Wrong. You had classes which resisted damage better than others, but there was no tank as they exist in MMORPGs. You had no threat table. Hate to correct you, but not so.. Even back in the 70's when I started playing AD&D, we had meat shields in our adventure groups. The person with the best AC lead the group incase we walked into a problem.. Now granted the DM (whom controlled the mobs) could just say the orc ignores the warrior and heads straight to the mage, but even the DM needs to play fairly, or he'll lose his group..
The worse is not the trinity. The worse is the threat mechanics, which are completely artificial. Afraid to tell, that threat mechanics are ALL around us, even in life.. There is a reason why Aircraft Carriers are primary focus.. There is a reason why the ALL-PRO defensive end gets double teamed.. There is a reason why cops subdue the guy first instead of his girlfriend (unless she's packing a gun), but then her threat number would change and she would be primary focus.. OUR Attention, as it should be in a game is all about "threat and grabbing attention".. Now I will agree that many devs FAILED to correctly design a better threat formula, but that is a different topic..
I still enjoy games with threat tables, but I've also played many games which were/are very good and didn't have one (UO, AC1, GW2) and it's refreshing to have some more realistic behavior of mobs than just bash the guy with the heaviest armor and the biggest health pool. GW2 doesn't have a threat table? Then tell me how I always end up pulling agro 90% of the time when I'm nuking the shit out of the mob? OH.. my dps is a bigger threat to him then the guy next to me that is 4 levels lower and not shelling out the damage.. EQ had the best threat formula I have played.. It wasn't perfect, but it was a far cry better and more realistic then anything since.. It's a shame devs couldn't tweak it more..
That will never happen. It has been asked several times in similar threads or WoW bashing threads, and none of the usual suspects here who always complain about games being too easy answered.
Why? Very simple. They complain nowadays games are too easy, but they never even engaged the hardest content of those games, and they would get their nostalgic oldtimer asses handed to them if they did.
People complaining about WoW being too easy are not complaining about Raids. They complain about open world + dungeons & generally everything that is not hard mode raid.
Those people want WHOLE or at least much bigger part of game to be interesting and challanging and not to have small portion of game (raid) to be challaning only.
Makes zero sense to ask them to supply their raid achievement, as most of them propably don't raid and don't even want to raid.
This also was brough up 1000th of times in discussion about WoW and modern mmorpg difficutlty.
That part about fun in groups.. BINGO.. Groups just feel zergy, chaotic and sloppy.. I think of GW2's UI for example and I'm ok with players being able to solo using hotkeys 1-5.. But it's what GW2 did with group content and keys 6-10 that turn me off.. I don't want group content to be zerged using buttons 1-5 by everyone.. To me, I want buttons 6-10 to be CLASS DEFINING skills that have minimal impact on solo play, but are HUGE roles to be used in a group situation.. One quick cheap example would be "battle rez".. Obviously you can see this skill doesn't really come into play while soloing, but in a group event, OH YEAH.. this one is a keeper.. Another skill can be "summoning" of a group member.. Or a particular form of CC.. The list of class defining skills and spells is long and more then enough to satisfy giving each class their own special flavor in a group set up..
That is like, spot-on. I dislike the trinity but I do feel like there has to be a defining something that each class or specialization can bring to the table.
You can play combat that way, yes. We rarely use any tanks. But even so your P&P tank is very different from a MMO tanks, in P&P things are closer to the armor classes of Guildwars (1) than EQ or Wow.
In my Pathfinder group we have 1 player in heavy armor, our cleric. He is hardly just a tank or healer and neither is my bard/Gunslinger, our alchemist or the mage. We still make a surpisingly effective fighter unit since we work together.
Pen and paper combat is far more about offense, defence and support than tank, healer and DPS.
This is a really great point. I think a lot of people who've only experienced limited trinity mechanics with forced taunting and easy aggro generation confuse that for a more complex role system with CC and tactics. They're not the same. The original Guild Wars system was a good example to use.
All of the things you just mentioned were part of the trinity system. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea it was just pressing taunt, holding agro, and healing. It was a far more complex argo system then that as many have pointed out. It also had CC and tactics. You also didn't have to use that makeup as mentioned by other people. It was just was the most effective way to level quickly in early MMOs like EQ. You needed a puller, tank, Healer, CC, DPS for a trinity group. You might have an off tank or a tank that was for AOE agro. If the puller did a bad pull everyone died. If someone over agroed everyone died. If the healer didn't time his heals so as not to over agro everyone died. If The enchanger didn't remez or agro wipe before it wore off he was dead. If certain classes didn't root or snare you were dead. Basically it was a lot easier to die by making a misake. That was with the optimal group setup. There were other effective ways to advance using creativity with things like charm, snare, fear, dot, and nukes. This combined with mobs that were exceedingly powerful and equipment that hardly added anything to you character in most cases made for very difficult fights. I don't believe there is a MMO today to match that difficulty. It had a high rate of people not making it past certain levels. It took me from start to planes of power to get to max level, but I soloed a lot and changed classes a bunch of times.
For the person talking about macros it's true people came up with macros, but that is possible for any video game. It just takes the right numbers. If those people played without macros they would probably miss their timing just like they do in WoW where macros seem to be mandatory at high levels now. Macros mean people won't screw up since the computer is doing it for them. I don't believe many people use them in today's MMOs because you level so quickly and it's so easy to level solo you never die. There is also little in the way of farming due to items not really having much value. This is because there is no competition for items. Everyone can get items due to instances. Another thing that makes it an easier experience overall. EQ didn't have macros that I recall. It just had external programs that would be considered cheating.
I'm not saying there can't be a better system implimented, but for people saying the new systems being used are harder that amazes me. You can't even die in solo play. You have to really try to do so. The skills don't generally need to be timed at all because of this. The only hard things are raid and group as I've pointed out before, but they are still far simplier. In EQ barely any guilds got to and unlocked content because it was extremely hard. It was hard enough just to do group content in most cases. I think if people are really looking for a challenge one day perhaps we will see some real challenge again with competition over areas and the need to either manage agro, be in a certain place, or use certain skills at the right time. It seems to me most people are not looking for a challenge. It's why games like Dark Souls are rare in this day and age.
Yes, I know that trinity used to be way more complicated, been playing since Meridian. But that is gone now, you have a tank taunting the mobs, a healer healing her and 3 DPS rotating skills and that is it. And that is why I think trinity is done now.
And I did not say the systems new games have tried is harder than anything, I said that each class should be a role in itself. And difficulty have way more parameters than the roles in combat, you could use a very complicated role system but still have really easy fights.
If AoC had collision detection 7 years ago I don't see the problem of having it in a modern game... And yes, that is exactly what I think MMOs need.
Asheron's Call 1 had collision detection 16 years ago, and also had no "threat table".
For instance during the Gaerlan encounter, I was blocking the boss with my 3 school tank sword (shield user) to that he doesn't squish the mages and archers.
Yeah, forgot about AC, great game. And people are crying for new versions of UO, EQ and SWG but AC is really the game that should need a remake.
Lineage also had collision detection now when I think about it. I do remember beta testing the western version in 2001 so it is probably close to ACs age as well.
I love how people quote EverQuest 1 as an exemple of Holy trinity... like you needed a warrior-cleric-enchanter to do anything..
Since you needed a group to do almost anything, and since that holy trinity wasn't always available, people actually found out creative way to do stuff...
a ton of classes could sub in for a tank in early EQ (classic-luclin). war, sk, paladin, ranger, monk, mage-bst pets all could tank.
People learned how to root rot, kite, quad-kite, fear-kite, how to kill with charmed mob, how to reverse-charm ( send your charmed mob against a bunch, and kill your own charm mob when he's almost dead). A couple expansion later and people developped swarming tactics... even classes such as a cleric could swarm little trains down... or how to kill stronger names by swarming them with weak pets (necro mostly).
group of ranged classes kiting in the Halls of Honor,
I saw duo of rangers and rogue teaming up to kill animals... ranger would snare and fear, allowing the rogue to backstab, no healing no tanking needed. or a duo of sk-pally doing the same with undeads.
Duo of chanter/mage+ a healer class killing named in Bastion of Thunder, through charm
You had AoE groups ; one suicidal puller bringing back entire train, 2 people chaining AoE stun, and 2 or 3 people AoE nuking the whole thing down... no tank needed, no healer needed.
and that was 16 years ago, when technology was pretty far behind... for people who were a bit creative with their toolset, that old dinosaur called EQ1 actually offered a wide variety of ways to get stuff down without trivializing everything. Alot more than the moreorso organized zergfest of GW2
This is one of the biggest reasons i am still playing EQ.
PLENTY of ways to get things done, without it being trivial. More rewarding as a group then solo. Pure win.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
If AoC had collision detection 7 years ago I don't see the problem of having it in a modern game... And yes, that is exactly what I think MMOs need.
Asheron's Call 1 had collision detection 16 years ago, and also had no "threat table".
For instance during the Gaerlan encounter, I was blocking the boss with my 3 school tank sword (shield user) to that he doesn't squish the mages and archers.
Yeah, forgot about AC, great game. And people are crying for new versions of UO, EQ and SWG but AC is really the game that should need a remake.
Lineage also had collision detection now when I think about it. I do remember beta testing the western version in 2001 so it is probably close to ACs age as well.
I don't think simple remake would do or that people even want straight remakes in first place.
It is about IDEAS that were present in those older titles and that instead of being fixed (because let's say truth - most of them were heavily explotable, crude and/or broken) were thrownout off mmorpg completly. So I think what most people remembering those games - they want IDEAS from those games back but designed and implemented better (learning of past mistakes),
Exploits seem to be why games are so neutered down today.
Collision detection would mean possible exploiting of the environment. For instance someone might block then entrance to a house or cave. This could make content blocked off to certain people.
This is similar to why they have made a lot of changes to things like kiting, CC, having unbound weapons, levitate, water breathing, etc. They could all be used as a hindrance to someone else in game. For instance you could levitate up in the sky where a mage couldn't touch you and nuke them with range spells. You could hide in the water and nuke people who don't have a water breathing spell.
The question is when is it more important to have fun then balance. To me having people impede my progress was frustrating, but made the experience more worthwhile during the course of the game. If all I had to worry about was the game itself it would be fairly easy. Especially in the solo portions of the game.
Perhaps the problem is that games today are designed to much as a mini game that revolves around raiding/endgame and the rest of the game is discarded. No one cares about exploring, viewing scenery, the music that sets the mood, running into other people. They are just concerned that they can feel they are able to compete to be the best in some way.
Wrong. You had classes which resisted damage better than others, but there was no tank as they exist in MMORPGs. You had no threat table. Hate to correct you, but not so.. Even back in the 70's when I started playing AD&D, we had meat shields in our adventure groups. The person with the best AC lead the group incase we walked into a problem.. Now granted the DM (whom controlled the mobs) could just say the orc ignores the warrior and heads straight to the mage, but even the DM needs to play fairly, or he'll lose his group..
Dunno what DM you had, but he wasn't very good apparently if he treated Pen and Paper like if he was playing EQ 20 years later. He must have been someone similar to those who made EQ, and dumbed down PnP RPGs into the MMORPG trinity thing.
I have years of pen and paper RPGs under my belt myself, and never did a DM keep a "threat table" and make only the plate wearer tank while the healer was unharmed. The meat shield going first to take the first hits of an ambush isn't the same has all mobs being totally retarded and staying on the meat shield without hope to kill him while getting nuked down by everyone else.
The worse is not the trinity. The worse is the threat mechanics, which are completely artificial. Afraid to tell, that threat mechanics are ALL around us, even in life.. There is a reason why Aircraft Carriers are primary focus.. There is a reason why the ALL-PRO defensive end gets double teamed.. There is a reason why cops subdue the guy first instead of his girlfriend (unless she's packing a gun), but then her threat number would change and she would be primary focus.. OUR Attention, as it should be in a game is all about "threat and grabbing attention".. Now I will agree that many devs FAILED to correctly design a better threat formula, but that is a different topic..
Thank you for confirming what I have posted, even though I doubt it was intentional. Yep, the aircraft carrioer is the primary focus... because without it, everything else falters, because it is indeed the highest threat since it generates most of the other threats, and because it actually can be crippled to make it useless.
If you apply your lousy but inadvertantly amusing analogy to a MMO with the trinity, the aircraft carrier is the healer since he carries everyone else and without him, the rest of the group is dead. So why are all mobs, including highly intelligent bosses (gods, dragons, genius level intellects), focusing on the heavy plate wearer while the healer keeps him alive unharmed?
The answer is simple... because that mechanic is dumbed down, and because it makes the developer work easy.
Want to know how threat should work in a trinity MMORPG? Looks at its PvP. You don't have agro from tanks, the players decide who to kill first. There was one encounter in WoW which was built like that, the champions in Crusader's, and it's still one of the best raid encounters of the game despite the poor quality of the rest of that instance.
I agree. For an MMO to be more like pen and paper, it would need collision detection. That way the so-called knight can block the hallway or the strategy becomes more positional in nature. This would be far closer to pen and paper. The aircraft carrier analogy is also logical. That is why it is surrounded by destroyers and subs. Again, it become a game of position. There are roles in pen and paper and certain classes are better at things than others. It just isn't the holy trinity role. I do understand why it is used, and it isn't always easy. Anyone who had done serious progression raiding in WoW knows that. It allows for scripted combat to take place in a controlled manner allowing for devs to develop content that is achievable yet not impossible. I think it could still be done better, and perhaps more like pen and paper. I would imagine it comes down to cost and customer base. With so much invested, you take a real chance when you go a different route than the established one.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
Collision detection would be a really good way of doing it, your team of tanks rush in and hem the boss in, ths boss applies logic to try and burst out of the group of tanks hemming him in, so on and so forth. Much better than tank hits boss with his proc of magnificent threat burst such that he chooses to ignore the 5 squishy healers standing 1 meter to the left.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I have years of pen and paper RPGs under my belt myself, and never did a DM keep a "threat table" and make only the plate wearer tank while the healer was unharmed. The meat shield going first to take the first hits of an ambush isn't the same has all mobs being totally retarded and staying on the meat shield without hope to kill him while getting nuked down by everyone else. Who said anything about a DM keeping a threat table? Not I.. Really.. You must have some warped logic to think that a mob is going to INSTA travel from where he is, to "healer" without being snared, hamstringed or knocked down.. And back in the days of EQ.. YEAH.. let a mob focus on the healer, and we'll just KITE that sorry ass stupid mob in circles like in WoW's boss fight of red riding hood and the wolf. You have this tunnel focus thinking that everything on a threat table is based on taunting.. which it isn't.. FYI.. Many variables are in the threat code that dictates who a mob attacks.. distance, damage done, healing done, etc etc.. Each action in the group generates a number in which the AI "HAS" to calculate... You show you have little to no experience in formula programming..
Thank you for confirming what I have posted, even though I doubt it was intentional. I didn't confirm anything you said.. YOUR position is that ONE target should not be able to hold threat (aka attention/agro) Yep, the aircraft carrioer is the primary focus... because without it, everything else falters, because it is indeed the highest threat since it generates most of the other threats, and because it actually can be crippled to make it useless.
If you apply your lousy but inadvertantly amusing analogy to a MMO with the trinity, the aircraft carrier is the healer since he carries everyone else and without him, the rest of the group is dead. Well there you go.. PROOF that you must NEVER of played EQ or similar games.. I have been in many groups in which we had NO HEALER.. Ha Ha Ha Ha..So who does the mob go after.. Let me give you a hint.. >> The person generating the most threat which is a mathematical code in the game.. lol So why are all mobs, including highly intelligent bosses (gods, dragons, genius level intellects), focusing on the heavy plate wearer while the healer keeps him alive unharmed?You apparently played too much WoW, and think that threat and role play "ALWAYS" involved tank & spank with healer.. Hate to tell you, but there is more to role playing then tanks and healers.. Have you ever kited mobs? Charm mob tanking worked great too..According to you, you want mobs to chase healers.. GO FOR IT, and I'll have the healer pull agro, run in circles around the group while all the DPS shoot the mobs.. You're a genius.. TY
The answer is simple... because that mechanic is dumbed down, and because it makes the developer work easy.
Want to know how threat should work in a trinity MMORPG? Looks at its PvP. You don't have agro from tanks, the players decide who to kill first. There was one encounter in WoW which was built like that, the champions in Crusader's, and it's still one of the best raid encounters of the game despite the poor quality of the rest of that instance.
PvP example is a joke to use as the template for threat.. Again.. Your issue seems to be the POOR use of "taunting" that is ONE variable used in the threat formula.. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.. FIX the overuse and over dependancy of "taunting" and threat management would be much better.. Have a great day
Wrong. You had classes which resisted damage better than others, but there was no tank as they exist in MMORPGs. You had no threat table. Hate to correct you, but not so.. Even back in the 70's when I started playing AD&D, we had meat shields in our adventure groups. The person with the best AC lead the group incase we walked into a problem.. Now granted the DM (whom controlled the mobs) could just say the orc ignores the warrior and heads straight to the mage, but even the DM needs to play fairly, or he'll lose his group..
Dunno what DM you had, but he wasn't very good apparently if he treated Pen and Paper like if he was playing EQ 20 years later. He must have been someone similar to those who made EQ, and dumbed down PnP RPGs into the MMORPG trinity thing.
I have years of pen and paper RPGs under my belt myself, and never did a DM keep a "threat table" and make only the plate wearer tank while the healer was unharmed. The meat shield going first to take the first hits of an ambush isn't the same has all mobs being totally retarded and staying on the meat shield without hope to kill him while getting nuked down by everyone else.
The worse is not the trinity. The worse is the threat mechanics, which are completely artificial. Afraid to tell, that threat mechanics are ALL around us, even in life.. There is a reason why Aircraft Carriers are primary focus.. There is a reason why the ALL-PRO defensive end gets double teamed.. There is a reason why cops subdue the guy first instead of his girlfriend (unless she's packing a gun), but then her threat number would change and she would be primary focus.. OUR Attention, as it should be in a game is all about "threat and grabbing attention".. Now I will agree that many devs FAILED to correctly design a better threat formula, but that is a different topic..
Thank you for confirming what I have posted, even though I doubt it was intentional. Yep, the aircraft carrioer is the primary focus... because without it, everything else falters, because it is indeed the highest threat since it generates most of the other threats, and because it actually can be crippled to make it useless.
If you apply your lousy but inadvertantly amusing analogy to a MMO with the trinity, the aircraft carrier is the healer since he carries everyone else and without him, the rest of the group is dead. So why are all mobs, including highly intelligent bosses (gods, dragons, genius level intellects), focusing on the heavy plate wearer while the healer keeps him alive unharmed?
The answer is simple... because that mechanic is dumbed down, and because it makes the developer work easy.
Want to know how threat should work in a trinity MMORPG? Looks at its PvP. You don't have agro from tanks, the players decide who to kill first. There was one encounter in WoW which was built like that, the champions in Crusader's, and it's still one of the best raid encounters of the game despite the poor quality of the rest of that instance.
You mention EQ so often, yet you never even played it, or if you did you failed to understand anything around you.
Mobs always went for the biggest threat first. They'd often run right past the tank if he hadn't built threat and bash a healer or wizard as they started casting. If they managed to land the spell, they'd basically be dead unless someone got CC off on them.
Threat in EQ was always about keeping up damage and impairments on the mob to retain aggro. It was no simple process like you explain from your World of Warcraft days. It wasn't snap aggro buttons like modern mmos, it was using the right abilities and weapons (with detrimental procs) to gradually generate aggro to prevent others from dying. If the casters didn't lay low and away from the mobs, they'd immediately turn to them and dirt nap them.
The same scenario that would happen in a police raid as described above is what would happen in Everquest. If the wizard was wielding his weapon, even so much as begun casting a spell as the mobs approached, they naturally ran to them. If they yielded and the defensive classes showed aggression, they'd engage them while remaining leery of the hostile high dmg high healing classes.
I suggest you go back and play an emu and get an education before further embarrassing yourself.
Why people bring pen and paper rpg into discussion about mmorpg? Dont get it. We dont have any kind of similiar mechanics. In pnp we get turn based combat and in nearly all mmorpg we get real time combat. You cant compare them and say which one is superior.
As for the dnd references and clerics - yes, you got cleric and sidekicks of clerics. Classes in dnd are really unbalanced. Like, really really. The most op, banned character in any video game is not so unbalanced like druid/cleric/wizard.
Stop bringing dnd/ pnp debate into this. It has nothing to do with aggro mechanic or holy trinity. Being big pile of hp and ac in pnp may fool simpletons like animals or some stupid orcs but nothing more. AGAIN - TURN BASED COMBAT AND NO AGGRO MECHANIC.
Bannanas are not superior to apples - they are different. GW2 show us that non trinity (any trinity with specific roles) is shallow. They must made binary system (hit - die, no hit - live) in order to make that game. Gear is bad. Combat mechanics boil to spam of dodge. There are only power builds, which are superior to all others. Tank, healing stats are completly subpar even to condi builds which are bad.
Collision detection would not solve any problems. Instead of making tank people will make most big, hulkish character to constantly block everything. And what about giant enemies? They should be blocked? If not then we get GW2 all over again. We need aggro mechanics, there is a reason FF14, WOW dungeons and raids are among best of the best in the entire genre. If we get simple and effective system - like aggro table - we can build around it. Every encounter can be balanced because it use more or less the same set of rules. It is not perfect but it is best. We should improve it instead of throwing it ou of window because "hurr durr my paladin group in dnd can be super".
The trinity brings balanced gameplay, balance brings in the ability to outplay one another, the ability to outplay creates skill based enviroments. Fairly straight forward, games without the trinity tend to lack any form of competition and just be massive zergs, whether its PVE or PVP based.
Most of the people that talk about EQ are talking about EQ after 3-4 years of expansions. Mages talking about soloing MOBs with basically revamped classes and hundreds if not thousands of AAs in the game in later expansions. People talking about using Rangers to tank content when that class simply couldn't do that early on.
Even the EQ dev knew the Holy Trinity was bad, which is why they put in a ton of changes to decrease those classes' monopoly on dictating group content.
The biggest issue with Trinity is that most people prefer to play DPS, especially in today's PvP-obsessed generation of players. Most PvP players do not want to play support. They want to pawpaw. They want to kill stuff. They want to one shot people or steamroll them. The culture of MMORPG players have changed. People play for themselves now, generally speaking, instead of in the selfless way a lot of old players were back then.
That's what makes games like EQ, DAoC, etc. so nostalgic. Not because they were better than games today, but because the people, the personalities behind the characters in the game were different - in a massively good way.
All the games focused on PvP have issues, because of the type of player bases they attract. I think that's a much bigger issue than Trinity or how easy some game like WoW is.
WoW does great because it caters to a more casual player base, and those people are generally just... nicer than the types of people you see in games like Age of Conan and Lineage II (heavy PvP-focused games).
Also, comparing pen and paper to MMORPGs is ridiculous.
EDIT: Orange Text on Black Background is kind of insulting. Please use a color that won't burn people's retinas.
Nope. I love GW2's combat and I always play DPS anyway. And GW2 has since added in more/better self-healz anyway. I find the trinity limiting and annoying because you always have to wait around for a tank/healer to fill your group.
Not really. While trinity MMOs are fun in the sense that I can hop in and pay about as much attention to the combat as I do ordering a cup of coffee, it does get stale fairly fast.
I know I'm not in the majority on this, but I do enjoy challenges in my games. I like games that make me think. I like being able to use more than the most basic of strategies in a fight. I like how in the few non-trinity games I've played, combat may seem chaotic at first, until you actually learn what's happening and how to manipulate the situation to your advantage, and then it becomes crystal clear. Almost like a rubix cube.
I still play some trinity games, as we still seemed to be hooked on the idea that they are necessary. And I still enjoy them to an extent. But I hope we will get more games that try and implement more complex / interesting / thought provoking mechanics, instead of the usual simplistic stuff.
The worse is not the trinity. The worse is the threat mechanics, which are completely artificial. Afraid to tell, that threat mechanics are ALL around us, even in life.. There is a reason why Aircraft Carriers are primary focus.. There is a reason why the ALL-PRO defensive end gets double teamed.. There is a reason why cops subdue the guy first instead of his girlfriend (unless she's packing a gun), but then her threat number would change and she would be primary focus.. OUR Attention, as it should be in a game is all about "threat and grabbing attention".. Now I will agree that many devs FAILED to correctly design a better threat formula, but that is a different topic..
I still enjoy games with threat tables, but I've also played many games which were/are very good and didn't have one (UO, AC1, GW2) and it's refreshing to have some more realistic behavior of mobs than just bash the guy with the heaviest armor and the biggest health pool. GW2 doesn't have a threat table? Then tell me how I always end up pulling agro 90% of the time when I'm nuking the shit out of the mob? OH.. my dps is a bigger threat to him then the guy next to me that is 4 levels lower and not shelling out the damage.. EQ had the best threat formula I have played.. It wasn't perfect, but it was a far cry better and more realistic then anything since.. It's a shame devs couldn't tweak it more..
I think you're confusing threat (as in aggro) with threat (as in intelligent battle-strategy). Aircraft Carriers get focused because they are the reinforcements. Not because they have the most armor, largest health pool, or best insults. Tanks get focused because they are not only hard to kill, but also dish out way more damage than your average infantry. Snipers get focused because they are a hugely damaging threat. I could go on, but this all has to do with intelligence in accordance with each group's best interests. Or, as it relates to games AI. Threat as portrayed in video games is typically THE most simplistic AI they can possibly have in the game. Monsters do not act in their best interest in the vast majority of these games. They will repeatedly target classes which are the least threatening, but have the most 'aggro', while ignore everyone who's actually killing them.
- GW2 by contrast, does have threat, but it's not your typically aggro chart (or table if you wish). It's more dynamic, and more similar to a pie chart. Threat is determined by a number of factors; who has the least health, who has the highest toughness, who is closest to the boss, who is doing the most damage, whether or not someone is reviving, etc. Each factor is weighted, and the player with the highest weight of factors is usually the one being targetted by the boss. There are certain bosses with mechanics that supercede this general mechanic, but they are rare. Lupicus being one of the more obvious examples.
It may not be a perfect formula, but it's a lot more complex than the typical linear aggro system w/ taunts.
GW2, would have been an even better game with a trinnity for PvE...
However GW2´s system works perfect for PvP...
They are currently adding taunting... and other stat to build agro... If they make the lacking healing stat more efficient in PvE only and add some healing stuff that works as grouphealing with a high healing stat, they can turn the current game into a semi Trinnity... adding a system like Wildstar to CC bosses might also add more tacticall means to dungeon bossbattles..
However thats my opinion, some people just love GW2s curent system, i can live with it, no game is perfect and there are so many other things that GW2 is still on top of my list
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Comments
People complaining about WoW being too easy are not complaining about Raids. They complain about open world + dungeons & generally everything that is not hard mode raid.
Those people want WHOLE or at least much bigger part of game to be interesting and challanging and not to have small portion of game (raid) to be challaning only.
Makes zero sense to ask them to supply their raid achievement, as most of them propably don't raid and don't even want to raid.
This also was brough up 1000th of times in discussion about WoW and modern mmorpg difficutlty.
That is like, spot-on. I dislike the trinity but I do feel like there has to be a defining something that each class or specialization can bring to the table.
Yes, I know that trinity used to be way more complicated, been playing since Meridian. But that is gone now, you have a tank taunting the mobs, a healer healing her and 3 DPS rotating skills and that is it. And that is why I think trinity is done now.
And I did not say the systems new games have tried is harder than anything, I said that each class should be a role in itself. And difficulty have way more parameters than the roles in combat, you could use a very complicated role system but still have really easy fights.
Yeah, forgot about AC, great game. And people are crying for new versions of UO, EQ and SWG but AC is really the game that should need a remake.
Lineage also had collision detection now when I think about it. I do remember beta testing the western version in 2001 so it is probably close to ACs age as well.
This is one of the biggest reasons i am still playing EQ.
PLENTY of ways to get things done, without it being trivial. More rewarding as a group then solo. Pure win.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
I don't think simple remake would do or that people even want straight remakes in first place.
It is about IDEAS that were present in those older titles and that instead of being fixed (because let's say truth - most of them were heavily explotable, crude and/or broken) were thrownout off mmorpg completly. So I think what most people remembering those games - they want IDEAS from those games back but designed and implemented better (learning of past mistakes),
Exploits seem to be why games are so neutered down today.
Collision detection would mean possible exploiting of the environment. For instance someone might block then entrance to a house or cave. This could make content blocked off to certain people.
This is similar to why they have made a lot of changes to things like kiting, CC, having unbound weapons, levitate, water breathing, etc. They could all be used as a hindrance to someone else in game. For instance you could levitate up in the sky where a mage couldn't touch you and nuke them with range spells. You could hide in the water and nuke people who don't have a water breathing spell.
The question is when is it more important to have fun then balance. To me having people impede my progress was frustrating, but made the experience more worthwhile during the course of the game. If all I had to worry about was the game itself it would be fairly easy. Especially in the solo portions of the game.
Perhaps the problem is that games today are designed to much as a mini game that revolves around raiding/endgame and the rest of the game is discarded. No one cares about exploring, viewing scenery, the music that sets the mood, running into other people. They are just concerned that they can feel they are able to compete to be the best in some way.
I agree. For an MMO to be more like pen and paper, it would need collision detection. That way the so-called knight can block the hallway or the strategy becomes more positional in nature. This would be far closer to pen and paper. The aircraft carrier analogy is also logical. That is why it is surrounded by destroyers and subs. Again, it become a game of position. There are roles in pen and paper and certain classes are better at things than others. It just isn't the holy trinity role. I do understand why it is used, and it isn't always easy. Anyone who had done serious progression raiding in WoW knows that. It allows for scripted combat to take place in a controlled manner allowing for devs to develop content that is achievable yet not impossible. I think it could still be done better, and perhaps more like pen and paper. I would imagine it comes down to cost and customer base. With so much invested, you take a real chance when you go a different route than the established one.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
PvP example is a joke to use as the template for threat.. Again.. Your issue seems to be the POOR use of "taunting" that is ONE variable used in the threat formula.. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.. FIX the overuse and over dependancy of "taunting" and threat management would be much better.. Have a great day
You mention EQ so often, yet you never even played it, or if you did you failed to understand anything around you.
Mobs always went for the biggest threat first. They'd often run right past the tank if he hadn't built threat and bash a healer or wizard as they started casting. If they managed to land the spell, they'd basically be dead unless someone got CC off on them.
Threat in EQ was always about keeping up damage and impairments on the mob to retain aggro. It was no simple process like you explain from your World of Warcraft days. It wasn't snap aggro buttons like modern mmos, it was using the right abilities and weapons (with detrimental procs) to gradually generate aggro to prevent others from dying. If the casters didn't lay low and away from the mobs, they'd immediately turn to them and dirt nap them.
The same scenario that would happen in a police raid as described above is what would happen in Everquest. If the wizard was wielding his weapon, even so much as begun casting a spell as the mobs approached, they naturally ran to them. If they yielded and the defensive classes showed aggression, they'd engage them while remaining leery of the hostile high dmg high healing classes.
I suggest you go back and play an emu and get an education before further embarrassing yourself.
Why people bring pen and paper rpg into discussion about mmorpg? Dont get it. We dont have any kind of similiar mechanics. In pnp we get turn based combat and in nearly all mmorpg we get real time combat. You cant compare them and say which one is superior.
As for the dnd references and clerics - yes, you got cleric and sidekicks of clerics. Classes in dnd are really unbalanced. Like, really really. The most op, banned character in any video game is not so unbalanced like druid/cleric/wizard.
Stop bringing dnd/ pnp debate into this. It has nothing to do with aggro mechanic or holy trinity. Being big pile of hp and ac in pnp may fool simpletons like animals or some stupid orcs but nothing more. AGAIN - TURN BASED COMBAT AND NO AGGRO MECHANIC.
Bannanas are not superior to apples - they are different. GW2 show us that non trinity (any trinity with specific roles) is shallow. They must made binary system (hit - die, no hit - live) in order to make that game. Gear is bad. Combat mechanics boil to spam of dodge. There are only power builds, which are superior to all others. Tank, healing stats are completly subpar even to condi builds which are bad.
Collision detection would not solve any problems. Instead of making tank people will make most big, hulkish character to constantly block everything. And what about giant enemies? They should be blocked? If not then we get GW2 all over again. We need aggro mechanics, there is a reason FF14, WOW dungeons and raids are among best of the best in the entire genre. If we get simple and effective system - like aggro table - we can build around it. Every encounter can be balanced because it use more or less the same set of rules. It is not perfect but it is best. We should improve it instead of throwing it ou of window because "hurr durr my paladin group in dnd can be super".
These Wall-O-Texts post are amazing and all...but
Only a few words are needed to answer the OP. Yet here we are....reading so many words for nothing....
Answer is no. I will never miss the Trinity. It was dated back then...and outdated now.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
Most of the people that talk about EQ are talking about EQ after 3-4 years of expansions. Mages talking about soloing MOBs with basically revamped classes and hundreds if not thousands of AAs in the game in later expansions. People talking about using Rangers to tank content when that class simply couldn't do that early on.
Even the EQ dev knew the Holy Trinity was bad, which is why they put in a ton of changes to decrease those classes' monopoly on dictating group content.
The biggest issue with Trinity is that most people prefer to play DPS, especially in today's PvP-obsessed generation of players. Most PvP players do not want to play support. They want to pawpaw. They want to kill stuff. They want to one shot people or steamroll them. The culture of MMORPG players have changed. People play for themselves now, generally speaking, instead of in the selfless way a lot of old players were back then.
That's what makes games like EQ, DAoC, etc. so nostalgic. Not because they were better than games today, but because the people, the personalities behind the characters in the game were different - in a massively good way.
All the games focused on PvP have issues, because of the type of player bases they attract. I think that's a much bigger issue than Trinity or how easy some game like WoW is.
WoW does great because it caters to a more casual player base, and those people are generally just... nicer than the types of people you see in games like Age of Conan and Lineage II (heavy PvP-focused games).
Also, comparing pen and paper to MMORPGs is ridiculous.
EDIT: Orange Text on Black Background is kind of insulting. Please use a color that won't burn people's retinas.
Not really. While trinity MMOs are fun in the sense that I can hop in and pay about as much attention to the combat as I do ordering a cup of coffee, it does get stale fairly fast.
I know I'm not in the majority on this, but I do enjoy challenges in my games. I like games that make me think. I like being able to use more than the most basic of strategies in a fight. I like how in the few non-trinity games I've played, combat may seem chaotic at first, until you actually learn what's happening and how to manipulate the situation to your advantage, and then it becomes crystal clear. Almost like a rubix cube.
I still play some trinity games, as we still seemed to be hooked on the idea that they are necessary. And I still enjoy them to an extent. But I hope we will get more games that try and implement more complex / interesting / thought provoking mechanics, instead of the usual simplistic stuff.
I think you're confusing threat (as in aggro) with threat (as in intelligent battle-strategy). Aircraft Carriers get focused because they are the reinforcements. Not because they have the most armor, largest health pool, or best insults. Tanks get focused because they are not only hard to kill, but also dish out way more damage than your average infantry. Snipers get focused because they are a hugely damaging threat. I could go on, but this all has to do with intelligence in accordance with each group's best interests. Or, as it relates to games AI. Threat as portrayed in video games is typically THE most simplistic AI they can possibly have in the game. Monsters do not act in their best interest in the vast majority of these games. They will repeatedly target classes which are the least threatening, but have the most 'aggro', while ignore everyone who's actually killing them.
- GW2 by contrast, does have threat, but it's not your typically aggro chart (or table if you wish). It's more dynamic, and more similar to a pie chart. Threat is determined by a number of factors; who has the least health, who has the highest toughness, who is closest to the boss, who is doing the most damage, whether or not someone is reviving, etc. Each factor is weighted, and the player with the highest weight of factors is usually the one being targetted by the boss. There are certain bosses with mechanics that supercede this general mechanic, but they are rare. Lupicus being one of the more obvious examples.
It may not be a perfect formula, but it's a lot more complex than the typical linear aggro system w/ taunts.
GW2, would have been an even better game with a trinnity for PvE...
However GW2´s system works perfect for PvP...
They are currently adding taunting... and other stat to build agro... If they make the lacking healing stat more efficient in PvE only and add some healing stuff that works as grouphealing with a high healing stat, they can turn the current game into a semi Trinnity... adding a system like Wildstar to CC bosses might also add more tacticall means to dungeon bossbattles..
However thats my opinion, some people just love GW2s curent system, i can live with it, no game is perfect and there are so many other things that GW2 is still on top of my list
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Simple...if you need it, you are doing something wrong
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."