Guild Wars 2

GW2 has no trinity mostly due to it being balanced around PvP, where trinity absolutely sucks balls.

I’d rather have complete control over my health rather than having to rely on another person in PvP.

Rather than calling it “support”, I’d call it “sustain”. Instead of “DPS”, I’d call it “pressure”. “Sustain, Control and Pressure” would be what GW2’s soft trinity is. Just listen to any competent commander in WvW call for “ranged pressure” (Engi, Ranger, SB Thief, Ele/Mesmer), “heals/water fields” (Engi/Ranger/Guardian/Ele), “fire fields and blast/empower”(Guardian, Ele, SB Thief, Warrior), “CCs here” (Warrior, Ele, Ranger, Engi, Guardian) and “Bomb here” (every class). Much more interesting than “tanks with me, range them down, heal up the tanks”

Narayana.1485:

Funny that most people talk that all in zerker is better then everything else, but, in my experience, when doing dungeons the more balanced teams are way more successful. It becomes easier to kill the bosses and everyone survives without much effort. With more inexperienced players playing all in DPS there’s at least 2 wipes per run (Depend on the Dungeon).
In WvW there is also the problem that no one knows what to expect from his allies so going just for damage just plain easier. I for one use support to help protect people during attacks on towers, but that’s just me.
Not an easy thing to fix…

The easy way to know what gear is best is to look at people playing at the top of the game, i.e., guilds like DnT. Top players are generally those most adapted to all facets of a games environment and will be playing in the most effective and efficient manner.

While there is the occasional nod to utility, what you will find is that DPS is the only truly meaningful role across the game. And when this is so, zerker gear is the gear that produces the most DPS. What you will find at the top of the game is pretty much zerker gear. Playing in zerker, of course, assumes that you can play your character and that you understand the mechanics of GW2 combat. And, I’m talking here about PvE.

Naevius.3185:

Here’s an alternate take…what GW2 needs is not tanking, but body-blocking.

Think about it…if you could physically block enemies, you could ‘tank’ – and it would take skill rather than some artificial mechanism.

(Also, it would eliminate the silly stacking in dungeons and zergs.)

Any simple game mechanic is not what is missing when talking about things like the trinity. What people are actually talking about is meaningful roles and talk about the trinity because that has historically provided roles that work. Personally, I’m not addicted to a trinitarian conception, but do feel the negative effects of the lack of meaningful combat roles. BTW, stacking does not arise from the absence of body-blocking but rather because of general combat mechanics and the lack of same. Player-player collisions will not solve any problem in the game and will never be implemented.

Raine.1394:

Naevius.3185:

Here’s an alternate take…what GW2 needs is not tanking, but body-blocking.

Think about it…if you could physically block enemies, you could ‘tank’ – and it would take skill rather than some artificial mechanism.

(Also, it would eliminate the silly stacking in dungeons and zergs.)

Any simple game mechanic is not what is missing when talking about things like the trinity. What people are actually talking about is meaningful roles and talk about the trinity because that has historically provided roles that work. Personally, I’m not addicted to a trinitarian conception, but do feel the negative effects of the lack of meaningful combat roles. BTW, stacking does not arise from the absence of body-blocking but rather because of general combat mechanics and the lack of same. Player-player collisions will not solve any problem in the game and will never be implemented.

What some people call “meaningful” roles others call “forced” roles. Why should I be on a character that’s required to stand in the boss’s face, insult its mother and stand there getting smashed on while some other poor bugger is forced to do nothing but heal me and the rest basically stand there and cycle through a rotation of max dps or face ridicule? That’s not meaningful in the least, that’s being forced by poor game mechanics into a narrow role out of necessity with little to no flexibility or ability to improvise and adapt to ever changing combat scenarios.

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

Naevius.3185:

Here’s an alternate take…what GW2 needs is not tanking, but body-blocking.

Think about it…if you could physically block enemies, you could ‘tank’ – and it would take skill rather than some artificial mechanism.

(Also, it would eliminate the silly stacking in dungeons and zergs.)

Any simple game mechanic is not what is missing when talking about things like the trinity. What people are actually talking about is meaningful roles and talk about the trinity because that has historically provided roles that work. Personally, I’m not addicted to a trinitarian conception, but do feel the negative effects of the lack of meaningful combat roles. BTW, stacking does not arise from the absence of body-blocking but rather because of general combat mechanics and the lack of same. Player-player collisions will not solve any problem in the game and will never be implemented.

What some people call “meaningful” roles others call “forced” roles. Why should I be on a character that’s required to stand in the boss’s face, insult its mother and stand there getting smashed on while some other poor bugger is forced to do nothing but heal me and the rest basically stand there and cycle through a rotation of max dps or face ridicule? That’s not meaningful in the least, that’s being forced by poor game mechanics into a narrow role out of necessity with little to no flexibility or ability to improvise and adapt to ever changing combat scenarios.

Ever play football? Do you call the roles of a football team “forced”? How about a medical team performing surgery in an operating room? There we would find not only hard roles but scripted content as in the tools used for the surgery. Do you think creativity is possible for a surgeon when everything about their environment is so scripted? Do you think team members in an operating room find their work rewarding?

Everything humans do in groups where there are goal-directed objectives are done in a role-based environment. In fact, in impromptu groups the first order of business is who’s going to do what.

So, when you say “forced” roles, other call them “established”. My point is that humans are role-based in groups for a reason; it is the human way of approaching group objectives. There are also human needs met here as in the need to provide a unique meaningful action, meaningful in the sense that it actually mattered that you were there. And, of course, you violate human needs and behavior at your peril.

One word:

Better.

Azreell.1568:

One word:

Better.

Debatable. I like the soft-trinity system Anet has set up. It would work better if dungeons were designed in such a way that you couldn’t skip so many sections and mobs, but works fantastically in the PvP environment.

Reverence.6915:

Azreell.1568:

One word:

Better.

Debatable. I like the soft-trinity system Anet has set up. It would work better if dungeons were designed in such a way that you couldn’t skip so many sections and mobs, but works fantastically in the PvP environment.

There is no trinity system currently in play in PvE. It’s a singularity.

Raine.1394:

Ever play football? Do you call the roles of a football team “forced”? How about a medical team performing surgery in an operating room? There we would find not only hard roles but scripted content as in the tools used for the surgery. Do you think creativity is possible for a surgeon when everything about their environment is so scripted? Do you think team members in an operating room find their work rewarding?

Everything humans do in groups where there are goal-directed objectives are done in a role-based environment. In fact, in impromptu groups the first order of business is who’s going to do what.

So, when you say “forced” roles, other call them “established”. My point is that humans are role-based in groups for a reason; it is the human way of approaching group objectives. There are also human needs met here as in the need to provide a unique meaningful action, meaningful in the sense that it actually mattered that you were there. And, of course, you violate human needs and behavior at your peril.

This isn’t football or a surgery. This isn’t a trip to the moon, a safari in Africa or a ballroom dance either. Improper analogies are improper. I’ve done the “established” (read: forced) roles before back in my WoW days. Just because something was established doesn’t mean it’s better. Tanking for the most part on my Pally tank was taunt followed by the 9-6-9 rotation while some poor sap healer did nothing but heal me. Established, forced, same thing in that context.

This isn’t that. This is a different form of combat. Our skills are, by design, covering often more than one aspect (d/c/s) and quite a few cover all three. Do I use Chaos Storm to damage the enemies, control the enemies or support allies? Well, yes. Different conditions require different uses. My focus 4 skill (the mesmer speed up thingie)… well, I can drop it to give allies a speed boost, to try and cripple oncoming foes or (thanks to traits) I can plop it between friend and foe to reflect enemy projectiles back at them, disregarding the speed boost/cripple aspects entirely if the situation warrants it. Why would I (or anyone really) want to give up that versatility, that flexibility in combat, the ability to dynamically respond to the situation at hand in exchange for “you go over there and shoot the boss”? Even worse, why give that up for “taunt – 1 – 2- 3 – 4 – 1 – 5 – 2 – …” ad nauseum?

In combat, if your buddy goes down you don’t leave him there to bleed out because you’re not a medic. You don’t wave a big, red flag over your head and yell “Shoot me! I dare you!”. You work together as a team and take care of each other.

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

Ever play football? Do you call the roles of a football team “forced”? How about a medical team performing surgery in an operating room? There we would find not only hard roles but scripted content as in the tools used for the surgery. Do you think creativity is possible for a surgeon when everything about their environment is so scripted? Do you think team members in an operating room find their work rewarding?

Everything humans do in groups where there are goal-directed objectives are done in a role-based environment. In fact, in impromptu groups the first order of business is who’s going to do what.

So, when you say “forced” roles, other call them “established”. My point is that humans are role-based in groups for a reason; it is the human way of approaching group objectives. There are also human needs met here as in the need to provide a unique meaningful action, meaningful in the sense that it actually mattered that you were there. And, of course, you violate human needs and behavior at your peril.

This isn’t football or a surgery. This isn’t a trip to the moon, a safari in Africa or a ballroom dance either. Improper analogies are improper. I’ve done the “established” (read: forced) roles before back in my WoW days. Just because something was established doesn’t mean it’s better. Tanking for the most part on my Pally tank was taunt followed by the 9-6-9 rotation while some poor sap healer did nothing but heal me. Established, forced, same thing in that context.

This isn’t that. This is a different form of combat. Our skills are, by design, covering often more than one aspect (d/c/s) and quite a few cover all three. Do I use Chaos Storm to damage the enemies, control the enemies or support allies? Well, yes. Different conditions require different uses. My focus 4 skill (the mesmer speed up thingie)… well, I can drop it to give allies a speed boost, to try and cripple oncoming foes or (thanks to traits) I can plop it between friend and foe to reflect enemy projectiles back at them, disregarding the speed boost/cripple aspects entirely if the situation warrants it. Why would I (or anyone really) want to give up that versatility, that flexibility in combat, the ability to dynamically respond to the situation at hand in exchange for “you go over there and shoot the boss”? Even worse, why give that up for “taunt – 1 – 2- 3 – 4 – 1 – 5 – 2 – …” ad nauseum?

In combat, if your buddy goes down you don’t leave him there to bleed out because you’re not a medic. You don’t wave a big, red flag over your head and yell “Shoot me! I dare you!”. You work together as a team and take care of each other.

Good post. Thank you.

Frankly, I find the ‘traditional’ trinity to be far too unrealistic and inflexible to be very engaging. Anet just needs to do a better job emphasizing roles within a soft system.

A trinity already exists in the game ( Damage, Control, Support).

As others have pointed out DUE TO THE DESIGN OF PVE encounters, the need for control and support is almost non existent. Until that is fixed nothing will change.

Going max DPS is the symptom, not the cause, as it is the easiest way to complete content once a player gains a certain amount of experience with the game.

Anet would need to rework the fights to be less spiky in damage ( where zerker builds can just dodge the damage), but more consistent for less.

ANYONE, that disagrees with what i wrote is absolutely wrong and needs more experience with the game.

Aeonblade.8709:

Reverence.6915:

Azreell.1568:

One word:

Better.

Debatable. I like the soft-trinity system Anet has set up. It would work better if dungeons were designed in such a way that you couldn’t skip so many sections and mobs, but works fantastically in the PvP environment.

There is no trinity system currently in play in PvE. It’s a singularity.

If your team knows what it’s doing, it’s a duality of damage and support. What’s singular is the gear, not the roles. The problem with GW2 soft trinity is that control requires too much coordination (stripping Defiant in time to control a specific move) for too little return. In addition, control is mostly unnecessary in PvE.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Aeonblade.8709:

Reverence.6915:

Azreell.1568:

One word:

Better.

Debatable. I like the soft-trinity system Anet has set up. It would work better if dungeons were designed in such a way that you couldn’t skip so many sections and mobs, but works fantastically in the PvP environment.

There is no trinity system currently in play in PvE. It’s a singularity.

If your team knows what it’s doing, it’s a duality of damage and support. What’s singular is the gear, not the roles. The problem with GW2 soft trinity is that control requires too much coordination (stripping Defiant in time to control a specific move) for too little return. In addition, control is mostly unnecessary in PvE.

Support? Don’t make me laugh, please… oops too late.
No but really nobody cares about support in a dungeon, sheesh all they care about is dissing as much damage as possible and might/fury boons are a part of dps, not support.

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

Ever play football? Do you call the roles of a football team “forced”? How about a medical team performing surgery in an operating room? There we would find not only hard roles but scripted content as in the tools used for the surgery. Do you think creativity is possible for a surgeon when everything about their environment is so scripted? Do you think team members in an operating room find their work rewarding?

Everything humans do in groups where there are goal-directed objectives are done in a role-based environment. In fact, in impromptu groups the first order of business is who’s going to do what.

So, when you say “forced” roles, other call them “established”. My point is that humans are role-based in groups for a reason; it is the human way of approaching group objectives. There are also human needs met here as in the need to provide a unique meaningful action, meaningful in the sense that it actually mattered that you were there. And, of course, you violate human needs and behavior at your peril.

This isn’t football or a surgery. This isn’t a trip to the moon, a safari in Africa or a ballroom dance either. Improper analogies are improper. I’ve done the “established” (read: forced) roles before back in my WoW days. Just because something was established doesn’t mean it’s better. Tanking for the most part on my Pally tank was taunt followed by the 9-6-9 rotation while some poor sap healer did nothing but heal me. Established, forced, same thing in that context.

This isn’t that. This is a different form of combat. Our skills are, by design, covering often more than one aspect (d/c/s) and quite a few cover all three. Do I use Chaos Storm to damage the enemies, control the enemies or support allies? Well, yes. Different conditions require different uses. My focus 4 skill (the mesmer speed up thingie)… well, I can drop it to give allies a speed boost, to try and cripple oncoming foes or (thanks to traits) I can plop it between friend and foe to reflect enemy projectiles back at them, disregarding the speed boost/cripple aspects entirely if the situation warrants it. Why would I (or anyone really) want to give up that versatility, that flexibility in combat, the ability to dynamically respond to the situation at hand in exchange for “you go over there and shoot the boss”? Even worse, why give that up for “taunt – 1 – 2- 3 – 4 – 1 – 5 – 2 – …” ad nauseum?

In combat, if your buddy goes down you don’t leave him there to bleed out because you’re not a medic. You don’t wave a big, red flag over your head and yell “Shoot me! I dare you!”. You work together as a team and take care of each other.

No, it isn’t football or surgery, but it it is a group human activity directed at achieving an objective. Your finale with human combat is a favorite of mine for establishing the human preference for roles. How many modern armies can you name that are not role-based? Modern combat is the most role-based activity of any you could possibly name. It is all about the coordination of a variety of roles to meet an objective. In-game combat is largely modeled from IRL combat—in fact, most aspects of gaming are modeled on some aspect of human needs or behavior. Human motivation may be the most studied aspect of game design theory.

But, just for grins, how many goal-oriented, human, group activities can you list that aren’t role-based? This should be instructive.

Aeonblade.8709:

Reverence.6915:

Azreell.1568:

One word:

Better.

Debatable. I like the soft-trinity system Anet has set up. It would work better if dungeons were designed in such a way that you couldn’t skip so many sections and mobs, but works fantastically in the PvP environment.

There is no trinity system currently in play in PvE. It’s a singularity.

Classes aren’t balanced around PvE either. Your point?

I enjoyed playing a Monk in GW and a my Disc Priest in WoW. It was fun for me and fun for a lot of people. I liked finishing a dungeon run and feeling accomplished when someone said “good healz bro”. That’s all I have to say really.

Honestly, I don’t care either way. I like the way GW2 is right now, but I think I would like it a lot with trinity as well. I think if it went trinity in dungeons, I would probably find myself dungeon running a whole lot more. And if I could be a dedicated healer in WvW, I would probably spend all my time on my guardian in there.

Yea… I could see it being fun. But it’s also fun now. So either way, for me.

Reverence.6915:

GW2 has no trinity mostly due to it being balanced around PvP, where trinity absolutely sucks balls.

That’s a really weird statement. Maybe by pvp you mean large-scale combat like wvw, but spvp has only been degraded by lack of team structure and teamplay interdependence.

milo.6942:

Reverence.6915:

GW2 has no trinity mostly due to it being balanced around PvP, where trinity absolutely sucks balls.

That’s a really weird statement. Maybe by pvp you mean large-scale combat like wvw, but spvp has only been degraded by lack of team structure and teamplay interdependence.

Tell that to tPvP guilds.

milo.6942:

Reverence.6915:

GW2 has no trinity mostly due to it being balanced around PvP, where trinity absolutely sucks balls.

That’s a really weird statement. Maybe by pvp you mean large-scale combat like wvw, but spvp has only been degraded by lack of team structure and teamplay interdependence.

That and the fact that the trinity doesn’t suck in PvP. The only thing missing in trinity games PvP is aggro management as humans don’t respond predictably to taunts. Healing is huge in battle grounds and can make or break a fight. Also, tank builds are often found in PvP where all other aspects of ‘tank’ are present apart from aggro management.

To say that ‘trinity sucks’ at PvP is tantamount to saying “I’ve never played PvP in a trinity-based game”.

Raine.1394:

No, it isn’t football or surgery, but it it is a group human activity directed at achieving an objective. Your finale with human combat is a favorite of mine for establishing the human preference for roles. How many modern armies can you name that are not role-based? Modern combat is the most role-based activity of any you could possibly name. It is all about the coordination of a variety of roles to meet an objective. In-game combat is largely modeled from IRL combat—in fact, most aspects of gaming are modeled on some aspect of human needs or behavior. Human motivation may be the most studied aspect of game design theory.

But, just for grins, how many goal-oriented, human, group activities can you list that aren’t role-based? This should be instructive.

Horsepoop. Trinity based combat is so far removed from anything resembling modern combat that it should be embarrassed to even try and use the word “combat” out of context so blatantly. (Just because there are vehicles called ‘tanks’ doesn’t mean they tank the enemy.) Troops on the ground do whatever it takes in the situation they’re in, they’re not limited to certain hard roles.

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

No, it isn’t football or surgery, but it it is a group human activity directed at achieving an objective. Your finale with human combat is a favorite of mine for establishing the human preference for roles. How many modern armies can you name that are not role-based? Modern combat is the most role-based activity of any you could possibly name. It is all about the coordination of a variety of roles to meet an objective. In-game combat is largely modeled from IRL combat—in fact, most aspects of gaming are modeled on some aspect of human needs or behavior. Human motivation may be the most studied aspect of game design theory.

But, just for grins, how many goal-oriented, human, group activities can you list that aren’t role-based? This should be instructive.

Horsepoop. Trinity based combat is so far removed from anything resembling modern combat that it should be embarrassed to even try and use the word “combat” out of context so blatantly. (Just because there are vehicles called ‘tanks’ doesn’t mean they tank the enemy.) Troops on the ground do whatever it takes in the situation they’re in, they’re not limited to certain hard roles.

You couldn’t do it could you? That is, list one human, group, goal-oriented activity that isn’t role-based.

And, I didn’t say trinity mirrors modern combat. I said that both are role-based…and they are. I’m not saying that tank = tank. What I’m saying is that in modern combat you have artillery, armored units, air power, medical units, etc. all fulfilling different roles on the battlefield. It is through the coordination of various roles that you meet objectives. The trinity just provides a set of established roles to play to meet an objective. I’m not talking about ‘tanks’ I’m talking about roles.

But, back to my question. Can you name one human, group, objectives-based activity that is not role-based?

Raine.1394:

DeWolfe.2174:

Hmm, how to sum this up… To me, GW2 was developed to give the player an adrenaline response from stress and frenetic pacing. That’s what the gamer is supposed to feel from playing. Not deriving meaning from having a purpose and a role in the game. Thus, the trinity wasn’t required because one isn’t supposed to get immersed in a role.

At least, that’s what I’ve come away with after thousands of hours. If the increased healing scaling and made dodging less effective, I’d go more into healing. I already run a banner/regen Warrior. Green ticks all around me make me happy

Do you know what RPG stands for?

Yes… Yes I do. And, the recent advertising from Anet bills GW2 as an MMO. They dropped the RPG portion from the advertising even.

Raine.1394:

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

No, it isn’t football or surgery, but it it is a group human activity directed at achieving an objective. Your finale with human combat is a favorite of mine for establishing the human preference for roles. How many modern armies can you name that are not role-based? Modern combat is the most role-based activity of any you could possibly name. It is all about the coordination of a variety of roles to meet an objective. In-game combat is largely modeled from IRL combat—in fact, most aspects of gaming are modeled on some aspect of human needs or behavior. Human motivation may be the most studied aspect of game design theory.

But, just for grins, how many goal-oriented, human, group activities can you list that aren’t role-based? This should be instructive.

Horsepoop. Trinity based combat is so far removed from anything resembling modern combat that it should be embarrassed to even try and use the word “combat” out of context so blatantly. (Just because there are vehicles called ‘tanks’ doesn’t mean they tank the enemy.) Troops on the ground do whatever it takes in the situation they’re in, they’re not limited to certain hard roles.

You couldn’t do it could you? That is, list one human, group, goal-oriented activity that isn’t role-based.

And, I didn’t say trinity mirrors modern combat. I said that both are role-based…and they are. I’m not saying that tank = tank. What I’m saying is that in modern combat you have artillery, armored units, air power, medical units, etc. all fulfilling different roles on the battlefield. It is through the coordination of various roles that you meet objectives. The trinity just provides a set of established roles to play to meet an objective. I’m not talking about ‘tanks’ I’m talking about roles.

But, back to my question. Can you name one human, group, objectives-based activity that is not role-based?

I can’t think on short notice of any that are actually relevant in comparison to combat in an MMO, but I fail to see the point in comparing apples to eggs. I can’t think of any either that resemble MMO combat.

Raine.1394:

milo.6942:

Reverence.6915:

GW2 has no trinity mostly due to it being balanced around PvP, where trinity absolutely sucks balls.

That’s a really weird statement. Maybe by pvp you mean large-scale combat like wvw, but spvp has only been degraded by lack of team structure and teamplay interdependence.

That and the fact that the trinity doesn’t suck in PvP. The only thing missing in trinity games PvP is aggro management as humans don’t respond predictably to taunts. Healing is huge in battle grounds and can make or break a fight. Also, tank builds are often found in PvP where all other aspects of ‘tank’ are present apart from aggro management.

To say that ‘trinity sucks’ at PvP is tantamount to saying “I’ve never played PvP in a trinity-based game”.

From what I’ve experienced, trinity based PvP games basically amounts to a gear check. No thanks.

DeWolfe.2174:

Raine.1394:

DeWolfe.2174:

Hmm, how to sum this up… To me, GW2 was developed to give the player an adrenaline response from stress and frenetic pacing. That’s what the gamer is supposed to feel from playing. Not deriving meaning from having a purpose and a role in the game. Thus, the trinity wasn’t required because one isn’t supposed to get immersed in a role.

At least, that’s what I’ve come away with after thousands of hours. If the increased healing scaling and made dodging less effective, I’d go more into healing. I already run a banner/regen Warrior. Green ticks all around me make me happy

Do you know what RPG stands for?

Yes… Yes I do. And, the recent advertising from Anet bills GW2 as an MMO. They dropped the RPG portion from the advertising even.

While I wouldn’t generally source the wiki as an authority, the first sentence of the article on Anet reads: “ArenaNet is a video game developer and subsidiary of NCsoft, founded in 2000 by Mike O’Brien, Patrick Wyatt and Jeff Strain and located in Bellevue, Washington. They are the developers of the online role-playing game series Guild Wars.”

Regardless of any given branding I think experienced gamers know the genre we are currently in. And, the word ‘role’ figures prominently. Usually this would indicate significance and urge caution concerning its dismissal out of hand.

Reverence.6915:

Raine.1394:

milo.6942:

Reverence.6915:

GW2 has no trinity mostly due to it being balanced around PvP, where trinity absolutely sucks balls.

That’s a really weird statement. Maybe by pvp you mean large-scale combat like wvw, but spvp has only been degraded by lack of team structure and teamplay interdependence.

That and the fact that the trinity doesn’t suck in PvP. The only thing missing in trinity games PvP is aggro management as humans don’t respond predictably to taunts. Healing is huge in battle grounds and can make or break a fight. Also, tank builds are often found in PvP where all other aspects of ‘tank’ are present apart from aggro management.

To say that ‘trinity sucks’ at PvP is tantamount to saying “I’ve never played PvP in a trinity-based game”.

From what I’ve experienced, trinity based PvP games basically amounts to a gear check. No thanks.

I’m truly puzzled. The organization of combat around the trinity has nothing at all to do with the necessity of gear or a gearcheck. Yes, games with vertical progression generally have gearcheck prominent in PvP and PvE but it has nothing to do with the trinity. Could you enlighten me on your line of reasoning?

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

No, it isn’t football or surgery, but it it is a group human activity directed at achieving an objective. Your finale with human combat is a favorite of mine for establishing the human preference for roles. How many modern armies can you name that are not role-based? Modern combat is the most role-based activity of any you could possibly name. It is all about the coordination of a variety of roles to meet an objective. In-game combat is largely modeled from IRL combat—in fact, most aspects of gaming are modeled on some aspect of human needs or behavior. Human motivation may be the most studied aspect of game design theory.

But, just for grins, how many goal-oriented, human, group activities can you list that aren’t role-based? This should be instructive.

Horsepoop. Trinity based combat is so far removed from anything resembling modern combat that it should be embarrassed to even try and use the word “combat” out of context so blatantly. (Just because there are vehicles called ‘tanks’ doesn’t mean they tank the enemy.) Troops on the ground do whatever it takes in the situation they’re in, they’re not limited to certain hard roles.

You couldn’t do it could you? That is, list one human, group, goal-oriented activity that isn’t role-based.

And, I didn’t say trinity mirrors modern combat. I said that both are role-based…and they are. I’m not saying that tank = tank. What I’m saying is that in modern combat you have artillery, armored units, air power, medical units, etc. all fulfilling different roles on the battlefield. It is through the coordination of various roles that you meet objectives. The trinity just provides a set of established roles to play to meet an objective. I’m not talking about ‘tanks’ I’m talking about roles.

But, back to my question. Can you name one human, group, objectives-based activity that is not role-based?

I can’t think on short notice of any that are actually relevant in comparison to combat in an MMO, but I fail to see the point in comparing apples to eggs. I can’t think of any either that resemble MMO combat.

I couldn’t think of any either—at all. And, I’m not comparing apples to eggs. I’m comparing human, objectives-oriented groups to human, objectives-oriented groups. As I mentioned, all aspects of gaming are modeled on human needs and behavior. Isn’t it logical that conceptions of combat would be modeled on IRL? Isn’t it interesting that IRL combat is role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.

At any rate, some find this interesting and instructive.

Raine.1394:

I couldn’t think of any either—at all. And, I’m not comparing apples to eggs. I’m comparing human, objectives-oriented groups to human, objectives-oriented groups. As I mentioned, all aspects of gaming are modeled on human needs and behavior. Isn’t it logical that conceptions of combat would be modeled on IRL? Isn’t it interesting that IRL combat is role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.

At any rate, some find this interesting and instructive.

Gaming aspects aren’t modeled on human needs… they’re modeled more on tapping into the reward centers of the brain to trigger a quasi-addiction to the game. With trinity style combat the reward isn’t in the combat itself but instead with the lottery style payoff after the fight is over. I remember getting to a point where the fights were practically muscle memory and you hardly had to pay attention anymore. It wasn’t the fight that kept us going back, it was the chance at the next missing piece of loot. It was “all that work for nothing” if you didn’t get anything as opposed to “that was fun even though I didn’t get anything for the 20th time in a row”.

Games aren’t based on behavior, they’re designed to tap into behavior to keep you coming back. What I’ve found so far for me personally is that in GW2 I’m not going back for the loot but for the fights themselves instead, even after all this time.

VOLKON.1290:

Games aren’t based on behavior, they’re designed to tap into behavior to keep you coming back. What I’ve found so far for me personally is that in GW2 I’m not going back for the loot but for the fights themselves instead, even after all this time.

So very much this. A year plus in and I still find fights here fun too.

Raine.1394:

As I mentioned, all aspects of gaming are modeled on human needs and behavior. Isn’t it logical that conceptions of combat would be modeled on IRL? Isn’t it interesting that IRL combat is role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.

“Every Marine a rifleman.”

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

I couldn’t think of any either—at all. And, I’m not comparing apples to eggs. I’m comparing human, objectives-oriented groups to human, objectives-oriented groups. As I mentioned, all aspects of gaming are modeled on human needs and behavior. Isn’t it logical that conceptions of combat would be modeled on IRL? Isn’t it interesting that IRL combat is role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.

At any rate, some find this interesting and instructive.

Gaming aspects aren’t modeled on human needs… they’re modeled more on tapping into the reward centers of the brain to trigger a quasi-addiction to the game. With trinity style combat the reward isn’t in the combat itself but instead with the lottery style payoff after the fight is over. I remember getting to a point where the fights were practically muscle memory and you hardly had to pay attention anymore. It wasn’t the fight that kept us going back, it was the chance at the next missing piece of loot. It was “all that work for nothing” if you didn’t get anything as opposed to “that was fun even though I didn’t get anything for the 20th time in a row”.

Games aren’t based on behavior, they’re designed to tap into behavior to keep you coming back. What I’ve found so far for me personally is that in GW2 I’m not going back for the loot but for the fights themselves instead, even after all this time.

Humans do things to meet perceived needs. As I mentioned in a previous post, human motivation is probably the most significant area of game design theory. Why do humans play games? What satisfies basic needs and motivates continued play? The answers here are things like “fantasy” for some people. They want to be a hero and they meet that need through a role-playing game. The need might be abnegation. They are burned out IRL and just want to bash some monsters to relax. So, your first sentence is just wrong. Human behavior not a factor? Ever wonder why we have ranged combat and melee combat in games? It’s because it’s how humans behave in combat.

But let me step back and step up to illustrate on another level what is going on here. Humans don’t create ex nihilo. We create after ourselves. Have you ever looked at a network topology and marveled at its resemblance to the human nervous system? Have you wondered why we have something like systems theory. Could it have anything to do with that fact that we are systems. Or, have you ever noticed from a aerial photograph that roadways look a lot like arteries with cells (in the form of vehicles) traveling them. And, satellite dishes look a lot (and function) like ears.

Who humans are in terms of experience, needs, behavior, etc. is central to what they create. And, it’s central to how their creations are received. If a game does not meet the perceived needs and expectations of humans it will not be successful. If I am creating a game (or anything actually) my approach is going to come from what it means to be a human and a human creator.

Sirendor.1394:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Aeonblade.8709:

Reverence.6915:

Azreell.1568:

One word:

Better.

Debatable. I like the soft-trinity system Anet has set up. It would work better if dungeons were designed in such a way that you couldn’t skip so many sections and mobs, but works fantastically in the PvP environment.

There is no trinity system currently in play in PvE. It’s a singularity.

If your team knows what it’s doing, it’s a duality of damage and support. What’s singular is the gear, not the roles. The problem with GW2 soft trinity is that control requires too much coordination (stripping Defiant in time to control a specific move) for too little return. In addition, control is mostly unnecessary in PvE.

Support? Don’t make me laugh, please… oops too late.
No but really nobody cares about support in a dungeon, sheesh all they care about is dissing as much damage as possible and might/fury boons are a part of dps, not support.

Hmm… in games with actual support characters (e.g., Rift, the Archon), a buffbot is very much a support character, even if they are also capable of putting out decent DPS. You’re lumping buffs in with DPS only because there is no dedicated support in GW2. Also, there’s reflect and block.

Raine.1394:

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

I couldn’t think of any either—at all. And, I’m not comparing apples to eggs. I’m comparing human, objectives-oriented groups to human, objectives-oriented groups. As I mentioned, all aspects of gaming are modeled on human needs and behavior. Isn’t it logical that conceptions of combat would be modeled on IRL? Isn’t it interesting that IRL combat is role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.

At any rate, some find this interesting and instructive.

Gaming aspects aren’t modeled on human needs… they’re modeled more on tapping into the reward centers of the brain to trigger a quasi-addiction to the game. With trinity style combat the reward isn’t in the combat itself but instead with the lottery style payoff after the fight is over. I remember getting to a point where the fights were practically muscle memory and you hardly had to pay attention anymore. It wasn’t the fight that kept us going back, it was the chance at the next missing piece of loot. It was “all that work for nothing” if you didn’t get anything as opposed to “that was fun even though I didn’t get anything for the 20th time in a row”.

Games aren’t based on behavior, they’re designed to tap into behavior to keep you coming back. What I’ve found so far for me personally is that in GW2 I’m not going back for the loot but for the fights themselves instead, even after all this time.

Humans do things to meet perceived needs. As I mentioned in a previous post, human motivation is probably the most significant area of game design theory. Why do humans play games? What satisfies basic needs and motivates continued play? The answers here are things like “fantasy” for some people. They want to be a hero and they meet that need through a role-playing game. The need might be abnegation. They are burned out IRL and just want to bash some monsters to relax. So, your first sentence is just wrong. Human behavior not a factor? Ever wonder why we have ranged combat and melee combat in games? It’s because it’s how humans behave in combat.

But let me step back and step up to illustrate on another level what is going on here. Humans don’t create ex nihilo. We create after ourselves. Have you ever looked at a network topology and marveled at its resemblance to the human nervous system? Have you wondered why we have something like systems theory. Could it have anything to do with that fact that we are systems. Or, have you ever noticed from a aerial photograph that roadways look a lot like arteries with cells (in the form of vehicles) traveling them. And, satellite dishes look a lot (and function) like ears.

Who humans are in terms of experience, needs, behavior, etc. is central to what they create. And, it’s central to how their creations are received. If a game does not meet the perceived needs and expectations of humans it will not be successful. If I am creating a game (or anything actually) my approach is going to come from what it means to be a human and a human creator.

Here’s the thing though. Humans are also more than capable of looking at previous experiences and correcting those things that they thought were a mistake. In pretty much every single MMORPG made in the last ten years, there has been the trinity. And in every MMORPG made, the view of the trinity has been less than stellar to much of the player base. The creators of GW2, being human, looked at the trinity from those other games and decided that a new route was better.

It’s difficult to look at the MMORPGS that have the trinity and not notice the “LFG healer for [insert dungeon name]” issue. It’s there as plain as day, especially for those players that don’t belong to a large guild and feel the need to join in a pickup group to run a dungeon. Time and time again, the DPS players are left looking for either a healer or a tank, and sometimes both. And the wait times can be extensive.

How would it not be logical to gear a game more towards the DPS crowd and steer away from the trinity, given this information?

more fun, you’d actually have a reason to make a new character that isn’t a warrior

TChalla.7146:

Raine.1394:

VOLKON.1290:

Raine.1394:

I couldn’t think of any either—at all. And, I’m not comparing apples to eggs. I’m comparing human, objectives-oriented groups to human, objectives-oriented groups. As I mentioned, all aspects of gaming are modeled on human needs and behavior. Isn’t it logical that conceptions of combat would be modeled on IRL? Isn’t it interesting that IRL combat is role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.

At any rate, some find this interesting and instructive.

Gaming aspects aren’t modeled on human needs… they’re modeled more on tapping into the reward centers of the brain to trigger a quasi-addiction to the game. With trinity style combat the reward isn’t in the combat itself but instead with the lottery style payoff after the fight is over. I remember getting to a point where the fights were practically muscle memory and you hardly had to pay attention anymore. It wasn’t the fight that kept us going back, it was the chance at the next missing piece of loot. It was “all that work for nothing” if you didn’t get anything as opposed to “that was fun even though I didn’t get anything for the 20th time in a row”.

Games aren’t based on behavior, they’re designed to tap into behavior to keep you coming back. What I’ve found so far for me personally is that in GW2 I’m not going back for the loot but for the fights themselves instead, even after all this time.

Humans do things to meet perceived needs. As I mentioned in a previous post, human motivation is probably the most significant area of game design theory. Why do humans play games? What satisfies basic needs and motivates continued play? The answers here are things like “fantasy” for some people. They want to be a hero and they meet that need through a role-playing game. The need might be abnegation. They are burned out IRL and just want to bash some monsters to relax. So, your first sentence is just wrong. Human behavior not a factor? Ever wonder why we have ranged combat and melee combat in games? It’s because it’s how humans behave in combat.

But let me step back and step up to illustrate on another level what is going on here. Humans don’t create ex nihilo. We create after ourselves. Have you ever looked at a network topology and marveled at its resemblance to the human nervous system? Have you wondered why we have something like systems theory. Could it have anything to do with that fact that we are systems. Or, have you ever noticed from a aerial photograph that roadways look a lot like arteries with cells (in the form of vehicles) traveling them. And, satellite dishes look a lot (and function) like ears.

Who humans are in terms of experience, needs, behavior, etc. is central to what they create. And, it’s central to how their creations are received. If a game does not meet the perceived needs and expectations of humans it will not be successful. If I am creating a game (or anything actually) my approach is going to come from what it means to be a human and a human creator.

Here’s the thing though. Humans are also more than capable of looking at previous experiences and correcting those things that they thought were a mistake. In pretty much every single MMORPG made in the last ten years, there has been the trinity. And in every MMORPG made, the view of the trinity has been less than stellar to much of the player base. The creators of GW2, being human, looked at the trinity from those other games and decided that a new route was better.

It’s difficult to look at the MMORPGS that have the trinity and not notice the “LFG healer for [insert dungeon name]” issue. It’s there as plain as day, especially for those players that don’t belong to a large guild and feel the need to join in a pickup group to run a dungeon. Time and time again, the DPS players are left looking for either a healer or a tank, and sometimes both. And the wait times can be extensive.

How would it not be logical to gear a game more towards the DPS crowd and steer away from the trinity, given this information?

Yes, humans have the capacity to learn from experience. My point is simply that humans always approach objectives in a group in a role-based manner, whether we’re talking the army, a sports team, or brain surgery. GW2 combat is not role-based. Could that be why humans are finding it unsatisfying?

That’s it in a nutshell. I’m not arguing for the trinity. I am questioning whether the lack of meaningful combat roles is a good idea given human behavior in groups everywhere else.

ThanatosAngel.8024:

A trinity could work if every class could fill any role they wanted at any time. But oh wait…isn’t that basically what we were supposed to get with GW2?

That’s not what we got though. Trinity gets hated on for pigeon holing, but the game that is really guilty of pigeonholing is GW2.

The extremely rigid weapon skill system pigeon holes everyone with the default loadout of skills. They try to offset this with traits, but traits are a mess with either very small effects (extra second of something here and there) and there just aren’t enough of them. Most of the traits are junk and tons of players complain about them.

Even the devs complain about it because “there isn’t enough build diversity.” Again, that fault less with the very limited pigeon hole weapon trait system you gave us.

Want more build diversity? Give us more skills, more traits, and the ability to slot in the skills we choose. Watch build diversity sky rocket.

Mochann.5298:

ThanatosAngel.8024:

A trinity could work if every class could fill any role they wanted at any time. But oh wait…isn’t that basically what we were supposed to get with GW2?

That’s not what we got though. Trinity gets hated on for pigeon holing, but the game that is really guilty of pigeonholing is GW2.

The extremely rigid weapon skill system pigeon holes everyone with the default loadout of skills. They try to offset this with traits, but traits are a mess with either very small effects (extra second of something here and there) and there just aren’t enough of them. Most of the traits are junk and tons of players complain about them.

Even the devs complain about it because “there isn’t enough build diversity.” Again, that fault less with the very limited pigeon hole weapon trait system you gave us.

Want more build diversity? Give us more skills, more traits, and the ability to slot in the skills we choose. Watch build diversity sky rocket.

Ahhh yes. I remember build diversity. That was in the original Guild Wars and not it’s successor…. Shame.

And don’t forget all the more possibilities that were presented once you were given a dual class. Experimenting was always fun. And you could find a build you liked to play, no matter how good or crazy/bad it was.

A trinity in this game would make it just like every other mainstream fantasy MMO for better or worse. I personally dislike the trinity system but I also think auto-target is the devil.

Raine.1394:

Yes, humans have the capacity to learn from experience. My point is simply that humans always approach objectives in a group in a role-based manner, whether we’re talking the army, a sports team, or brain surgery. GW2 combat is not role-based. Could that be why humans are finding it unsatisfying?

That’s it in a nutshell. I’m not arguing for the trinity. I am questioning whether the lack of meaningful combat roles is a good idea given human behavior in groups everywhere else.

I disagree. As someone else pointed out, humans are by-and-large goal-driven and not role-driven. In most situations, the reward is the most important thing, regardless of how it’s derived. The roles are not done due to the desire to fill a role. They are done out of necessity to succeed.

With football, the goal is to win. People have figured out that the best way to win is with a quarterback, a center, a front line, some runners, some good catchers and some defensive players. You could not run a football game with a team full of quarterbacks, although that role is by far the most prestigious. The rules and play style of the game doesn’t allow for a team full of quarterbacks. Still, I’d wager that most people dream of being the star quarterback.

With the army, the goal is to win. Over time, people have come to realize that roles are necessary to achieve that goal. There is also a rigid leadership hierarchy that makes the job of role placement much easier. Still, most people dream of becoming an ace jet pilot or a tank commander. The job of grunt is not the most desired position. The grunt is still necessary, but I’d wager that most grunts would rather be doing something else.

Brain surgery? Sure it’s a team, but there is one leader and a bunch of followers. And again, the brain surgeon is the coveted title.

This is a recreational game, and should be treated as such. It is not real life. The majority of people want the DPS, since it’s the most tangible trait. This game gives them what they want. The trinity does not.

TChalla.7146:

I disagree. As someone else pointed out, humans are by-and-large goal-driven and not role-driven. In most situations, the reward is the most important thing, regardless of how it’s derived. The roles are not done due to the desire to fill a role. They are done out of necessity to succeed.

Is that so? Is this your own assumption? Or do you have scientific proof for your claim? Please elaborate.

TChalla.7146:

Raine.1394:

Yes, humans have the capacity to learn from experience. My point is simply that humans always approach objectives in a group in a role-based manner, whether we’re talking the army, a sports team, or brain surgery. GW2 combat is not role-based. Could that be why humans are finding it unsatisfying?

That’s it in a nutshell. I’m not arguing for the trinity. I am questioning whether the lack of meaningful combat roles is a good idea given human behavior in groups everywhere else.

I disagree. As someone else pointed out, humans are by-and-large goal-driven and not role-driven. In most situations, the reward is the most important thing, regardless of how it’s derived. The roles are not done due to the desire to fill a role. They are done out of necessity to succeed.

With football, the goal is to win. People have figured out that the best way to win is with a quarterback, a center, a front line, some runners, some good catchers and some defensive players. You could not run a football game with a team full of quarterbacks, although that role is by far the most prestigious. The rules and play style of the game doesn’t allow for a team full of quarterbacks. Still, I’d wager that most people dream of being the star quarterback.

With the army, the goal is to win. Over time, people have come to realize that roles are necessary to achieve that goal. There is also a rigid leadership hierarchy that makes the job of role placement much easier. Still, most people dream of becoming an ace jet pilot or a tank commander. The job of grunt is not the most desired position. The grunt is still necessary, but I’d wager that most grunts would rather be doing something else.

Brain surgery? Sure it’s a team, but there is one leader and a bunch of followers. And again, the brain surgeon is the coveted title.

This is a recreational game, and should be treated as such. It is not real life. The majority of people want the DPS, since it’s the most tangible trait. This game gives them what they want. The trinity does not.

Ok. Get ready for it. Please name one human, objectives-driven, group activity that is not role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed. It doesn’t matter that surgeons lead in an operating theater. Generals lead on a battlefield. What I noted is that humans always organize around roles when they set out to achieve objectives in groups.

Can you give me one activity where this is not so? And, you can read above on why real life matters in the creation of games—or anything else for that matter. Or you could ask yourself why we have melee and ranged roles in combat in games. I mean they are games right, not real life.

Hierarchical command structure (“generals lead on a battlefield”) is different than hyper-specialization. The traditional MMO trinity is hyper-specialization.

Every soldier knows how to fire, load and clean a rifle. They all know how to apply a field dressing. They all know how to throw a grenade. They all know how to fight hand to hand. They all know how to do basic cover/advance or cover/retreat tactics. It’s a matter of degree how well they can do any of those and yes there are those who are better at some than others but not due to the elimination of any of those activities.

Straegen.2938:

A trinity in this game would make it just like every other mainstream fantasy MMO for better or worse. I personally dislike the trinity system but I also think auto-target is the devil.

it’s interesting how people want to keep gw2 different….but at the same time ask for making it a clone of other mmos for other features.

and again:
yes new tiers, but no trinity because it “needs” gear check (i m still searching a relation between them)
hilarious

Behellagh.1468:

Hierarchical command structure (“generals lead on a battlefield”) is different than hyper-specialization. The traditional MMO trinity is hyper-specialization.

Every soldier knows how to fire, load and clean a rifle. They all know how to apply a field dressing. They all know how to throw a grenade. They all know how to fight hand to hand. They all know how to do basic cover/advance or cover/retreat tactics. It’s a matter of degree how well they can do any of those and yes there are those who are better at some than others but not due to the elimination of any of those activities.

And when they execute the group activity we call combat they do it as infantry, artillery, armored units, air support, medical units, etc. They conceive of and execute war in a role-based manner. The execution of combat takes place as the coordination of various combat roles to achieve military objectives.

Aurust.8961:

ANYONE, that disagrees with what i wrote is absolutely wrong and needs more experience with the game.

I for one think that is only PART of the equation. The one-shot kills ARE kinda good, really… just to keep everyone on their toes. But I DO think that making the encounters based off those one-shot techniques needs to be reconsidered.

Naevius.3185:

Here’s an alternate take…what GW2 needs is not tanking, but body-blocking.

Think about it…if you could physically block enemies, you could ‘tank’ – and it would take skill rather than some artificial mechanism.

(Also, it would eliminate the silly stacking in dungeons and zergs.)

Enemy Collision would fix many problems. However it still would feel strange having an Asuran body block a Giant.

Jski.6180:

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.” :<

Well in other mmorpg that what every class is its a support and dps its a tank and dps its a dps and dps (lol) it just dose not work to have a class that cant do any thing when it comes to dmg. So GW2 is not doing any thing new letting all classes have a dps build what they are doing that is different is letting all thoughts class have a tank and support build with out over specialization.

In a way its odd you can only win a fight is by doing dmg in all rpgs you cant talk out of a fight like say a game of D&D it may be just the limitation of what a video game can do vs what a person imagination can do.

Yea, there’s a reason I dropped WoW some time ago to get into D&D. x>

I hate my role at my job and am trying to better my position. If a better position didn’t have a better reward, I wouldn’t want it. As it is, I’m at work for the reward, not the role. Same could be said of that brain surgeon, many want the money. I don’t think anyone in football is playing for free either. Nice jobs but very select or you have to be very smart.

Not sure why you people like to try and compare a video game to real life, this is a game and isn’t really governed by really any reality. I don’t play this game for my role either. I’m here to have fun.

I don’t play any game specifically to play a role. I want to have fun, sometimes that may mean I play a role but it isn’t why I’m playing. Some like to just play a healer, some like to just play a tank. I think that is boring. I also like self sufficiency in my characters. I enjoy that aspect and hated having to wait for a healer if I ever played a class that required such. I was interested in playing this game because I wasn’t dependent upon waiting for the perfect group to do a dungeon. Turns out, I dislike the PvE in this game because of how the encounters are set and stupid mechanics on the boss that makes it useless to bring much beyond DPS. I have a hammer warrior but it isn’t useful in dungeons and I’m better off bring something else to kill with.

But it’s threads like this that explain why GW2 is turning away from what makes it unique and more towards the “traditional” MMO experience.

People like the OP represent the bulk of the market. They want what they are familiar with, and abhor anything that tries to nudge them out of that comfort zone.