When you have no dedicated tank (and therefore aggro/taunt) systems, what will be your best setup comparing these two groups ?
Group1 (trinity)
1 char: low dps/high armor
2. char: high dps / low armor
3. char heals/medium dps / mediium armor
compared to
Group 2 (Jack of all trades)
1.-3. char: each one medium dps/armor/heals
Let's say in group 1 char 2 (the high dps char) gets attacked by the mob (because he is smart). The healer has to heal char 2. So char 2 gets interrupted by the mob, char 3 is busy healing and only char only does low dps on the mob.
In group 2 the mob attacks any of those 3. But as the attacked char has medium armorr and some self heals he stays alive but can't do serious damage. The other two chars do medium dps to the mob and kill him.
Which group is more effective ? Group 2 , isn't it ?
And that's my fear, We end with the GW2 zerg combat. Why have roles when the best setup is to have no roles ?
I believe in the new EQN system as soon as I can try it myself. I doubt even a developer demos would do the trick for me. So far we have seen nothing about EQN combat, only words.
One thing to remeber is that EQN has 4 weapons skills and 4 class skills, unlike GW2 where everyone is garanteed to have a self heal so this may help move away from everyone self healing themselfs to keep emselfs alive.
Originally posted by Lord.Bachus The problem os that stepping away from trinity combat eemoves both a tactical and a strategical layer from the combat, with nothing to replace these layers.. Which decrease a games depth... In the end this dumbs down a game...
No, stepping away from trinity combat removes the hand-holding that comes with pre-destined roles. Now, you have to decide what you want to be and how you're going to play it. It isn't laid out for you.
The only problem that EQN will have is encounter design. People keep hyping up this Ai thing, I hope it works out for them but I am more than a little skeptical. Depending on Ai is one reason that GW2 fell flat in dungeon design initially (and I'll get to why I say initially, later on). And Georgeson doesn't even say the guy is directly right, in fact he just says, "Yea, you're on the right track bro." and that doesn't really tell me that what the Reddit poster explained is exactly what is going to happen.
In my opinion, what they should do is give the NPC enemies roles. Each group of NPCs has support classes, tanky classes with CC and classes that deal a lot of damage. Players then have weave around the tanky classes that will be stunning them and giving them a hard time whilst trying to get to the support and DPS classes that are keeping everyone alive. Funny enough (to all the people that are slating GW2) this is what GW2 is doing right now. You can see it in the Molten alliance dungeon and even in the new Clockwork enemies where some of them build heal bots from the bodies of their dead allies and in order to stop them from doing that you have to destroy the dead body parts. And it works really well, people don't zerg anymore in those dungeons but rather, focus fire and direct damage to things they feel are the most threatening.
This is what I think they should do but if they don't do that, I don't know how well their Ai will function.
Just a point, we have PCs, no the "Deep Blue" machine. I'm very worried about the new IA, let's see how smart he can be. Because remember, IA uses patterns, humans... well, humans can but are supposed to be smarter
No, we have roles without trinity. Offense, defense, support, etc are the basic components of any conflict scenario, and they existed long before the trinity, "Deep Blue" or even stone tablets.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I still can't help but worry that it's gonna turn into a DPS zerg because it just seems like it will be easier just to DPS down the mobs then bother with anything else.......
People will eventually do like they did in GW2 and if your not DPS you will be shunned.......
Whack-a-mole anyone?
Hope I'm wrong I love healing but if it's like GW2 whats the point.......
I hope they can ameliorate the "DPS is Best" tactic somehow. One way to do it would be to have slower time-to-kill than GW2 has, accompanied by fewer big hitting attacks. In GW2 you fight Trinity mobs without a trinity, so you are either in no danger, or dead, there is no in between.
If no healers, Big House-Leveling attacks are really just more than the party can handle, and you get the rez fest.
People will figure out what is the best group configuration to run with and that will be your "trinity". I like the idea of not having a trinity, but it seems like it ends up being a DPS zerg. Having fun combat, without the trinity, that is challenging without requiring specific groups, yet not too easy in optimal groups is kind of the holy grail.
If you start requiring certain roles it ends up just being a different trinity, but if you set the difficulty so that any group makeup can do it, it often ends up being too easy for optimal groups. I'll believe it works when I see it and not a second sooner.
I hope they can ameliorate the "DPS is Best" tactic somehow.
i agree w your concern
at SOE Live panels
they claimed Support would be recognized and rewarded -- unknown how it will be ...
They also said "if you're not DPSing, your group is going to be wondering what you're doing".
Applying a little logic here, tells you that after they said you have to DPS, and realized that their audience (basically EQ1 and EQ2 fanatics) didn't like that, they softened on the stance later into the weekend. Whether that means they actually softened on their stance in the game design, or just did it so they didn't get continual grief all weekend is to be determined.
Let's hope the former, because I think one thing everyone can agree on is that we want distinct combat roles, regardless of the way their implemented. I doubt they're ever going to say it, but their target market is MOBA players, so expect combat mechanics to be familiar, or at least easily digestable to them.
Originally posted by eldelpueblo So, we have "trinity roles" without trinity... Just a point, we have PCs, no the "Deep Blue" machine. I'm very worried about the new IA, let's see how smart he can be. Because remember, IA uses patterns, humans... well, humans can but are supposed to be smarter
The current AI we have is basically following a script, and doesn't really have choices. EQN's AI will have a decision making component.
So it needs to decide whether to hit the melee that's punching it in the face, but not doing too much damage or whether it needs to try and close the gap to the ranged player, but while it's closing the range the melee will be stabbing it in the back.
Take it a step further, suppose there's a healer in the group, and the mob isn't really doing any damage to the melee because of the support. Does it change targets or switch to harder hitting, but slower attacks? I think that is the kind of decisions the AI will make.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Lord.Bachus The problem os that stepping away from trinity combat eemoves both a tactical and a strategical layer from the combat, with nothing to replace these layers.. Which decrease a games depth... In the end this dumbs down a game...
Originally posted by eldelpueblo So, we have "trinity roles" without trinity...
Just a point, we have PCs, no the "Deep Blue" machine. I'm very worried about the new IA, let's see how smart he can be. Because remember, IA uses patterns, humans... well, humans can but are supposed to be smarter
The current AI we have is basically following a script, and doesn't really have choices. EQN's AI will have a decision making component.
So it needs to decide whether to hit the melee that's punching it in the face, but not doing too much damage or whether it needs to try and close the gap to the ranged player, but while it's closing the range the melee will be stabbing it in the back.
Take it a step further, suppose there's a healer in the group, and the mob isn't really doing any damage to the melee because of the support. Does it change targets or switch to harder hitting, but slower attacks? I think that is the kind of decisions the AI will make.
Again, rehashing things that have been previously discussed to death on these very forums, but they're not using AI as in "artificial intelligence", they're just using more scripts, more if-then statements that made be keyed to different things.
As to your specific examples, there's nothing that's complicated there. The first, a function on DPS and proximity, 7th grade math. If your build has some tanking and backstab thing, the monster shouldn't know it anyway, unless you use it. If the monster knows it beforehand, it just calculates that into the DPS/Proximity calculator, and then maybe it stays on it's close target anyway, and you never use the backstab mechanic.
The second, again, is 7th grade (pre-algebra) math. DPS rate, max hit points, heal rate, = this decision to switch to splash damage.
Scripted AI will kick your ass if the developers allow it. Imagine playing speed chess where you have 1 second to make your move against a computer. Really think you're going to win?
You don't realize it now, but you actually want the monsters to behave in similar patterns. Players behave in similar patterns, they just can't do it as efficiently as a computer. Sure, sometimes you're PVPing and someone surprises you by making a choice that seems less than optimal, but odds are it doesn't help and the other 9 times out of 10, they just do what a scripted NPC will do: 1. Immobilize and kill healers. 2. Immobilize and kill DPS. 3. Kill anything left.
Originally posted by Dauzqul Good. I'm sick of being some gigantic warrior that wields a 7-foot sword and can only do 1/100th of the damage from a 70lb female elf dagger poke.
Raiding, however, better still require some extreme strategy.
If you are a Warrior with a 7 foot sword and doing 1/100th of the damage, you are doing it wrong.
I'm always amazed at the lack of imagination people here show.According to these forums there are only two choices Trinity or Zergfest.
If everyone thought like this we'd still be in the Dark Ages or worse.
This is in no way saying EQN will get it right or be good but evolution always has missteps and dead ends we'll see if EQN avoids being one of them or not.
I'm always amazed at the lack of imagination people here show.According to these forums there are only two choices Trinity or Zergfest.
If everyone thought like this we'd still be in the Dark Ages or worse.
This is in no way saying EQN will get it right or be good but evolution always has missteps and dead ends we'll see if EQN avoids being one of them or not.
I'm always amazed at the lack of imagination people here show.According to these forums there are only two choices Trinity or Zergfest.
If everyone thought like this we'd still be in the Dark Ages or worse.
This is in no way saying EQN will get it right or be good but evolution always has missteps and dead ends we'll see if EQN avoids being one of them or not.
In terms of MMO development,
I think this is the dark ages.
Quite possibly but if we stick to the same things and never experiment,find new ways and try new things then we'll never reach a renaissance
I'm sorry. I just....why are you guys believing anything they are saying about this game?
Here's the thing. Bck when I played SWG, I believe I had figured out how to tell the difference between when SoE was talking BS or not. It's actually quite simple. You can tell what they are saying is BS when their lips are moving.
I'm sorry. I just....why are you guys believing anything they are saying about this game?
Why should we believe you? What they are saying is the same thing an Architect does when he shows his plans to the people doing the investing. He's telling them what he plans on doing.
You, on the other hand, just seem to have a chip on your shoulder about EQN in general. You should probably step away from the EQN forums and news until more information is released about the game, or you might just throw a conniption. lol
Unfortunately these quotes sound very similar to the ones GW 2 was touting when it was in development. The whole "we are the new hip game that doesn't bother with the old "Trinity" model. Then the next day, "well we have roles but not the traditional sense".
I get why they chose to use a skill system close to GW 2. In fact Im quite pleased with the way they are implementing it and expanding upon it. I just hope they do the same with the combat, but so far i see nothing different.
And ya, I know we haven't really scene how actual combat will work in EQN. Thats why I am holding onto hope.
I don't see how this game can be a zergfest unless players tend to be in the same general area. There are a number of reasons why players won't congregate:
1. They will spawn in random areas at character creation.
2. There are no 'quest hubs' as far as we know.
3. Mobs will spawn in areas defined by the advanced AI, so never in the same place every time.
4. Bosses will never be at the same point once killed.
5. The world will be bigger than EQ1 and EQ2 combined.
6. There are no zones.
Unless players decide from the offset they are going to group together and zerg everything I don't see it happening.
Comments
One thing to remeber is that EQN has 4 weapons skills and 4 class skills, unlike GW2 where everyone is garanteed to have a self heal so this may help move away from everyone self healing themselfs to keep emselfs alive.
No, stepping away from trinity combat removes the hand-holding that comes with pre-destined roles. Now, you have to decide what you want to be and how you're going to play it. It isn't laid out for you.
The only problem that EQN will have is encounter design. People keep hyping up this Ai thing, I hope it works out for them but I am more than a little skeptical. Depending on Ai is one reason that GW2 fell flat in dungeon design initially (and I'll get to why I say initially, later on). And Georgeson doesn't even say the guy is directly right, in fact he just says, "Yea, you're on the right track bro." and that doesn't really tell me that what the Reddit poster explained is exactly what is going to happen.
In my opinion, what they should do is give the NPC enemies roles. Each group of NPCs has support classes, tanky classes with CC and classes that deal a lot of damage. Players then have weave around the tanky classes that will be stunning them and giving them a hard time whilst trying to get to the support and DPS classes that are keeping everyone alive. Funny enough (to all the people that are slating GW2) this is what GW2 is doing right now. You can see it in the Molten alliance dungeon and even in the new Clockwork enemies where some of them build heal bots from the bodies of their dead allies and in order to stop them from doing that you have to destroy the dead body parts. And it works really well, people don't zerg anymore in those dungeons but rather, focus fire and direct damage to things they feel are the most threatening.
This is what I think they should do but if they don't do that, I don't know how well their Ai will function.
This is not a game.
No, we have roles without trinity. Offense, defense, support, etc are the basic components of any conflict scenario, and they existed long before the trinity, "Deep Blue" or even stone tablets.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I clarified that FFXI had a taunt w 30 sec cooldown
read the GW1 skill list for yourself -- I posted it earlier
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/List_of_warrior_skills
EQ2 fan sites
I hope they can ameliorate the "DPS is Best" tactic somehow. One way to do it would be to have slower time-to-kill than GW2 has, accompanied by fewer big hitting attacks. In GW2 you fight Trinity mobs without a trinity, so you are either in no danger, or dead, there is no in between.
If no healers, Big House-Leveling attacks are really just more than the party can handle, and you get the rez fest.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
People will figure out what is the best group configuration to run with and that will be your "trinity". I like the idea of not having a trinity, but it seems like it ends up being a DPS zerg. Having fun combat, without the trinity, that is challenging without requiring specific groups, yet not too easy in optimal groups is kind of the holy grail.
If you start requiring certain roles it ends up just being a different trinity, but if you set the difficulty so that any group makeup can do it, it often ends up being too easy for optimal groups. I'll believe it works when I see it and not a second sooner.
i agree w your concern
at SOE Live panels
they claimed Support would be recognized and rewarded -- unknown how it will be ...
EQ2 fan sites
They also said "if you're not DPSing, your group is going to be wondering what you're doing".
Applying a little logic here, tells you that after they said you have to DPS, and realized that their audience (basically EQ1 and EQ2 fanatics) didn't like that, they softened on the stance later into the weekend. Whether that means they actually softened on their stance in the game design, or just did it so they didn't get continual grief all weekend is to be determined.
Let's hope the former, because I think one thing everyone can agree on is that we want distinct combat roles, regardless of the way their implemented. I doubt they're ever going to say it, but their target market is MOBA players, so expect combat mechanics to be familiar, or at least easily digestable to them.
People have been so brainwashed into thinking the tank and spank we're used to is actually strategic and challenging.
I welcome changes to the status quo.
The current AI we have is basically following a script, and doesn't really have choices. EQN's AI will have a decision making component.
So it needs to decide whether to hit the melee that's punching it in the face, but not doing too much damage or whether it needs to try and close the gap to the ranged player, but while it's closing the range the melee will be stabbing it in the back.
Take it a step further, suppose there's a healer in the group, and the mob isn't really doing any damage to the melee because of the support. Does it change targets or switch to harder hitting, but slower attacks? I think that is the kind of decisions the AI will make.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
agree 100%
Again, rehashing things that have been previously discussed to death on these very forums, but they're not using AI as in "artificial intelligence", they're just using more scripts, more if-then statements that made be keyed to different things.
As to your specific examples, there's nothing that's complicated there. The first, a function on DPS and proximity, 7th grade math. If your build has some tanking and backstab thing, the monster shouldn't know it anyway, unless you use it. If the monster knows it beforehand, it just calculates that into the DPS/Proximity calculator, and then maybe it stays on it's close target anyway, and you never use the backstab mechanic.
The second, again, is 7th grade (pre-algebra) math. DPS rate, max hit points, heal rate, = this decision to switch to splash damage.
Scripted AI will kick your ass if the developers allow it. Imagine playing speed chess where you have 1 second to make your move against a computer. Really think you're going to win?
You don't realize it now, but you actually want the monsters to behave in similar patterns. Players behave in similar patterns, they just can't do it as efficiently as a computer. Sure, sometimes you're PVPing and someone surprises you by making a choice that seems less than optimal, but odds are it doesn't help and the other 9 times out of 10, they just do what a scripted NPC will do: 1. Immobilize and kill healers. 2. Immobilize and kill DPS. 3. Kill anything left.
If you are a Warrior with a 7 foot sword and doing 1/100th of the damage, you are doing it wrong.
I'm always amazed at the lack of imagination people here show.According to these forums there are only two choices Trinity or Zergfest.
If everyone thought like this we'd still be in the Dark Ages or worse.
This is in no way saying EQN will get it right or be good but evolution always has missteps and dead ends we'll see if EQN avoids being one of them or not.
In terms of MMO development,
I think this is the dark ages.
Quite possibly but if we stick to the same things and never experiment,find new ways and try new things then we'll never reach a renaissance
I'm sorry. I just....why are you guys believing anything they are saying about this game?
Why should we believe you? What they are saying is the same thing an Architect does when he shows his plans to the people doing the investing. He's telling them what he plans on doing.
You, on the other hand, just seem to have a chip on your shoulder about EQN in general. You should probably step away from the EQN forums and news until more information is released about the game, or you might just throw a conniption. lol
Unfortunately these quotes sound very similar to the ones GW 2 was touting when it was in development. The whole "we are the new hip game that doesn't bother with the old "Trinity" model. Then the next day, "well we have roles but not the traditional sense".
I get why they chose to use a skill system close to GW 2. In fact Im quite pleased with the way they are implementing it and expanding upon it. I just hope they do the same with the combat, but so far i see nothing different.
And ya, I know we haven't really scene how actual combat will work in EQN. Thats why I am holding onto hope.
I don't see how this game can be a zergfest unless players tend to be in the same general area. There are a number of reasons why players won't congregate:
1. They will spawn in random areas at character creation.
2. There are no 'quest hubs' as far as we know.
3. Mobs will spawn in areas defined by the advanced AI, so never in the same place every time.
4. Bosses will never be at the same point once killed.
5. The world will be bigger than EQ1 and EQ2 combined.
6. There are no zones.
Unless players decide from the offset they are going to group together and zerg everything I don't see it happening.