How can there be no trinity?

[nbm02ss]

This thread is like Groundhog's day, but with no Bill Murray.

[Newbryn]

I just read a little more about the play style. And I do get it. And I have played the non-trinity games before. I do happen to be fond of a trinity approach but it does not mean I wish GW2 would of done it or that I would try to jam it in. But there are pragmatic things to look at. I really like the idea of bring the player not the class now. That is a huge problem in WoW. But at least in WoW a super star player can save a completely fail group in a Dungeon or Raid.

If grouping in GW2 is going to rely on the whole group having to work together and actually be good, then one of two things will happen. The content will be so easy it'll be boring, or casual players will not be able to play it. These are just my predictions, I really hope I am wrong because GW2 looks fantastic.

You mean bad players wont be able to play it, I just love how everyone just assumes casual equals bad what a load a shit I'm a casual player I love small grp content, yes I was a big fan of cata heroics before nerfs.

[Deleted]

I disagree. Survivability is big part what make tanks. Being able to tank lot of damage before dying is what separate it from others.

GW1 had tanks and quite many speed clearing teams use tanks. It's not necessity to have tank but many use it because having tank to ball up enemies for aoe spike make run very fast. Controlling aggro however isn't just tanks responsibility, just like it didn't use to be just tanks responsibility in wow either.

GW had tanks in speedclears for two reasons, either you split up your team or you're aggro tons of foes at once, like you said, to do it very fast.
You can do anything in GW without a tank, and I remember when GW came out(pre-factions, so no shadow form) there was a discussion on GWGuru about if warriors should tank or not, general opinion was warriors are there to do damage, not to tank.
Even in GW the term "tank" is a little deceptive, you cannot control aggro there.

[Deleted]

Then that's not really a tank, that's a controller. Or a shepherd...

Tank is just label players have given to it. It vary depending on game. In GW1 if you join DOA SC guild and say you are main shepherd for trenchway most wouldn't have any idea what you mean.

[Blznsmri]

Tank is just label players have given to it. It vary depending on game. In GW1 if you join DOA SC guild and say you are main shepherd for trenchway most wouldn't have any idea what you mean.

Then the label is wrong.

[Deleted]

This thread is like Groundhog's day, but with no Bill Murray.

So it's Source Code? (Great movie btw)

[Fencers]

I disagree. Survivability is big part what make tanks. Being able to tank lot of damage before dying is what separate it from others.

This is wholly incorrect however. Esp. in games where their trinity system had tanks unable to take large hits but could hold threat disproportionately.

Just as other MMOs without a trinity system existed before GW2. So to have there been trinity systems where tanks are have no equivalent of Shield Wall or Bonetti's Defense.

In the game I played main before Rift, healers could absorb more damage than tanking classes. So much so a healer could outstrip a tank in HP and Physical Defense rating. Healers could carry shields as well.

What healers could not do was keep a mob on them indefinitely. A Warrior could.

Chaining knockdowns and creatively using the terrain in GW1 is not tanking.

[MissCleo]

I just read a little more about the play style. And I do get it. And I have played the non-trinity games before. I do happen to be fond of a trinity approach but it does not mean I wish GW2 would of done it or that I would try to jam it in. But there are pragmatic things to look at. I really like the idea of bring the player not the class now. That is a huge problem in WoW. But at least in WoW a super star player can save a completely fail group in a Dungeon or Raid.

If grouping in GW2 is going to rely on the whole group having to work together and actually be good, then one of two things will happen. The content will be so easy it'll be boring, or casual players will not be able to play it. These are just my predictions, I really hope I am wrong because GW2 looks fantastic.

I understand where you're coming from with this - but there can be different levels of content. Some of that content will be challenging enough that bad players probably won't be able to complete it. Other content will be easy. Most of the content will probably be somewhere in between, and will ramp up in difficulty so that the more you play, the more complex the encounters get, to account for your ever-increasing mastery of game mechanics. Some players will take longer to learn the basics than others, some will reach a skill plateau earlier on, etc. - but this is true in any game and it's not a flaw of the GW2 system. All in all, time will tell. But I don't really think there's much reason to worry about these issues, given what we've seen and what's been talked about.

[Deleted]

Then the label is wrong.

Ok what ever, don't really care that much what label you want to use from tank. You can use your "correct" shepherd term while me and many others will carry on using tank, which is more widespread accepted.

[Borzo]

Chaining knockdowns and creatively using the terrain is not tanking.

Though I'm sure many, many people will now redefine "tanking" to fit that above descriptions (re GW2).

[Repefe]

Ok what ever, don't really care that much what label you want to use from tank. You can use your "correct" shepherd term while me and many others will carry on using tank, which is more widespread accepted.

Like combat = trinity and multiplayer = MMO.

[Fencers]

Though I'm sure many, many people will now redefine "tanking" to fit that above descriptions (re GW2).

Oh, I am sorry. Was talking about GW1 not 2. Didn't mean that to be confusing.

[Deleted]

This is wholly incorrect however. Esp. in games where their trinity system had tanks unable to take large hits but could hold threat disproportionately.

It really depends on the game. There isn't one universal definition for tank label for every mmo. GW1 had plenty of tanks and team builds that worked around having tank that would ball up enemies for big aoe spike.

[Valeron]

I've heard the term tanking in GW as well, even though all you are is a controller. And is also just used in specific areas of the game, vanquishing, speed clears and such.

[Borzo]

Oh, I am sorry. Was talking about GW1 not 2. Didn't mean that to be confusing.

No, I'm sorry. I just used your quote as a jumping-point to say that "tanking" will be redifined in GW2 to mean something it doesn't mean now. People will not say "control", they'll just start using the word "tank".

5 years from now, perhaps people won't even remember what a "tank" was back in the olden days of 2012.

[Zeek Daniels]

Tank is a type of control

Healer is a type of support

Holy trinity = Tank/Healer/Damage <----- This holy trinity is very narrow in design, Leads to tank and spank, Damage dealers are only told what to attack and do nothing else, Healers pay attention to health bars and not the actual encounters, Tanks stand their letting things hit them.

This is all very basic and boring!

Holy trinity = Control/Support/Damage <------- this holy trinity is of a more broad design, Slows, stuns, Accuracy debuffs, misdirections, confusions, fears, are all forms of control that dont rely on one person taking a bunch of damage like the tanking form of control does. Instead all these other control mechanisms reduce damage done by 100%. A slowed mob cant reach a ranged class, a stunned/incapacitated mob becomes inactive and cant damage anything, Accuracy debuffs make enimies miss. These are all things you can do in GW2 that the combat is designed around. In a game like WoW the combat is designed with a tank in mind.

For support you use barriers to reduce incoming damage or stop it completely, You cloak your allies so enemies change target, you buff allies to move fast to escape or chase down, you create sheilds to reduce damage. These are all things that can be done b4 or after an ally takes damage in anticipation for that damage being taken. If you heal an ally b4 he takes any damage thats a waste of a heal, but if i buff an ally with a frost sheild the duration of that buff will last long enough for the incoming damage to get reduced.

There is no narrow Tank/healer/Damage holy trinity but their is a Control/Support/Damage holy trinity.

Please people No more posts about there will be "dedicated tanks/healers" NO NO NO NO!!

[Glytch]

im about to adopt the stance of "if you dont like the game just dont play it, we dont care"

Though I'm sure many, many people will now redefine "tanking" to fit that above descriptions (re GW2).

then those are the morons ill never group with, same as the morons who always called warriors "tanks" in GW1

[Deleted]

Guys i have the answer to the thread! How-can-there-be-no-trinity? Becouse the system in gw2 isnt built around the trinity!

[Fencers]

Holy trinity = Tank/Healer/Damage <----- This holy trinity is very narrow in design, Leads to tank and spank, Damage dealers are only told what to attack and do nothing else, Healers pay attention to health bars and not the actual encounters, Tanks stand their letting things hit them.

Older trinity class systems had no damage dealers. It was Tanker/Healer/Controler.

You are way off base on a number of terms and design theory as well. But that's fine, I am not that bothered by it. But felt it was worth pointing out for your future correction/self education.

[DrakeWurrum]

It's not my definition it's the only definition.

Taking a step away from the classical approach of today's MMO combat is great but it's essentially leaning the weight towards players is what concerns me.
Let's say a hypothetical scenario of a 10man GW2 encounter, combat a starts after 3 minutes a player gains aggro and while hitting the boss he gets killed.
Who fault is this?
The logical answer is everybody's false since the philosophy is fight as a group not as a single.
The realistic answer based on the quality of today's gamer is "You", No You", "No i said i won't heal", "No you should be healing yourself" etc etc etc.

I'm not really concerned about the philosophy, in fact i think it's absolutely great i'm pessimistic about the community though.

I think you're over-generalizing as well. People who don't want to heal in WoW don't want to do it because they think standing in one place spamming heals on health bars is boring. (And, imo, it really is)

That's different, entirely, from what you will experience in GW2. In your scenario, if that player "gains aggro" he won't suddenly get one-shot. That's part of what you're missing.

In WoW, the ENTIRE game is designed with the idea that you have tanks, and healers keeping those tanks alive. And as such, bosses have to hit really freaking hard, or else they're not dangerous to the tank.
In GW2, you have no tanks, no healers. As such, enemies won't one-shot you. Yes, it will be dangerous for them to be attacking you for long periods of time, but that's where teamwork comes into play. They're not designed with the idea that you are capable of taking intensely punishing damage the way a tank is. You can self-heal, you can blow defensive cooldowns, you can control your enemy with CC. Your TEAM can control the enemy. Your TEAM can use their utility that provides team support.

In short, if you end up "pulling aggro" and your team decides to ignore you when you start asking for help, yes, it IS their fault. If you join a party, you SHOULD be expected to work with your group and make it work.

The *most* fun I have ever had in WoW was when I was playing my Enhance Shaman in 5-man dungeons, back when I was gearing for T11 content. You know why?
Because I didn't just mindlessly kill the enemy while ignoring my group. I pulled aggro when I felt it necessary, keeping enemies off healers and other squishy people. I off-healed when I felt it necessary, keeping the tank or anybody-else-at-all from dying.

That was fun. That's what I hope to experience in GW2. A player utilizing ALL of his class abilities to win the fight, rather than just mindlessly spamming a DPS rotation. Ignoring CC, healing, and "tank" cooldowns all the while. I don't see how *anybody* can enjoy just doing DPS. And then, when the shit hits the fan, continue sitting there, just doing DPS.

When I play my Warlock, and I see a group wiping, I feel utterly useless. All I can do is sit there and watch the group wipe. Because I can't help my team beyond hopefully killing the enemy faster.

You know the best part of all this? This design allows them to balance both PvE and PvP very easily, because the PvE content may as well be a PvP match, with your enemies AI controlled. They'll still make it so abilities affect PvE and PvP differently, but that's beside the point.