Guild Wars 2

Raine.1394:

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.

Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf
Bridge

I just named four within a matter of seconds (sorry it took so long to get back to this. I was teaching a class.)

The fact that we have melee and ranged is a matter of personal preference. Some like to be up close and personal while doing damage, while others prefer to stand back with a bow. And then there are those that like to kill with magic. It’s no different than a personal preference with race. It’s a matter of aesthetics, or feel.

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

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.

It has nothing to do with whether you are happy with your current role. That question would be probably best answered by changing your role. The question I raised was how do humans naturally organize themselves when attempting to achieve objectives in groups. As I considered the question, I noticed that I couldn’t think of any natural human organization that wasn’t role-based. I considered sports teams, universities, armies, business organizations, heck I even considered brain surgery and couldn’t find any instances where humans approached objectives except through a role-based organization.

GW2 is not role-based. There is only one meaningful role in the typical dungeon encounter and that is DPS. I sought for analogues in human history and behavior and could think of only one: the berserker battlefield where everyone enrages and simply goes for it. That is, however, an extremely primitive form of human group behavior. There is no level of coordinating roles with different functions and purpose. It’s interesting to consider all the angst here around the “zerker meta”. Could it be because that’s all we have in the combat system, the Berserker?

TChalla.7146:

Raine.1394:

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.

Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf
Bridge

I just named four within a matter of seconds (sorry it took so long to get back to this. I was teaching a class.)

The fact that we have melee and ranged is a matter of personal preference. Some like to be up close and personal while doing damage, while others prefer to stand back with a bow. And then there are those that like to kill with magic. It’s no different than a personal preference with race. It’s a matter of aesthetics, or feel.

Bridge actually has role states that players alternate though. Consider the dummy. For the others consider the word “Team” in front of the activities. There is no actual team beyond the individual scores. It is, rather obviously, an individual sport where players are grouped artificially. This is actually a lot like GW2 where there are no roles beyond dps. Everyone does one thing and only the combined DPS matters. So, everything with a “Team” before it is not a team sport or what I have called a group activity—you have listed individual sports. Bridge is a team sport and follows a role based format.

BTW, wow, you missed my point entirely with melee and ranged. We don’t have melee and ranged combat because of personal preference. We have them precisely because they existed as archetypal forms of human combat throughout our history. You know large people with swords and maces with groups of archers behind them. People play them out of preference but that is not why they are present in games.

Raine.1394:

TChalla.7146:

Raine.1394:

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.

Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf
Bridge

I just named four within a matter of seconds (sorry it took so long to get back to this. I was teaching a class.)

The fact that we have melee and ranged is a matter of personal preference. Some like to be up close and personal while doing damage, while others prefer to stand back with a bow. And then there are those that like to kill with magic. It’s no different than a personal preference with race. It’s a matter of aesthetics, or feel.

Bridge actually has role states that players alternate though. Consider the dummy. For the others consider the word “Team” in front of the activities. There is no actual team beyond the individual scores. It is, rather obviously, an individual sport where players are grouped artificially. This is actually a lot like GW2 where there are no roles beyond dps. Everyone does one thing and only the combined DPS matters. So, everything with a “Team” before it is not a team sport or what I have called a group activity—you have listed individual sports. Bridge is a team sport and follows a role based format.

BTW, wow, you missed my point entirely with melee and ranged. We don’t have melee and ranged combat because of personal preference. We have them precisely because they existed as archetypal forms of human combat throughout our history. You know large people with swords and maces with groups of archers behind them. People play them out of preference but that is not why they are present in games.

I have given you exactly what you asked for and you have dismissed them simply due to what you deem a group activity. I now think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. So I’ll say this…

If the trinity system is what someone wants, there are plenty of games that offer it. GW2 is not one of them, at least not in the context of the original post.

I personally like the fact that the game does not have the trinity system in place. I find it more a chore than it’s worth, and I’m glad I don’t have to be pigeon-holed into a role for the sake of a group.

I think that it would be great if it was implemented properly, but it wont.
It would allow for structure in all content instead of this “press all of your buttons and do deeps” thing that we have since they killed their “roles” with defiance or whatever its called :l

All is vain

TChalla.7146:

I have given you exactly what you asked for and you have dismissed them simply due to what you deem a group activity. I now think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. So I’ll say this…

If the trinity system is what someone wants, there are plenty of games that offer it. GW2 is not one of them, at least not in the context of the original post.

I personally like the fact that the game does not have the trinity system in place. I find it more a chore than it’s worth, and I’m glad I don’t have to be pigeon-holed into a role for the sake of a group.

You gave me three individual sports and one that largely meets my criteria for a role-based activity. Did you expect me to accept them? And, because I don’t accept individual sports as being group activities, you believe I am arguing for the sake of arguing?

What I can not argue with is your preference for the current GW2 conception of combat. Please realize that there are others who feel it is lacking and who believe it can be made better. I believe only good can come out of the discussion.

Raine.1394:

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.

Those are not examples of roles, in the MMO sense, they would be closer to classes that are capable of fulfilling multiple roles each based on, “equipped weapon.”

For example, using rough real world to MMO analogue:

Infantry can be DPS, Tank, Controller, or support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Air Power can be DPS, Controller, or support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Armored Units can be Tank, DPS, Controller, or support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Artillery can be DPS, Controller, or Support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Medical units are generally just support but there have been instances of them acting as DPS.

…and so on.

I don’t believe in the Trinity system per say. I agree with Arena Net’s core philosophy which is to have fun and enjoy oneself while playing a game. That said, I remember old games like Shining Forces 1 and 2. I mention them because I wanted to point out their evolution. In SF1 the level system was crazy. You could level and get 0 buffs! Or, you could get average, or something awesome to your attributes. In SF2, everyone was more dumbed down, roles were defined for each character, and leveling was relatively mundane and uninteresting. No excitement at the possible progress or rage at the lack thereof. In a word, boring.

What does this have to do with GW2? Its simple. Allow people to speck their attributes more. Right now we have attributes with caps to them, like precision, condition duration, boon duration, etc. People could make these stronger. Boon duration can potentially reach 150% or higher, condition duration could go higher, and so could the rest. If we want there to be more roles in the game, than instead of the only “unlimited” attribute being power, which has no cap, and symbolizes why raw damage is the broken factor in-game, why not let people go off their own deep ends? Instead of pure damage with zerker, let someone speck for full Giver’s armor and go mass healing/toughness/boon duration and let skills that are affected by healing power actually scale in a meaningful way rather than .01%. This would let a character actually be a power healer for instance. Even if his damage is shot to a zerker, suddenly the zerker has to work hard to get his meal to go down. Its a fair tradeoff. In GW1, a healer’s healing always exceeded the amount of damage a one-shot could do no matter how powerful, to keep it balanced. I say lets do the same here. Let people speck out precision. Let them go full condition duration and no limits on condition damage, and give each class skills that allow for better condition removal and group healing skills (at least 1 per class) so people have options to branch out defensively/utility-wise/damage-wise. Like the free market, people do best when their options aren’t limited, when they can fill the niche role that they want. It was stated by the developers that healers in GW1 played heal class because they wanted to be there for their buddies. Seriously, that was 100% me. Thing is, “I will avenge you with my raw DPS!” doesn’t cut it for us. We were there for our buddies by directly healing/defending them. Not by killing the enemy. So my own argument is just this: please don’t limit our options with hard limits/caps on attributes. Take them out completely. Let builds develop that allow players to play those extremes and watch as people adapt and develop their own ways to counter them and still play the way they want to.

Ashen.2907:

Raine.1394:

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.

Those are not examples of roles, in the MMO sense, they would be closer to classes that are capable of fulfilling multiple roles each based on, “equipped weapon.”

For example, using rough real world to MMO analogue:

Infantry can be DPS, Tank, Controller, or support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Air Power can be DPS, Controller, or support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Armored Units can be Tank, DPS, Controller, or support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Artillery can be DPS, Controller, or Support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Medical units are generally just support but there have been instances of them acting as DPS.

…and so on.

What I attempted to show was not MMO roles or analogues, I was showing ways that armies naturally organize for meeting objectives. I am only interested in roles in the ‘roles’ sense, not any specific game sense. I noted that the natural organization of armies was role-based. And, the only thing that really matters is that they are different roles that each group fills uniquely.

Raine.1394:

Bridge actually has role states that players alternate though. Consider the dummy. For the others consider the word “Team” in front of the activities. There is no actual team beyond the individual scores. It is, rather obviously, an individual sport where players are grouped artificially.

In bridge, the dummy is always the partner of the player who won the bid. His “role” is, “sitting back and watching.” Not much of a role. Since every player can win the bid, and thus every player could be in the position of trying to make his bid, defending, or sitting out, I would call that performing different activities within the game rather than roles.

Golf as a team sport is much more than just the individual scores of the players, depending on the format. However, in any team format, every member of the team currently playing is performing similar activities.

Before deciding that something is or isn’t a role, look at who is doing it and whether anyone on the team could be doing it. Roles in trinity games are usually mutually exclusive, because the mechanics of the role define what that player ought and ought not to be doing on a team. Sure, given multiple gear sets and dual spec options, the DPS guy may be able to tank or off-tank an encounter, the DPS caster may be able to heal. However, once they’ve switched specs, they aren’t playing that other role.

You’re trying to say that any situation in which someone does something that’s at all different from what another is doing, that’s his role. If that’s the case, then GW2 has roles — as long as people are doing different things, even if that’s only applying different buffs, defenses, pulling the boss, etc.

Raine.1394:

I am only interested in roles in the ‘roles’ sense, not any specific game sense.

“Infantry,” is not a role to be fulfilled. It is a general classification that can fulfill many different roles on and off of the battlefield. Infantry is not a role, but it can be assigned many different roles, multiple battlefield roles simultaneously in fact. In some ways the GW2 approach is much closer to real life combat than traditional trinity play.

Ultimately I tend to agree that people often like to have and know their role in a given circumstance. Specialization allows us to become experts more readily than if we tried to master everything equally. I know that I loved playing a Ranger interrupter/mid-liner in GW1. Knowing that the rest of the team knew that they could count on me to shut down important enemy team skills (while maintaining conditions on multiple targets) felt good. Getting a flawless victory because, in part, I did my job and did it well, felt good.

My issue with trinity is not a dislike of role specialization, its a real distaste for the abomination (IMO) that is the classic threat generation tanking mechanic.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raine.1394:

Bridge actually has role states that players alternate though. Consider the dummy. For the others consider the word “Team” in front of the activities. There is no actual team beyond the individual scores. It is, rather obviously, an individual sport where players are grouped artificially.

In bridge, the dummy is always the partner of the player who won the bid. His “role” is, “sitting back and watching.” Not much of a role. Since every player can win the bid, and thus every player could be in the position of trying to make his bid, defending, or sitting out, I would call that performing different activities within the game rather than roles.

Golf as a team sport is much more than just the individual scores of the players, depending on the format. However, in any team format, every member of the team currently playing is performing similar activities.

Before deciding that something is or isn’t a role, look at who is doing it and whether anyone on the team could be doing it. Roles in trinity games are usually mutually exclusive, because the mechanics of the role define what that player ought and ought not to be doing on a team. Sure, given multiple gear sets and dual spec options, the DPS guy may be able to tank or off-tank an encounter, the DPS caster may be able to heal. However, once they’ve switched specs, they aren’t playing that other role.

You’re trying to say that any situation in which someone does something that’s at all different from what another is doing, that’s his role. If that’s the case, then GW2 has roles — as long as people are doing different things, even if that’s only applying different buffs, defenses, pulling the boss, etc.

I agree that the roles are limited in Bridge, but, I’m going to accept Bridge as role-based group activity. I believe I said in my last post that I felt it ‘largely’ met the criteria. On the question of activities or roles, I’d say that what a role is in human groups is well established. I feel secure in my understanding of what a role is. Consider all the examples I have given. Yes, all the roles were doing something different but they all exist as established roles. A lineman plays a different role than a defensive back. That should be fairly clear. And, a surgeon is clearly playing a different role in the operating theater than the janitor that cleans up after surgery. They fill different role in providing surgical services.

All the sports he listed where individual sports. Yes you can group people together who are all playing an individual sport, but they are all playing the same individual sport. I would say that individual sports played as a “team” are a non-starter as an objectives-based, group activity. There are just too many good examples out that are actual team sports or group activities and they all look remarkably the same. They are all role-based.

What’s at issue is that combat in GW2 is clearly not organized around established, meaningful roles. You can talk about utility, support, or control but you can’t play them as a role in combat. There is only one role in combat here and that is DPS.

Ashen.2907:

Raine.1394:

I am only interested in roles in the ‘roles’ sense, not any specific game sense.

“Infantry,” is not a role to be fulfilled. It is a general classification that can fulfill many different roles on and off of the battlefield. Infantry is not a role, but it can be assigned many different roles, multiple battlefield roles simultaneously in fact. In some ways the GW2 approach is much closer to real life combat than traditional trinity play.

Ultimately I tend to agree that people often like to have and know their role in a given circumstance. Specialization allows us to become experts more readily than if we tried to master everything equally. I know that I loved playing a Ranger interrupter/mid-liner in GW1. Knowing that the rest of the team knew that they could count on me to shut down important enemy team skills (while maintaining conditions on multiple targets) felt good. Getting a flawless victory because, in part, I did my job and did it well, felt good.

My issue with trinity is not a dislike of role specialization, its a real distaste for the abomination (IMO) that is the classic threat generation tanking mechanic.

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. There are many things infantry can do, but all fall under the infantry role in combat. This is true not because he is doing something the same or different from others, though his role is unique, it’s rather because he is playing an established combat role.

What I’m interested in is not whether people like their current role in any given activity but rather what is the natural human preference for organization in group activities that are goal-oriented/objectives-based. Looking at the human world I see a strong preference for a role-based approach to solving problems in groups.

Edit: again I don’t use the wiki as a primary source, but it can be helpful. Look up Infantry on the wiki. You will find a subhead title “Combat Role”. That’s what I’m talking about here. There can be many roles played by someone in the infantry. But all infantry members will be fulfilling the “combat role” of Infantry.

Ozoug.4158:

It would be a better game.

For WvW it would encourage fighting rather than fleeing.

For PvE it would encourage content that requires teamwork instead of smacking your facea gainst the keyboard

I logged on just to up vote this post. ArenaNet tried something different with no trinity and to be honest it failed, pve combat is a boring zerg mess and wvw is zerg and run away. No class structure and no roles. Its such a shame because GW2 is hands down one of the best looking MMOs in terms of polish and art design, pity the gameplay is garbage.

Knighthonor.4061:

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

Pure speculation discussion, so feel free to give your belief of what the game would be like with a traditional Tank/Healer/DPS trinity system.

(excuse the title of thread. limited character prevents title detail)

Like if it was designed that way in mind from the start? Well we’d have a pretty different game, of course, though perhaps with enough of it’s own appeal and mechanics to stand out.

If it was something that would recently be “thrown in” after the fact, I don’t think a whole lot would change, really, since the meta doesn’t need it. You can already emulate it to an extent with the toughness-based tank/“anchor” AH guardians. But I think everyone would still just zerker it up, unless they also got rid of the dodge button.

I think it IS still working like “Trinity” because people still think this way.
Okay, there is no more “LFG Monk…”
There are “Guardians please!”, then if you join with elementalist, they ask you to use water heals. Sooo….
Until most of users can’t care for themselves enough (even if the balance “forces” them to become glasscannon), there will be healers, dps guys & tanks (that only works at bad AI)

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.

why are you talking about gear? have you not played gw1?

Knightshonor stop trying to turn this game into WoW. If you want WoW go play WoW and leave our game alone!

Next you’ll be asking for pandas and gnomes.

milo.6942:

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.

why are you talking about gear? have you not played gw1?

This is not GW1 Anet already burned that bridge by adding gear grind.

I’m glad I don’t have to wait in town any more while shouting LFG Monks! But The combat is so bland. There just isn’t any depth to it. The dungeons are just a gimmicky grind, with enemies that take way too long to kill (so everyone skips them), and damage is way more important than defense or healing (so everyone goes zerker).

There’s no real inter-class dependency, however! There are still classes that are more effective at some things than other classes, thus making some classes inferior. For example, if you’re doing the Burrows in Ascalon Catacombs, a simple Icebow will instantly vaporize any burrow. But try DPS’ing them to death without Icebow, and you have a lot more difficulty. And Guardians clearly make all the difference in the world when survivability is concerned.

So what we have is no trinity, but horribly unbalanced classes in PVE. And apparently my necromancer is just there as a cheerleader for the guardians.

But oh wait, hold the press!

Then there are the large open world events, such as Tequatl and the new Wurm bosses, that require a level of cooperation that goes so far in the other direction, that after a few days no one bothers doing them any more. It’s just too much work to get everyone in the same overflow (without being able to choose districts), and to use Team Speak (which isn’t a game feature, which the devs seem to forget every now and then).

Isn’t there some middle ground?

Can’t we have smaller scale content that requires a higher level of cooperation than dungeons, but can be done with a modest group of people (or with your guild), and without Team Speak?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

I’m glad I don’t have to wait in town any more while shouting LFG Monks! But The combat is so bland. There just isn’t any depth to it. The dungeons are just a gimmicky grind, with enemies that take way too long to kill (so everyone skips them), and damage is way more important than defense or healing (so everyone goes zerker).

There’s no real inter-class dependency, however! There are still classes that are more effective at some things than other classes, thus making some classes inferior. For example, if you’re doing the Burrows in Ascalon Catacombs, a simple Icebow will instantly vaporize any burrow. But try DPS’ing them to death without Icebow, and you have a lot more difficulty. And Guardians clearly make all the difference in the world when survivability is concerned.

So what we have is no trinity, but horribly unbalanced classes in PVE. And apparently my necromancer is just there as a cheerleader for the guardians.

But oh wait, hold the press!

Then there are the large open world events, such as Tequatl and the new Wurm bosses, that require a level of cooperation that goes so far in the other direction, that after a few days no one bothers doing them any more. It’s just too much work to get everyone in the same overflow (without being able to choose districts), and to use Team Speak (which isn’t a game feature, which the devs seem to forget every now and then).

Isn’t there some middle ground?

Can’t we have smaller scale content that requires a higher level of cooperation than dungeons, but can be done with a modest group of people (or with your guild), and without Team Speak?

Absolutely spot on with your analysis of why this game feels so “meh” for me. As an ex WoW heroic raider the PvE content in this game is so poor sometimes I play runescape to get away from gw2.

I know most wont agree with me because they don’t like to grind or time investment, but this game needs;

PROGRESSION: armour/levels/weapons/fresh content

THE TRINITY: LF1m healer, how about people learn to play a different play style rather than spamming lfhealer all the time, it’s not actually that hard.
it would add more depth to this game, tanks, dps, healer in WvW, you could actually coordinate instead of spaming skills and running in a group spamming auto attack (my god this game is a challenge)

CHALLENGES: ya know why a lot of people stopped playing WoW (not including me) they preferred the old content that catered towards actual skill, effort and coordination and they made the game easier to cater to the noobs that don’t know their left from their right.

REWARDS: when a group of 50 people come together which is a rare occurrence in this game and are successful in killing or doing whatever they’re doing they should be rewarded greatly for that achievement. Even boss fights/dungeons that are more challenging should reward better.

This game cannot go on if all Anet is gonna do is keep releasing more skins rather than progression items that people can aim for, because sooner or later people get bored if their only goal is to look like a special snowflake. I know I am already.

It would be far worse. The lack of the trinity is one of the best things about this game.

WvW would take the biggest hit if the trinity were introduced. Strategy would go out the window. Players would start yelling at anybody who didn’t come as elementalist, healer or tank, and keeps would never be capped because there would be tanks standing in the glowing circle surrounded by two dozen monks keeping them alive.

ElexOrieN.2130:

DPS = Warrior
Tank = Warrior/Guardian
Support = Guardian/Mesmer

We do have the trinity in this game it’s just that some people fail to realize it.

that’s not anything compared to the trinity. Those three play nothing like the trinity. Tanking can be done to some extent in the game, but gameplay is not comparable to the usual trinity of tank, healer and dps.

And to answer the question… GW2 with the trinity would be lame.

If this game was changed to have a trinity system the ONE thing making it unique on the market right now would be gone. Along with a massive portion of the player base.

Neilos Tyrhanos.5427:

It would be far worse. The lack of the trinity is one of the best things about this game.

WvW would take the biggest hit if the trinity were introduced. Strategy would go out the window. Players would start yelling at anybody who didn’t come as elementalist, healer or tank, and keeps would never be capped because there would be tanks standing in the glowing circle surrounded by two dozen monks keeping them alive.

But, I’m playing WoW right now and that is not what I’m experiencing. I’m leveling a monk and periodically queuing for instances for the better quality gear. What actually happens is I use the LFG tool and within a couple three minutes I’m teleported into an instance with group of players comprised of people playing three distinct roles. No one has yelled at me because I’m DPS or because I’m a monk. We just do the instance as the group that we are. It works the same way in PvP in battlegrounds which I do periodically for the fun and to build up a little honor while leveling. People actually capture objectives just fine even when healers are healing. (Experienced players know that it’s usually a good strategy to kill the healers first and that’s part of the strategy possible when you have people filling different roles.)

And, strategy really is not in GW2 to go out the window. If I were doing the instance in GW2 there would be a group of people just going for it, probably stacked in one place zerging down the boss. Under the trinity there is actual strategy possible with coordinated activity of three distinct roles who all bring unique capabilities to the encounter like meaningful CC. This strategy is allowed by the relative complexity of coordinating an actual team of players rather than a berserker group that just enrages and attacks a boss.

Most of the complaints about the trinity, and certainly the ones mentioned here, are simply not true.

Yea, I played trinity games for 8 years and never experienced even 1/4 of the nightmare I’ve seen described in this thread.

I like GW2’s dungeon system just as it is, but I’d also be pretty excited about the idea of it going Trinity. Not going Trinity will keep things as they are, which means continued loyalty from the current playerbase. Going Trinity would be a massive gamble, but could very well be quite fun. I know that I’d probably start doing more dungeons if that happened.

Either way is fine for me, and I really don’t buy any of the doom and gloom BS you see on both sides of the fence here. Trinity games are a lot of fun, and are doing just fine. And the current GW2 dungeon system is really fun, and is doing just fine. The playerbase won’t be hurt either way, regardless of what direction Anet goes with it.

-Signed,
Someone who used to be hardcore against the trinity (surf my previous posts )

I’m not against trinity. It works very well in some games (TERA, WoW). It’s just that it devolves the game into a spreadsheet. It removes any kind of good combat experience in PvP (which as I mentioned before, comes down to a gear check. What I mean by that is it’s basically a numbers game rather than action based).

Considering that GW2 is basically what I’ve been looking for since I was in high school (I’ve always disliked trinity combat, always wanted an MMO with an ongoing story that changes the landscape of the game and such), I would say that their implementation of a soft trinity is almost spot on. There’s a few balancing issues that could yet be ironed out, for example, warriors are too good at everything, while a mesmer, necromancer or ranger doesn’t bring as much to the table compared to the classes I haven’t yet mentioned. There’s also the issue of AI encounters being way too bland (dodge or instagib) which makes support roles take a backseat.

Then again, one of GW2’s most redeeming features is WvW, where roles become very pronounced – Warrior/Guardian being the tanky hammer train protecting the mid and backlines made up of other classes providing DPS and support. The only problem is that out of the 24 NA servers available to pick from, perhaps only the top 9 are playing ANet’s vision of WvW, as it doesn’t draw enough players from the overall GW2 population with its perceived poor reward system (which gets compounded when there’s no one to fight with or against).

“Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf”

-Now lets compare these team sports(lol) to actual team sports.

Bowling vs football
Darts vs hockey

Ozoug.4158:

“Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf”

-Now lets compare these team sports(lol) to actual team sports.

Bowling vs football
Darts vs hockey

Funny how nothing in the lists at all resembles MMO combat…

Reverence.6915:

I’m not against trinity. It works very well in some games (TERA, WoW). It’s just that it devolves the game into a spreadsheet. It removes any kind of good combat experience in PvP (which as I mentioned before, comes down to a gear check. What I mean by that is it’s basically a numbers game rather than action based).

Considering that GW2 is basically what I’ve been looking for since I was in high school (I’ve always disliked trinity combat, always wanted an MMO with an ongoing story that changes the landscape of the game and such), I would say that their implementation of a soft trinity is almost spot on. There’s a few balancing issues that could yet be ironed out, for example, warriors are too good at everything, while a mesmer, necromancer or ranger doesn’t bring as much to the table compared to the classes I haven’t yet mentioned. There’s also the issue of AI encounters being way too bland (dodge or instagib) which makes support roles take a backseat.

Then again, one of GW2’s most redeeming features is WvW, where roles become very pronounced – Warrior/Guardian being the tanky hammer train protecting the mid and backlines made up of other classes providing DPS and support. The only problem is that out of the 24 NA servers available to pick from, perhaps only the top 9 are playing ANet’s vision of WvW, as it doesn’t draw enough players from the overall GW2 population with its perceived poor reward system (which gets compounded when there’s no one to fight with or against).

The concepts “trinity” and “gearcheck” are completely unrelated. That is, whether you have a trinity or not has no bearing on whether you have a gearcheck. Gearchecks usually exist in games that have vertical progression. They can be hard as in having a minimum item level for certain content or soft as in the case of a group looking for a guardian in ascended gear. Whenever max level gear (stat-wise) at max level is non-trivial to attain, you have the possibility for all manner of gearchecks.

Since you have an interest in PvP I suggest you go to skill-capped.com and watch a few videos of rated battlegrounds and arenas in a trinity-based game. What you will witness is a level of strategy employed and team coordination that is just not possible in GW2. I think it will be obvious to an unbiased observer whether that trinity-based game or GW2 has the higher skill cap. Part of the reason for the higher skill cap is the benefit of coordinating markedly different combat roles (though you may see occasional dps/dps in 2’s). BTW, that game has a gearcheck, but it is because of vertical progression, not the trinity. And, if you are talking about DPS being from the spreadsheet that’s true in any game. Look at the profession forums here and you will see posts “with the math” included about the best gear and the best builds. That too, has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the trinity.

Would love it → I’m playing always healer, it`s great to find a group fast ^^

VOLKON.1290:

Ozoug.4158:

“Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf”

-Now lets compare these team sports(lol) to actual team sports.

Bowling vs football
Darts vs hockey

Funny how nothing in the lists at all resembles MMO combat…

They weren’t attempting to “resemble” MMO combat. The question at hand was how do humans generally go about achieving objectives in groups. But, the answer to that question is relevant to understanding what will work better or worse in an MMO. As I’ve noted we get our general concepts within games from the real life experience of being human. For instance, we have melee and ranged combat because those have been archetypes that have existed within combat throughout our history. Who we are how we do things, generally, is very important in terms of how we design games. So yeah, nothing in the lists was intended to resemble anything within an MMO, but how humans behave in groups is relevant for the MMO or any game.

Raine.1394:

The concepts “trinity” and “gearcheck” are completely unrelated. That is, whether you have a trinity or not has no bearing on whether you have a gearcheck. Gearchecks usually exist in games that have vertical progression. They can be hard as in having a minimum item level for certain content or soft as in the case of a group looking for a guardian in ascended gear. Whenever max level gear (stat-wise) at max level is non-trivial to attain, you have the possibility for all manner of gearchecks.

It doesn’t matter if there’s vertical progression or not, all trinity comes down to is the tankiest person soaking up the most damage, the strongest person putting out the most dps, and the healer being the one shouted at for not healing properly. In other words, a numbers game. There’s no active combat involved.

Raine.1394:

Since you have an interest in PvP I suggest you go to skill-capped.com and watch a few videos of rated battlegrounds and arenas in a trinity-based game. What you will witness is a level of strategy employed and team coordination that is just not possible in GW2. I think it will be obvious to an unbiased observer whether that trinity-based game or GW2 has the higher skill cap. Part of the reason for the higher skill cap is the benefit of coordinating markedly different combat roles (though you may see occasional dps/dps in 2’s). BTW, that game has a gearcheck, but it is because of vertical progression, not the trinity. And, if you are talking about DPS being from the spreadsheet that’s true in any game. Look at the profession forums here and you will see posts “with the math” included about the best gear and the best builds. That too, has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the trinity.

I actually have very little interest in PvP outside of GW2. GW2 is the only MMORPG where I like the PvP modes over the PvE modes because of the lack of a rigid trinity. If you think trinity based games have a higher skillcap, you have never seen good tPvP guilds do their thing.

In GW2, any gearset is viable for running 99% of PvE content (ok, so you can’t speed run dungeons, and you can’t complete high level fractals… that’s about it). At the same time, in PvP, there are many many different gear builds for the roles you’re playing. (Support bunker/glass cannon ele, Bunker/glass/heal warrior, bunker/heal guardian etc etc etc.). That alone makes GW2’s combat far more interesting than your average trinity system.

Reverence.6915:

Raine.1394:

The concepts “trinity” and “gearcheck” are completely unrelated. That is, whether you have a trinity or not has no bearing on whether you have a gearcheck. Gearchecks usually exist in games that have vertical progression. They can be hard as in having a minimum item level for certain content or soft as in the case of a group looking for a guardian in ascended gear. Whenever max level gear (stat-wise) at max level is non-trivial to attain, you have the possibility for all manner of gearchecks.

It doesn’t matter if there’s vertical progression or not, all trinity comes down to is the tankiest person soaking up the most damage, the strongest person putting out the most dps, and the healer being the one shouted at for not healing properly. In other words, a numbers game. There’s no active combat involved.

Raine.1394:

Since you have an interest in PvP I suggest you go to skill-capped.com and watch a few videos of rated battlegrounds and arenas in a trinity-based game. What you will witness is a level of strategy employed and team coordination that is just not possible in GW2. I think it will be obvious to an unbiased observer whether that trinity-based game or GW2 has the higher skill cap. Part of the reason for the higher skill cap is the benefit of coordinating markedly different combat roles (though you may see occasional dps/dps in 2’s). BTW, that game has a gearcheck, but it is because of vertical progression, not the trinity. And, if you are talking about DPS being from the spreadsheet that’s true in any game. Look at the profession forums here and you will see posts “with the math” included about the best gear and the best builds. That too, has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the trinity.

I actually have very little interest in PvP outside of GW2. GW2 is the only MMORPG where I like the PvP modes over the PvE modes because of the lack of a rigid trinity. If you think trinity based games have a higher skillcap, you have never seen good tPvP guilds do their thing.

In GW2, any gearset is viable for running 99% of PvE content (ok, so you can’t speed run dungeons, and you can’t complete high level fractals… that’s about it). At the same time, in PvP, there are many many different gear builds for the roles you’re playing. (Support bunker/glass cannon ele, Bunker/glass/heal warrior, bunker/heal guardian etc etc etc.). That alone makes GW2’s combat far more interesting than your average trinity system.

All combat in all games is a numbers game. At the most basic level it’s about depleting an opponents health before they deplete yours. There is nothing about the trinity that makes combat any more numbers-oriented than that of GW2. It simply presents a more role-based approach to solving the problem that we call combat. You are misunderstanding and misusing the term “gear check”. I explained what a gear check is in my post. And, yes, I have watched the vids of all the best GW2 guilds. That’s why I suggested you compare the combat, at a high level, in GW2 with a trinity based game if you think it contributes to less active combat. It doesn’t.

Ozoug.4158:

“Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf”

-Now lets compare these team sports(lol) to actual team sports.

Bowling vs football
Darts vs hockey

Funny how you assumed I was even attempting to label these as team sports. The original challenge was:

“Please name one human, objectives-driven, group activity that is not role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.”

I answered with four examples that met that criteria. Not once did I call any of them a sport.

Waiting up to 2 hours trying to find a tank or healer? No thanks ! ! !

I like the instant grouping of GW2 much, MUCH better than those trinity games.

TChalla.7146:

Ozoug.4158:

“Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf”

-Now lets compare these team sports(lol) to actual team sports.

Bowling vs football
Darts vs hockey

Funny how you assumed I was even attempting to label these as team sports. The original challenge was:

“Please name one human, objectives-driven, group activity that is not role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.”

I answered with four examples that met that criteria. Not once did I call any of them a sport.

And, as I mentioned to you, your answers didn’t really meet the criteria. Individual sports are not going to serve well in understanding the dynamics of group behavior in achieving an objective. Teams playing an individual are all playing the individual sport. The team is just an artificial grouping of individual players. So, no you didn’t call them a sport, but you also didn’t provide examples that met the criteria. You are free to provide examples that do meet the criteria if you so desire.

Karizee.8076:

Waiting up to 2 hours trying to find a tank or healer? No thanks ! ! !

I like the instant grouping of GW2 much, MUCH better than those trinity games.

I’m leveling a monk in a trinity-based game currently and am regularly queuing for instances. Not once has it taken over three minutes to put together a group and I didn’t once have to look for a tank or healer, the lfg tool did all the work. It was effortless.

Raine.1394:

TChalla.7146:

Ozoug.4158:

“Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf”

-Now lets compare these team sports(lol) to actual team sports.

Bowling vs football
Darts vs hockey

Funny how you assumed I was even attempting to label these as team sports. The original challenge was:

“Please name one human, objectives-driven, group activity that is not role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.”

I answered with four examples that met that criteria. Not once did I call any of them a sport.

And, as I mentioned to you, your answers didn’t really meet the criteria. Individual sports are not going to serve well in understanding the dynamics of group behavior in achieving an objective. Teams playing an individual are all playing the individual sport. The team is just an artificial grouping of individual players. So, no you didn’t call them a sport, but you also didn’t provide examples that met the criteria. You are free to provide examples that do meet the criteria if you so desire.

My last response wasn’t even directed at you. I gave up with your semantics arguments last night. My response was directly towards the person that failed to read what I’d typed. Nothing more… nothing less.

But… now that you mention it, you might want to watch the Ryder’s Cup some time, and then tell me that team golf doesn’t meet the criteria. Tiger Woods would beg to differ.

TChalla.7146:

Raine.1394:

TChalla.7146:

Ozoug.4158:

“Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf”

-Now lets compare these team sports(lol) to actual team sports.

Bowling vs football
Darts vs hockey

Funny how you assumed I was even attempting to label these as team sports. The original challenge was:

“Please name one human, objectives-driven, group activity that is not role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.”

I answered with four examples that met that criteria. Not once did I call any of them a sport.

And, as I mentioned to you, your answers didn’t really meet the criteria. Individual sports are not going to serve well in understanding the dynamics of group behavior in achieving an objective. Teams playing an individual are all playing the individual sport. The team is just an artificial grouping of individual players. So, no you didn’t call them a sport, but you also didn’t provide examples that met the criteria. You are free to provide examples that do meet the criteria if you so desire.

My last response wasn’t even directed at you. I gave up with your semantics arguments last night. My response was directly towards the person that failed to read what I’d typed. Nothing more… nothing less.

But… now that you mention it, you might want to watch the Ryder’s Cup some time, and then tell me that team golf doesn’t meet the criteria. Tiger Woods would beg to differ.

Is golf a team sport? Google it. You certainly have teams playing golf. There are college teams. You have Ryder Cup or Walker Cup competitions. There are certainly people who consider golf a team sport in some sense. Some consider the pro tour a team sport. But, golf, as golf, is a purely individual sport. Can the purely individual sport golf be played in teams of various kinds. Sure, but it is not a team sport.

I made clear that i was interested in human preferences for organization around achieving objectives in groups. Or simply put, how do humans usually go about achieving objectives in groups. Team sports are a perfect fit for answering this question. They are designed to be groups that go about achieving an objective. An individual sport designed to be played as an individual sport with the possibility of people playing together in different ways isn’t.

Interestingly, one search result suggested that golf was a team sport and that the team consisted of the golfer and the caddy. Ah, I like this one! Here we have a team composed of different members playing different roles in achieving the same objective.

But, hey, come up with group activities that meet the criteria. Your Bridge was a very interesting game to question. There is a weak concept of ‘team’ in bridge in that you have partners play on the same side. But you also have a very weak concept of role in that they alternate through different modes of play and you could say they are alternating through different roles. But Bridge is a pretty bad example to demonstrate your position or mine. If you are interested in understanding group behavior around meeting objectives there is a plethora of examples all around us. I named many across my posts and won’t repeat them here. They are all similar in one regard and that is that they are predominantly role-based in terms of how the group is conceived and how the actions of achieving an objective are executed.

TChalla.7146:

Ozoug.4158:

“Team bowling
Team Darts
Team Golf”

-Now lets compare these team sports(lol) to actual team sports.

Bowling vs football
Darts vs hockey

Funny how you assumed I was even attempting to label these as team sports. The original challenge was:

“Please name one human, objectives-driven, group activity that is not role-based in terms of how it is conceived and executed.”

I answered with four examples that met that criteria. Not once did I call any of them a sport.

Whether it’s called a team sport or team darts is just arguing semantics. My point was that one requires very little teamwork, and the other requires a lot. You made an example of instances where people do the exact same thing to reach a common goal. I am just pointing out how boring it is compared to when actual team interaction is required.

I feel GW2 would be weaker and closer to other MMOs. There’s just other creative ways of dealing with mob control and party healing. I’m not sure what the developers think when they read the weekly topic of trinity, opinions seem very divided. I just think the game should be different from other games and have new creative mechanics for party support. Please don’t change the game ANet.

I’m pretty well done arguing whether or not people prefer role-oriented play versus goal-oriented play, because it’s a stupid argument. Roles can be a necessity and not simply added in for the fun factor. Dodgeball would be another example. It is definitiely a team activity where there are no roles. Each member of a team has the exact same task. And it is still fun.

Getting back to the original topic, my other point still stands. The trinity doesn’t make combat better in my opinion because each member is forced to fill a specific role, and heaven help them if they deviate from that role, even if it actually made sense to do so.

GW2 allows each and every player to contribute to the end goal by dishing out as much damage as possible in as short a span of time as possible. The fact that there are teams is derived from the fact that it takes more damage to take something down than one person can dish out. And it is also derived from the fact that this is a multi-player game, and it’s fun to hang out with a group and work towards a goal together, whether there are roles or not. It’s called being sociable.

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..

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.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/If-I-were-a-Game-Designer-during-alpha/first#post3535113

As I explain in my very long list of personal ideals for gw2, gw2 did have a unique model. It WAS a trinity but not the typical one. They replaced this with a full group all dps free for all. That isn’t unique, they turned a potentially awesome mmo into a hack and slash multiplayer.

What they had was one of the most logic and fun trinities that could have existed. Damage dealers, healers/support and enfeeblers/utility. Read my post if you want an i depth analysis of how it would have worked, it’s too long to rewrite. But essentially this model would have had 3 VERY unique roles that didn’t rely on broken logic (mobs attacking the toughest guy in the group? And playing the ui (healing), but instead promote team work. Supporters to buff and heal allies, damage dealers to damage and control enemies and Enfeeblers to deal some damage and provide conditions to hinder enemies, allowing allies to perform their roles better/more effectively. This trinity not only made more sense than any pass mmo, it was cool! But no, we just have zerker heroes one-hundred blading and slashing axes through mounds of mobs, getting one-shot and picked right back up… I don’t see how this is more attractive gameplay…

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.

TChalla.7146:

I’m pretty well done arguing whether or not people prefer role-oriented play versus goal-oriented play, because it’s a stupid argument. Roles can be a necessity and not simply added in for the fun factor. Dodgeball would be another example. It is definitiely a team activity where there are no roles. Each member of a team has the exact same task. And it is still fun.

Getting back to the original topic, my other point still stands. The trinity doesn’t make combat better in my opinion because each member is forced to fill a specific role, and heaven help them if they deviate from that role, even if it actually made sense to do so.

GW2 allows each and every player to contribute to the end goal by dishing out as much damage as possible in as short a span of time as possible. The fact that there are teams is derived from the fact that it takes more damage to take something down than one person can dish out. And it is also derived from the fact that this is a multi-player game, and it’s fun to hang out with a group and work towards a goal together, whether there are roles or not. It’s called being sociable.

That wasn’t the question I was arguing. I wasn’t asking whether humans prefer role-oriented play over goal-oriented play. I already considered that the group activity was goal-oriented. My question, when I used the term preference (and the term may have confused you), was how do humans naturally choose to organize themselves in achieving tasks in groups. That is not a part of any “stupid” argument; rather, it should be a very important point in deciding how to design group activities in games.

I’m not arguing for the trinity to be instituted in GW2. I’m simply noting that the trinity is role-based and our current design of group combat is not. Given how humans naturally organize themselves when doing teamwork, will the absence of meaningful combat roles lead to unsatisfying combat. That is my underlying question for the game. I understand that people have differing preferences when it comes to the trinity. I’m not arguing for a preference. I’m asking, rather, how humans naturally behave and whether the game should take that into consideration in the design of the combat system.

As much as I like challenging content, taking 2 years to figure out a way to clear a raid wouldn’t work today. Even for WoW. Please refer to the rant topics on this forum about people complaining why they can’t beat a boss on the very first day the boss was released!

(If you’re smart, you would understand I completely agree with you and what I said was not meant for you).

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.