Keep in mind, GW2 made each player be responsible for their own survival. That is why there isn't a need for Tank or Healer role.
Each player would avoid/dodge/reflect, dps, and heal themselves. Support skills are also useful with combo fields, to heal the group, or give them damage buffs, or support buffs.
It's actually a very good system once you get used to it, and get to know it thoroughly. It isn't perfect though, because their A.I. is terrible, and the A.I. aggro mechanics made the NPC's jump all over the place. This usually only happens in their dungeons, and somewhat different in fractals. It's not really an issue in the open-world.
Threat/Aggro is crucial to get right, if designing an MMO without a tank role.
If you remove the threat/aggro from a tank, then it's not really a tank anymore, unless they still have these mechanics. It could still work by redistributing the threat to someone else, but that other player would need to be able to tank also, which pretty much sounds like GW2's system anyway.
GW2 did away with the tank and healer role. It basically said EVER man for yourself. While you can gear a Guardian for suvivability, it is no where near "tanking".
A gear and spec'ed ELE can heal a group pretty well, but not in the tradition sense.
However, even ANET see's a problem with this... and in the expansion HOT will give people a TAUNT.
This proves that agro management is a vital part of group combat.
Taunt is just a name for a skill. Another control skill.
Its not trinity like "taunt".
GW2: Taunt is an effect that will force the taunted player to run at their target with their skill bar locked, minus stunbreakers, and only use their autoattack skill to attack
Trinity like taunt does just that... makes you focus on the player for a defined amount of time.
The real difference lies in the threat table...
Snap Agro has always been about getting attention on demand... it is what occurs after that that defines it. If your snap agro puts you at the top, and keeps you there... then tanking becomes nothing more then push X button on cooldown.
If snap agro is a temp buff, and your DPS doesn;t adjust, then when the "time period" stops, you may not be at the top.. and lose agro again. This is how Agro management should be, this not only seperates good tanks from bad, but also good dps from bad DPS.
Oh shoot, yes, thats the defining element of trinity "taunt"
Its no different (i would say its even worse) than fear, knockdown, stun and paralyze in GW2.
He said it right, the defining element of the trinity is the threat table, not taunt.
GW2 has much more dynamic threat than trinity games, which it seems more chaotic to people who are used to the standard trinity. In trinity games threat is a linear function. Everything builds X threat, and the person w/ the highest number 'wins'.
In GW2, for example, threat is weighted off a set of actions. Each player has a number of criteria that gets measured, and each criteria counts for a certain amount of 'threat'. Things like ressing, current HP, armor, damage output, distance to the enemy, etc. all factor into this. By understanding how this works, better players actually know how to manipulate the threat, not unlike how good DPSers know how to drop their threat lvls if the tank is struggling. The big difference is that, unlike trinity games, this role can be played by anyone.
- Don't understimate the taunt mechanic either. It's correct that it is quite a bit different from the standard trinity, however such a mechanic exists in most MOBAs currently, and it is strong. Depending on the implementation of it, it's usually more than just 'snap aggro' as you'd see in say, world of warcraft. Taunt, when used as CC, is also often a repositioning tool.
It's one thing to say 'you're forced to target me' (standard trinity taunt), it's an entirely different thing to have a skill that means 'you're forced to target me AND move towards me'. Such abilities are some of the most deadly in games of skill. Not only do they disable, but they can force your target to be out of position, which a competent player can translate into an easy kill.
It seems to me you could apply the same agro mechanics to a trinity game. Most of the things you mentioned about how the agro works depend on not having a trinity in place.
For instance having threat based on armor was already done in old trinity games I believe and distance to the enemy would also work fine in a trinity setup. Damage was already the main factor in agro so that's not an issue.
There is no snap agro in trinity games, but if you get the highest threat the mob will run after you (which similar). Again this mechanic could be used in a trinity game.
I believe any mechanic that could be used in a non trinity game could be used in a trinity game. The only difference is you have more specialized classes which adds to the strategy.
You can still have strategy in non trinity games, but it would require something akin to real life strategies like the romans forming a shield wall and stabbing with spears. You generally don't see that in a game though. It would probably become stale pretty quickly as people would find the counter to everything.
GW2 did away with the tank and healer role. It basically said EVER man for yourself. While you can gear a Guardian for suvivability, it is no where near "tanking".
A gear and spec'ed ELE can heal a group pretty well, but not in the tradition sense.
However, even ANET see's a problem with this... and in the expansion HOT will give people a TAUNT.
This proves that agro management is a vital part of group combat.
Taunt is just a name for a skill. Another control skill.
Its not trinity like "taunt".
GW2: Taunt is an effect that will force the taunted player to run at their target with their skill bar locked, minus stunbreakers, and only use their autoattack skill to attack
Trinity like taunt does just that... makes you focus on the player for a defined amount of time.
The real difference lies in the threat table...
Snap Agro has always been about getting attention on demand... it is what occurs after that that defines it. If your snap agro puts you at the top, and keeps you there... then tanking becomes nothing more then push X button on cooldown.
If snap agro is a temp buff, and your DPS doesn;t adjust, then when the "time period" stops, you may not be at the top.. and lose agro again. This is how Agro management should be, this not only seperates good tanks from bad, but also good dps from bad DPS.
Oh shoot, yes, thats the defining element of trinity "taunt"
Its no different (i would say its even worse) than fear, knockdown, stun and paralyze in GW2.
He said it right, the defining element of the trinity is the threat table, not taunt.
GW2 has much more dynamic threat than trinity games, which it seems more chaotic to people who are used to the standard trinity. In trinity games threat is a linear function. Everything builds X threat, and the person w/ the highest number 'wins'.
In GW2, for example, threat is weighted off a set of actions. Each player has a number of criteria that gets measured, and each criteria counts for a certain amount of 'threat'. Things like ressing, current HP, armor, damage output, distance to the enemy, etc. all factor into this. By understanding how this works, better players actually know how to manipulate the threat, not unlike how good DPSers know how to drop their threat lvls if the tank is struggling. The big difference is that, unlike trinity games, this role can be played by anyone.
- Don't understimate the taunt mechanic either. It's correct that it is quite a bit different from the standard trinity, however such a mechanic exists in most MOBAs currently, and it is strong. Depending on the implementation of it, it's usually more than just 'snap aggro' as you'd see in say, world of warcraft. Taunt, when used as CC, is also often a repositioning tool.
It's one thing to say 'you're forced to target me' (standard trinity taunt), it's an entirely different thing to have a skill that means 'you're forced to target me AND move towards me'. Such abilities are some of the most deadly in games of skill. Not only do they disable, but they can force your target to be out of position, which a competent player can translate into an easy kill.
Well if you dwell into a conspiracy theore, ANet named it "taunt" to get more "trinity" players into the game under the assumption you can actually tank now
And thats for the rest, i agree, the best way to improve the trinity is to remove tank and heal role and make everyone possible tank or healer or dps or ccer depending on ecounter/situation.
But thats mosty already done now by GW2 so i would say its already improved, ANet just need to improve AI and encounter design (as they have been doing ever since Teq) and thats pretty much it.
GW2 did away with the tank and healer role. It basically said EVER man for yourself. While you can gear a Guardian for suvivability, it is no where near "tanking".
A gear and spec'ed ELE can heal a group pretty well, but not in the tradition sense.
However, even ANET see's a problem with this... and in the expansion HOT will give people a TAUNT.
This proves that agro management is a vital part of group combat.
Taunt is just a name for a skill. Another control skill.
Its not trinity like "taunt".
GW2: Taunt is an effect that will force the taunted player to run at their target with their skill bar locked, minus stunbreakers, and only use their autoattack skill to attack
Trinity like taunt does just that... makes you focus on the player for a defined amount of time.
The real difference lies in the threat table...
Snap Agro has always been about getting attention on demand... it is what occurs after that that defines it. If your snap agro puts you at the top, and keeps you there... then tanking becomes nothing more then push X button on cooldown.
If snap agro is a temp buff, and your DPS doesn;t adjust, then when the "time period" stops, you may not be at the top.. and lose agro again. This is how Agro management should be, this not only seperates good tanks from bad, but also good dps from bad DPS.
Oh shoot, yes, thats the defining element of trinity "taunt"
Its no different (i would say its even worse) than fear, knockdown, stun and paralyze in GW2.
He said it right, the defining element of the trinity is the threat table, not taunt.
GW2 has much more dynamic threat than trinity games, which it seems more chaotic to people who are used to the standard trinity. In trinity games threat is a linear function. Everything builds X threat, and the person w/ the highest number 'wins'.
In GW2, for example, threat is weighted off a set of actions. Each player has a number of criteria that gets measured, and each criteria counts for a certain amount of 'threat'. Things like ressing, current HP, armor, damage output, distance to the enemy, etc. all factor into this. By understanding how this works, better players actually know how to manipulate the threat, not unlike how good DPSers know how to drop their threat lvls if the tank is struggling. The big difference is that, unlike trinity games, this role can be played by anyone.
- Don't understimate the taunt mechanic either. It's correct that it is quite a bit different from the standard trinity, however such a mechanic exists in most MOBAs currently, and it is strong. Depending on the implementation of it, it's usually more than just 'snap aggro' as you'd see in say, world of warcraft. Taunt, when used as CC, is also often a repositioning tool.
It's one thing to say 'you're forced to target me' (standard trinity taunt), it's an entirely different thing to have a skill that means 'you're forced to target me AND move towards me'. Such abilities are some of the most deadly in games of skill. Not only do they disable, but they can force your target to be out of position, which a competent player can translate into an easy kill.
It seems to me you could apply the same agro mechanics to a trinity game. Most of the things you mentioned about how the agro works depend on not having a trinity in place.
For instance having threat based on armor was already done in old trinity games I believe and distance to the enemy would also work fine in a trinity setup. Damage was already the main factor in agro so that's not an issue.
There is no snap agro in trinity games, but if you get the highest threat the mob will run after you (which similar). Again this mechanic could be used in a trinity game.
I believe any mechanic that could be used in a non trinity game could be used in a trinity game. The only difference is you have more specialized classes which adds to the strategy.
You can still have strategy in non trinity games, but it would require something akin to real life strategies like the romans forming a shield wall and stabbing with spears. You generally don't see that in a game though. It would probably become stale pretty quickly as people would find the counter to everything.
You CANT use same mechanic because your mob(s) who has/have stats adjusted to present threat to TANK who has by far highest defenses AND unlimite HP from healing go whack wimpy DPS or healer (unless they have tank stats too)
Has anyone actually read the OP other than like 2 people? I feel like this thread is getting derailed. Just because I mentioned Gw2 doesn't mean the thread is about Gw2. I used it as an example. Unless the OP is confusing. If so please let me know so I can figure out a better way to convey the idea behind the intention of the thread...
One word one game >>>FFXI.Already been there done it.
A brilliant starting point to creating the most immersed combat of any game ever.The problem was idk laziness,cheap or whatever but it had tons of room to further improve but they never went any further.Still other developers should be able to pick up on it and improve it,but i don't think they want to because it takes too much planning and effort,devs would rather do things the simple way.
I just sum up everything the OP said by saying DEPTH,put lots of variables into your combat thereby allowing for more thinking ,more ways to form groups and gear options.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Only way to do it cleanly without Trinity-based combat is to remove the HP swapping and have strong line of sight, collision detection, active blocking of projectiles, and other such systems in place.
If you are swapping HP, there is very little possibility for active avoidance to play a key role, so healing is needed in some form or another.
If healing is needed in some form or another, you need some layer of control (be it tanking or CC whatever) to try and direct focus away from the injured/vulnerable.
I kind of see it working more like a Bloodborne / Dark Souls - but without the crutch of spamming health potions.
1. Doesn't take many hits to bring you down, so avoidance and/or deflection/absorption is key.
2. A heal can recover lost health, but casting such spells takes at least a few seconds and should root you in place - make it a high risk/reward move due to the focus on avoidance/deflection/absorption.
3. Collision detection and active blocking of projectiles allow for natural "tanking" to protect injured party members, or to provide cover for healers / rezzing, etc.
4. I'd say you'd also have to slow down the pace of combat a bit, make it a bit more deliberate and tactical. Also realistic animation locking and movement. No person should be able to jump strafe while swinging a 90 pound claymore.
But such a system would require pretty real-time latency-free interaction to really work. Not sure if we are there yet with online play.
*edit
I just realized I pretty much described UO combat back in the day - obv that worked because it was 2.5D so the latency requirement wasn't as high as it'd be in today's full 3D MMO.
GW2 did away with the tank and healer role. It basically said EVER man for yourself. While you can gear a Guardian for suvivability, it is no where near "tanking".
A gear and spec'ed ELE can heal a group pretty well, but not in the tradition sense.
However, even ANET see's a problem with this... and in the expansion HOT will give people a TAUNT.
This proves that agro management is a vital part of group combat.
Taunt is just a name for a skill. Another control skill.
Its not trinity like "taunt".
GW2: Taunt is an effect that will force the taunted player to run at their target with their skill bar locked, minus stunbreakers, and only use their autoattack skill to attack
Trinity like taunt does just that... makes you focus on the player for a defined amount of time.
The real difference lies in the threat table...
Snap Agro has always been about getting attention on demand... it is what occurs after that that defines it. If your snap agro puts you at the top, and keeps you there... then tanking becomes nothing more then push X button on cooldown.
If snap agro is a temp buff, and your DPS doesn;t adjust, then when the "time period" stops, you may not be at the top.. and lose agro again. This is how Agro management should be, this not only seperates good tanks from bad, but also good dps from bad DPS.
Oh shoot, yes, thats the defining element of trinity "taunt"
Its no different (i would say its even worse) than fear, knockdown, stun and paralyze in GW2.
He said it right, the defining element of the trinity is the threat table, not taunt.
GW2 has much more dynamic threat than trinity games, which it seems more chaotic to people who are used to the standard trinity. In trinity games threat is a linear function. Everything builds X threat, and the person w/ the highest number 'wins'.
In GW2, for example, threat is weighted off a set of actions. Each player has a number of criteria that gets measured, and each criteria counts for a certain amount of 'threat'. Things like ressing, current HP, armor, damage output, distance to the enemy, etc. all factor into this. By understanding how this works, better players actually know how to manipulate the threat, not unlike how good DPSers know how to drop their threat lvls if the tank is struggling. The big difference is that, unlike trinity games, this role can be played by anyone.
- Don't understimate the taunt mechanic either. It's correct that it is quite a bit different from the standard trinity, however such a mechanic exists in most MOBAs currently, and it is strong. Depending on the implementation of it, it's usually more than just 'snap aggro' as you'd see in say, world of warcraft. Taunt, when used as CC, is also often a repositioning tool.
It's one thing to say 'you're forced to target me' (standard trinity taunt), it's an entirely different thing to have a skill that means 'you're forced to target me AND move towards me'. Such abilities are some of the most deadly in games of skill. Not only do they disable, but they can force your target to be out of position, which a competent player can translate into an easy kill.
It seems to me you could apply the same agro mechanics to a trinity game. Most of the things you mentioned about how the agro works depend on not having a trinity in place.
For instance having threat based on armor was already done in old trinity games I believe and distance to the enemy would also work fine in a trinity setup. Damage was already the main factor in agro so that's not an issue.
There is no snap agro in trinity games, but if you get the highest threat the mob will run after you (which similar). Again this mechanic could be used in a trinity game.
I believe any mechanic that could be used in a non trinity game could be used in a trinity game. The only difference is you have more specialized classes which adds to the strategy.
You can still have strategy in non trinity games, but it would require something akin to real life strategies like the romans forming a shield wall and stabbing with spears. You generally don't see that in a game though. It would probably become stale pretty quickly as people would find the counter to everything.
You CANT use same mechanic because your mob(s) who has/have stats adjusted to present threat to TANK who has by far highest defenses AND unlimite HP from healing go whack wimpy DPS or healer (unless they have tank stats too)
Sure you can because there are other factors that contribute to threat then just what you are wearing.
***This is a post that got lost in the other trinity thread and I believe this topic would warrant a new thread.***
What is the Trinity?
The original trinity was established in Everquest with Tank + Healer + Slower. These are the three roles you needed in order to survive. Secondary roles where also added to the group such as , DPS, CC, Pulling, Buffing and De-Buffing.
The Tank role is the only role that really determines the type of gameplay you will experience with the original trinity roles. The Tank role is contingent on the 'aggro' mechanic. 'Aggro' is where you pull the attention of the AI to fight this one player and the whole group focuses on 1 NPC to take down.
Guild Wars 2 attempted to redefine the trinity by omitting the healer class. Still, the game didn't feel 'group-like' and felt something was missing. Gameplay orientation went towards more of a zerg. Even with the tank class there.
I believe that the best way to improve Trinity Gameplay is to redefine the Tank Role and redefine what 'aggro" means. That comes with also redefining group dynamics as well.
Redefining the Tank Role& 'Aggro'Gameplay
The Tank Role and 'Aggro' Gameplay are closely knitted together because they must have each other in order to function. To redefine the Tank Role is to not redefine the change at the role level but at the archetype level. That means all melee classes have some form of 'aggro' retention. Instead of designing one to several melee classes that can tank, broaden the spectrum of the tanking role to all melee classes.
Tanking is viewed as a defensive and mitigation gaming element in the old tanking gameplay. Tanking should not be defined as just defensive gameplay but all types of melee classes should have some sort of 'aggro' retention. This means changing the way we view melee class roles. Don't consider them as either a tank or a melee dps class but rather what type of fighter they are and how that fighter can bring their unique skills to the group to take on other certain NPC fighters.
A new way of looking at it is the melee classes are keeping 'aggro' from other melee classes to attack the healers and caster classes. This means that every character has their own individual responsibility within the group but yet the group acts as one cohesive unit. That means 1 melee player per 1 melee npc. (Of course this is based off my current designs).
As a review, we are allotting the tanking role to all melee classes and we are changing the 'aggro' mechanic to a broader spectrum to keep other melee classes off the casters and healers. This means that every player in the group is fighting 1 NPC to simulate a mini battle. This means there are less likely to have one NPC vs. a full group
Redefining Group Dynamics
Grouping dynamics are changed because we view tanking and 'aggro' differently now. That means melee vs. melee and caster vs. caster/healer would be the naturally desired gameplay. Think of it has when your looking to build a group, you're looking for melee classes and caster classes. Players should be able to look for classes based off the archetype, via melee or caster because we have change the level of which tanking and 'aggro' is functioning on.
With the redistribution of the 'tanking role', we now have some solutions to grouping dynamics. Don't worry, group gameplay will still have a heavy impact. One solution would be that making groups would be easier because you would have more options to choose from a simplistic level. Another solution could be that you may not necessarily have a full group in order to be efficient so that would allow different grouping sizes.
New Trinity Gameplay and how to make it interesting
There 3 gameplay elements that must be affected if this new type of tanking gameplay is going to be effective.
Adaptable Combat Mechanics
This is where it allows the melee classes to 'tank' and have 'aggro' retention from. Based of combat mechanics, not necessarily armor mitigation or damage output.
Allow dozens of pathways to victory instead of a singular rotation.
Allow combat mechanics to give the player ample opportunity to adapt inside of their class abilities.
Give player variety and diversity of class skills/abilities/spells.
All classes have the ability to adapt in their specified role.
Adaptable AI
This must complement player adaptable combat mechanics.
Pattern detection to negate spam/singular rotations
Increases more strategic gameplay
Allow different cultures of NPCs to fight and think a certain way (aggresive, passive aggressive, or conservative way of fighting) Which allows players to learn the game and understand their opponent better.
The World is Communal - Allows for grouping content
The world is dangerous, challenging to go out alone.
Allow NPC's to be communal and roam in groups (any sizes).
Encourages group gameplay over solo gameplay
Encourages any player group size - More roles you have the more effective, the less roles or players you have in group the more challenge for survival.
Helps keep intact of the new Trinity Concept.
I hope you can see what I see here. To me this is a new way to improve overall pve gameplay and redefine the aggro and tanking mechanic but yet still have heavy focus on group gameplay. I am very much in favor of this new style of gameplay as I am incorporating it in my own designs. I have just given a very basic on the surface outline so you can see the example. There is a method to this madness in greater detail that I would be willing to discuss if you send me a private message.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I didn't go in detail on the type of combat mechanics because the thread would be a long novel.
I forgot to mention one thing. Throw out what you know about tanking. Tanking doesn't happen on the class/role level but rather on the archetype level with combat mechanics. Allow the combat mechanics to allow the 'tanking' ability. Tanking is just not one player taking aggro but rather having melee classes vs other melee classes. Each character in the group has their own specified role and responsibility but act as one cohesive unit.
You don't change anything with the trinity if you merely call a clothie a tank in one fight and a plate wearer a tank in another. In fact it has been done already in many different games. You still have someone playing a tank. You don't need to be specc'd to be a tank... anyone with aggro fills the role of a tank... it's why you can literally run an entire dungeon run with nothing but DPS. It's why non-trinity systems exist and do work. No one is any one specific role, they become said role depending on who has aggro.
I don't think you're comprehending what I am saying. I am not saying casters or healers are tanks, but the redistribution of the tanking role is now on an archetype level. Which means melee classes in general. What you have proposed is not the type of gameplay I am looking for either in the thread.
What tank hasn't been a melee class? You proposing a Rogue, who is a melee class, also be a tank? Rift already did that. I don't get what you are trying to do here. Only melee classes can tank? Pretty much been that way from the beginning. You want more classes capable of being tanks? My comment was about tank role changing depending on the circumstances, not on the spec. No matter how you look at it, there still is a tank in the mix. You getting rid of the tank? What is it that you are trying to change here?
Lol ive seen 3 different versions of what the trinity is. The trinity has ALWAYS been tank, healer and DPS. Those are the 3 necessary classes to kill mobs in any setting with threat mechanics, even predating EQ. Those three roles are an old topic going back to DnD, MUDS and even console games.
In EQ people always wanted tank, healer and cc in every group to be the most efficient, but you could do without CC in most situations. What you couldn't do without, however, was dps. Honestly there was many useful roles in a perfect group including 1 tank, 1 support (pref. slows), 1 CC (pref. enchanter), 1 puller and dps. The best group had all FIVE roles, not just 3 and it was best if the enchanter didn't have to slow because it was a lot of aggro and shamans could heal themselves.
On TOPIC:
There is no need to "redefine" the tank roles, IMO, just to return them to their older state, ie. MUDS and EQ. Way back when, tanking worked considerably differently because aggro was much harder to achieve for the tank, and "Taunt" didn't automatically keep threat. Without using the proper spells, abilities or weapons (procs), keeping aggro was impossible no matter how much you mashed the taunt button. In contrast, modern games allow you to basically force taunt 90% of the time in rotations which completely trivializes combat and the aggro mechanic. That is the root of the problem. The system is sound otherwise, and when done right, provides engaging and fun combat where everyone has to play smart, use their abilities wisely, and manage their mana, energy and other resources.
Why would it piss me off when what you posted is completely irrelevant to the thread? The thread is not about what the trinity is. It's about redefining gameplay with a new take on the trinity.
Only way to do it cleanly without Trinity-based combat is to remove the HP swapping and have strong line of sight, collision detection, active blocking of projectiles, and other such systems in place.
If you are swapping HP, there is very little possibility for active avoidance to play a key role, so healing is needed in some form or another.
If healing is needed in some form or another, you need some layer of control (be it tanking or CC whatever) to try and direct focus away from the injured/vulnerable.
I kind of see it working more like a Bloodborne / Dark Souls - but without the crutch of spamming health potions.
1. Doesn't take many hits to bring you down, so avoidance and/or deflection/absorption is key.
2. A heal can recover lost health, but casting such spells takes at least a few seconds and should root you in place - make it a high risk/reward move due to the focus on avoidance/deflection/absorption.
3. Collision detection and active blocking of projectiles allow for natural "tanking" to protect injured party members, or to provide cover for healers / rezzing, etc.
4. I'd say you'd also have to slow down the pace of combat a bit, make it a bit more deliberate and tactical. Also realistic animation locking and movement. No person should be able to jump strafe while swinging a 90 pound claymore.
But such a system would require pretty real-time latency-free interaction to really work. Not sure if we are there yet with online play.
*edit
I just realized I pretty much described UO combat back in the day - obv that worked because it was 2.5D so the latency requirement wasn't as high as it'd be in today's full 3D MMO.
I like a mix of some of these other mechanics, but it often takes combat away from the traditional tactical rpg combat and into the realm of twitch combat. Its also much harder to do AI wise so as soon as you add a lot of dodging, blocking, aiming or collision, you are bound to both upset a lot of people and end up with gimmicky combat which bares a striking resemblance to exploiting, hence the reason this subject resurfaces on almost a weekly basis.
Originally posted by ice-vortex The original trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter...
Except it predates enchanters or exclusive CC classes...
No, it doesn't. The term came as a subtle insult to the game because of how three classes were mandatory for dungeon runs.
The big 3 were around since before EQ, and as someone who played EQ from day one for many years, I can tell you we never referred to the trinity as tank, healer, cc. The third was always dps, but an enchanter was preferred. Like I said, the best groups always had enchanter and a cleric, but you could make it with a tank, healer and dps in most situations as almost every caster had CC.
Originally posted by ice-vortex The original trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter...
Except it predates enchanters or exclusive CC classes...
No, it doesn't. The term came as a subtle insult to the game because of how three classes were mandatory for dungeon runs.
Originally posted by Eronakis
Originally posted by ice-vortex The original trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter...
And the Enchanter was a Slower/CC.. so if this was in regards to me thanks for proving my point.
As someone who played an Enchanter, if I was wasting my mana on slowing spells and not CC, I was doing it wrong.
I would say take out mandatory and put in most efficient. At least in EQ and WoW you could do dungeons with many different compositions of classes. It was simple the most efficient way found to complete content. Most people go for what works the best in a game. In D&D games like Baldur's Gate 1/2 I never really thought much about the trinity. I generally wanted a healer to heal outside of combat when resting, a thief for removing traps and opening locks, a mage for CC and dispelling other mages protections, and the rest warrior/dps which were all fairly effective.
Originally posted by ice-vortex The original trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter...
Except it predates enchanters or exclusive CC classes...
No, it doesn't. The term came as a subtle insult to the game because of how three classes were mandatory for dungeon runs.
The big 3 were around since before EQ, and as someone who played EQ from day one for many years, I can tell you we never referred to the trinity as tank, healer, cc. The third was always dps, but an enchanter was preferred. Like I said, the best groups always had enchanter and a cleric, but you could make it with a tank, healer and dps in most situations as almost every caster had CC.
As someone who played EQ from the beginning, I can say we never used the term to refer to anything other than Cleric, Warrior, and Enchanter. Other classes did not qualify. It was used as short form so we didn't have to type out that we had a Cleric, Warrior, and Enchanter every time. Runs without high dps classes were very common as we got whomever wanted to join once we filled the three main roles.
Originally posted by ice-vortex The original trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter...
Except it predates enchanters or exclusive CC classes...
No, it doesn't. The term came as a subtle insult to the game because of how three classes were mandatory for dungeon runs.
Originally posted by Eronakis
Originally posted by ice-vortex The original trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter...
And the Enchanter was a Slower/CC.. so if this was in regards to me thanks for proving my point.
As someone who played an Enchanter, if I was wasting my mana on slowing spells and not CC, I was doing it wrong.
I would say take out mandatory and put in most efficient. At least in EQ and WoW you could do dungeons with many different compositions of classes. It was simple the most efficient way found to complete content. Most people go for what works the best in a game. In D&D games like Baldur's Gate 1/2 I never really thought much about the trinity. I generally wanted a healer to heal outside of combat when resting, a thief for removing traps and opening locks, a mage for CC and dispelling other mages protections, and the rest warrior/dps which were all fairly effective.
It was mandatory if you actually wanted to go into the dungeon to accomplish something instead of sitting at the dungeon entrance or camping yard trash.
Originally posted by ice-vortex The original trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter...
Except it predates enchanters or exclusive CC classes...
No, it doesn't. The term came as a subtle insult to the game because of how three classes were mandatory for dungeon runs.
The big 3 were around since before EQ, and as someone who played EQ from day one for many years, I can tell you we never referred to the trinity as tank, healer, cc. The third was always dps, but an enchanter was preferred. Like I said, the best groups always had enchanter and a cleric, but you could make it with a tank, healer and dps in most situations as almost every caster had CC.
As someone who played EQ from the beginning, I can say we never used the term to refer to anything other than Cleric, Warrior, and Enchanter. Other classes did not qualify. It was used as short form so we didn't have to type out that we had a Cleric, Warrior, and Enchanter every time. Runs without high dps classes were very common as we got whomever wanted to join once we filled the three main roles.
Nothing like a quick google search to restore ones sanity. Look up Everquest Trinity or anything related to rpg trinity and you get tank/healer/dps 10:1.
Not going to argue about it further, if your experience differed thats cool but until recently I had never heard anyone include a support class as part of the trinity.
Originally posted by ice-vortex The original trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter...
Except it predates enchanters or exclusive CC classes...
No, it doesn't. The term came as a subtle insult to the game because of how three classes were mandatory for dungeon runs.
Originally posted by Eronakis
Originally posted by ice-vortex The original trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter...
And the Enchanter was a Slower/CC.. so if this was in regards to me thanks for proving my point.
As someone who played an Enchanter, if I was wasting my mana on slowing spells and not CC, I was doing it wrong.
I would say take out mandatory and put in most efficient. At least in EQ and WoW you could do dungeons with many different compositions of classes. It was simple the most efficient way found to complete content. Most people go for what works the best in a game. In D&D games like Baldur's Gate 1/2 I never really thought much about the trinity. I generally wanted a healer to heal outside of combat when resting, a thief for removing traps and opening locks, a mage for CC and dispelling other mages protections, and the rest warrior/dps which were all fairly effective.
It was mandatory if you actually wanted to go into the dungeon to accomplish something instead of sitting at the dungeon entrance or camping yard trash.
Lol that smacks of good old EQ elitist enchanter talk. Literally every class that casted spells in EQ had some form of CC, so unless you were with a party of scrubs you were seldom limited by what you could accomplish. Everyone loved enchanters though, because they also had clarity which significantly increased group efficiency if you didn't have a bard.
He said it right, the defining element of the trinity is the threat table, not taunt.
GW2 has much more dynamic threat than trinity games, which it seems more chaotic to people who are used to the standard trinity. In trinity games threat is a linear function. Everything builds X threat, and the person w/ the highest number 'wins'.
In GW2, for example, threat is weighted off a set of actions. Each player has a number of criteria that gets measured, and each criteria counts for a certain amount of 'threat'. Things like ressing, current HP, armor, damage output, distance to the enemy, etc. all factor into this. By understanding how this works, better players actually know how to manipulate the threat, not unlike how good DPSers know how to drop their threat lvls if the tank is struggling. The big difference is that, unlike trinity games, this role can be played by anyone.
- Don't understimate the taunt mechanic either. It's correct that it is quite a bit different from the standard trinity, however such a mechanic exists in most MOBAs currently, and it is strong. Depending on the implementation of it, it's usually more than just 'snap aggro' as you'd see in say, world of warcraft. Taunt, when used as CC, is also often a repositioning tool.
It's one thing to say 'you're forced to target me' (standard trinity taunt), it's an entirely different thing to have a skill that means 'you're forced to target me AND move towards me'. Such abilities are some of the most deadly in games of skill. Not only do they disable, but they can force your target to be out of position, which a competent player can translate into an easy kill.
It seems to me you could apply the same agro mechanics to a trinity game. Most of the things you mentioned about how the agro works depend on not having a trinity in place.
For instance having threat based on armor was already done in old trinity games I believe and distance to the enemy would also work fine in a trinity setup. Damage was already the main factor in agro so that's not an issue.
There is no snap agro in trinity games, but if you get the highest threat the mob will run after you (which similar). Again this mechanic could be used in a trinity game.
I believe any mechanic that could be used in a non trinity game could be used in a trinity game. The only difference is you have more specialized classes which adds to the strategy.
You can still have strategy in non trinity games, but it would require something akin to real life strategies like the romans forming a shield wall and stabbing with spears. You generally don't see that in a game though. It would probably become stale pretty quickly as people would find the counter to everything.
Except that you can't.
The whole concept of the trinity is based around the 3 most fundamental specialized roles you can have, while still having functional group combat. One of those roles is that of 'threat management'. By removing that, and instead making threat a combination of environmental & stat factors, of which everyone is responsible, you remove one of those roles. As such, by definition, it is no longer a trinity (let alone 'the' trinity). In GW2's case, healing is also a group effort, which removes yet another specialized role. This is why most trinity minded people claim GW2 is 'everyone is a DPS', which is a half-truth at best.
If you look at any one of those threat criteria individually, then yes, they could be implemented in a trinity game. However, that's not how they work. They work in tandum with eachother (sticking w/ the GW2 example for this). For example, you can have a guardian with the highest armor, and lowest health in the group, but he can lose aggro to a DPS who's ressing a teammate. Or to support that's closer to the boss than he is. If you tried to implement the same mechanics in a trinity game, then what would the tank do? Everyone at this point is capable of getting, and keeping aggro. And there are no real class mechanics that can change that fact. It all comes down to the situational awareness of each individual player.
- In every trinity game released, by contrast, threat is linear. Everyone is working off the same threat scale, and this number is easily tracked in many of these games. Most of these games DO have snap aggro (taunt, provoke, etc.) which provides a temporary edge on the threat table. For example in FFXIV:ARR, there's a skill tanks get which automatically puts them at the top of the threat table. If someone surpasses that number as soon as the skill is used, the skill is wasted. But for that brief second, the tank has a chance to get back on top.
Originally posted by Eronakis Has anyone actually read the OP other than like 2 people? I feel like this thread is getting derailed. Just because I mentioned Gw2 doesn't mean the thread is about Gw2. I used it as an example. Unless the OP is confusing. If so please let me know so I can figure out a better way to convey the idea behind the intention of the thread...
Yes, we have (at least most of us).
The reason GW2 keeps getting mentioned, is because it's a damned good example.
And when it comes to combat design in MMORPGs, it's about the only example people all seem to be familiar with. Trinity mechanics are so predominate in this genre that it is very hard to point to a non-trinity game that isn't Eve, or an FPS. And even then, there's a very high chance half the people on this site won't have a clue what game you're talking about.
Comments
Keep in mind, GW2 made each player be responsible for their own survival. That is why there isn't a need for Tank or Healer role.
Each player would avoid/dodge/reflect, dps, and heal themselves. Support skills are also useful with combo fields, to heal the group, or give them damage buffs, or support buffs.
It's actually a very good system once you get used to it, and get to know it thoroughly. It isn't perfect though, because their A.I. is terrible, and the A.I. aggro mechanics made the NPC's jump all over the place. This usually only happens in their dungeons, and somewhat different in fractals. It's not really an issue in the open-world.
Threat/Aggro is crucial to get right, if designing an MMO without a tank role.
If you remove the threat/aggro from a tank, then it's not really a tank anymore, unless they still have these mechanics. It could still work by redistributing the threat to someone else, but that other player would need to be able to tank also, which pretty much sounds like GW2's system anyway.
It seems to me you could apply the same agro mechanics to a trinity game. Most of the things you mentioned about how the agro works depend on not having a trinity in place.
For instance having threat based on armor was already done in old trinity games I believe and distance to the enemy would also work fine in a trinity setup. Damage was already the main factor in agro so that's not an issue.
There is no snap agro in trinity games, but if you get the highest threat the mob will run after you (which similar). Again this mechanic could be used in a trinity game.
I believe any mechanic that could be used in a non trinity game could be used in a trinity game. The only difference is you have more specialized classes which adds to the strategy.
You can still have strategy in non trinity games, but it would require something akin to real life strategies like the romans forming a shield wall and stabbing with spears. You generally don't see that in a game though. It would probably become stale pretty quickly as people would find the counter to everything.
Well if you dwell into a conspiracy theore, ANet named it "taunt" to get more "trinity" players into the game under the assumption you can actually tank now
And thats for the rest, i agree, the best way to improve the trinity is to remove tank and heal role and make everyone possible tank or healer or dps or ccer depending on ecounter/situation.
But thats mosty already done now by GW2 so i would say its already improved, ANet just need to improve AI and encounter design (as they have been doing ever since Teq) and thats pretty much it.
You CANT use same mechanic because your mob(s) who has/have stats adjusted to present threat to TANK who has by far highest defenses AND unlimite HP from healing go whack wimpy DPS or healer (unless they have tank stats too)
One word one game >>>FFXI.Already been there done it.
A brilliant starting point to creating the most immersed combat of any game ever.The problem was idk laziness,cheap or whatever but it had tons of room to further improve but they never went any further.Still other developers should be able to pick up on it and improve it,but i don't think they want to because it takes too much planning and effort,devs would rather do things the simple way.
I just sum up everything the OP said by saying DEPTH,put lots of variables into your combat thereby allowing for more thinking ,more ways to form groups and gear options.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Only way to do it cleanly without Trinity-based combat is to remove the HP swapping and have strong line of sight, collision detection, active blocking of projectiles, and other such systems in place.
If you are swapping HP, there is very little possibility for active avoidance to play a key role, so healing is needed in some form or another.
If healing is needed in some form or another, you need some layer of control (be it tanking or CC whatever) to try and direct focus away from the injured/vulnerable.
I kind of see it working more like a Bloodborne / Dark Souls - but without the crutch of spamming health potions.
1. Doesn't take many hits to bring you down, so avoidance and/or deflection/absorption is key.
2. A heal can recover lost health, but casting such spells takes at least a few seconds and should root you in place - make it a high risk/reward move due to the focus on avoidance/deflection/absorption.
3. Collision detection and active blocking of projectiles allow for natural "tanking" to protect injured party members, or to provide cover for healers / rezzing, etc.
4. I'd say you'd also have to slow down the pace of combat a bit, make it a bit more deliberate and tactical. Also realistic animation locking and movement. No person should be able to jump strafe while swinging a 90 pound claymore.
But such a system would require pretty real-time latency-free interaction to really work. Not sure if we are there yet with online play.
*edit
I just realized I pretty much described UO combat back in the day - obv that worked because it was 2.5D so the latency requirement wasn't as high as it'd be in today's full 3D MMO.
Sure you can because there are other factors that contribute to threat then just what you are wearing.
Not to piss on your cereal but you have a wrong fact there. This will school you: http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
What tank hasn't been a melee class? You proposing a Rogue, who is a melee class, also be a tank? Rift already did that. I don't get what you are trying to do here. Only melee classes can tank? Pretty much been that way from the beginning. You want more classes capable of being tanks? My comment was about tank role changing depending on the circumstances, not on the spec. No matter how you look at it, there still is a tank in the mix. You getting rid of the tank? What is it that you are trying to change here?
Lol ive seen 3 different versions of what the trinity is. The trinity has ALWAYS been tank, healer and DPS. Those are the 3 necessary classes to kill mobs in any setting with threat mechanics, even predating EQ. Those three roles are an old topic going back to DnD, MUDS and even console games.
In EQ people always wanted tank, healer and cc in every group to be the most efficient, but you could do without CC in most situations. What you couldn't do without, however, was dps. Honestly there was many useful roles in a perfect group including 1 tank, 1 support (pref. slows), 1 CC (pref. enchanter), 1 puller and dps. The best group had all FIVE roles, not just 3 and it was best if the enchanter didn't have to slow because it was a lot of aggro and shamans could heal themselves.
On TOPIC:
There is no need to "redefine" the tank roles, IMO, just to return them to their older state, ie. MUDS and EQ. Way back when, tanking worked considerably differently because aggro was much harder to achieve for the tank, and "Taunt" didn't automatically keep threat. Without using the proper spells, abilities or weapons (procs), keeping aggro was impossible no matter how much you mashed the taunt button. In contrast, modern games allow you to basically force taunt 90% of the time in rotations which completely trivializes combat and the aggro mechanic. That is the root of the problem. The system is sound otherwise, and when done right, provides engaging and fun combat where everyone has to play smart, use their abilities wisely, and manage their mana, energy and other resources.
Why would it piss me off when what you posted is completely irrelevant to the thread? The thread is not about what the trinity is. It's about redefining gameplay with a new take on the trinity.
Except it predates enchanters or exclusive CC classes...
And the Enchanter was a Slower/CC.. so if this was in regards to me thanks for proving my point.
I like a mix of some of these other mechanics, but it often takes combat away from the traditional tactical rpg combat and into the realm of twitch combat. Its also much harder to do AI wise so as soon as you add a lot of dodging, blocking, aiming or collision, you are bound to both upset a lot of people and end up with gimmicky combat which bares a striking resemblance to exploiting, hence the reason this subject resurfaces on almost a weekly basis.
No, it doesn't. The term came as a subtle insult to the game because of how three classes were mandatory for dungeon crawls and camps.
As someone who played an Enchanter, if I was wasting my mana on slowing spells and not CC, I would be playing it wrong.
The big 3 were around since before EQ, and as someone who played EQ from day one for many years, I can tell you we never referred to the trinity as tank, healer, cc. The third was always dps, but an enchanter was preferred. Like I said, the best groups always had enchanter and a cleric, but you could make it with a tank, healer and dps in most situations as almost every caster had CC.
I would say take out mandatory and put in most efficient. At least in EQ and WoW you could do dungeons with many different compositions of classes. It was simple the most efficient way found to complete content. Most people go for what works the best in a game. In D&D games like Baldur's Gate 1/2 I never really thought much about the trinity. I generally wanted a healer to heal outside of combat when resting, a thief for removing traps and opening locks, a mage for CC and dispelling other mages protections, and the rest warrior/dps which were all fairly effective.
As someone who played EQ from the beginning, I can say we never used the term to refer to anything other than Cleric, Warrior, and Enchanter. Other classes did not qualify. It was used as short form so we didn't have to type out that we had a Cleric, Warrior, and Enchanter every time. Runs without high dps classes were very common as we got whomever wanted to join once we filled the three main roles.
It was mandatory if you actually wanted to go into the dungeon to accomplish something instead of sitting at the dungeon entrance or camping yard trash.
Nothing like a quick google search to restore ones sanity. Look up Everquest Trinity or anything related to rpg trinity and you get tank/healer/dps 10:1.
Not going to argue about it further, if your experience differed thats cool but until recently I had never heard anyone include a support class as part of the trinity.
Lol that smacks of good old EQ elitist enchanter talk. Literally every class that casted spells in EQ had some form of CC, so unless you were with a party of scrubs you were seldom limited by what you could accomplish. Everyone loved enchanters though, because they also had clarity which significantly increased group efficiency if you didn't have a bard.
Except that you can't.
The whole concept of the trinity is based around the 3 most fundamental specialized roles you can have, while still having functional group combat. One of those roles is that of 'threat management'. By removing that, and instead making threat a combination of environmental & stat factors, of which everyone is responsible, you remove one of those roles. As such, by definition, it is no longer a trinity (let alone 'the' trinity). In GW2's case, healing is also a group effort, which removes yet another specialized role. This is why most trinity minded people claim GW2 is 'everyone is a DPS', which is a half-truth at best.
If you look at any one of those threat criteria individually, then yes, they could be implemented in a trinity game. However, that's not how they work. They work in tandum with eachother (sticking w/ the GW2 example for this). For example, you can have a guardian with the highest armor, and lowest health in the group, but he can lose aggro to a DPS who's ressing a teammate. Or to support that's closer to the boss than he is. If you tried to implement the same mechanics in a trinity game, then what would the tank do? Everyone at this point is capable of getting, and keeping aggro. And there are no real class mechanics that can change that fact. It all comes down to the situational awareness of each individual player.
- In every trinity game released, by contrast, threat is linear. Everyone is working off the same threat scale, and this number is easily tracked in many of these games. Most of these games DO have snap aggro (taunt, provoke, etc.) which provides a temporary edge on the threat table. For example in FFXIV:ARR, there's a skill tanks get which automatically puts them at the top of the threat table. If someone surpasses that number as soon as the skill is used, the skill is wasted. But for that brief second, the tank has a chance to get back on top.
Yes, we have (at least most of us).
The reason GW2 keeps getting mentioned, is because it's a damned good example.
And when it comes to combat design in MMORPGs, it's about the only example people all seem to be familiar with. Trinity mechanics are so predominate in this genre that it is very hard to point to a non-trinity game that isn't Eve, or an FPS. And even then, there's a very high chance half the people on this site won't have a clue what game you're talking about.