Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

You hate Holy Trinity,Fine what do you replace it with?

1235

Comments

  • MMO_DoubterMMO_Doubter Member Posts: 5,056
    Originally posted by tro44_1 
     
    ???
    Couldnt you do this in Guild Wars and Warhammer?

    Can't say about GW, but Warhammer's collision detection was only in PvP. Quite buggy, too (like everything else).

    I believe the reason CD is not in MMOs is to prevent griefing. Blocking doors with your body, for example. No reason you couldn't turn it on versus mobs, though.

    "" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2

  • tro44_1tro44_1 Member Posts: 1,819
    Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

    Originally posted by tro44_1 
     
    ???
    Couldnt you do this in Guild Wars and Warhammer?

    Can't say about GW, but Warhammer's collision detection was only in PvP. Quite buggy, too (like everything else).

    I believe the reason CD is not in MMOs is to prevent griefing. Blocking doors with your body, for example. No reason you couldn't turn it on versus mobs, though.



     

    Because, the more people in melee range, the larger the wall becomes preventing other Melee fighter. Thats not fun, being unable to fight.

  • MMO_DoubterMMO_Doubter Member Posts: 5,056
    Originally posted by tro44_1



    Because, the more people in melee range, the larger the wall becomes preventing other Melee fighter. Thats not fun, being unable to fight.

    If you have that many melee fighters, then you are zerging the mobs and ought to be spreading out.

    I remember 'dogpiling' on mobs in Molten Core, and it wasn't fun at all.

    "" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2

  • DrachasorDrachasor Member Posts: 2,678
    Originally posted by tro44_1

    Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

    Originally posted by tro44_1 
     
    ???
    Couldnt you do this in Guild Wars and Warhammer?

    Can't say about GW, but Warhammer's collision detection was only in PvP. Quite buggy, too (like everything else).

    I believe the reason CD is not in MMOs is to prevent griefing. Blocking doors with your body, for example. No reason you couldn't turn it on versus mobs, though.



     

    Because, the more people in melee range, the larger the wall becomes preventing other Melee fighter. Thats not fun, being unable to fight.

    Trivially solved.  You only block enemies.  Allies and neutrals can move through your space just fine.

    Or, like MMO_Doubter implied above, just make sure there are enough enemies and space to accommodate all the melee fighters that could possibly show up. (The trivial solution is easier to implement though).

     

  • luckturtzluckturtz Member Posts: 422
    Originally posted by tro44_1

    Originally posted by Nightbringe1

    Originally posted by luckturtz

    Originally posted by pojung



    How do you get away from this? Well, first off, is that necessary? It's a mechanic that is widely embraced, it's familiar, and provides functionality and flexibility for a wide array of possible encounter structures. My first thought would be: make it more involving, interesting, demanding.


     

    It is simple.They are games already do this like CoX or Guild Wars to extent.No game you should ever hear we are looking for healer.You should be able to any quest,any mission with any group. If you have six dps or six tanks,They should be way to always to do a mission with class at hand. In CoX the other two support concepts CC and buffing are as strong as healing.You beat missions CC,tank and dps, buffing/debuffing,tank and dps or healing/dps/tank.Also tanks and dps are versatile enough that they could do other roles so that helps.The most fun i have every had playing mmo is playing a with a team of  5 blasters and 1 controller .

    The key is having healers in the game but they are a option not the only option.



     

    I can agree with this.

    I was playing my Ice / ForceField controller in CoH earlier today. She could have taken a nice healing secondary but I chose to go for buffs instead, since my primary is already full of debuffs. How does she work? The bad guys simply deal so little damage that we don't need a regular healer.

    Of course, it helps that the "tank" was a /fire scrapper that could spam her own moderate self heal, that that also steps outside the usual trinity.

    That could never be Balanced in a PvP/PvE mmo

     

    What game truly has balance pvp? The only reason COH is not balance for pvp it because devs can't make the changes need because the game started out as pve game and the changes need will drive away it core gamers.Plus Guild Wars  is game respect by mmo fans for having balance pvp and GW runs a system very close to what CoH has.

  • ic0n67ic0n67 Member Posts: 776
    Originally posted by Athcear


    Functionally, there's no difference between damage prevention and in-combat healing.  It still just serves to negate incoming damage. 

     

    Mitigate ... not negate

     

  • DrachasorDrachasor Member Posts: 2,678
    Originally posted by ic0n67

    Originally posted by Athcear


    Functionally, there's no difference between damage prevention and in-combat healing.  It still just serves to negate incoming damage. 

     Mitigate ... not negate

    Even if shields negated, they are less forgiving than healing.  If you are a half second late with a heal (or even a second) then very often you can still catch up and things will be ok (as long as you aren't consistently slow).  If you have damage preventing abilities and you are late...well, then you didn't prevent the damage at all, now did you?

     

  • NoobfishNoobfish Member Posts: 26

    Once we had slavery what did they replace it with?

    The holy trinity doesn't needs to be replaced, it needs to be removed.

    Maybe one talanted dev will solve it sometime in the future.

  • pojungpojung Member Posts: 810
    Originally posted by Noobfish


    Once we had slavery what did they replace it with?
    The holy trinity doesn't needs to be replaced, it needs to be removed.
    Maybe one talanted dev will solve it sometime in the future.



     

    Funny you should mention slavery. It still exists, but in different ways.

    The holy trinity is very much the resulting mechanics in play based on a kill or be killed style of play, where more than 1 hit is required to take someone down. If you have and ability pool and a health pool game, you will always have someone giving hits and taking hits. If you want to make it more dynamic, you involve healing- it requires selection of targets and definitive action, yet promotes the importance of dps.

    Shields are merely assigning 'additional' health points to an already-present pool. Buffers can be deemed as nothing more than force multipliers who assist to further the trinity concept. Any mechanic you want to involve will always come back to being able to be broken down into 2 (tanking, dps) if not 3 (healing) concepts.

    If you want to break things up, like a human body has organs, you can. But in the end you can simplify whatever system you have in play to be categorized into the 2/3. Not a bad thing- it just takes being creative to a point that the gamer doesn't realize the underlying core.

    That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
    We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
    So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
    - MMO_Doubter

  • DrachasorDrachasor Member Posts: 2,678
    Originally posted by pojung

    Originally posted by Noobfish


    Once we had slavery what did they replace it with?
    The holy trinity doesn't needs to be replaced, it needs to be removed.
    Maybe one talanted dev will solve it sometime in the future.



    Funny you should mention slavery. It still exists, but in different ways.

    The holy trinity is very much the resulting mechanics in play based on a kill or be killed style of play, where more than 1 hit is required to take someone down. If you have and ability pool and a health pool game, you will always have someone giving hits and taking hits. If you want to make it more dynamic, you involve healing- it requires selection of targets and definitive action, yet promotes the importance of dps.

    Shields are merely assigning 'additional' health points to an already-present pool. Buffers can be deemed as nothing more than force multipliers who assist to further the trinity concept. Any mechanic you want to involve will always come back to being able to be broken down into 2 (tanking, dps) if not 3 (healing) concepts.

    If you want to break things up, like a human body has organs, you can. But in the end you can simplify whatever system you have in play to be categorized into the 2/3. Not a bad thing- it just takes being creative to a point that the gamer doesn't realize the underlying core.

    I'll repeat what I posted yesterday in this thread since it seems you missed it.

     

    You could say that anything with healing, health, and damage is the Holy Trinity, but that's not really how the Holy Trinity works. I mean, I suppose you could use that as a definition, but it is a crappy definition (by "crappy", I mean it is not useful at all).

     

    The Holy Trinity is defined as having someone (or ones) whose job it is to get all the enemies to attack them. This is the tank. Then you have someone whose job it is to heal/buff, this is the healer. Then you have someone whose job it is to deal damage. Combat then consists of the tank getting all aggro, the dps killing the enemy, and the healer keeping the tank alive (and everyone else when there is AoE or aggro-ignoring damage). It's important to realize all these are COMBAT roles, so if you have a game where there is a healer, but they heal outside of combat only, then it isn't a Holy Trinity game. Now, probably not all that more interesting than an HT game is a Tank + DPS game where you drop the healer. Same with a "collapsed" trinity where one person handles two of the HT jobs, but the HT jobs ARE the combat roles. Naturally minor additions to combat duties are allowed, such as if a healer, dps or tank also needs to use some CC.

    Anyhow, one of the more defining characteristics of the HT system is the extreme specialization. If the tank couldn't take much more damage than everyone else, then you wouldn't need a tank so HT would fall apart. Hence the Tank is FAR, FAR more resilient than anyone else (this gives him job security, but being tough doesn't make one an HT tank since you also need those aggro abilities or some other method to ensure you take all damage). If people didn't take enough damage to need healing in combat or everyone could heal themselves easily enough, then the Healer wouldn't be needed, so everyone else has to have relatively crappy-healing. If tanks could do great DPS then DPS wouldn't be needed (you'd go all tanks since they are tougher). If healers could do great dps, then you'd go tanks + healers and no pure DPS, since your DPS could switch to healing in a pinch. (Important, the scope of these comparisons is a single combat, not multiple combats inbetween which you might be able to change your abilities). Anyhow, all this forces each role to be highly specialized and not able to do a good job at the other roles, otherwise the specialists in those other roles just wouldn't be needed.

    All that together is the HT, you start mucking around with that a lot and the system would break down. Usually this results in a lot of people complaining on the forums about how a class or something is overpowered (or one is underpowered).

     

     

  • pojungpojung Member Posts: 810

    @ Drachasor

    /sigh. Here goes..

    I'll repeat what I posted yesterday in this thread since it seems you missed it.

     

    Nice assumption! I read your post, and didn't miss a point. Also, a suggestion might be to reference previous posts via a link rather than repost- it reduces clutter.

    You could say that anything with healing, health, and damage is the Holy Trinity, but that's not really how the Holy Trinity works. I mean, I suppose you could use that as a definition, but it is a crappy definition (by "crappy", I mean it is not useful at all).

     

    The 'holy trinity' is the concept of removing health, restoring health, and having your own health taken away. This is the most simple way of stating the mechanic. Simply by stating an opinion [of being crappy] doesn't make it fact. Usefullness is a question of how you are able to relate or not to a concept- and is not universally quantifiable.

    The Holy Trinity is defined as having someone (or ones) whose job it is to get all the enemies to attack them. This is the tank. Then you have someone whose job it is to heal/buff, this is the healer. Then you have someone whose job it is to deal damage. Combat then consists of the tank getting all aggro, the dps killing the enemy, and the healer keeping the tank alive (and everyone else when there is AoE or aggro-ignoring damage). It's important to realize all these are COMBAT roles, so if you have a game where there is a healer, but they heal outside of combat only, then it isn't a Holy Trinity game. Now, probably not all that more interesting than an HT game is a Tank + DPS game where you drop the healer. Same with a "collapsed" trinity where one person handles two of the HT jobs, but the HT jobs ARE the combat roles. Naturally minor additions to combat duties are allowed, such as if a healer, dps or tank also needs to use some CC.

    You describe a very 1-dimensional approach to splitting the 3 components of the 'holy trinity' into single characters. And this works for a conceptual approach, but in reality, a tank does damage, everyone does some degree of tanking, and healers will often assist with dps or tanking as well.

    Obviously, a combat mechanic is pointless to analyze outside of combat...

    In a FPS, you have a dual approach where there is no healing (assuming no regenerating shields a la Halo etc), but you have damage dealing and damage taking. A collapsed trinity with multiple roles being performed by a single person is *still the holy trinity combat mechanic at work*. You're arguing that a holy trinity means 3 actual stand-alone people performing stand-alone roles. I'm stating that the *mechanic* is irrelivant of the number of people who encompass its manifestation.

    Anyhow, one of the more defining characteristics of the HT system is the extreme specialization. If the tank couldn't take much more damage than everyone else, then you wouldn't need a tank so HT would fall apart. Hence the Tank is FAR, FAR more resilient than anyone else (this gives him job security, but being tough doesn't make one an HT tank since you also need those aggro abilities or some other method to ensure you take all damage). If people didn't take enough damage to need healing in combat or everyone could heal themselves easily enough, then the Healer wouldn't be needed, so everyone else has to have relatively crappy-healing. If tanks could do great DPS then DPS wouldn't be needed (you'd go all tanks since they are tougher). If healers could do great dps, then you'd go tanks + healers and no pure DPS, since your DPS could switch to healing in a pinch. (Important, the scope of these comparisons is a single combat, not multiple combats inbetween which you might be able to change your abilities). Anyhow, all this forces each role to be highly specialized and not able to do a good job at the other roles, otherwise the specialists in those other roles just wouldn't be needed.

    Specialization does not remove the concept. It furthers the distance between the gamer's perspective and the mechanic at play, but the mechanic is still present. In the exact same way that a power can be reduced to a multiplication that can be reduced to an addition... identical is the case of specialization within the holy trinity concept. Spreading each role around a bit more equally tries to disguise the mechanic, but, you guessed it, the mechanic is still in play. Are people getting hit? Check. Are people having health restored? Check. Are people hitting others? Check. Guess we're back where we started.

    All that together is the HT, you start mucking around with that a lot and the system would break down. Usually this results in a lot of people complaining on the forums about how a class or something is overpowered (or one is underpowered).

    Really don't know where you're going with this.

    That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
    We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
    So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
    - MMO_Doubter

  • DrachasorDrachasor Member Posts: 2,678

    Pojung, yours is not a useful definition because you can essentially toss it on anything.  Everything is the HT system by your definition, and hence that definition is useful for any purpose of game design.  "Is game X a HT game?"  By you, the answer is ALWAYS "yes" if there is combat and you have more than 1 hit point.  That doesn't help distinguish one game from another.  That doesn't help design new games or new mechanics.  That doesn't help people isolate what their problem is with traditional MMOs.  In short, I say it is crappy and not useful, because you can't use such a definition for anything that matters.

    The long definition I provided, however much you might personally dislike it, does capture the system that people actually have a problem with.  It identifies and describes the components of such a system and how they interact.  Maybe you "don't see where I am going with it" but anyone who actually knows anything about game design or has a problem with traditional combat mechanics in MMOs will certainly see where I am going.

    The real question is where are you going with a definition that no one would ever find useful?  It's like defining an "action game" as any game where you do stuff (because doing stuff is action).  Yeah, you can define it that way, but it happens to cover every game that exists.  Some definitions simply aren't useful.  Part of defining a problem is properly defining terms.  You're trying to define a problem away by picking a poor definition, but this doesn't actually make the problem go away, it just makes you incapable of looking at it and analyzing it.

  • CortechsCortechs Member Posts: 40
    Originally posted by Athcear


    Functionally, there's no difference between damage prevention and in-combat healing.  It still just serves to negate incoming damage.  As someone who often plays a healer, I want healing spells AND shields, not one or the other.  On the practical side of playing a shield based healer, how would you know how effective your shields are?  Why, they'd have "shield bars", of course.  Oh wait, that's just like a mini health bar.  So, it functions like a less streamlined version of healing, and makes a healer not feel like a healer.  Not seeing the benefit.
    On the other hand, expanding the party so that you use a regular healer AND a shielder...  That could the interesting.

     

    There can be a huge difference between damage prevention and in-combat healing.  Let me explain.

    First, in a traditional HT setup, the issue we run into is that the MT is a huge pool of heavily armored hitpoints that is essentially endless as long as the healer is able to cast healing spells.  In order for the tank to die, the enemy has to overcome the rate of healing (like a spike) or the healer has to be distracted by adds, interrupts, or run out of mana.

    The problem here is that it is extremely difficult to replace either the "pool of heavily armored hitpoints" or the "endless rate of hitpoint influx" with any other combat role (which is why roles like rogues get reduced to boring melee-wizards).

     

    However, let's just take the shield example and see what we can do with it.  

    Let's say for simplicity that the caster has two shields.  A single-target and a group shield.  The shield does not have any hitpoints at all.  It is completely duration-based; three seconds.  This right here removes the restriction of it being "just another type of healing", and it has a reuse timer of 5 seconds (again for simplicity).  It will totally block an attack no matter how much damage that attack would have done.

    So the tank is blocking the monster, and we know the monster has 3 attacks.  One that does 100 single-target, one that does 500 single-target, and one that does 300 area.

    Well, obviously the caster will want to block the 500-point attack whenever possible, and block the 300 area attack when he sees that coming.  This is not healing, as it isn't adding any hitpoints to the tank.  The tank has 2K to start and that is all it will ever have.

    What does this type of setup give us?  Two things.

    First, the shield can be replaced by other types of abilities such as crowd control or another tank much easier than an endless pool of hitpoints can be replaced cc, stuns, or an "avoidance" tank.

    Secondly, we have moved "healers" away from spending 90% of their time staring at the pretty red pixels and reacting to those, to watching enemy behaviors and attacks and responding to those instead.

    Just to be clear, I'm not saying this shield idea is wonderful or anything, just that it is possible to think outside to HT box and I really feel the time has come to do just that.

    But yes, I do understand your point that in a traditional setup that a typical EQ-type rune is basically the same thing as a heal.

  • pojungpojung Member Posts: 810



     

    ;Drachasor

    Pojung, yours is not a useful definition because you can essentially toss it on anything. Everything is the HT system by your definition, and hence that definition is useful for any purpose of game design. "Is game X a HT game?" By you, the answer is ALWAYS "yes" if there is combat and you have more than 1 hit point. That doesn't help distinguish one game from another. That doesn't help design new games or new mechanics. That doesn't help people isolate what their problem is with traditional MMOs. In short, I say it is crappy and not useful, because you can't use such a definition for anything that matters.

    'Toss it on anything'... your logic approaches the issue from the wrong angle. I start with the mechanic, and see if whatever concept you can come up with cannot be simplified into it. I don't start with concepts and try to force them into the 3 boxes, per se. If I'm able to 'toss it on anything', then clearly there's a problem with the system, not the method of its identifcation- assuming there is something unwanted at play (I recognize this could potentially be cyclic reasoning- but in this case, isn't).

    There is, by your own admittance, a non-HT system in play when you have more than 1 health. If you remove healing altogether, you would have a tank-dps mechanic, point blank. Just as previously described. No HT here.

    What helps design new games or new mechanics is.... new gameplay or new mechanics, not to be redundant. Starting with the concept of 'i have health, you have health, i can take your health away, you can take my health away' and incorporating something new, or modifying it, will possibly change the outcome of what mechanics are involved that achieve those ends.

    What helps people isolate what their problem is with MMOs is reducing all concepts to the smallest common denomintor, then slowly combing over the concepts at hand, their interaction, the result of the interaction etc. I'm reducing to the smallest denominator.

    I absolutely can use my definition for anything that matters. Again, because you're unable to relate does not indicate it's not useful. Case in point, since we want new concepts:  location. If you could develop a game where simple presence served a purpose that didn't interact with conventional combat (by simply being somewhere to partake in combat) but could be bundled into the achievement of 'success' in some way, you would have a mechanic that is involving, but doesn't perform as a modifier to the taking, giving, or restoring of health. There, incorporate that and add fluff to it and you have a dynamic new mechanic. Also- as mentioned by someone earlier in this thread, use crafters in some way that doesn't provide redundancy to the triple-3 mechanics at play... perhaps a group needs a crafter for x reason, and the crafter needs the group for cover fire to accomplish their task. You have combat, but you don't influence or are influenced by, again, a hit-are hit-restore hits senario.

    The long definition I provided, however much you might personally dislike it, does capture the system that people actually have a problem with. It identifies and describes the components of such a system and how they interact. Maybe you "don't see where I am going with it" but anyone who actually knows anything about game design or has a problem with traditional combat mechanics in MMOs will certainly see where I am going.

    The definition you provided, to be clear, is that the 3 concepts must be identifiable via avatars that perform exclusively that specific concept. Mine, to be clear, is establishing that the concepts exist regardless of the way they are implimented. Mine is a more inclusive truth, but I have no problem, per se, with your method of explaining it. With regards to 'not seeing where you are going with it'- 'it' references the final paragraph to your post, not the entirety of it. I absolutely do see where you're going with the whole post...

    The real question is where are you going with a definition that no one would ever find useful? It's like defining an "action game" as any game where you do stuff (because doing stuff is action). Yeah, you can define it that way, but it happens to cover every game that exists. Some definitions simply aren't useful. Part of defining a problem is properly defining terms. You're trying to define a problem away by picking a poor definition, but this doesn't actually make the problem go away, it just makes you incapable of looking at it and analyzing it.

    'No one' means 'you'. I assure you (not that that means anything on an internet forum) that my method of breaking things down into the smallest bits possible while still retaining their core essence (hello atoms!) is how any scientist or mathmatician operates. Judging from the advancements our world has seen due in no small part to the efforts in this sector of industry, I'd assume my methods are sound.

    It covers every game that exists- perhaps- so the issue at hand is *the games*, not *the method that uncovers their design*! Hence, it couldn't be more useful! Part of defining a problem is properly defining parameters- absolutely agreed. My 'problem' (which really isn't one at all- I don't mind the HT because I recognize its being universally understood, it's malleable, there's enough push-pull etc) is the HT, and my definition is poor (opinion) but yet fully exposes the 'problem'? Because of its being more inclusive, I'm more prepared to analyze...

     

    Assumptions Inc: I think we're really splitting hairs on this. You want the mechanic to be individually identifiable. I want the mechanic to be recognized regardless of manifestation. You want games that put twists on the mechanic via fusion or fission. I'm saying it's still the same mechanics but disguised. Can we agree on that?

    That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
    We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
    So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
    - MMO_Doubter

  • DrachasorDrachasor Member Posts: 2,678
    Originally posted by pojung


    @ Drachasor
    Pojung, yours is not a useful definition because you can essentially toss it on anything. Everything is the HT system by your definition, and hence that definition is useful for any purpose of game design. "Is game X a HT game?" By you, the answer is ALWAYS "yes" if there is combat and you have more than 1 hit point. That doesn't help distinguish one game from another. That doesn't help design new games or new mechanics. That doesn't help people isolate what their problem is with traditional MMOs. In short, I say it is crappy and not useful, because you can't use such a definition for anything that matters.
    'Toss it on anything'... your logic approaches the issue from the wrong angle. I start with the mechanic, and see if whatever concept you can come up with cannot be simplified into it. I don't start with concepts and try to force them into the 3 boxes, per se. If I'm able to 'toss it on anything', then clearly there's a problem with the system, not the method of its identifcation- assuming there is something unwanted at play (I recognize this could potentially be cyclic reasoning- but in this case, isn't).
    There is, by your own admittance, a non-HT system in play when you have more than 1 health. If you remove healing altogether, you would have a tank-dps mechanic, point blank. Just as previously described. No HT here.
    What helps design new games or new mechanics is.... new gameplay or new mechanics, not to be redundant. Starting with the concept of 'i have health, you have health, i can take your health away, you can take my health away' and incorporating something new, or modifying it, will possibly change the outcome of what mechanics are involved that achieve those ends.
    What helps people isolate what their problem is with MMOs is reducing all concepts to the smallest common denomintor, then slowly combing over the concepts at hand, their interaction, the result of the interaction etc. I'm reducing to the smallest denominator.
    I absolutely can use my definition for anything that matters. Again, because you're unable to relate does not indicate it's not useful. Case in point, since we want new concepts:  location. If you could develop a game where simple presence served a purpose that didn't interact with conventional combat (by simply being somewhere to partake in combat) but could be bundled into the achievement of 'success' in some way, you would have a mechanic that is involving, but doesn't perform as a modifier to the taking, giving, or restoring of health. There, incorporate that and add fluff to it and you have a dynamic new mechanic. Also- as mentioned by someone earlier in this thread, use crafters in some way that doesn't provide redundancy to the triple-3 mechanics at play... perhaps a group needs a crafter for x reason, and the crafter needs the group for cover fire to accomplish their task. You have combat, but you don't influence or are influenced by, again, a hit-are hit-restore hits senario.
    The long definition I provided, however much you might personally dislike it, does capture the system that people actually have a problem with. It identifies and describes the components of such a system and how they interact. Maybe you "don't see where I am going with it" but anyone who actually knows anything about game design or has a problem with traditional combat mechanics in MMOs will certainly see where I am going.
    The definition you provided, to be clear, is that the 3 concepts must be identifiable via avatars that perform exclusively that specific concept. Mine, to be clear, is establishing that the concepts exist regardless of the way they are implimented. Mine is a more inclusive truth, but I have no problem, per se, with your method of explaining it. With regards to 'not seeing where you are going with it'- 'it' references the final paragraph to your post, not the entirety of it. I absolutely do see where you're going with the whole post...
    The real question is where are you going with a definition that no one would ever find useful? It's like defining an "action game" as any game where you do stuff (because doing stuff is action). Yeah, you can define it that way, but it happens to cover every game that exists. Some definitions simply aren't useful. Part of defining a problem is properly defining terms. You're trying to define a problem away by picking a poor definition, but this doesn't actually make the problem go away, it just makes you incapable of looking at it and analyzing it.
    'No one' means 'you'. I assure you (not that that means anything on an internet forum) that my method of breaking things down into the smallest bits possible while still retaining their core essence (hello atoms!) is how any scientist or mathmatician operates. Judging from the advancements our world has seen due in no small part to the efforts in this sector of industry, I'd assume my methods are sound.
    It covers every game that exists- perhaps- so the issue at hand is *the games*, not *the method that uncovers their design*! Hence, it couldn't be more useful! Part of defining a problem is properly defining parameters- absolutely agreed. My 'problem' (which really isn't one at all- I don't mind the HT because I recognize its being universally understood, it's malleable, there's enough push-pull etc) is the HT, and my definition is poor (opinion) but yet fully exposes the 'problem'? Because of its being more inclusive, I'm more prepared to analyze...
     
    Assumptions Inc: I think we're really splitting hairs on this. You want the mechanic to be individually identifiable. I want the mechanic to be recognized regardless of manifestation. You want games that put twists on the mechanic via fusion or fission. I'm saying it's still the same mechanics but disguised. Can we agree on that?

    Defining things is not about "truth".  You completely misunderstand the point of a definition.  When we make a definition, it is about usefulness.  There is a reason why people hate HT.  The definition you propose does NOT get at that reason.  There is a reason why EVE is not considered an HT system, though it has healing, damage dealing, and damage taking.  Your definition does NOT get at that reason.  There's a reason why classic pen and paper D&D is not an HT system.  Your definition does NOT get at that reason.  I am FAR from the only one who doesn't like HT systems.  There are lots of them around, this thread was made because lots of them exist (it was not made purely for my benefit, I am sure).  If you definition cannot distinguish between games that people commonly say are HT and those they commonly do not, then it isn't all that useful.

     

    According to your definition ANYTHING with hit points and damage and hit point recovery is HT.  Even my examples throughout this thread are HT (by your standard) because you have to recover health at some point.  As you said, if you don't, then you die.  Megaman, according to your definition, is an HT game.  Metroid is an HT game.  All FPS are HT games.  Pen and Paper D&D is an HT game.  Diablo 1/2/3 are HT games.  In short, your definition is not useful because it includes far, far, far too much.

    Like I said with Eve, which is not considered an HT, your definition is not useful here because it can't be used to identify things that HT-haters might like.  Eve is HT according to you, therefore someone that doesn't like HT should hate it too.  That's why it isn't useful.  A useful definition should accurately define the matter of concern, in this case the defining traits of a certain class of games that people dislike.  It needs to exclude unrelated items from this definition as much as possible while including all the related ones as much as possible.  A definition that is too narrow doesn't include all the related items it should.  A definition that is too broad (yours) includes many unrelated items.  (Of course definitions can also be innaccurate which is a different thing).

    Really, your definition is more of a definition of non-one-hit-wonder combat systems (of which HT games are a subset), not an HT definition.  Your definition is useful for things, but it isn't useful for defining what people don't like about HT games and what they do like about other games.

    Btw, I don't think we are splitting hairs at all.  The idea that all games are HT is a pretty common accusation that totally fails to understand the reason people hate HT games and the sort of games those people do not consider HT.  So, to the contrary, I think this disagreement is at the very heart of defining the problem.

    Edit:  Err, probably by "healing" you meant in-combat healing (this still includes a lot of games like Metroid and Megaman though).  If so the definition is slightly more narrow than non-one-hit-wonder combat systems, but HT is still but a subset and the above problems I stated still stand.

  • pojungpojung Member Posts: 810

    @ Drachasor

    Defining things is not about "truth". Any definition hinges on being true. You completely misunderstand the point of a definition. No, I totally get it. When we make a definition, it is about usefulness. Absolutely. There is a reason why people hate HT. The definition you propose does NOT get at that reason. It establishes the smallest common demoninator that allows you, or anyone else, the ability to reach the conclusion by fully 'owning' the understanding. I'm a huge fan of giving people fishing poles, not fish. There is a reason why EVE is not considered an HT system, though it has healing, damage dealing, and damage taking. Never played it, can't comment on how this specific game gets 'classified'. If it has those 3, sounds like you have HT mechanics at play! Your definition does NOT get at that reason. I'm guessing the mechanics aren't individually represented but merged or seperated in various ways? There's a reason why classic pen and paper D&D is not an HT system. Healing is external to combat here. Your definition does NOT get at that reason. Sure it does. I am FAR from the only one who doesn't like HT systems. Ok... There are lots of them around, this thread was made because lots of them exist (it was not made purely for my benefit, I am sure). ..and to propose an alternate. Of which I say whatever alternate you create, as long as you have health bars and the conventional abilities that take away/restore health, you will have the HT mechanics in play. If you definition cannot distinguish between games that people commonly say are HT and those they commonly do not, then it isn't all that useful. ... it isn't useful, again, to those who cannot identify with it. 'People commonly' refer to 'HT' as individually recognizable.

     

    According to your definition ANYTHING with hit points and damage and hit point recovery is HT. Yes, again, I'm talking about the mechanics... Even my examples throughout this thread are HT (by your standard) because you have to recover health at some point. Exactly. My statement includes your examples which underlines the inclusivity that I mention earlier. But yours fail to include mine, despite mine being true (about the mechanics!). As such, by first analyzing the MECHANICS, I am able to see how their implimentation may pan out... in one example, where each MECHANIC manifests through an indivdual ROLE. <~ Looks familiar? It's your example. As you said, if you don't, then you die. Megaman, according to your definition, is an HT game. Megaman, has HT *mechanics*. If you are defining an 'HT game' as being 'each role individually represented', then no. Metroid is an HT game. All FPS are HT games. FPS's are dual mechanic, not triple, in most cases. Pen and Paper D&D is an HT game. Diablo 1/2/3 are HT games. Already touched on. In short, your definition is not useful because it includes far, far, far too much. In short, my definition is more useful because it zooms all the way out, establishes the core of combat (in most all games!) and allows to zoom in step by step. If it's not useful to you, that's fine. Reference fishing pole and fish from earlier.

    Like I said with Eve, which is not considered an HT, your definition is not useful here because it can't be used to identify things that HT-haters might like. So establish common terms, it's as simple as that. Eve is HT according to you, therefore someone that doesn't like HT should hate it too. Your mistake, I assume, is that I'm applying the mechanic as a blanket statement. I'm stating that it is the root of it all, and that if you want something new, that won't ever feel 'used', then it needs to exit from the current 'box' that is the aforementioned 3-part interaction. Otherwise, it's just the same as eating a cupcake versus a brownie that was made from the same batter. That's why it isn't useful. A useful definition should accurately define the matter of concern, in this case the defining traits of a certain class of games that people dislike. It needs to exclude unrelated items from this definition as much as possible while including all the related ones as much as possible. A definition that is too narrow doesn't include all the related items it should. A definition that is too broad (yours) includes many unrelated items. (Of course definitions can also be innaccurate which is a different thing). You want it all to be lined up, with all the supporting criteria and such dismissed so that it's trimmed and lean. I'm simply starting at the root of it all, pointing in the direction in which things progress, and letting the individual discern from there. If such is not your preferred teaching/learning method, good. If it is, even better.

    Really, your definition is more of a definition of non-one-hit-wonder combat systems (of which HT games are a subset), not an HT definition. Bravo! My definition takes us all the way back! To the core, the root! Now let's examine the subsets... now let's see how these subsets play out... (zoom, pointing, letting the rest lie in the hands of the individual). Your definition is useful for things, but it isn't useful for defining what people don't like about HT games and what they do like about other games. So now it *is* useful? Explicitly, if it's useful, and people are able to use it to bridge the gap in their understanding between what they do and don't like, doesn't that solidify everything I've said in regards to being a tool for understanding?

    Btw, I don't think we are splitting hairs at all. Oh no, to the contrary, we couldn't be doing a better job with it. The idea that all games are HT is a pretty common accusation that totally fails to understand the reason people hate HT games and the sort of games those people do not consider HT. Again, this statement of yours hinges on the assumption that all people hate HT games because the HT mechanics are isolated into 3 different entities of play. Consider now, the prospect of location as mentioned previously as being a factor in puzzle-solving that combat somehow hinges on, or crafting in some way. So, to the contrary, I think this disagreement is at the very heart of defining the problem. Which is to say, we're splitting hairs.

    Edit: Err, probably by "healing" you meant in-combat healing (this still includes a lot of games like Metroid and Megaman though). If so the definition is slightly more narrow than non-one-hit-wonder combat systems, but HT is still but a subset and the above problems I stated still stand. This is the second area where you've started to concede. Perhaps you understand the angle and the approach a bit better now?

     

    You define an 'HT game' as being a game in which each 'HT' mechanic is individually represented, and exclusive in their representation. That is to say, I can perform as a tank, healer, *OR* dps. You then assume that people have an issue with 'HT games' (as previously defined by you) because of the isolation of these elements. Is it not beyond the realm of possibility that someone might have issues with an 'HT game' because, simply, of the *mechanics* at play? By simply reorganizing, restructuring, merging, seperating the mechanics or whatever else a dev might do, this will change nothing for these individuals. By getting to the very core of things, you can examine not just how to put a spin on the pre-existing HT concepts (the mechanics), but how to come up with absolutely brand new mechanics that *any* person who dislikes *anything about* HT will be able to embrace. Therein is what I'm after.

    That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
    We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
    So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
    - MMO_Doubter

  • DrachasorDrachasor Member Posts: 2,678
    Originally posted by pojung
    You define an 'HT game' as being a game in which each 'HT' mechanic is individually represented, and exclusive in their representation. That is to say, I can perform as a tank, healer, *OR* dps. You then assume that people have an issue with 'HT games' (as previously defined by you) because of the isolation of these elements. Is it not beyond the realm of possibility that someone might have issues with an 'HT game' because, simply, of the *mechanics* at play? By simply reorganizing, restructuring, merging, seperating the mechanics or whatever else a dev might do, this will change nothing for these individuals. By getting to the very core of things, you can examine not just how to put a spin on the pre-existing HT concepts (the mechanics), but how to come up with absolutely brand new mechanics that *any* person who dislikes *anything about* HT will be able to embrace. Therein is what I'm after.



     

    Wow, that was a real mess you made.  Read some of the response, but if I have to sort through something that messy then I am not going to bother.  Well, one thing, "Definitions" are not true or untrue.  That's not how definitions work.  A statement can be true or not true, but not a definition.   "The sky is blue" is a statement and has a truth value (one that we may have to discover).  The definition of "sky" or "blue" are not true or false, but convention.  They are useful and defined so that they are understood by people using the same system (in this case, the English Language).  Another language that defines the word "sky" to be the same thing as what we mean by "puppy dogs" would not have a false definition, but a different one that follows a different convention.

    Anyhow, when people speak of HT games they are talking about those 3 roles split up as I said.  When they don't get split up in an HT game then classes become OP.  What I defined does have particular mechanics, I find it odd you seem to think it somehow doesn't.  There is the healer, the tank, and the dps.  That's the TRINITY right there, and they ARE roles filled by separate players when we look at what people commonly consider HT system.  You can disagree all you want with that, but anyone on this thread who has been complaining about HT have been using a framework much like I setup.

    And no, I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread has a problem with the idea of healing in combat.  I don't think anyone has a had a problem with the idea their characters take more than one hit to do.  I don't think anyone has a problem with the idea their character can deal damage.  AT BEST, you might be able to find people who have a problem with the first, but that's pretty rare in my experience and no one has complained about it in this thread.  We certainly haven't heard from people saying they don't like the other two.  You're not dealing with the core of what people have as a problem if you say the HT is ANYTHING AT ALL with the above three elements no matter how they show up.  I listed a number of games with the above 3 (such as Metroid and Megaman) that no one, except perhaps you, would consider HT games.  Your definition doesn't get at the heart of the problem it instead defines it away by saying anyone complaining that they don't like HT is being an idiot.

    But, if you prefer, let's put it up to the thread....they can respond on the issue...

    I say the Holy Trinity is a system with three types of roles in combat.  You have healers, damage dealers, and tanks.  Tanks have an extremely high capability to take damage relative to the other two and some mechanism to cause the enemy to damage them instead of their allies.  Healers heal damage (obviously).  Damage dealers do far more damage than the others.  Each type in a given battle is highly specialized and cannot perform the other roles (e.g. a healer cannot spontaneously decide to deal high damage and break from healing).  This covers games like EQ2 and WoW, but not games like Eve.

    Pojung, yousay that any system with combat healing, characters that can take more than one hit, and where characters can have a capacity to deal damage is a Holy Trinity system.  (This includes all MMOs with combat, Metroid, Megaman, and many other games).

    So, fellow forum goers, what do you think?

  • pojungpojung Member Posts: 810

    @ Drachasor

    Wow, that was a real mess you made. Read some of the response, but if I have to sort through something that messy then I am not going to bother. Well, one thing, "Definitions" are not true or untrue. That's not how definitions work. A statement can be true or not true, but not a definition. "The sky is blue" is a statement and has a truth value (one that we may have to discover). The definition of "sky" or "blue" are not true or false, but convention. They are useful and defined so that they are understood by people using the same system (in this case, the English Language). Another language that defines the word "sky" to be the same thing as what we mean by "puppy dogs" would not have a false definition, but a different one that follows a different convention.

    Apologies for not formatting line by line which would have resulted in quite the eyesore regarding vertical post length. No need for the subtleties.

    Definitions, in order work, must be accepted as convention, and therefor be established as true to both parties. Mutually inclusive is a term a mathmetician might use. Something that is 'more inclusive' would mean that one party's definition lies within the others'. Either way we disect this, it's like going from A to B to C or from A to C directly. The change in language changes the whole underscore of the meaning, and thus isn't accepted as 'truth' by both parties, and thus cannot be established as convention.

    Anyhow, when people speak of HT games they are talking about those 3 roles split up as I said. When they don't get split up in an HT game then classes become OP. What I defined does have particular mechanics, I find it odd you seem to think it somehow doesn't. There is the healer, the tank, and the dps. That's the TRINITY right there, and they ARE roles filled by separate players when we look at what people commonly consider HT system. You can disagree all you want with that, but anyone on this thread who has been complaining about HT have been using a framework much like I setup.

     Split roles... I got you, and everyone else's notion on this, the first time. I'm talking mechanics. And splitting up roles or combining roles has *nothing* to do with one or another being overvalued or undervalued. In order for a mis-value to take place, your numbers and balancing spreadsheet would need to be off... the roles themselves, alone, have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this. Quick [exaggerated] napkin example: I'm a tank with 10k hp and can heal for 200. You're a dps who can do 5k in the same time I can perform a 200 heal. Who's OP? And yet who has the combined roles?

    Again, you require the mechanics to manifest into individual beings. My definition of trinity is with regards to the mechanics, because they are the root of it all, and encompass all other examples, and is thus the most inclusive definition possible.

    And no, I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread has a problem with the idea of healing in combat. I don't think anyone has a had a problem with the idea their characters take more than one hit to do. I don't think anyone has a problem with the idea their character can deal damage. AT BEST, you might be able to find people who have a problem with the first, but that's pretty rare in my experience and no one has complained about it in this thread. We certainly haven't heard from people saying they don't like the other two. You're not dealing with the core of what people have as a problem if you say the HT is ANYTHING AT ALL with the above three elements no matter how they show up. I listed a number of games with the above 3 (such as Metroid and Megaman) that no one, except perhaps you, would consider HT games. Your definition doesn't get at the heart of the problem it instead defines it away by saying anyone complaining that they don't like HT is being an idiot.

    You're not reading how I identify your definition of 'HT game' and are attempting to put words in my mouth with your final sentence. No need for the latter and a definite need for the former. Additionally, your sample size of this thread demonstrates nothing at all to an understanding of what doesn't work with regards to HT for the community at large. My definitions embrace the possibility of a 'reflavoring' of mechanics currently at play, but further isolate the raw attributes of those mechanics, and how to possibly expand, revolutionize, the concept of 'roles', rather than rehash, evolve, the concept of 'roles'.

    But, if you prefer, let's put it up to the thread....they can respond on the issue...

    No actually- it's what you prefer as showcased by your final sentence in your post. It's convenient to avoid discussing a topic and put up the 'conclusion' to popular decree. It makes neither your point, nor mine, any more valid or invalid. Columbus wasn't in the norm, but he sure was right. I acknowledge what a 'typical' understanding of the concept is, but I'm encouraging to (dare I suggest!) *think outside the box* on this. Nowhere do I fight against the 'common' understanding, but instead include that understanding inside of my proposed understanding. I *do* suggest, however, that if a *single* person *does* have an issue with the mechanics, then as a result, will always have an issue with a 'holy trinity game' as you define.... because you can recolor, reflavor all you want, but the mechanics remain unchanged. You need to, in this case, move beyond 'conventional' understanding.... and this is what I'm encouraging.

    I say the Holy Trinity is a system with three types of roles in combat. You have healers, damage dealers, and tanks. Tanks have an extremely high capability to take damage relative to the other two and some mechanism to cause the enemy to damage them instead of their allies. Healers heal damage (obviously). Damage dealers do far more damage than the others. Each type in a given battle is highly specialized and cannot perform the other roles (e.g. a healer cannot spontaneously decide to deal high damage and break from healing). This covers games like EQ2 and WoW, but not games like Eve.

    I say the Holy Trinity is a system with three types of mechanics in combat. You have healing, damage, and tanking. Tanking involves taking hits (losing health). Healing involves restoring health lost. Damaging involves removing health from a pool. Each role can be represented in many ways, from being multiple roles inside of a single character (hybrid), to being a character specialized inside of a single focus of play- but neither necessarily needs to take place. If the system allows for both hybridization and specialization, then the more you specialize, the less you are able to do of the other two mechanics, due to balance issues.

    Pojung, yousay that any system with combat healing, characters that can take more than one hit, and where characters can have a capacity to deal damage is a Holy Trinity system. (This includes all MMOs with combat, Metroid, Megaman, and many other games).

    Read the above. Notice the similarities? Notice, also, which is more detailed? Why? Because I start with the root and expand. If you want to establish a definition that is more limited, that's fine! But you're only able to work within the boundaries you create.

    So, fellow forum goers, what do you think?

    And on that note, it's off to the gym.

    Edit: typos!

    That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
    We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
    So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
    - MMO_Doubter

  • MaelkorMaelkor Member UncommonPosts: 459
    Originally posted by Drachasor


    Pojung, yours is not a useful definition because you can essentially toss it on anything.  Everything is the HT system by your definition, and hence that definition is useful for any purpose of game design.  "Is game X a HT game?"  By you, the answer is ALWAYS "yes" if there is combat and you have more than 1 hit point.  That doesn't help distinguish one game from another.  That doesn't help design new games or new mechanics.  That doesn't help people isolate what their problem is with traditional MMOs.  In short, I say it is crappy and not useful, because you can't use such a definition for anything that matters.
    The long definition I provided, however much you might personally dislike it, does capture the system that people actually have a problem with.  It identifies and describes the components of such a system and how they interact.  Maybe you "don't see where I am going with it" but anyone who actually knows anything about game design or has a problem with traditional combat mechanics in MMOs will certainly see where I am going.
    The real question is where are you going with a definition that no one would ever find useful?  It's like defining an "action game" as any game where you do stuff (because doing stuff is action).  Yeah, you can define it that way, but it happens to cover every game that exists.  Some definitions simply aren't useful.  Part of defining a problem is properly defining terms.  You're trying to define a problem away by picking a poor definition, but this doesn't actually make the problem go away, it just makes you incapable of looking at it and analyzing it.

    Actually I think I made that first definition in this thread but tossing that aside You have finnally hit on why arguing against the HT system is pointless. Combat is the HT system. The only way to get rid of the HT system is to get rid of combat. Eve does have a form of the HT, it has combat.

    The real point isnt that the HT system(IE combat) is horrible. The real point is that many implementations of Combat suck. To fix this problem you must first understand exactly what combat is and then define how you want the flow of combat to occur. In an MMO players want all three legs of the Holy Trinity. They want to have dps(IE be able to kill mobs), They want to have the ability to take multiple hits and not be one shot( IE tanking), They want the ability to restore their health at some point,...usually during combat...(IE Healing).

    It is up to the developer to package this in a way that is interesting and appealing.

    How these are packaged is directly related to the type of game being developed, for instance a solo/casual friendly game will give every class all three of these elements or access to them through potions.

    A group oriented game will completely seperate these mechanics into specific classes with specific roles. Sometimes even spliting a single mechanic further requiring more than one class to handle that mechanic .

    What is fun to you and me will probably not be the same. There is not one particular thing that is "destroying MMO's" or "ruining" a game except perhaps a dev with an inability to translate a vision into a computer game.

    Instead of wasting breath as to why something is or is not The Holy Trinity - just come up with a good combat system that is fun to play and has all the elements needed and then push for that in whatever game makes sense to push it in. Arguing about HT is about like arguing about zoning in MMO's. Why an mmo should or should not have zones or be zoneless etc. All MMO's have zones and they always will. The good MMOs will make the zonelines seamless and invisible to the player but they are still there. The reason for a zone is to control the amount of information a players client and a server have to deal with at any given moment in time....The reason for the Holy Trinity is because it contains the basics of what combat is.

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Maelkor



    Actually I think I made that first definition in this thread but tossing that aside You have finnally hit on why arguing against the HT system is pointless. Combat is the HT system. The only way to get rid of the HT system is to get rid of combat. Eve does have a form of the HT, it has combat.

     

    I'm appaled to have to explain this: There is no Holy Trinity in PvP! Absolutely not. Combat =/= HT. PvP combat is more interesting partly because there are no tanks or aggro. Any MMO PvP combat is sufficient example to prove your theory wrong.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • DoktorTeufelDoktorTeufel Member UncommonPosts: 413

    The Holy Trinity is founded on a basic premise: Enemies are incredibly stupid, and either stay in one small area or patrol in a predictable fashion. Once "pulled," the enemy or enemies can be made to exclusively attack one (or a few) high-defense, high-health characters. The healer classes can then efficiently heal the tank(s), while the DPS classes attack with calculated impunity.


    It all boils down to dealing damage, mitigating incoming damage, and restoring lost health. Given the state of most MMORPGs today, there's really no way to escape from the Holy Trinity; and because it's such a basic concept, it's fairly hard for a game to escape the mold, even if it tries to innovate.


    In my opinion, one possible solution would be to improve AI behavior — making it more unpredictable (perhaps they run and hide, take cover, etc.) and removing the concept of aggro — and avoid giving monsters gigantic health and attack scores. If content requires a group, it should be because there are multiple enemies, not a few strong ones. That doesn't mean there can't be any strong monsters, mind you, just not FFXI-caliber ones that are very difficult to kill one-on-one.


    Another solution would be to simply standardize "hit points" among both players and monsters, so that there's no such thing as a tank, and perhaps also remove instantaneous healing options. There would still be some HP variance, and you'd still be able to increase your stats, improve your skills and whatnot, but just like in real life, the idea would be to kill your opponent without getting hit at all, or at least not much. Dodging, taking cover, and perhaps body armor would be skills available to all. Unfortunately, this is really only possible in an action MMORPG, which might not be a bad idea actually.


    It's a tough question with no easy answers.

    Currently Playing: EVE Online
    Retired From: UO, FFXI, AO, SWG, Ryzom, GW, WoW, WAR

  • pojungpojung Member Posts: 810
    Originally posted by DoktorTeufel


    removing the concept of aggro



     

    This.

    The triple mechanic referred to by 'HT' is fine. The problem with the mechanic is being able to predict with near 100% accuracy who a mob will be focusing. If you remove taunting, and improve the AI for NPCs- so that an NPC can 'think' about who is the biggest threat, and there is no 1button IWIN for tanks... you'd have a much more dynamic PvE system. As has been mentioned, PvP is fine. The dynamic there is ever-engaging.

    That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
    We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
    So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
    - MMO_Doubter

  • LansidLansid Member UncommonPosts: 1,097
    Originally posted by MMO_Doubter


    Replace the silly taunting mechanics of tanks with body blocking and the use of terrain. Like Neverwinter Nights did.
    When I moved from NWN to WoW, the whole tanking aspect felt wrong to me. To say nothing of the lack of collision detection. I got used to WoW's system but it never felt reasonable to me. It's very 'gamey'.
    As for healing aggro - only intelligent mobs should go after someone who is standing a distance away and not hurting them.

    Collision detection... hmm I don't think that's ever been added to a MMO. It is kind of annoying to have mobs ghost through you or the terrain.

    "There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."

  • LansidLansid Member UncommonPosts: 1,097
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Maelkor



    Actually I think I made that first definition in this thread but tossing that aside You have finnally hit on why arguing against the HT system is pointless. Combat is the HT system. The only way to get rid of the HT system is to get rid of combat. Eve does have a form of the HT, it has combat.

     

    I'm appaled to have to explain this: There is no Holy Trinity in PvP! Absolutely not. Combat =/= HT. PvP combat is more interesting partly because there are no tanks or aggro. Any MMO PvP combat is sufficient example to prove your theory wrong.

    I remember playing Shadowbane, and killing a group of players that were PvE'ing wasn't all that different than grinding mobs. You'd pull/distract from the main group of PC's, divide and conquer. More often than not, the PC's would go after the people who attacked first trying to kill them off first, leaving your DD's and Healers alone for the most part. Now you'd get a few that weren't stupid and try to get rid of the healers or DD's, but after you took out their Healers or DD's it screwed them over and usually the aggressors would win.

    BUT... the most effective I do admit was having a bunch of... hell I forget what they called them... they were the equivalent of rogues that stealthed. You basically had a puller do some quick dmg and pull them back into a stealthed ambush. If you had an unstealthed DD or healer and they went after them, they'd just DD/snare or heal themselves while the other guys unstealthed and stomped a mudhole in him.

    HT works in PvP, just not in the same exact static way as PvE.

    "There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."

  • LansidLansid Member UncommonPosts: 1,097
    Originally posted by pojung

    Originally posted by DoktorTeufel


    removing the concept of aggro



     

    This.

    The triple mechanic referred to by 'HT' is fine. The problem with the mechanic is being able to predict with near 100% accuracy who a mob will be focusing. If you remove taunting, and improve the AI for NPCs- so that an NPC can 'think' about who is the biggest threat, and there is no 1button IWIN for tanks... you'd have a much more dynamic PvE system. As has been mentioned, PvP is fine. The dynamic there is ever-engaging.

    I'd think that the players would just evolve their way of playing. In my past of PvP, I'd try to destroy the DD's first (usually have low HP and Armor), then Healers, then Tanks. Now if you use hybrid classes, it blurs the line a bit more. So if everyone is a tank, do you go after the tank/mage or tank/healer? But by that point in time, if you have a viable hybrid, more often than not you will have a viable solo class, which steps further away from group mechanics. *shrugs*

    "There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."

Sign In or Register to comment.