Ok.  So I noticed some people are hating on me liking WoW's raiding system and trinity.  You guys are constantly saying how easy WoW dungeons are (and you noticably do not raid current content).  Dungeons are SUPPOSED to be easy.  They are for entry level players looking for entry level loot so they can feel a sense of accomplishment.  Then, there is raiding, heroic raiding, and for the truly brave, the new challenge mode dungeons, which I have completed all on gold with a TON of dedication and effort.  If you think getting gold challenge modes is easy, then you are simply lying.  You have to play your defined role to absolute perfection, and there is no bigger rush in MMOs today!

As an addendum, WoW gives you many different types and difficulties of PvE content, whereas GW2 just has a really easy cluster**** version and a more difficult cluster**** version.

 

You find WoW dungeons easy because that is the content you are choosing to do.  Super easy mindnumbing stuff.  Raid or do challenge modes, and trust me, you will NOT be bored.  You will need to tweak your abilities in your defined role to the best they can be to down some of the most difficult content (heroic raid bosses and CM golds).

Originally posted by Vaelgard
Ok.  So I noticed some people are hating on me liking WoW's raiding system and trinity.  You guys are constantly saying how easy WoW dungeons are (and you noticably do not raid current content).  Dungeons are SUPPOSED to be easy.  They are for entry level players looking for entry level loot so they can feel a sense of accomplishment.  Then, there is raiding, heroic raiding, and for the truly brave, the new challenge mode dungeons, which I have completed all on gold with a TON of dedication and effort.  If you think getting gold challenge modes is easy, then you are simply lying.  You have to play your defined role to absolute perfection, and there is no bigger rush in MMOs today!

That honestly sounds like fun. I should have checked in on those challenge modes while I was playing as they did look interesting to me. I used to do heroic raiding in Lich King. And yeah, it was difficult for us.

 

But I don't think any of that is dependant on the holy trinity. I agree that you can have challenging content in both situations, but the predictability level in a holy trinity game is much higher in my opinion. Maybe that's the difference. In one scenario you are reacting a lot more (no trinity) and in another you are mostly working on perfecting the movements and timing of the encounter (trinity).

 

In other words, it's more of a taste thing.

 

 

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Vaelgard
Ok.  So I noticed some people are hating on me liking WoW's raiding system and trinity.  You guys are constantly saying how easy WoW dungeons are (and you noticably do not raid current content).  Dungeons are SUPPOSED to be easy.  They are for entry level players looking for entry level loot so they can feel a sense of accomplishment.  Then, there is raiding, heroic raiding, and for the truly brave, the new challenge mode dungeons, which I have completed all on gold with a TON of dedication and effort.  If you think getting gold challenge modes is easy, then you are simply lying.  You have to play your defined role to absolute perfection, and there is no bigger rush in MMOs today!

That honestly sounds like fun. I should have checked in on those challenge modes while I was playing as they did look interesting to me.

 

But I don't think any of that is dependant on the holy trinity. I agree that you can have challenging content in both situations, but the predictability level in a holy trinity game is much higher in my opinion. Maybe that's the difference. In one scenario you are reacting a lot more (no trinity) and in another you are mostly working on perfecting the movements and timing of the encounter (trinity).

 

In other words, it's more of a taste thing.

 

 

You make a good point, and yes, ultimately, everything is a matter of taste.  What I didn't mention about the challenge modes, however, is how much you have to stretch your role and almost encompass other roles of the trinity in order to succeed in getting gold medals.  For example, a tank has to run into the next room and pull all of the mobs while the healer is drinking.  The tank needs to use his defensive CDs and self heals and the dps have to pull off certain mobs or DPS down things in order for the tank not to die.  The object is survival until the healer can enter the room and continue the fight.  I know the roles are still basically the roles, but it offers a really nice amount of dynamic feel to the holy trinity.

Originally posted by Vaelgard

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Vaelgard
Ok.  So I noticed some people are hating on me liking WoW's raiding system and trinity.  You guys are constantly saying how easy WoW dungeons are (and you noticably do not raid current content).  Dungeons are SUPPOSED to be easy.  They are for entry level players looking for entry level loot so they can feel a sense of accomplishment.  Then, there is raiding, heroic raiding, and for the truly brave, the new challenge mode dungeons, which I have completed all on gold with a TON of dedication and effort.  If you think getting gold challenge modes is easy, then you are simply lying.  You have to play your defined role to absolute perfection, and there is no bigger rush in MMOs today!

That honestly sounds like fun. I should have checked in on those challenge modes while I was playing as they did look interesting to me.

 

But I don't think any of that is dependant on the holy trinity. I agree that you can have challenging content in both situations, but the predictability level in a holy trinity game is much higher in my opinion. Maybe that's the difference. In one scenario you are reacting a lot more (no trinity) and in another you are mostly working on perfecting the movements and timing of the encounter (trinity).

 

In other words, it's more of a taste thing.

You make a good point, and yes, ultimately, everything is a matter of taste.  What I didn't mention about the challenge modes, however, is how much you have to stretch your role and almost encompass other roles of the trinity in order to succeed in getting gold medals.  For example, a tank has to run into the next room and pull all of the mobs while the healer is drinking.  The tank needs to use his defensive CDs and self heals and the dps have to pull off certain mobs or DPS down things in order for the tank not to die.  The object is survival until the healer can enter the room and continue the fight.  I know the roles are still basically the roles, but it offers a really nice amount of dynamic feel to the holy trinity.

I'm going to roll back over once the new arena season is announced and I'll check those out. They sound fun.

I liked "trinity" more. I like having roles like dps, healer or tank.

In evry mmo i played i always been a healer.

Just love that role.

Not interested in being a rambo with a first aid kit strapped behind my back that shoot mage lazers trough my eyeballs while wielding tank shields on both my arms. =P

I think dual skill like war/monk or any other form of healer as dual class would be my best choice.

GW2 system is more enjoyable to be as I'm not dependent on healer for lvl up, solo progress.

I think role of tank is obsolete in game where anybody can heal.
GW2 id nice but I would prefer option: heal others and more healing abilities.

I don't see hybrid class in sense of 50:50 skill equal; I would prefer like 10 primary and 2-3 healer skills with 1 AoE heal but long cd.

I like live in a party but sometime it can be hard to find it so why not to do solo run?
any class / healer would be a good farmer.

As for dungeons, where trio was most needed, it may works too if we can heal each other.
Or make new model: healer NPC for dungeons. So far I felt like healer role was the hardest and the most hated in case of fail, so let it be NPC. =D

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by botrytis
 

But there is no reason why a "trinity" system couldn't be made that relied upon warriors blocking/protecting their allies while the squishier players shield themselves (taking themselves out of the equation) or moving to a better vantage point.

I know some people say that games like D&D didn't have a trinity but they sort of did. It just didn't rely upon this whole "agrro/hate" mechanic.

there was a reason they the toughter members were in front and the ranged/squishy members.

Essentially, we are talking about roles, each person playing a role. I would agree that the whole "press a button and magically have all the enemies rush toward the tank" is horrid, but it doesn't have to be that way.

First, its not that: Some melee fighters had to be tough in order to survive in melee. Others used their mobility and abilities to avoid damage. Having someone tough in the front was never mandatory like it is in trinity games. Defense in trinity consists of soaking damaga and repairing damage - The most idiotic form of defense there is if you ask me.

Second, in D&D, there was no shooting into melee due to friendly fire. AOE farming was not possible for the same reason.

Third: Ranged healing spells were rare, so while the party almost always had a divine spellcaster with them (Cleric/Druid) healing was somewhat unwieldy and was only reserved for emergencies in mid combat.

D&D is quite far from the holy trinity.

did you not have roles?

1, All I know was that in our campaigns the fighers were out front. The fighers were the members who were taking the damage, blocking, throwing themselves into the fray,

2, We actually did have firing into the area where melee was if it was necessary or if melee was blocking a path and the ranged could fire over their heads.

3, we had ranged healing. Sorry but we changed the rules to suit our needs. So having said that I suppose one's mileage may vary.

The D&D I knew was closer to the trinity.

 

My problem with the trinity mainly comes down to the fact that, a lot of the time, a smart group who isn't the trinity can't accomplish the same feats as a group who isn't as intelligent with their gameplay  descisions, but is using a trinity. If all of my friends and I want to try and do content as barbarians, It should be POSSIBLE for us to complete the content.  I'm not saying it should be as  easy as a Priest/Paladin/Sorcerer mixed group, but it should be possible. I like to think that a smart group of Warriors should be capable of taking down a raid boss.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by botrytis
 

But there is no reason why a "trinity" system couldn't be made that relied upon warriors blocking/protecting their allies while the squishier players shield themselves (taking themselves out of the equation) or moving to a better vantage point.

I know some people say that games like D&D didn't have a trinity but they sort of did. It just didn't rely upon this whole "agrro/hate" mechanic.

there was a reason they the toughter members were in front and the ranged/squishy members.

Essentially, we are talking about roles, each person playing a role. I would agree that the whole "press a button and magically have all the enemies rush toward the tank" is horrid, but it doesn't have to be that way.

First, its not that: Some melee fighters had to be tough in order to survive in melee. Others used their mobility and abilities to avoid damage. Having someone tough in the front was never mandatory like it is in trinity games. Defense in trinity consists of soaking damaga and repairing damage - The most idiotic form of defense there is if you ask me.

Second, in D&D, there was no shooting into melee due to friendly fire. AOE farming was not possible for the same reason.

Third: Ranged healing spells were rare, so while the party almost always had a divine spellcaster with them (Cleric/Druid) healing was somewhat unwieldy and was only reserved for emergencies in mid combat.

D&D is quite far from the holy trinity.

did you not have roles?

1, All I know was that in our campaigns the fighers were out front. The fighers were the members who were taking the damage, blocking, throwing themselves into the fray,

2, We actually did have firing into the area where melee was if it was necessary or if melee was blocking a path and the ranged could fire over their heads.

3, we had ranged healing. Sorry but we changed the rules to suit our needs. So having said that I suppose one's mileage may vary.

The D&D I knew was closer to the trinity.

 

I really think people are starting to mix up D&D they played on the computer and tabletop D&D.

It is true that D&D characters had roles but they weren't the trinity you see in MMOs.

1. Fighters were considered tanks, yes but they also dished out a ton of damage.  And they didn't taunt or hold agro, they blocked the way with their bodies.  I also recall having clerics in the frontlines also since their armor and spells gave them potentially better AC than fighters.

2. You could fire arrows past your fighters just like the mobs could fire past them.  But yeah, forget about tossing a fireball that does AoE damage or chain lightning.

3. In tabletop, you rarely healed during battle.  It was used when things got desperate.  Heals were normally done after the battle was won because healing took away precious attacks.  Buffs and debuffs were much more prevalent.  Computer games incorporated healing so much more because you could reset heal spells with resting.  It was just a press of a button; not so in tabletop.

 

I don't want the trinity back at all.

Get rid of the trinity and then you may as well get rid of classes, and make every player a cookie cutter of each other.  No don't get rid of the trinity concept.

 

OK, ok ..a better design I've seen was to make every player identical at first, but then let them choose where they would like to specialize in.  Eve has this.  Other games have the idea to some extent, even if you choose a set role, allow for change over time.

 

Allow players to specialize in areas they want.  In typical warfare these days, there are soldiers, artilliary / range attacks, medics, and members of the clergy (various denominations).  I think the trinity is practical, but as you develop a character, a player might decide for a change.

 

Get rid of healers?

Clergy members work best in fantasy, because priests can essentially pray for actions.  If anything, modern MMORPGS abuse the role of priests, because when a priest gets a prayer answered in pen-and-paper games it is significant (and requires a lot of praying).  Not some minor autocast spell in MMORPGS.  Having a priest is essential in PnP.

 

If anything, I'd see an argument against the trinity in Sci-Fi games.  Heal mortal wounds with fix-em droids .. are you serious?

Originally posted by SpectralHunter

O

I really think people are starting to mix up D&D they played on the computer and tabletop D&D.

It is true that D&D characters had roles but they weren't the trinity you see in MMOs.

1. Fighters were considered tanks, yes but they also dished out a ton of damage.  And they didn't taunt or hold agro, they blocked the way with their bodies.  I also recall having clerics in the frontlines also since their armor and spells gave them potentially better AC than fighters.

2. You could fire arrows past your fighters just like the mobs could fire past them.  But yeah, forget about tossing a fireball that does AoE damage or chain lightning.

3. In tabletop, you rarely healed during battle.  It was used when things got desperate.  Heals were normally done after the battle was won because healing took away precious attacks.  Buffs and debuffs were much more prevalent.  Computer games incorporated healing so much more because you could reset heal spells with resting.  It was just a press of a button; not so in tabletop.

 

You are very correct. But quite frankly that's how mmo's should be. Warriors should be dishing out damage and AOE spells were never fired into the fray. That's just common senes. Clerics were in the front but I don't remember them being killer Damage dealers.

The idea being that in D&D players had roles. Mages didn't march into the battle and Thieves/Rogues were always trying to get the upper hand in a sneaky way.

I don't think anyone, myself included, would say that mmo's and table top have a 1 to 1 correlation as to how accurate their rules transfer.

But the idea is that in D&D we had roles, and roles that each of us wanted to embody. I think when people are asking "do you want to have the holy trinity back, what they are saying is they want to embody those roles. If anyone can be in front, if anyone can be healing, if anyone wield magic then things stop becoming unique.

 

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by SpectralHunter

O

I really think people are starting to mix up D&D they played on the computer and tabletop D&D.

It is true that D&D characters had roles but they weren't the trinity you see in MMOs.

1. Fighters were considered tanks, yes but they also dished out a ton of damage.  And they didn't taunt or hold agro, they blocked the way with their bodies.  I also recall having clerics in the frontlines also since their armor and spells gave them potentially better AC than fighters.

2. You could fire arrows past your fighters just like the mobs could fire past them.  But yeah, forget about tossing a fireball that does AoE damage or chain lightning.

3. In tabletop, you rarely healed during battle.  It was used when things got desperate.  Heals were normally done after the battle was won because healing took away precious attacks.  Buffs and debuffs were much more prevalent.  Computer games incorporated healing so much more because you could reset heal spells with resting.  It was just a press of a button; not so in tabletop.

 

You are very correct. But quite frankly that's how mmo's should be. Warriors should be dishing out damage and AOE spells were never fired into the fray. That's just common senes. Clerics were in the front but I don't remember them being killer Damage dealers.

The idea being that in D&D players had roles. Mages didn't march into the battle and Thieves/Rogues were always trying to get the upper hand in a sneaky way.

I don't think anyone, myself included, would say that mmo's and table top have a 1 to 1 correlation as to how accurate their rules transfer.

But the idea is that in D&D we had roles, and roles that each of us wanted to embody. I think when people are asking "do you want to have the holy trinity back, what they are saying is they want to embody those roles. If anyone can be in front, if anyone can be healing, if anyone wield magic then things stop becoming unique.

 

 

you can be more unique without set roles..just depends how the system is implemented.. In most holy trinity games I feel the exact same as the next guy of my class.. If the system allows me to essentially make my own class I feel much more unique

Originally posted by Sovrath

But the idea is that in D&D we had roles, and roles that each of us wanted to embody. I think when people are asking "do you want to have the holy trinity back, what they are saying is they want to embody those roles. If anyone can be in front, if anyone can be healing, if anyone wield magic then things stop becoming unique.

Just copying the paragraph that I wanted to discuss.  I agree with everything else you said in reply.

Are you sure that's what the proponents of the trinity system wants?  I get the impression they want just three roles: tank, healer, dps and once you are locked into a role you cannot deviate from it.  They want the tank to hold agro while the healer heals to keep him alive and have the dps rain damage upon the mob.  The trinity is three roles and once you pick a class you are that role.

I personally like the hybrid system better but with roles that fluctuate and change depending upon the encounter.

Fighters in tabletop could do lots of damage...pretty much everyone could (clerics with buffs hit hard and they had offensive spells).  They also resisted certain types of damage, so much so that in some cases, they didn't need much support.  But against magic they were very vulnerable.  In fact, mages were better equipped in handling mobs with magic.  Rogues also.  Every class had their unique ability to tank and dps depending upon the encounter.

I guess that's what I want.  Currently, the tank is always the warrior in MMOs.  It doesn't matter if the mob is completely magical and could/should devastate a warrior.  How much more interesting would it be if the mage had to "tank" the mob by casting spells and counterspelling while the warrior attacked when vulnerabilities opened up?

You have PLENTY of games with Trinity....

Its amazing how some people just cannot enjoy a different take on a game for once...

You just want clones forever?

boring.....

Originally posted by Zzad

You have PLENTY of games with Trinity....

Its amazing how some people just cannot enjoy a different take on a game for once...

You just want clones forever?

boring.....

 

also seems pretty common practice people get very complacent in certain things and when something new comes along instead of trying to learn it they cry they want what they know back.. Me personally I get bored with same old same old all the time and happy to learn something new..

Originally posted by Aerowyn

 

also seems pretty common practice people get very complacent in certain things and when something new comes along instead of trying to learn it they cry they want what they know back.. Me personally I get bored with same old same old all the time and happy to learn something new..

People hate change, even if it's an improvement.

Originally posted by SpectralHunter

Originally posted by Aerowyn

 

also seems pretty common practice people get very complacent in certain things and when something new comes along instead of trying to learn it they cry they want what they know back.. Me personally I get bored with same old same old all the time and happy to learn something new..

People hate change, even if it's an improvement.

 

haha so I have noticed.. I don't really get why though.. More variety the better I always say