Originally posted by bcbully

Originally posted by Volkon

Originally posted by Wraithone

Well stated.  GW2 tried to get "creative" and in the process threw out the reason that dungeons have been fun for many people.  The trinity worked so long, so well for a reason.  GW2 dungeons have some of the worst reputation of any I've seen in years.  Sure, some people like them (so challenging...) but over all they are just a PITA for many people, so they don't even bother with them. 

 What a load of bunk. There are many people finding GW2 dungeons the best they've seen in years...

 

When what the last time anyone, outside of GW2, went into a dungeon and actually had to figure out how to do it? 

The first line is almost sig worthy.

 

Lastnight Age of Wushu. Before that every single TSW dungeon.

All of the TSW dungeons were pretty straight forward. I suppose if someone had learning difficulties it might take them a while.

This article would be good if it didnt pretend it's opinions are facts.

For example, the fact that there are no recepies in GW2 crafting make it much more enjoyable than WoW-like crafting even if it boils down to the same components yet the article claims that it objectively makes it worse.

 

The only objective aspect of the article was the fact that there is basically no tutorial for the game aside from the pop-up tips and people have to figure it out on their own. 

Offcourse Guildwars 2 is not perfect, and all the things i predicted before release have become true in some sense.

 

But playing some old fashioned MMO´s alongside GW2 have tought me that there is no way back, combat is much more active, the world feels much more vibrant and alive, The scenery is the best in any MMO ever..

 

and despite its shortcommings i keep returning back to GW2 in less then a day

 

I am sure with time and with the first expansion pack things will get eeven better, it took other MMo´s years to become the game it should have been at release, MMo´s are allways under development and improving, just look at EQ2 how far they have come since release, and they keep adding more and more content and new things every expansion.

 

GW2 is the best thing that happened to MMO´s since WoW, and thats over 8 years ago. And by next christmass its even better.

Originally posted by evilastro

Originally posted by bcbully

Originally posted by Volkon

Originally posted by Wraithone

Well stated.  GW2 tried to get "creative" and in the process threw out the reason that dungeons have been fun for many people.  The trinity worked so long, so well for a reason.  GW2 dungeons have some of the worst reputation of any I've seen in years.  Sure, some people like them (so challenging...) but over all they are just a PITA for many people, so they don't even bother with them. 

 What a load of bunk. There are many people finding GW2 dungeons the best they've seen in years...

 

When what the last time anyone, outside of GW2, went into a dungeon and actually had to figure out how to do it? 

The first line is almost sig worthy.

 

Lastnight Age of Wushu. Before that every single TSW dungeon.

All of the TSW dungeons were pretty straight forward. I suppose if someone had learning difficulties it might take them a while.

I am so happy that people like you have found their game. Maybe now the industry can move forward.

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by grimal

What??? DnD?  The trinity was created by the modern MMO.  There was no trinity in DnD.

 Are you freaking serious....The first MMORPG with Graphics was NeverWinter Nights Online back in 1991, it had the holy trinity which Meridian 59 used in 1996 and EverQuest which is D&D with another name...wowzers.

Original D&D Black Box had 3 classes. Cleric (Healer), Fighter (tank), Mage(DPS).

It wasnt until Greyhawk was released that other classes started

to appear, Greyhawk brought the Theif (another DPS) and the Paladin (tank/healer). it wasnt until the player handbook came out that the first non-trinity class was created...the BARD.

Everything else all falls into the trinity catagory BECAUSE they are taken from D&D.

/fighter/berserker/avenger/barbarian = dps

paladin = tank/healer

warrior/warlord/ardent = tank/dps

Warden/batlemaid/swordmage = tank

ranger/scout = dps

theif/rogue = dps

wizard/mage/elementalist/necro/warlock = dps

cleric/priest = healer

Druid/shaman/monk = healer/dps

Wow.  Ok, first off, DPS stands for damage per second.  Combat in DnD was never based on real time.  There were turns or rounds, so how could it have been Damage Per Second?  It couldn't have been!

The Trinity was developed back with the first gen of MMOs (EQ 1).  Made up of the Tank, Healer and DPS.  DnD never had such a term for this combat style because it didn't come into play until the MMO!!

True each class was based off an archetype, healer, warrior, etc, but the actual term trinity as we use it now was coined by and for the MMO genre.

Please, show me anywhere in any of the pre-MMO genre DnD books where it specifically states the trinity.  You'd be hard pressed.

The only trinity you will possibly find mentioned is that of the three core books: Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual...but those referred to the three books, not the Tank/DPS/Healer trinity you are talking about.

Second, EQ 1 may be a fantasy based online RPG but it is not Dungeons and Dragons. 

I can't believe I am actually needing to post this. Did you even play Dungeons and Dragons PNP?

No, tabletop definitely had the trinity.  Wizards / Sorcerors were the damage classes.  Fighters / Paladins / Rangers were the meat shields and protectors of the mages, always putting themselves between the opponent and the mage.  Clerics / Druids were the hybrids who both kicked ass and saved the group's bacon with well placed heals.  Thieves were the melee damage class and trap experts.  I never played a campaign that didn't have at least three of the above archetypes as campaigns couldn't be completed without them.

 

They may not have been labeled as the trinity at the time, but that is exactly what they were.  Doesn't matter if combat is real time, turn based or some mix of the two, the point is that you had to have classes that healed, classes that tanked and protected and classes that dealt real damage in order to be successful in campaigns.

I won't argue that you could play it like that now if you wanted but the trinity refers to the mechanic in MMOs.  Again, please show me where it is specifically referred to as "Tank/DPS/Healer" trinity in those books.  You can't because the label was created for MMOs.  There was no taunt mechanism, either.

Edit: By saying the trinity existed with old pen n paper RPGs of the 70s-80s, you are projecting a 1999 mechanic onto something that predates the very definition of it.  If Everquest and the modern MMO never existed, there would be no "trinity" as we know it.  You can't go back and attribute it to something that was around 30 or more years before it.  You can argue there were elements or roles that beared resemblance to it, and perhaps lent itself to the creation of it some time after but thats about as far as you can go.

 

 

MMOs and their developers don't label their classes as the trinity either, players do.  Of course there was taunting in D&D.  Not only did my fighters shout epithets at mobs to keep their attention, I also would place myself between them and the physically weaker members of the party which in itself is taunting, forcing the mob to face me and ignore my party.  I'm not projecting anything.  The mechanic already existed, it's just that no one even gave it a second thought or considered it a bad thing.

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Offcourse Guildwars 2 is not perfect, and all the things i predicted before release have become true in some sense.

 

But playing some old fashioned MMO´s alongside GW2 have tought me that there is no way back, combat is much more active, the world feels much more vibrant and alive, The scenery is the best in any MMO ever..

 

and despite its shortcommings i keep returning back to GW2 in less then a day

 

I am sure with time and with the first expansion pack things will get eeven better, it took other MMo´s years to become the game it should have been at release, MMo´s are allways under development and improving, just look at EQ2 how far they have come since release, and they keep adding more and more content and new things every expansion.

 

GW2 is the best thing that happened to MMO´s since WoW, and thats over 8 years ago. And by next christmass its even better.

Now see, for some of us that would make GW2 one of the two worst things to happen to the MMORPG market in the past 8 years. 

Differences of opinions, which is what the author on massively was doing, offering alternate opinions of some of the features of the game, which many don't ascribe to.

 

Originally posted by BadSpock

 

-Roles are horribly underexplained and unclear

Noob.

-Dynamic events don't work in their role as quest replacements

Hell yes they do, past level 50, you can level up on DE's alone. 

-Area flow is problematic

Noob. 

-Crafting is a freaking mess

Lacking? Yes, like any other MMO. A mess? Nah.

-The story is weak

yes but who cares? go play Skyrim or Witcher 2 for story. People bought this for the multiplayer. 

im no fanboy of the game, but i commented on the writer's concerns above. basically, this dbag was too lazy to figure out the game (see area flow and roles), then he went on to state some obvious stuff like crafting and story suck, which is true of every MMo to date. at least it has a story. 

the writer obviously still raids in WoW. dungeons in GW2 were a blast for me. the tougher they get, the more clearly defined your role has to be. it's up to you to define it. 

Originally posted by Volkon

Originally posted by Wraithone

Well stated.  GW2 tried to get "creative" and in the process threw out the reason that dungeons have been fun for many people.  The trinity worked so long, so well for a reason.  GW2 dungeons have some of the worst reputation of any I've seen in years.  Sure, some people like them (so challenging...) but over all they are just a PITA for many people, so they don't even bother with them. 

 What a load of bunk. There are many people finding GW2 dungeons the best they've seen in years as well, and tossing out the pigeon-holing trinity (and the incessant vertical progression)  tossed out with it most of the reasons dungeons became boring jobs instead of fun instances with a variety of things that could go wrong, or right. The only reason the trinity appeared to work for so long is that people were sucked along with the gear grind, and once someone created a video on the "right" way to do each dungeon thought was tossed out the window in lieu of a script.

 

When what the last time anyone, outside of GW2, went into a dungeon and actually had to figure out how to do it? Through all my years in WoW we always followed the script that Blizzard gave to the top guilds in beta, and that was it. Follow the script. Screw up and tank or healer dies, wipe and start over. DPS dies so you can't meet the enrage timer, wipe and start over. Blame the hunter.

As I stated for the "challenge" crowd, thats fine. Its what they want.  But for many of us, the defined roles of the trinity worked well, and made much more sense.  The gear grind (AKA progression) is what motivates many of us.   If thats not your cup of tea, then so be it.

GW2 dungeons are fine for groups who work well together, but all too many of us don't have that luxury.  Which means that if we do try (most don't bother from my experience) its with a PUG, that wipes a few times and then disbands.   GW2 dungeons seem to be targeted at people who are much more capable than the typical player tends to be, and that has its inherent problems.  It works for some people, but obviously not for others. 

I'm rather familiar with the way WoW does things... I started in late beta, and have two 90's and seven 85's (three on the US realm Silvermoon, four on the EU realm Argent Dawn). Wows dungeon formula works well for its intended audience. That is when Ghostcrawler isn't tuning the damn things for the likes of Paragon...^^ 

We are obviously looking for different things, in terms of games.  Which is fine, as there are many, many games to choose from. 

Originally posted by evilastro

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by AwDiddums

Having the Holy Trinity taken out of the game seemed like a blessing to my grp of guild friends, it was supposed to give us freedom to be whatever we wanted, not tied to any specific role.

However when we entered our first dungeon we suddenly found ourselves running around like headless chickens, here was a grp of 5 friends who had been together through many MMO's over a 10 yr span, who had defeated many dungeons in our time with an air of authority as we knew our classes and our roles inside out, here we where running in circles, hitting everything in sight, not having a clue what was coming next and dying every time we where the main focus of the mob.

Fortunately we don't take ourselves seriously, it was downright funny and bemusing to suddenly find that we just didn't have a clue how to play our classes, we where lost as to how we could overcome even the simplest of dungeon critters, in the end it was an element of pure luck and persistence that got us through to the end.

Did we want to enter the next dungeon, not on your life, it wasn't fun anymore, if you can't figure out your roles in the dungeon, if you can't manage the simplest of mobs inside without dying 3 or 4 times whats the whole point, it becomes a frustrated mess, and your relying on zerging or out dpsing the encounter to survive.

I know if the game introduced a Holy Trinity me and my friends would be back in the game in a heart beat, but as it stands there isn't a chance we will head back and act like headless chickens again.

 

 

Well stated.  GW2 tried to get "creative" and in the process threw out the reason that dungeons have been fun for many people.  The trinity worked so long, so well for a reason.  GW2 dungeons have some of the worst reputation of any I've seen in years.  Sure, some people like them (so challenging...) but over all they are just a PITA for many people, so they don't even bother with them. 

I never wished for the trinity harder than after my 20th death, spawn, run, cycle in a GW2 dungeon.  GW2 tried to get rid of the trinity, the experiment failed, hopefully from now on developers will stick with the old adage 'if it ain't broke...' 

The game didn't fail. You failed to adapt. After the first run of each dungeon I pretty much never die.

Healers are a clutch for bad players. Its not them, its the healer, or the tank, or someone else. Its never them that is terrible.

To most people, these games are hobbies, not a second job or career.  "Failed to adapt"? I guess from a certain perspective, that makes sense.  But thats always seemed to be too much like the justification for the FFA full loot PvP type games, with their always on edge, always looking over your shoulder mentality.  Thanks, but thats not what I want from my games these days. 

There is a fine line between challenging and frustrating.  I don't mind the first (as long as its consistent). But I have little patience for the second.  Staying on the right side of that line is very much an art at this point, and it takes a very keen sense of ones target audience to achieve.  Those that fail to understand that, especially in todays market, are limiting their own appeal. 

Dedicated roles are not "crutches". They are inherent in certain design dynamics.  The phrase "bad player" is a subjective value judgement.  "Bad" in terms of what? Some min/max theory crafting spread sheet? Or those who just aren't "good" enough to rise to the "challenge" of a poorly conceived, or executed design? 

These games are supposed to be FUN. A source of entertainment. Granted, thats different things, to different people, but staying on the right side of the challenging/frustrating divide makes a game have a wider appeal.  But as I said, thats very much an art these days.  Bottom line, GW2 has its appeal for some people.  But because of some of its basic design choices, it has inherently limited its appeal to others.  Thats just the way such things go. 

 

Originally posted by Volkon

Originally posted by Scarfe

A failure to adapt doesn't make the change any more acceptable or correct (usually quite the opposite).  Dam dinosaurs failed to adapt to a meteor hitting the earth, I don't think said meteor was an improvement for them though. 

 Yep... and the tinity based dinosaurs went extinct, leaving room for the versatile mammals and birds to thrive.

lol good one.

However, I don't agree 100%.  Like I've always said, I believe the holy trinity has its place in MMOs, but really, GW2 is proof that something else can work.  Unfortunately since some people are really awful at GW2 dungeons, they automatically assume it can't work.  The only failure here is stubborn insistance that there's only one way to do things.  As I've also said, GW2 was just the break I needed from trinity-based games.  People just need to accept that the genre needs more variety, not less.  There are plenty of trinity-based games coming out if you don't like GW2's style, that doesn't mean you need to stamp out anything different.

Besides, wouldn't it be cool if some dinosaurs were still around?  :p

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by evilastro

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by AwDiddums

Having the Holy Trinity taken out of the game seemed like a blessing to my grp of guild friends, it was supposed to give us freedom to be whatever we wanted, not tied to any specific role.

However when we entered our first dungeon we suddenly found ourselves running around like headless chickens, here was a grp of 5 friends who had been together through many MMO's over a 10 yr span, who had defeated many dungeons in our time with an air of authority as we knew our classes and our roles inside out, here we where running in circles, hitting everything in sight, not having a clue what was coming next and dying every time we where the main focus of the mob.

Fortunately we don't take ourselves seriously, it was downright funny and bemusing to suddenly find that we just didn't have a clue how to play our classes, we where lost as to how we could overcome even the simplest of dungeon critters, in the end it was an element of pure luck and persistence that got us through to the end.

Did we want to enter the next dungeon, not on your life, it wasn't fun anymore, if you can't figure out your roles in the dungeon, if you can't manage the simplest of mobs inside without dying 3 or 4 times whats the whole point, it becomes a frustrated mess, and your relying on zerging or out dpsing the encounter to survive.

I know if the game introduced a Holy Trinity me and my friends would be back in the game in a heart beat, but as it stands there isn't a chance we will head back and act like headless chickens again.

 

 

Well stated.  GW2 tried to get "creative" and in the process threw out the reason that dungeons have been fun for many people.  The trinity worked so long, so well for a reason.  GW2 dungeons have some of the worst reputation of any I've seen in years.  Sure, some people like them (so challenging...) but over all they are just a PITA for many people, so they don't even bother with them. 

I never wished for the trinity harder than after my 20th death, spawn, run, cycle in a GW2 dungeon.  GW2 tried to get rid of the trinity, the experiment failed, hopefully from now on developers will stick with the old adage 'if it ain't broke...' 

The game didn't fail. You failed to adapt. After the first run of each dungeon I pretty much never die.

Healers are a clutch for bad players. Its not them, its the healer, or the tank, or someone else. Its never them that is terrible.

To most people, these games are hobbies, not a second job or career.  "Failed to adapt"? I guess from a certain perspective, that makes sense.  But thats always seemed to be too much like the justification for the FFA full loot PvP type games, with their always on edge, always looking over your shoulder mentality.  Thanks, but thats not what I want from my games these days. 

There is a fine line between challenging and frustrating.  I don't mind the first (as long as its consistent). But I have little patience for the second.  Staying on the right side of that line is very much an art at this point, and it takes a very keen sense of ones target audience to achieve.  Those that fail to understand that, especially in todays market, are limiting their own appeal. 

Dedicated roles are not "crutches". They are inherent in certain design dynamics.  The phrase "bad player" is a subjective value judgement.  "Bad" in terms of what? Some min/max theory crafting spread sheet? Or those who just aren't "good" enough to rise to the "challenge" of a poorly conceived, or executed design? 

These games are supposed to be FUN. A source of entertainment. Granted, thats different things, to different people, but staying on the right side of the challenging/frustrating divide makes a game have a wider appeal.  But as I said, thats very much an art these days.  Bottom line, GW2 has its appeal for some people.  But because of some of its basic design choices, it has inherently limited its appeal to others.  Thats just the way such things go. 

 

Imagine I go play a game where the tank/healer/dps trinity is present.

I choose a caster dps class. I always go first and shoot at everything. I die alot. I complain the game sucks. I wish I had powerful self heals and dodges.

Was the problem the system or myself?

If a player is dying constantly at  GW2 dungeons, the problem is that they haven't mastered the game yet (which is fun considering the threads about how shallow and easy GW2 is).

Why is that true and no the game design?

Because a large portion of GW2 community (which seem to be quite big) can finish the dungeons without much hassle. It isn't the crazy hardcore guilds, it is your average player.

Dungeons aren't hard - make sure your character can deal damage, make sure he can survive/avoid a few hits, be map aware.

Once you do this, you and your dungeon group can start developing builds where some characters are glass cannons while the others are hard support.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Imagine I go play a game where the tank/healer/dps trinity is present.

I choose a caster dps class. I always go first and shoot at everything. I die alot. I complain the game sucks. I wish I had powerful self heals and dodges.

Was the problem the system or myself?

If a player is dying constantly at  GW2 dungeons, the problem is that they haven't mastered the game yet (which is fun considering the threads about how shallow and easy GW2 is).

Why is that true and no the game design?

Because a large portion of GW2 community (which seem to be quite big) can finish the dungeons without much hassle. It isn't the crazy hardcore guilds, it is your average player.

Dungeons aren't hard - make sure your character can deal damage, make sure he can survive/avoid a few hits, be map aware.

Once you do this, you and your dungeon group can start developing builds where some characters are glass cannons while the others are hard support.

I'm no longer playing GW2 personally but what was said in this post is true.YOu can PuG any of the dungeons in any mode successfully as long as allt he players know when to dps and when to use defensive measures personally.If you have a consistant regular group it becomes even easier because you can build complimenting builds that allow more specialized roles and take advantage of combo fields.

Originally posted by fundayz

This article would be good if it didnt pretend it's opinions are facts.

For example, the fact that there are no recepies in GW2 crafting make it much more enjoyable than WoW-like crafting even if it boils down to the same components yet the article claims that it objectively makes it worse.

 

The only objective aspect of the article was the fact that there is basically no tutorial for the game aside from the pop-up tips and people have to figure it out on their own. 

Hate to break it to you, but pretty much every gaming article is based on opinion.  I'm sure if he wrote an article you happened to agree with, you wouldn't come here spouting off about it not being based on facts though, right?

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by grimal

What??? DnD?  The trinity was created by the modern MMO.  There was no trinity in DnD.

 Are you freaking serious....The first MMORPG with Graphics was NeverWinter Nights Online back in 1991, it had the holy trinity which Meridian 59 used in 1996 and EverQuest which is D&D with another name...wowzers.

Original D&D Black Box had 3 classes. Cleric (Healer), Fighter (tank), Mage(DPS).

It wasnt until Greyhawk was released that other classes started

to appear, Greyhawk brought the Theif (another DPS) and the Paladin (tank/healer). it wasnt until the player handbook came out that the first non-trinity class was created...the BARD.

Everything else all falls into the trinity catagory BECAUSE they are taken from D&D.

/fighter/berserker/avenger/barbarian = dps

paladin = tank/healer

warrior/warlord/ardent = tank/dps

Warden/batlemaid/swordmage = tank

ranger/scout = dps

theif/rogue = dps

wizard/mage/elementalist/necro/warlock = dps

cleric/priest = healer

Druid/shaman/monk = healer/dps

Wow.  Ok, first off, DPS stands for damage per second.  Combat in DnD was never based on real time.  There were turns or rounds, so how could it have been Damage Per Second?  It couldn't have been!

The Trinity was developed back with the first gen of MMOs (EQ 1).  Made up of the Tank, Healer and DPS.  DnD never had such a term for this combat style because it didn't come into play until the MMO!!

True each class was based off an archetype, healer, warrior, etc, but the actual term trinity as we use it now was coined by and for the MMO genre.

Please, show me anywhere in any of the pre-MMO genre DnD books where it specifically states the trinity.  You'd be hard pressed.

The only trinity you will possibly find mentioned is that of the three core books: Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual...but those referred to the three books, not the Tank/DPS/Healer trinity you are talking about.

Second, EQ 1 may be a fantasy based online RPG but it is not Dungeons and Dragons. 

I can't believe I am actually needing to post this. Did you even play Dungeons and Dragons PNP?

No, tabletop definitely had the trinity.  Wizards / Sorcerors were the damage classes.  Fighters / Paladins / Rangers were the meat shields and protectors of the mages, always putting themselves between the opponent and the mage.  Clerics / Druids were the hybrids who both kicked ass and saved the group's bacon with well placed heals.  Thieves were the melee damage class and trap experts.  I never played a campaign that didn't have at least three of the above archetypes as campaigns couldn't be completed without them.

 

They may not have been labeled as the trinity at the time, but that is exactly what they were.  Doesn't matter if combat is real time, turn based or some mix of the two, the point is that you had to have classes that healed, classes that tanked and protected and classes that dealt real damage in order to be successful in campaigns.

I won't argue that you could play it like that now if you wanted but the trinity refers to the mechanic in MMOs.  Again, please show me where it is specifically referred to as "Tank/DPS/Healer" trinity in those books.  You can't because the label was created for MMOs.  There was no taunt mechanism, either.

Edit: By saying the trinity existed with old pen n paper RPGs of the 70s-80s, you are projecting a 1999 mechanic onto something that predates the very definition of it.  If Everquest and the modern MMO never existed, there would be no "trinity" as we know it.  You can't go back and attribute it to something that was around 30 or more years before it.  You can argue there were elements or roles that beared resemblance to it, and perhaps lent itself to the creation of it some time after but thats about as far as you can go.

 

 

MMOs and their developers don't label their classes as the trinity either, players do.  Of course there was taunting in D&D.  Not only did my fighters shout epithets at mobs to keep their attention, I also would place myself between them and the physically weaker members of the party which in itself is taunting, forcing the mob to face me and ignore my party.  I'm not projecting anything.  The mechanic already existed, it's just that no one even gave it a second thought or considered it a bad thing.

Nice try.

 

 

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by grimal

What??? DnD?  The trinity was created by the modern MMO.  There was no trinity in DnD.

 Are you freaking serious....The first MMORPG with Graphics was NeverWinter Nights Online back in 1991, it had the holy trinity which Meridian 59 used in 1996 and EverQuest which is D&D with another name...wowzers.

Original D&D Black Box had 3 classes. Cleric (Healer), Fighter (tank), Mage(DPS).

It wasnt until Greyhawk was released that other classes started

to appear, Greyhawk brought the Theif (another DPS) and the Paladin (tank/healer). it wasnt until the player handbook came out that the first non-trinity class was created...the BARD.

Everything else all falls into the trinity catagory BECAUSE they are taken from D&D.

/fighter/berserker/avenger/barbarian = dps

paladin = tank/healer

warrior/warlord/ardent = tank/dps

Warden/batlemaid/swordmage = tank

ranger/scout = dps

theif/rogue = dps

wizard/mage/elementalist/necro/warlock = dps

cleric/priest = healer

Druid/shaman/monk = healer/dps

Wow.  Ok, first off, DPS stands for damage per second.  Combat in DnD was never based on real time.  There were turns or rounds, so how could it have been Damage Per Second?  It couldn't have been!

The Trinity was developed back with the first gen of MMOs (EQ 1).  Made up of the Tank, Healer and DPS.  DnD never had such a term for this combat style because it didn't come into play until the MMO!!

True each class was based off an archetype, healer, warrior, etc, but the actual term trinity as we use it now was coined by and for the MMO genre.

Please, show me anywhere in any of the pre-MMO genre DnD books where it specifically states the trinity.  You'd be hard pressed.

The only trinity you will possibly find mentioned is that of the three core books: Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual...but those referred to the three books, not the Tank/DPS/Healer trinity you are talking about.

Second, EQ 1 may be a fantasy based online RPG but it is not Dungeons and Dragons. 

I can't believe I am actually needing to post this. Did you even play Dungeons and Dragons PNP?

No, tabletop definitely had the trinity.  Wizards / Sorcerors were the damage classes.  Fighters / Paladins / Rangers were the meat shields and protectors of the mages, always putting themselves between the opponent and the mage.  Clerics / Druids were the hybrids who both kicked ass and saved the group's bacon with well placed heals.  Thieves were the melee damage class and trap experts.  I never played a campaign that didn't have at least three of the above archetypes as campaigns couldn't be completed without them.

 

They may not have been labeled as the trinity at the time, but that is exactly what they were.  Doesn't matter if combat is real time, turn based or some mix of the two, the point is that you had to have classes that healed, classes that tanked and protected and classes that dealt real damage in order to be successful in campaigns.

I won't argue that you could play it like that now if you wanted but the trinity refers to the mechanic in MMOs.  Again, please show me where it is specifically referred to as "Tank/DPS/Healer" trinity in those books.  You can't because the label was created for MMOs.  There was no taunt mechanism, either.

Edit: By saying the trinity existed with old pen n paper RPGs of the 70s-80s, you are projecting a 1999 mechanic onto something that predates the very definition of it.  If Everquest and the modern MMO never existed, there would be no "trinity" as we know it.  You can't go back and attribute it to something that was around 30 or more years before it.  You can argue there were elements or roles that beared resemblance to it, and perhaps lent itself to the creation of it some time after but thats about as far as you can go.

 

 

MMOs and their developers don't label their classes as the trinity either, players do.  Of course there was taunting in D&D.  Not only did my fighters shout epithets at mobs to keep their attention, I also would place myself between them and the physically weaker members of the party which in itself is taunting, forcing the mob to face me and ignore my party.  I'm not projecting anything.  The mechanic already existed, it's just that no one even gave it a second thought or considered it a bad thing.

Nice try.

 

 

Any more than your pathetic effort.

Ten demerit points to anyone who used the terms "journalism" or "journalist" when referring to people who write for gaming sites.

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Vorthanion

<snip>

MMOs and their developers don't label their classes as the trinity either, players do.  Of course there was taunting in D&D.  Not only did my fighters shout epithets at mobs to keep their attention, I also would place myself between them and the physically weaker members of the party which in itself is taunting, forcing the mob to face me and ignore my party.  I'm not projecting anything.  The mechanic already existed, it's just that no one even gave it a second thought or considered it a bad thing.

Nice try.

 

 

Any more than your pathetic effort.

The burden of proof resides on you.  Your example above just shows a description of a combat encounter.  Just because it bears similarity does not mean that the trinity suddenly exists.  That's like saying that all green items are equal just because they are green.

 

I don't understand people saying GW2 dungeons were hard.  I hardly ever died and never failed any of the heroic dungeons with just pugs made at the entrance.  That pretty much sums up the whole game though... made for casuals and kids.  Of course the game is going to catch some heat from people that browse mmo forums.

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Vorthanion

MMOs and their developers don't label their classes as the trinity either, players do.  Of course there was taunting in D&D.  Not only did my fighters shout epithets at mobs to keep their attention, I also would place myself between them and the physically weaker members of the party which in itself is taunting, forcing the mob to face me and ignore my party.  I'm not projecting anything.  The mechanic already existed, it's just that no one even gave it a second thought or considered it a bad thing.

Nice try.

 

 

Any more than your pathetic effort.

The burden of proof resides on you.  Your example above just shows a description of a combat encounter.  Just because it bears similarity does not mean that the trinity suddenly exists.  That's like saying that all green items are equal just because they are green.

 

Just because you are too blind to see it for what it was or too obstinate to admit you were wrong.  Your argument is no different than people who proclaim that homosexuality is a modern issue, all based on the fact that even though it existed in our ancient past, it wasn't labeled as such and therefore it didn't technically exist.  The terminology and label may be modern, the idea and practice are not.

By the way, Ms. Knowitall, the burden of proof is required on both sides of an argument and you haven't proven anything yourself.

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by Volkon

Originally posted by Scarfe

A failure to adapt doesn't make the change any more acceptable or correct (usually quite the opposite).  Dam dinosaurs failed to adapt to a meteor hitting the earth, I don't think said meteor was an improvement for them though. 

 Yep... and the tinity based dinosaurs went extinct, leaving room for the versatile mammals and birds to thrive.

lol good one.

However, I don't agree 100%.  Like I've always said, I believe the holy trinity has its place in MMOs, but really, GW2 is proof that something else can work.  Unfortunately since some people are really awful at GW2 dungeons, they automatically assume it can't work.  The only failure here is stubborn insistance that there's only one way to do things.  As I've also said, GW2 was just the break I needed from trinity-based games.  People just need to accept that the genre needs more variety, not less.  There are plenty of trinity-based games coming out if you don't like GW2's style, that doesn't mean you need to stamp out anything different.

Besides, wouldn't it be cool if some dinosaurs were still around?  :p

 Technically some are, or at least their direct decendants.