...one crappy sequel that didn't work out is proof that something completely irrelevant to it works?
ok. I can certainly see your perspective now. I wouldn't be able to do anything else but spam one rotation for the rest of my life either if I had your methods of deduction
Yes, because your class only has 1 rotation [/sarcasm]. Does your brain even lift bro? It seems pretty weak. Let me sum it up for you why you are so ignorant. Sherlock Holmes said, (and I quote)
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
You clearly haven't played GW2 or you would know bringing 5 people together without designated roles is a complete mess. It is possible to do it if you plan beforehand, but then only guilds and groups of friends would be able to do dungeons. But by all means, keep pretending to know what you are talking about.
You clearly haven't played GW2 or you would know bringing 5 people together without designated roles is a complete mess.
A few points:
"Designated roles" =/= "holy trinity;"
"holy trinity" =/= "the only way teamwork can happen;"
"GW2" =/= "the only MMO ever where the trinity wasn't king."
There are multiple ways to design designated roles (and overlap thereof) that allow non-trinity synergies that work - some of which can come out of analyzing and re-imagining the trinity roles themselves. Expand your mind, man!
Yes, because your class only has 1 rotation [/sarcasm]. Does your brain even lift bro? It seems pretty weak. Let me sum it up for you why you are so ignorant. Sherlock Holmes said, (and I quote)
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
You clearly haven't played GW2 or you would know bringing 5 people together without designated roles is a complete mess. It is possible to do it if you plan beforehand, but then only guilds and groups of friends would be able to do dungeons. But by all means, keep pretending to know what you are talking about.
I guess LoL, dota2, d2, killing floor, vindictus, awesomenauts, and TF2 are all complete messes then
"holy trinity" =/= "the only way teamwork can happen;"
"GW2" =/= "the only MMO ever where the trinity wasn't king."
There are multiple ways to design designated roles (and overlap thereof) that allow non-trinity synergies that work - some of which can come out of analyzing and re-imagining the trinity roles themselves. Expand your mind, man!
I like how you tell me to expand my mind yet simply give vague responses. You are such a tool.
"Designated Roles" =/= "Holy Trinity" - Yes but the holy trinity is still the most effective designated roles, so your point is invalidated.
"holy trinity =/= the only way teamwork can happen" - yes I know I acknowledged this if you ACTUALLY READ MY POST.
"GW2 =/= the only MMO ever where the trinity wasn't king." no ****? but it provides a perfect example of why it's necessary. It provides organization.
Please let me know when you actually "re-imagine" more effective roles than the holy trinity. You are just theorizing like the last guy. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. Please come down from your pipe dreams.
I like how you tell me to expand my mind yet simply give vague responses. You are such a tool.
"Designated Roles" =/= "Holy Trinity" - Yes but the holy trinity is still the most effective way of doing this. So your point is invalidated.
"holy trinity =/= the only way teamwork can happen" - yes I know I acknowledged this if you ACTUALLY READ MY POST.
"GW2 =/= the only MMO ever where the trinity wasn't king." no ****? but it provides a perfect example of why it's necessary. It provides organization.
Please let me know when you actually "re-imagine" more effective roles than the holy trinity. You are just theorizing like the last guy. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. Please come down from your pipe dreams.
...experience =/= theory..........seriously...you need to play more games
dnd itself was never about holy trin. and look how long that lasted
I guess LoL, dota2, d2, killing floor, vindictus, awesomenauts, and TF2 are all complete messes then
also:
lulz. believe it or not, quoting something intelligent doesn't really help you sound any less of a dumbass when said quote defeats your own argument
That's cute. Really cute. You brought up LoL, but guess what? Almost every pro team has A support, a tank, a nuker and a carry when they play. Keep trying you plebeian. And by the way, TF2 has a tank and healer combo rofl. Heavy + Medic are still the best ways of pushing to enemy points.
That's cute. Really cute. You brought up LoL, but guess what? Almost every pro team has A support, a tank, a nuker and a carry when they play. Keep trying you plebeian. And by the way, TF2 has a tank and healer combo rofl. Heavy + Medic are still the best ways of pushing to enemy points.
...and your 2 counter examples are missing healer and dps.................so you just defeated yourself..........................................................again...
I dunno about you, but "support, a tank, a nuker and a carry" doesn't sound like 5 dpses and a complete mess to me
...and your 2 counter examples are missing healer and dps.................so you just defeated yourself..........................................................again...
I dunno about you, but "support, a tank, a nuker and a carry" doesn't sound like 5 dpses and a complete mess to me
At this point you are either a troll or just really stupid. A nuker and carry both function as DPS. Soldier, Sniper, Scout, Pyro, Demolition. Pick one. I'm done with you man. No point in arguing with someone so misinformed.
I like how you tell me to expand my mind yet simply give vague responses. You are such a tool.
"Designated Roles" =/= "Holy Trinity" - Yes but the holy trinity is still the most effective way of doing this. So your point is invalidated.
Proof, please, that the trinity is the most effective way. Preferrably without pointing out that "that's how it's always been done" or something similar.
"holy trinity =/= the only way teamwork can happen" - yes I know I acknowledged this if you ACTUALLY READ MY POST.
Glad we can agree on something - but by agreeing, you're sort of pulling the rug out from your own argument. You may be misunderstanding the motive of the people who write against the trinity... but more on that later.
"GW2 =/= the only MMO ever where the trinity wasn't king." no ****? but it provides a perfect example of why it's necessary. It provides organization.
As already stated, the trinity is not the only way to provide organization, nor have you shown that it is necessarily the best way.
Please let me know when you actually "re-imagine" more effective roles than the holy trinity. You are just theorizing like the last guy. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. Please come down from your pipe dreams.
How many "trinity" games feature a dedicated controller? Or a dedicated buffer? Or a dedicated debuffer? The very existence of any one of these could functionally replace a tank or healer, but generally most games trivialize these functions as "support" clickables for the classic three roles.
As an example, think about a tank's job. A big part of that job is to prevent damage to other members of the team by taking the damage on him/herself - however, both controllers and debuffers could also prevent a similar level of damage, while buffers could tip the balance of damage-in / damage-out in the party's favor. Now apply similar reasoning to the healing role - how could you make it just one of several different options, rather than the only option?
If you'd had the chance to play "City of Heroes," you would have seen this in action - throw a controller or a Dark defender (debuffer) on a team, and suddenly you didn't need a tank as much. "Champions Online" has a bit of this as well, though not nearly to the same extent as CoH.
Or how about utility roles like, say, tracking, or picking locks, or disarming traps (or any of the other D&D classics)? In DDO, you don't bring a rogue along for the DPS (sure, they can DPS, but so can rangers, wizards, and certain types of fighters). You bring them for their utility, because locks, traps, and secret doors actually play a significant role in the game's experience.
As a final note (but nowhere close to my final word on the subject), think about the different ways one could "tank." It's usually all about hit points and damage resistance - but what about, say "avoidance" tanks, who do their job by getting the enemy's attention and use mobility or defense buffs to avoid getting hit?
Would any of these examples be "better" than the trinity? Not necessarily, but there's nothing saying they'd be worse. Certainly they'd add more variety and therefore more interest to fights, which is what people who bash the trinity are generally after. Please note that I am definitely not saying we should remove or replace tanks and healers. Rather, I'm saying that I'd like to see other means of achieving similar ends just as effectively, so that there's more variety in gameplay.
In my pen-and-paper D&D, clerics were front-line fighters who happened to have some heals, and thieves were all about scouting and burgling (instead of the dps). Not sure why people think the trinity started with D&D...
It didn't, it became identifiable and really well defined in World of Warcraft. In D&D 3.x, rogues had alot more going on than damage, in fact their damage was situational, warriors could tank but more often were well armored dps, and mages weren't defenseless clothies, they could ramp their mitigation and AC up higher than almost anyone through spells. So the Holy Trinity was a by product of WoW, not D&D
At this point you are either a troll or just really stupid. A nuker and carry both function as DPS. Soldier, Sniper, Scout, Pyro, Demolition. Pick one. I'm done with you man. No point in arguing with someone so misinformed.
I still don't see anything that looks like a healer on your lol dream team
also, scout dps?
...none of the other ones would even make an effective trio anyways besides soldier/heavy/med
I'm not even arguing anymore. I'm just laughing at you
I can't understand some of the vitriol in this thread. Some people like more defined roles tied to specific classes, some people don't. NW seems to stand on a tenuous middle ground when it comes to how clearly defined the roles of its classes actually play out given its action-based combat. For example, take the final boss of the Sky-Pirate area dungeon; he can be tanked by anyone with enough "twitch" to move out of his attack fields. However there are other bosses with functionally undodgeable autoattacks that really do need a desginated tank. Like it or dislike it, these are descriptive facts.
A couple of general comments that aren't really aimed at responding to particular points:
I played GW2 casually, meaning no regularly scheduled guild runs. I did every dungeon on story mode and a few on exploration--all with PuGs. My experience was mixed, but generally very positive. I can't recall a single run we were absoultely unable to complete (unlike a few PuGs in NW). Yes, the combat is hectic. It's controlled chaos, with everyone doing everything. You still need to be alert and know how your class works though; you can't sit back, spam a button and collect "lootz." I understand some people didn't like that. But NW is not GW2--nor should it be. It has its own schtick and it's still finding its footing. I guess my response to some of the back and forth about GW2 is simply: "meh." Like it, don't like it, whatever?
I've been enjoying combat in NW so far. Boss fights could be a little better tuned (e.g., fewer adds/change which adds spawn/when they spawn, etc.), but I like the action-based combat and limited self-healing. I think the relatively "soft" class associated roles in NW are present in the 4e source material. Yeah, you have the Defender/Leader/Controller/Striker categories, but the roles were still pretty fuzzy with each class (e.g., you could build a more controllery rogue or a more leadery paladin). I suspect that the "role" categories were actually kind of responsive to MMOs; WotC wanted to make the DnD experience more accessible for the MMO playing masses. So really, the final NW product is a funky sort of double reflected (refracted?) response to a response: an MMO's response to a pen and paper game responding to MMOs.
TLDR: what the nuts, enjoy the game or don't; it's got its own thing going on which is still in flux so just ride it out.
Comments
Yes, because your class only has 1 rotation [/sarcasm]. Does your brain even lift bro? It seems pretty weak. Let me sum it up for you why you are so ignorant. Sherlock Holmes said, (and I quote)
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
You clearly haven't played GW2 or you would know bringing 5 people together without designated roles is a complete mess. It is possible to do it if you plan beforehand, but then only guilds and groups of friends would be able to do dungeons. But by all means, keep pretending to know what you are talking about.
- "Designated roles" =/= "holy trinity;"
- "holy trinity" =/= "the only way teamwork can happen;"
- "GW2" =/= "the only MMO ever where the trinity wasn't king."
There are multiple ways to design designated roles (and overlap thereof) that allow non-trinity synergies that work - some of which can come out of analyzing and re-imagining the trinity roles themselves. Expand your mind, man!The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
I guess LoL, dota2, d2, killing floor, vindictus, awesomenauts, and TF2 are all complete messes then
also: lulz. believe it or not, quoting something intelligent doesn't really help you sound any less of a dumbass when said quote defeats your own argument
I like how you tell me to expand my mind yet simply give vague responses. You are such a tool.
"Designated Roles" =/= "Holy Trinity" - Yes but the holy trinity is still the most effective designated roles, so your point is invalidated.
"holy trinity =/= the only way teamwork can happen" - yes I know I acknowledged this if you ACTUALLY READ MY POST.
"GW2 =/= the only MMO ever where the trinity wasn't king." no ****? but it provides a perfect example of why it's necessary. It provides organization.
Please let me know when you actually "re-imagine" more effective roles than the holy trinity. You are just theorizing like the last guy. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. Please come down from your pipe dreams.
...experience =/= theory..........seriously...you need to play more games
dnd itself was never about holy trin. and look how long that lasted
That's cute. Really cute. You brought up LoL, but guess what? Almost every pro team has A support, a tank, a nuker and a carry when they play. Keep trying you plebeian. And by the way, TF2 has a tank and healer combo rofl. Heavy + Medic are still the best ways of pushing to enemy points.
...and your 2 counter examples are missing healer and dps.................so you just defeated yourself..........................................................again...
I dunno about you, but "support, a tank, a nuker and a carry" doesn't sound like 5 dpses and a complete mess to me
At this point you are either a troll or just really stupid. A nuker and carry both function as DPS. Soldier, Sniper, Scout, Pyro, Demolition. Pick one. I'm done with you man. No point in arguing with someone so misinformed.
As an example, think about a tank's job. A big part of that job is to prevent damage to other members of the team by taking the damage on him/herself - however, both controllers and debuffers could also prevent a similar level of damage, while buffers could tip the balance of damage-in / damage-out in the party's favor. Now apply similar reasoning to the healing role - how could you make it just one of several different options, rather than the only option?
If you'd had the chance to play "City of Heroes," you would have seen this in action - throw a controller or a Dark defender (debuffer) on a team, and suddenly you didn't need a tank as much. "Champions Online" has a bit of this as well, though not nearly to the same extent as CoH.
Or how about utility roles like, say, tracking, or picking locks, or disarming traps (or any of the other D&D classics)? In DDO, you don't bring a rogue along for the DPS (sure, they can DPS, but so can rangers, wizards, and certain types of fighters). You bring them for their utility, because locks, traps, and secret doors actually play a significant role in the game's experience.
As a final note (but nowhere close to my final word on the subject), think about the different ways one could "tank." It's usually all about hit points and damage resistance - but what about, say "avoidance" tanks, who do their job by getting the enemy's attention and use mobility or defense buffs to avoid getting hit?
Would any of these examples be "better" than the trinity? Not necessarily, but there's nothing saying they'd be worse. Certainly they'd add more variety and therefore more interest to fights, which is what people who bash the trinity are generally after. Please note that I am definitely not saying we should remove or replace tanks and healers. Rather, I'm saying that I'd like to see other means of achieving similar ends just as effectively, so that there's more variety in gameplay.
The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
It didn't, it became identifiable and really well defined in World of Warcraft. In D&D 3.x, rogues had alot more going on than damage, in fact their damage was situational, warriors could tank but more often were well armored dps, and mages weren't defenseless clothies, they could ramp their mitigation and AC up higher than almost anyone through spells. So the Holy Trinity was a by product of WoW, not D&D
I still don't see anything that looks like a healer on your lol dream team
also, scout dps?
...none of the other ones would even make an effective trio anyways besides soldier/heavy/med
I'm not even arguing anymore. I'm just laughing at you
A couple of general comments that aren't really aimed at responding to particular points:
I played GW2 casually, meaning no regularly scheduled guild runs. I did every dungeon on story mode and a few on exploration--all with PuGs. My experience was mixed, but generally very positive. I can't recall a single run we were absoultely unable to complete (unlike a few PuGs in NW). Yes, the combat is hectic. It's controlled chaos, with everyone doing everything. You still need to be alert and know how your class works though; you can't sit back, spam a button and collect "lootz." I understand some people didn't like that. But NW is not GW2--nor should it be. It has its own schtick and it's still finding its footing. I guess my response to some of the back and forth about GW2 is simply: "meh." Like it, don't like it, whatever?
I've been enjoying combat in NW so far. Boss fights could be a little better tuned (e.g., fewer adds/change which adds spawn/when they spawn, etc.), but I like the action-based combat and limited self-healing. I think the relatively "soft" class associated roles in NW are present in the 4e source material. Yeah, you have the Defender/Leader/Controller/Striker categories, but the roles were still pretty fuzzy with each class (e.g., you could build a more controllery rogue or a more leadery paladin). I suspect that the "role" categories were actually kind of responsive to MMOs; WotC wanted to make the DnD experience more accessible for the MMO playing masses. So really, the final NW product is a funky sort of double reflected (refracted?) response to a response: an MMO's response to a pen and paper game responding to MMOs.
TLDR: what the nuts, enjoy the game or don't; it's got its own thing going on which is still in flux so just ride it out.