I'm a strict defender of the class system. The specialization system, as far as combat goes, started in the Ancient Armies and since then we have the division of "Infantary, Cavalary and Archery - now Artillary". Also, the ability to pick a class accounts for a major choice in your playstyle and how you see your character to start with.

This kind of division makes it possible to enhance each class individually so it gets to the best of its gameplay, on a particular role or playstyle. Furthermore, the holy trinity is instituitionalized for a particular reason: The major aspects of combat in MMOs are: 1) Dealing Damage; 2) Taking Damage; 3) Healing or Avoiding Damage; 4) Controlling Mobs. Unless we invent something such as air combat or marines, I can't see any other big variables coming.

It is true that games such as GW2 are aiming for a remarkable change at this system, but still the paradigm is that in order to grow better in one of those variables you need to lose on the other ones. Therefore, if you're a better damage dealer, you're probably going to be a worse tank, if you're a better healer, you're probably going to be a worse damage dealer than you could be. So that's the central aspect of the class system.

On the other hand, I see a lot of posts about "Freedom in gameplay" and being able to perform sandbox roles such as Crafting in a main way and not simply as some kind of mini-game. So what about introducing some kind of "Sandbox" class? A class that does not stand out in-combat, but rather has its focus on other aspects of the game.

I get the impression that you think trinity and classes were synonomous with each other and I disagree with this. Trinity can exist without classes (one example is Eve Online) and classes can exist without trinity (Battlefield 3).

All combat roles are born from the gamemechanics. If mob AI can be manipulated (or it is very stupid) a tank role is born. If this same character cannot sustain itself, a healer role is born. If neither of these can do enough damage to sensibly complete the encounter a damage dealer role is born. If mobs aggro in groups an additional CC role may arise.

If you can't control mob aggro, you don't have a tank. If you cannot outheal incoming damage, the focus goes from repairing damage to avoiding damage. So on so forth.

You look at League of Legends for example you have:

• AD and AP carries - there are two main damage types in the game
• Support - brings utility and sustainability
• Jungler - because jungle offers a viable alternative to grinding lanes

There's also bruisers, tanks, initiators and roamers... plenty outside the holy trinity all born out of how the game works and plays.

If you wanted to think of sandbox classes/roles that exist outside combat you'd have to create that support this. Limit the things one character can do and you inevitably create roles which are dependant of each other. If you can't be both good in crafting and selling your wares you'd need one to make items and another to sell them.

To be fair, classes aren't required for specialization.  They're just a great way to package specialization.

(And for what it's worth, inventing new roles to revolutionize MMORPG combat the way artillery did is pretty much what players want.)

Freedom isn't really something you want to cram into a single class, safely walling it away from the other classes.  If there are interesting parts of the game players want to engage with, like crafting, then there's no good reason to limit that to a single class.

Originally posted by stephanrb

I'm a strict defender of the class system. The specialization system, as far as combat goes, started in the Ancient Armies and since then we have the division of "Infantary, Cavalary and Archery - now Artillary". Also, the ability to pick a class accounts for a major choice in your playstyle and how you see your character to start with.

This kind of division makes it possible to enhance each class individually so it gets to the best of its gameplay, on a particular role or playstyle. Furthermore, the holy trinity is instituitionalized for a particular reason: The major aspects of combat in MMOs are: 1) Dealing Damage; 2) Taking Damage; 3) Healing or Avoiding Damage; 4) Controlling Mobs. Unless we invent something such as air combat or marines, I can't see any other big variables coming.

It is true that games such as GW2 are aiming for a remarkable change at this system, but still the paradigm is that in order to grow better in one of those variables you need to lose on the other ones. Therefore, if you're a better damage dealer, you're probably going to be a worse tank, if you're a better healer, you're probably going to be a worse damage dealer than you could be. So that's the central aspect of the class system.

On the other hand, I see a lot of posts about "Freedom in gameplay" and being able to perform sandbox roles such as Crafting in a main way and not simply as some kind of mini-game. So what about introducing some kind of "Sandbox" class? A class that does not stand out in-combat, but rather has its focus on other aspects of the game.

Real world armies have more classes than infantry cavalry artillery. That is because in the real world an army has special counter attack units. MMOs are forced to balance each class against the other or else whining. Armies don't have to do that because war isn't supposed to be fair.

Originally posted by Quirhid

I get the impression that you think trinity and classes were synonomous with each other and I disagree with this. Trinity can exist without classes (one example is Eve Online) and classes can exist without trinity (Battlefield 3).

All combat roles are born from the gamemechanics. If mob AI can be manipulated (or it is very stupid) a tank role is born. If this same character cannot sustain itself, a healer role is born. If neither of these can do enough damage to sensibly complete the encounter a damage dealer role is born. If mobs aggro in groups an additional CC role may arise.

If you can't control mob aggro, you don't have a tank. If you cannot outheal incoming damage, the focus goes from repairing damage to avoiding damage. So on so forth.

You look at League of Legends for example you have:

• AD and AP carries - there are two main damage types in the game
• Support - brings utility and sustainability
• Jungler - because jungle offers a viable alternative to grinding lanes

There's also bruisers, tanks, initiators and roamers... plenty outside the holy trinity all born out of how the game works and plays.

 

If you wanted to think of sandbox classes/roles that exist outside combat you'd have to create that support this. Limit the things one character can do and you inevitably create roles which are dependant of each other. If you can't be both good in crafting and selling your wares you'd need one to make items and another to sell them.

You my friend need to go play some p&p d&d then come back and talk about classes vs roles.  It sounds like you never experienced anything beside the dumbed down cookie cutter class = role that the gaming industry has been feeding us for decades. 

Roles and classes do not have to equal each other the way most video games have distorted it.  If you want to be a front line person you need to have X amount of defense.  You can get that defense via armor, shield, dodge, parry, magic, etc.  It is your choice how you want to be a front line person.  If you prefer to be more versatile person then your defense would not hold up on the front line.  You want to be a front line healer (cleric) no problem pick the defensive skills you need and pick up a healing skill.  You perfer to stay in the back and toss spells, arrows, or crowd control then pick the skills that fit your play style.

What makes the trinity a complete joke is the idea that (insert pew pew class of the month) can do more dps then every other class.  Using your example the archer's arrow doesn't magically do more damage then the infantry's sword.  Plus the cavalary in your example has the most potential for damage and is still heavly armored.

I am interested to see how TSW skill system works with filling roles.  If Failcom doesn't completely screw things up I think this could be a new industry standard, roles without classes.

Originally posted by stephanrb

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

 

What I mean is if there are roles such as tanking, healing and dpsing it is better, therefore, to have a class system that enforces those role so they can be polished to a further extent. If the roles are necessary, the class-free argument is a lie on itself because players would be "creating" this classes with the mechanics provided by the game to do so. Then, it is far more productive for gameplay if the roles are adressed properly on the system so they are properly adressed. Main point is the so called freedom of classes is unreal. I believe, as such, that expanding and evolving the class system is far better than completely denying it. The development of a class free model brings up enormous issues that goes way beyond balancing classes. Personally, every single non class game I play have some issue with combat that instead of implementing diversity actually seem to portray a monotous and similar sort of fighting to all playstyles.

I see what you meant now and I agree.

If there are little to no limitations to skills and abilities, at worst there is just handful of builds that rule over others (tankmage anyone?) But because of these limitations the varying builds always outline something which can be interpreted as classes. The freedom of classes or the freedom of choice is actually the freedom to make mistakes when designing your build. This is what some people call illusion of choice. That you can make any build you want but only a handful of them are useful. This is especially apparent in games that have PvP.

However like I wrote earlier, the surrounding game and how it works has atleast as much impact on the emerging roles than character development system alone. So e.g. whether you have a warrior-class or merely skills that vaguely outline a warrior, there will be no tank class if players cannot manipulate mob aggro.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by stephanrb

I'm a strict defender of the class system. The specialization system, as far as combat goes, started in the Ancient Armies and since then we have the division of "Infantary, Cavalary and Archery - now Artillary". Also, the ability to pick a class accounts for a major choice in your playstyle and how you see your character to start with.

This kind of division makes it possible to enhance each class individually so it gets to the best of its gameplay, on a particular role or playstyle. Furthermore, the holy trinity is instituitionalized for a particular reason: The major aspects of combat in MMOs are: 1) Dealing Damage; 2) Taking Damage; 3) Healing or Avoiding Damage; 4) Controlling Mobs. Unless we invent something such as air combat or marines, I can't see any other big variables coming.

It is true that games such as GW2 are aiming for a remarkable change at this system, but still the paradigm is that in order to grow better in one of those variables you need to lose on the other ones. Therefore, if you're a better damage dealer, you're probably going to be a worse tank, if you're a better healer, you're probably going to be a worse damage dealer than you could be. So that's the central aspect of the class system.

On the other hand, I see a lot of posts about "Freedom in gameplay" and being able to perform sandbox roles such as Crafting in a main way and not simply as some kind of mini-game. So what about introducing some kind of "Sandbox" class? A class that does not stand out in-combat, but rather has its focus on other aspects of the game.

Real world armies have more classes than infantry cavalry artillery. That is because in the real world an army has special counter attack units. MMOs are forced to balance each class against the other or else whining. Armies don't have to do that because war isn't supposed to be fair.

Or simply because, a bullet from a Rifle a Pistol or a Machine gun can be equally deadly. It is non sensical to me when a Warrior swinging a big sword does less damage than a rogue with a Knife.

It is all artificially and arbirarilly decided in order to sustain a given vision of gameplay in a game. If people do not want or like this approach then the problem resides on the vision of gameplay.

Ultimatelly it is all about choice for us players, if you like the trinity roles, there are many games that have it, so play these, if you do not like it play a game that does not have it...soon enough GW2.

it is not necessarilly about which game has it right and which game has it wrong. Albeit, the idea that a certain game can have it right because it happens to appeal to agreater number of people could be used as justification, yet in reality it is about available choice variation, and I am glad we are starting to get some.

And to not neglect the OP's question.

Classes and Trinity roles could be compatible with a Sandbox game, provided that you also let players change that class on the same character as they see fit, because the essence of a Sandbox is to be flexible and maleable just like a Career can be in RL, we are not obligated to have the same trade or career in RL we can change it at any moment as we grow and evolve in life.

I don't really see the need to have one of the classes to be freely built by the player. There should be enough classes to fill all the roles to not need it. More freedom would be better attained by having each class with a larger set of equally benefitial skills and abilities that the player would pick and choose to fit their playstyle but still be within that role.

All of you are forgetting how awful combat is in its current context.  The reason we even have this problem is because of the lack of use of environment to gain advantages, nothing more than arbitrary skill rotations, poor AI on the monsters and a lack of physics (collision, mainly).  If you solve all these issues, the idea of a holy trinity seems silly, because combat comes down to using your skills and wits to surivive an encounter, not pressing a few abilties in succession.

Originally posted by Venger

You my friend need to go play some p&p d&d then come back and talk about classes vs roles.  It sounds like you never experienced anything beside the dumbed down cookie cutter class = role that the gaming industry has been feeding us for decades. 

Roles and classes do not have to equal each other the way most video games have distorted it.  If you want to be a front line person you need to have X amount of defense.  You can get that defense via armor, shield, dodge, parry, magic, etc.  It is your choice how you want to be a front line person.  If you prefer to be more versatile person then your defense would not hold up on the front line.  You want to be a front line healer (cleric) no problem pick the defensive skills you need and pick up a healing skill.  You perfer to stay in the back and toss spells, arrows, or crowd control then pick the skills that fit your play style.

What makes the trinity a complete joke is the idea that (insert pew pew class of the month) can do more dps then every other class.  Using your example the archer's arrow doesn't magically do more damage then the infantry's sword.  Plus the cavalary in your example has the most potential for damage and is still heavly armored.

I am interested to see how TSW skill system works with filling roles.  If Failcom doesn't completely screw things up I think this could be a new industry standard, roles without classes.

The game industry hasn't fed us that anytime recently.  After WOW:BC, it's been extremely rare to find an MMORPG where a class equals a role (and only one role, forever and ever.)  Maybe the rare class slips through (mages/rogues in WOW) but the genre has largely stepped away from class equalling role.

Even moreso outside MMORPGs (LoL, Tribes, TF2)

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Venger

You my friend need to go play some p&p d&d then come back and talk about classes vs roles.  It sounds like you never experienced anything beside the dumbed down cookie cutter class = role that the gaming industry has been feeding us for decades. 

Roles and classes do not have to equal each other the way most video games have distorted it.  If you want to be a front line person you need to have X amount of defense.  You can get that defense via armor, shield, dodge, parry, magic, etc.  It is your choice how you want to be a front line person.  If you prefer to be more versatile person then your defense would not hold up on the front line.  You want to be a front line healer (cleric) no problem pick the defensive skills you need and pick up a healing skill.  You perfer to stay in the back and toss spells, arrows, or crowd control then pick the skills that fit your play style.

What makes the trinity a complete joke is the idea that (insert pew pew class of the month) can do more dps then every other class.  Using your example the archer's arrow doesn't magically do more damage then the infantry's sword.  Plus the cavalary in your example has the most potential for damage and is still heavly armored.

I am interested to see how TSW skill system works with filling roles.  If Failcom doesn't completely screw things up I think this could be a new industry standard, roles without classes.

The game industry hasn't fed us that anytime recently.  After WOW:BC, it's been extremely rare to find an MMORPG where a class equals a role (and only one role, forever and ever.)  Maybe the rare class slips through (mages/rogues in WOW) but the genre has largely stepped away from class equalling role.

Even moreso outside MMORPGs (LoL, Tribes, TF2)

I didn't really mean specifically mmorpgs, more so rpgs in general since the beginning.  Recently mmos have soften the class = roles some.  But that only allows tanks to float to dps and healers to float to dps.  I'd rather see the dps taken out of the equation completely.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Venger

You my friend need to go play some p&p d&d then come back and talk about classes vs roles.  It sounds like you never experienced anything beside the dumbed down cookie cutter class = role that the gaming industry has been feeding us for decades. 

Roles and classes do not have to equal each other the way most video games have distorted it.  If you want to be a front line person you need to have X amount of defense.  You can get that defense via armor, shield, dodge, parry, magic, etc.  It is your choice how you want to be a front line person.  If you prefer to be more versatile person then your defense would not hold up on the front line.  You want to be a front line healer (cleric) no problem pick the defensive skills you need and pick up a healing skill.  You perfer to stay in the back and toss spells, arrows, or crowd control then pick the skills that fit your play style.

What makes the trinity a complete joke is the idea that (insert pew pew class of the month) can do more dps then every other class.  Using your example the archer's arrow doesn't magically do more damage then the infantry's sword.  Plus the cavalary in your example has the most potential for damage and is still heavly armored.

I am interested to see how TSW skill system works with filling roles.  If Failcom doesn't completely screw things up I think this could be a new industry standard, roles without classes.

The game industry hasn't fed us that anytime recently.  After WOW:BC, it's been extremely rare to find an MMORPG where a class equals a role (and only one role, forever and ever.)  Maybe the rare class slips through (mages/rogues in WOW) but the genre has largely stepped away from class equalling role.

Even moreso outside MMORPGs (LoL, Tribes, TF2)

And do not forget the Hunter....

In any case, the addition of specs to diversify the role of certain classes may have been good however it is not without downsides...because then you go in to comparisons, is a DPS specced Warrior better than a rogue and similar comparisons which take place on the field despite the best intentions of the design?

I have seen many Warriors (amongst other classes) to get booted from raids because they had some different spec than the main one associated by people with the class.

So in WoW at least it created more confusions to some people than it solved issues.

I would agree that classes do not necessarilly need to be attributed a role on the trinity, but most MMO's do that association. Still looking forward to see the variation in GW2 thought!

Ultimatelly I think this is why a Skill based system and not classes is more suited for a Sandbox game, so that through the choice of skills people create their own classes for a specific role as per their own playstyle.

And I think it is better if the game addapts to the player rather than expecting the player to addapt to the game in this regard and context.

Originally posted by stephanrb

I'm a strict defender of the class system. The specialization system, as far as combat goes, started in the Ancient Armies and since then we have the division of "Infantary, Cavalary and Archery - now Artillary". Also, the ability to pick a class accounts for a major choice in your playstyle and how you see your character to start with.

This kind of division makes it possible to enhance each class individually so it gets to the best of its gameplay, on a particular role or playstyle. Furthermore, the holy trinity is instituitionalized for a particular reason: The major aspects of combat in MMOs are: 1) Dealing Damage; 2) Taking Damage; 3) Healing or Avoiding Damage; 4) Controlling Mobs. Unless we invent something such as air combat or marines, I can't see any other big variables coming.

It is true that games such as GW2 are aiming for a remarkable change at this system, but still the paradigm is that in order to grow better in one of those variables you need to lose on the other ones. Therefore, if you're a better damage dealer, you're probably going to be a worse tank, if you're a better healer, you're probably going to be a worse damage dealer than you could be. So that's the central aspect of the class system.

On the other hand, I see a lot of posts about "Freedom in gameplay" and being able to perform sandbox roles such as Crafting in a main way and not simply as some kind of mini-game. So what about introducing some kind of "Sandbox" class? A class that does not stand out in-combat, but rather has its focus on other aspects of the game.

I am also a defender of the class system and I agree with your post here. I would like to comment on two things. "Freedom in gameplay".  When players say that, it means they don't want to be restricted to a class. They want to make thier "own" class by selecting from an arsnal of skills. What some don't realize is that they are still designing a class. However, it's outside of the class parameters. I wouldn't say that it's "freedom in gameplay", it's allows different types of choices.

What players really want is "freedom within the structure of combat mechanics". Combat mechanics are still focused for the player to find the best possible output. Once that is reached then there becomes one way to essentially play that class to produce the maximum output for whatever that class role is. Both class design and combat mechanics must be able to compliment each other to allow freedom for a player to not be restrictive. Essentially, that there is not one way but multiple ways to accomplish the role that class might offer.

Which leads me to your question. Can there be a sandbox class that doesn't focus on combat? Well absolutely. I think you probably mean a different type of class perhaps not a sandbox type. If you mean the sandbox "class" structure being able to be in the same class structure, then no. In my class design, I have adventuring classes and crafting classes. Both are seperate. Crafting classes cannot participate within the combat mechanics. As you know that most games have the adventuring classes be able to craft, and have multiple non combat oriented professions.

Originally posted by lifesbrink

All of you are forgetting how awful combat is in its current context.  The reason we even have this problem is because of the lack of use of environment to gain advantages, nothing more than arbitrary skill rotations, poor AI on the monsters and a lack of physics (collision, mainly).  If you solve all these issues, the idea of a holy trinity seems silly, because combat comes down to using your skills and wits to surivive an encounter, not pressing a few abilties in succession.

Eronakis, I like your ideas on crafting being separate from adventuring, however, I still don't get why you and the others are defending old-school combat, which has been shown time and time again to be boring.  This is not the type of combat we see in books, movies, and the like, it is droll and relegated to repetition.  This is why the trinity exists now.  So why defend it?

I'm also not 100% sure of my vision regarding this Sandbox Class, but just to make it clearer I meant something like a Citzen All-Around funny class that could take Main Roles as Crafters, Explorers, Economists, Etc. without being tied to all that combat focus most games, and essentially 100% of the Theme Parks, provides us with.

Heck, it could even be a lvl-free class that does not get aggro from mobs. I understand that for such a thing to be actually be a complete experience would require new game mechanics and all, but I'm pretty sure some people would find it interesting. The active skills of this class would be built around the needs of crafters, explorers, etc. like crafting fasters, enhancing critical crafting. They could have access to some exclusive stuff and areas also, to some books spread around the game, idk, I'm just illustrating a mental picture of what I believe would be nice.

These guys could play for reputation system instead, they would be an extra class, a chill out class, a sandbox class in a way they are not attached to the main combat goals of the game, but roleplaywise to whatever they want to be without being labeled a "Hunter" or a "Warrior" or whatever.

Of course now I have to observe:

1 - I know I'm flying high here, no wonder, its just pure speculation for forum fun.

2 - Yes, I know we can do most of this things with our current characters since those are aspects of the game most combat classes can do but roleplay wise I think it would be very nice for people who want to have a class not targeted for combat to be able to their stuff around properly.

3 - To be honest, my opinion is that today's crafting system as in WoW is generally just another grind-source you need to do either for money, for the perks or the itens. Personally I don't have any fun with this kind of crafting and I'm more than willing to even give away all my crafting capabilities for a class specialized in that, which I think would be cool and add to the experience rather than insert some annoying time-sinking mini-game mandatory for anyone who wants max stat on their combat characters. But I'm not discussing that anyway, since it is personal opinion.

4 - Of course some content would need to be implemented.

I just picture a world where we don't need to look everywhere around and see bows, axes and staves on everyone's back, but rather see some unarmed people with fishing rods, smithing hammers and telescopes having fun while being able to truly roleplay these kinds of jobs.

Originally posted by Suraknar

I have seen many Warriors (amongst other classes) to get booted from raids because they had some different spec than the main one associated by people with the class.

Sure, back when the game balance didn't really allow for alternate specs that makes sense.

But once those specs became viable, Warriors were only kicked through player ignorance. And you have to be extremely draconic with your class design to completely avoid players kicking others through their own ignorance of game mechanics.

Even in games where class is nonexistant people get kicked through player ignorance.  (Wanting to play a certain character in L4D)  The problem is player ignorance, not class design.

while I prefer skillbased to classbased, I can see how classes would work in a virtual word sandbox. and its nothing like the op.

the main thing about a sandbox is choice. the ability to choose not to fight [well in ffa pvp you may get ambushed, but I specifically mean seeking out fights, not random encouters]. the ability to choose a certain role.

I can see an easy way of doing that. have certain guilds or orders in the game and let players decide which one they want to join. if they join the shipwrighs guild they get the ability to build ships. if they join the order of the forest rangers they get ranger abilities.

of course there should be skills within those classes to help specialise. say the rangers guild has the skill options of: archery, tracking, swordsmanship. while thr scout guild would have the skill options of tracking, swordsmanship and light armour.

So different guilds could share certain similar skills becuase it makes sense. both a carpenter and a shipwright would work in wood. so they'd both need carpentry skills.

and of course the different skills would allow specialisation within that guild. the knights guild may have the skills of axework or swordmanship. one knight may specialise in a sword and the other in an axe. or onne engineer may specialise in digging ditches for armies while another may specialise in supporting the earth to stop collapses in mines.

This is just to stop each member of a guild from being a clone of every other member in that guild. it would still allow the overall specialisation of classess.

finally in order to give players a full bag of freedom while still keeping specialisation there should be secondary and hobby skills. even a foot soldier may need to ride a horse in transport. but he'd be crap at using one in fighting. someone who knows first aid might be able to do some healing, but he'd be crap compared to a dedicated healer. etc. etc.

also, the trinity should really be avoided in a sandbox. what should be done is allow the use of group tactics to work.

for example, at the battle of agincourt there were forests surrounf the english longbowmen. this stopped them getting flanked. the mud caused by rain slowed down the heavily armoured french knights [even when on foot]. in most other conditions the french [who outnumbered the english quite a bit] would have won, but the tactics the english used allowed them to destroy the french army.

similarly, in a game a mage may be able to fight a warrior at a distance. but if the warrior is fast enough to catch the mage the mage will die. someone who has a decent grasp of tactics would have another warrior destract the first and let the mage help from a distance. but if the enemy had an archer, the mage would have to hide behind a rock and time his spells to when the archer is destracted or reloading or whatever.

of course in any decent comabt there should be a lot more going one. maybe a scout is sneaking up behind the mage in order to ambush and kill him. maybe the mage has a friendly scout hidden behind him to watch for and stop any danger. maybe the weather has turned to mud slowing down the heavily armed warrior enough so the mage can kill him without another warrior destracting him.

this sort of thing doesnt need a balanced trinity. a group that works together and plans better than the enemy would win against an enemy that doesnt. and a trinity would only have three variables. if there were fifty different roles in combat it would make combat more diverse, and if you only had access to seven of those roles it would require a lot more planning and skill to be able to win.

Originally posted by lifesbrink

Originally posted by lifesbrink

All of you are forgetting how awful combat is in its current context.  The reason we even have this problem is because of the lack of use of environment to gain advantages, nothing more than arbitrary skill rotations, poor AI on the monsters and a lack of physics (collision, mainly).  If you solve all these issues, the idea of a holy trinity seems silly, because combat comes down to using your skills and wits to surivive an encounter, not pressing a few abilties in succession.

Eronakis, I like your ideas on crafting being separate from adventuring, however, I still don't get why you and the others are defending old-school combat, which has been shown time and time again to be boring.  This is not the type of combat we see in books, movies, and the like, it is droll and relegated to repetition.  This is why the trinity exists now.  So why defend it?

I defend the class design philosophy of each class having distinct roles that compliment each other for group play. I really enjoy group play more so than solo play. I think the OP has a good argument for the trinity. The trinity is essentially the role of the class, it's apart of class design not the whole. But yet the roles also play off the class design. Class design is pretty complex and usually is layered. The reason why people feel as if the trinity is old and boring is because of the combat mechanics that are associated with it. I believe that the combat mechanics has to change to make the trinity more appealing beyond the tank and spank stratagem that everyone is used too.