I agree with the OP. Holy trinity doesn't make any sense. This is why it all falls apart to crap in PVP. ...
Then it is NOT broken. The whole point of games is to entertain, and NOT to be realistic. Are FPS realistics? You shoot horde and horde of enemies without a scratch on you? Are action RPG like Diablo realistic?
None of these games are realistic anyway but they are FUN. Ditto for MMORPGs.
It is NOT broken if it is fun.
I agree Nariusseldon, it is about fun and entertainment, and if Patchday got their evil way and removed the trinity and the gameplay collapsed because of it, then yep- you'd be fully justified in saying 'told-you'so'. But by this same arguement if a game was fun yet didn't have the trinity, it would still be fun. The source of the fun is the gameplay not how this gameplay is achieved, if your gameplay wont survive the radical removal of the trinity then sure, your game will generally suck for those who enjoyed that gameplay. I think patchday is asking for a game with fun gameplay but without the trinity, I believe Patch (and others) have specifically targetted the fact that the PvE components of the trinity are not the same as the PvP components, and thus can be annoying for character development (if you intend to do both) or simply due to the obvious stupidity of AI relative to PvP.
Personaly I like the idea of developing a character with a wider range of abilities and a game engine that permits me to employ them in more varied gameplay... but that need not spell the end of your fun, and thats the target here... a game thats fun for more of us, not just serving those who are very happy with what we have on offer while the rest of us either put up with it or bang our heads.
The idea that we cant find a common solution is simply ignoring the development in game play and tech that has already occured and will no doubt continue; I imagine before you learnt of the trinity you would not of cared less for its defence, well the next solution has been equally ignored.
Fascinating discussion which brings the "greedy dev" accusation into high relief for me. That is to say, gamers can't even agree on what color the sky is. How the heck are devs supposed to measure something with anything other than money?
Mass Effect does it right, your tank is also your heavy damage dealer as it should be, and the other classes are for CC and debuffs. And everyone can heal but engineers do it better.
Too bad they aren't doing a Mass Effect MMO.
TF2 - main tank, is also main mid range damage - sniper better for long range damage and flamer better for very short range damage. That's a game where everyone can do good damage, but everyone has a role.
Fascinating discussion which brings the "greedy dev" accusation into high relief for me. That is to say, gamers can't even agree on what color the sky is. How the heck are devs supposed to measure something with anything other than money?
Greedy Dev? Not sure I've read that in our posts, I've noted several references to devs following a sound business plan and not wanting to risk failure by experimentation. Thats not greedy its careful. Of course real success doesn't usually come with following the crowd, the blue chips do that very well all by themselves, its usually the innovator thats well rewarded... please dont list all the naff ideas that have paid up very nicely, I know theres a lot, but even naff ideas can be crowd pleasers.
I dont think it should be the place of the dev however to be measuring anything by money, the software house and the publisher definitely; but not the devs actually designing and building the games they should be aiming for the sky (whatever colour they think it should be). Let the marketting guys say yay/nay, that way we can hate faceless suits rather than fellow gamers, who will hopefully get sick of the rubbish and be inspired to build the next gen of games.
Fascinating discussion which brings the "greedy dev" accusation into high relief for me. That is to say, gamers can't even agree on what color the sky is. How the heck are devs supposed to measure something with anything other than money?
Greedy Dev? Not sure I've read that in our posts, I've noted several references to devs following a sound business plan and not wanting to risk failure by experimentation. Thats not greedy its careful. Of course real success doesn't usually come with following the crowd, the blue chips do that very well all by themselves, its usually the innovator thats well rewarded... please dont list all the naff ideas that have paid up very nicely, I know theres a lot, but even naff ideas can be crowd pleasers.
I dont think it should be the place of the dev however to be measuring anything by money, the software house and the publisher definitely; but not the devs actually designing and building the games they should be aiming for the sky (whatever colour they think it should be). Let the marketting guys say yay/nay, that way we can hate faceless suits rather than fellow gamers, who will hopefully get sick of the rubbish and be inspired to build the next gen of games.
I agree the Developers want to produce the best game they can and hope the players like it, if they do not, they try to tweek their vision into something the players will be happy with. It is the Suits that ruin the games, they see only dollar and cents. They remind me of this mudsucker I caught in SF bay and placed in my saltwater tank, when I dumped goldfish in the tank, the mudsucker would have one in his mouth when another goldfish swims by, the mudsucker would release the one he had to go after that one, only to have the eel eat it before he could get to it and in the meantime the grooper ate the one the mudsucker had in the first place.
I agree with the OP. Holy trinity doesn't make any sense. This is why it all falls apart to crap in PVP.
Why? Because players are -NOT- RETARDED like NPCs. Players will take out the biggest threats first. This means, 99% of the time, you will spike that healer ASAP. You will spike him and fast before he can pull off a heal Additionally, you will always save the plate wearers for last. They most often do way less damage then your mages and rogues. Trinity has always been a broken concept used to entertain PVE'ers
Then it is NOT broken. The whole point of games is to entertain, and NOT to be realistic. Are FPS realistics? You shoot horde and horde of enemies without a scratch on you? Are action RPG like Diablo realistic?
None of these games are realistic anyway but they are FUN. Ditto for MMORPGs.
It is NOT broken if it is fun.
The point of the 'realism' i suggested is not for the sake of realism, but to make the game more interesting and immersive.
The holy trinity can be fun. It was fun for the first umteen years, but now it would be fun to do something different.
This does not mean that there would be no defined roles, and it does not mean that the fundamental gameplay mechanics would change.
As I said, even a very simple change to the STATISTICs of the game (e.g. increased damage if you are engaging more than one opponent at a time) could totally change how you play an encounter. Two simple changes (+ no combat healing) would change it even more.
I think just making those specific changes without others would be pretty hollow, but it could work, and would introduce a whole new set of strategies and dynamics. Adding aspects of "realism" (e.g. more metal on metal punctuated by very rare, one-hit "kills") could give it a more immersive "movie-like" feel, instead of just being a race to eat the green bar.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
The point of the 'realism' i suggested is not for the sake of realism, but to make the game more interesting and immersive. ... Adding aspects of "realism" (e.g. more metal on metal punctuated by very rare, one-hit "kills") could give it a more immersive "movie-like" feel, instead of just being a race to eat the green bar.
Thats exactly my view. I'm definitly looking for Movie Realism rather than real-world, most people are just as familiar with it and its been proven to be fun.
I agree with the OP. Holy trinity doesn't make any sense. This is why it all falls apart to crap in PVP.
Why? Because players are -NOT- RETARDED like NPCs. Players will take out the biggest threats first. This means, 99% of the time, you will spike that healer ASAP. You will spike him and fast before he can pull off a heal Additionally, you will always save the plate wearers for last. They most often do way less damage then your mages and rogues. Trinity has always been a broken concept used to entertain PVE'ers
Then it is NOT broken. The whole point of games is to entertain, and NOT to be realistic. Are FPS realistics? You shoot horde and horde of enemies without a scratch on you? Are action RPG like Diablo realistic?
None of these games are realistic anyway but they are FUN. Ditto for MMORPGs.
It is NOT broken if it is fun.
That's the thing- shooting retarded AIs isn't all that fun for everyone. all the time I see threads asking for advanced AI. Isn't this a joke?
You cannot have smart AI + Trinity! If AI were half as smart as human beings, Healers would die first. Period. AI will not stop til the healer is a bloody pile on the floor. And warriors would be ignored while the rest of the squishies get murdered
This is how PVP is. This is why Trinity sucks and it is not fun for players like me that would like to fight Intelligent, thinking AI for a change
1: Gasp, Warriors are gimped in most MMO. Only close range attack, heavy armor, least amount of damage. That blows. Nothing smart will go for this guy first. Nothing....
--- Solution: Give everyone armor. Yes, everyone! No sane sob will ever go into battle without armor! No one! Swat wear bullet proof vests. Army have armor. Spys got deception/deceit + never see them on any fighting field anyway. No one sane goes into any battle w/o armor!
2. Give everyone collision detection. Gasp, you afraid you will get griefed by other people? YES, collision detection may screw up somethings but in PVE/PVP its awesome. Now a Tanker can physically BLOCK incoming mobs
3. Give Mages 'etheral walls' that can block mobs. Cant be hard! Even Linkrealms, an INDIE MMO, has etheral walls. so did old DIABLO. You can use these wallks to keep mobs at bay
There. does this MMO suck for you? Well cool, keep playing WoW. It's a good game. But trust this! you'll never see a better Trinity game better then WoW! Trinity has been the same for what 30 YRS! It will NEVER evolve
Mass Effect does it right, your tank is also your heavy damage dealer as it should be, and the other classes are for CC and debuffs. And everyone can heal but engineers do it better. Too bad they aren't doing a Mass Effect MMO. TF2 - main tank, is also main mid range damage - sniper better for long range damage and flamer better for very short range damage. That's a game where everyone can do good damage, but everyone has a role.
There are obvious many different type of mechanics that can be fun. For example, cover & guns (Stargate Worlds is using this, if it ever release).
However, none of these are more realistic and the holy trinity works just as well. They are just different, and not necessarily better.
Solutions to Trinity: 1: Gasp, Warriors are gimped in most MMO. Only close range attack, heavy armor, least amount of damage. That blows. Nothing smart will go for this guy first. Nothing.... --- Solution: Give everyone armor. Yes, everyone! No sane sob will ever go into battle without armor! No one! Swat wear bullet proof vests. Army have armor. Spys got deception/deceit + never see them on any fighting field anyway. No one sane goes into any battle w/o armor!
2. Give everyone collision detection. Gasp, you afraid you will get griefed by other people? YES, collision detection may screw up somethings but in PVE/PVP its awesome. Now a Tanker can physically BLOCK incoming mobs
3. Give Mages 'etheral walls' that can block mobs. Cant be hard! Even Linkrealms, an INDIE MMO, has etheral walls. so did old DIABLO. You can use these wallks to keep mobs at bay
There. does this MMO suck for you? Well cool, keep playing WoW. It's a good game. But trust this! you'll never see a better Trinity game better then WoW! Trinity has been the same for what 30 YRS! It will NEVER evolve
Yes, collision detection is an important part of my example. I don't think everyone needs to have armor, but collision detection will make for some more interesting tactics.
There are ways to deal with the greifing part of it, such as only applying it to characters or NPCs that are "in combat" with each other (although I also think the "in combat" concept is stupid) or simply only between characters who can attack each other. So, in order to block another player, you have to be vulnerable to attack.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
I dont see that much of a problem with folk getting in the way but I'm sure it will get annoying with folk doing it on purpose, your block on combat only will get round that, to be honest I'd not considered the problem (doh).
I'd pictured it as vital for combat and a few other aspects of my game play such as trying to avoid folk by running through a crowd. I had been planning on making characters have 'rigidity' based upon stance (an issue of body size and skill use) and equipment. Hence a 'thief' would be much more nimble, while the gaurds would be much slower in a crowd due to armour, pole weapons and perhaps the simple fact that they aren't as practiced being nimble. Hence collision would be 'reduced' for the thief and they'd be able to out pace the gaurds, even those on horses who must push or even tramble the crowd (naughty). You see another example of my attempts at realism hopefully providing greater scope for game play.
Normally I completely ignore threads like this simply because it tends to be a lot of screaming about nothing with no real answers (and the topic comes up every other day) but there is some discussion here so...
I guess I'll ruin it with some ramblings :P
If you look back at the pen and paper grandfather of the modern MMO, 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons', then you will see the archetype classes such as Fighter, Cleric and Magic-User dominate the player lists. Although the game allowed for a wide variety of interpretations of the character within the confines of the class structure there were still some overriding notions about character concept inherent in the ruleset for the class.
You could make a character with any backstory, any political or religious connections, and any moral compass. Yet, if you were a mage you still only had a base 1-4 hitpoints per level and armor restrictions. Mages were exceedingly weak at low levels with few spells and little combat ability however there were effectively minor deities at higher levels. No balancing, simply a storyline. A simple fighter could rise to be a Duke or an outlaw bandit chieftain. The class structure was simply a way to allow the ruleset to interact/enter into the storyline of your hero.
Boundaries in the game don't exist to curtail your experience they are there in order to help define it.
People say they want "realism" in their character design based on a freeform-pick-skills-and-abilities as you please structure but I find that laughable.
"If I swing my sword I should get better at it" Hehehe
Accepting that characters are the special few in the world, the gifted heroes, the main characters in a vast storyline, you can give them a range of powers well above the normals/npcs. However, how many nuclear physicists do you imagine have world class pole vaulting abilities along with the skills of a cat burglar and the precision of an Olympic level archer? If everyone is Michael 'DaVinci' Jordan then it seems there is less 'realism' than if there were a samurai, a Longbowman and an engineer/sapper in a group.
I suppose I always assumed that the manipulation of arcane energies might require vast a vast amount of research and study in old libraries and castle keeps poring over dusty tomes in a very closed and secretive society. If flinging fireballs and levitating were so easy that simply doing it over and over again would gain you advanced abilities then why aren't the peasants flying? ..and why the heck do they need you to defend the town from orcs when they can blast the hordes away with a word?
You can study enough about mystic power while being a lumberjack on the weekends? I would think that a 200 pound human wielding a sword could only conquer a 2 ton troll by very advanced fighting techniques and I don't imagine you could pick those skills up in an online course from DeVry (warning credits may not transfer). Perhaps a lifetime of devotion to the weapon and a multitude of experiences in the battlefield might suffice.
How many people would be content with a character that had less than optimal stats for that matter? In AD&D you could have a fighter with a very low strength and constitution but perhaps he also had a very high Intelligence. This character might be played as a 'little general' type or a ranged fighter specializing in the blowgun.
What is missing from mmorpgs isn't necessarily a new way to see classes (although there could perhaps be more choices in many games) but a rather a lack of a real world in which to further define your character.
(Okay done rambling, I was drinking and reminiscing)
... What is missing from mmorpgs isn't necessarily a new way to see classes (although there could perhaps be more choices in many games) but a rather a lack of a real world in which to further define your character. (Okay done rambling, I was drinking and reminiscing)
Thanks for the input once again MuffinStump, and once again I must agree. To a point (surprise).
AD&D was based around the class system and it was designed to represent adventurers who spent a great deal of time away from adventuring completeing their 'day-jobs'. The combination of role on adventures and these day-jobs is what defined the skills and so the abilities of the character. And like you said, even then you had a lot more customisation within AD&D. Another game I played was WFRP, this brought the day-job even more to the fore, actually had you switching through a set of careers (that if played properly you were supposed to find and justify during roleplaying to actualy get) and from these you learnt your skills and profile advances. For me WFRP was the logical extension to AD&D, I see this trend continuing within my own design.
I also wholeheartedly agree with the very poor concept of simply learning spells as though everyone has access to them, and just to put another nail in the coffin of my design I should highlight that while everyone is capable of magic the number of those with credible abilities will (initially at least) be shockingly low. Spells (indeed whole paths of magic) will need to be developed a process taking time and effort.
The idea that anyone will have the capacity to learn all that can be learnt, indeed even be exposed to all these skills is equally shocking to me. I permit the characters access to only the skills they encounter of those willing to teach (at a cost no doubt) or ones that they can develop for themselves, and these will typically be some limited form of combat and a number of 'secondary' skills in keeping with their characters background in the world (which may be more combat). Those who want to be crafters should find themselves apprentice positions and so access to these skills or will need to develop their own, no easy feat. Magic users will either have innate skills or be fortunate enough to be enrolled in a school or as an apprentice to a magic user (typically only those with innate skills will be wanted by more capable magic users due to greater abilities and access to those innate skills for the master). Innate skills cannot be taught until understood, hence an innate user wont be able to teach his friends until he's passed through 'college' himself and so unlocked these abilities.
Yep, this means that most of the players wont have magicians and even decent crafters will be a pain to acquire. The fact is its only the crafters that would present a problem for me, I had to ensure that enough crafting is taking place for masters to be screaming out for apprentices, and my story takes care of that. As for limited numbers of magicians (initially at least) its fine for my story and although unusual in a fantasy setting shouldn't be the end the game as many (well a few) RPGs dont have magic users in them. They'll exist and some players will have them, and I imagine it wont take long before everyone has one... while the original few are rather weathly for their efforts.
You'll notice that I have indeed gone completely the opposite direction to your advice, I'm looking for more realism while you quite rightly point out that less will make things much easier, and so give you an easier time to make the game-play better. So I agree with the point, but still not giving up my efforts...
Normally I completely ignore threads like this simply because it tends to be a lot of screaming about nothing with no real answers (and the topic comes up every other day) but there is some discussion here so... I guess I'll ruin it with some ramblings :P If you look back at the pen and paper grandfather of the modern MMO, 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons', then you will see the archetype classes such as Fighter, Cleric and Magic-User dominate the player lists. Although the game allowed for a wide variety of interpretations of the character within the confines of the class structure there were still some overriding notions about character concept inherent in the ruleset for the class. You could make a character with any backstory, any political or religious connections, and any moral compass. Yet, if you were a mage you still only had a base 1-4 hitpoints per level and armor restrictions. Mages were exceedingly weak at low levels with few spells and little combat ability however there were effectively minor deities at higher levels. No balancing, simply a storyline. A simple fighter could rise to be a Duke or an outlaw bandit chieftain. The class structure was simply a way to allow the ruleset to interact/enter into the storyline of your hero. Boundaries in the game don't exist to curtail your experience they are there in order to help define it. People say they want "realism" in their character design based on a freeform-pick-skills-and-abilities as you please structure but I find that laughable. "If I swing my sword I should get better at it" Hehehe Accepting that characters are the special few in the world, the gifted heroes, the main characters in a vast storyline, you can give them a range of powers well above the normals/npcs. However, how many nuclear physicists do you imagine have world class pole vaulting abilities along with the skills of a cat burglar and the precision of an Olympic level archer? If everyone is Michael 'DaVinci' Jordan then it seems there is less 'realism' than if there were a samurai, a Longbowman and an engineer/sapper in a group. I suppose I always assumed that the manipulation of arcane energies might require vast a vast amount of research and study in old libraries and castle keeps poring over dusty tomes in a very closed and secretive society. If flinging fireballs and levitating were so easy that simply doing it over and over again would gain you advanced abilities then why aren't the peasants flying? ..and why the heck do they need you to defend the town from orcs when they can blast the hordes away with a word? You can study enough about mystic power while being a lumberjack on the weekends? I would think that a 200 pound human wielding a sword could only conquer a 2 ton troll by very advanced fighting techniques and I don't imagine you could pick those skills up in an online course from DeVry (warning credits may not transfer). Perhaps a lifetime of devotion to the weapon and a multitude of experiences in the battlefield might suffice. How many people would be content with a character that had less than optimal stats for that matter? In AD&D you could have a fighter with a very low strength and constitution but perhaps he also had a very high Intelligence. This character might be played as a 'little general' type or a ranged fighter specializing in the blowgun. What is missing from mmorpgs isn't necessarily a new way to see classes (although there could perhaps be more choices in many games) but a rather a lack of a real world in which to further define your character. (Okay done rambling, I was drinking and reminiscing)
On the one hand, there's the idea of acquiring new skills whenever you want them, but on the other, there's the concept of being able to mix and match skills, regardless of how or when you obtain them.
Those are different concepts. Some people would enjoy the ability to create a custom skillset, without the boundaries of set classes, even if it meant that the path had to be defined at character creation. Others would insist on being able to "respec" every week. I can think of ways to reflect BOTH concepts "realistically" in an MMO without making it an either/or proposition.
For instance, assuming your game utilizes skill trees instead of classes, you could give each player a set number of starting points to allocate into these trees. These points would represent a lifetime of training, and could never be changed, or if changed, only at great cost or time commitment. Then, as the player actually uses the character, he gains additional skill based on what he actually uses. This represents experience. The player could also train in new disciplines (I personally like the time-based training system of Eve), but it might come at the expense of developing other skills though experience (which could be reflected by a skill point cap as implemented in SWG), because you're right, there are very few Ph.D. astrophysicists who are also 5th degree blackbelts in jiujitsu AND virtuouso violinists. I'm sure I could find you a Ph.D. astrophysicist who is a 5th degree blackbelt in jiujitsu and pretty decent on the violin, but being an expert at all three would be pretty difficult.
But that all really has nothing to do with what I was talking about in this thread, which was combat mechanics.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Comments
Then it is NOT broken. The whole point of games is to entertain, and NOT to be realistic. Are FPS realistics? You shoot horde and horde of enemies without a scratch on you? Are action RPG like Diablo realistic?
None of these games are realistic anyway but they are FUN. Ditto for MMORPGs.
It is NOT broken if it is fun.
I agree Nariusseldon, it is about fun and entertainment, and if Patchday got their evil way and removed the trinity and the gameplay collapsed because of it, then yep- you'd be fully justified in saying 'told-you'so'. But by this same arguement if a game was fun yet didn't have the trinity, it would still be fun. The source of the fun is the gameplay not how this gameplay is achieved, if your gameplay wont survive the radical removal of the trinity then sure, your game will generally suck for those who enjoyed that gameplay. I think patchday is asking for a game with fun gameplay but without the trinity, I believe Patch (and others) have specifically targetted the fact that the PvE components of the trinity are not the same as the PvP components, and thus can be annoying for character development (if you intend to do both) or simply due to the obvious stupidity of AI relative to PvP.
Personaly I like the idea of developing a character with a wider range of abilities and a game engine that permits me to employ them in more varied gameplay... but that need not spell the end of your fun, and thats the target here... a game thats fun for more of us, not just serving those who are very happy with what we have on offer while the rest of us either put up with it or bang our heads.
The idea that we cant find a common solution is simply ignoring the development in game play and tech that has already occured and will no doubt continue; I imagine before you learnt of the trinity you would not of cared less for its defence, well the next solution has been equally ignored.
Fascinating discussion which brings the "greedy dev" accusation into high relief for me. That is to say, gamers can't even agree on what color the sky is. How the heck are devs supposed to measure something with anything other than money?
Mass Effect does it right, your tank is also your heavy damage dealer as it should be, and the other classes are for CC and debuffs. And everyone can heal but engineers do it better.
Too bad they aren't doing a Mass Effect MMO.
TF2 - main tank, is also main mid range damage - sniper better for long range damage and flamer better for very short range damage. That's a game where everyone can do good damage, but everyone has a role.
Greedy Dev? Not sure I've read that in our posts, I've noted several references to devs following a sound business plan and not wanting to risk failure by experimentation. Thats not greedy its careful. Of course real success doesn't usually come with following the crowd, the blue chips do that very well all by themselves, its usually the innovator thats well rewarded... please dont list all the naff ideas that have paid up very nicely, I know theres a lot, but even naff ideas can be crowd pleasers.
I dont think it should be the place of the dev however to be measuring anything by money, the software house and the publisher definitely; but not the devs actually designing and building the games they should be aiming for the sky (whatever colour they think it should be). Let the marketting guys say yay/nay, that way we can hate faceless suits rather than fellow gamers, who will hopefully get sick of the rubbish and be inspired to build the next gen of games.
Greedy Dev? Not sure I've read that in our posts, I've noted several references to devs following a sound business plan and not wanting to risk failure by experimentation. Thats not greedy its careful. Of course real success doesn't usually come with following the crowd, the blue chips do that very well all by themselves, its usually the innovator thats well rewarded... please dont list all the naff ideas that have paid up very nicely, I know theres a lot, but even naff ideas can be crowd pleasers.
I dont think it should be the place of the dev however to be measuring anything by money, the software house and the publisher definitely; but not the devs actually designing and building the games they should be aiming for the sky (whatever colour they think it should be). Let the marketting guys say yay/nay, that way we can hate faceless suits rather than fellow gamers, who will hopefully get sick of the rubbish and be inspired to build the next gen of games.
I agree the Developers want to produce the best game they can and hope the players like it, if they do not, they try to tweek their vision into something the players will be happy with. It is the Suits that ruin the games, they see only dollar and cents. They remind me of this mudsucker I caught in SF bay and placed in my saltwater tank, when I dumped goldfish in the tank, the mudsucker would have one in his mouth when another goldfish swims by, the mudsucker would release the one he had to go after that one, only to have the eel eat it before he could get to it and in the meantime the grooper ate the one the mudsucker had in the first place.
url=http://www.enjin.com]
[/url]
Then it is NOT broken. The whole point of games is to entertain, and NOT to be realistic. Are FPS realistics? You shoot horde and horde of enemies without a scratch on you? Are action RPG like Diablo realistic?
None of these games are realistic anyway but they are FUN. Ditto for MMORPGs.
It is NOT broken if it is fun.
The point of the 'realism' i suggested is not for the sake of realism, but to make the game more interesting and immersive.
The holy trinity can be fun. It was fun for the first umteen years, but now it would be fun to do something different.
This does not mean that there would be no defined roles, and it does not mean that the fundamental gameplay mechanics would change.
As I said, even a very simple change to the STATISTICs of the game (e.g. increased damage if you are engaging more than one opponent at a time) could totally change how you play an encounter. Two simple changes (+ no combat healing) would change it even more.
I think just making those specific changes without others would be pretty hollow, but it could work, and would introduce a whole new set of strategies and dynamics. Adding aspects of "realism" (e.g. more metal on metal punctuated by very rare, one-hit "kills") could give it a more immersive "movie-like" feel, instead of just being a race to eat the green bar.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Thats exactly my view. I'm definitly looking for Movie Realism rather than real-world, most people are just as familiar with it and its been proven to be fun.
Then it is NOT broken. The whole point of games is to entertain, and NOT to be realistic. Are FPS realistics? You shoot horde and horde of enemies without a scratch on you? Are action RPG like Diablo realistic?
None of these games are realistic anyway but they are FUN. Ditto for MMORPGs.
It is NOT broken if it is fun.
That's the thing- shooting retarded AIs isn't all that fun for everyone. all the time I see threads asking for advanced AI. Isn't this a joke?
You cannot have smart AI + Trinity! If AI were half as smart as human beings, Healers would die first. Period. AI will not stop til the healer is a bloody pile on the floor. And warriors would be ignored while the rest of the squishies get murdered
This is how PVP is. This is why Trinity sucks and it is not fun for players like me that would like to fight Intelligent, thinking AI for a change
Solutions to Trinity:
1: Gasp, Warriors are gimped in most MMO. Only close range attack, heavy armor, least amount of damage. That blows. Nothing smart will go for this guy first. Nothing....
--- Solution: Give everyone armor. Yes, everyone! No sane sob will ever go into battle without armor! No one! Swat wear bullet proof vests. Army have armor. Spys got deception/deceit + never see them on any fighting field anyway. No one sane goes into any battle w/o armor!
2. Give everyone collision detection. Gasp, you afraid you will get griefed by other people? YES, collision detection may screw up somethings but in PVE/PVP its awesome. Now a Tanker can physically BLOCK incoming mobs
3. Give Mages 'etheral walls' that can block mobs. Cant be hard! Even Linkrealms, an INDIE MMO, has etheral walls. so did old DIABLO. You can use these wallks to keep mobs at bay
There. does this MMO suck for you? Well cool, keep playing WoW. It's a good game. But trust this! you'll never see a better Trinity game better then WoW! Trinity has been the same for what 30 YRS! It will NEVER evolve
There are obvious many different type of mechanics that can be fun. For example, cover & guns (Stargate Worlds is using this, if it ever release).
However, none of these are more realistic and the holy trinity works just as well. They are just different, and not necessarily better.
Yes, collision detection is an important part of my example. I don't think everyone needs to have armor, but collision detection will make for some more interesting tactics.
There are ways to deal with the greifing part of it, such as only applying it to characters or NPCs that are "in combat" with each other (although I also think the "in combat" concept is stupid) or simply only between characters who can attack each other. So, in order to block another player, you have to be vulnerable to attack.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
I dont see that much of a problem with folk getting in the way but I'm sure it will get annoying with folk doing it on purpose, your block on combat only will get round that, to be honest I'd not considered the problem (doh).
I'd pictured it as vital for combat and a few other aspects of my game play such as trying to avoid folk by running through a crowd. I had been planning on making characters have 'rigidity' based upon stance (an issue of body size and skill use) and equipment. Hence a 'thief' would be much more nimble, while the gaurds would be much slower in a crowd due to armour, pole weapons and perhaps the simple fact that they aren't as practiced being nimble. Hence collision would be 'reduced' for the thief and they'd be able to out pace the gaurds, even those on horses who must push or even tramble the crowd (naughty). You see another example of my attempts at realism hopefully providing greater scope for game play.
Normally I completely ignore threads like this simply because it tends to be a lot of screaming about nothing with no real answers (and the topic comes up every other day) but there is some discussion here so...
I guess I'll ruin it with some ramblings :P
If you look back at the pen and paper grandfather of the modern MMO, 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons', then you will see the archetype classes such as Fighter, Cleric and Magic-User dominate the player lists. Although the game allowed for a wide variety of interpretations of the character within the confines of the class structure there were still some overriding notions about character concept inherent in the ruleset for the class.
You could make a character with any backstory, any political or religious connections, and any moral compass. Yet, if you were a mage you still only had a base 1-4 hitpoints per level and armor restrictions. Mages were exceedingly weak at low levels with few spells and little combat ability however there were effectively minor deities at higher levels. No balancing, simply a storyline. A simple fighter could rise to be a Duke or an outlaw bandit chieftain. The class structure was simply a way to allow the ruleset to interact/enter into the storyline of your hero.
Boundaries in the game don't exist to curtail your experience they are there in order to help define it.
People say they want "realism" in their character design based on a freeform-pick-skills-and-abilities as you please structure but I find that laughable.
"If I swing my sword I should get better at it" Hehehe
Accepting that characters are the special few in the world, the gifted heroes, the main characters in a vast storyline, you can give them a range of powers well above the normals/npcs. However, how many nuclear physicists do you imagine have world class pole vaulting abilities along with the skills of a cat burglar and the precision of an Olympic level archer? If everyone is Michael 'DaVinci' Jordan then it seems there is less 'realism' than if there were a samurai, a Longbowman and an engineer/sapper in a group.
I suppose I always assumed that the manipulation of arcane energies might require vast a vast amount of research and study in old libraries and castle keeps poring over dusty tomes in a very closed and secretive society. If flinging fireballs and levitating were so easy that simply doing it over and over again would gain you advanced abilities then why aren't the peasants flying? ..and why the heck do they need you to defend the town from orcs when they can blast the hordes away with a word?
You can study enough about mystic power while being a lumberjack on the weekends? I would think that a 200 pound human wielding a sword could only conquer a 2 ton troll by very advanced fighting techniques and I don't imagine you could pick those skills up in an online course from DeVry (warning credits may not transfer). Perhaps a lifetime of devotion to the weapon and a multitude of experiences in the battlefield might suffice.
How many people would be content with a character that had less than optimal stats for that matter? In AD&D you could have a fighter with a very low strength and constitution but perhaps he also had a very high Intelligence. This character might be played as a 'little general' type or a ranged fighter specializing in the blowgun.
What is missing from mmorpgs isn't necessarily a new way to see classes (although there could perhaps be more choices in many games) but a rather a lack of a real world in which to further define your character.
(Okay done rambling, I was drinking and reminiscing)
Thanks for the input once again MuffinStump, and once again I must agree. To a point (surprise).
AD&D was based around the class system and it was designed to represent adventurers who spent a great deal of time away from adventuring completeing their 'day-jobs'. The combination of role on adventures and these day-jobs is what defined the skills and so the abilities of the character. And like you said, even then you had a lot more customisation within AD&D. Another game I played was WFRP, this brought the day-job even more to the fore, actually had you switching through a set of careers (that if played properly you were supposed to find and justify during roleplaying to actualy get) and from these you learnt your skills and profile advances. For me WFRP was the logical extension to AD&D, I see this trend continuing within my own design.
I also wholeheartedly agree with the very poor concept of simply learning spells as though everyone has access to them, and just to put another nail in the coffin of my design I should highlight that while everyone is capable of magic the number of those with credible abilities will (initially at least) be shockingly low. Spells (indeed whole paths of magic) will need to be developed a process taking time and effort.
The idea that anyone will have the capacity to learn all that can be learnt, indeed even be exposed to all these skills is equally shocking to me. I permit the characters access to only the skills they encounter of those willing to teach (at a cost no doubt) or ones that they can develop for themselves, and these will typically be some limited form of combat and a number of 'secondary' skills in keeping with their characters background in the world (which may be more combat). Those who want to be crafters should find themselves apprentice positions and so access to these skills or will need to develop their own, no easy feat. Magic users will either have innate skills or be fortunate enough to be enrolled in a school or as an apprentice to a magic user (typically only those with innate skills will be wanted by more capable magic users due to greater abilities and access to those innate skills for the master). Innate skills cannot be taught until understood, hence an innate user wont be able to teach his friends until he's passed through 'college' himself and so unlocked these abilities.
Yep, this means that most of the players wont have magicians and even decent crafters will be a pain to acquire. The fact is its only the crafters that would present a problem for me, I had to ensure that enough crafting is taking place for masters to be screaming out for apprentices, and my story takes care of that. As for limited numbers of magicians (initially at least) its fine for my story and although unusual in a fantasy setting shouldn't be the end the game as many (well a few) RPGs dont have magic users in them. They'll exist and some players will have them, and I imagine it wont take long before everyone has one... while the original few are rather weathly for their efforts.
You'll notice that I have indeed gone completely the opposite direction to your advice, I'm looking for more realism while you quite rightly point out that less will make things much easier, and so give you an easier time to make the game-play better. So I agree with the point, but still not giving up my efforts...
On the one hand, there's the idea of acquiring new skills whenever you want them, but on the other, there's the concept of being able to mix and match skills, regardless of how or when you obtain them.
Those are different concepts. Some people would enjoy the ability to create a custom skillset, without the boundaries of set classes, even if it meant that the path had to be defined at character creation. Others would insist on being able to "respec" every week. I can think of ways to reflect BOTH concepts "realistically" in an MMO without making it an either/or proposition.
For instance, assuming your game utilizes skill trees instead of classes, you could give each player a set number of starting points to allocate into these trees. These points would represent a lifetime of training, and could never be changed, or if changed, only at great cost or time commitment. Then, as the player actually uses the character, he gains additional skill based on what he actually uses. This represents experience. The player could also train in new disciplines (I personally like the time-based training system of Eve), but it might come at the expense of developing other skills though experience (which could be reflected by a skill point cap as implemented in SWG), because you're right, there are very few Ph.D. astrophysicists who are also 5th degree blackbelts in jiujitsu AND virtuouso violinists. I'm sure I could find you a Ph.D. astrophysicist who is a 5th degree blackbelt in jiujitsu and pretty decent on the violin, but being an expert at all three would be pretty difficult.
But that all really has nothing to do with what I was talking about in this thread, which was combat mechanics.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good