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.
This is actually not true.
Healing and DPS generated more threat then the tanks taunt ability.
People besides the tank got agro quite a bit.
For some reason people seem to make it appear easy to maintain agro on the tank in the old system. For certain classes in World of Warcraft that was the case with AOE taunts and things of that nature. EQ didn't have AOE taunts aside from the damage abilities you had. The warrior didn't even have an AOE damage ability. It was all single target DPS.
From the game mechanics you describe they would all work fine in a trinity system.
In a trinity system there are also hybrids. EQ have quite a few of them.
All you described could happen in a trinity system.
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.
No offense, but I feel you're simultaneously getting, and missing my point completely, lol.
First, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but you aren't wrong about Anet. One of the biggest challenges of GW2 is it's stuck in a massive catch-22. Trinity mechanics are so common that everyone has grown to expect them in every game. There are still a majority of players who believe that trinity mechanics are the ONLY way to make a game, even though that's simply not true. As such they are forced to implement things to the game (like hearts & taunt) which are familiar to trinity players. However, the side effect of this is that it also confuses a lot of players into thinking it's some kind of failed trinity.
Getting off the subject of that game:
if you remove the roles of tank & healer, and give them to everyone (which has been done), you DON'T have a trinity anymore. Remember, a trinity is a system based around 'specialized' roles. When you allow each class to do a bit of everything, they stop being specialized. Thus, no trinity.
Now, this doesn't mean you can't have interesting combat mechanics, or classes that feel distinct, or classes that are better at certain roles. It just means that the result cannot be classified as a trinity.
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.
I think because - and I'm just throwing something crazy out there right now - if you want to redefine something, you probably need to understand the current definition first.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
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.
Agreed. It's the most well-known, distinct point of reference to use. Was glad to see how quickly discussion went there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Healing and DPS generated more threat then the tanks taunt ability.
People besides the tank got agro quite a bit.
For some reason people seem to make it appear easy to maintain agro on the tank in the old system. For certain classes in World of Warcraft that was the case with AOE taunts and things of that nature. EQ didn't have AOE taunts aside from the damage abilities you had. The warrior didn't even have an AOE damage ability. It was all single target DPS.
From the game mechanics you describe they would all work fine in a trinity system.
In a trinity system there are also hybrids. EQ have quite a few of them.
All you described could happen in a trinity system.
Sigh... please re read the post I made.
Taunt is a 'snap' aggro ability. Not the primary mechanic for maintaining aggro as a tank. Never has been. It puts you at the top of the threat list for 'X' seconds, and that's about it. Since threat is constantly going up as the fighting drags on, DPS & heals can absolutely surpass that number if the tank isn't on their game.
Tanks primarily maintain aggro through a stat (threat, hate, emnity, etc.) which artificially makes their attacks more significant than they actually are. It basically games the system into treating an attack that does 20 damage like it's doing 200 damage.
This is necessary, because you can't have a class with ma health & armor, doing as much damage as a DPS class, or as much healing as a traditional healer. That would obviously be OP. However, if you had mob AI attack targets based on the level of danger to the mobs survival, instead of an arbritrary number (threat), then you're DPS and healers would be dead at the start of every fight. It wouldn't be fun.
That's the whole point of the trinity system. It all boils down to the 3 specialized roles necessary to manage threat based on the current standard system. Tank (they literally control the threat), Healer (they make sure the tanks dont die), DPS (they end the fights and control the pacing).
- This doesn't mean hybrids can't exist, but you may notice that (in a trinity game) the hybrids are a blend of those specialized roles. They are still based around those same basic mechanics.
EQ, however, is a bad example. You have to keep in mind that EQ was not designed to be a 'trinity game'. It was made during the inception of the MMO. They were putting whatever they could think of into that game, and discovering the outcome. The whole concept of trinity came later, when the players (not the devs) figured out the system that was being used, and realized the most efficient way to exploit that said system. The players realized that, while you had all these cool hybrid classes, if you ignored that and took the strongest ones, you'd get the best outcome. By the time EQ2 was released, you could see the shift.
There's a reason that you have to go back that far to show examples of such hybridization. Not to mention that back then, you also had a 4th role (controller), because games still had classes with potential CC.
Healing and DPS generated more threat then the tanks taunt ability.
People besides the tank got agro quite a bit.
For some reason people seem to make it appear easy to maintain agro on the tank in the old system. For certain classes in World of Warcraft that was the case with AOE taunts and things of that nature. EQ didn't have AOE taunts aside from the damage abilities you had. The warrior didn't even have an AOE damage ability. It was all single target DPS.
From the game mechanics you describe they would all work fine in a trinity system.
In a trinity system there are also hybrids. EQ have quite a few of them.
All you described could happen in a trinity system.
Sigh... please re read the post I made.
Taunt is a 'snap' aggro ability. Not the primary mechanic for maintaining aggro as a tank. Never has been. It puts you at the top of the threat list for 'X' seconds, and that's about it. Since threat is constantly going up as the fighting drags on, DPS & heals can absolutely surpass that number if the tank isn't on their game.
Tanks primarily maintain aggro through a stat (threat, hate, emnity, etc.) which artificially makes their attacks more significant than they actually are. It basically games the system into treating an attack that does 20 damage like it's doing 200 damage.
This is necessary, because you can't have a class with ma health & armor, doing as much damage as a DPS class, or as much healing as a traditional healer. That would obviously be OP. However, if you had mob AI attack targets based on the level of danger to the mobs survival, instead of an arbritrary number (threat), then you're DPS and healers would be dead at the start of every fight. It wouldn't be fun.
That's the whole point of the trinity system. It all boils down to the 3 specialized roles necessary to manage threat based on the current standard system. Tank (they literally control the threat), Healer (they make sure the tanks dont die), DPS (they end the fights and control the pacing).
- This doesn't mean hybrids can't exist, but you may notice that (in a trinity game) the hybrids are a blend of those specialized roles. They are still based around those same basic mechanics.
EQ, however, is a bad example. You have to keep in mind that EQ was not designed to be a 'trinity game'. It was made during the inception of the MMO. They were putting whatever they could think of into that game, and discovering the outcome. The whole concept of trinity came later, when the players (not the devs) figured out the system that was being used, and realized the most efficient way to exploit that said system. The players realized that, while you had all these cool hybrid classes, if you ignored that and took the strongest ones, you'd get the best outcome. By the time EQ2 was released, you could see the shift.
There's a reason that you have to go back that far to show examples of such hybridization. Not to mention that back then, you also had a 4th role (controller), because games still had classes with potential CC.
While its true there are many things (emergent gamplay) in EQ that didn't exist by design, the trinity and threat system was not one of those things. Tanking, taunting and the trinity were concepts from DikuMUD that they basically copied over to EQ being fully aware of how they worked there and would work in EQ.
The only reason I see this conversation keep coming up is because of how the system from older games has been trivialized in modern games (along with everything else). To this day I still enjoy combat in classic EQ because of the very volatile nature of threat and the struggle to both maintain aggro as a tank and avoid getting aggro as other classes.
Problem with trinity is that it watered out and simplified so much, that in its current form dare we say the wow trinity, the tactical finesse that was part of eq combat for example, has devolved instead of evolved.
Anyways, the key to changing trinity on a more fundamental basis, is creating more complex ai. Threath and aggro exist because it is a manageable solution, a way to bring order to a chaotic situation from a systematic point of view. Complex ai is extremely hard to implement, and it will take some serious heads much efford to get right. There does not seem to be any games willing to put in the efford to make complex ai at the moment, but I think if it ever happens, that game will redefine trinity as it were and is it is.. Well it wouldn't be trinity then, it would be called >>emerging combat<< or something like that.
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.
No offense, but I feel you're simultaneously getting, and missing my point completely, lol.
First, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but you aren't wrong about Anet. One of the biggest challenges of GW2 is it's stuck in a massive catch-22. Trinity mechanics are so common that everyone has grown to expect them in every game. There are still a majority of players who believe that trinity mechanics are the ONLY way to make a game, even though that's simply not true. As such they are forced to implement things to the game (like hearts & taunt) which are familiar to trinity players. However, the side effect of this is that it also confuses a lot of players into thinking it's some kind of failed trinity.
Getting off the subject of that game:
if you remove the roles of tank & healer, and give them to everyone (which has been done), you DON'T have a trinity anymore. Remember, a trinity is a system based around 'specialized' roles. When you allow each class to do a bit of everything, they stop being specialized. Thus, no trinity.
Now, this doesn't mean you can't have interesting combat mechanics, or classes that feel distinct, or classes that are better at certain roles. It just means that the result cannot be classified as a trinity.
Yup, just like the guy that posted "Anet understands the problem and is implementing taunt" and assumed its actual trinity taunt skill. But its just another control skill, thats just named taunt. While in trinity "taunt" is skill mechanic, and very rarely skills with that mechanic also wear actual skill name taunt.
And i know, "improving trinity" means removing it, just like OP suggests (in his own way, thats, to say, not very good) because its mish mash of system that doesnt really know what it wants to be.
GW2 did very good job with combat system, but i do agree that their PvE encounter design was lacking at launch. Maybe it wasnt all encounter design but general nerfing that happened just before launch because people in beta were getting hammered so hard by trying to play it trinity style. And from many posters that actually whine about GW2 system its evident they didnt delve deeper into it becasue they dont even understand concept of combo fields (that was also evident ingame with people who actually played the game, and succesful dodging where people had problems with getting 20 dodges for the daily ;P) But if you played PvP on bit more than uber casual/zerg level, you really saw how involved it is.
Problem with trinity is that it watered out and simplified so much, that in its current form dare we say the wow trinity, the tactical finesse that was part of eq combat for example, has devolved instead of evolved.
Anyways, the key to changing trinity on a more fundamental basis, is creating more complex ai. Threath and aggro exist because it is a manageable solution, a way to bring order to a chaotic situation from a systematic point of view. Complex ai is extremely hard to implement, and it will take some serious heads much efford to get right. There does not seem to be any games willing to put in the efford to make complex ai at the moment, but I think if it ever happens, that game will redefine trinity as it were and is it is.. Well it wouldn't be trinity then, it would be called >>emerging combat<< or something like that.
But you have to actually go deeper to understand why it was simplified.
1. balance of the classes - especially in game with long leveling and forced grouping it kinda sucks if noone wants to group with you if youre not one of few select classes and you might have put already huge amount of tie into the game
2. CC is diminished/vanished because it completely trivializes content, pretty every boss/champin today is immune to CC. Locking down mobs to pick of at leisure - extreme trivialization
And thats magic circle, devs (publishers) dont want to drop trinity (for obvious reasons) and in turn dumb ai is all that is needed and im glad that at least 1 company didnt take safe route and we might actually see further development on it. problem with trinity is that one dimensional classes get boring very quickly and since you cannot overstep trinity boundaries in encouter design you can only have dumb AI thats fun for very limited amount of time - like rubiks gadgets, most notably cube, once you know the trick the fun is over. OTOH chess can still be fun after years of playing.
Maybe I have to type bigger so everyone can see. I am not removing the trinity. That was never my intention for the thread. I am changing what a Tank role is at a different gameplay level than it is currently.
By distributing it to all melee classes. In this example, group gameplay does not constitute to focus on 1 NPC at a time. Rather, any melee class will have the responsibility to fight another melee NPC to hold that aggro. Every player in the group has their own responsibility but yet work as one cohesive unit. Melee vs. Melee, Caster DPS vs. Caster Dps/Healers, Support/Healing will aid the group. Simple really.
How can all of this happen? By a change of in-depth adaptable melee combat mechanics. I am not talking about any particular game. The tanking and aggro retention happens at a melee combat mechanic level. Perhaps it's my fault because I am attempting to convey something that hasn't been done yet. Maybe I should just explain how my melee combat mechanics will complement the proposed gameplay of the OP. If you're interested either let me know here or send me a private message. I will be more than happy to give discernment.
Maybe I have to type bigger so everyone can see. I am not removing the trinity. That was never my intention for the thread. I am changing what a Tank role is at a different gameplay level than it is currently.
By distributing it to all melee classes. In this example, group gameplay does not constitute to focus on 1 NPC at a time. Rather, any melee class will have the responsibility to fight another melee NPC to hold that aggro. Every player in the group has their own responsibility but yet work as one cohesive unit. Melee vs. Melee, Caster DPS vs. Caster Dps/Healers, Support/Healing will aid the group. Simple really.
How can all of this happen? By a change of in-depth adaptable melee combat mechanics. I am not talking about any particular game. The tanking and aggro retention happens at a melee combat mechanic level. Perhaps it's my fault because I am attempting to convey something that hasn't been done yet. Maybe I should just explain how my melee combat mechanics will complement the proposed gameplay of the OP. If you're interested either let me know here or send me a private message. I will be more than happy to give discernment.
Your suggestion is just another way of further breaking down the defined role system. Mechanics that do this (like removing threat mechanics) inevitably end up removing the identity and strategy involved in combat because it takes the class responsibilities and just shifts them to other people.
To some degree what you are suggesting is already viable by allowing "non-tanks" to tank, but less efficiently. In any good game every class should have the ability to generate sufficient threat to tank. However, not every class should have either the defensive skills, evasion or armor to mitigate damage and effectively tank long term.
So sure, you could do that, but I don't see any positive side in a game with threat mechanics. It only serves to normalize the tank role in favor of a more chaotic, dps focused form of gameplay. Its probably a step up from nontraditional combat like in GW2 but still a step backwards as far as I'm concerned.
I also don't know why you are pigeonholing only melee classes to tank roles. I've played a ranged tank role many times, and I find it interesting as well.
Maybe I have to type bigger so everyone can see. I am not removing the trinity. That was never my intention for the thread. I am changing what a Tank role is at a different gameplay level than it is currently.
By distributing it to all melee classes. In this example, group gameplay does not constitute to focus on 1 NPC at a time. Rather, any melee class will have the responsibility to fight another melee NPC to hold that aggro. Every player in the group has their own responsibility but yet work as one cohesive unit. Melee vs. Melee, Caster DPS vs. Caster Dps/Healers, Support/Healing will aid the group. Simple really.
How can all of this happen? By a change of in-depth adaptable melee combat mechanics. I am not talking about any particular game. The tanking and aggro retention happens at a melee combat mechanic level. Perhaps it's my fault because I am attempting to convey something that hasn't been done yet. Maybe I should just explain how my melee combat mechanics will complement the proposed gameplay of the OP. If you're interested either let me know here or send me a private message. I will be more than happy to give discernment.
Your suggestion is just another way of further breaking down the defined role system. Mechanics that do this (like removing threat mechanics) inevitably end up removing the identity and strategy involved in combat because it takes the class responsibilities and just shifts them to other people.
To some degree what you are suggesting is already viable by allowing "non-tanks" to tank, but less efficiently. In any good game every class should have the ability to generate sufficient threat to tank. However, not every class should have either the defensive skills, evasion or armor to mitigate damage and effectively tank long term.
So sure, you could do that, but I don't see any positive side in a game with threat mechanics. It only serves to normalize the tank role in favor of a more chaotic, dps focused form of gameplay. Its probably a step up from nontraditional combat like in GW2 but still a step backwards as far as I'm concerned.
Again you're just assuming and taking what I said out of context. This thread has gotten out of hand and derailed. I never said I was taking away threat mechanics. Do you even read what I said?
Do you understand that I am not even considering a 'non' tank. That all melee classes are in some shape or form a 'tank.' I am not suggesting caster tanks. I am not suggestion healing/support tanks.
Maybe I have to type bigger so everyone can see. I am not removing the trinity. That was never my intention for the thread. I am changing what a Tank role is at a different gameplay level than it is currently.
By distributing it to all melee classes. In this example, group gameplay does not constitute to focus on 1 NPC at a time. Rather, any melee class will have the responsibility to fight another melee NPC to hold that aggro. Every player in the group has their own responsibility but yet work as one cohesive unit. Melee vs. Melee, Caster DPS vs. Caster Dps/Healers, Support/Healing will aid the group. Simple really.
How can all of this happen? By a change of in-depth adaptable melee combat mechanics. I am not talking about any particular game. The tanking and aggro retention happens at a melee combat mechanic level. Perhaps it's my fault because I am attempting to convey something that hasn't been done yet. Maybe I should just explain how my melee combat mechanics will complement the proposed gameplay of the OP. If you're interested either let me know here or send me a private message. I will be more than happy to give discernment.
Your suggestion is just another way of further breaking down the defined role system. Mechanics that do this (like removing threat mechanics) inevitably end up removing the identity and strategy involved in combat because it takes the class responsibilities and just shifts them to other people.
To some degree what you are suggesting is already viable by allowing "non-tanks" to tank, but less efficiently. In any good game every class should have the ability to generate sufficient threat to tank. However, not every class should have either the defensive skills, evasion or armor to mitigate damage and effectively tank long term.
So sure, you could do that, but I don't see any positive side in a game with threat mechanics. It only serves to normalize the tank role in favor of a more chaotic, dps focused form of gameplay. Its probably a step up from nontraditional combat like in GW2 but still a step backwards as far as I'm concerned.
Again you're just assuming and taking what I said out of context. This thread has gotten out of hand and derailed. I never said I was taking away threat mechanics. Do you even read what I said?
Do you understand that I am not even considering a 'non' tank. That all melee classes are in some shape or form a 'tank.' I am not suggesting caster tanks. I am not suggestion healing/support tanks.
How ironic that you claim I didn't read what you said by claiming I said something I actually did not say.
Edit: Just to be clear, the reference to removing threat mechanics was in parentheses, and was a comparison to what you were suggesting which is normalizing the tank role by allowing melees in general to tank. While your suggestion may be better than removal of tanking and class roles altogether, its still a step down that path which leads mishmash RPG combat due to a lack of defined roles.
If you're interested in actually knowing how this can work and will be nothing like Gw2 send me a message. It's better to discuss in a conversation than this thread.
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.
Let's remember to talk about how tanking actually is in actual games. For example WOW's burst threat means tanks have very little difficulty staying top on threat, but that doesn't mean they don't have very deep rotations in addition to the fight-specific stuff (positioning, adds, etc).
Threat is no longer a race because of the awkward gameplay it created. If a tank was undergeared it meant that DPS had to deliberately only do 75% of normal DPS (or whatever, depending on the tank's gear.) Which might be the same DPS you dealt a couple months back before all your gear upgrades --which means when the tank is undergeared all of your DPS are effectively undergeared too. Clearly a bad system.
But if your argument is that instead of going that direction they should've had threat be constant and independent of gear (so Fireball always does 5 threat and your tank's Slash always does 6 threat, regardless of gear) then I could agree with that. It would keep an interesting aspect of threat-based AI while solving the gear problem.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't see how this thread is getting derailed, people are on topic and posting intelligent comments. OP don't give up just yet, maybe you need to spell it out what it is you want to talk about, or give some example. This is one of the more interesting threads here, and so far troll free, and that is rare.
I also don't know why you are pigeonholing only melee classes to tank roles. I've played a ranged tank role many times, and I find it interesting as well.
Very true, in SW;TOR one of the tank classes, Vanguard is a ranged weapon user, its also a very effective tank class, ie, high health, heavy armour, and good at holding agro, which is pretty much all you need for a decent tank class.
I appreciate what you wrote here, but slower was more needed than a CC. CC was also needed and usually CC game with a class that can slow as well. But anyways this thread is about changing the tanking role and the gaming elements associated with that change. I just don't want people to derail this thread.
You don't need to redefine the tank role...
Developers need to bring back Mez, charm, pacify, etc. The games need to slow back down and stop being the "OMG PULL ALL THE MOBS"
Tank roles work great with Mitigation spike timing, positioning, argo management, occasional interrupt.
The issue isn't tank design... it is PEOPLE are the issue. People wanted faster dungeon run... more LEWTZ. So CC died out. In addtion to PVP'ers complaining about CC.
Comments
This is actually not true.
Healing and DPS generated more threat then the tanks taunt ability.
People besides the tank got agro quite a bit.
For some reason people seem to make it appear easy to maintain agro on the tank in the old system. For certain classes in World of Warcraft that was the case with AOE taunts and things of that nature. EQ didn't have AOE taunts aside from the damage abilities you had. The warrior didn't even have an AOE damage ability. It was all single target DPS.
From the game mechanics you describe they would all work fine in a trinity system.
In a trinity system there are also hybrids. EQ have quite a few of them.
All you described could happen in a trinity system.
No offense, but I feel you're simultaneously getting, and missing my point completely, lol.
First, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but you aren't wrong about Anet. One of the biggest challenges of GW2 is it's stuck in a massive catch-22. Trinity mechanics are so common that everyone has grown to expect them in every game. There are still a majority of players who believe that trinity mechanics are the ONLY way to make a game, even though that's simply not true. As such they are forced to implement things to the game (like hearts & taunt) which are familiar to trinity players. However, the side effect of this is that it also confuses a lot of players into thinking it's some kind of failed trinity.
Getting off the subject of that game:
if you remove the roles of tank & healer, and give them to everyone (which has been done), you DON'T have a trinity anymore. Remember, a trinity is a system based around 'specialized' roles. When you allow each class to do a bit of everything, they stop being specialized. Thus, no trinity.
Now, this doesn't mean you can't have interesting combat mechanics, or classes that feel distinct, or classes that are better at certain roles. It just means that the result cannot be classified as a trinity.
I think because - and I'm just throwing something crazy out there right now - if you want to redefine something, you probably need to understand the current definition first.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Agreed. It's the most well-known, distinct point of reference to use. Was glad to see how quickly discussion went there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Sigh... please re read the post I made.
Taunt is a 'snap' aggro ability. Not the primary mechanic for maintaining aggro as a tank. Never has been. It puts you at the top of the threat list for 'X' seconds, and that's about it. Since threat is constantly going up as the fighting drags on, DPS & heals can absolutely surpass that number if the tank isn't on their game.
Tanks primarily maintain aggro through a stat (threat, hate, emnity, etc.) which artificially makes their attacks more significant than they actually are. It basically games the system into treating an attack that does 20 damage like it's doing 200 damage.
This is necessary, because you can't have a class with ma health & armor, doing as much damage as a DPS class, or as much healing as a traditional healer. That would obviously be OP. However, if you had mob AI attack targets based on the level of danger to the mobs survival, instead of an arbritrary number (threat), then you're DPS and healers would be dead at the start of every fight. It wouldn't be fun.
That's the whole point of the trinity system. It all boils down to the 3 specialized roles necessary to manage threat based on the current standard system. Tank (they literally control the threat), Healer (they make sure the tanks dont die), DPS (they end the fights and control the pacing).
- This doesn't mean hybrids can't exist, but you may notice that (in a trinity game) the hybrids are a blend of those specialized roles. They are still based around those same basic mechanics.
EQ, however, is a bad example. You have to keep in mind that EQ was not designed to be a 'trinity game'. It was made during the inception of the MMO. They were putting whatever they could think of into that game, and discovering the outcome. The whole concept of trinity came later, when the players (not the devs) figured out the system that was being used, and realized the most efficient way to exploit that said system. The players realized that, while you had all these cool hybrid classes, if you ignored that and took the strongest ones, you'd get the best outcome. By the time EQ2 was released, you could see the shift.
There's a reason that you have to go back that far to show examples of such hybridization. Not to mention that back then, you also had a 4th role (controller), because games still had classes with potential CC.
While its true there are many things (emergent gamplay) in EQ that didn't exist by design, the trinity and threat system was not one of those things. Tanking, taunting and the trinity were concepts from DikuMUD that they basically copied over to EQ being fully aware of how they worked there and would work in EQ.
The only reason I see this conversation keep coming up is because of how the system from older games has been trivialized in modern games (along with everything else). To this day I still enjoy combat in classic EQ because of the very volatile nature of threat and the struggle to both maintain aggro as a tank and avoid getting aggro as other classes.
Badspock got it right.
Problem with trinity is that it watered out and simplified so much, that in its current form dare we say the wow trinity, the tactical finesse that was part of eq combat for example, has devolved instead of evolved.
Anyways, the key to changing trinity on a more fundamental basis, is creating more complex ai. Threath and aggro exist because it is a manageable solution, a way to bring order to a chaotic situation from a systematic point of view. Complex ai is extremely hard to implement, and it will take some serious heads much efford to get right. There does not seem to be any games willing to put in the efford to make complex ai at the moment, but I think if it ever happens, that game will redefine trinity as it were and is it is.. Well it wouldn't be trinity then, it would be called >>emerging combat<< or something like that.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Yup, just like the guy that posted "Anet understands the problem and is implementing taunt" and assumed its actual trinity taunt skill. But its just another control skill, thats just named taunt. While in trinity "taunt" is skill mechanic, and very rarely skills with that mechanic also wear actual skill name taunt.
And i know, "improving trinity" means removing it, just like OP suggests (in his own way, thats, to say, not very good) because its mish mash of system that doesnt really know what it wants to be.
GW2 did very good job with combat system, but i do agree that their PvE encounter design was lacking at launch. Maybe it wasnt all encounter design but general nerfing that happened just before launch because people in beta were getting hammered so hard by trying to play it trinity style. And from many posters that actually whine about GW2 system its evident they didnt delve deeper into it becasue they dont even understand concept of combo fields (that was also evident ingame with people who actually played the game, and succesful dodging where people had problems with getting 20 dodges for the daily ;P) But if you played PvP on bit more than uber casual/zerg level, you really saw how involved it is.
But you have to actually go deeper to understand why it was simplified.
1. balance of the classes - especially in game with long leveling and forced grouping it kinda sucks if noone wants to group with you if youre not one of few select classes and you might have put already huge amount of tie into the game
2. CC is diminished/vanished because it completely trivializes content, pretty every boss/champin today is immune to CC. Locking down mobs to pick of at leisure - extreme trivialization
And thats magic circle, devs (publishers) dont want to drop trinity (for obvious reasons) and in turn dumb ai is all that is needed and im glad that at least 1 company didnt take safe route and we might actually see further development on it. problem with trinity is that one dimensional classes get boring very quickly and since you cannot overstep trinity boundaries in encouter design you can only have dumb AI thats fun for very limited amount of time - like rubiks gadgets, most notably cube, once you know the trick the fun is over. OTOH chess can still be fun after years of playing.
As one poster posted, dumb AI plays to lose.
Maybe I have to type bigger so everyone can see. I am not removing the trinity. That was never my intention for the thread. I am changing what a Tank role is at a different gameplay level than it is currently.
By distributing it to all melee classes. In this example, group gameplay does not constitute to focus on 1 NPC at a time. Rather, any melee class will have the responsibility to fight another melee NPC to hold that aggro. Every player in the group has their own responsibility but yet work as one cohesive unit. Melee vs. Melee, Caster DPS vs. Caster Dps/Healers, Support/Healing will aid the group. Simple really.
How can all of this happen? By a change of in-depth adaptable melee combat mechanics. I am not talking about any particular game. The tanking and aggro retention happens at a melee combat mechanic level. Perhaps it's my fault because I am attempting to convey something that hasn't been done yet. Maybe I should just explain how my melee combat mechanics will complement the proposed gameplay of the OP. If you're interested either let me know here or send me a private message. I will be more than happy to give discernment.
Your suggestion is just another way of further breaking down the defined role system. Mechanics that do this (like removing threat mechanics) inevitably end up removing the identity and strategy involved in combat because it takes the class responsibilities and just shifts them to other people.
To some degree what you are suggesting is already viable by allowing "non-tanks" to tank, but less efficiently. In any good game every class should have the ability to generate sufficient threat to tank. However, not every class should have either the defensive skills, evasion or armor to mitigate damage and effectively tank long term.
So sure, you could do that, but I don't see any positive side in a game with threat mechanics. It only serves to normalize the tank role in favor of a more chaotic, dps focused form of gameplay. Its probably a step up from nontraditional combat like in GW2 but still a step backwards as far as I'm concerned.
I like playing tanks in most Trinity-based games.
I also don't know why you are pigeonholing only melee classes to tank roles. I've played a ranged tank role many times, and I find it interesting as well.
Again you're just assuming and taking what I said out of context. This thread has gotten out of hand and derailed. I never said I was taking away threat mechanics. Do you even read what I said?
Do you understand that I am not even considering a 'non' tank. That all melee classes are in some shape or form a 'tank.' I am not suggesting caster tanks. I am not suggestion healing/support tanks.
How ironic that you claim I didn't read what you said by claiming I said something I actually did not say.
Edit: Just to be clear, the reference to removing threat mechanics was in parentheses, and was a comparison to what you were suggesting which is normalizing the tank role by allowing melees in general to tank. While your suggestion may be better than removal of tanking and class roles altogether, its still a step down that path which leads mishmash RPG combat due to a lack of defined roles.
Let's remember to talk about how tanking actually is in actual games. For example WOW's burst threat means tanks have very little difficulty staying top on threat, but that doesn't mean they don't have very deep rotations in addition to the fight-specific stuff (positioning, adds, etc).
Threat is no longer a race because of the awkward gameplay it created. If a tank was undergeared it meant that DPS had to deliberately only do 75% of normal DPS (or whatever, depending on the tank's gear.) Which might be the same DPS you dealt a couple months back before all your gear upgrades --which means when the tank is undergeared all of your DPS are effectively undergeared too. Clearly a bad system.
But if your argument is that instead of going that direction they should've had threat be constant and independent of gear (so Fireball always does 5 threat and your tank's Slash always does 6 threat, regardless of gear) then I could agree with that. It would keep an interesting aspect of threat-based AI while solving the gear problem.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Very true, in SW;TOR one of the tank classes, Vanguard is a ranged weapon user, its also a very effective tank class, ie, high health, heavy armour, and good at holding agro, which is pretty much all you need for a decent tank class.
So much THIS! There's SO many people with A.D.D.