Drewser Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 No, Monks will have three trees. Tank, DPS and healer. Same as a Paladin or Druid. Also, who would purposely choose a role as boring as "CCer" or "Buffer"? The problem with roles like this is that no one would take them because the other jobs are so much more entertaining. If you had classes dedicated to this, and it was a requirement to clear content, it would be a situation where groups would take forever to form due to lack of these specialized classes. EQ tried this with Enchanters and for the most part enchanters were few and far between (though luckily, you could clear content without them). Heck, trinity games already have a lack of tanks and healers normally due to people heavily preferring to DPS... can you imagine if you also had to find a dedicated CCer or Buffer? Are you kidding? The CC/buffer/debuffer classes in CoH were great fun to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galbatorrix Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Are you kidding? The CC/buffer/debuffer classes in CoH were great fun to play. Yeah? And that one's free to play while the biggest trinity advocate has over 10 million subscribers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FourTwent Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I like the trinity system. same here. i mean you saying this class is the same as that class except they spam different abilities is an over-simplification of how a class(in any game) plays. while im interested in seeing something like GW2 with no system like this, I prefer it. a specific person in the group should be filling a specific role in my opinion. this way lets players optimize their playstyle since they get so used to it over time. even in GW2 with no system like this, you're still going to have groups designating roles to certain members in the group, whether it's grabbing adds, or offtanking a miniboss. i mean, with no system and roles like this, you can't really optimize your gear unless the stats are uber generic. else you'll have DPS gear, tank gear, heal gear, and then you'll still be filling those trinity roles. . .just after you equip your optimal gear. in a single player game, maybe. . .but in an MMO where you group with people in a guild and can spread these roles out. there's a reason why there's a trinity system. . .it's optimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabarok Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I disagree with this part. I've run a tabletop pen and paper session of D&D for decades now and I've created many, many combat encounters where the trilogy is not helpful. Since this is one of the core games that many RPGs sprang from, it's not that hard to create similar scenarios for it. Regarding the title of this thread: ALL MMOs should start de-emphasizing the trinity. The advantage you have as a GM in D&D is that you can design the encounters specifically for the exact group of people that will run them to give them the challenge they can overcome. You work with the group personally and you not only know their stat based skills, you also know how they think & work together. Since you are also acting as a game engine, you can handle a wider variety of unusual strategies, inputs and environment than a computer can. In how many of your sessions did the players come up with an idea to solve something that you never considered? This is why P&P D&D has survived for so long; it does things that computers haven't been able to replace. I've seen many posts saying "it can be done", but none with any actual examples. I have seen many boss fights that are complicated, but very few where you don't need either someone to tank or someone to heal. On those rare times when there was no healer, the tactic was either a DPS race or kiting. I know one boss fight in LOTRO which involves 4 tanks in a 12-man. 2 of the tanks are the proper melee tank classes which tank the adds. The 2 bosses get tanked by hunters, which are ranged DPS medium armour and wouldn't normally ever tank. They aren't tank classes, but the boss encounter works best if they fill the tank role, so before the battle 2 hunters are named the ranged tanks. The thing about how people are and use words, if it is someone's job to try and be the one getting attacked, they are the tank no matter what class they are playing. When I've been in teams where we didn't have a proper tank, the first thing we'd all discuss is which one of us will fill the role of tank, because someone's going to get hit, and you want it to be the one with the best chance of surviving. I have seen lots of boss fights done without a healer, but none that were easier because they had no healers. I can't think of any boss fights that didn't involve someone filling a tank role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farho Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) No, Monks will have three trees. Tank, DPS and healer. Same as a Paladin or Druid. Also, who would purposely choose a role as boring as "CCer" or "Buffer"? The problem with roles like this is that no one would take them because the other jobs are so much more entertaining. If you had classes dedicated to this, and it was a requirement to clear content, it would be a situation where groups would take forever to form due to lack of these specialized classes. EQ tried this with Enchanters and for the most part enchanters were few and far between (though luckily, you could clear content without them). Heck, trinity games already have a lack of tanks and healers normally due to people heavily preferring to DPS... can you imagine if you also had to find a dedicated CCer or Buffer? I'm all for adding variety the the trinity system, but not at the expense of making groups harder to form. I'd rather them keep the trinity system and just make boss encounter more fun by adding events/phases to them so you;re not just tanking and spanking the whole time. No, the monks tank and healing will be hybrid with dps as far as it was declared a few months ago. Dedicated CC or buffer is not an option. (well if you read my idea no role should be dedicated) They should be hybrid roles and should be designed to replace/be replaced by original trinity roles. At least 4 person FPs requiring more than 3 roles is, of course, not an acceptable design phylosophy. Example: Scoundrel, Sage, Sentinel and Gunslinger enters a FP. This group is currently unable to take out any boss. So the Gunslinger (with 1 click) turns to Kiter (which can replace the role of a tank) and Scoundrel turns to Buffer or DPS so the group has a viable setup. Edited February 20, 2012 by Farho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myria_K Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 WoW's been around too long; whole generations have seen nothing but the trinity. They have no frame of reference by not having played games that didn't use it. Your not gonna convince em on a forum board, they simply can't conceptualize something as basic as that. They can't help it. they were never exposed to it and the rest of the industry is STILL trying to cash in on the EQ/WoW train. In a thread where multiple people have discussed their experiences with current games that do not use the trinity, that's about the most pathetically weak argument it is possible to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewser Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yeah? And that one's free to play while the biggest trinity advocate has over 10 million subscribers.... Your point? McDonald's has more customers everyday than say Ruth's Chris - it doesn't make their food any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farho Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Your point? McDonald's has more customers everyday than say Ruth's Chris - it doesn't make their food any better. Along with the fact that WoW fills the niche which trinity lovers create if there's any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galbatorrix Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Your point? McDonald's has more customers everyday than say Ruth's Chris - it doesn't make their food any better. Bad analogy. With trinity vs support, many people will prefer one over the other (and if you look at subs, the trinity system is winning... by a lot. Hence my point). I very seriously doubt many people would prefer McDonalds over a nice Steak, Baked Potato and salad. People eat McDonalds because it's fast and cheap. People could play games other than WOW for the same price. They stick with WOW because they prefer it. Edited February 20, 2012 by Galbatorrix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabarok Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Your point? McDonald's has more customers everyday than say Ruth's Chris - it doesn't make their food any better. Ask kids which one they like best. McDonald's has a target audience and they target it very well. Theme park MMOs also have a target audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arigo Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 So basically what you are saying here is that everyone who wants to roll DPS and spam buttons to put out the max amount of damage should be able to do so without having to rely on a tank to keep the hate and nasty OUCH THAT HURT hits from hitting them... and players that actually enjoy tanking should take a hike. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanthlor Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Don't like the trinity system look to TSW in the near future only those with a brain need apply though. (not saying people are dumb saying TSW will require you to use a large portion of your brain to play) The trinity has been a tried and true method for years and will be for a long time to come the fight mechanics would have to be dynamic to your groups make up causing most devs heads to explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Also, who would purposely choose a role as boring as "CCer" or "Buffer"?Lots of people did, in EQ. enchanters were Buffers, Debuffers, and CC... and faildps. Likewise for bards. Shaman were debuffers, buffers, failheals and faildps. Later on, they fixed it so that they were reasonably decent healers. Beastlords were a little less on the faildps side, but not as good in the buffs/debuffs department The problem with roles like this is that no one would take them because the other jobs are so much more entertaining. eh, I never had a significant problem finding them. Of course, I was the bard most of the time. EQ tried this with Enchanters and for the most part enchanters were few and far between (though luckily, you could clear content without them). No, the design was that you could either have a good puller, or a CCer. There were multiple pulling methods (ranger + mage: snare + coh, bards, monks, clerics with pacification, druids with harmony, even enchanters who knew what they were doing), as well as multiple classes who could CC (bards and echanters, classes with situoational abilities like necros, along with other classes who could root/stun or kite) But if you're talking EQ, the holy trinity was Cleric, Warrior, Enchanter, not healer/tank/dps. Edited February 20, 2012 by ferroz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Encounters can be made where the trinity is not required without changing a single class ability.Only by making it trivially easy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arigo Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Also, who would purposely choose a role as boring as "CCer" or "Buffer" My first class ever was the EQ(original OG!!!) bard (BEFORE SoE and before they screwed the class up). Funnest class I have ever played. Ever. I enjoyed the crap out of my utility role in groups and if any game ever anywhere was able to recreate that class correctly, sure as damn hell I'd be playing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewser Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Bad analogy. With trinity vs support, many people will prefer one over the other (and if you look at subs, the trinity system is winning... by a lot. Hence my point). I very seriously doubt many people would prefer McDonalds over a nice Steak, Baked Potato and salad. People eat McDonalds because it's fast and cheap. People could play games other than WOW for the same price. They stick with WOW because they prefer it. Still does not address the point that well designed cc/buff/debuff classes are not fun to play. The total number of subs a game has is based on many factors. You can't simply say WoW has more subs so X feature in WoW is better than the way any other game does X. Well I guess you could say that, but it doesn't make it correct. Edited February 20, 2012 by Drewser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumperPenn Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 To get much beyond that, you'd have to move away from being combat-centric and make the quests more like puzzles or diplomatic encounters. Even adding diplomacy as an optional route in quests would take a step in that direction, and SWTOR has a bit of that. Now imagine if every quest could be completed without combat, whether via acrobatics or stealth or faction grind or canny conversation. SWTOR doesn't have near enough of alternative ways to complete missions which hurts the replay value as well as the feel of your character being meaningful or unique/class important when you have to do the exact same things as another class to complete the mission with no other options. Some missions/encounters should be purely combat but there is so much more room for puzzles, diplomacy, stealth, force persuasion/intimidate etc I found it incredibly disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACLucius Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I played a game where this happened at end-game. Assassins had a buff which made all melee attacks recover health worth 2% of the damage they dealt. So, on top of having the highest DPS in game, this class also happened to have a self-heal which was based on DPS, and this class had the highest crit rating in game. Then to make it worse, they had a base attack speed of 1.25/sec. They were able to get as high as 5 APS and have their damage essentially tripled because of this. And I don't mean 1.25x3=5. No, I mean that there was a specific skill which increased their damage by nearly three times as much for fifteen seconds, during which their attack speed would increase by x amount. This would require 3 sparks (three sparks required making 60 normal attacks to get), so because of this broken system, they could get those three sparks before the buff ran out. So, consider this. This one class could deal the highest DPS in game, they could self heal, and could twitch their way to victory. It was impossible for the real tank to ever hold aggro from these guys even by spamming taunts nonstop. It was so bad these single classes could solo dungeons at end-game that shouldn't be able to be done without a full group of six. Now imagine if six of these got together to do a single dungeon? So, no, I say keep things the way they are. Personally, I'm against combat logs in a sense simply because people start taking only the highest DPS classes eventually and discriminate against every other class. I've been down that road where using the class you wanted and using the weapon you wanted for that class meant that every time someone could find another DPS to replace you that had a higher count, you were booted. Hated it then, I doubt that I will like it any better knowing having two lightsabers means people will start booting me to let in that guy with a blaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMBender Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) In a thread where multiple people have discussed their experiences with current games that do not use the trinity, that's about the most pathetically weak argument it is possible to make. How so? do tell me oh font of wisdom how you convince anyone (particualry over a forum board) that system A; that most are familiar with; is no more or less viable than system B in which they have no personal experince with or have only seen poorly implemented? Edit iin white Edited February 20, 2012 by BMBender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlaxitov Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Why bother making more than one class per faction if these classes aren't going to be needed in balanced configuration for encounters in the game? The title of this thread should read more like "Should SW:TOR start changing the purpose of their game?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calei Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) while im interested in seeing something like GW2 with no system like this, I prefer it. a specific person in the group should be filling a specific role in my opinion. this way lets players optimize their playstyle since they get so used to it over time. Thats not how it feels at all. The "role" concept was designed to force people to group together. If the tank fails, the group will fail. If the tank doesn't show up, the group can't play. If the tank's gear is crap, the group will fail. If the tank doesn't pull correctly, the group will fail. So much responsibility and weight on 1 role. Ever wonder why no one plays a tank? This isn't rocket science dude. The trinity model is old, outdated and just plain terrible at encouraging teamwork. Period. Edited February 20, 2012 by Calei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galbatorrix Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Lots of people did, in EQ. enchanters were Buffers, Debuffers, and CC... and faildps. Likewise for bards. Shaman were debuffers, buffers, failheals and faildps. Later on, they fixed it so that they were reasonably decent healers. Beastlords were a little less on the faildps side, but not as good in the buffs/debuffs department eh, I never had a significant problem finding them. Of course, I was the bard most of the time. No, the design was that you could either have a good puller, or a CCer. There were multiple pulling methods (ranger + mage: snare + coh, bards, monks, clerics with pacification, druids with harmony, even enchanters who knew what they were doing), as well as multiple classes who could CC (bards and echanters, classes with situoational abilities like necros, along with other classes who could root/stun or kite) But if you're talking EQ, the holy trinity was Cleric, Warrior, Enchanter, not healer/tank/dps. Everquest needed support classes because HP and mana regen was so god awful. A bard's HoT, or an enchanters clarity. Modern games moved away from 20 minute+ regen times, so those classes are not necessary anymore. Edited February 20, 2012 by Galbatorrix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewser Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Thats not how it feels at all. The "role" concept was designed to force people to group together. If the tank fails, the group will fail. If the tank doesn't show up, the group can't play. If the tank's gear is crap, the group will fail. If the tank doesn't pull correctly, the group will fail. So much responsibility and weight on 1 role. Ever wonder why no one plays a tank? This isn't rocket science dude. The trinity model is old, outdated and just plain terrible at encouraging teamwork. Period. Replace tank with healer or DPS and you get the same result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFirewind Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 FFXIV removed the trinity entirely and look where it got them. It's a case of "If it isn't broke don't fix it" Basically if you want to get rid of the trinity you will have to do away with the entire class system and have everyone be DPS with medipacks. I think Battlefield 3 is that way ======> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMBender Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Replace tank with healer or DPS and you get the same result. healer yea but dps is pretty interchangeable once BW gets off the enrage timer gimick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts