In the beginning, there was the Trinity. I'm quite familiar with the tank/healer/dps setup but I'd like to hear about others that either did away with the 3 roles or change things up so that groups didn't require those 3.
Has there been a- no healers, no tank in some game? Or a- everyone is a support class?
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?"
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I agree with supporting various group configurations as well. Team play doesn't have to require the trilogy. Classes shouldn't be required.
There are plenty ways of doing this. MOBA does it. Diablo 3 does it. GW2 does it.
You don't need the trilogy, or role specific group to have good MP gameplay.
MOBA's aren't really a good example, for the most part, like LOL etc. they are single players where they are on the same team, but they don't interract as a team, very few MOBA's actually promote group play, although i think HotS is probably a step towards promoting group play as a group, rather than a bunch of people who are nominally part of a team, which is why MOBA's are often referred to as 'lane games'. GW2, i think the previous example of 'everyone is a dps class' is probably apt, grouping is haphazard and seems to be largely irrelevant, not sure its the kind of game people who are more concerned with grouping would actually focus on, as it seems to be more of a single player game, even when you are in a group, as other players around you could just as easily be npc's without anyone really noticing. When it comes to the Trinity though, it does seem as though classes require a certain type of player to excel, for the Tank classes, usually need players with good leadership skills in order to do well, for Healers, players that are able to integrate well with others as part of a team, in that regard DPS classes are those that imo, are more of a lone wolf kind of player, finding a DPS'er with good team skills is probably as rare as finding a Tank player with good leadership skills, which is why imo, some groups do well and some don't, its not just about players learning their class, but also how well they are able to work as a team, or perhaps, especially how well they are able to work as a team.
Teams of 2 or 3 rlf who do not want to be split because of others like ratings
The basic premise assumes there is a large pool of choices as opposed to 1 or 2 of an essential class on at a particular time for a particular instance
Flexible classes eg a druid who is dps but can heal if needed isn't necessarily specced to heal, or geared to go bear and tank or even practiced at that role
Teams of 2 or 3 rlf who do not want to be split because of others like ratings
The basic premise assumes there is a large pool of choices as opposed to 1 or 2 of an essential class on at a particular time for a particular instance
Flexible classes eg a druid who is dps but can heal if needed isn't necessarily specced to heal, or geared to go bear and tank or even practiced at that role
Essential classes seem to be the issue most folks have.
So, start there. "Essential Classes" need to go.
Turns out it's as easy as "every class has some healing capability", and let agro wander where it will. Works better if "every class has some way to dump or evade too much agro," but that isn't truly necesary with a well-managed party that looks out for each other.
The "I'm the superstar" players will whine about no longer being center of attention, but that's just an ego thing.
But GW2 missed the boat with all-dps groups, the most boringly familiar way to "dump the trinity".
A tightly working group of dark and/or rad defenders/controllers was soooo much more fun to play. Tank? Healer? DPS? No thanks, no need, we gots the legendary tankmages.
The one thing working for groups in MMOs, is that players are
ever increasingly enjoying group play in other genres. We have long
reached past the point where players are more likely to have group play in a
FPS than they are in a MMO.
FPS grouping is mostly pvp .. just like World of Tanks, LoL, and games like that.
For those games, you can easily just treat other players as NPCs.
What on earth does that mean? Do you think members of a MMO
group should treat each other differently from members of a FPS group? In PvP
the groups work in an extremely similar way, in PvE they are somewhat different
but essential the same.
When it comes to the Trinity though, it does seem as though classes require a certain type of player to excel, for the Tank classes, usually need players with good leadership skills in order to do well, for Healers, players that are able to integrate well with others as part of a team, in that regard DPS classes are those that imo, are more of a lone wolf kind of player, finding a DPS'er with good team skills is probably as rare as finding a Tank player with good leadership skills, which is why imo, some groups do well and some don't, its not just about players learning their class, but also how well they are able to work as a team, or perhaps, especially how well they are able to work as a team.
Totally agree with the above .The problem is since there are so many different types of players their abilities and interest also differs and to just try to slot them into roles makes it even more difficult and getting them then to play together is another problem. That is why the roles have become simplified these days removing the more difficult and heavily group dependent ones. True that there were far more roles before and now those roles if they do exist is probably present in more than one class and meshed together with other group defining ones like one character having healer,buffer,debuffer ,dps abilities or tank,crowd control,buffer. This makes it easier for players to choose but reduces the group dependency.
When it comes to the Trinity though, it does seem as though classes require a certain type of player to excel, for the Tank classes, usually need players with good leadership skills in order to do well, for Healers, players that are able to integrate well with others as part of a team, in that regard DPS classes are those that imo, are more of a lone wolf kind of player, finding a DPS'er with good team skills is probably as rare as finding a Tank player with good leadership skills, which is why imo, some groups do well and some don't, its not just about players learning their class, but also how well they are able to work as a team, or perhaps, especially how well they are able to work as a team.
Totally agree with the above .The problem is since there are so many different types of players their abilities and interest also differs and to just try to slot them into roles makes it even more difficult and getting them then to play together is another problem. That is why the roles have become simplified these days removing the more difficult and heavily group dependent ones. True that there were far more roles before and now those roles if they do exist is probably present in more than one class and meshed together with other group defining ones like one character having healer,buffer,debuffer ,dps abilities or tank,crowd control,buffer. This makes it easier for players to choose but reduces the group dependency.
The second problem is that "modern" mmos do a piss poor job of actually promoting and encouraging grouping. They fully embrace the solo content locust experience. Then the developers whine when people don't enjoy all that grouping has to offer. See GW2 for examples.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
No, in the beginning there was tanking, DPS, Healing, Pulling, Buffing/debuffing, and crowd control.
It got later dumbed down into the "Trinty."
Bingo.
I was going to reply similarly, but ya beat me to it
Personally, I find it disappointing how, over time, MMO players are looking for more and more ways to fragment, compartmentalize, and isolate players into groups, right on down to "just make everything soloable, including raids, so I don't have to ever deal with another person" (and I've seen that kind of sentiment many times).
When I first got into MMOs, grouping was something people willingly, even eagerly, did. They weren't picky about who they played with. They didn't worry about only finding people who played like they did. Because people were able and willing to set their own preferences aside, and just have fun with good people.
People who wanted to move faster might gripe a little bit, but ultimately, they adapted to the group, and ended up having a good time. Roleplayers might have really wanted to get some RP in, but if the group wasn't up for it, no big deal... they'd set that desire aside for another time, and do what was best for the group, and have fun. And so on.
People these days seem to feel their personal preferences, pacing and playstyle is paramount, or somehow "sacred", and everyone else should cater to that. And of course, almost every party member feels that way. They see anyone who doesn't share their preferences as some monolithic obstacle to them having fun. But the problem is, they're getting in their own way, by making their preferences such an impassible obstacle themselves. Just freaking let it go, relax, and have fun. You'd be amazed how much more an enjoyable game becomes when you're not spending every moment fretting that others aren't playing the way you want them to.
I should record the groups I'm in for dungeons some time and post them, complete with voice chat, just to give an example of what I mean. From what I see/hear/read, grouping up for dungeons/etc. for many people is this tense, uncomfortable situation, where people are bitching and arguing, etc. And I can verify that 'cause I've been in many of those kinds of groups myself. There's always that one or two people who refuse to have fun, and insist on being an inconsolable grouch the entire way, and they just ruin it for everyone else.
In my groups, there's laughing, joking around, horrible puns. Just a lot of fun. I've had my cheekbones hurting by the end of some runs from laughing so hard. Because it's fun. Yes, even the dying part can be hilarious, and often is. Laughter's a wonderful thing. There's a lot of MMO gamers who could really do well to try it some time.
Basically, people have forgotten how to interact, adapt, cooperate and get along in a group setting. They're so wrapped up in themselves that they find the idea of doing so completely unappealing and look for any means they can to avoid it.
Once upon a time, people looked for more ways to group and play with other people. Now, folks are seeking more ways to spread ever further apart.
It's really sad. I've seen people try to argue that it's "the evolution of the genre". That's incorrect. I'd say it's the devolution of the genre.
The one thing working for groups in MMOs, is that players are
ever increasingly enjoying group play in other genres. We have long
reached past the point where players are more likely to have group play in a
FPS than they are in a MMO.
FPS grouping is mostly pvp .. just like World of Tanks, LoL, and games like that.
For those games, you can easily just treat other players as NPCs.
What on earth does that mean? Do you think members of a MMO
group should treat each other differently from members of a FPS group? In PvP
the groups work in an extremely similar way, in PvE they are somewhat different
but essential the same.
no .. i mean just learn from WoT, LoL ... make it easy to interchange players, and let people treat others like NPCs.
MOBA's aren't really a good example, for the most part, like LOL etc. they are single players where they are on the same team, but they don't interract as a team, very few MOBA's actually promote group play,
May be people don't like that much interactions.
Look at D3 .. you can ignore the other people on your team (although if you want to push high GR, you can to coordinate). May be some content should be like that ... you can group, and sort of interaction (let's beat down on the boss at the same time) but do not need to coordinate, and interact very much.
We have 2 current and active grouping threads, couldn't add your points to one of them?
Wtf? I wanted questions answered that weren't at all relevant in any of the grouping threads. Now, they will never be answered. Furthermore, merging them would detrail the others, which isn't my intent.
Well again CoH I thought did a pretty good job at making grouping possible. However, some of the issues you mentioned did occur in that game. Mainly, starving for a particular role. However, the one thing that every game I have played since is the lack of diversity. It was easier in CoH to form groups mostly because it was primarily a RP game. It was easier to find a tank or support because 1. People had so many options for making a tank (i.e. fire tank, will power tank, invulnerable tank...) 2. That game had two types of support that NO OTHER GAME I HAVE SEEN HAS EVER DONE and that was to have defenders (healers) AND controllers who could not only lock down large groups, but could also heal, buff, and debuff. You also had diversity within those two groups. To me the solution is simple bring back the diversity to attract different people. No game has done this other than CoH. None! Oh I can be a warrior and choose between tank and dps role. Okay. What if I don't want to make a sword wielding tank. What if I want a hammer? What if I don't want to power to be light-based, what if I want some mutation/ toxin deal. Bring back the diversity and you bring back players.
Also, let a tank be a tank! None of this constant clicking 2-3 second buffs to survive. I'd rather my resistance be built in and let me spend the actual game play time fighting and taunting. Lastly, the problem with sets that are somewhat flexible is that you get either a player who has not really perform consistently as a tank, because they have been encouraged through archetype design to be a solo toon and are not good at it or you get watered down version with lots of clickies that can't really hold aggro and take a beating.
Long story short: diversity in initial character design.
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?"
For the last time, for the ppl who don't know what trinity meant in MMO like EQ. It had nothing to do with the gameplay, At one point in EQ, it became apparent, that most groups with Warrior / Cleric / Enchanter, were much more stable groups than other combinations.
People started referring to it as the holy trinity, it was holy, since those groups managed to survive some of the harder content where other class combinations faltered (because the warrior had defensive, cleric was the best healer and enchanter was needed, especially in things like tipt trials, breakdown and ikkinz trials).
It wasn't related to the gameplay, it was a community invented term that referred to the group make-up, not the gameplay. Paladin (if anything he should have been the holy one) and SK, didn't have defensive, druids were rather poor healers because they weren't given CH (complete heal), (this was later rectified somewhat) and enchanters were needed for many of the content, especially the gates trials.
The combination of those 3 classes, meant the group was holy. The other 3 group spots could be filled by any other class, and the group would still be very stable thanks to the enchanter.
Holy trinity, or trinity, never used to mean Tank / Healing / DPS. There was no DPS in the holy trinity, the third character was an enchanter, a pure CC class with pitiful DPS.
both of you are wrong, Trinity in EQ was Warrior / Cleric / Enchanter, it has nothing to do with DPS, nor with mud
an EQ chanty is a pure CC class, not DPS
it doesn't even have anything to do with gameplay really
the only reason we started using the word "holy trinity", was because many people started to realize that a specific class combination of War, Clr and Enc made very stable groups, it was hard to take down a group where the tank had defensive (exclusive warrior skill, still is to this day), where you had the best healer in the game (cleric) and the best CC in the game (chanty)
hits in EQ consist of base damange (or "damage bonus") + damage interval * (random dice 1-20)
what warrior defensive does, is bring down the damange interval, which is the spike damage, since base damange is static
that's why warriors were part of the holy trinity, several people knew how the AC softcap and damage worked in EQ, the more powerful content, the higher the DI become, while DB remained quite low
the harder the content, the more important the holy trinity became
Hi Quiz, interesting thread. You list the problems with group based game play very well and the concerns for that. I would like to mention that I have actually found a solution for group based game play that answers most if not all of your problems. In order to create an atmosphere that encourages group content but yet allows different play styles you need to dig up the foundation of the core game play and re-root the two major components in which causes problems for group based game play.
1. Role based game play aka The Trinity.
Roles are different functions that come together in order for a group to survive the wilderness and dungeons. In a group oriented game certain roles have to or are preferred are wanted in a group in order to progress. This creates forced grouping in which players are forced to wait for certain roles in the group. The solution to this is to completely reinvent the Trinity Gameplay.
The idea is to still have various viable roles for grouping but at the same time not at the cost for waiting. You've mentioned GW2 that tells you to pick up a random group and go. GW2 breaks the trinity by omitting a dedicated healer class. Which completely doesn't work because every class is a DPS class and game play becomes a zerg. Which is not the type of game play players want in a role oriented game.
The solution of grouping based games are the reinvention of the trinity model as well as the core gameplay that is associated with the trinity. There also needs to be a more innovative combat mechanics that allow players to have some sort of minor to moderate utility to defend for themselves encase a healer class is not available to group. For instance, melee classes would have access to parrying and countering whereas caster and support classes could have access to healing or spell negation spells.
The point of my above thread is to have a group with any role in that composition. A group can survive without the trinity model in the wilderness or in dungeons. The only difference is that the challenge changes based on what roles are in or not active in your current group at that time. That way you're not spending hours looking for a tank or a healer. It simply means your play style has to adapt to something different. The whole dynamic of what we know of trinity game play has to change in order for this to work. The beauty of this reinvention of this core gameplay is that you don't have to necessarily have a tank or a healer to survive, simply the challenge changes.
2. The various types of players.
This is more of a variable and random as different types of players play the game differently. You've mentioned that there are players who want to rush through everything and players who want to take their time. Both of these types of players will be in every mmorpg. For me the best way to solve this issue is to create a niche game encouraging players to have a certain mentality when they play. I'll give you a perfect example.
In Everquest, things took time to be earned and obtained. Most of the time you couldn't simply steam roll in a dungeon because you had to carefully pull different NPC groups to not pull additional adds. Also, EQ had a harsh death penalty encouraging players to be on their toes and to be very careful. Thus creating an over all mentality that you have to slow down and take your time.
World of Warcraft encourages fast, instant gratification gameplay which gives the player the mentality that they have to finish everything fast. If content cannot be accomplished quickly then there is a lot of moaning and groaning. The penalty is very minute in WoW in which it doesn't create danger. I would say that there is a distinct player mentality from Everquest players to WoW players now.
If you design an mmorpg that encourages a slow to medium paced group content with penalty and danger, changes are that the player will take their time verses a player who will not.
It's very difficult to cater to a specified player who may or may not want to take their time in dungeon.
I'm trying not to say, the game needs to have this or that combat or loot or whatever. What I want to say is, design a game to have whatever base mechanics you want, and then try to make it easy to get groups when appropriate.
The Guild Wars 2 approach of, grab any five people and go, is one way to make it easier to get a group. But it's not the only one, and if a game wants to have defined roles as part of the game mechanics to make players not interchangeable, it's still very important to make it easy to find groups.
For most people, if it's an enormous pain to ever get a group, it doesn't matter what the experience is like after you have the group. People aren't going to bother. That's the reason solo content has become so prevalent.
If groups need a fixed class composition, you're going to have mismatches. If you make tanking or healing more popular, you're still going to have mismatches. If you make it so that half of the players trying to get a group for given content can't get a group due to class mismatches, that's a huge problem. It doesn't matter which half. It doesn't matter if it's different roles or classes overrepresented for different content. It doesn't matter if which classes can't get a group vary from one day to the next. You have to make it easy for everyone to get a group or many people won't bother.
That's why I proposed having alternate versions of dungeons that assume different class compositions. That way, players can play whatever class they want to play and still get a group.
For various types of players, if you design a game to try to chase off all play styles but your own, then you end up with a small player base and a commercial failure. Games need to appeal to as broad of a segment of players as is practical, and my hope is that by grouping players of similar play styles with each other, you can make group content appeal to more types of players.
So we talk about group contents aka boss raid ? I don't think it's a point . There are 3 keys that create good grouping MMORPG , long term contents , consumption of materials and ability to share .
Consumption of materials make grouping is good option , the materials are time and in game materials . Ability to share create link between players , and long term contents reinforce the link between players
In my point of view , most new MMORPG lack of ability to share and long term contents . That's why even the materials consume make people group with other but it can't keep the links between people from broke a parts
both of you are wrong, Trinity in EQ was Warrior / Cleric / Enchanter, it has nothing to do with DPS, nor with mud
an EQ chanty is a pure CC class, not DPS
it doesn't even have anything to do with gameplay really
the only reason we started using the word "holy trinity", was because many people started to realize that a specific class combination of War, Clr and Enc made very stable groups, it was hard to take down a group where the tank had defensive (exclusive warrior skill, still is to this day), where you had the best healer in the game (cleric) and the best CC in the game (chanty)
hits in EQ consist of base damange (or "damage bonus") + damage interval * (random dice 1-20)
what warrior defensive does, is bring down the damange interval, which is the spike damage, since base damange is static
that's why warriors were part of the holy trinity, several people knew how the AC softcap and damage worked in EQ, the more powerful content, the higher the DI become, while DB remained quite low
the harder the content, the more important the holy trinity became
I am going to say the origins of the trinity matter. Plus, the person at the link has industry cred and certainly more than you do.
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?"
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?"
That's why I proposed having alternate versions of dungeons that assume different class compositions. That way, players can play whatever class they want to play and still get a group.
Then people have to keep track of what versions of the dungeons they are shooting for, and what class to get. And if you do it for them, you may as well just get rid of roles in dungeon combat, and use the GW2, or D3 model.
Comments
Has there been a- no healers, no tank in some game? Or a- everyone is a support class?
You don't need the trilogy, or role specific group to have good MP gameplay.
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?"
It got later dumbed down into the "Trinty."
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
GW2, i think the previous example of 'everyone is a dps class' is probably apt, grouping is haphazard and seems to be largely irrelevant, not sure its the kind of game people who are more concerned with grouping would actually focus on, as it seems to be more of a single player game, even when you are in a group, as other players around you could just as easily be npc's without anyone really noticing.
When it comes to the Trinity though, it does seem as though classes require a certain type of player to excel, for the Tank classes, usually need players with good leadership skills in order to do well, for Healers, players that are able to integrate well with others as part of a team, in that regard DPS classes are those that imo, are more of a lone wolf kind of player, finding a DPS'er with good team skills is probably as rare as finding a Tank player with good leadership skills, which is why imo, some groups do well and some don't, its not just about players learning their class, but also how well they are able to work as a team, or perhaps, especially how well they are able to work as a team.
Some flaws:
So, start there. "Essential Classes" need to go.
Turns out it's as easy as "every class has some healing capability", and let agro wander where it will. Works better if "every class has some way to dump or evade too much agro," but that isn't truly necesary with a well-managed party that looks out for each other.
The "I'm the superstar" players will whine about no longer being center of attention, but that's just an ego thing.
But GW2 missed the boat with all-dps groups, the most boringly familiar way to "dump the trinity".
A tightly working group of dark and/or rad defenders/controllers was soooo much more fun to play. Tank? Healer? DPS? No thanks, no need, we gots the legendary tankmages.
What on earth does that mean? Do you think members of a MMO group should treat each other differently from members of a FPS group? In PvP the groups work in an extremely similar way, in PvE they are somewhat different but essential the same.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)
would you say that it should have been merged with the stickied "solo versus group" thread on the basis that it has the word "group" in the title?
I was going to reply similarly, but ya beat me to it
Personally, I find it disappointing how, over time, MMO players are looking for more and more ways to fragment, compartmentalize, and isolate players into groups, right on down to "just make everything soloable, including raids, so I don't have to ever deal with another person" (and I've seen that kind of sentiment many times).
When I first got into MMOs, grouping was something people willingly, even eagerly, did. They weren't picky about who they played with. They didn't worry about only finding people who played like they did. Because people were able and willing to set their own preferences aside, and just have fun with good people.
People who wanted to move faster might gripe a little bit, but ultimately, they adapted to the group, and ended up having a good time. Roleplayers might have really wanted to get some RP in, but if the group wasn't up for it, no big deal... they'd set that desire aside for another time, and do what was best for the group, and have fun. And so on.
People these days seem to feel their personal preferences, pacing and playstyle is paramount, or somehow "sacred", and everyone else should cater to that. And of course, almost every party member feels that way. They see anyone who doesn't share their preferences as some monolithic obstacle to them having fun. But the problem is, they're getting in their own way, by making their preferences such an impassible obstacle themselves. Just freaking let it go, relax, and have fun. You'd be amazed how much more an enjoyable game becomes when you're not spending every moment fretting that others aren't playing the way you want them to.
I should record the groups I'm in for dungeons some time and post them, complete with voice chat, just to give an example of what I mean. From what I see/hear/read, grouping up for dungeons/etc. for many people is this tense, uncomfortable situation, where people are bitching and arguing, etc. And I can verify that 'cause I've been in many of those kinds of groups myself. There's always that one or two people who refuse to have fun, and insist on being an inconsolable grouch the entire way, and they just ruin it for everyone else.
In my groups, there's laughing, joking around, horrible puns. Just a lot of fun. I've had my cheekbones hurting by the end of some runs from laughing so hard. Because it's fun. Yes, even the dying part can be hilarious, and often is. Laughter's a wonderful thing. There's a lot of MMO gamers who could really do well to try it some time.
Basically, people have forgotten how to interact, adapt, cooperate and get along in a group setting. They're so wrapped up in themselves that they find the idea of doing so completely unappealing and look for any means they can to avoid it.
Once upon a time, people looked for more ways to group and play with other people. Now, folks are seeking more ways to spread ever further apart.
It's really sad. I've seen people try to argue that it's "the evolution of the genre". That's incorrect. I'd say it's the devolution of the genre.
May be people don't like that much interactions.
Look at D3 .. you can ignore the other people on your team (although if you want to push high GR, you can to coordinate). May be some content should be like that ... you can group, and sort of interaction (let's beat down on the boss at the same time) but do not need to coordinate, and interact very much.
Hey moderator, BAD CALL.
Also, let a tank be a tank! None of this constant clicking 2-3 second buffs to survive. I'd rather my resistance be built in and let me spend the actual game play time fighting and taunting. Lastly, the problem with sets that are somewhat flexible is that you get either a player who has not really perform consistently as a tank, because they have been encouraged through archetype design to be a solo toon and are not good at it or you get watered down version with lots of clickies that can't really hold aggro and take a beating.
Long story short: diversity in initial character design.
-trinity
-slow meaningful strategic combat
-well defined one-dimensional classes
-restrictions to soloing
-no mechanics that allow autogrouping
-death penalty
-slow travel
basically, EQ
It's not some mystery what makes a good grouping MMO.
Everyone knows it. It's just that most MMO players today, are casuals.
MMO players today, care more about flashy action, character customization, cash shops, and meaningless PVP, than actual RPG and solid PVE content.
MMO players today, want easymode games like Black Desert where you can solo instead of a meaningful PVE game.
"Look mom, we can all do DPS and spam healing potions" = today's MMO
The Evolution of the Trinity
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.htmlEpic 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?"
People started referring to it as the holy trinity, it was holy, since those groups managed to survive some of the harder content where other class combinations faltered (because the warrior had defensive, cleric was the best healer and enchanter was needed, especially in things like tipt trials, breakdown and ikkinz trials).
It wasn't related to the gameplay, it was a community invented term that referred to the group make-up, not the gameplay. Paladin (if anything he should have been the holy one) and SK, didn't have defensive, druids were rather poor healers because they weren't given CH (complete heal), (this was later rectified somewhat) and enchanters were needed for many of the content, especially the gates trials.
The combination of those 3 classes, meant the group was holy. The other 3 group spots could be filled by any other class, and the group would still be very stable thanks to the enchanter.
Holy trinity, or trinity, never used to mean Tank / Healing / DPS. There was no DPS in the holy trinity, the third character was an enchanter, a pure CC class with pitiful DPS.
an EQ chanty is a pure CC class, not DPS
it doesn't even have anything to do with gameplay really
the only reason we started using the word "holy trinity", was because many people started to realize that a specific class combination of War, Clr and Enc made very stable groups, it was hard to take down a group where the tank had defensive (exclusive warrior skill, still is to this day), where you had the best healer in the game (cleric) and the best CC in the game (chanty)
hits in EQ consist of base damange (or "damage bonus") + damage interval * (random dice 1-20)
what warrior defensive does, is bring down the damange interval, which is the spike damage, since base damange is static
that's why warriors were part of the holy trinity, several people knew how the AC softcap and damage worked in EQ, the more powerful content, the higher the DI become, while DB remained quite low
the harder the content, the more important the holy trinity became
The Guild Wars 2 approach of, grab any five people and go, is one way to make it easier to get a group. But it's not the only one, and if a game wants to have defined roles as part of the game mechanics to make players not interchangeable, it's still very important to make it easy to find groups.
For most people, if it's an enormous pain to ever get a group, it doesn't matter what the experience is like after you have the group. People aren't going to bother. That's the reason solo content has become so prevalent.
If groups need a fixed class composition, you're going to have mismatches. If you make tanking or healing more popular, you're still going to have mismatches. If you make it so that half of the players trying to get a group for given content can't get a group due to class mismatches, that's a huge problem. It doesn't matter which half. It doesn't matter if it's different roles or classes overrepresented for different content. It doesn't matter if which classes can't get a group vary from one day to the next. You have to make it easy for everyone to get a group or many people won't bother.
That's why I proposed having alternate versions of dungeons that assume different class compositions. That way, players can play whatever class they want to play and still get a group.
For various types of players, if you design a game to try to chase off all play styles but your own, then you end up with a small player base and a commercial failure. Games need to appeal to as broad of a segment of players as is practical, and my hope is that by grouping players of similar play styles with each other, you can make group content appeal to more types of players.
I don't think it's a point .
There are 3 keys that create good grouping MMORPG , long term contents , consumption of materials and ability to share .
Consumption of materials make grouping is good option , the materials are time and in game materials . Ability to share create link between players , and long term contents reinforce the link between players
In my point of view , most new MMORPG lack of ability to share and long term contents . That's why even the materials consume make people group with other but it can't keep the links between people from broke a parts
I am going to say the origins of the trinity matter. Plus, the person at the link has industry cred and certainly more than you do.
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?"
How many f-ing thread do we need on it?
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?"