation uptime, but only refresh it about ever 20 seconds. This would create a reason to try to split the group up so that melee DPS doesn’t execute themselves cleaving into 3 retaliations, but also provides a clear role for boon removal/corruption to clear the retaliation either to single out and kill that henchman or to clear the way for AoE/cleave attack son the boss.

There are tools already in game. We just need to get the content designers to treat us as capable of carrying out plans slightly more intricate than “Hulk Smash!”

Vox Hollow.2736:

Mmmm.

If I’m playing an FPS, playing a Medic is much different experience than playing a Sniper. If I’m playing a MOBA, playing a Support is much different experience than playing a Carry. If I’m playing a trinity RPG, playing a Healer is much different experience than playing a Tank.

In GW2, if I change my armor traits and utilities from a glass cannon to a support, it’s the same experience. Sure, you have new tools with which to approach combat, and you can certainly use them. But without actually receiving new overarching goals and superstructure that delineates good and bad play, it fails to honestly recontextualize the experience or cause you to approach the same content from a different perspective.

You bring up “classes” in every game and than search for “roles” within a class in GW2? Seriously? At least make a fair comparisson. Build diversity sucks, but a lot of build is still viable. Not faster than zerker, but viable.

8 classes, 8 different way to approach combat and tiny differences in the classes themselves too.