Trinity was what was considered needed for the core of a group in EQ. You had someone to take the damage, someone to heal and someone to support those 2. if you had those 3 you could do pretty much anything outside of raid.
Back in the days, many considered it warrior, cleric, chanter. But it could be anything that worked, paladin, druid, monk would still be a trinity, or SK, shaman, bard. Anything that allowed you to tackled on the content. It was never a strict set of classes but many considered it a set of roles: tank, healer, support.
Now what it is today is anyones guess, it's shooting all over the place.
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
Its called like that for 15 years now, it was always the same and always used same taunt/gimped class system.
Its you who tries to redefine it.
Trinity in MMOs: tank (heavy armor high mitigation, low damage no healing, taunt/high threat) DPS (low damage mitigation, high damage, no healing) healer (low damage mitigation, low damage, healin)
and it wouldnt work without TAUNT which is defining characteristic
I think Malabooga kind of summed it up.
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
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
Again taking a phrase out of context and spinning it. Really? Challenge accepted, I guess. I specifically stated when "talking to a coworker or colleague".
Do you actually want to discuss what the trinity is and why it exists or are you just looking to argue? It seems the latter.
Dude, I have no idea who or what your coworkers or colleagues are and I have no idea why you're making it an important discriminant. If trinity means the same to you and your colleagues and it doesn't for the rest of the world, then I guess you guys are the ones that need to adjust. I honestly thought you were just making an example.
My point was trinity doesn't mean what you think it means to some people. (Also, I made some more points, but you ignored them...)
Originally posted by Malabooga
Originally posted by Sam_Shakusky
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Sam_Shakusky
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Sam_Shakusky
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
Its called like that for 15 years now, it was always the same and always used same taunt/gimped class system.
Its you who tries to redefine it.
Trinity in MMOs: tank (heavy armor high mitigation, low damage no healing, taunt/high threat) DPS (low damage mitigation, high damage, no healing) healer (low damage mitigation, low damage, healin)
and it wouldnt work without TAUNT which is defining characteristic
I agree that it means tank + healer + dps. Now we disagree on the whole system around it. I believe that as long as there are a character that tries to take damage, a character that aids those who take damage and a character that does damage to the enemy, then there is the trinity. You agree with that only as long as an aggro system is in place. I believe that is our difference in opinion, no?
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Malabooga
Originally posted by Sam_Shakusky
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Sam_Shakusky
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Sam_Shakusky
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
Its called like that for 15 years now, it was always the same and always used same taunt/gimped class system.
Its you who tries to redefine it.
Trinity in MMOs: tank (heavy armor high mitigation, low damage no healing, taunt/high threat) DPS (low damage mitigation, high damage, no healing) healer (low damage mitigation, low damage, healin)
and it wouldnt work without TAUNT which is defining characteristic
I think Malabooga kind of summed it up.
Except you and Malabooga aren't saying the same thing.
Originally posted by sketocafe The holy trinity is a player created response to threat-table based enemy behavior. It was later incorporated into design by devs but it started with the players. One group to keep attention with taunt mechanics, one group to heal the first and a third devoted to doing as much damage as possible without jumping to the top of the threat table.
Was it player-created, though? It is based on the taunt mechanic, so that mechanic would have to be created by the developers in order for players to respond that way. Without that mechanic in place, the high defense, low attack character would only be of value in scenarios where position had an effect on combat. It's been a long time so I don't remember. I thought most of the combat was generally room/initiative based. Was position a factor early on?
To be clear, I am not trying to be rhetorical. I genuinely don't know.
If you have an AI that will attack the first thing it sees and never change its target afterwards, you don't even need threat tables to have a tank. I think its pretty safe assumption that it came from players first.
This is why I prefer the term "aggro manipulation" instead; because neither taunts or threat tables are a requirement to be able to tank.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it?
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank?
Could you answer those questions? I really believe the first one only has one correct answer ("No."), while the second one is debatable (my answer is "yes", but I would like to hear your opinion on it). Do you define a tank as "a character that holds the enemy's attention, only in an aggro-system"?
The tank in EQ/WOW style games is very different from what was a tank prior to that and what is a currently a tank in other MMOs. Yes, you can call the character absorbing damage in any combat scenario the tank. This has been established, so why do you keep going on about it?
If an MMO had tanks and no healers, would you still say it has the trinity in it? If it is taunt-based combat, yes. If there are no healers in a group in WOW, is it no longer Trinity combat? Of course it's still the trinity combat system.
Is a character that stops an enemy from reaching an ally by using his body and positioning still a tank? Possibly. Is it a defensive role? Definitely.
Okay. So for you the only requirement for trinity is the aggro system. I'm assuming that's what you mean with taunt-based combat (you really are confusing/confused).
Don't you think it's all rather counterintuitive? If what you mean with trinity is the aggro system, why don't you use the term "aggro system" instead?
Because it is that particular aggro system - taunt. Also, if I say 'trinity' to a coworker or colleague it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system so why make up a new term?
Loktofeit, I edited my previous post with this:
To explain it better: trinity is an English word that the dictionary defines as "A group consisting of three closely related members". Your definition of trinity as related to MMOs has nothing in common with the root of the word. By all means, it's not like you can't do that. But why would you want to do that? Doesn't it make much more sense to speak of trinity as related to MMOs as a group consisting of three closely related members, tank-healer-dps in its current popular incarnation?
Please consider that and get back to me.
As for an answer to your post quoted above:
You don't have to make up a new term, you already have taunt/aggro system. You even have taunt&spank, if you want.
And I challenge you on the point "it is understood we are talking about a taunt-based system". This thread and countless others is proof of this.
Again taking a phrase out of context and spinning it. Really? Challenge accepted, I guess. I specifically stated when "talking to a coworker or colleague".
Do you actually want to discuss what the trinity is and why it exists or are you just looking to argue? It seems the latter.
Dude, I have no idea who or what your coworkers or colleagues are and I have no idea why you're making it an important discriminant. If trinity means the same to you and your colleagues and it doesn't for the rest of the world, then I guess you guys are the ones that need to adjust. I honestly thought you were just making an example.
My point was trinity doesn't mean what you think it means to some people. (Also, I made some more points, but you ignored them...)
He works in the video game industry. That would make it relevant.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by sketocafe The holy trinity is a player created response to threat-table based enemy behavior. It was later incorporated into design by devs but it started with the players. One group to keep attention with taunt mechanics, one group to heal the first and a third devoted to doing as much damage as possible without jumping to the top of the threat table.
Was it player-created, though? It is based on the taunt mechanic, so that mechanic would have to be created by the developers in order for players to respond that way. Without that mechanic in place, the high defense, low attack character would only be of value in scenarios where position had an effect on combat. It's been a long time so I don't remember. I thought most of the combat was generally room/initiative based. Was position a factor early on?
To be clear, I am not trying to be rhetorical. I genuinely don't know.
If you have an AI that will attack the first thing it sees and never change its target afterwards, you don't even need threat tables to have a tank. I think its pretty safe assumption that it came from players first.
I understand that was/is common in MMOs, but with MUDs I didn't realize that was a thing, as it seemed the most common system was an encounter occurred, and then the mobs/players attacked in order of speed/initiative/surprise/etc. I didn't know many MUDs used position or proximity to determine which member of the group to attack. If that was the case, though, then I can see how it would be player-created.
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
Sorry if you were expecting me to start with a clear definition. All I will say in this OP is that we seem to have some minor dispute to what the trinity actually is in threads that are trying to discuss it's pro's and cons so I thought it might be beneficial if we could actually define it. The name suggest it is three parts and I myself (up until recently) thought it was commonly accepted that it was in relation to the reliance of three primary roles, tank, healer and dps.
A quick search on the internet may also lead you to this way of thinking, one of the first hits I got on google was from gamasutra. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132607/rethinking_the_trinity_of_mmo_.php?print=1 "One common design in MMORPGs is the "holy trinity" of class roles: Tank, Healer, and DPS (or damage dealers). As most games are about combat, these roles are about how damage is handled: Tanks can mitigate incoming damage from enemies, healers restore damage done from enemies, and DPS classes do damage to enemies."
Now we seem to have people claiming that the trinity is not even about roles just about taunt mechanics which I found surprising yet they were from some posters that I find to be generally knowledge.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Are you really looking for the definitive meaning of an MMO term that is used (or misused if you prefer) by players to simplify the types of skills needed to complete a group event successfully?
It means what the people who use it in a particular game want it to mean. And in most modern MMOs you can just look at the chat of players trying to form a group to know what it means to them. It's healer, tank, DPS they look for.
So whatever it originally meant (other than an old bearded dude his son and a pigeon) or how people have used it in the past is irrelevant. Today in MMOs it means what we understand it to mean when we're trying to form a group.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but it lacks what we most commonly associate with triinity since there are no healers in the game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but it lacks what we most commonly associate with triinity since there are no healers in the game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
You're going on about 'aggro-based'. That's...kinda silly, no?
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
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but its not a trinity based game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
In a trinity based mechanic (threat tables with snap aggro/taunts) the only role that is and has been consistent, the only role that matters, is the tank. From then to now all the other roles have changed shape and definition. It was CC + Healer and now it's DPS + Healer, although it could be argued those definitions are overly broad an inaccurate. The common core of that is the tank. It always has been and always will be, in a trinity based combat mechanic. The other two legs that make up the trinity can change.
That doesn't mean there aren't two other roles that are needed, but that the trinity isn't defined by those roles. Every role needs some damage or the mob doesn't die. What those two roles are is irrelevant if combat is based on threat tables and the first role is a threat generator with taunt/snap aggro.
It really surprised me how few people voted option 2. On second thought it explains a lot about the discussions here, but none the less a bit surprising.
If the mechanic is based on threat, its a threat-based mechanic.
You could have threat tables without having any roles at all so the tables clearly doesn't rely on roles. You also said that the only role that mattered was the tank, so its clearly not a trinity-based mechanic.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but it lacks what we most commonly associate with triinity since there are no healers in the game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
You're going on about 'aggro-based'. That's...kinda silly, no?
Yeah, know, threat determines aggro....
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but its not a trinity based game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
In a trinity based mechanic (threat tables with snap aggro/taunts) the only role that is and has been consistent, the only role that matters, is the tank. From then to now all the other roles have changed shape and definition. It was CC + Healer and now it's DPS + Healer, although it could be argued those definitions are overly broad an inaccurate. The common core of that is the tank. It always has been and always will be, in a trinity based combat mechanic. The other two legs that make up the trinity can change.
That doesn't mean there aren't two other roles that are needed, but that the trinity isn't defined by those roles. Every role needs some damage or the mob doesn't die. What those two roles are is irrelevant if combat is based on threat tables and the first role is a threat generator with taunt/snap aggro.
It really surprised me how few people voted option 2. On second thought it explains a lot about the discussions here, but none the less a bit surprising.
Well said.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by VikingGamer And this is why discussions about trinity combat mechanics crash and burn over and over again.
Of course, IMHO most threads turn into an argument over definitions. Since there is no agreement on them most threads crash and burn. This one just started with a definition.
Basically, it is about the tank taunting and the healer healing him.
There are far more other roles than just DPS, we seen stuff like possesing mobs, theives finding traps, buffers and a bunch of other varieties but it all comes down to the co-operation between taunts and heals.
None trinity games can have healers, like Guildwars monk but they never have 1 player (or 2 in some cases) keeping the mobs busy whiile getting healed so the other players can do their stuff unhindered.
The trinity have been seriously washed down the last 10 years, compare EQ in 1999 with a modern game, but the basics stands as they did in Meridian 59 1996 (and as some people pointed out in certain MUDs before that).
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but it lacks what we most commonly associate with triinity since there are no healers in the game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
You're going on about 'aggro-based'. That's...kinda silly, no?
Yeah, know, threat determines aggro....
And we are talking abut a specific type - taunt. It is what defines the trinity.
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
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but its not a trinity based game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
In a trinity based mechanic (threat tables with snap aggro/taunts) the only role that is and has been consistent, the only role that matters, is the tank. From then to now all the other roles have changed shape and definition. It was CC + Healer and now it's DPS + Healer, although it could be argued those definitions are overly broad an inaccurate. The common core of that is the tank. It always has been and always will be, in a trinity based combat mechanic. The other two legs that make up the trinity can change.
That doesn't mean there aren't two other roles that are needed, but that the trinity isn't defined by those roles. Every role needs some damage or the mob doesn't die. What those two roles are is irrelevant if combat is based on threat tables and the first role is a threat generator with taunt/snap aggro.
It really surprised me how few people voted option 2. On second thought it explains a lot about the discussions here, but none the less a bit surprising.
If the mechanic is based on threat, its a threat-based mechanic.
You could have threat tables without having any roles at all so the tables clearly doesn't rely on roles. You also said that the only role that mattered was the tank, so its clearly not a trinity-based mechanic.
Yes, and we call that threat-based taunt system.... THE TRINITY!
The key is threat tables with the primary role being a threat generator with taunts/snap-aggro.
Did you read for comprehension? I said that only one role was definitive. There are two other roles and having those other roles is necessary. What those roles are isn't necessary to the definition of the trinity at all. History and the evolution and various iterations of the system have shown this to be true.
You call a threat-based system the trinity when it has nothing to do with three of something. That makes absolutely no sense.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but its not a trinity based game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
In a trinity based mechanic (threat tables with snap aggro/taunts) the only role that is and has been consistent, the only role that matters, is the tank. From then to now all the other roles have changed shape and definition. It was CC + Healer and now it's DPS + Healer, although it could be argued those definitions are overly broad an inaccurate. The common core of that is the tank. It always has been and always will be, in a trinity based combat mechanic. The other two legs that make up the trinity can change.
That doesn't mean there aren't two other roles that are needed, but that the trinity isn't defined by those roles. Every role needs some damage or the mob doesn't die. What those two roles are is irrelevant if combat is based on threat tables and the first role is a threat generator with taunt/snap aggro.
It really surprised me how few people voted option 2. On second thought it explains a lot about the discussions here, but none the less a bit surprising.
If the mechanic is based on threat, its a threat-based mechanic.
You could have threat tables without having any roles at all so the tables clearly doesn't rely on roles. You also said that the only role that mattered was the tank, so its clearly not a trinity-based mechanic.
Yes, and we call that threat-based taunt system.... THE TRINITY!
The key is threat tables with the primary role being a threat generator with taunts/snap-aggro.
Did you read for comprehension? I said that only one role was definitive. There are two other roles and having those other roles is necessary. What those roles are isn't necessary to the definition of the trinity at all. History and the evolution and various iterations of the system have shown this to be true.
You call a threat-based system the trinity when it has nothing to do with three of something. That makes absolutely no sense.
That players looked at it and came up with the name 'trinity' is immaterial. It's like complaining about the DAoCers that called any two-boxing or buff character a 'bot'.
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
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but its not a trinity based game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
In a trinity based mechanic (threat tables with snap aggro/taunts) the only role that is and has been consistent, the only role that matters, is the tank. From then to now all the other roles have changed shape and definition. It was CC + Healer and now it's DPS + Healer, although it could be argued those definitions are overly broad an inaccurate. The common core of that is the tank. It always has been and always will be, in a trinity based combat mechanic. The other two legs that make up the trinity can change.
That doesn't mean there aren't two other roles that are needed, but that the trinity isn't defined by those roles. Every role needs some damage or the mob doesn't die. What those two roles are is irrelevant if combat is based on threat tables and the first role is a threat generator with taunt/snap aggro.
It really surprised me how few people voted option 2. On second thought it explains a lot about the discussions here, but none the less a bit surprising.
If the mechanic is based on threat, its a threat-based mechanic.
You could have threat tables without having any roles at all so the tables clearly doesn't rely on roles. You also said that the only role that mattered was the tank, so its clearly not a trinity-based mechanic.
Yes, and we call that threat-based taunt system.... THE TRINITY!
The key is threat tables with the primary role being a threat generator with taunts/snap-aggro.
Did you read for comprehension? I said that only one role was definitive. There are two other roles and having those other roles is necessary. What those roles are isn't necessary to the definition of the trinity at all. History and the evolution and various iterations of the system have shown this to be true.
You call a threat-based system the trinity when it has nothing to do with three of something. That makes absolutely no sense.
That players looked at it and came up with the name 'trinity' is immaterial. It's like complaining about the DAoCers that called any two-boxing or buff character a 'bot'.
I know people started to use the term trinity interchangeable when talking about both threat-based systems and group roles sometime around when wotlk was released, just like people started calling everything MMO's a few years back.
I just find that its a poor way of describing things, and I wish people would say threat-based systems or group roles instead of just using trinity for everything since it always cause confusion.
When people say trinity, i immediately think of tanks, healers and damage dealers. Given the polls I am clearly not alone in thinking that way.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but its not a trinity based game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
In a trinity based mechanic (threat tables with snap aggro/taunts) the only role that is and has been consistent, the only role that matters, is the tank. From then to now all the other roles have changed shape and definition. It was CC + Healer and now it's DPS + Healer, although it could be argued those definitions are overly broad an inaccurate. The common core of that is the tank. It always has been and always will be, in a trinity based combat mechanic. The other two legs that make up the trinity can change.
That doesn't mean there aren't two other roles that are needed, but that the trinity isn't defined by those roles. Every role needs some damage or the mob doesn't die. What those two roles are is irrelevant if combat is based on threat tables and the first role is a threat generator with taunt/snap aggro.
It really surprised me how few people voted option 2. On second thought it explains a lot about the discussions here, but none the less a bit surprising.
If the mechanic is based on threat, its a threat-based mechanic.
You could have threat tables without having any roles at all so the tables clearly doesn't rely on roles. You also said that the only role that mattered was the tank, so its clearly not a trinity-based mechanic.
Yes, and we call that threat-based taunt system.... THE TRINITY!
The key is threat tables with the primary role being a threat generator with taunts/snap-aggro.
Did you read for comprehension? I said that only one role was definitive. There are two other roles and having those other roles is necessary. What those roles are isn't necessary to the definition of the trinity at all. History and the evolution and various iterations of the system have shown this to be true.
You call a threat-based system the trinity when it has nothing to do with three of something. That makes absolutely no sense.
Also, strawberries aren't really berries, but bananas are. Its just something you have to learn to live with.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but its not a trinity based game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
In a trinity based mechanic (threat tables with snap aggro/taunts) the only role that is and has been consistent, the only role that matters, is the tank. From then to now all the other roles have changed shape and definition. It was CC + Healer and now it's DPS + Healer, although it could be argued those definitions are overly broad an inaccurate. The common core of that is the tank. It always has been and always will be, in a trinity based combat mechanic. The other two legs that make up the trinity can change.
That doesn't mean there aren't two other roles that are needed, but that the trinity isn't defined by those roles. Every role needs some damage or the mob doesn't die. What those two roles are is irrelevant if combat is based on threat tables and the first role is a threat generator with taunt/snap aggro.
It really surprised me how few people voted option 2. On second thought it explains a lot about the discussions here, but none the less a bit surprising.
If the mechanic is based on threat, its a threat-based mechanic.
You could have threat tables without having any roles at all so the tables clearly doesn't rely on roles. You also said that the only role that mattered was the tank, so its clearly not a trinity-based mechanic.
Yes, and we call that threat-based taunt system.... THE TRINITY!
The key is threat tables with the primary role being a threat generator with taunts/snap-aggro.
Did you read for comprehension? I said that only one role was definitive. There are two other roles and having those other roles is necessary. What those roles are isn't necessary to the definition of the trinity at all. History and the evolution and various iterations of the system have shown this to be true.
You call a threat-based system the trinity when it has nothing to do with three of something. That makes absolutely no sense.
That players looked at it and came up with the name 'trinity' is immaterial. It's like complaining about the DAoCers that called any two-boxing or buff character a 'bot'.
I know people started to use the term trinity interchangeable when talking about both threat-based systems and group roles sometime around when wotlk was released, just like people started calling everything MMO's a few years back.
I just find that its a poor way of describing things, and I wish people would say threat-based systems or group roles instead of just using trinity for everything since it always cause confusion.
When people say trinity, i immediately think of tanks, healers and damage dealers. Given the polls I am clearly not alone in thinking that way.
This. I'm going to start using a disclaimer every time I mention the trinity (dps+healer+tank) from now on.
trinity is trinity we all know what it means, tank-healer-dps underpinned with a threat table and dps/hps meters. Some people are just being deliberately obtuse
non trinity also has threat based systems, but it works in a totally different way, e.g the mechanics tend to be more hidden, it tends to be only partially controllable, and its acceptable for non tank classes to seek it and use diverse strategies to cope.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
The "trinity is aggro" crowd are simply the vocal group of players who are tired of aggro mechanics and are mis-using the term (usually because they haven't put much thought into what trinity is.)
What are the issues you have with Bartle's history or definition? I'm interested in why you feel he is incorrect.
Nothing either of us said contradicts the other:
The closest he comes to defining trinity is "I don't believe for a moment I'd have gone with what we have, which is the "trinity" of tank, heals and dps." which is exactly how I define the trinity.
His history is certainly a true accounting of what happened: "With the tank came the trinity." Definitely a true statement, but it describes the creation of the final part of the whole. It doesn't define the whole.
Rather than incorrectly define the trinity as "aggro mechanics", he defines the trinity as tank/heal/DPS, and then goes on to explain that there are alternatives.
With the caveat that there are of course problems with trinity combat too, there are problems with all of the alternatives he offers, sometimes significant. For example if tanking is replaced with kiting, then it ceases being a role relegated to an individual and turns the game into a gigantic kite-fest; maybe there's some aesthetic where kite-centric gameplay makes sense (a horror MMORPG?) but most of the popular game aesthetics are more of a 'stand and fight' style where continually running while the boss chases you wouldn't fit.
The true path forward would be to describe a new multi-role system where each role sounded enjoyable (a game unto itself) and made sense in the aesthetic of the game it was part of. The current trinity is just about the purest form of that thought exercise, focusing on the simplest elements possible (managing how health is lost and gained.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard So many ignorant votes and answers when the obvious reason is poll option number 2. What makes the "trinity" (even if there are more than 3 roles... which is even more funny) is the threat/taunt based combat.
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but its not a trinity based game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
In a trinity based mechanic (threat tables with snap aggro/taunts) the only role that is and has been consistent, the only role that matters, is the tank. From then to now all the other roles have changed shape and definition. It was CC + Healer and now it's DPS + Healer, although it could be argued those definitions are overly broad an inaccurate. The common core of that is the tank. It always has been and always will be, in a trinity based combat mechanic. The other two legs that make up the trinity can change.
That doesn't mean there aren't two other roles that are needed, but that the trinity isn't defined by those roles. Every role needs some damage or the mob doesn't die. What those two roles are is irrelevant if combat is based on threat tables and the first role is a threat generator with taunt/snap aggro.
It really surprised me how few people voted option 2. On second thought it explains a lot about the discussions here, but none the less a bit surprising.
If the mechanic is based on threat, its a threat-based mechanic.
You could have threat tables without having any roles at all so the tables clearly doesn't rely on roles. You also said that the only role that mattered was the tank, so its clearly not a trinity-based mechanic.
Yes, and we call that threat-based taunt system.... THE TRINITY!
The key is threat tables with the primary role being a threat generator with taunts/snap-aggro.
Did you read for comprehension? I said that only one role was definitive. There are two other roles and having those other roles is necessary. What those roles are isn't necessary to the definition of the trinity at all. History and the evolution and various iterations of the system have shown this to be true.
You call a threat-based system the trinity when it has nothing to do with three of something. That makes absolutely no sense.
That players looked at it and came up with the name 'trinity' is immaterial. It's like complaining about the DAoCers that called any two-boxing or buff character a 'bot'.
I know people started to use the term trinity interchangeable when talking about both threat-based systems and group roles sometime around when wotlk was released, just like people started calling everything MMO's a few years back.
I just find that its a poor way of describing things, and I wish people would say threat-based systems or group roles instead of just using trinity for everything since it always cause confusion.
When people say trinity, i immediately think of tanks, healers and damage dealers. Given the polls I am clearly not alone in thinking that way.
And thats all fine and dandy, but DEFINING trait of that system is taunt because it wouldnt work otherwise.
As you can see, people argue that actual roles have changed through the time, but ONLY constant is TAUNT mecahnic. Its perfectly viable to have trinity without healers and heavy CC. But what you still have - TAUNT mechanic.
People take current setup as tank-heal-DPS as gratned because it pretty much only one used. Hard CC/buff/debuff was phased out for obvious reasons. Buff bots....yeah, noone wants to play that.
And no, if you did not have taunt it wouldnt be called trinity (you see it quite nicely on these forums, GW2 has roles and threat mechanic, that obviously works quite differently than trinity) but it isnt called trinity, in fact its proclalimed "anti-trinity"....ill put it mildly)
So you may petition for changing what it means, but when someone says trinity it means same thing for 15-ish years now, nether has developers stance on tirnity changed in those same 15-ish years.
Comments
Trinity was what was considered needed for the core of a group in EQ. You had someone to take the damage, someone to heal and someone to support those 2. if you had those 3 you could do pretty much anything outside of raid.
Back in the days, many considered it warrior, cleric, chanter. But it could be anything that worked, paladin, druid, monk would still be a trinity, or SK, shaman, bard. Anything that allowed you to tackled on the content. It was never a strict set of classes but many considered it a set of roles: tank, healer, support.
Now what it is today is anyones guess, it's shooting all over the place.
I think Malabooga kind of summed it up.
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
Dude, I have no idea who or what your coworkers or colleagues are and I have no idea why you're making it an important discriminant. If trinity means the same to you and your colleagues and it doesn't for the rest of the world, then I guess you guys are the ones that need to adjust. I honestly thought you were just making an example.
My point was trinity doesn't mean what you think it means to some people. (Also, I made some more points, but you ignored them...)
I agree that it means tank + healer + dps. Now we disagree on the whole system around it. I believe that as long as there are a character that tries to take damage, a character that aids those who take damage and a character that does damage to the enemy, then there is the trinity. You agree with that only as long as an aggro system is in place. I believe that is our difference in opinion, no?
Except you and Malabooga aren't saying the same thing.If you have an AI that will attack the first thing it sees and never change its target afterwards, you don't even need threat tables to have a tank. I think its pretty safe assumption that it came from players first.
This is why I prefer the term "aggro manipulation" instead; because neither taunts or threat tables are a requirement to be able to tank.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
He works in the video game industry. That would make it relevant.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I understand that was/is common in MMOs, but with MUDs I didn't realize that was a thing, as it seemed the most common system was an encounter occurred, and then the mobs/players attacked in order of speed/initiative/surprise/etc. I didn't know many MUDs used position or proximity to determine which member of the group to attack. If that was the case, though, then I can see how it would be player-created.
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
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html
/end thread
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Are you really looking for the definitive meaning of an MMO term that is used (or misused if you prefer) by players to simplify the types of skills needed to complete a group event successfully?
It means what the people who use it in a particular game want it to mean. And in most modern MMOs you can just look at the chat of players trying to form a group to know what it means to them. It's healer, tank, DPS they look for.
So whatever it originally meant (other than an old bearded dude his son and a pigeon) or how people have used it in the past is irrelevant. Today in MMOs it means what we understand it to mean when we're trying to form a group.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Problem is that you answer the wrong question. Aggro/hate/threat is about determing mobs target, while trinity is discussing roles, most particularly the reliance on strong tanks and healers. You can have combat rely on tank, healer and damage dealers without having hate/threat charts and you can have hate/threat based mob targetting without relying on both tanks and healers.
Blade&soul has aggro-based combat, but it lacks what we most commonly associate with triinity since there are no healers in the game, same thing goes for quite a lot of other korean games with action combat.
You're going on about 'aggro-based'. That's...kinda silly, no?
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
If the mechanic is based on threat, its a threat-based mechanic.
You could have threat tables without having any roles at all so the tables clearly doesn't rely on roles. You also said that the only role that mattered was the tank, so its clearly not a trinity-based mechanic.
All die, so die well.
Yeah, know, threat determines aggro....
Well said.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Of course, IMHO most threads turn into an argument over definitions. Since there is no agreement on them most threads crash and burn. This one just started with a definition.
Basically, it is about the tank taunting and the healer healing him.
There are far more other roles than just DPS, we seen stuff like possesing mobs, theives finding traps, buffers and a bunch of other varieties but it all comes down to the co-operation between taunts and heals.
None trinity games can have healers, like Guildwars monk but they never have 1 player (or 2 in some cases) keeping the mobs busy whiile getting healed so the other players can do their stuff unhindered.
The trinity have been seriously washed down the last 10 years, compare EQ in 1999 with a modern game, but the basics stands as they did in Meridian 59 1996 (and as some people pointed out in certain MUDs before that).
And we are talking abut a specific type - taunt. It is what defines the trinity.
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
You call a threat-based system the trinity when it has nothing to do with three of something. That makes absolutely no sense.
That players looked at it and came up with the name 'trinity' is immaterial. It's like complaining about the DAoCers that called any two-boxing or buff character a 'bot'.
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
I know people started to use the term trinity interchangeable when talking about both threat-based systems and group roles sometime around when wotlk was released, just like people started calling everything MMO's a few years back.
I just find that its a poor way of describing things, and I wish people would say threat-based systems or group roles instead of just using trinity for everything since it always cause confusion.
When people say trinity, i immediately think of tanks, healers and damage dealers. Given the polls I am clearly not alone in thinking that way.
Also, strawberries aren't really berries, but bananas are. Its just something you have to learn to live with.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
This. I'm going to start using a disclaimer every time I mention the trinity (dps+healer+tank) from now on.
Cheers
trinity is trinity we all know what it means, tank-healer-dps underpinned with a threat table and dps/hps meters. Some people are just being deliberately obtuse
non trinity also has threat based systems, but it works in a totally different way, e.g the mechanics tend to be more hidden, it tends to be only partially controllable, and its acceptable for non tank classes to seek it and use diverse strategies to cope.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Nothing either of us said contradicts the other:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And thats all fine and dandy, but DEFINING trait of that system is taunt because it wouldnt work otherwise.
As you can see, people argue that actual roles have changed through the time, but ONLY constant is TAUNT mecahnic. Its perfectly viable to have trinity without healers and heavy CC. But what you still have - TAUNT mechanic.
People take current setup as tank-heal-DPS as gratned because it pretty much only one used. Hard CC/buff/debuff was phased out for obvious reasons. Buff bots....yeah, noone wants to play that.
And no, if you did not have taunt it wouldnt be called trinity (you see it quite nicely on these forums, GW2 has roles and threat mechanic, that obviously works quite differently than trinity) but it isnt called trinity, in fact its proclalimed "anti-trinity"....ill put it mildly)
So you may petition for changing what it means, but when someone says trinity it means same thing for 15-ish years now, nether has developers stance on tirnity changed in those same 15-ish years.