Why are you getting defensive? They were only questions I wasn't beating on my keyboard as I typed them. I am simply trying to spur thought in people whom think this is how it is done period no reason to discuss it anymore.
Ahem, while I may seem defensive to you, to me, you're the one who seems indignant and ultimately defensive about your indignation.
You may be trying to spur thinking, but if you want to make me think, I suggest a diffferet tact instead of your current approach. Like say...coming up with some ideas about your preferred way of doing things rather than simply leaping into diatribes against the "holy trinity" as you called it.
How is asking simple straight forward questions being defensive? Coming up with random salutions will not fix anything. People that can not see past the holy trinity simply say no thx, that's ok, what we have works not good but it works. So instead of tossing idea after idea why not explore the mechanics of the holy trinity and figure out what A class has to fill X role, why B class have to fill Y role. If people can't handle open skill games why not give them classes with more read to use roles. Not like WoW spec tree which did allow certain classes to fill multiple roles but only after they respect and regeared.
How is asking simple straight forward questions being defensive? Coming up with random salutions will not fix anything. People that can not see past the holy trinity simply say no thx, that's ok, what we have works not good but it works.
You answer your first question in your own third sentence. You might also look at your own posts over again. If you can do it with an open eye, perhaps you might be able to recognize it. If you can't, well, nothing I can say will show it to you I suppose.
<blockquote>So instead of tossing idea after idea why not explore the mechanics of the holy trinity and figure out what A class has to fill X role, why B class have to fill Y role. If people can't handle open skill games why not give them classes with more read to use roles. Not like WoW spec tree which did allow certain classes to fill multiple roles but only after they respect and regeared.</blockquote>
Well, for the first, it's pure flavor choice, nothing more when it comes down to it. If you object to people's flavor decisions, that's your bad more than theirs IMHO. For the next part, I just don't see the problem with different spec and gear but I do see the problem with gear that just makes you UBER at whatever you want to do. See, the one forces you to make choices and sacrifices. The other just seems bland to me. Plus I'm not sure how well you'd be able to effectively balance it or make it interesting. Why would I play a game if I don't get to be something in particular? If everybody else can do the same thing I do? Even point-buy PNP games do expect you to buy particular advantages and skills with your points. What's the point of a game without differentiation?
Besides, in WOW's case they got rid of the part that was the most annoying by adding dual-specs. That and not forcing you to re-buy talented spells every time.
I'd like to see a more realistic combat mechanics. How often in real life combat or fantasy novels do you see the holy trinity? I guess rare if ever.
I could make an argument that the basic concept of the "holy trinity" applies to many real-life combat divisions where roles are segmented, such as airplanes, fleets, rifle squads even nuclear warfare. Did you know that the US had a triad nuclear strategy? Bombers, submarines and missles. But that might not be the example you want, since they're really doing the same thing, the difference is in how they can be deployed. Airplanes are obviously purposed to a variety of roles, be they fighters, bombers, or support aircraft, as are ships. Even a rifle squad has particular roles for each member of the team, such as a leader, an automatic weapons specialist, and a medic, along with a couple of other possible roles.
Really, it's not completely unrealistic to consider that people do have particular roles to fill.
As for fantasy novels...here's the thing, the author has complete and utter control over the story there. They don't have to entertain more than one person at a time. A novel could entirely revolve around one person. This is not such a good option for your average group game. Of course I can find plenty of books where people have particular abilities, but you might object if I gave some examples because they're post-RPG adaptations, and could be construed as narrative filling an existing idea space. Still...Gandalf was looking for a burglar.
Airplanes (hundred thousand dollar dps), fleet (million dollar dps), rifle squad (thousand dollar dps), nuclear (billion dollar dps) I don't see any of these fiting into the holy trinity. Triad nuclear strategy yeah that is 3 different delivery system. Airplanes are designed for different forms of dps even the support refueling planes can be equiped with heavy weapons. So they don't really fit into the holy trinity. As far as your rifle squad yes each person in the group has a role to fill, but that is not the only role they can fill. If a medic or leader has to they could pick up a rifle and fill a different role.
You didn't get my point. I am not against people having roles I think it is flawed for people to have rigid roles.
I don't disagree with your fantasy assessment. I only covered that because that is usually the fall back for people that argue for the holy trinity.
I think MMOs can learn a lot from FPSs. Where the sum of the parts make the whole better but the individual parts do not make the party.
I'd like to be able to create my own character but even if they were to loosen the forced roles it would be a step in the right direction.
For example look at WoW paladins or druid. Why did they force you to spec and gear into a certain role? Why couldn't you be just good at everything while other classes are better.
Why do you even need to force a role down a persons throat at all? Why can't a plate wearing cleric tank or a mage with shield/protection spells? Why can't a mage shield damage from a tank instead of a healer healing the damage taken? Why are there even glass cannon in existance? The idea that all I do is dps I can't take any hits is stupid.
I can't believe that we are all to stupid to realize what you would need to bring or prepare to fill certain roles. And if we open more roles to more classes without having to spec and respec over and over again or run to the bank to swap gear grouping would be quicker and easier.
This doesn't make any sense. If everyone could do anything, everyone is exactly the same. All so that groups are easier to get?!? Most players want to be different the others, to make the character their own. This flys in the face of that. Additionally, many of us want our choices to matter. If my character can do anything equally, with out having to minimally respec, get role specific gear, etc., then not only do I not have choices with meaning, it would seem I have no choices to make at all. This seems good to you?
" So when will companies finally realize that playing cookie cutter classes is not fun anymore?"
I find the classes (cookie cutter or not) supplied by the game companies to be fine.
You want to see un-fun cookie cutter? Try a "class-less" game where you get to pick your own skills. Once someone hits upon the ultimate combination of skills, everybody will copy that. Now THAT's cookie-cutter! Then the Devs will change something and everyone will switch to the new ultimate combo. Then it's not only cookie-cutter, but FoTM!
Airplanes (hundred thousand dollar dps), fleet (million dollar dps), rifle squad (thousand dollar dps), nuclear (billion dollar dps) I don't see any of these fiting into the holy trinity. Triad nuclear strategy yeah that is 3 different delivery system. Airplanes are designed for different forms of dps even the support refueling planes can be equiped with heavy weapons. So they don't really fit into the holy trinity. As far as your rifle squad yes each person in the group has a role to fill, but that is not the only role they can fill. If a medic or leader has to they could pick up a rifle and fill a different role.
Could a medic or squad leader switch to another role in a pinch? Sure, they're human beings. Human beings in the real world do have a wide range of options, far wider than one could reasonably expect to be simulated in any game at the moment, so I'm not sure what that really means in this discussion. But ask yourself...how well would they do the job?
Not necessarily very well. Most people are not superhumans capable of doing any and everything on a moments notice. And they certainly couldn't carry around all the equipment to do it.
And if you think that it's a good idea to equip any plane whatsoever with heavy weapons...please do not get a job in the aerospace industry till you learn better. Not that all planes would be construed as capable of doing DPS, nor is it really a good idea for you to just lump in everything a particular warplane does as DPS. The real world is a good bit more granular than most computer games. Maybe God just has a better computer than we do.
<blockquote>You didn't get my point. I am not against people having roles I think it is flawed for people to have rigid roles.</blockquote>
Describe what you do want then, in terms of flexibility, maybe that'd be something to discuss.
<blockquote>I think MMOs can learn a lot from FPSs. Where the sum of the parts make the whole better but the individual parts do not make the party.</blockquote>
My favorite FPS types are ones like Team Fortress. Where do each person does have differentiation from others. I don't find the FPS where everybody is doing the same thing to be quite as fun. YMMV.
This is the only fun way in my opinion, it just depends on the intensity of the combat that makes games fun like FFXI or something. In real life this is used in ways, not so obvious though. For example. In the middle ages (I use this because they had swords and bows and stuff like most mmos) There were long ranged, more like your DPS, the archers, they couldnt really get hit much because they just stayed behind and fired. Then there were warriors, they ran into combat with swords and shields and shit, if they didnt, then everything else would get destroyed by the enemy, like the archers and stuff, then there were your doctors that used herbs and remedies to cure wounds, not a healer that uses magic, but they keep you from dieing. But if you dont want so much reality in battles, I mean, I dont want THAT much reality either, thats okay. But to say no more roles? I mean, if you do that, then your game will come out like CO, where grouping is rarely needed, and if so, its not fun because the teaming is just to have more people to attack the enemy, nobody supports eachother or has a role. CO at least could have roles though, because of buffs, heals, and so on. So if you want something out of the ordinary, then tell, me, what is it. How can you have teamwork, and not either heal, buff, or attack, elaborate...
MMOs played: Too many Watch List: FFXIV, CoH:GR, GW2, SWTOR, TERA, Earthrise
What I enjoy are games with a defined class structure that leave open the possibility of a non-optimal class stepping in and fill a role.
A good example was Everquest. I tanked many a time for groups with either my magician or my shaman, any class with root could act as crowd-control in a pinch, and I've even been known to pull in high end shaman.
Other classes could take over alternate roles in EQ as well. I've known clerics that could pull, bards and rangers and beastlords that could tank, and been in plenty of druid / wizard / necro groups where there was no tanking or healing roles. We even had a group of 6 Paladins once (vs an all undead dungeon, they obliberated it).
The freedom to have that level of versatility is something I miss in modern MMO's. They either attempt to do away with class structures entirely, like CoH, or they make the class structures to narrowly defined and remove any flexability.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Why do you even need to force a role down a persons throat at all? Why can't a plate wearing cleric tank or a mage with shield/protection spells? Why can't a mage shield damage from a tank instead of a healer healing the damage taken?
You're certainly free to make or play a game where those are options, but there's no reason to get upset with other people for not making that choice. It might just be that such a thing doesn't fit their desired theme for their game.
Why are you getting defensive? They were only questions I wasn't beating on my keyboard as I typed them. I am simply trying to spur thought in people whom think this is how it is done period no reason to discuss it anymore.
Your idea simply goes against common sense, logic, and reality. If you have a tank which can heal and dps, then everyone playing will do this. Specialization is supposed to breed proficiency, both in games and real life, and being able to master everything will lead to much worse games than those that are currently out. The current system may not be the best, but it's better than all the alternatives.
Finally, can't people just stop complaining if they don't have better suggestions themselves?
You're telling me the holy trinity is common sense, logical and reality? Really?!? OK. Maybe in the mythical world of classical rpg but no where else. Where exactly did I say a tank should heal? Or is this how you argue. Infer the most idiotic example like it is my own. Specializing to the point that you are an idiot to everything else around you is a good way to end up fodder in games and real life. And again infering that I feel a single person should master everything, far from it. You know you just contradicted yourself right? How can something not be the best but be better then all the alternatives?
So you read my suggestion, tried to lead my suggests to the most idiotic extremes and then tell people to stop complaining without better suggestions? You my friend are a little confused.
I'd like to see a more realistic combat mechanics. How often in real life combat or fantasy novels do you see the holy trinity? I guess rare if ever.
Yes they are if you are willing to be realistic for a moment. Heavy armor, light armor, support - the general setup of military forces since the dawn of mankind. How i read your postings you want more hybrid types of characters, but that will always come with the drawback of the hybrids being gimped due to lack of specialization. And if you don't believe specialization and division of labor is a good idea I guess we disagree that quality of life has increased the last 250 years due to the focus on this. I may be confused, but luckily I'm a realist.
As for something not being the best but better than all the alternatives... Read your Churchill
Yes they are if you are willing to be realistic for a moment. Heavy armor, light armor, support - the general setup of military forces since the dawn of mankind. How i read your postings you want more hybrid types of characters, but that will always come with the drawback of the hybrids being gimped due to lack of specialization. And if you don't believe specialization and division of labor is a good idea I guess we disagree that quality of life has increased the last 250 years due to the focus on this. I may be confused, but luckily I'm a realist.
As for something not being the best but better than all the alternatives... Read your Churchill
I believe the idea of specialisations has been around for centuries, or millenia.
The idea of threat levels determining who to attack, now that's bogus.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
Yes they are if you are willing to be realistic for a moment. Heavy armor, light armor, support - the general setup of military forces since the dawn of mankind. How i read your postings you want more hybrid types of characters, but that will always come with the drawback of the hybrids being gimped due to lack of specialization. And if you don't believe specialization and division of labor is a good idea I guess we disagree that quality of life has increased the last 250 years due to the focus on this. I may be confused, but luckily I'm a realist.
As for something not being the best but better than all the alternatives... Read your Churchill
I believe the idea of specialisations has been around for centuries, or millenia.
The idea of threat levels determining who to attack, now that's bogus.
True that. No tank-roles in real-life. People will actually direct their attention to someone they can hurt.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I believe the idea of specialisations has been around for centuries, or millenia.
The idea of threat levels determining who to attack, now that's bogus.
Yeah, cause if 1 guy is hitting me with a bat, and someone else is hitting me with a feather, i'm not going to classify their threats to me. Its all equal. Its entirely logical for me to let the guy with the bat hit me many times while i deal with the guy hitting me with the feather.
How babout i want to play mage with 2 handed sword with rouge nimbles? I cant in games like uo i could. You fail at "wouldnt be rpg part"
That would be pretty realistic ,casting magic out of each sword?Why would any mage use any other setup then,since they get to cast twice as much magic.So by your request you have just made every single Mage the exact same.Or are you saying you can still cast magic while dual weilding,how does he do that,magic from his mind?from his mouth?I mean you need to maintain at least some form of realism otherwise the game just gets silly/unrealistic.
You remove class definition,then you totally remove classes altogether.A Mage for example is traditionally defined as a pole/staff user.Since games traditionally have the Mages cast magic from their weapons,they only allow ONE weapon for the obvious reason i already mentioned.
RPG=ROLE playing game.If you are not role playing a class,then you are not playing a RPG.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
How babout i want to play mage with 2 handed sword with rouge nimbles? I cant in games like uo i could. You fail at "wouldnt be rpg part"
That would be pretty realistic ,casting magic out of each sword?Why would any mage use any other setup then,since they get to cast twice as much magic.So by your request you have just made every single Mage the exact same.Or are you saying you can still cast magic while dual weilding,how does he do that,magic from his mind?from his mouth?I mean you need to maintain at least some form of realism otherwise the game just gets silly/unrealistic.
You remove class definition,then you totally remove classes altogether.A Mage for example is traditionally defined as a pole/staff user.Since games traditionally have the Mages cast magic from their weapons,they only allow ONE weapon for the obvious reason i already mentioned.
RPG=ROLE playing game.If you are not role playing a class,then you are not playing a RPG.
So when was the last time you seen a REAL MAGE and asked him how he cast spells? Was that at a LARP you were at?
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
I believe the idea of specialisations has been around for centuries, or millenia.
The idea of threat levels determining who to attack, now that's bogus.
Yeah, cause if 1 guy is hitting me with a bat, and someone else is hitting me with a feather, i'm not going to classify their threats to me. Its all equal. Its entirely logical for me to let the guy with the bat hit me many times while i deal with the guy hitting me with the feather.
While you are taking 5 minutes to beat up the heavily armoured guy with the bat, the other guy (who is weak and could easily have been dropped with a single punch) proceeds to stick the feather in your eye, blinding you, and then calls over his mates who then perform a not entirely pleasant form of acupuncture on your body. But at least the guy with the bat is tiring now.
I believe the idea of specialisations has been around for centuries, or millenia.
The idea of threat levels determining who to attack, now that's bogus.
Yeah, cause if 1 guy is hitting me with a bat, and someone else is hitting me with a feather, i'm not going to classify their threats to me. Its all equal. Its entirely logical for me to let the guy with the bat hit me many times while i deal with the guy hitting me with the feather.
Or how 'bout stop shooting the main battle tank with your assault rifle and maybe do some damage to the infantry next to it? It is the biggest threat isn't it? That is what tanking is about. Mobs attacking someone who they cannot hurt.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I've waste enough of my presious little free time with this back and forth. When there really isn't a right or wrong answer to the discussion. There are those that like the rigid clasical rpg design and those that like a more free flowing design. Neither are wrong just different flavors and both have been done with success. I only hope that a developer will give us that like the more free flowing design something to play that isn't a pvp zerg, space ships or a post apocalyptic.
I only hope that a developer will give us that like the more free flowing design something to play that isn't a pvp zerg, space ships or a post apocalyptic.
Well, I'm still waiting on one that will let me build a dam, blow up a village, or become unto a god!
Yes they are if you are willing to be realistic for a moment. Heavy armor, light armor, support - the general setup of military forces since the dawn of mankind. How i read your postings you want more hybrid types of characters, but that will always come with the drawback of the hybrids being gimped due to lack of specialization. And if you don't believe specialization and division of labor is a good idea I guess we disagree that quality of life has increased the last 250 years due to the focus on this. I may be confused, but luckily I'm a realist.
As for something not being the best but better than all the alternatives... Read your Churchill
I believe the idea of specialisations has been around for centuries, or millenia.
The idea of threat levels determining who to attack, now that's bogus.
True that. No tank-roles in real-life. People will actually direct their attention to someone they can hurt.
In a military sense, to get to that artillery which is killing you, you have to go through that tank that's stopping you. I'd say that's pretty "real life". Before that, it was archers and mail clad warriors.
As previously stated, as far as I can tell, whichever system you replace the current with it will be worse. If you are going to complain about what is, do it by offering a better solution.
I believe the idea of specialisations has been around for centuries, or millenia.
The idea of threat levels determining who to attack, now that's bogus.
Yeah, cause if 1 guy is hitting me with a bat, and someone else is hitting me with a feather, i'm not going to classify their threats to me. Its all equal. Its entirely logical for me to let the guy with the bat hit me many times while i deal with the guy hitting me with the feather.
Or how 'bout stop shooting the main battle tank with your assault rifle and maybe do some damage to the infantry next to it? It is the biggest threat isn't it? That is what tanking is about. Mobs attacking someone who they cannot hurt.
No. Its not what its all about. Its about who is doing the most damage to you. The guy in your face hitting you alot, or the one guy in back who seems to sporadically do some damage. The role of the dps and the tank is to manage aggro. The dps cannot just all out blast because the mob would attack them no matter what the tank did, and the dps would be dead. So the dps has to commit just enough to help out, but not enough to appear to be the actual threat.
OTOH, tanks can be hurt, they can die. So mobs do have a reason to attack them.
So, this would mean that tanks ultimately do more damage than wizards do. But then there is the taunting and the trying to get the mob to behave eratically, not always effective, but it mean the mob will attack the tank even though the dps does slightly more damage. Sort of like the pit bulls who hold onto the arm they've bitten even as people wack them repeatedly on the body.
I've waste enough of my presious little free time with this back and forth. When there really isn't a right or wrong answer to the discussion. There are those that like the rigid clasical rpg design and those that like a more free flowing design. Neither are wrong just different flavors and both have been done with success. I only hope that a developer will give us that like the more free flowing design something to play that isn't a pvp zerg, space ships or a post apocalyptic.
Ryzom. Whats the excuse not to play that one? Darkfall is a pvp zerg, EVE is spaceships and FE is post apocalyptic. Can a game actually match up to your ridiculous standards or does it just have to suck your cock too?
I would play Ryzon if it didn't freeze on me after I logged into the game.
I believe the idea of specialisations has been around for centuries, or millenia.
The idea of threat levels determining who to attack, now that's bogus.
Yeah, cause if 1 guy is hitting me with a bat, and someone else is hitting me with a feather, i'm not going to classify their threats to me. Its all equal. Its entirely logical for me to let the guy with the bat hit me many times while i deal with the guy hitting me with the feather.
Or how 'bout stop shooting the main battle tank with your assault rifle and maybe do some damage to the infantry next to it? It is the biggest threat isn't it? That is what tanking is about. Mobs attacking someone who they cannot hurt.
If we are use this (somewhat flawed) analogy between tank/healer/dps and the millitary we might as well get it right. You are turning it on it's head as the defencive structure of an army (tanking) would be the infantry while the tank force is part of the agressive struckture (dps) along with artillery and air power. The last bit here would be cnc and support (healing/buffing) notably logistics, medical units, communications, etc.
I don't like the analogy as it's too messy and makes for too much confusion. The central point is the nessessity for some sort of division of tasks to make for a reasonably interesting system for organisation. The tank/dps/healer system is a good one as such as it's easy, intuitive and functionable. It require a slight susdpens of belief and some seem (nearly ridiculously) incapable of this bit, but that does not invalidate it. It's an analoygy, like how chess is an analogy for a battle, it does not have to be "true" or "realistic".
As for the this discussion, I frankly don't see the point. It's started as a silly notion that noone likes classes. When that was disproved, it turned to an underhand "anyone who likes classes are stupid or children". Then it reverted to some more inanities.
Comments
How is asking simple straight forward questions being defensive? Coming up with random salutions will not fix anything. People that can not see past the holy trinity simply say no thx, that's ok, what we have works not good but it works. So instead of tossing idea after idea why not explore the mechanics of the holy trinity and figure out what A class has to fill X role, why B class have to fill Y role. If people can't handle open skill games why not give them classes with more read to use roles. Not like WoW spec tree which did allow certain classes to fill multiple roles but only after they respect and regeared.
You answer your first question in your own third sentence. You might also look at your own posts over again. If you can do it with an open eye, perhaps you might be able to recognize it. If you can't, well, nothing I can say will show it to you I suppose.
<blockquote>So instead of tossing idea after idea why not explore the mechanics of the holy trinity and figure out what A class has to fill X role, why B class have to fill Y role. If people can't handle open skill games why not give them classes with more read to use roles. Not like WoW spec tree which did allow certain classes to fill multiple roles but only after they respect and regeared.</blockquote>
Well, for the first, it's pure flavor choice, nothing more when it comes down to it. If you object to people's flavor decisions, that's your bad more than theirs IMHO. For the next part, I just don't see the problem with different spec and gear but I do see the problem with gear that just makes you UBER at whatever you want to do. See, the one forces you to make choices and sacrifices. The other just seems bland to me. Plus I'm not sure how well you'd be able to effectively balance it or make it interesting. Why would I play a game if I don't get to be something in particular? If everybody else can do the same thing I do? Even point-buy PNP games do expect you to buy particular advantages and skills with your points. What's the point of a game without differentiation?
Besides, in WOW's case they got rid of the part that was the most annoying by adding dual-specs. That and not forcing you to re-buy talented spells every time.
Airplanes (hundred thousand dollar dps), fleet (million dollar dps), rifle squad (thousand dollar dps), nuclear (billion dollar dps) I don't see any of these fiting into the holy trinity. Triad nuclear strategy yeah that is 3 different delivery system. Airplanes are designed for different forms of dps even the support refueling planes can be equiped with heavy weapons. So they don't really fit into the holy trinity. As far as your rifle squad yes each person in the group has a role to fill, but that is not the only role they can fill. If a medic or leader has to they could pick up a rifle and fill a different role.
You didn't get my point. I am not against people having roles I think it is flawed for people to have rigid roles.
I don't disagree with your fantasy assessment. I only covered that because that is usually the fall back for people that argue for the holy trinity.
I think MMOs can learn a lot from FPSs. Where the sum of the parts make the whole better but the individual parts do not make the party.
This doesn't make any sense. If everyone could do anything, everyone is exactly the same. All so that groups are easier to get?!? Most players want to be different the others, to make the character their own. This flys in the face of that. Additionally, many of us want our choices to matter. If my character can do anything equally, with out having to minimally respec, get role specific gear, etc., then not only do I not have choices with meaning, it would seem I have no choices to make at all. This seems good to you?
" So when will companies finally realize that playing cookie cutter classes is not fun anymore?"
I find the classes (cookie cutter or not) supplied by the game companies to be fine.
You want to see un-fun cookie cutter? Try a "class-less" game where you get to pick your own skills. Once someone hits upon the ultimate combination of skills, everybody will copy that. Now THAT's cookie-cutter! Then the Devs will change something and everyone will switch to the new ultimate combo. Then it's not only cookie-cutter, but FoTM!
------- END TRANSMISSION
Could a medic or squad leader switch to another role in a pinch? Sure, they're human beings. Human beings in the real world do have a wide range of options, far wider than one could reasonably expect to be simulated in any game at the moment, so I'm not sure what that really means in this discussion. But ask yourself...how well would they do the job?
Not necessarily very well. Most people are not superhumans capable of doing any and everything on a moments notice. And they certainly couldn't carry around all the equipment to do it.
And if you think that it's a good idea to equip any plane whatsoever with heavy weapons...please do not get a job in the aerospace industry till you learn better. Not that all planes would be construed as capable of doing DPS, nor is it really a good idea for you to just lump in everything a particular warplane does as DPS. The real world is a good bit more granular than most computer games. Maybe God just has a better computer than we do.
<blockquote>You didn't get my point. I am not against people having roles I think it is flawed for people to have rigid roles.</blockquote>
Describe what you do want then, in terms of flexibility, maybe that'd be something to discuss.
<blockquote>I think MMOs can learn a lot from FPSs. Where the sum of the parts make the whole better but the individual parts do not make the party.</blockquote>
My favorite FPS types are ones like Team Fortress. Where do each person does have differentiation from others. I don't find the FPS where everybody is doing the same thing to be quite as fun. YMMV.
This is the only fun way in my opinion, it just depends on the intensity of the combat that makes games fun like FFXI or something. In real life this is used in ways, not so obvious though. For example. In the middle ages (I use this because they had swords and bows and stuff like most mmos) There were long ranged, more like your DPS, the archers, they couldnt really get hit much because they just stayed behind and fired. Then there were warriors, they ran into combat with swords and shields and shit, if they didnt, then everything else would get destroyed by the enemy, like the archers and stuff, then there were your doctors that used herbs and remedies to cure wounds, not a healer that uses magic, but they keep you from dieing. But if you dont want so much reality in battles, I mean, I dont want THAT much reality either, thats okay. But to say no more roles? I mean, if you do that, then your game will come out like CO, where grouping is rarely needed, and if so, its not fun because the teaming is just to have more people to attack the enemy, nobody supports eachother or has a role. CO at least could have roles though, because of buffs, heals, and so on. So if you want something out of the ordinary, then tell, me, what is it. How can you have teamwork, and not either heal, buff, or attack, elaborate...
MMOs played: Too many
Watch List: FFXIV, CoH:GR, GW2, SWTOR, TERA, Earthrise
What I enjoy are games with a defined class structure that leave open the possibility of a non-optimal class stepping in and fill a role.
A good example was Everquest. I tanked many a time for groups with either my magician or my shaman, any class with root could act as crowd-control in a pinch, and I've even been known to pull in high end shaman.
Other classes could take over alternate roles in EQ as well. I've known clerics that could pull, bards and rangers and beastlords that could tank, and been in plenty of druid / wizard / necro groups where there was no tanking or healing roles. We even had a group of 6 Paladins once (vs an all undead dungeon, they obliberated it).
The freedom to have that level of versatility is something I miss in modern MMO's. They either attempt to do away with class structures entirely, like CoH, or they make the class structures to narrowly defined and remove any flexability.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Yes they are if you are willing to be realistic for a moment. Heavy armor, light armor, support - the general setup of military forces since the dawn of mankind. How i read your postings you want more hybrid types of characters, but that will always come with the drawback of the hybrids being gimped due to lack of specialization. And if you don't believe specialization and division of labor is a good idea I guess we disagree that quality of life has increased the last 250 years due to the focus on this. I may be confused, but luckily I'm a realist.
As for something not being the best but better than all the alternatives... Read your Churchill
I believe the idea of specialisations has been around for centuries, or millenia.
The idea of threat levels determining who to attack, now that's bogus.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
True that. No tank-roles in real-life. People will actually direct their attention to someone they can hurt.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yeah, cause if 1 guy is hitting me with a bat, and someone else is hitting me with a feather, i'm not going to classify their threats to me. Its all equal. Its entirely logical for me to let the guy with the bat hit me many times while i deal with the guy hitting me with the feather.
That would be pretty realistic ,casting magic out of each sword?Why would any mage use any other setup then,since they get to cast twice as much magic.So by your request you have just made every single Mage the exact same.Or are you saying you can still cast magic while dual weilding,how does he do that,magic from his mind?from his mouth?I mean you need to maintain at least some form of realism otherwise the game just gets silly/unrealistic.
You remove class definition,then you totally remove classes altogether.A Mage for example is traditionally defined as a pole/staff user.Since games traditionally have the Mages cast magic from their weapons,they only allow ONE weapon for the obvious reason i already mentioned.
RPG=ROLE playing game.If you are not role playing a class,then you are not playing a RPG.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
So when was the last time you seen a REAL MAGE and asked him how he cast spells? Was that at a LARP you were at?
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
Actually you can read the "Role" part of Role Playing Game another way.
Set classes don't make a RPG.
You are just playing the ROLE of your character, like a Actor in a movie, in a game with set classes or a game without.
Technically you role playing in just about any game you play.
Like for Instance, Gear of Wars, When you play you are taking on the role of Marcus Fenix.
(Was just reading up on GoW3 So it was fresh on my mind, heh)
Me I like the set classes idea more, just from a balance stand point, but that is just me.
So Set classes does not equal RPG.
While you are taking 5 minutes to beat up the heavily armoured guy with the bat, the other guy (who is weak and could easily have been dropped with a single punch) proceeds to stick the feather in your eye, blinding you, and then calls over his mates who then perform a not entirely pleasant form of acupuncture on your body. But at least the guy with the bat is tiring now.
So no covering fire while I sneak in? Do we at least get the artillery barrage to draw their attention away from the east quarter?
Or how 'bout stop shooting the main battle tank with your assault rifle and maybe do some damage to the infantry next to it? It is the biggest threat isn't it? That is what tanking is about. Mobs attacking someone who they cannot hurt.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I've waste enough of my presious little free time with this back and forth. When there really isn't a right or wrong answer to the discussion. There are those that like the rigid clasical rpg design and those that like a more free flowing design. Neither are wrong just different flavors and both have been done with success. I only hope that a developer will give us that like the more free flowing design something to play that isn't a pvp zerg, space ships or a post apocalyptic.
Well, I'm still waiting on one that will let me build a dam, blow up a village, or become unto a god!
Probably be waiting a while.
In a military sense, to get to that artillery which is killing you, you have to go through that tank that's stopping you. I'd say that's pretty "real life". Before that, it was archers and mail clad warriors.
As previously stated, as far as I can tell, whichever system you replace the current with it will be worse. If you are going to complain about what is, do it by offering a better solution.
No. Its not what its all about. Its about who is doing the most damage to you. The guy in your face hitting you alot, or the one guy in back who seems to sporadically do some damage. The role of the dps and the tank is to manage aggro. The dps cannot just all out blast because the mob would attack them no matter what the tank did, and the dps would be dead. So the dps has to commit just enough to help out, but not enough to appear to be the actual threat.
OTOH, tanks can be hurt, they can die. So mobs do have a reason to attack them.
So, this would mean that tanks ultimately do more damage than wizards do. But then there is the taunting and the trying to get the mob to behave eratically, not always effective, but it mean the mob will attack the tank even though the dps does slightly more damage. Sort of like the pit bulls who hold onto the arm they've bitten even as people wack them repeatedly on the body.
Companies will realize when they step outside the box or when people stop paying for it..
I would play Ryzon if it didn't freeze on me after I logged into the game.
If we are use this (somewhat flawed) analogy between tank/healer/dps and the millitary we might as well get it right. You are turning it on it's head as the defencive structure of an army (tanking) would be the infantry while the tank force is part of the agressive struckture (dps) along with artillery and air power. The last bit here would be cnc and support (healing/buffing) notably logistics, medical units, communications, etc.
I don't like the analogy as it's too messy and makes for too much confusion. The central point is the nessessity for some sort of division of tasks to make for a reasonably interesting system for organisation. The tank/dps/healer system is a good one as such as it's easy, intuitive and functionable. It require a slight susdpens of belief and some seem (nearly ridiculously) incapable of this bit, but that does not invalidate it. It's an analoygy, like how chess is an analogy for a battle, it does not have to be "true" or "realistic".
As for the this discussion, I frankly don't see the point. It's started as a silly notion that noone likes classes. When that was disproved, it turned to an underhand "anyone who likes classes are stupid or children". Then it reverted to some more inanities.