Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * * - 7 votes

Defeating the Holy Trinity - Success or Failure?


  • Please log in to reply
457 replies to this topic

#1 Averath

Averath

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:24 PM

Guild Wars 2 has been out for a full year now, and it seems to be continuing to grow as more players purchase the game and join. One of the big selling points for GW2 is the fact that the game is unique in that it lacks the holy trinity: Tank, DPS, and Healer.

Looking at the current state of the game, and the year passed, has this experiment by ArenaNet been a successful one, or has it been a failure? What are your thoughts on the matter?

I'll go ahead and give mine, for what they are worth. I'm of the belief that ANet's experiment was both a success and a failure, but it leans more towards the latter.

It was a success in that it told the current market that the holy trinity isn't the only way you can make a game; there are other ways to make a game enjoyable! However, I feel it was a failure because, as it stands, if you are not 100% DPS focused, you are "doing it wrong".

I have seen countless threads stating that Berserkers gear is the only true gear in the game, while inferring that using anything else will effectively label you as a second-class citizen who doesn't know how to play the game, or someone who sucks at playing the game and should likely uninstall and find a new game to play. Though this isn't outright verbalized, the intent behind these guides is clear: ANet designed a game with only one element of the Holy Trinity, DPS.

When I first heard the statement from ANet that GW2 would not include the Holy Trinity, I figured it meant that they would remove the mandatory elements from requiring a tank and healer. I did not, however, believe they would make these two roles completely worthless. Ideally the game would have a tank and healer role optional, rather than mandatory, akin to how League of Legends works.

A tank would fulfill the primary role of "damage soak" and "control/disruption", a healer would fill a support role, offering boons to a party, while a DPS would fulfill these to a much smaller degree, but would be the main source of damage. Naturally, a team doesn't need a tank or healer to function. They make things easier, certainly, or at least some aspects easier if nothing else, but they're not mandatory.

However, with GW2 it seems ANet would rather you look for another game if you wanted to fulfill the "protector" role, despite the misleading naming scheme for the "Guardian" profession. The name of the game is DPS, much like another MMO without the Holy Trinity only cares about DPS. (STO)

#2 Castaa

Castaa

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 282 posts
  • Location:San Francisco
  • Guild Tag:[Dark]
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:02 PM

I feel like that the design as implemented is in the end a failure.  While I applaud their game designers' attempt to break new ground, the result is a less satisfying group experience because the group role/dynamic is diminished.

The issue is exacerbated by current zerker stats dominance.

Edited by Castaa, 12 September 2013 - 10:06 PM.


#3 Moharis Frostreign

Moharis Frostreign

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 116 posts
  • Location:Denver
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[AI]
  • Server:Yak’s Bend

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:12 PM

I think they've done an admirable job eliminating the trinity, to be honest, or at least consolidating the roles. In Guild Wars 2, you are your own DPS; you are your own healer; you are your own tank. At least in PvE (and that seems to be what you're addressing), the need for a tank and a healer are reduced as players learn to avoid damage all together, whether by positioning, reflects, dodges or what have you. Think back to Guild Wars 1, where we still had this supposed "trinity." As players better adapted to the content, the need for dedicated tanks and healers waned. Monks were replaced with Rits for Splinter Weapon and Ancestor's Rage, or Necros for minions or curses. Those tanks? We replaced those with high dps frontline characters for all but the most specialized speed clears. At the end of the day, it's about efficiency, and part of achieving that efficiency is to cut out what is unnecessary. It just happens that healing and tanking become unnecessary as we become better acclimated to how the AI works.

You will tank just enough to where you're comfortable surviving. You will heal/protect as much as it takes to stay alive. The rest of your time will be dedicated to eliminating your enemy by any means necessary. I think the shift to a fully offensive meta (at least high end, I believe a majority of players don't abide by the full zerker meta) is only a reflection of people's mastery of the content.

#4 turbo234

turbo234

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1039 posts
  • Location:Oak Creek, WI
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:29 PM

I get the idea behind eliminating it, but I do think they need to bring certain aspects back. Healer roles were what made pvp for me. It just seems to be lacking without it, and really doesn't promote split strategies. Just bunkering and roaming. They also need to make other stats worth speccing into. Berserks is dominating the game right now, and running anything else is utterly pointless. I really hope they are working on balancing that all out.

#5 rukia

rukia

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Location:Oregon
  • Profession:Thief
  • Server:Kaineng

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:36 PM

Failure, because it's boring. The trinity wasn't replaced by anything, everyone is just DPS now with offheals. 'the holy trinity' still exists in GW2 as a group who does the most DPS possible in the shortest amount of time while not getting owned by mobs. I'm pretty sure everyone knows what this group is made up of since day 1.

It's a shame because this would truly be an amazing heal/tank/dps game or at least heal/dps/support (GW1). Regen is laughable and burst healing is on high cooldown. Healing power scaling is a total joke and I have no idea why those tards even put it in if it's useless compared to other more favorable stats.

People like to hate on the trinity because it hasn't ever changed, but change for the sake of being different is not good either. Just look at GW2, 'remove' the holy trinity and all you get is DPS with minor support solo group play. It's like ANet absolutely hates the idea of players helping each other, no no it must be every man for himself.

Enemy AI is so mind numbingly retarded in this game they always use the same 1-2 attacks and easily dodged there is no point of a full on trinity. That is not a good thing though, it's probably why all content in this game could be facerolled by a 3 year old. It's why we are met with bi-weekly events to grind with our eyes closed and 1 set to autoattack.

All for the sake of not being like WoW, good job ANet.

#6 Arewn

Arewn

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:25 PM

Success. Everyone in the game is dps with additional responsibilities, and thanks to that mix it is far more interesting and interactive to play then being a dps in most trinity games. The trinity games always break down responsibility into separate roles (by definition of the trinity), making it easier to create good group content, but diluting what each role does as a result. What I do in GW2 is far more interesting and interactive then my dps rotation, or my tps rotation as a tank, or whack-a-mole healing in other games.
The system could certainly use further improvements, but a game were I'm a dps who can shield stance in front of a downed ally to block projectiles while someone else helps them up, provide boons, debuff the enemy, CC, and keep myself alive by my own means, is more interesting to play then games where I can only ever do one or two of those things at once because of my predefined 'role' that arbitrarily limits me.

Where Arena Net dropped the ball is in two places, builds and encounter design:

Builds: condition stack limitation makes condition builds more or less unusable in group PVE content, and there's very little variety in how to build for dps (by very little, I mean berserker is essentially the only way). This is also the reason why many GW1 players feel GW2 sucks(on the combat side), because GW1 was about the builds, and build variety(stat/gear wise) in this game is lackluster, it sucks by comparison. GW1 combat(PVE) was mediocre at best, the usual stand and spam that was common in the industry at the time of its release. In fact so mediocre that you didn't even need real people to fill the roles, henchies worked just as well. The great thing about GW1 combat was the builds and the great system behind those builds, and GW2 doesn't hold up to that.

Encounter Design: this one's pretty straight forward, boss encounters just weren't that good at release. Large health pools against enemies that did the same thing the entire time. The fights that actually had phases or interesting mechanics were few and far between. Recent temp dungeons (and even fractals to a degree) have shown notable improvement, they just need to make that the norm instead of the exception.

Over all, the game is certainly lacking in areas so far as combat is concerned, but the "no trinity, role-less" system itself has been a success.


Back on the topic of builds for a second, I only mentioned dps earlier, but what of Healing power? Vitality? Toughness?
They are irrelevant in PVE, and they should be. These stats not being very useful in PVE isn't a fault of Arena Net's, it's the simple result of a system without roles. Why do you have a tank in other games (the one who builds defensive stats)? to keep DPS alive. Why do you have healers in other games(the one who builds healing stats)? to keep the tanks who protects the dps, and the dps alive. Because this is a game where you kill things, and there's no roles to force you to take those stats, the only reason for bringing those stats becomes personally comfort (in other words, as a buffer for people who have trouble surviving).
The point of the game is to kill things, and the only way to get people to bring stats that aren't for killing things is to force them to. Either force them by requiring a role that brings those stats (tanks, healers), or force them by not giving other choices in gear (make vitality, healing, or toughness on ALL gear).

#7 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2248 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:32 PM

I'll keep it brief. One of the main reasons that GW1 was so good in the beginning, was the way they used the skills and the trinity in that game. It wasn't like WoW, it was more like MtG. The amount of depth this provided in the game allowed the game to get by for years without any real vertical progression and provided one of the best PvP scenes in an MMO style game ever.

Once that part of the Guild Wars games was gone, it did become more like WoW and less original in my opinion.

#8 Bloggi

Bloggi

    Savant

  • Members
  • 857 posts
  • Location:Coastal
  • Profession:Elementalist
  • Guild Tag:[CRAP]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:45 PM

They successfully removed the old trinity of DPS, Tank and Healer.

They also successfully created a new trinity:

1. DPS
2. Dodge
3. LOS/ Reflects

#9 christiansoldier

christiansoldier

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 147 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:50 PM

How are we judging success or failure?  Is it simply me like = success, me hate = fail, or is it number of players playing the game, or the profits earned, awards won???

#10 Averath

Averath

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:52 PM

View PostArewn, on 12 September 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

Back on the topic of builds for a second, I only mentioned dps earlier, but what of Healing power? Vitality? Toughness? They are irrelevant in PVE, and they should be. These stats not being very useful in PVE isn't a fault of Arena Net's, it's the simple result of a system without roles. Why do you have a tank in other games (the one who builds defensive stats)? to keep DPS alive. Why do you have healers in other games(the one who builds healing stats)? to keep the tanks who protects the dps, and the dps alive. Because this is a game where you kill things, and there's no roles to force you to take those stats, the only reason for bringing those stats becomes personally comfort (in other words, as a buffer for people who have trouble surviving). The point of the game is to kill things, and the only way to get people to bring stats that aren't for killing things is to force them to. Either force them by requiring a role that brings those stats (tanks, healers), or force them by not giving other choices in gear (make vitality, healing, or toughness on ALL gear).

I disagree that healing power, vitality and toughness should be irrelevant in PvE. They are irrelevant in PvE, but they shouldn't be. As you've stated, the role of the tank is to protect the DPS, but when the DPS can protect themselves, even while using a glass-cannon build, the role of a tank isn't needed. I'm not contesting that fact. The Holy Trinity is about the need to have all these roles filled. GW2, however, is about the need to prevent these roles from being viable. That may or may not be true in practice, but that it how the game feels at the moment.

What if I enjoy playing the role of a tank? As it is right now, you either have The Holy Trinity, or you have a game with one accepted method of play, and many unaccepted.
1. WoW. It has The Holy Trinity. I can play either Tank, DPS, or Healer.
2. Star Trek Online. It lacks The Holy Trinity. I can play DPS, or be yelled at by the community for wasting their time not killing things as fast as possible.

In the first example, there are numerous ways to play a single character. Each character has multiple builds they can work with. In the second example, there is only one accepted method of play, and any other build will be ridiculed by other players. This is how GW2 feels at the moment. Will other specs work in STO and GW2? Most definitely, but that doesn't mean they are accepted methods of play by the community, and that as much the fault of the community as it is of the game's design.

Don't get me wrong. I like and enjoy GW2. I just think that they need to tone down the DPS > All state of the game, and allow other builds that focus more on support to be just as viable and worthwhile.


View Postchristiansoldier, on 12 September 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

How are we judging success or failure?  Is it simply me like = success, me hate = fail, or is it number of players playing the game, or the profits earned, awards won???

Your judgement is based on how you feel towards the state of the game. Do you feel it a success? Do you feel it a failure? In what way? I'm not saying that you have to love the game or hate the game to feel it is a success or failure. This isn't a black and white subject, there are various shades of grey to account for and look at. Perhaps all the arguments thus far have been flawed and are missing a vital fact that you're aware of?

The game is a success, but the experiment of removing the holy trinity is what this is focused on.

Edited by Averath, 12 September 2013 - 11:54 PM.


#11 Bomb Voyage

Bomb Voyage

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 85 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[CC]
  • Server:Underworld

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:54 PM

In my opinion it would be nicer if they had kept the holy trinity, but gave all the classes equal (more or less, total balance would be hard to achieve) abilities to fulfill every role.

Also, in the beginning it sounded nice to me that your first skills changed when you changed weapons, but imo that also partly makes for the dps focus in gw2. Most of the skills are damage and some with a little utility to the side. imo it's hard to be a support, when half your skillbar is damage.

Overall I think gw2 did a nice try, but could have been alot better.

#12 Featherman

Featherman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1028 posts
  • Location:Frolicking in Kalos

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:00 AM

It reduces the overall amount of class interaction (aside from the fact that Guardians benefit all parties due to poor skill balancing) and reduces the variety of combat so I'd say it's a failure. Honest attempt though, but if you can't pull off DPS/Timing-centric combat on the level of Dark Souls, Vindictus or Monster hunters then it's best to stick to the Holy Trinity.

#13 Kinniku

Kinniku

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:21 AM

To me its a success. At no point since I started playing this with my friends have I ever felt that I had to play a certain profession, or I had to use a certain build.

Far too often in the past I was relegated to the role of healer/support, because that was what I did best, and because without a healer our group basically couldn't function. I hated that. I hate the idea that without that one person playing that one class, you might as well give up or wait for god knows how long to get another one.

I am much happier with this system, despite its flaws, than I ever was in any "trinity" MMO.

#14 Arewn

Arewn

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:42 AM

View PostAverath, on 12 September 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

I disagree that healing power, vitality and toughness should be irrelevant in PvE. They are irrelevant in PvE, but they shouldn't be. As you've stated, the role of the tank is to protect the DPS, but when the DPS can protect themselves, even while using a glass-cannon build, the role of a tank isn't needed. I'm not contesting that fact. The Holy Trinity is about the need to have all these roles filled. GW2, however, is about the need to prevent these roles from being viable. That may or may not be true in practice, but that it how the game feels at the moment.

What if I enjoy playing the role of a tank? As it is right now, you either have The Holy Trinity, or you have a game with one accepted method of play, and many unaccepted.
1. WoW. It has The Holy Trinity. I can play either Tank, DPS, or Healer.
2. Star Trek Online. It lacks The Holy Trinity. I can play DPS, or be yelled at by the community for wasting their time not killing things as fast as possible.

In the first example, there are numerous ways to play a single character. Each character has multiple builds they can work with. In the second example, there is only one accepted method of play, and any other build will be ridiculed by other players. This is how GW2 feels at the moment. Will other specs work in STO and GW2? Most definitely, but that doesn't mean they are accepted methods of play by the community, and that as much the fault of the community as it is of the game's design.

Don't get me wrong. I like and enjoy GW2. I just think that they need to tone down the DPS > All state of the game, and allow other builds that focus more on support to be just as viable and worthwhile.
I think you're missing one thing with that analysis though.
In trinity games, you can chose to play a variety of different roles, but those roles have very narrow scopes in what they can do.
In role-less games, there's only one method of play, but that one method is much wider in scope.
If I'm a tank in WoW (which was my role of choice when I played) I taunt & do my tps rotation, and I pop defensive CDs. In GW2, I can't play a tank per-se, but as a GW2 dps I'm doing many of the things a tank would other wise be doing: I have agro sometimes and need to dodge or use defensive cooldowns or CC (less so CC when it's against bosses sadly). I'll never get that pure tank feeling, but that has nothing to do with whether the system failed or succeeded, it's a different game, it work's differently. It's like complaining that GW2 doesn't have Death Knights, it's just something the game doesn't offer.
And so far as specs go, that's a problem with builds, not with the fact that it's a role-less game. Did you play vanilla WoW? kinda the same thing as current GW2 in that regard. Don't bring a prot pally to a raid, warriors are tanks, prot pallies suck. The problem is that they didn't balance multiple specs properly to be viable. If we can get a GW1 vet in here, I'm sure they'll say the same thing about GW1. You farming X? well don't bring so-and-so class/build, they can do it but suck at it, you have to run THIS build for that.

As for healing power, vitality and toughness, how do you propose a system that doesn't have required roles and doesn't force you to take those stats can get people to bring those stats when the objective is killing things?
Think about WoW, would you ever CHOOSE to bring parry or dodge to a raid as a dps spec? of course not (unless there's a talent that makes you do more damage for dodging or something of the like, but that's once again about damage). So why do parry and dodge exist? so that tanks can survive. And why do tanks exists? so that DPS can kill the enemy uninhibited. If tanks didn't exist, you wouldn't use dodge or parry in pve.
I think I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here though, healing power, vitality and toughness are still useful in pve. I put on my Knight's armor when there's a heavy damage encounter where staying up and rezzing allies is more important then outright damage. The thing most people complain about is that they aren't 'optimal'. A full zerker group of practiced players can clear any encounter the fastest.

#15 ObscureThreat

ObscureThreat

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 01:00 AM

Well they did get rid of the holy trinity by making everyone DPS. They however also made it a lot more boring as a result. I quite liked the way the trinity worked in GW1.

#16 NerfHerder

NerfHerder

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 September 2013 - 02:03 AM

Defeating the holy trinity was a success. That was the easy part. Most action/fps style games do that well.

The introduction of different stat gear was a failure. Everyone is dps, so logically the highest dps gear is the best gear. I suppose an argument can be made for having some knights gear in WvW or clerics and celestial in isolated cases. They could just as easily take them all away and boost your inherent stats in trait lines. And made "best in slot" defense only, or slight boosts to all stats as it progresses.

Another less than success, is build variety. We currently get an illusion of diversity, but really, in the end, we just sacrfice dps. Your "healway" guardian and water staff ele play like healers. But unless your in a zerg, Its like trying to fill in the grand canyon with a small spoon. The optimal way to survive is not tanking or healing, its the many forms of blocking/evading damage, which are all available in zerker gear.

My fix for build variety and stagnant content, would be for ANet to simply go back to the original manifesto. The new holy trinity of DPS, CC, and Support. DPS is already done. CC can be fixed by modifying defiant and/or giving bigger boss/champ encounters adds to knock around. Make us use our stun breakers and condition removal more often. Support needs more work, but thats more of a class balancing issue.

#17 Averath

Averath

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 03:49 AM

View PostArewn, on 13 September 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

I think you're missing one thing with that analysis though.
In trinity games, you can chose to play a variety of different roles, but those roles have very narrow scopes in what they can do.
In role-less games, there's only one method of play, but that one method is much wider in scope.
If I'm a tank in WoW (which was my role of choice when I played) I taunt & do my tps rotation, and I pop defensive CDs. In GW2, I can't play a tank per-se, but as a GW2 dps I'm doing many of the things a tank would other wise be doing: I have agro sometimes and need to dodge or use defensive cooldowns or CC (less so CC when it's against bosses sadly). I'll never get that pure tank feeling, but that has nothing to do with whether the system failed or succeeded, it's a different game, it work's differently. It's like complaining that GW2 doesn't have Death Knights, it's just something the game doesn't offer.
And so far as specs go, that's a problem with builds, not with the fact that it's a role-less game. Did you play vanilla WoW? kinda the same thing as current GW2 in that regard. Don't bring a prot pally to a raid, warriors are tanks, prot pallies suck. The problem is that they didn't balance multiple specs properly to be viable. If we can get a GW1 vet in here, I'm sure they'll say the same thing about GW1. You farming X? well don't bring so-and-so class/build, they can do it but suck at it, you have to run THIS build for that.

As for healing power, vitality and toughness, how do you propose a system that doesn't have required roles and doesn't force you to take those stats can get people to bring those stats when the objective is killing things?
Think about WoW, would you ever CHOOSE to bring parry or dodge to a raid as a dps spec? of course not (unless there's a talent that makes you do more damage for dodging or something of the like, but that's once again about damage). So why do parry and dodge exist? so that tanks can survive. And why do tanks exists? so that DPS can kill the enemy uninhibited. If tanks didn't exist, you wouldn't use dodge or parry in pve.
I think I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here though, healing power, vitality and toughness are still useful in pve. I put on my Knight's armor when there's a heavy damage encounter where staying up and rezzing allies is more important then outright damage. The thing most people complain about is that they aren't 'optimal'. A full zerker group of practiced players can clear any encounter the fastest.

I joined WoW during the Burning Crusade era, so I'm not familiar with vanilla. I do, however, know how it feels to be told you need to play a specific build to be worthwhile, as I preferred to play Enh before it was made a viable PvE spec. That said, while you have a point here, I feel that part of the problem is the role-less aspect of the game. Take WoW's current expansions as an example. Blizzard have tried to balance all of the various specs to have a place in their game. I cannot say if they have succeeded or not, but they've worked rather hard to make every spec work in PvE in some fashion and remain competitive. One of the ways they've done this is by making Prot Warriors deal almost as much damage as DPS classes. This is primarily done wearing full tank gear, and relies on reactionary attacks, to my understanding.

GW2 is a role-less game, yet it doesn't allow you to play any role you want. A Ranger using a bow, for example, is suboptimal compared to a sword and warhorn. A Guardian using a shield (outside of PvP) is suboptimal compared to a focus. A Warrior who isn't a glass-cannon is suboptimal. These roles may be more broad than a Holy Trinity-style system, but they each need to be viable.. and a lot of them are not. Or, at least, they're not considered viable by a fair number of players. I think a lot of the problems in this specific area, however, are the weapon skills, and how they could use a closer look by the devs.

As per Toughness and Vitality, see the Prot Warrior comment above. I feel if WoW can make it work, then why can GW2 not? Wouldn't it be relatively easy to give options through traits to empower defensive abilities so that a profession speced into toughness and vitality would be able to dish out reasonable damage? I'm not sure of the ramifications for PvP, though.

#18 Arewn

Arewn

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:09 AM

View PostAverath, on 13 September 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

I joined WoW during the Burning Crusade era, so I'm not familiar with vanilla. I do, however, know how it feels to be told you need to play a specific build to be worthwhile, as I preferred to play Enh before it was made a viable PvE spec. That said, while you have a point here, I feel that part of the problem is the role-less aspect of the game. Take WoW's current expansions as an example. Blizzard have tried to balance all of the various specs to have a place in their game. I cannot say if they have succeeded or not, but they've worked rather hard to make every spec work in PvE in some fashion and remain competitive. One of the ways they've done this is by making Prot Warriors deal almost as much damage as DPS classes. This is primarily done wearing full tank gear, and relies on reactionary attacks, to my understanding.

GW2 is a role-less game, yet it doesn't allow you to play any role you want. A Ranger using a bow, for example, is suboptimal compared to a sword and warhorn. A Guardian using a shield (outside of PvP) is suboptimal compared to a focus. A Warrior who isn't a glass-cannon is suboptimal. These roles may be more broad than a Holy Trinity-style system, but they each need to be viable.. and a lot of them are not. Or, at least, they're not considered viable by a fair number of players. I think a lot of the problems in this specific area, however, are the weapon skills, and how they could use a closer look by the devs.

As per Toughness and Vitality, see the Prot Warrior comment above. I feel if WoW can make it work, then why can GW2 not? Wouldn't it be relatively easy to give options through traits to empower defensive abilities so that a profession speced into toughness and vitality would be able to dish out reasonable damage? I'm not sure of the ramifications for PvP, though.
Focusing in on your last paragraph, let's pretend for a second that they made a PVE only change so that a certain warrior build in soldier's gear does nearly as good damage as a full DPS spec. Now you have a different problem, sure you can now play a "tanky" warrior spec, but it's wildly over powered because it's tanky and does good damage. And if you give every profession a build like that, then that just means everyone will run tanky dps and the meta will change from all Zerker to all Soldier. And then since everyone is so tanky, they have to up mob damage to maintain encounter difficulty, negating your extra tanky-ness and making it even harder for none tanky-dps specs to play.

If prot warrior can honestly do as much damage as DPS specs can, while being in full tank gear, then I really don't understand why raid groups don't just have 8 prot warriors and 2 healers. In fact, with all those prot warriors who could taunt off each other and rotate cooldowns, you should just have a full raid of 10 prot warriors(it's been done with blood DKs), which would actually do MORE damage then a traditional raid group with 2 tanks, 2+healers, and 6- DPS purely for the reason that you have more people DPSing.
So I'm sorry to doubt you, but I really don't think it's true that prot warriors in tank gear can do almost as much damage as DPS specs can, because that would break the game.
If you're talking about dungeons in AoE situations with low-end gear, then I can understand, that always happens with tanks.

I agree that it sucks that currently there aren't many "top end viable" builds and weapons choices in GW2, but that has to do with balance, not the fact that it's a role-less game.

Edited by Arewn, 13 September 2013 - 04:12 AM.


#19 davadude

davadude

    Seraph Guardian

  • News Correspondents
  • 1349 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Profession:Elementalist
  • Guild Tag:[Team]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:03 AM

View PostBomb Voyage, on 12 September 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

In my opinion it would be nicer if they had kept the holy trinity, but gave all the classes equal (more or less, total balance would be hard to achieve) abilities to fulfill every role.

The problem is, by creating something like that, some professions would end up better at certain roles than others, and you'd still have the trinity.
Davadude - Guru Village Idiot

#20 feo

feo

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • New Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:29 AM

I usually don't step into these kind of conversations. But what if we focused on something a lil more spot on for pve. The queens gauntlet.. i personally learned alot more with my primary toon in respect to the "trinity" to complete the challenges then a dungeon run of other random pve fights. I personally thought anet hit the nail on the head for what they truely wish there "your ur own tank, healer, and dps" ideals can / should be.

#21 Baldur The Bold

Baldur The Bold

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 443 posts
  • Guild Tag:[ARM]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:32 AM

Why would I bother rerolling to my engineer if my zerker warrior is doing great damage in a run? Why would I use my toughness guardian with mace/shield and healing? There is 0 point and they gather dust.
Buy GW2-Make a Warrior-Get to 80-Get full zerkers-play rest of content...100blades style.
I miss the roles of GW2 since they made teamwork and communication essential to any task in the game. There is 0 teamwork in a zerg. There is 0 communication besides "Jorlag pre is up".
It is a boring game essentially and without new content and new shinies it would have been barren ages ago.  
There needs to be more teamwork in GW2 and maybe Teq 2.0 will be the start of that trend.

#22 feo

feo

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • New Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:50 AM

Well, that was the point i was tryin to make.. what happens when ur truly responsible for ur actions. The trinity actually does work in those situations. Yes i agree there should be more of them so ppl cant skate by just mashin buttons, but there have be instances in this game where ur completely responsible for urself and i think thats the thing that ppl are missing.

#23 Bomb Voyage

Bomb Voyage

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 85 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[CC]
  • Server:Underworld

Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:54 AM

View Postdavadude, on 13 September 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

The problem is, by creating something like that, some professions would end up better at certain roles than others, and you'd still have the trinity.

That's why I said more or less. There will always be an order of which profession fits a certain role best, but it depends on what the encounter is, team comp and some other things I'll probably overlook.

Like in gw1, I think the elementalist was great. You can use him as tank, healer, support and damage. And for each role you had multiple ways of doing it. Although the last one diminished on high end play. This versatility was also due to the dual profession mechanism, but alot of it came from the elementalist alone. What I liked about that is that it not only brought versatility and creativity to your character, but to the entire team comp.

Edited by Bomb Voyage, 13 September 2013 - 05:56 AM.


#24 feo

feo

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • New Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 06:08 AM

So for the why not, last chance: why i dont post or read forums. No one is truely interested in personal responsiblity in this game. Ppl would either reminise about a game there no longer playing or situations where its easier to complain then fear there playstyle altho acceptable for the masses, might just smooth other the reason why there unhappy with the way the game is going. So i'll plead one more time, personal responsibilty is the unsung hero in gw2 atm.

#25 Averath

Averath

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 06:16 AM

View PostArewn, on 13 September 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

Focusing in on your last paragraph, let's pretend for a second that they made a PVE only change so that a certain warrior build in soldier's gear does nearly as good damage as a full DPS spec. Now you have a different problem, sure you can now play a "tanky" warrior spec, but it's wildly over powered because it's tanky and does good damage. And if you give every profession a build like that, then that just means everyone will run tanky dps and the meta will change from all Zerker to all Soldier. And then since everyone is so tanky, they have to up mob damage to maintain encounter difficulty, negating your extra tanky-ness and making it even harder for none tanky-dps specs to play.

If prot warrior can honestly do as much damage as DPS specs can, while being in full tank gear, then I really don't understand why raid groups don't just have 8 prot warriors and 2 healers. In fact, with all those prot warriors who could taunt off each other and rotate cooldowns, you should just have a full raid of 10 prot warriors(it's been done with blood DKs), which would actually do MORE damage then a traditional raid group with 2 tanks, 2+healers, and 6- DPS purely for the reason that you have more people DPSing.
So I'm sorry to doubt you, but I really don't think it's true that prot warriors in tank gear can do almost as much damage as DPS specs can, because that would break the game.
If you're talking about dungeons in AoE situations with low-end gear, then I can understand, that always happens with tanks.

I agree that it sucks that currently there aren't many "top end viable" builds and weapons choices in GW2, but that has to do with balance, not the fact that it's a role-less game.

The note about prot warriors was from some of the mmochampion forums, as I have not played the game for quite some time. I've heard complaints that prot warrior damage was far too high. I do, however, recall that in Cataclysm they wanted to push for threat to come from damage, and not from abilities that do bonus threat. I could be wrong, but if memory serves correctly they significantly buffed tank damage against bosses. All of this damage, however, was reactionary. That is why a group full of tanks would not function properly. The source of a tank's DPS was getting smacked, and then having their tank-skills trigger off of being smacked, and those tank-skills did as much damage as DPS skills.

Think of it in GW2 terms with the Shield's #4 ability. Most tanky abilities revolved around that interaction. You were smacked, and you counter-attacked, and that counter enabled you to deal as much damage as someone doing a normal whack to a mob.

I will concede the point that it may be balance rather than the fact that it is a role-less game, but I still feel the role-less aspect is either making it harder to balance, or making devs lazier since they don't feel any need to balance as strictly as narrow, defined roles would require.

#26 Arewn

Arewn

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 13 September 2013 - 06:54 AM

View PostAverath, on 13 September 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

The note about prot warriors was from some of the mmochampion forums, as I have not played the game for quite some time. I've heard complaints that prot warrior damage was far too high. I do, however, recall that in Cataclysm they wanted to push for threat to come from damage, and not from abilities that do bonus threat. I could be wrong, but if memory serves correctly they significantly buffed tank damage against bosses. All of this damage, however, was reactionary. That is why a group full of tanks would not function properly. The source of a tank's DPS was getting smacked, and then having their tank-skills trigger off of being smacked, and those tank-skills did as much damage as DPS skills.

Think of it in GW2 terms with the Shield's #4 ability. Most tanky abilities revolved around that interaction. You were smacked, and you counter-attacked, and that counter enabled you to deal as much damage as someone doing a normal whack to a mob.

I will concede the point that it may be balance rather than the fact that it is a role-less game, but I still feel the role-less aspect is either making it harder to balance, or making devs lazier since they don't feel any need to balance as strictly as narrow, defined roles would require.
Oooohhh yeaaaa, actually that reminds me you`re right. I think it was called "vengeance", they changed it so that more of a tank's threat comes from damage, and then made a "vengeance buff" which increased the tanks damage the more damage the tank took, or something along those lines. Completely forgot about that.

Similar to what you said, I also feel that the game being role-less makes it more difficult to create encounters around, since the devs don't have a system they can count on the player always having to base their fights off of. Though I feel they can overcome this with time and refinement.
The other complication for encounter design is stats: First off, they don't want to gear gate, which means it has to be doable for someone in greens/yellows, but still challenging for someone in exotics/ascended. And, it has to be doable for a group wearing mostly soldiers and clerics, as well as a group wearing full zerker (2 groups with wildly different defense and damage capabilities). They don't really have a common benchmark to base their fights off of, which is a problem.

#27 Brandon the Don

Brandon the Don

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 296 posts
  • Location:Somewhere
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Guild Tag:[TH]
  • Server:Gunnar’s Hold

Posted 13 September 2013 - 06:59 AM

Problem is that people will always find a "best" way to deal with encounters... Removing the holy trinity is admirable, but will never result in people preferring certain classes with certain utilities or skills... This still results in class discrimination amongst people, or confusion amongst those who believe you need a healer and/or tank...

This is not because of how the game was designed, this is how the players will always play the game... The only way to succesfully remove a trinity is by only enabling one class with a greatsword... but no one would play that game, period :P

#28 Averath

Averath

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 07:13 AM

View PostArewn, on 13 September 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

Oooohhh yeaaaa, actually that reminds me you`re right. I think it was called "vengeance", they changed it so that more of a tank's threat comes from damage, and then made a "vengeance buff" which increased the tanks damage the more damage the tank took, or something along those lines. Completely forgot about that.

Similar to what you said, I also feel that the game being role-less makes it more difficult to create encounters around, since the devs don't have a system they can count on the player always having to base their fights off of. Though I feel they can overcome this with time and refinement.
The other complication for encounter design is stats: First off, they don't want to gear gate, which means it has to be doable for someone in greens/yellows, but still challenging for someone in exotics/ascended. And, it has to be doable for a group wearing mostly soldiers and clerics, as well as a group wearing full zerker (2 groups with wildly different defense and damage capabilities). They don't really have a common benchmark to base their fights off of, which is a problem.

Yes, Vengeance! That was it. And you're right about the encounters as well. Your description is likely far more accurate, and more fair than mine of accusing them of being lazy. I'd not taken into account all the other variables they have to consider when designing these encounters.

View PostBrandon the Don, on 13 September 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

Problem is that people will always find a "best" way to deal with encounters... Removing the holy trinity is admirable, but will never result in people preferring certain classes with certain utilities or skills... This still results in class discrimination amongst people, or confusion amongst those who believe you need a healer and/or tank...

This is not because of how the game was designed, this is how the players will always play the game... The only way to succesfully remove a trinity is by only enabling one class with a greatsword... but no one would play that game, period :P

You're right in that there will always be a "best" way to deal with certain encounters. STO suffers from the same thing, in that the "best" way to deal with something is to kill it before it kills you, and be just tanky enough to survive what damage you'll be receiving. This is precisely how Zerkers works.

The problem I have isn't that everything should be on par with the "best", but it should be *viable* regardless. Right now using a shield on a guardian in PvE is not viable, as the focus is just many times better. The shield should be a viable alternative. Perhaps the focus will remain as the "best in slot", and that isn't something I mind. I would, however, like to see the shield be accepted as an alternative if you prefer that playstyle. Just, at the moment, it isn't.

The same goes for other weapons of other classes. Take the longbow for example. It is suboptimal to any other weapon for a Ranger because of the inherent design of the weapon. You're supposed to stay at max range for the biggest benefit, but you miss out on all group buffs due to being out of range. This makes the weapon inferior to close-range weapons. However, the shortbow is arguably the worst Ranger weapon for DPS by a large margin.. So the only viable weapon you have are melee weapons on the Ranger.

All of these weapons need a serious look by ANet to make them balanced against eachother. I shouldn't be forced to use a single weapon because it is the optimal playstyle. I should use a weapon because I like the look and feel of it.

#29 Swoopeh

Swoopeh

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 328 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[SoF]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 13 September 2013 - 07:25 AM

Having played WoW and the trinity since vanilla the lack of trinity in GW2, despite being imperfect in many ways, is a blessing imho. Everyone is responsible for their own well being while stacking/rotating group buffs and target assignments still give room for strategy. The combat is a lot more dynamic as a result, switching from DPS to kiting something away, soaking damage, running over and ressing someone quickly, etc. This opposed to the spread responsibilities of a trinity system where people quickly get annoyed with each other; "ffs healer why didn't you heal the tank?" - "Well I had 5 adds on me, why didn't the tank pick them up?" - "The hunter was supposed to slow them but he went AFK" etc.

Besides that with a trinity system tunnel vision quickly sets in. "Stand over there and group up for 30 seconds while you repeat your DPS rotation, then spread out and repeat your DPS rotation, rinse and repeat". Or the whack-a-mole healing Arewn mentioned interspersed by having to move away from bad stuff. And tanking where you have a split second to taunt off your fellow tank but it's easily missed if you're tired and your mind drifts off for even a second. Having to do that for hours on end several nights a week is exhausting and causes burn out. It's telling that the person in our WoW guild who caused the most wipes and did severely sub par DPS is actually quite good at GW2 because the active combat keeps him thinking on his feet.

And of course people being forced into a role. In WoW I've never had a lot of time to practice DPS because I was one of our best tanks and the others simply couldn't cope with certain encounters. And when no tank was needed we lacked a healer and I had to bring an alt to heal, missing out on drops and titles on my main (and being forced to play something you don't want to) but it was either that or the raid couldn't go ahead. And when I finally could DPS in my offspec I had to do that for most encounters because the other tanks were unable to any noticable DPS at all but at the same time they weren't very good tanks either leaving us with a choice of either having a sub par tank or sub par DPS on encounters :P Or fellow guildies who at some point decided they didn't want to heal/tank anymore but DPS instead leaving us lacking balanced groups and having to cancel raids and be unable to make groups if certain people weren't on.

The advantage of having a trinity isn't worth the trouble that comes with it imho. The issues GW2 has with it's trinity-less implementation can be overcome by more clever encounter design using target responsibilities to replace role responsibilities. Also GW2's design means that it's a lot easier to implement flexible group sizes which is fantastic as well; have 8 people who want to run a dungeon? You don't have to drop 3 people but simply make 2 groups of 4. This get's implemented is a lot of dungeon content and even the original dungeons are doable with under 5. It still needs work, I think we all agree, and I'm still hoping that we will see a new dungeon soon which builds on more interesting encounter design. New Teq seems to be build more with that in mind so it's entirely possible that will carry over in dungeons too.

Edited by Swoopeh, 13 September 2013 - 07:30 AM.


#30 Averath

Averath

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 07:57 AM

View PostSwoopeh, on 13 September 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

The advantage of having a trinity isn't worth the trouble that comes with it imho. The issues GW2 has with it's trinity-less implementation can be overcome by more clever encounter design using target responsibilities to replace role responsibilities. Also GW2's design means that it's a lot easier to implement flexible group sizes which is fantastic as well; have 8 people who want to run a dungeon? You don't have to drop 3 people but simply make 2 groups of 4. This get's implemented is a lot of dungeon content and even the original dungeons are doable with under 5. It still needs work, I think we all agree, and I'm still hoping that we will see a new dungeon soon which builds on more interesting encounter design. New Teq seems to be build more with that in mind so it's entirely possible that will carry over in dungeons too.

One of the flaws of WoW, and similar games like it, is the fact that you're trapped, yes. I often felt trapped when I played during BC, because as a Shaman I was forced to heal. I wanted to DPS, but we lacked enough healers. I wanted to tank on my Prot Pally, but we lacked enough healers. It really sucks. But one of the flaws of GW2 is that I'm not even offered the choice of tanking or healing. The only choice I have is DPS, or sub-par DPS with vague elements of support. That's the main thing that bugs me. Maybe the root of the issue is the weapon options and the skills attached to them, with some being simply better than others? I'm not sure.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users