DPS jobs lacking utility?

[ItMe]

snip

That was a very long post, so forgive me if I'm summing it up improperly, but... through all that it doesn't sound like you're contesting the notion that a game using the trinity isn't an inherently bad thing.
It sounds like you're primarily asserting that the trinity so solidly separating each role generally leads to less "complex" role expression in gameplay, and this is bad.
You draw a direct link between "complexity" and "good" with statements like this:

Some of the best (most involved, most complex) tanking experiences I've had have been in games without any dedicated tank role.

Outside of the fact that I find trinity = simpler expression is more of a game by game thing and not something that can generally be regarded as true or false, you present less complex expression as a negative. However, along with Payadopa's notion that trinity = a bad sign, I'm also not sure that less complex role expression is an inherently bad thing.
You bring up emnity as an example, however the forums aren't even of one mind on wether or not enmity getting simplified for Shadow Bringers was good/bad or done well/poorly. I, for one, think dealing with enmity is one of the less interesting things a boss can ask you to focus on, and am happy it's been streamlines and 5.x boss design has emphasized other things.
You like complexity. That's ok. I can enjoy it too.. But less complex = less good is too broad and sweeping a notion for me.

Also, is the conversation supposed to be about the trinity then?
Because I'm still reasonably sure that for the person I was responding to the trinity wasn't actually the core of their grievances.
If this is gonna be about the trinity, instead of focusing on wether such a trinity good or bad, or wether any individual prefers a trinity or not, I think the more valuable (and relevant) conversation would be: does FF14 use the trinity well?

(I'm sorry if it seems like I'm just being contrarian tonight)


But as an aside, to cut back to your statement I quoted earlier

Some of the best (most involved, most complex) tanking experiences I've had have been in games without any dedicated tank role.

What games were these if you don't mind my asking~

[Shurrikhan]

That was a very long post, so forgive me if I'm summing it up improperly, but... through all that it doesn't sound like you're contesting the notion that a game using the trinity isn't an inherently bad thing.

My intent was more to show that

• Payadoya isn't wrong to think that there's a correlation between trinity-centric design and shallowed out party play. Historically, there is. More so than in generalist (less trinity-based) games.
• That said, looking at games as trinity-based and non-trinity-based obscures a game's overall potential for engagement, which can be better considered a sum or product of breadth and depth.

You draw a direct link between "complexity" and "good"

That largely comes down to personal preference, though I feel it's a fairly common preference. Note, though, that the choices these days are generally between 'moderately complex' and 'very little complexity' (else I'd have to add "to a point" as disclaimer), and that personally I use the term "convolution" to describe complexity that just adds steps without adding opportunities for engagement.

I guess, to be more clear, I should also mention that the complexity I'm looking for is the kind that most leverages a game's visuals. Think, for instance, of the deliberate and granular decision making possible due to Nioh 2's incredibly precise hitboxes, as compared to chunky/bulky dodges or merely timing I-Frames. Or, in a very basic example pertinent to tanking, mobs' auto-attacks having a seemingly accurate range and their skills checking range at time of (would-be) release instead of via early snapshot, so you can better judge distances for kiting, and all the stringing, microkiting, or kite-cycling you can do as a result, ideally in an environment tuned as to make those feel like distinct and deliberate choices.

[DPZ2]

My intent was more to show that
Payadoya isn't wrong to think that there's a correlation between trinity-centric design and shallowed out party play. Historically, there is. More so than in generalist (less trinity-based) games.

Are we speaking of MMORPG in particular, or games in general here?

I also wouldn't quantify Payadoya's argument as "trinity=shallowed out party play". It's specifically trinity = "No job is allowed to stand out and [press button to make damage go up/down] is just no fun to use."

I don't know which other MMORPG's they've played, but the successful ones tend to make it so 'no job is allowed to stand out' for a reason.

That said, looking at games as trinity-based and non-trinity-based obscures a game's overall potential for engagement, which can be better considered a sum or product of breadth and depth.

What does this mean? I read a lot of buzzwords, but the substance of the sentence is, what exactly?

That largely comes down to personal preference

And here is the heart of the matter. Your further references to kiting bring back memories of being a Hunter in BC. Were the mechanics engaging? Yes. Was that game based on the 'trinity'? Yes.

What successful MMORPGs are out there that do not rely on the Trinity at this time? I know that question was asked before by another poster, but saw no response. You need living examples rather than theorycrafting.

[Shurrikhan]

And here is the heart of the matter. Your further references to kiting bring back memories of being a Hunter in BC. Were the mechanics engaging? Yes. Was that game based on the 'trinity'? Yes.

If we're to call words like "trinity-based" buzzwords, let's be clear here.

The ability to kite, as per "a Hunter in BC" is not, itself, trinity-based. No part of kiting relies on a tank; in fact, a tank cannot act in any "traditional" role of holding enemies in place... while kiting. Until Icy Trap (later Tar Trap) and Binding Shot, moreover, Hunter could do little to nothing with its kiting utility unless said Hunter was tanking. That requires that it's not just the tank doing the tanking. While the game as a whole might be trinity-based, that capacity is not.

What does this mean? I read a lot of buzzwords, but the substance of the sentence is, what exactly?

It's a one-sentence summary, tailored as response to the person I was quoting, of the over-700 words from my prior post to him. But, to simplify, the "buzzwords" merely follow from the basic definitions of each word.

Breadth - the distance or measurement from side to side of something; width; the extent or range of something, usually as opposite "depth".
Depth - the distance or measurement from the the distance from the top or surface to the bottom of something; the distance below the top or surface of something to which someone or something percolates or at which something happens.
Generalist - a person competent in several different fields or activities; one who has broad general knowledge and skills in several areas.

Since we're playing a trinity-based game, let us use "depth" to describe the amount of decision-making or other forms of engagement possible through a interaction or cohesive set of interactions available within a given role, and "breadth" as the access one has to those different interactions, whether in one's role or not. When the typical player character in a game tends to have broad skills and potential for engagement (more "breadth" in their kit), the design of that game is often called "generalist", as opposed to "trinity-based" (wherein roles tend to claim certain interactions as their exclusive domain).

What successful MMORPGs are out there that do not rely on the Trinity at this time? I know that question was asked before by another poster, but saw no response. You need living examples rather than theorycrafting.

I understand that, but unfortunately I've not had time to keep up on more than 2 MMOs (this and WoW, and both of those only for some scant hours per week), so I cannot say how many have since died down or out. Before I lost time to keep up in it, for instance, Blade and Soul offered some incredibly fun tag-teaming in undermanned dungeons. Is it still up and running, let alone successful? Heck, has it since increased the previously few and mild enmity modifiers available to follow a more rigidly trinity structure? I wouldn't know. It's been many years since the NA release, at which time the cap was a mere level 50.

If we judge every concept solely by the final results of the games they were included in, though, we quickly lose any perspective, let alone sample space. Was tBC bad simply because it ended up with/at Shadowlands? If XIV's next expansion somehow flops, or another contender emerges that players flock to as quickly as others have to here with WoW's fall, does that mean that cross-class actions, or BLU, or Exploration Missions, or relic grinds, etc., were a bad idea? Does the influx of players to XIV mean that massive job simplifications in the year prior were a good idea? No. We'd have to consider those concepts in and of themselves, for what opportunities they afforded or precluded for their game at the time, rather than letting our perception be jostled and buoyed by the whole.

[ItMe]

My intent was more to show that

• Payadoya isn't wrong to think that there's a correlation between trinity-centric design and shallowed out party play. Historically, there is. More so than in generalist (less trinity-based) games.

He isn't wrong to think that, but he isn't right to think that either.
You say historically there is a correlation.
I say there isn't.
Unless one of us makes an impossible comprehensive master list of RPGs with and without a trinity system and sort them by which are "shallow," I don't think we can go any further with this part of our conversation.
You must have simply played more games where this is the case, where as I must have simply played more where it is not.

Or, in a very basic example pertinent to tanking, mobs' auto-attacks having a seemingly accurate range and their skills checking range at time of (would-be) release instead of via early snapshot, so you can better judge distances for kiting, and all the stringing, microkiting, or kite-cycling you can do as a result, ideally in an environment tuned as to make those feel like distinct and deliberate choices.

For this to happen dungeons would need to be more difficult, not for class/role expression to change.
Despite the awkward snap shoting we can still kite and avoid auto attacks, and I often do in Deep Dungeons where something like that is relevant.

[Shurrikhan]

For this to happen dungeons would need to be more difficult, not for class/role expression to change.

I never argued within that example that such would require changes to "class/role expression" beyond merely tanks being capable of more than mere meat-tanking DPS-play with an auxiliary sequence of CDs thrown atop (at this point, with no effect on anything else in one's play).

But let's be clear: it would require both. Difficulty makes the gameplay loops relevant, largely by preventing you from (timely) clears without partaking in that gameplay, but its the game, its code, and its engine, themselves, that determine whether those gameplay loops are even possible.

No matter how punishing you make it not to do something, you cannot suddenly do what the game's engine isn't capable of doing. XIV allows only for a very poor imitation of precision; if it wanted to make the adjacent gameplay relevant, it'd need to be capable of that gameplay. It's not. There's reason Asmongold, for instance, received only pained chuckles and moans when he attempted to dodge out of range of enemy strikes between his swings with anything less than Sprint and an 10-yalm headstart.