But you go ahead and write your own history. You're doing juuust fine.
So the major alternative so far has been...Buzzwords? Sounds about right. The alternatives to the Trinity system have have been chaotic, zergy garbage.
WAR had collision detection and still had the Trinity. S
mart AI? In any mmo? Not really.
Skill-based? Anything takes skill of some form or another. Turn-based also doesn't imply a lack of the Trinity.
Lets be honest here, there has yet to be a good alternative to the Tank/DPS-CC/Healer combo. Hell games that don't have a native Trinity system have it crammed in there by the playerbase. We did it in EVE with Incursions. We needed Healers (Logistics Cruisers) DPS (Pirate Faction Battleships) and in 20 and 40 man Incursions we had Tanks (Tank fit battleships that people Anchored to.)
You say EVE has Trinity combat and then cite as your example Incursions, home of Sleeper AI.
Added a link to help you out.
Hmm, incredulity mixed with sarcasm or genuine ignorance? I can't really tell. The fact is that a trinity setup is actually quite good at dealing with Sleeper AI. Its all there, the tank battleship holds aggro, the healers (logi cruisers or triage carriers) heal and the dps...well, dps.
Either you don't understand what the trinity is, or I missed the memo on a new taunt skill that was added.
Look, any clown that says the trinity is DPS, Defense, and CC/Support is just that... a clown. EVERY conflict scenario has those roles. So, yeah... if you are going to look at combat as the roles of combat, EVERYTHING is trinity, which makes 'trinity' a pretty damn useless term for this conversation, as it has nothing to do with the difference in types of combat mechanics. I don't know why this crowd has so much problem with it, but that's the main reason this conversation gets nowhere.
Once you acknowledge what defines the trinity, then you can see beyond it. As long as you cling to the illogical and bizarre notion that trinity is referring to three of the multiple possible roles in a conflict scenario then you're no longer talking game mechanics and just waxing pedantic about universally understood roles in combat.
You cited an article (The Evolution of the Trinity) that states clearly, "The tank takes all the damage issued by the opponent, the healer reduces this damage, and the dps gives damage (dps is "damage per second", non-players) to the opponent." This definition is how I understand the trinity in MMORPGs; that is how I define it. I am not trying to eschew the definition of trinity into pedantic semantics.
Dr_Shivinski used his example of Sleeper AI in EVE Online to highlight just how well the trinity system works and how pervasive it is. That is to say, even in a game that was never designed around the trinity, players have still found a way to make it work even without a taunt skill.
"No trinity" means that groups are easier to create - yay, joy! Until people realized that you still had to be a specific class with a specific build and specific gear to be accepted in progression groups, because a perfect balance between skills and classes etc. is very hard to implement.
You cited an article (The Evolution of the Trinity) that states clearly, "The tank takes all the damage issued by the opponent, the healer reduces this damage, and the dps gives damage (dps is "damage per second", non-players) to the opponent." This definition is how I understand the trinity in MMORPGs; that is how I define it. I am not trying to eschew the definition of trinity into pedantic semantics.
Dr_Shivinski used his example of Sleeper AI in EVE Online to highlight just how well the trinity system works and how pervasive it is. That is to say, even in a game that was never designed around the trinity, players have still found a way to make it work even without a taunt skill.
Reading the second half of that paragraph. The trinity isn't defined by the tank taking the damage (that is the point of any defense) but why he is taking it.
EDIT: And for the use of 'eschew'.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Having to wait to find a Healer or Tank is the absolute worst, the trinity also normally comes with classes so that's another big problem.
The tank archtype is just retarded, pretty much destroys whatever immersion you could have.
In games that take 3 weeks to max level? Yes. And these are the games that do not really require it. SO the majority of games that have come out recently in other words have sucky character development and sucky combat. In games that take a very long time to level and develop a character, you don't get such lengthy waits. Especially if people know you're good at the class you play. And a Tank is not retarded. He is the man or woman that stands toe to toe with their enemies and looks into their eyes. How in the HELL is that retarded? My Rogue or thief does his best when attacking at the flanks. He's so...squishy.
Without differentiating one character from the next (more than just looks you can buy in a cash shop) you get the same experience. And when you add PVP into the mix, you see alot of the same kind of toons running around then. The Trinity is fun and being appreciated for playing your class well is not insignificant. What is insignificant is the same kind of games coming out as of late.
I tried some games from Korea and they suck elephant balls.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Some people love to hate on trinity, but it is still the superior combat system.
The major alternative so far has been making every class a DPS class, and introduce dodging and evading attacks. Basically this is how 99% of the games from Korea work. It's basically console gameplay.
The problem is that it's solo gameplay, even in a group, you're basically a class that solos, you don't talk during the battle, you don't ask for heals or ask for support, there's no designated CC or designated puller, no designated tank, you basically...mash buttons and constantly dodge.
I just can't wrap my head around how people think this is good. It's bad, pretty awful compared to trinity where your group is dependent on each other, and where everyone has a well defined function.
Combat in Korean MMO is too easy, boring and repetitive.
Raids in those Korean MMO are even worse, they're zergs, they really are, there is no cooperation, no class officers, no preparation, just mash those buttons.
This action style combat has other downsides, the fact those games lack any form of community, why socialise when you can just solo everything and don't depend on anyone. It actually attracts console players, and anti-social people. It's mindless zerg and there is no sense of community or hierarchy or class definition.
Combat in MMO has become stupid, it's so dumbed down to the point of being dumber than console combat.
I agree, and right now Pantheon is my hope for a good trinity based game.
(And DPS was never considered part of the holy trinity. DPS was what you looked for after you had Tank/Healer/CC.)
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
I do agree that the Trinity is the superior combat mechanic - mainly because it was developed by players! Heck, I can remember playing D&D back in the late 70's and we used the Trinity when we fought the boss. It got pretty frustrating as a healer having only a certain number of spells to cast but we managed to survive most of the battles.
However, as for the Trinity encouraging social/group mechanics - no. Everything in Trinity games is set by gear level or documented achievements. If you do not have the appropriate gear level or achievement then you are either booted or ridiculed. Yes, guild raiding builds social interaction but that is what guilds are for!
I find it ironic that many posters (especially on this site) decry how the newer mmo's all act like single player games yet most of them want action combat. An earlier poster said it right - action combat belongs in single player games like consoles. People miss the reason why mmo's are going that route - the developers WANT to console audience. Who sells more games - PC or console. Console does. That is what the game developers are going after now - the console audience. (Actually the worm has turned somewhat as the game investors are more interested in the mobile market but that is another story.)
mmo's should to be only focused on group & social gameplay ,trinity is what is mmo's are about , not action only dpsing without any talk or coordination with in game mates
Trinity is for the people who don't want to be responsible for anything but one thing. I tank. I heal. I dps.
What the tank died? That's the healers fault.
What the tank died? The dps was too slow.
What the dps died? The tank couldn't hold aggro.
What the dps died? That's the healer's fault.
What the healer died? The tank couldn't hold aggro.
What the healer died? The dps was too slow.
Compartmentalized and pass the buck.
Non-trinity is for people who know how to do more than one thing at a time. I tank/heal/dps.
What I died? It was my fault.
People think it's chaotic... only because they don't organize themselves. It's a tag team. You have aggro, you keep your ass alive. You don't have aggro, you dps. If done well, it's as choreographed as any trinity setup ever was. If you treat it like a bunch of individuals beating on the same mob, well, what did you expect?
Trinity is for those incapable of doing more than one thing at a time. Non-trinity is for those who like to do more than one thing at a time.
Trinity... Superior combat? No. Easier combat? Yes.
Non-Trinity... Superior combat? No. Easier combat? No.
It's really a question of which is easier, superior is just a personal preference, not a statement of fact.
If Trinity was the superior combat mechanic, we'd still have it.
Oh wait...you mean the bastardization that WOW created by making Tank, Healer, DPS the new "Trinity"
Yes, that bastardization is the superior mechanic when compared to these new games with healing and support as secondary things to do.
TLDR Version
The real "Trinity" died when WOW came into being. The original Trinity from EQ was Tank, Healer, Support. You'd then fill the rest of the group up with DPS/Warm Bodies (or cold bodies if they were worthless and died frequently). Enchanter and Bard are by far my most favorite classes ever.
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
Just a little background on my gaming xp before i comment on the topic. Starting from Atari 2600 all the way up to current gen including ColecoVison, Intellivision. Commodore Vic, 64 and 128's. I have played every gamer genre, anyone remember the Zork series?
That being said the MMO genre has evolved into this multi-game style we see in most MMO's today. There is no lack of Trinity, it is just molded in with various other gamer styles. What happens tho is we lose a bit of the grouping part of the MMO because all class models now in MMO's have the Trinity folded into themselves. For instance lets look at 2 popular games with 2 basic familiar classes. WOW Rogue now vs EQ Rogue 2000. Wow-Rogue can dodge or tank some incoming damage and heal themselves if need be. EQ-Rogue 2000 Needs a tank to hold aggro as he or she is not designed to take damage and then leads to the tank IE Warrior needing a healer class which gives us the need for Trinity, Dps Tank Heals.
Whats Changed? Everyone wants to play there game solo at some point. People complain to the devs they want more solo-ability from there class and the ones that squeak the loudest get the oil. Then the other classes complain about class balance and the squeaking and the oiling goes on and on till they evolve into what we have today, MMO's that do not need the mutli part anymore.
Why are we seeing more posts about old school MMO's and trinity play style? Not sure, but from my point of view it is most likely the lack of new games being released with what i call the "True" dungeon crawl with a "True" trinity group. Don't misunderstand me, i love games like GW2 and the like. There is a need for these play styles. But some game company needs to bring back the bread an butter of "The Trinity".
You cited an article (The Evolution of the Trinity) that states clearly, "The tank takes all the damage issued by the opponent, the healer reduces this damage, and the dps gives damage (dps is "damage per second", non-players) to the opponent." This definition is how I understand the trinity in MMORPGs; that is how I define it. I am not trying to eschew the definition of trinity into pedantic semantics.
Dr_Shivinski used his example of Sleeper AI in EVE Online to highlight just how well the trinity system works and how pervasive it is. That is to say, even in a game that was never designed around the trinity, players have still found a way to make it work even without a taunt skill.
Reading the second half of that paragraph. The trinity isn't defined by the tank taking the damage (that is the point of any defense) but why he is taking it.
EDIT: And for the use of 'eschew'.
Good point, I like how you said that. Why is the tank taking the damage? Alright, lets dig into this. In MUDs, a tanking role was the solution to the problem of position, as discussed by Richard Bartle in his blog (for those just joining us). In this case, diversity of gameplay increased by allowing others to specialize in different forms of combat instead of everyone being heavily armored (as necessitated by everyone occupying the same space). To wit, one person could chose to be the tank and everyone else could be whatever they wanted.
Enter Everquest. Owing its lineage to those MUDs, the trinity was introduced there as well; but to solve a different problem. In Everquest, discrete positions were a thing and room granularity was gone. Access-containment was possible because the players in metal suits could block enemies' access to other players with their metal-clad bodies. The problem was, as it was in high school, people could block access to other things too, like bathrooms or water fountains. So collision detection was out and taunting skills were in.
But EVE is a little different, CCP never intended for trinity style threat management or tank/healer/dps specialization to be present in their game. Until it emerged as a player solution to maximizing group efficiency in farming sleepers in wormholes. Pve tanking in EVE missions was a joke and consisted of arriving first in a room and not dying. There was no such thing as threat because NPCs never changed targets. Until, along came a Sleeper, who could and did change targets. Sleeper AI was brutally effective, they would pick off logi, support, dps; but it also hated EWAR with the excluding passion that only programmed algorithms can create. So instead of a taunt button we have an ewar button, that (for Sleepers atleast) does the same thing.
So, why trinity in MUDs? Because position. Why trinity in EQ (and by proxy, most other MMORPGs)? Because griefing. Why trinity in EVE? Because efficiency (admittedly, it solves a unique and very niche problem in the grand scheme of EVE).
All of this says to me that trinity represents pattern and structure. I've played games without a trinity structure and they're always choas because thats how the developers think combat without threat tables should work. The only choices left to make for combat are when to dodge, run away, or heal. So for me, trinity equals more gameplay until something better comes along.
Originally posted by HowbadisbadHaving to wait to find a Healer or Tank is the absolute worst, the trinity also normally comes with classes so that's another big problem.The tank archtype is just retarded, pretty much destroys whatever immersion you could have.
In games that take 3 weeks to max level? Yes. And these are the games that do not really require it. SO the majority of games that have come out recently in other words have sucky character development and sucky combat. In games that take a very long time to level and develop a character, you don't get such lengthy waits. Especially if people know you're good at the class you play. And a Tank is not retarded. He is the man or woman that stands toe to toe with their enemies and looks into their eyes. How in the HELL is that retarded? My Rogue or thief does his best when attacking at the flanks. He's so...squishy.
Without differentiating one character from the next (more than just looks you can buy in a cash shop) you get the same experience. And when you add PVP into the mix, you see alot of the same kind of toons running around then. The Trinity is fun and being appreciated for playing your class well is not insignificant. What is insignificant is the same kind of games coming out as of late.
I tried some games from Korea and they suck elephant balls.
The tank is retarded, why would you attack a guy in super heavy armor with shit damage when there are all those free squishys actually doing damage right behind him?
It's PVE so of course it won't ever be a challenge (without heavy artificial difficulty) or make sense, but why do the mobs have to be so dumb it kills the immersion?
EDIT: Above explains it due to technical limitations basically.
Trinity is for the people who don't want to be responsible for anything but one thing. I tank. I heal. I dps.
What the tank died? That's the healers fault.
What the tank died? The dps was too slow.
What the dps died? The tank couldn't hold aggro.
What the dps died? That's the healer's fault.
What the healer died? The tank couldn't hold aggro.
What the healer died? The dps was too slow.
.
.
.
Trinity... Superior combat? No. Easier combat? Yes.
Non-Trinity... Superior combat? No. Easier combat? No.
LOL @ the excuses. You aren't wrong. That's quite alright, though, we're just teaching our kids that we should continuously make excuses over taking responsibility for you contribution to the overall failure.
On the second bit, I don't think that Trinity combat is EASIER, per se, it's just different. Trinity combat have much greater dependencies on others to not be dumb. Non-Trinity combat may have more difficult encounters, in general, but there are fewer dependencies, meaning you can get away without a few people. If your tank or your healer are dumb then it's pretty much game over.
If only these conversations/arguments actually ended with one side saying, "You know? You are right!" However, someone starting a thread by stating their preferences and opinions as superior to others preferences and opinions is just idiotic.
With a trinity they ruin 1vs1 scenarios since its difficult to balance for that case.
MMO
massive MULTIPLAYER online
MMO's should never be balanced around 1v1 instead of by role. By building for 1v1, you are destroying the multiplayer. You might as well go play a MOBA.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Originally posted by simmihi "No trinity" means that groups are easier to create - yay, joy! Until people realized that you still had to be a specific class with a specific build and specific gear to be accepted in progression groups, because a perfect balance between skills and classes etc. is very hard to implement.
Why would someone do progression content and expect their decisions not to matter?
Progression content implies challenge.
Challenge implies only a narrow set of the right decisions will result in success.
The wrong decisions (including the wrong combination of class specializations) will fail.
If you want trivial decisions (ie playing any damn class you want) then play a game's trivial challenges. Every game has em.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If Trinity was the superior combat mechanic, we'd still have it. :)Oh wait...you mean the bastardization that WOW created by making Tank, Healer, DPS the new "Trinity"Yes, that bastardization is the superior mechanic when compared to these new games with healing and support as secondary things to do. TLDR VersionThe real "Trinity" died when WOW came into being. The original Trinity from EQ was Tank, Healer, Support. You'd then fill the rest of the group up with DPS/Warm Bodies (or cold bodies if they were worthless and died frequently). Enchanter and Bard are by far my most favorite classes ever.
No it didn't, Vanguard released in 2007 with full trinity and Pantheon will continue it.
I do agree that the Trinity is the superior combat mechanic - mainly because it was developed by players! Heck, I can remember playing D&D back in the late 70's and we used the Trinity when we fought the boss. It got pretty frustrating as a healer having only a certain number of spells to cast but we managed to survive most of the battles.
However, as for the Trinity encouraging social/group mechanics - no. Everything in Trinity games is set by gear level or documented achievements. If you do not have the appropriate gear level or achievement then you are either booted or ridiculed. Yes, guild raiding builds social interaction but that is what guilds are for!
I find it ironic that many posters (especially on this site) decry how the newer mmo's all act like single player games yet most of them want action combat. An earlier poster said it right - action combat belongs in single player games like consoles. People miss the reason why mmo's are going that route - the developers WANT to console audience. Who sells more games - PC or console. Console does. That is what the game developers are going after now - the console audience. (Actually the worm has turned somewhat as the game investors are more interested in the mobile market but that is another story.)
So basically gaming is not going to be worthwhile if it is at all now. Developers can make crappy mobile games for a fraction of the price and kids will enjoy playing them/grow up with them. That's not much different how a lot of the people in their late teens - 30s accept a lot more simple gameplay and are content thinking it is very challenging. When you grow up in an age when computers and consoles are in process of early development then you understand complexity and patience. Most things were in a very raw form that forced complication. Now we live in an age where we have lots of computer choices and companies and trying to make things as simple as possible to lure as many people as possible in. Even in the 90s that probably wouldn't have been possible. There was too much of a learning curve for most people to invest the time and patience required. You would really have to love computers. That is the difference between the user of today and the user of the past. The user used to be someone who loved computers. Today the user is simply someone who uses a computer if it makes their life more convenient in some way. What that translates too is it has to be intuitive, quick to learn, and cause no complication to the user.
I would take offense that console games are simple though. I'm playing a console only game called Dark Souls which is probably the most difficult combat RPG out there right now. I also played many turn based RPGs on Nintendo and Super Nintendo that were fairly complicated for someone who is young and doesn't know RPGs.
I don't remember the trinity being in games like UO and EQ until people found that it was the most effective form of combat for grouping through experimentation. It's not much different then people finding out that x class was the best for soloing (even thought no class was supposed to solo in the game). Some things worked and some things didn't. Most were found by the community unintentionally. The developers didn't think of such things at the time. They just grew over time as people tried new and different things that hadn't been anticipated. The classes in EQ were fairly close to D&D 2nd edition. D&D 2nd Edition generally had low level campaigns and relied on resting outside of combat to heal. I'm not certain there was any intention to have certain classes only perform a certain role. Each class had the ability to DPS in some way even if it was fairly inefficient. I believe the Cleric class was meant to fight in melee combat like D&D, but since they were very poor DPS it didn't work out that way if you were going for the most efficient form of combat. There was no real rhyme or reason to the classes in the beginning. SInce they were based on D&D there wasn't really much balance other then each character could add something that was important in some way. I don't believe that is the case with current MMOs. Now we have games where you can do anything with any class. No class Is really important to have.
I don't want to bash people who play today as I know they are probably smarter then me in a lot of other facets of life then gaming. They may just choose that gaming is not that important to them and perhaps the smartest decision of all, but to some of us gaming is more then just a side attraction. We like to invest time into it. It's difficult to do that when a game is setup to be easy and you have to handicap yourself to make it harder. It makes the time investment feel much less worth while (if you have the time to spend).
Originally posted by simmihi "No trinity" means that groups are easier to create - yay, joy! Until people realized that you still had to be a specific class with a specific build and specific gear to be accepted in progression groups, because a perfect balance between skills and classes etc. is very hard to implement.
Why would someone do progression content and expect their decisions not to matter?
Progression content implies challenge.
Challenge implies only a narrow set of the right decisions will result in success.
The wrong decisions (including the wrong combination of class specializations) will fail.
If you want trivial decisions (ie playing any damn class you want) then play a game's trivial challenges. Every game has em.
Yep, you're right, I've seen how this works. The game launches. You play the class you choose to the top level, class X. The people realize that class Y does roughly 20% more damage than class X. You are forced to reroll into class Y. Now 80% of the population is class Y, as there is only one role, and why not roll Y, if Y is the most powerful. Great game design, will play again.
It seems to me it's a way to simplify things for a large group encounters (raids for example) .
One of it's major downsides for me is the lack of flexiblity for the player. Every trinity game I've played there seems to be one build per class for the content the trinity is needed for. Certainly, everyone could point to players who play outside the box. In general though if you are class X you are expected to be configured one way only. If you want to enjoy other aspects of these games out side of raiding, which I do (PvP for example), you need that game to offer free multiple configurations or you have to live those aspects through alts (undesirable for me). I often like the hybrid or odd ball classes and these rarely fit into any single trinity role. It's obvious that this is a player creation that the devs over time have catered to at the expense of more varity in classes.
It also seems a little dull and overdone at this point. I understand people don't like change but I do. It doesn't have to be perfect or far superior for me as different offers it's own challenges.
For a majority of the mobs there AI is kind of simple so running the trinity reduces it to tank and spank. I don't see the fun in that but to each his own.
A superior combat mechanic, I guess if your into raiding I could see your point. I think MMOs are more then large group encounters. I'd rather see investment in creativity across the breadth of what an MMO has to offer. Deciding from the get go that a game will have the trinity then building from there seem is pretty limited IMHO.
I am not a fan of threat based tanking. It is just plain stupid on almost every level.
I am not a fan of firehose healers with no mechanics except straight additives to health (including shields).
Most Trinity games use both of these things heavily and therefore they suck.
There is nothing wrong with having roles in general. Whether there needs to be exactly 3 roles is something else. Why bother limiting yourself?
For strategy sake I guess. It's similar to each chess piece doing something different on the chess board. If all pieces are the same/similar then there's not much room for strategy. It's more of a DPS zerg.
I don't believe many battles were of type zerg. Maybe a long time ago. Even in the middle ages it was based on strategy. Early on they used sword and shields with mail because it was most effective. Then they moved on to two handed swords when plate armor became available. The two handed swords and clubs would be much more effective against plate more then a one handed sword and shield. After that they had the crossbow which could pierce plate making it less useful. The Romans used a formation to lock large shields together and stab with their spears. Rarely did people just run in and hack at each other except for in the more primitive societies. Even those societies used weapons and strategies. Usually clubs/maces were very effective for zerg type combat. Some might wear something scary to unnerve their opponents.
Comments
Having to wait to find a Healer or Tank is the absolute worst, the trinity also normally comes with classes so that's another big problem.
The tank archtype is just retarded, pretty much destroys whatever immersion you could have.
Waiting for:
The Repopulation
Albion Online
You cited an article (The Evolution of the Trinity) that states clearly, "The tank takes all the damage issued by the opponent, the healer reduces this damage, and the dps gives damage (dps is "damage per second", non-players) to the opponent." This definition is how I understand the trinity in MMORPGs; that is how I define it. I am not trying to eschew the definition of trinity into pedantic semantics.
Dr_Shivinski used his example of Sleeper AI in EVE Online to highlight just how well the trinity system works and how pervasive it is. That is to say, even in a game that was never designed around the trinity, players have still found a way to make it work even without a taunt skill.
In other news: Water is wet.
In all seriousness, I agree 100% with you.
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
Reading the second half of that paragraph. The trinity isn't defined by the tank taking the damage (that is the point of any defense) but why he is taking it.
EDIT: And
for the use of 'eschew'. 
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In games that take 3 weeks to max level? Yes. And these are the games that do not really require it. SO the majority of games that have come out recently in other words have sucky character development and sucky combat. In games that take a very long time to level and develop a character, you don't get such lengthy waits. Especially if people know you're good at the class you play. And a Tank is not retarded. He is the man or woman that stands toe to toe with their enemies and looks into their eyes. How in the HELL is that retarded? My Rogue or thief does his best when attacking at the flanks. He's so...squishy.
Without differentiating one character from the next (more than just looks you can buy in a cash shop) you get the same experience. And when you add PVP into the mix, you see alot of the same kind of toons running around then. The Trinity is fun and being appreciated for playing your class well is not insignificant. What is insignificant is the same kind of games coming out as of late.
I tried some games from Korea and they suck elephant balls.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
I agree, and right now Pantheon is my hope for a good trinity based game.
(And DPS was never considered part of the holy trinity. DPS was what you looked for after you had Tank/Healer/CC.)
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
I do agree that the Trinity is the superior combat mechanic - mainly because it was developed by players! Heck, I can remember playing D&D back in the late 70's and we used the Trinity when we fought the boss. It got pretty frustrating as a healer having only a certain number of spells to cast but we managed to survive most of the battles.
However, as for the Trinity encouraging social/group mechanics - no. Everything in Trinity games is set by gear level or documented achievements. If you do not have the appropriate gear level or achievement then you are either booted or ridiculed. Yes, guild raiding builds social interaction but that is what guilds are for!
I find it ironic that many posters (especially on this site) decry how the newer mmo's all act like single player games yet most of them want action combat. An earlier poster said it right - action combat belongs in single player games like consoles. People miss the reason why mmo's are going that route - the developers WANT to console audience. Who sells more games - PC or console. Console does. That is what the game developers are going after now - the console audience. (Actually the worm has turned somewhat as the game investors are more interested in the mobile market but that is another story.)
Trinity is for the people who don't want to be responsible for anything but one thing. I tank. I heal. I dps.
What the tank died? That's the healers fault.
What the tank died? The dps was too slow.
What the dps died? The tank couldn't hold aggro.
What the dps died? That's the healer's fault.
What the healer died? The tank couldn't hold aggro.
What the healer died? The dps was too slow.
Compartmentalized and pass the buck.
Non-trinity is for people who know how to do more than one thing at a time. I tank/heal/dps.
What I died? It was my fault.
People think it's chaotic... only because they don't organize themselves. It's a tag team. You have aggro, you keep your ass alive. You don't have aggro, you dps. If done well, it's as choreographed as any trinity setup ever was. If you treat it like a bunch of individuals beating on the same mob, well, what did you expect?
Trinity is for those incapable of doing more than one thing at a time. Non-trinity is for those who like to do more than one thing at a time.
Trinity... Superior combat? No. Easier combat? Yes.
Non-Trinity... Superior combat? No. Easier combat? No.
It's really a question of which is easier, superior is just a personal preference, not a statement of fact.
If Trinity was the superior combat mechanic, we'd still have it.
Oh wait...you mean the bastardization that WOW created by making Tank, Healer, DPS the new "Trinity"
Yes, that bastardization is the superior mechanic when compared to these new games with healing and support as secondary things to do.
TLDR Version
The real "Trinity" died when WOW came into being. The original Trinity from EQ was Tank, Healer, Support. You'd then fill the rest of the group up with DPS/Warm Bodies (or cold bodies if they were worthless and died frequently). Enchanter and Bard are by far my most favorite classes ever.
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
Just a little background on my gaming xp before i comment on the topic. Starting from Atari 2600 all the way up to current gen including ColecoVison, Intellivision. Commodore Vic, 64 and 128's. I have played every gamer genre, anyone remember the Zork series?
That being said the MMO genre has evolved into this multi-game style we see in most MMO's today. There is no lack of Trinity, it is just molded in with various other gamer styles. What happens tho is we lose a bit of the grouping part of the MMO because all class models now in MMO's have the Trinity folded into themselves. For instance lets look at 2 popular games with 2 basic familiar classes. WOW Rogue now vs EQ Rogue 2000. Wow-Rogue can dodge or tank some incoming damage and heal themselves if need be. EQ-Rogue 2000 Needs a tank to hold aggro as he or she is not designed to take damage and then leads to the tank IE Warrior needing a healer class which gives us the need for Trinity, Dps Tank Heals.
Whats Changed? Everyone wants to play there game solo at some point. People complain to the devs they want more solo-ability from there class and the ones that squeak the loudest get the oil. Then the other classes complain about class balance and the squeaking and the oiling goes on and on till they evolve into what we have today, MMO's that do not need the mutli part anymore.
Why are we seeing more posts about old school MMO's and trinity play style? Not sure, but from my point of view it is most likely the lack of new games being released with what i call the "True" dungeon crawl with a "True" trinity group. Don't misunderstand me, i love games like GW2 and the like. There is a need for these play styles. But some game company needs to bring back the bread an butter of "The Trinity".
Good point, I like how you said that. Why is the tank taking the damage? Alright, lets dig into this. In MUDs, a tanking role was the solution to the problem of position, as discussed by Richard Bartle in his blog (for those just joining us). In this case, diversity of gameplay increased by allowing others to specialize in different forms of combat instead of everyone being heavily armored (as necessitated by everyone occupying the same space). To wit, one person could chose to be the tank and everyone else could be whatever they wanted.
Enter Everquest. Owing its lineage to those MUDs, the trinity was introduced there as well; but to solve a different problem. In Everquest, discrete positions were a thing and room granularity was gone. Access-containment was possible because the players in metal suits could block enemies' access to other players with their metal-clad bodies. The problem was, as it was in high school, people could block access to other things too, like bathrooms or water fountains. So collision detection was out and taunting skills were in.
But EVE is a little different, CCP never intended for trinity style threat management or tank/healer/dps specialization to be present in their game. Until it emerged as a player solution to maximizing group efficiency in farming sleepers in wormholes. Pve tanking in EVE missions was a joke and consisted of arriving first in a room and not dying. There was no such thing as threat because NPCs never changed targets. Until, along came a Sleeper, who could and did change targets. Sleeper AI was brutally effective, they would pick off logi, support, dps; but it also hated EWAR with the excluding passion that only programmed algorithms can create. So instead of a taunt button we have an ewar button, that (for Sleepers atleast) does the same thing.
So, why trinity in MUDs? Because position. Why trinity in EQ (and by proxy, most other MMORPGs)? Because griefing. Why trinity in EVE? Because efficiency (admittedly, it solves a unique and very niche problem in the grand scheme of EVE).
All of this says to me that trinity represents pattern and structure. I've played games without a trinity structure and they're always choas because thats how the developers think combat without threat tables should work. The only choices left to make for combat are when to dodge, run away, or heal. So for me, trinity equals more gameplay until something better comes along.
The tank is retarded, why would you attack a guy in super heavy armor with shit damage when there are all those free squishys actually doing damage right behind him?
It's PVE so of course it won't ever be a challenge (without heavy artificial difficulty) or make sense, but why do the mobs have to be so dumb it kills the immersion?
EDIT: Above explains it due to technical limitations basically.
Waiting for:
The Repopulation
Albion Online
LOL @ the excuses. You aren't wrong. That's quite alright, though, we're just teaching our kids that we should continuously make excuses over taking responsibility for you contribution to the overall failure.
On the second bit, I don't think that Trinity combat is EASIER, per se, it's just different. Trinity combat have much greater dependencies on others to not be dumb. Non-Trinity combat may have more difficult encounters, in general, but there are fewer dependencies, meaning you can get away without a few people. If your tank or your healer are dumb then it's pretty much game over.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
MMO
massive MULTIPLAYER online
MMO's should never be balanced around 1v1 instead of by role. By building for 1v1, you are destroying the multiplayer. You might as well go play a MOBA.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Sooooo stale and boring though.
Why would someone do progression content and expect their decisions not to matter?
If you want trivial decisions (ie playing any damn class you want) then play a game's trivial challenges. Every game has em.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No it didn't, Vanguard released in 2007 with full trinity and Pantheon will continue it.
So basically gaming is not going to be worthwhile if it is at all now. Developers can make crappy mobile games for a fraction of the price and kids will enjoy playing them/grow up with them. That's not much different how a lot of the people in their late teens - 30s accept a lot more simple gameplay and are content thinking it is very challenging. When you grow up in an age when computers and consoles are in process of early development then you understand complexity and patience. Most things were in a very raw form that forced complication. Now we live in an age where we have lots of computer choices and companies and trying to make things as simple as possible to lure as many people as possible in. Even in the 90s that probably wouldn't have been possible. There was too much of a learning curve for most people to invest the time and patience required. You would really have to love computers. That is the difference between the user of today and the user of the past. The user used to be someone who loved computers. Today the user is simply someone who uses a computer if it makes their life more convenient in some way. What that translates too is it has to be intuitive, quick to learn, and cause no complication to the user.
I would take offense that console games are simple though. I'm playing a console only game called Dark Souls which is probably the most difficult combat RPG out there right now. I also played many turn based RPGs on Nintendo and Super Nintendo that were fairly complicated for someone who is young and doesn't know RPGs.
I don't remember the trinity being in games like UO and EQ until people found that it was the most effective form of combat for grouping through experimentation. It's not much different then people finding out that x class was the best for soloing (even thought no class was supposed to solo in the game). Some things worked and some things didn't. Most were found by the community unintentionally. The developers didn't think of such things at the time. They just grew over time as people tried new and different things that hadn't been anticipated. The classes in EQ were fairly close to D&D 2nd edition. D&D 2nd Edition generally had low level campaigns and relied on resting outside of combat to heal. I'm not certain there was any intention to have certain classes only perform a certain role. Each class had the ability to DPS in some way even if it was fairly inefficient. I believe the Cleric class was meant to fight in melee combat like D&D, but since they were very poor DPS it didn't work out that way if you were going for the most efficient form of combat. There was no real rhyme or reason to the classes in the beginning. SInce they were based on D&D there wasn't really much balance other then each character could add something that was important in some way. I don't believe that is the case with current MMOs. Now we have games where you can do anything with any class. No class Is really important to have.
I don't want to bash people who play today as I know they are probably smarter then me in a lot of other facets of life then gaming. They may just choose that gaming is not that important to them and perhaps the smartest decision of all, but to some of us gaming is more then just a side attraction. We like to invest time into it. It's difficult to do that when a game is setup to be easy and you have to handicap yourself to make it harder. It makes the time investment feel much less worth while (if you have the time to spend).
I am not a fan of threat based tanking. It is just plain stupid on almost every level.
I am not a fan of firehose healers with no mechanics except straight additives to health (including shields).
Most Trinity games use both of these things heavily and therefore they suck.
There is nothing wrong with having roles in general. Whether there needs to be exactly 3 roles is something else. Why bother limiting yourself?
Why would someone do progression content and expect their decisions not to matter?
If you want trivial decisions (ie playing any damn class you want) then play a game's trivial challenges. Every game has em.
Yep, you're right, I've seen how this works. The game launches. You play the class you choose to the top level, class X. The people realize that class Y does roughly 20% more damage than class X. You are forced to reroll into class Y. Now 80% of the population is class Y, as there is only one role, and why not roll Y, if Y is the most powerful. Great game design, will play again.
It seems to me it's a way to simplify things for a large group encounters (raids for example) .
One of it's major downsides for me is the lack of flexiblity for the player. Every trinity game I've played there seems to be one build per class for the content the trinity is needed for. Certainly, everyone could point to players who play outside the box. In general though if you are class X you are expected to be configured one way only. If you want to enjoy other aspects of these games out side of raiding, which I do (PvP for example), you need that game to offer free multiple configurations or you have to live those aspects through alts (undesirable for me). I often like the hybrid or odd ball classes and these rarely fit into any single trinity role. It's obvious that this is a player creation that the devs over time have catered to at the expense of more varity in classes.
It also seems a little dull and overdone at this point. I understand people don't like change but I do. It doesn't have to be perfect or far superior for me as different offers it's own challenges.
For a majority of the mobs there AI is kind of simple so running the trinity reduces it to tank and spank. I don't see the fun in that but to each his own.
A superior combat mechanic, I guess if your into raiding I could see your point. I think MMOs are more then large group encounters. I'd rather see investment in creativity across the breadth of what an MMO has to offer. Deciding from the get go that a game will have the trinity then building from there seem is pretty limited IMHO.
For strategy sake I guess. It's similar to each chess piece doing something different on the chess board. If all pieces are the same/similar then there's not much room for strategy. It's more of a DPS zerg.
I don't believe many battles were of type zerg. Maybe a long time ago. Even in the middle ages it was based on strategy. Early on they used sword and shields with mail because it was most effective. Then they moved on to two handed swords when plate armor became available. The two handed swords and clubs would be much more effective against plate more then a one handed sword and shield. After that they had the crossbow which could pierce plate making it less useful. The Romans used a formation to lock large shields together and stab with their spears. Rarely did people just run in and hack at each other except for in the more primitive societies. Even those societies used weapons and strategies. Usually clubs/maces were very effective for zerg type combat. Some might wear something scary to unnerve their opponents.