Guild Wars 2

GW2 would be a much better game. Implementing this would allow for a much greater variety in pve encounters.

IMO this could be implemented several different ways…You could…

a) Add two new classes and call them Heavy and Priest or whatever names you fancy.

b) You could add new items…Add a new type of shield called “Super Shield” or “Kite Shield” and when you equip this weapon the skills you have are Gw2 interpretations of taunts and aggro holding abilities. It doesn’t even have to be a shield this is a fantasy game so a tank doesn’t need a shield just as long as there is an option to hold aggro I will be pleased. Same for healing add a fancy new type of 1H/2Hand weapon that gives the option to heal individual players with a dot or an AoE heal. As well as the option to remove conditions on players. And to compensate the notion that everyone will be mad that groups will now require the trinity you could make these two weapons available to every class so that everyone has the same opportunity to get into a group.

On a side note I wish they would allow larger groups to form for WvW purposes and world bosses but that’s just my two sense.

Ashen.2907:

Raine.1394:

What role would you say an infantryman plays in combat. I’m going out on a limb and say he’s probably going to do similar things to what other infantryman are doing. I’m going to guess he won’t be flying any planes or firing artillery. What I’m describing is a combat role.

Combat roles played by an infantryman:

Support
Tank
DPS
Controller

One infantryman might carry a SAW for target suppression.
Another might be equipped for anti-armor combat.
Another might be carrying standard combat load.
All of them might carry an entrenching tool.
Any of them has the potential to carry grenades.
Some might carry anti-aircraft weaponry.

The load-out of an individual infantryman will determine his, and his unit’s, combat role for a given mission.

Your example of not flying a plane is accurate, but those planes are filling similar roles to what infantry units do, just in different ways. They are suppressing enemy targets, destroying enemy targets, directing heavy hits to single tough targets, directing AoE onto targets dispersed over an area (or targets whose exact location is not known).

Role is about what an individual unit is expected to be able to accomplish, not necessarily the specifics of how they do so. Flying, in the case of military aircraft, is not the role. It is a tool that allows them to accomplish their assigned job/role which, as described above, is very similar to that of an infantry unit appropriately equipped.

I agree with what is stated here. A role is a function a unit on the field of battle fulfills. Most of us are talking about being able to fill different roles. In a battle, it is possible to have tank units, pure offense(zerker), healer(uh, healer), Scout(roamer in WvW), and many many roles. This is what I stated before as well: opening up roles to players. The current system is too static to do this though. To improve that, I think we should have more utility abilities for all classes(crafted after that class’s mechanics) and more openness with attribute scaling to allow people to speck without ‘caps’ into what they want. I doubt there is any build that would be broken with the caps removed, and removing them would exhibit faith in the player-base to balance itself while opening up diversity.

Ashen.2907:

Raine.1394:

What role would you say an infantryman plays in combat. I’m going out on a limb and say he’s probably going to do similar things to what other infantryman are doing. I’m going to guess he won’t be flying any planes or firing artillery. What I’m describing is a combat role.

Combat roles played by an infantryman:

Support
Tank
DPS
Controller

One infantryman might carry a SAW for target suppression.
Another might be equipped for anti-armor combat.
Another might be carrying standard combat load.
All of them might carry an entrenching tool.
Any of them has the potential to carry grenades.
Some might carry anti-aircraft weaponry.

The load-out of an individual infantryman will determine his, and his unit’s, combat role for a given mission.

Your example of not flying a plane is accurate, but those planes are filling similar roles to what infantry units do, just in different ways. They are suppressing enemy targets, destroying enemy targets, directing heavy hits to single tough targets, directing AoE onto targets dispersed over an area (or targets whose exact location is not known).

Role is about what an individual unit is expected to be able to accomplish, not necessarily the specifics of how they do so. Flying, in the case of military aircraft, is not the role. It is a tool that allows them to accomplish their assigned job/role which, as described above, is very similar to that of an infantry unit appropriately equipped.

You may have missed or failed to read my reply on your assertion that Infantry is not a combat role, but you are wrong. Go to the wiki and look up “Infantry”. Scan down the page to the section on “Combat Role”. Read the section. This is the combat role of the Infantry. The wiki is not alone in having this understanding. Google Infantry Combat Role—everyone understands that Infantry describes a combat role distinct from other roles.

So, while members of the Infantry can play many roles, every single one of them will be fulfilling the Infantry combat role. This role would be distinct from the other combat roles I delineated. I don’t understand what you are missing here, but you are wrong in your assertion that infantry does not describe a combat role.

And, I want to be clear that my point here is not that infantry describes a combat role—it obviously does. My point is that modern armies approach achieving objectives in groups through role specialization. It’s the same thing as you would see in a ad hoc group doing a scavenger hunt. The first order of business will be determining who is doing what. It’s simply the way humans approach achieving objectives in groups.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Solution-to-the-GW2-Trinity-Design-flaw/first#post3531471

I posted my suggestion for fixing GW2’s flawed Trinity system.
Check this out. post here as well.

In Guild Wars 2, the Trinity was supposed to be
Control/Support/Damage

Each part working together to win the PvE encounter.
Problem was the Overpowered way Control skills work, as well as the limited usefulness of Support skills, developed Damage into becoming the ultimate role in the game.

Well I have developed a solution to this. My goal is to make ALL THREE ROLES equally useful in the PvE encounters. So of course some changes would need to be made if this solution were to be used. I will try to explain them each.
====
~GENERAL~

Gauged Ultimate skills:
this is a timer , that once depleted will make the Defiant NPC more powerful, and unleashing powerful skills that can do lot more harm to players. There are different levels of Gauged Ultimates. As the timer depletes, if the mob’s HP isnt past a certain percentage, the Defiant unleashes an Ultimate.

======
~CONTROL~

Control, or CC as some call it, is a skill that disables or reduces/controls movement in some way.
Examples from the wiki
Daze
Fear
Float
Chilled
Knockback (Push)
Immobilized
Launch (Blowout)
Pull
Blind
Sink
Crippled
Stun
Petrified

The overpowerness of this comes when players make control builds in numbers. It risk NPC being locked out and becoming just a training dummy with large HP pool.

Unshakeable and Defiant was added to counter this, while the side-effect of this was the elimination of the Control role from the trinity.

My solution to this:

Add a new stat-line to the game called “AUTHORITY”. this stat would be found a new gear set made for Control role.

Defiant: (NPC Boon)
Defiant is a bit different now. Unshakeable is gone. Defiant doesnt make NPC immune to Control effects. But what it does do now is reduce all Control effect’s duration to 0. this is different from Immunity, since it still effects the target mob.

Authority: (New Stat)
this stat increases the duration of all Control skills on Defiant mobs by a Percentage of a second. More Authority equipped, the longer the duration of your CC will last on Defiant mobs.

Fortitude: (New Stat)
Reduces damage from Gauged Ultimate skills, as well as reduce damage from Defiant NPC by percentage.

Toughness:( stat)
Increase Armor, as well as reducing the duration of Control effects used against you.

Players that want to play a control role in the group, need to stack some Authority in their gear/trait build. This will allow their CC skills to have a duration on Defiant mobs, at the sacrifice of a bit of damage stats / damage skills.
Defiant NPC now have a Gauged Ultimate skills that they can use once timer goes down, that has some powerful effects. So group still needs to balance around both Control and Damage. Kill the Defiant NPC before the Gauged Ultimate goes off, while controlling the fight well before the Gauged Ultimate goes off, otherwise NPC will do major damage to players and groups. Players can build up a more defensive control build that is a hybrid of Fortitude and Authority to control the fight as well as resist against mobs of power.

====

~DAMAGE~

Damage role is vital for the group, when it comes beating down a Defiant before Gauged Ultimate timer depletes. But Damage dealers will rely on Control players and Support players to to stay up and max effectiveness during the fight and between Gauged Ultimates.

=====

~SUPPORT~

Deals with maintaining a healthy, and powerful group. Specializes in:
Healing, Rezzing, Booning, Cleansing, weakening.

Some changes made.

Healing Power: (stat)
Effects all sources of healing similar to current system.

Rejuvenation: (New Stat)
Increase the healing effect of Regeneration, and reduces the revival time of down and defeated allies by a percentage.

Wisdom: (New Stat)
Increases the duration of Boons by a percentage of a second.

Support players will be a major part of a group, and helps enhance both damage and control players in the group.

=====

(continued)

===

~HYBRID~

Since these new stat changes are built around players making builds and gear to fit their build.
Players can also spec into hybrid gear/build roles, to apply their effect to the needed role.

example. a Player may want to be a combo of Control/Support. They can stack Fortitude/Authority/Rejuvenation and help prevent Defiant from getting to their group for shorter durations than Full Control build players, but can also toss some good regenerations on allies when they need it. Or they could have stacked some
Fortitude/Authority/Power/Wisdom/Toughness, and make a control build that would be all about doing damage to the target while keeping Defiant mobs away from allies, with more defense, at the sacrifice of better damage or better healing.

There are so many ways to combine stat builds, as well as skill builds using this system to keep things unique and interesting.

but Damage would no longer be a role that is most important. Other Stats and other roles are more important in this system to make it so that everybody has a role in the battle. This could lead to some interesting battle fights.

Should my team take 3 control players 1 Damage player, and 1 Support player at the risk of less damage (more Gauged Ultimates in the fight) but less damage in between Ulitimates.

Or should we bring 1 Control player, 3 damage, 1 Support player, in which the control player helps control the Defiant, with Damage players bursting down NPC HP before Ultimate goes off, with the Support player keeping the Damage players up and active as they will be taking more damage.

Or we can make a 2 support player, 2 damage player, 1 control player, into the fight, less CC, but with 2 support players we should be able to negate the Ultimate a bit from the less damage.

Or 2 support players and 3 Damage players, damage down the Defiant, before Ultimates go off, while two support help keep the party up and active, while enhancing boons to improve the damage players.

so many ways to form a party. Risk and Reward.

While I personally liked the trinity setup, the game of guild wars 2 as it stands does not need it. What is needed is for classes that are looked at as “blacksheep” need to be brought up to par with the heavy hitter classes. Classes such as Ranger and Necro are typically not classes that anyone thinks of when thinking of “useful” in a dungeon setting and the like. I think that both of these classes are weak in their support/control roles.
There shouldn’t be such a difference in damage between these classes and the zerker(warrior,guardian,mesmer). At most there should be around a 30-35% difference in damage between these classes. I have seen my warrior(zerk) hit for over 28,000 damage on dungeon bosses and there is now way my ranger or necro can do even half of that, more likely 25% tops. I enjoy my ranger, but its hard to play in fractals/dungeons because nobody “really” wants a ranger or necro because either they cant control pets or have seriously sub-par damage and support.

Just my thoughts.

Raine.1394:

Ashen.2907:

Raine.1394:

What role would you say an infantryman plays in combat. I’m going out on a limb and say he’s probably going to do similar things to what other infantryman are doing. I’m going to guess he won’t be flying any planes or firing artillery. What I’m describing is a combat role.

Combat roles played by an infantryman:

Support
Tank
DPS
Controller

One infantryman might carry a SAW for target suppression.
Another might be equipped for anti-armor combat.
Another might be carrying standard combat load.
All of them might carry an entrenching tool.
Any of them has the potential to carry grenades.
Some might carry anti-aircraft weaponry.

The load-out of an individual infantryman will determine his, and his unit’s, combat role for a given mission.

Your example of not flying a plane is accurate, but those planes are filling similar roles to what infantry units do, just in different ways. They are suppressing enemy targets, destroying enemy targets, directing heavy hits to single tough targets, directing AoE onto targets dispersed over an area (or targets whose exact location is not known).

Role is about what an individual unit is expected to be able to accomplish, not necessarily the specifics of how they do so. Flying, in the case of military aircraft, is not the role. It is a tool that allows them to accomplish their assigned job/role which, as described above, is very similar to that of an infantry unit appropriately equipped.

You may have missed or failed to read my reply on your assertion that Infantry is not a combat role, but you are wrong. Go to the wiki and look up “Infantry”. Scan down the page to the section on “Combat Role”. Read the section. This is the combat role of the Infantry. The wiki is not alone in having this understanding. Google Infantry Combat Role—everyone understands that Infantry describes a combat role distinct from other roles.

So, while members of the Infantry can play many roles, every single one of them will be fulfilling the Infantry combat role. This role would be distinct from the other combat roles I delineated. I don’t understand what you are missing here, but you are wrong in your assertion that infantry does not describe a combat role.

And, I want to be clear that my point here is not that infantry describes a combat role—it obviously does. My point is that modern armies approach achieving objectives in groups through role specialization. It’s the same thing as you would see in a ad hoc group doing a scavenger hunt. The first order of business will be determining who is doing what. It’s simply the way humans approach achieving objectives in groups.

Role is defined as a function performed. What function is “infantry ?”

You are mistaken about, “modern armies approach achieving objectives in groups through role specialization.” The trend in modern military is towards multi-purposing, cross training, multi-function, and multi-role.

To be honest I find it odd that you would speak of specialization while defining essentially every battlefield function as a single role.

George Steel.1804:

Harper.4173:

Mochann.5298:

Hekdragoon.1972:

Guardians everywhere, since they can more or less do the 3 roles

Having Trinity officially in the game would force a total revamp of the entire system, so Guardian as we know it today would be different.

I think having “no trinity” is the stupidest design choice Anet made among many bad choices, but that’s just me.

And your opinion is just that – an opinion.
Why would they make their game exactly like all the trinity games out there?!

Because well, one famous trinity-based game has been around for like 10 years – with more players SUBSCRIBED then have only PURCHASED GW2. It’s a model that works in the long run.

GW2 was great. But now that we’re in the aging process of the game, the system in place just isn’t cutting it. I’m bored..

Bored? Maybe move on and find something else that’s new and exciting.

WoW worked as a model because WOW is aimed at that specific segment of the buyers.
Most of the people that are playing GW2 are doing it because they’re NOT part of that segment.
Most of the WOW-bots are playing WoW or some clone of WoW ( and we all know there are enough of those).
WoW and its clones do their model very well – to attempt to emulate them and beat them at their own game is silly – and counterproductive – considering GW2’s success is attributed mostly to rallying those who dislike the wow-type monthly payment/ gear grind/ trinity ( classic MMORPG traits) issues.

It would be awesome. But that’s just how I feel.

VOLKON.1290:

Body blocking worked well in GuildWars, but this is GuildWars 2 and it really wouldn’t work here.

IIRC you didn’t bodyblock friendly characters.

i felt the game has a trinity its called Warrior Mesmer Guardian

but all go zerker since we are in hurry

but serious i dont like the idea of pure trinity, Its good like it is now just the bosses are to easy to force ppl to even think about doin anything else then zerking the boss down.

The simplest way to think of it is this… if GW2 had the trinity then fights like the Marionette wouldn’t exist. Trinity combat all breaks down to the same script – tank taunts, healer focuses on the tank, every now and then throw a twist at the dps so they don’t fall asleep. Without the trinity we can have fights like this where we divide into five groups which further get divided into five groups which all have to work together successfully in order to favorably progress the fight. There’s a randomness that defies a set script so you need to be on your toes and pay attention.

Volkon and Balsa before me said it all. I think people want trinity because that’s what they know and that’s what they’re used to. There is a whole world of creativity out there.

I don’t mean to say ANet has nailed this “whole other world” completely yet. There are flaws in their system today, yes. But the traditional trinity on this game would be bad. GW2 is different and it should continue to be that way.

Idk. I’m not gonna sit here and qq over where an MMO should go. If GW2 fails, well, then it fails. Not my problem. I just move on to the next MMO.

Ashen.2907:

Role is defined as a function performed. What function is “infantry ?”

You are mistaken about, “modern armies approach achieving objectives in groups through role specialization.” The trend in modern military is towards multi-purposing, cross training, multi-function, and multi-role.

To be honest I find it odd that you would speak of specialization while defining essentially every battlefield function as a single role.

Ah, I see you didn’t read the definition of the “combat role” of the infantry I suggested as you are still denying the infantry has a combat role. Let me get that for you:

“Infantry
Combat role

As a branch of the armed forces, the role of the infantry in warfare is to engage, fight, and kill the enemy at close range — using either a firearm (rifle, pistol, machine gun), an edged-weapon (knife, bayonet), or bare hands (close quarters combat) — as required by the mission to hand; thus
20th-century infantry: Australian infantry at Tobruk, Libya, in 1941, during the Second World War (1939–45).

in the Australian Army and New Zealand Army the role of the infantry is “to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize or hold ground, to repel attack, by day or night, regardless of season, weather or terrain”.²
in the Canadian Army, the role of the infantry is “to close with, and destroy the enemy”.³⁴
in the U.S. Army, the “infantry closes with the enemy, by means of fire and maneuver, in order to destroy or capture him, or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack”.⁵
in the U.S. Marine Corps, the role of the infantry is to “locate, close with, and destroy the enemy with fire and maneuver, and to repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat”.⁶

Beginning with the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century, artillery has become an increasingly dominant force on the battlefield. Since World War I, combat aircraft and armoured vehicles have also become dominant. However, the most effective method for locating all enemy forces on a battlefield is still the infantry patrol, and it is the presence or absence of infantry that ultimately determines whether a particular piece of ground has been captured or held. In 20th and 21st century warfare, infantry functions most effectively as part of a combined arms team including artillery, armour, and combat aircraft. Studies have shown that of all casualties, 50% or more were caused by artillery; about 10% were caused by machine guns; 2%-5% by rifle fire; and 1% or less by hand grenades, bayonets, knives, and unarmed combat combined"

You’ll probably notice the mention of other roles like artillery, and armored units in the discussion of the infantry’s role over time. Along with air power, etc. modern warfare is executed though a combination of combat roles. The last major exercise of our military in full was the gulf war. You may have seen briefings by Gen Schwarzkopf where he went over diagrams showing armored units, artillery, air power, special forces, all being deployed to perform different roles but coordinated in such a way that objectives would be achieved. That’s the way most groups achieve objectives, through role specialization.

The original GW made a great compromise between the holy trinity and the mess we currently have in GW2.

There was healing, but mitigating damage was more important than making red bars go up. There was tanking, but it involved body blocking and use of control skills. Oh, and support was actually worth a kitten . If you were a Necromancer in a melee oriented group you’d take things to boost your teammates damage such as Mark of Pain, Order of Pain, Barbs etc. Support in GW2 feels so generic and involves seemingly little to no thought.

Taunt skills are the main reason why I hate the holy trinity. I mean, MMO mob A.I is bad enough, yet developers feel the need to give players a tool to abuse it even further.

Just look at it from a boss perspective: You’d love nothing more than to strangle that squishy guy that’s keeping everyone alive, but you can’t because this heavily armored kitten in front of you keeps saying something about your mother.

Tru Reptile.6058:

The original GW made a great compromise between the holy trinity and the mess we currently have in GW2.

There was healing, but mitigating damage was more important than making red bars go up. There was tanking, but it involved body blocking and use of control skills. Oh, and support was actually worth a kitten . If you were a Necromancer in a melee oriented group you’d take things to boost your teammates damage such as Mark of Pain, Order of Pain, Barbs etc. Support in GW2 feels so generic and involves seemingly little to no thought.

Taunt skills are the main reason why I hate the holy trinity. I mean, MMO mob A.I is bad enough, yet developers feel the need to give players a tool to abuse it even further.

Just look at it from a boss perspective: You’d love nothing more than to strangle that squishy guy that’s keeping everyone alive, but you can’t because this heavily armored kitten in front of you keeps saying something about your mother.

It’s interesting that you take issue with the taunt. I like looking for analogues to something in the human experience and find only weak analogues to various combat strategies such as luring an opponent into a desired position. Yeah, I would be happy to see the tank go.

My only complaint is that the absence of any meaningful role beyond DPS leads to a mind-numbing stack and wail monotony, and, of course, the zerker meta. My experience of the trinity is one of pretty intricate strategy and execution. The only scripted aspect to it was that it was complex enough that you needed things like interrupt lists. GW2 combat is actually rather dull in comparison. I don’t feel the trinity is necessary, but I think we need meaningful combat roles beyond DPS. And, I don’t even think it needs to be set roles—it could just as easily be what you described with the Necro providing something unique to the team given it’s composition. But it needs to be meaningful. Everything right now that comes under support and control feels insignificant in PvE.

Raine.1394:

Ah, I see you didn’t read the definition of the “combat role” of the infantry I suggested as you are still denying the infantry has a combat role.

I did read it. Didn’t need to (I joined in ’87, you ?).

I don’t deny that infantry has a combat role. I denied that infantry is a role in any sense applicable to this discussion. The difference is pretty significant. Technically, for what it is worth, infantry has multiple combat roles.

By your logic WoW characters all have the same combat role…infantry. GW2 provides the same number of combat roles as does WoW then.

Again, the trend is away from specialization, has been for decades.

Ashen.2907:

Raine.1394:

Ah, I see you didn’t read the definition of the “combat role” of the infantry I suggested as you are still denying the infantry has a combat role.

I did read it. Didn’t need to (I joined in ’87, you ?).

I don’t deny that infantry has a combat role. I denied that infantry is a role in any sense applicable to this discussion. The difference is pretty significant. Technically, for what it is worth, infantry has multiple combat roles.

By your logic WoW characters all have the same combat role…infantry. GW2 provides the same number of combat roles as does WoW then.

Again, the trend is away from specialization, has been for decades.

Glad to see you are coming around to understanding roles and how they function in combat. Infantry, or artillery, are very high level roles. And, I wouldn’t say that Infantry has multiple roles; functionally, it has a multitude of roles that members play. They all role up to “Infantry”, what we often think of as boots on the ground.

Generally, when we plan execution from the strategy level we are thinking of roles like artillery or air or Infantry because those are the big blocks we are moving around the battlefield. Perhaps thousands of other roles come into play as we move down in levels of detail.

All this simply shows what I have been saying all along. When human in groups are pursuing an objective, the organization and execution will typically be role-based. And, it doesn’t matter whether it takes place on a football field, a battlefield, or an operating room. It’s just the way humans typically do it.

With a trinity system I think half the playerbase would feel completely alienated from the content, and far less people would actually experience what the devs produce.

There is no other game like GW2 where you can have a hundred people working together to bring down a boss, and that’s because everyone feels like they can participate without the anxiety of being expected to fulfill a certain role. Sure, its not always clear what the individual impact of my actions is during a fight, but at least I can participate.

The only thing that needs work is ANet creating challenging yet satisfying content that players can feel a strong sense of participation and that they made a difference. The marionette fight is cool because you work together and rely on each other, and rewards are tiered so you feel progression even if you didn’t succeed right away.

Also more on topic, I think there is a kind of trinity system already except it works on an individual basis. At some times being tankier is more of an advantage to being pure damage, or speccing into a more support/heal role is beneficial to the team as a whole. Its actually a very similar system to GW1, except without the ability to bodyblock you can’t force mobs to attack you.

VOLKON.1290:

The simplest way to think of it is this… if GW2 had the trinity then fights like the Marionette wouldn’t exist. Trinity combat all breaks down to the same script – tank taunts, healer focuses on the tank, every now and then throw a twist at the dps so they don’t fall asleep. Without the trinity we can have fights like this where we divide into five groups which further get divided into five groups which all have to work together successfully in order to favorably progress the fight. There’s a randomness that defies a set script so you need to be on your toes and pay attention.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

In fact I think that the devs of GW2 are quite limited in the amount of mechanics that they can introduce to fights because of all the chaos that their PvE group combat engenders. You can’t really reproduce the unique encounter mechanics that games like WoW or FFXIV have and that makes every boss feel unique and different if the fights are random and uncontrollable.

I play a tank in another MMO and I’m doing far more than just sitting in front of a boss and trading blows like an idiot, and I hate to say this but the fights have WAY more interesting mechanics than most of GW2’s PvE encounters. If a MMO has tanks sit in front of bosses and healers spam heals in the back all the time, it’s a problem with that MMO’s developers or game engine, not with the trinity. The trinity can do every fight a DPS-only design can do, and it usually does it better too because it allows people with more defensive-oriented playstyles to play their way and feel useful.

GW2 desperately needs a new PvE model. It doesn’t have to be the trinity (and it probably wouldn’t be) but things need to change. DPS/Control/Support anyone?

We seriously need a CDI on dungeons, fractals and instanced PvE…

Bearhugger.4326:

You can’t really reproduce the unique encounter mechanics that games like WoW or FFXIV have and that makes every boss feel unique and different if the fights are random and uncontrollable.

I stopped reading right there. World of Warcraft is the best game I have ever played in my life. Yes, GW2 is working its way there for me, but it still has some steps to climb (and it is currently climbing in the right direction, let’s wait and see).

But I will continue to be the forum “troll” or the forum boring guy who will always come here and say: Guild Wars 2 is not WoW, neither Final Fantasy, neither Lineage…". This is it. Creativity. ANet is trying to work something out of the traditional trinity. OUT!

Bearhugger.4326:

VOLKON.1290:

The simplest way to think of it is this… if GW2 had the trinity then fights like the Marionette wouldn’t exist. Trinity combat all breaks down to the same script – tank taunts, healer focuses on the tank, every now and then throw a twist at the dps so they don’t fall asleep. Without the trinity we can have fights like this where we divide into five groups which further get divided into five groups which all have to work together successfully in order to favorably progress the fight. There’s a randomness that defies a set script so you need to be on your toes and pay attention.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

In fact I think that the devs of GW2 are quite limited in the amount of mechanics that they can introduce to fights because of all the chaos that their PvE group combat engenders. You can’t really reproduce the unique encounter mechanics that games like WoW or FFXIV have and that makes every boss feel unique and different if the fights are random and uncontrollable.

I play a tank in another MMO and I’m doing far more than just sitting in front of a boss and trading blows like an idiot, and I hate to say this but the fights have WAY more interesting mechanics than most of GW2’s PvE encounters. If a MMO has tanks sit in front of bosses and healers spam heals in the back all the time, it’s a problem with that MMO’s developers or game engine, not with the trinity. The trinity can do every fight a DPS-only design can do, and it usually does it better too because it allows people with more defensive-oriented playstyles to play their way and feel useful.

GW2 desperately needs a new PvE model. It doesn’t have to be the trinity (and it probably wouldn’t be) but things need to change. DPS/Control/Support anyone?

We seriously need a CDI on dungeons, fractals and instanced PvE…

I tanked for years in WoW, both main and off tank. You’re forced to build encounters such that you account for one or two tanks based on the size of the party, a certain number of expected healers and then you calculate the rest based on a certain level of dps from everyone else. That is ridiculously limiting.

The Marionette fight as it stands now simply wouldn’t be anywhere near as fun or engaging if there was a trinity system in place. Look at the opening phases… stop the mobs from reaching the portal. Without a trinity everyone has to do their share to slow down and take down the mobs as well as look to help keep your people in your lane up and active. With a trinity you’d need two tanks per lane, one front and one back, with a healer for each tank and enough dps spread out to burn the mobs down. The mobs would get caught in a taunt and forget about hitting the portal, which poops on that mechanic. Then you have the portal/platform phase itself. You’re spread out randomly onto the five platforms each with a champion of it’s own… good luck with a trinity system there. Even if you forced it to work that’s five tanks and five healers plus three dps per platform or you fail.

The trinity forces content into a very narrow range of possibilities with little to no flexibility. You must have n tank(s), you must have n healer(s) and the rest will be dps with a required dps average of a certain value or you fail. That eliminates fights like the Marionette, Tequatl, the Wurms, etc from ever being designed. It results in combat by script with a set cast of actors, and if you forget your lines you fail.

It would be better than it is now, but worse than it could be if it fixed its PvE content to properly complement the no-trinity or soft-trinity that it currently uses.

Knighthonor.4061:

If GW2 had a traditional Trinity system, what would the game be like?

A traditional MMO.

Thank the gaming gods it hasn’t! GW2 has a new and improved trinity: Damage, Control, Support. A far superior, more flexible and more complex system. A system that requires a lot more team coordination to really shine. But on a more negative note, a system that requires a better AI system than the one that currently exists. But overall, GW2’s trinity is a great system and I doubt I would continue playing it if it went all traditional on us.

Carbisari.2716:

In Anet’s attempt to get away from the trinity, they only managed to make everyone be DPS.

Man, I’d love playing a defensive-ish warrior type, but it’s not “optimized” and “slows down everyone and is a detriment to the party.” :<

There are other titles which have recently been released that have a great trinity lite system where it’s not forced on players but even tanks do respectable damage. They have three paths to follow to give alot of choices on what to do with the class and dungeons/events don’t require any particular class/spec/role however when you have the right roles together it becomes a beauty in motion.

I’ve asked for trinity lite since this game launched because it wouldn’t force anyone but would give those teams who do like roles the ability to run as we’d like AND it would solve the “everyone must be burst DPS” nonsense that their current system requires.

bwillb.2165:

timidobserver.7925:

Balancing would be easier, so some nerfs wouldn’t be necessary.

I’d think balancing tanks vs dps vs healers would be harder than balancing dps with support skills vs dps with support skills. WoW’s “hybrid tax” comes to mind.

In my time playing WoW it was almost always more balanced that GW2 has been at any point since I’ve been playing it. I like GW2, but they are failing at balancing.

Rin.1046:

GW2 has a new and improved trinity: Damage, Control, Support. A far superior, more flexible and more complex system. A system that requires a lot more team coordination to really shine.

orly

I can summarize the whole thing up right here…

It comes down to PURPOSE. What is YOUR purpose? In tackling this challenge? [be it a big boss, or a group of other players?] In a trinity or (ideally a trinity with sub trinities) Everyone has a unique role and purpose. We get to all feel like magical snowflakes of uniqueness because it creates the mentality of I’m THIS GUY….and I do THIS really well. It creates a feeling like the top picture

What we have now is this…where everyone is the same and capable of the same things, so everyone is just another body. The feeling, described by the bottom picture

Now…think about this for a second. Would you rather be a character in the above? or below? Just another body with a different face…watered down uniqueness, everyone is the dps, everyones the tank, everyones the healer, no one is the hero.

Or a situation where everyone IS there own hero at what they do?

Boom. Your minds have been blown.

It would probably be like every other MMO I have played.

Enter PVP match, check team for healers, do we have healers? If yes = good let’s play, if no, check opposition for healers, if no = good let’s play, if yes = exit match and restart the process.

Thats simply when you decide to require SpvP to have at least 1 healer per team of 5 into the que for each team before its allowed to progress.

Slightly higher que times for proper fights are something most people would embrace.

Ques times too long for you? Roll a healer.
Ques times acceptable for you to wait to have a balanced experience? Good.

Its no problem at all that can’t be fixed by a simple solution.

^ the problem is what if I don’t like being a healer?

The fights really aren’t proper in a trinity based system to be honest, neither in the logical nor mechanical sense. If I was the enemy, I would go straight for the healer or at least wipe a few squishy DPS, not the guy in bulky metal armor which I can barely land a scratch on.

In a mechanical sense you are pigeonholed into doing this one role. resulting in simplistic fights which you only need to think of one aspect of it. I don’t care about keeping up my DPS as a tank, I don’t care about health management as a DPS, because if I am, it means the other people aren’t doing their jobs properly.

Also, because the system is there, you need to base any and all encounters on it. Because its so rigid, you end up massively restricting what you can make.

This added onto the infamous problem of sometimes waiting longer in a queue than actually playing the game, I would go as far as to say that the trinity is the plague of MMORPGs. GW2 hasn’t come up with a perfect system to replace it, but I can understand that, its the first AAA MMO I played which has tried, and personally for me, just it not being there is a great improvement already.

Bearhugger.4326:

VOLKON.1290:

The simplest way to think of it is this… if GW2 had the trinity then fights like the Marionette wouldn’t exist. Trinity combat all breaks down to the same script – tank taunts, healer focuses on the tank, every now and then throw a twist at the dps so they don’t fall asleep. Without the trinity we can have fights like this where we divide into five groups which further get divided into five groups which all have to work together successfully in order to favorably progress the fight. There’s a randomness that defies a set script so you need to be on your toes and pay attention.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

In fact I think that the devs of GW2 are quite limited in the amount of mechanics that they can introduce to fights because of all the chaos that their PvE group combat engenders. You can’t really reproduce the unique encounter mechanics that games like WoW or FFXIV have and that makes every boss feel unique and different if the fights are random and uncontrollable.

I play a tank in another MMO and I’m doing far more than just sitting in front of a boss and trading blows like an idiot, and I hate to say this but the fights have WAY more interesting mechanics than most of GW2’s PvE encounters. If a MMO has tanks sit in front of bosses and healers spam heals in the back all the time, it’s a problem with that MMO’s developers or game engine, not with the trinity. The trinity can do every fight a DPS-only design can do, and it usually does it better too because it allows people with more defensive-oriented playstyles to play their way and feel useful.

GW2 desperately needs a new PvE model. It doesn’t have to be the trinity (and it probably wouldn’t be) but things need to change. DPS/Control/Support anyone?

We seriously need a CDI on dungeons, fractals and instanced PvE…

Agreed. I actually don’t believe he has played a trinity game. His post is an extended non-sequitur.

I honestly found the aggro mechanics in GW1 to be great, and a nice way of breaking down the classic trinity with out throwing it away completely. I have no problem with the idea of GW2 making self support completely viable as an OPTION instead of having dedicated support required, but they went too far in that direction in my opinion. The biggest problem with GW2’s current system is that you don’t need to gear or trait for self support, I think being able to do that reliably should require a sacrifice of offensive capability, and a dedicated party support build should be much more efficient. I think if you got the balance right it would be much better than what we have now. I think what I’m describing is actually what they were aiming for, but they erred too far in the direction of solo player empowerment with not enough specialization/sacrifice required to be self sufficient.

Of course, they’d really need to get rid of the stupid trait refund mechanics and give us loadable builds to make something like that truly viable.

Rehk.6574:

I can summarize the whole thing up right here…

It comes down to PURPOSE. What is YOUR purpose? In tackling this challenge? [be it a big boss, or a group of other players?] In a trinity or (ideally a trinity with sub trinities) Everyone has a unique role and purpose. We get to all feel like magical snowflakes of uniqueness because it creates the mentality of I’m THIS GUY….and I do THIS really well. It creates a feeling like the top picture

What we have now is this…where everyone is the same and capable of the same things, so everyone is just another body. The feeling, described by the bottom picture

Now…think about this for a second. Would you rather be a character in the above? or below? Just another body with a different face…watered down uniqueness, everyone is the dps, everyones the tank, everyones the healer, no one is the hero.

Or a situation where everyone IS there own hero at what they do?

Boom. Your minds have been blown.

Because mashing the same buttons and doing the same role as tank or healer make for such an interesting game.

Xae Isareth.1364:

^ the problem is what if I don’t like being a healer?

The fights really aren’t proper in a trinity based system to be honest, neither in the logical nor mechanical sense. If I was the enemy, I would go straight for the healer or at least wipe a few squishy DPS, not the guy in bulky metal armor which I can barely land a scratch on.

In a mechanical sense you are pigeonholed into doing this one role. resulting in simplistic fights which you only need to think of one aspect of it. I don’t care about keeping up my DPS as a tank, I don’t care about health management as a DPS, because if I am, it means the other people aren’t doing their jobs properly.

Also, because the system is there, you need to base any and all encounters on it. Because its so rigid, you end up massively restricting what you can make.

This added onto the infamous problem of sometimes waiting longer in a queue than actually playing the game, I would go as far as to say that the trinity is the plague of MMORPGs. GW2 hasn’t come up with a perfect system to replace it, but I can understand that, its the first AAA MMO I played which has tried, and personally for me, just it not being there is a great improvement already.

Someone that gets it.
+1 to you sir.

I can but chuckle and grin at the ignorant masses thinking trinity a bad concept through and through .
Welcome to soft trinity, aka L2GW1.

Xae Isareth.1364:

^ the problem is what if I don’t like being a healer?

The fights really aren’t proper in a trinity based system to be honest, neither in the logical nor mechanical sense. If I was the enemy, I would go straight for the healer or at least wipe a few squishy DPS, not the guy in bulky metal armor which I can barely land a scratch on.

In a mechanical sense you are pigeonholed into doing this one role. resulting in simplistic fights which you only need to think of one aspect of it. I don’t care about keeping up my DPS as a tank, I don’t care about health management as a DPS, because if I am, it means the other people aren’t doing their jobs properly.

Also, because the system is there, you need to base any and all encounters on it. Because its so rigid, you end up massively restricting what you can make.

This added onto the infamous problem of sometimes waiting longer in a queue than actually playing the game, I would go as far as to say that the trinity is the plague of MMORPGs. GW2 hasn’t come up with a perfect system to replace it, but I can understand that, its the first AAA MMO I played which has tried, and personally for me, just it not being there is a great improvement already.

Yep I agree. For me MMOs with a trinity actually feels simplistic and the fights follow a rigid strategy. Boring.

Raine.1394:

Bearhugger.4326:

VOLKON.1290:

The simplest way to think of it is this… if GW2 had the trinity then fights like the Marionette wouldn’t exist. Trinity combat all breaks down to the same script – tank taunts, healer focuses on the tank, every now and then throw a twist at the dps so they don’t fall asleep. Without the trinity we can have fights like this where we divide into five groups which further get divided into five groups which all have to work together successfully in order to favorably progress the fight. There’s a randomness that defies a set script so you need to be on your toes and pay attention.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

In fact I think that the devs of GW2 are quite limited in the amount of mechanics that they can introduce to fights because of all the chaos that their PvE group combat engenders. You can’t really reproduce the unique encounter mechanics that games like WoW or FFXIV have and that makes every boss feel unique and different if the fights are random and uncontrollable.

I play a tank in another MMO and I’m doing far more than just sitting in front of a boss and trading blows like an idiot, and I hate to say this but the fights have WAY more interesting mechanics than most of GW2’s PvE encounters. If a MMO has tanks sit in front of bosses and healers spam heals in the back all the time, it’s a problem with that MMO’s developers or game engine, not with the trinity. The trinity can do every fight a DPS-only design can do, and it usually does it better too because it allows people with more defensive-oriented playstyles to play their way and feel useful.

GW2 desperately needs a new PvE model. It doesn’t have to be the trinity (and it probably wouldn’t be) but things need to change. DPS/Control/Support anyone?

We seriously need a CDI on dungeons, fractals and instanced PvE…

Agreed. I actually don’t believe he has played a trinity game. His post is an extended non-sequitur.

The years I spend in WoW raiding as both tank and dps would tend to disagree with you a bit. Seriously, how would a fight like the Marionette fight work in a trinity based system? You’d have to change it dramatically. You’d be forced to somehow make sure a tank and healer were available for and put on every platform, or you’d have to get rid of the platforms and have the entire lane fight a single boss. You could not have a fight like the Marionette. Since you’ve been kind enough to accuse me of drifting into the warm and fuzzy realm of non-sequitur why don’t you extend that kindness and tell us all how you could design the Marionette fight, as much as it is as possible, with a trinity based combat system. Please, enlighten us.

It would be Neverwinter.

It would be a slap in the face, as this was one of the major selling points of the game. As well as the promise of there being no “gear grind”…. So much for that…

Rehk.6574:

---

snipped everything since it’s a reply to the attached image—-

It always makes me giggle when marvel artist do those kind of fight scenes and include any Omega level mutant. The only way that team loses is if the Omega is holding back.

Trinity is old and with constant increase in technology and quality of games it should be replaced by something new. A mob should not target a guy it can not kill (tank) but rather the one that is keeping the tank alive (healer). Than DPS guy and tank the last. Or when mob is protecting something it should focus on the person trying to steal/destroy it rather than the guy facetanking him.

If you ask me, there is only one way to go. Have no calsses, no restrictions. Have players choose their weapons from all existing weapons, have them choose if they want spells, heals, leather or heavy armor. Total, unrestricted customization. Say you use GW2 mechanics as an example, meaning you have 10 skill slots and posibility to switch between them out of combat. One handed sword has 50 possible skills in total. You equip one handed sword and equip the most powerfull attack the sword has into first slot, than equip only self heals in the 9 other slots. Or no sword and spells and heals only, or greatsword and 10 skill related only to it. This way, you can create everything. You can create roles such as tank, DPS or healer and at the same time you can be a guy that can get through anything on his own. Those for trinity would get it and those against it would not care about those who want roles. You could find anything in the LFG system at any time. I know this would create some builds that would be very powerful but it could be prevented or taken care of by very precise balance control.

If GW2 had trinity it would be the same as many other games out there. It is good the game goes its own way.

It still amazes me, the game has no trinity (the original one – DPS, tank, healer) and it was going to be always that way. It has been advertised that way and people still goes and buys the game and complain it has no trinity and demands it (yes, some of you demands it). Play the game the way it is or play something else, is it that hard?

The gameplay isn´t broken as a lot of people suggests, it is just different and you do not like it. That doesn´t mean it is bad or good either. It is just that…different, different than you are used to. Deal with it. Like it or not. Play it or not. The choice is yours. Who are you to say that the game would be better for EVERYONE if it had trinity? It would be better for you and for some other people but not for EVERYONE. EVERYTHING is subjective and as soon as people realize it the better. One likes blue color the other red color. Which color is better? Neither and both at the same time. Neither of the gentlemen is better than the other because he likes his color.

And what if the so called, mythical, majority wants it different? Does it mean there can not be games for minorities at all?

It is not your game, the devs decides what will be in it. Thay can listen to you, the do not have to. Accept it, have suggestions, learn to live with the possibility that it will not be implemented and cherish the moments it is considered as an option.

“Glf 1 more healer only…”

KarlaGrey.5903:

Rin.1046:

GW2 has a new and improved trinity: Damage, Control, Support. A far superior, more flexible and more complex system. A system that requires a lot more team coordination to really shine.

orly

Yes, really. Not only does the team need to coordinate thier crowd control, but they also need to think about their own survival and the survival of the other team members. A good, coordinated, group can dominate a larger group in WvW if played right. And to do this you need to have a lot more on your mind than simply healing your allies and keeping out of harms way. Or grabbing agro and keeping it.

The old trinity had its complexities, but it split those tasks (complexities) up between the different members of the group, so that each member only had a few things to do. In GW2, EVERY member has to think about EVERYTHING. And has been given the tools to deal with it.

That is not to say that players cannot focus on a particular role, they can. It just means that while focused on a role, they must also be very mindful of, and take part in, other roles.

But like I said, and was promptly ignored by your non-constructive comment, the AI in GW2 is no where near up to scratch to make real use of or challenge the combat system it has. With the exception of a handful of encounters maybe. If the general AI was vastly improved the combat in GW2 (PvE) would feel a whole lot better.

Also, no combat system is perfect for everyone and every combat system undergoes a massive amount of balancing. But overall, GW2’s reinvented trinity (AI aside) is a much better system IMO.

Rin.1046:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Rin.1046:

GW2 has a new and improved trinity: Damage, Control, Support. A far superior, more flexible and more complex system. A system that requires a lot more team coordination to really shine.

orly

Yes, really. […]

How anyone can see complexity in this system is beyond me, sorry.
I see more depth in my 2D TV if I wear 3D classes, than I see in the role system of GW2…

Pointy.9308:

It still amazes me, the game has no trinity (the original one – DPS, tank, healer) and it was going to be always that way. It has been advertised that way and people still goes and buys the game and complain it has no trinity and demands it (yes, some of you demands it). Play the game the way it is or play something else, is it that hard?

as a long time supporter of lets call it “roles”:

well, nobody wants a “hard” trinity where warriors and guardians are “tanks”, elementalists are healers and the rest are DPS.

what we do want is that which was actually advertised. and in contrary to your post, they have never said that there will be no tanks and no healers, they said there will be no class trinity.
what they promised is that if you want to play tank you will not have to play warrior, if you want to play healer you don’t have to be priest/cleric etc, you can play a tank thief or for example a healer necromancer.
every class can be any role that player want to play.
and the system itself support this idea.
the fact that we have all skill trees and all armors for any class shows us that this is how this game was supposed to be played.

what we ( OK, I am ) whining about, is that at least in PVE, I cannot chose to play healing elementalist or tanking warrior because i will hinder my group.
and if we stick to semantics then i cannot chose to play SUPPORT elementalist and BUNKER warrior because i will hinder my group.
what i want is that a player that chose to play support or bunker or CC role and invested in such trait line and armor will be viable.

but he will never be. it is all around the damage.
newbs wear soldier armor, middles play knight/cavalier, pros play berzerker.

support lines are useless because healing power do nothing and the CDs are too high. bunker lines are useless, shields on warriors and guardians are for weird niche play, which is totally noneffective in PVE.
CC is mostly useless due to defiant and short duration’s.

some examples for games with soft trinity: GW1 and DDO where you can group up almost with everybody you want and play effectively.

so, this game is broken, it is still one of the best games today. but it is unfortunately broken.

Rin.1046:

But like I said, and was promptly ignored by your non-constructive comment, the AI in GW2 is no where near up to scratch to make real use of or challenge the combat system it has. With the exception of a handful of encounters maybe. If the general AI was vastly improved the combat in GW2 (PvE) would feel a whole lot better.

^truth, the bad AI is what has made everything but DPS pointless in PvE. As I’ve said, I would like to see soft trinity as a viable option, and think Arenanet made a mistake in allowing players to be as self sufficient as they are with out more heavily investing in skills and traits, but enemies that acted more like players instead of monstrous hit point sponges with slow telegraphed attacks and immunity to conditions and crowd control would go a long way towards making the current set up feel less stupid.

George Steel.1804:

Reverence.6915:

George Steel.1804:

Harper.4173:

Mochann.5298:

Hekdragoon.1972:

Guardians everywhere, since they can more or less do the 3 roles

Having Trinity officially in the game would force a total revamp of the entire system, so Guardian as we know it today would be different.

I think having “no trinity” is the stupidest design choice Anet made among many bad choices, but that’s just me.

And your opinion is just that – an opinion.
Why would they make their game exactly like all the trinity games out there?!

Because well, one famous trinity-based game has been around for like 10 years – with more players SUBSCRIBED then have only PURCHASED GW2. It’s a model that works in the long run.

GW2 was great. But now that we’re in the aging process of the game, the system in place just isn’t cutting it. I’m bored..

WoW at the age GW2 is currently at was a complete wreck of a game too. Botters, hackers, private servers, scammers, account selling, bugs, glitches, poor raid systems, poor pvp, limited pve etc etc. Put some perspective on it.

Yes but that was 2004 when players didn’t know what graphics card their computer had inside of it. It was a complete revolution when it came to opening up the game genre to the masses.

And just as an FYI: MC and Onyxia’s lair were open and available upon the game’s release in 2004, even being present in the game’s beta-testing stage.

The world’s first completion of MC was done at the very end of 2006 – more than two years after the release of the game. That’s called being prepared with something to challenge players with and keep them interested. The only thing we currently have in place in GW2 is the “open world” zerg system (trash). And I guarantee even the new Wurm won’t take more than 2-3 weeks to be downed. Even upon fractured re-release some guys hit 50 within like a week.

That just shows how lazy Blizzard is. For me that sounds like 2 year of no new content, while in Everquest 2 we already had gotten 2 expansions after 1,5 years.

Kaiyanwan.8521:

Rin.1046:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Rin.1046:

GW2 has a new and improved trinity: Damage, Control, Support. A far superior, more flexible and more complex system. A system that requires a lot more team coordination to really shine.

orly

Yes, really. […]

How anyone can see complexity in this system is beyond me, sorry.
I see more depth in my 2D TV if I wear 3D classes, than I see in the role system of GW2…

Your sig seems to indicate you play a mesmer, and you can’t see the complexity in the system? That’s a little worrisome. Are you aware of what skills you have and not only what they do but when is a better time to use them? The various ways you can use focus 4 for a variety of effects? The value of chaos storm in damage, control and support simultaneously? Do you spam great sword 3 off cool down or are there more opportunistic times to use it? Any of that stuff? How about the variability with casting feedback (with or without a target), or how traits can enhance null field and feed back to have even greater effects, which can completely alter how/when you’d cast them?

No depth?