I'm not saying change your opinion on it, but regardless of facts you continue to argue the same point with different wording, even when new light is revealed to you on the subject of support in GW2. I'm just saying I think a game that allows everyone to play together is at an advantage, I mean I understand being a healer and liking to be the backbone, but RPG's focus seem to be able to replicate an epic adventure, and never have I heard or seen an epic adventure where a team had to sit around and wait until they could find a healer. I don't mind the trinity but its really annoying when I try to start up an mmo with my friends and I'm unable to play specific classes because they aren't needed or someone is already fufilling that role, it really destroys the immersion, and overall takes away from the fun factor because there are already dps in the group, or already have a tank or healer (though normally people don't mind two healers). Just a very subjective way to look at it because honestly it just seems like you want to be needed rather than genuinely be wanted.

Guys, no matter how much you say things, Gobla isn't going to change his opinion... and it's perfectly valid.

Yes, trinity design has led to some really horrible game designs, and some pretty static gameplay.  ... but the idea of tightly interlocking, interdependent classes doing teamwork has its own advantages.

I think most people here (Including Gobla) can agree that so far, in most versions of the trinity, the disadvantages have ended up overwhelming the advantages.

He just thinks that the protection monk was a particularly good version of the 'healer' archetype (Mostly due to the proactive nature), and that while the Guardian may roughly approximate some parts of the playstyle, it's not the same thing.

Which is totally true.  The same thing wouldn't actually WORK with the current design philosophy for GW2.  It requires a certain type of game, which GW2 is not.

Originally posted by Meowhead

Guys, no matter how much you say things, Gobla isn't going to change his opinion... and it's perfectly valid.

Yes, trinity design has led to some really horrible game designs, and some pretty static gameplay.  ... but the idea of tightly interlocking, interdependent classes doing teamwork has its own advantages.

I think most people here (Including Gobla) can agree that so far, in most versions of the trinity, the disadvantages have ended up overwhelming the advantages.

He just thinks that the protection monk was a particularly good version of the 'healer' archetype (Mostly due to the proactive nature), and that while the Guardian may roughly approximate some parts of the playstyle, it's not the same thing.

Which is totally true.  The same thing wouldn't actually WORK with the current design philosophy for GW2.  It requires a certain type of game, which GW2 is not.

Thank you.

To put it into the standard apples and oranges mindset:

• Trinity System = Apple
• Trinity System with heal-bot and taunt-tank = Rotten Apple
• GW2 System = Orange
• GW1 Monk = Slice of Fresh Apple

Originally posted by gobla

Originally posted by Meowhead

Guys, no matter how much you say things, Gobla isn't going to change his opinion... and it's perfectly valid.

Yes, trinity design has led to some really horrible game designs, and some pretty static gameplay.  ... but the idea of tightly interlocking, interdependent classes doing teamwork has its own advantages.

I think most people here (Including Gobla) can agree that so far, in most versions of the trinity, the disadvantages have ended up overwhelming the advantages.

He just thinks that the protection monk was a particularly good version of the 'healer' archetype (Mostly due to the proactive nature), and that while the Guardian may roughly approximate some parts of the playstyle, it's not the same thing.

Which is totally true.  The same thing wouldn't actually WORK with the current design philosophy for GW2.  It requires a certain type of game, which GW2 is not.

Thank you.

To put it into the standard apples and oranges mindset:

• Trinity System = Apple
• Trinity System with heal-bot and taunt-tank = Rotten Apple
• GW2 System = Orange
• GW1 Monk = Slice of Fresh Apple

I believe that just because we've had lots and lots of rotten apples over the years does not mean that apples suck. I believe this because classes like the GW Monk have shown me nice and fresh pieces of apple. The rest may still have been rotten but there have been good pieces.

 

Now GW2 is building an orange and suddenly a lot of people are screaming that apples suck. I'm saying that apples don't suck, the rotten ones just do. And that, in my personal opinion which you don't have to agree too, I think I'll like apples better then oranges. At least if we figure out how to make fresh apples instead of the rotten ones we're getting right now. So oranges aren't the next step in apples. Oranges are just diffirent. Fresh apples are the next step in apples.

Well if 90% of the apples you are handed are rotten pretty soon you will just avoid apples.

Originally posted by KhinRunite

Originally posted by gobla

Narrow-minded means a lack of tolerance. Not a lack of agreement.

Thereby you're saying I don't tolerate GW2. As I've mentioned countless times I'm not trying to change GW2. I accept GW2 for what it is. I'm fine with GW2.

I'm not saying GW2 will fail. I'm not saying GW2 sucks. I'm not saying anything about GW2 at all.

I'm saying that I, in my very personal very subjective opinion, think that a trinity done right is more fun then disregarding the trinity.

I'm only talking about myself. I'm not talking about you. I'm not talking about the game you're worshipping.

And when it comes to me I am stubborn. I'm not going to change my own opinion because you're telling me to. I'm not going to change my opinion because you tell me I'm wrong. I'm only going to change my opinion when I see enough facts supporting the change. And seeing as the game isn't released yet those facts simply aren't here.

Why am I suddenly a stubborn narrow-minded person because I personally think the trinity does have some positive sides?

Why am I suddenly trying to change the game when I provide examples of a system I think I would enjoy as was asked of me?

I was unaware that disagreeing with people was narrow-minded. I always thought that being open-minded was all about discussing things with people especially if you disagree with them. And if you disagree with each other you refrain from calling each other stubbon and narrow-minded. And if, after discussing things, you still disagree with each other you have the decency of accepting that not all people believe as you do.

I'm not telling you to change your opinion. I'm not telling you to change this game. But I'm sure as hell telling you my opinion on a public forum if I so choose.

 

A question for you, my friend: Have you ever been rejected from groups because they're reserving slots for a specific class? Wouldn't it be better if you can join groups a bit more easily, without having to form personal bonds or using politics?

I don't think he ever has. He has stated many times that he was the healer of the group. Basically the only person actually needed.

Originally posted by Xzen

Originally posted by gobla

Originally posted by Meowhead

Guys, no matter how much you say things, Gobla isn't going to change his opinion... and it's perfectly valid.

Yes, trinity design has led to some really horrible game designs, and some pretty static gameplay.  ... but the idea of tightly interlocking, interdependent classes doing teamwork has its own advantages.

I think most people here (Including Gobla) can agree that so far, in most versions of the trinity, the disadvantages have ended up overwhelming the advantages.

He just thinks that the protection monk was a particularly good version of the 'healer' archetype (Mostly due to the proactive nature), and that while the Guardian may roughly approximate some parts of the playstyle, it's not the same thing.

Which is totally true.  The same thing wouldn't actually WORK with the current design philosophy for GW2.  It requires a certain type of game, which GW2 is not.

Thank you.

To put it into the standard apples and oranges mindset:

• Trinity System = Apple
• Trinity System with heal-bot and taunt-tank = Rotten Apple
• GW2 System = Orange
• GW1 Monk = Slice of Fresh Apple

I believe that just because we've had lots and lots of rotten apples over the years does not mean that apples suck. I believe this because classes like the GW Monk have shown me nice and fresh pieces of apple. The rest may still have been rotten but there have been good pieces.

 

Now GW2 is building an orange and suddenly a lot of people are screaming that apples suck. I'm saying that apples don't suck, the rotten ones just do. And that, in my personal opinion which you don't have to agree too, I think I'll like apples better then oranges. At least if we figure out how to make fresh apples instead of the rotten ones we're getting right now. So oranges aren't the next step in apples. Oranges are just diffirent. Fresh apples are the next step in apples.

Well if 90% of the apples you are handed are rotten pretty soon you will just avoid apples.

Basically this ^^^ 

Also, it might just be that oranges do a better job than apples at this job.

Originally posted by romanator0

I don't think he ever has. He has stated many times that he was the healer of the group. Basically the only person actually needed.

Hey mate.

There's this amazing thing called logic. It says that if A is true then B is false if and only if A and B are mutually exclusive. Last time I checked playing a Healer was not mutually exclusive with playing another class. I have played other classes. I have waiting for 30 mins on healers. Yes, it sucks.

But as I've explained countless times there are also, in my opinion, positive sides to the trinity. You can look them up in my other posts. Next to that I've had some great conversations with people whilst waiting for groups. So even waiting isn't all bad ( do note that "not all bad" in no way or form implies "totally awesome!". It does in fact imply "not all bad." and nothing else. )

Originally posted by romanator0

Basically this ^^^ 

Also, it might just be that oranges do a better job than apples at this job.

You like oranges. I know. You've said it countless times. But seeing as none of us have actually tasted the orange yet ( = played GW2 ) let's keep the judgment on which is better for another day?

All I'm saying is I agree that rotten apples suck. But I've seen enough slices of fresh apple to believe that it's possible to, someday, get a fresh apple. So I'm holding out my hopes for that. In the mean time I like to remind you orange guys that rotten apples aren't representative of all apples, there's some fresh stuff out there that most of you seem to have missed.

Originally posted by gobla

Thank you.

To put it into the standard apples and oranges mindset:

• Trinity System = Apple
• Trinity System with heal-bot and taunt-tank = Rotten Apple
• GW2 System = Orange
• GW1 Monk = Slice of Fresh Apple

I believe that just because we've had lots and lots of rotten apples over the years does not mean that apples suck. I believe this because classes like the GW Monk have shown me nice and fresh pieces of apple. The rest may still have been rotten but there have been good pieces.

 

Now GW2 is building an orange and suddenly a lot of people are screaming that apples suck. I'm saying that apples don't suck, the rotten ones just do. And that, in my personal opinion which you don't have to agree too, I think I'll like apples better then oranges. At least if we figure out how to make fresh apples instead of the rotten ones we're getting right now. So oranges aren't the next step in apples. Oranges are just diffirent. Fresh apples are the next step in apples.

The thing is not that the trinity totally sucks, it wouldn't have lasted since '96 then (Meridian 59 invented it as far as I know at least).

But that doesn't mean it can't be made better. Fords old model T lasted a long time and was very popular and still did Ford eventually stopped making it.

GW2 is on the right track, and combat mechanics needs some experimenting. If everyone thought "this works, let's be happy with it" we would still live in the stone age.

Then there is the possibility that you could reinvent the trinity in a way that is a lot more fun, I am not saying this is the last of the trinity but 15 years with almost exactly the same combat mechanics is too long in my book.

All other genres (well, except platform games) try to make their AI act more and more human. In MMOs are the mobs almost exactly as retarded as they were in april '96 when I first tried M59, this will have to change if we want the genre to continue to attract new players.

Everquest do not suck. It was a brilliant game for its time. But today you don't put up a space invader arcade machine down the mall, times are changing.

GW2 is trying to do something different and it might work or not, we don't know that yet. But you can't believe that MMOs will stay like they are now forever but with just a little better graphics. Computer games doesn't work that way.

And combat is the aspect of a MMO you spend most time in any game that offers a new and really fun combat system will sell a lot.

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by Pigozz

Originally posted by Kuppa

We have heard how they plan on breaking the holy trinity by removing the healer, everyone has the ability to rez and heal, there doens't really seem to be a dedicated tank class. But I still wonder if they took out what seems to be another signature of this holy trinity. The existence of aggro specific skills. Not having these would really make combat dynamic and fun imo. It would also be interesting to see how they manage aggro overall in the enemy AI.

They already stated that there are no aggro generating skills, AI attacks the squishiest players or prolly the most dangerous in the party

That would be awesome! where did you get that info? I havent gone over all of the content that came out of PAX or maybe I missed it somewhere else.

I heard that as well while watching one of the PAX videos. To all complaining about lack of comfortable old holy trinity I have nothing to say really. There is plenty of other titles which are going to carry on that nonsense so I am sure you can find something to play.

Originally posted by Loke666

The thing is not that the trinity totally sucks, it wouldn't have lasted since '96 then (Meridian 59 invented it as far as I know at least).

But that doesn't mean it can't be made better. Fords old model T lasted a long time and was very popular and still did Ford eventually stopped making it.

GW2 is on the right track, and combat mechanics needs some experimenting. If everyone thought "this works, let's be happy with it" we would still live in the stone age.

Then there is the possibility that you could reinvent the trinity in a way that is a lot more fun, I am not saying this is the last of the trinity but 15 years with almost exactly the same combat mechanics is too long in my book.

All other genres (well, except platform games) try to make their AI act more and more human. In MMOs are the mobs almost exactly as retarded as they were in april '96 when I first tried M59, this will have to change if we want the genre to continue to attract new players.

Everquest do not suck. It was a brilliant game for its time. But today you don't put up a space invader arcade machine down the mall, times are changing.

GW2 is trying to do something different and it might work or not, we don't know that yet. But you can't believe that MMOs will stay like they are now forever but with just a little better graphics. Computer games doesn't work that way.

And combat is the aspect of a MMO you spend most time in any game that offers a new and really fun combat system will sell a lot.

I totally agree. I'm not saying the trinity shouldn't be made better. Nor am I saying that GW2 is taking a step back. They're taking a step forward.

I'm just saying that GW2 is take one of the paths forward. We shouldn't forget that it's not the only path. Doesn't mean GW2 should change paths. I believe the trinity can be improved into a fun and tactical system, the other path forward, by removing archaic mechanics like the heal-bot and agro. And instead inventing other fun and interesting ways of achieving those jobs.

Originally posted by gobla

I totally agree. I'm not saying the trinity shouldn't be made better. Nor am I saying that GW2 is taking a step back. They're taking a step forward.

I'm just saying that GW2 is take one of the paths forward. We shouldn't forget that it's not the only path. Doesn't mean GW2 should change paths. I believe the trinity can be improved into a fun and tactical system, the other path forward, by removing archaic mechanics like the heal-bot and agro. And instead inventing other fun and interesting ways of achieving those jobs.

Of course there are other ways.I been thinking a bit on how to make combat more fun and realistic myself, I can the basics of real swordfighting IRL.

I been considering a system with a rolling bar like in TCoS but with more options and your options will be based on what you and your oponent did last time, all based on actual manuevers. And of course damage (or no damage) will depend on what you and your opponent did. 8 choices each turn or so would be perfect.

It would still be turn based but you would have to try to guess your opponents next move just like in real melee, and you could plan to do something nasty with a certain defensive manuever that opens up later for a nasty attack.

It is actually more advanced but that is the basics, a friend and I are arguing if you could make a more realistic combat system that still is fun, and I would like some more strategy in the genre.

And no, I havn't considered magic at all, the idea is for a historical MMO, adding both realism and magic seems odd. Anyone having 40 million dollars lying around to make a MMO?

Originally posted by Loke666

Of course there are other ways.I been thinking a bit on how to make combat more fun and realistic myself, I can the basics of real swordfighting IRL.

I been considering a system with a rolling bar like in TCoS but with more options and your options will be based on what you and your oponent did last time, all based on actual manuevers. And of course damage (or no damage) will depend on what you and your opponent did. 8 choices each turn or so would be perfect.

It would still be turn based but you would have to try to guess your opponents next move just like in real melee, and you could plan to do something nasty with a certain defensive manuever that opens up later for a nasty attack.

It is actually more advanced but that is the basics, a friend and I are arguing if you could make a more realistic combat system that still is fun, and I would like some more strategy in the genre.

And no, I havn't considered magic at all, the idea is for a historical MMO, adding both realism and magic seems odd. Anyone having 40 million dollars lying around to make a MMO?

A historical MMO would be amazing imho. You'd have to get rid of the whole skillbar and focus more on action combat as seen in Assassin's Creed or even Batman: Arkham Asylum. A system with normal attacks, feints, heavy attacks, parries, ripostes, blocks etc.

Normal attacks would interrupt heavy attacks. Feints could break blocks. Heavy attacks to break through parries. Parries to stop normal attacks and give the option extra riposte attacks. Blocks to counter most attacks except for feints etc.

Of course in this case you would have to get rid of the Trinity as the Trinity is a skillbar-based system ( I do hope nobody will see this as me arguing against myself. Just because I happen to think a great Trinity system is possible does not mean all other systems automatically suck. )

I think making most attacks melee and getting rid of a lot of ranged ( save for a few realistic historical bows that don't do too much damage agaisnt plate and a few crossbows which are very slow to reload. ) would really open up the possibilities for large scale PvP without the downsides of endless zerging if you combine it with collision detection. Because with melee and collision detection you can only get so many attackers on a single person. So combats would automatically break up in smaller melees.

Especially in a more gritty medieval world the immersion would be amazing.

I dunno. I've played a lot of MMOs and every single one that held to the Holy Trinity had me waiting around for hours sometimes looking for a healer. If the healer left and we couldn't get them replaced it pretty much killed the party for everyone. Then again my first MMO was an orange (UO) where just about everyone had the ability to heal and if I wanted to have fun I didn't have to LFG for an hour. So I guess I was spoiled from the word go on this subject.

Originally posted by Xzen

I dunno. I've played a lot of MMOs and every single one that held to the Holy Trinity had me waiting around for hours sometimes looking for a healer. If the healer left and we couldn't get them replaced it pretty much killed the party for everyone. Then again my first MMO was an orange (UO) where just about everyone had the ability to heal and if I wanted to have fun I didn't have to LFG for an hour.

I think it's more a case of badly designed healers then healers themselves being bad.

In MMOs in general being a healer ( not just healer class but healer spec ) means:

• Bad at any form of solo content while MMOs are getting more and more solo content
• Always blamed for everything that goes wrong in groups
• Your general playstyle in groups involves mashing the same button over and over and over and over again on the main tank.

• Equally good at soloing, even if this means making every class bad at soloing ( I don't believe forced grouping is a problem if it happens from lvl 1. I believe it only becomes a problem if you can lvl to max lvl solo and then suddenly can't do anything on your own anymore. )
• Equally challenging and needed in groups. So that when a group wipes it's not automatically the healer's fault. Everyone knows that every class is vital and that any person failing leads to a wipe. Currently DPS doesn't really have that responsibility. If someone dies it's the healer's fault. If the tank doesn't have all agro then it's the tank's fault. There's nearly no situations where DPS can screw up.
• Equally interesting as other classes. While MMOs in general seem to use less and less skills with optimal rotations of only a a few skills it's my experience that healers in general have the smallest rotations ( sometimes consisting of a single skill. ) Create classes that need more abilities and abilities that sometimes work amazing ( protective spirit against a scythe dervish ) and sometimes not at all ( protective spirit against an assassin. )

Originally posted by gobla

• If someone dies it's the healer's fault. If the tank doesn't have all agro then it's the tank's fault. There's nearly no situations where DPS can screw up.

Who get's the blame in a game where noone is tank or healer? 

I guess that's why so many people here are curious about how GW2 will play. The removal of the trinity can have very interesting consequences for party dynamics. 

If it's done well, that is. If it isn't, you get FFXIV  ^_^

Btw, this thread is awesome. Great arguments from everyone.

Originally posted by gobla

Originally posted by AKASlaphappy

You did notice I said play style? I never once said it is going to have the same skills as the protection monk, which is impossible! GW and GW2 have a completely different combat style, so taking the protection monk from GW and adding it to GW2 will never happen!  That is why I said play style, because you can take the play style and bring it from GW into GW2.

 

You talk about the job of the protection monk in GW, which was to use abilities to lessen the damage your group received. In other words playing as a protection monk is about being proactive instead of reactive like a traditional spam healer is.  Well guess what that is exactly what the Guardian is in its support role (of course it can still do damage and control). The play style is exactly the same; the way they do it is different, since GW2 does not have ally target skills. But they still are both about being proactive in stopping or lessening damage.  

 

Some of the spells you listed will never be in GW2, because of the design! Show me a way to do Reversal of Fortune without targeting an ally! Your complaint about the guardian compared to the monk seems to be on the fact that you do not have to pay attention more to the UI then the game. At least that is what I get from your “He doesn’t even have to watch his allies to do it” and your “Guardians are all area based comment”.  Because we all know the only way to do something is the way it has been done before, change is so over rated! :) OH my God Anet is making me actual watch the game instead of the UI oh the horror, how can I possible play a class that supports their allies without watching the UI. /sarcasm off.

 

And as for the Guardian seems to be more focused on offence, go watch the demo from PAX east where the guys from ANet play the Thief and Guardian, and see what an experience Guardian actual plays like. When I watched that video I was impressed with how much the Guardian did to protect his allies and controlled the battle field. It was not all about PEW PEW look at my leet damge! He put on wards to deflect range damage back at the attacker! He did wards to absorb damage! He did wards to stop melee attackers from getting to his allies and himself. He used Aegis to block attacks so allies took less damage.  OH my god that sounds a lot like the play style of the protect monk! Who would have thought that the class that ANet says is like the protection monk would be like that play style in the hands of someone with experience with the class. But you are so right; the Guardian is so about being focused on damage, they are PEW PEW look at my damage sore off the chart.

Again. Not trying to put the GW Monk in GW2.

All I'm saying:

• GW Monk is an Amazing class
• GW Monk is not returning to GW2 due to loss of trinity.
• The Guardian is not a protection Monk, it's a diffirent class.
• Thus loss of trinity leads to the loss of an amazing class.
• Thus loss of trinity is not all good.

In addition to that I provided an example, as was asked of me, of what an alternate system could be like.

 

I'm not trying to put that sytem in GW2. GW2 has been in development for so long that it would be impossible to change the system. I realise this and have no problems with it.

 

I'm not saying the Guardian will suck. I'm not saying GW2 will fail. I'm just saying that I think it's a shame that an amazing class like the GW Monk will not be making a return and that I don't think ( think = subjective and personal.... ) that I'll like the combat system that seems to be currently in place.

 

I however do like discussing the changes in MMOs. Even if they're changes I don't think I'll personally enjoy. I'm not going to censor myself just because there's a bunch of people unwilling to accept that not everyone will like the system they're so extremely hyped up over.

I agree on all points, The protection line is one of the coolest of GW1. but hell also I play an ele...which now comes down to me going ele/n (necro) and running all necro skills with some PvE only skills (yeah i am starting to vanquish EotN) 

One must remember the trinity was never really in guild wars at the start anyhow. When i run up to a group of Char Stalkers in the Wardowns and I will be spiked down fast and if i dont move my group they will too. I didnt cause aggro but i am the easiest target. (and yes i do understand tanking in guild wars since i ahve tanked Duncann with Obisdion flesh)

Your arguement (from a logical standpoint, which would cause me to try and debunk one of the first two points) is a good one. The first point is true thus arguement is true.

Now your second point GW Monk is not returning to GW2 due to loss of trinity. I would not go so far as to say it is not coming back do to the loss of the trinity (hell I wouldnt go so far as the main points of what made the monk awesome are not coming into Guild Wars2) The monk is leaving because of Arena net. plain and simple. The monk was one of the more popular classes (and still is now towards the end of the game because of what a monk can do, soloing is easy with a monk, a lot of run builds are Mo/A and i still see monks going out to farm mobs all the time) However The monk (and its healing line) doesnt fit into how Guild Wars 2 will play.

I'm not saying the Guardian will suck. I'm not saying GW2 will fail. I'm just saying that I think it's a shame that an amazing class like the GW Monk will not be making a return and that I don't think ( think = subjective and personal.... ) that I'll like the combat system that seems to be currently in place.  That is a large hump and it will be a big stepping stone for MMO players, im not sure if i will like it, and if i dont that too bad for me. This game has so many great ideas to bring to the MMO world that it would be a shame if the combat was just a tad too action/twitched based.

I will miss the monk class  but I do believe that the Guardian and it's protection line will work for the monk players of old and when the guardian is using a staff there will be little offense.  TBH it all comes down to how your group make up is. DEvs have already stated if you pass the learning curve the dungeons will be a challanged but 5 warrior or 5 eles can still do it, Because of they Hybrid-ness of each class. Traits only must factor in , and having two weapons sets brings two different play styles ...

The system needs to be tested And I have not gotten a run at it.

  Well I can see where you would want a trinity based mmo as a healer. Honestly the only valid points I have heard in regard to a defence of the trinity would be that "If you're a healer or a tank its fun because your needed" I don't mind tanking, though I was never really a healer. I played DPS and Tanking in various games, and honestly even as a tank it wasn't  ever under the impression people were at a lack of tanks. I can see from the perspective of a healer how being needed 100 percent of the time and always being to particpate and play your role can be fun, but outside that I see the trinity system as way to restrictive, because even options for other classes to play DPS or maybe even healer, weren't as good as the true dedicates.

  Thats my main problem though, the restrictions lead to specific class trees being completely useless. I like GW2 system because its clear that every class can do every role but they are still limited, there is no choosing the wrong tree and being left out of groups because everyone hates your build. There will be large amount of diversity in this system, and it will never have me saying at some point "oh man i found out at level 70 my class/build is totally useless to other people, now I have to reroll/rebuild my character to suit everyone elses needs rather than my own" Its always felt that I was playing mmos to suit everyone elses needs rather than enjoy the game the way I see fit. I don't see this being a problem at all in GW2.

Originally posted by Stydus

  Well I can see where you would want a trinity based mmo as a healer. Honestly the only valid points I have heard in regard to a defence of the trinity would be that "If you're a healer or a tank its fun because your needed" I don't mind tanking, though I was never really a healer. I played DPS and Tanking in various games, and honestly even as a tank it wasn't  ever under the impression people were at a lack of tanks. I can see from the perspective of a healer how being needed 100 percent of the time and always being to particpate and play your role can be fun, but outside that I see the trinity system as way to restrictive, because even options for other classes to play DPS or maybe even healer, weren't as good as the true dedicates.

 

  Thats my main problem though, the restrictions lead to specific class trees being completely useless. I like GW2 system because its clear that every class can do every role but they are still limited, there is no choosing the wrong tree and being left out of groups because everyone hates your build. There will be large amount of diversity in this system, and it will never have me saying at some point "oh man i found out at level 70 my class/build is totally useless to other people, now I have to reroll/rebuild my character to suit everyone elses needs rather than my own" Its always felt that I was playing mmos to suit everyone elses needs rather than enjoy the game the way I see fit. I don't see this being a problem at all in GW2.

That's just bad class design. You shoulnd't create useless trees. All trees should be usefull.
 It should be clear from the start that class A will filll role B, and only role B. Diffirent specs provide diffirent ways of filling that role but they all fill it. Balance may be a little off sometimes but it certainly can be done.

If you don't like role B then don't roll class A. Pick another class with another role instead. But whatever you pick you're always usefull.

Originally posted by Vaeni

Breaking "holy trinity" by making everyone capable of everything isn't really worthy of praise. I understand that it's the GW style of going about it, but it's not some kind of revolution for MMORPG's, quite lame rather.

not a revolution for mmorpgs like you said, but it definitelly sounds better than the holy trinity most devs see as a must have.... maybe most mmorpgs dont want to break that cycle? (maybe they are affraid of not building a strong playerbase?) Anet took the risk and so we will see if it really worth when we actually play it ourselves...... note "sounds"  (not saying it will be better or worst untill we try it)

Originally posted by gobla

Originally posted by Stydus

  

That's just bad class design. You shoulnd't create useless trees. All trees should be usefull.
 It should be clear from the start that class A will filll role B, and only role B. Diffirent specs provide diffirent ways of filling that role but they all fill it. Balance may be a little off sometimes but it certainly can be done.

If you don't like role B then don't roll class A. Pick another class with another role instead. But whatever you pick you're always usefull.

thats why most mmorpg gamers are stuck with the same stuff in any mmorpg we play..... ex: if i want to roll a priest i dont have to be a healer to fit in any group ("oh you are a priest and u dont heal? we dont need you") thats pretty stupid, i chose the class i have fun with, no need to be a healer to join a group if i want to dps with a priest.... if i want to roll a class with high defense, why should i be a tank to fit in a group? maybe i chose tank cos i love high defense? or i love the class for any other reason (not to fulfill a groups requirement role)...  thats the problem with most mmos so far, WoW strongly focuses on that role style...and most games try to keep that system alive.... GW2 is breaking that rule, for good