Originally posted by Nanfoodle After watching part 1 and 2 of the class panel I am once again fine with this game. There are tanks, support and DPS in the game. You wana play as the teams tank you can. Thats just not the only option that works. Matter of fact sticking to one tatic will fail. So while you tank that set of mobs CCer better be doing his job and the mage better be making a wall to hide behind. Trinity is just one of many options. You dont need it but it like any tool will he usefull and have its place.
Wrong. What video did you just watch? In the first video we are told, and I quote word for word, "EverQuest Next does not require the use of Tanks and Healers. Our combat mechanics and our AI do not support dedicated... dedicated healers and, uh, focus.. focused... dedicated Healers and focused Tanks. We, we, it doesn't work." This happens at the 14:25 mark.
Watch the entire 2 videos again and how they answer the questions, in the second video, 8:47 in, a person asks about tank skills and they specifically state there are no threat mechanics, and that some classes will have abilities that "fit what [players] think of as a Healer or Tank role" but then goes on to specifically state them as defensive abilities without saying how these defensive abilities are actually beneficial to group play, but they specifically mention how the AI will not attack the same person, and they make it clear they (the AI) will target the players doing the most damage. Then, at 10:20, "So, while, while we may, we may not we definitely don't have those mechanics in there we want you to be able to play defensively and play a support role but we're very careful to not have to require them so you're 10 buddies or your 6 buddies, or whatever, can do content without your 7th friend there who's the tank."
Note that even the abilities they have shown us of the classes they previewed have all been DPS oriented, and they have not shown one ability that would even qualify as crowd control for a Tank.
What does this tell us? Tanks not required. Healers not required. Support not required. Not only are they not required, they are not actually even supported by the game mechanics —these are the exact words of the developers, this is not hyperbole, watch the videos at the times indicated above.
So apparently you can play, "How you want," so long as it is a DPS role.
Oh, I know, some people will insist on being a Tank or a Healer, and they might even have a modicum of success at it, but from everything that was told in these class panels they will not be beneficial to a group because the content is specifically being designed to not require them at all.
Where have we had this exact same philosophy put in place before? Oh, yeah, Guild Wars 2, that game that sold a lot of copies and then 6 months later was largely a ghost town with laughable "dynamic events" that involved everyone being DPS without a healer in sight.
(While the quotes I did above are word for word, the bolded sections were obviously done by me to emphasize the important bits)
Yep. This is the problem. They sack the Trinity only to lock you into having to be DPS? WTF is that?
Play the way you want to play, as long as you want to play DPS.
From watching this video it seems like the game has the potential to be fairly good, the main issue i can see is that the game could be too easy which is just this impression im getting at the moment. (same here)
Saying that, this clearly isnt the game for me, this video has absolutely killed my interest in the game. at around 25 minutes in the second part the question of whether you could be a pure support/healing class (with no attacking involved) was asked and they confirmed that you cant do that. ( here, here.. That was a huge turn off to me as well.. Maybe I want to spend 80% of my time healing others in a group setting, but it sounded as if the devs were telling us.. "NO, you must get your hands dirty in combat, there are not non-combat options".. So I guess that means kiting is gone too.. So our choices are melee dps, or range dps.. nothing else allowed?)
Also they suggested that this playstyle meant that you weren't 'getting involved' and there seemed to be this inferrance that they were doing players a favour by not including this because it was boring or not what people want to do. I really enjoy this playstyle so this is extremely annoying to me. (agreed, maybe I want to stay at a distance, toss our heals and some some minor dps here and there, but I was given the impression that is NOT allowed cuz I wan't involved)
They could include this imo, ofc you then run into the problem of not having a healer for a group but you could easily design it so that 1 healer/support = 2 damage/healer+support hybrid. That way people arent necessarily as put out, theyre still able to damage but fulfill that role at the same time. ( I think the devs dropped the ball here.. All combat is based on group out dps mob faster then mob does to group.. Healing is only a mathematical variable.. Example is a healer refreshed group, instead of causing dps. The numbers are just being arranged differently..)
Another thing i think is worth mentioning is that the non-inclusion of this sort of playstyle suggests it isnt needed to take down enemies which ive always found makes games such as this incredibly easy because youre not at as much of a risk of dying. agree.. Thing I find funny is they promote 40 classes, but from the sounds of it (since healing, tanking, cc'ing, kiting are not allowed).. combat is being dumbed down to a simple homogenized encounter.. This doesn't make the fight more dynamic, but more dull.. IMO
The only way ill want to play this game is if the crafting system is as good as has been suggested + if theres a dedicated crafting class that would be a bonus.
P.S.: Sorry if this sounds like im being whiny and complaining because i didnt get my way, im just extremely disappointed because the rest of the game looks to be very good. At this point I can just hope that the systems that ive seen that I like are used by future games which include the type of gameplay I enjoy.
Originally posted by Avison It seems like they're walking into some of the pit falls of Guild Wars 2. I wonder if the classes have passives or anything like that. I'm generally curious as to how it will unfold.
Passives will come from gear. Read my reply a few reply's up. Vertical Progression is in, but not the stat inflation from other game. Gear will still be important and will allow your class to do stuff based on its abilities.
Random Forum Poster: I want an MMO that is different, original and fun.
Me: So you want something like EQN
Them: Nah dude, I want a Holy Trinity, Tab Target combat, Instanced Raiding, and Rigid classes.
So apparently you can play, "How you want," so long as it is a DPS role.
Oh, I know, some people will insist on being a Tank or a Healer, and they might even have a modicum of success at it, but from everything that was told in these class panels they will not be beneficial to a group because the content is specifically being designed to not require them at all.
Where have we had this exact same philosophy put in place before? Oh, yeah, Guild Wars 2, that game that sold a lot of copies and then 6 months later was largely a ghost town with laughable "dynamic events" that involved everyone being DPS without a healer in sight.
This is what these forums are filled with. Someone takes a good observation and just runs wild with it. Yes they did say that healers or tanks will not be required. They also said that dedicated tanks and healers (or "pure" healers/tanks) are basically not supported.
They didn't say "DPS or GTFO." Or that a raid would be better if all DPS rather than having supports and tanks mixed in. It's just wild speculation to assume that DPS classes are the only useful classes, or obviously the most useful, or any claims made precisely 3 days after the alpha tech demo. They clearly want those classes that fit the "tank" and "healer" description to be useful and very appealing to people. They clearly also don't want those classes to be only tanking and only healing.
Then there are all these logical fallacies around GW2. You seem to be arguing that the primary or only reason this game dropped subscriptions after 6 months (labeling a game that has millions of players a "failure'), is because the combat system. Not general lack of content after the super easy solo leveling; or the small pool of abilities.
Lets just say you're right and everyone hates the GW2 combat system and that after 6 months of it they had enough. That still would be akin to arguing: "Vanguard used a standard trinity system and was an utter failure. Therefore the philosophy will lead to failure."
If two games using the same combat system, one may totally screw it up and the other may gain 7 million subscriptions. Execution is key. There is no where near enough action based, non-trinity games to fully assess the merit of the entire idea. GW2 is the most popular MMO outside of WoW in the US right now, and they are the only game so far that have tried these two ideas as far as I know.
I think the only type of play style that will not be supported are the pure buff bot and stand there and cast your 2 heals types of play style.
People don't seem to understand the distinction between "not required" and "not possible". Your strategy as a group might include a healer role or it might not. "Not required" does _not_ mean "not possible".
Comments
Yep. This is the problem. They sack the Trinity only to lock you into having to be DPS? WTF is that?
Play the way you want to play, as long as you want to play DPS.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Passives will come from gear. Read my reply a few reply's up. Vertical Progression is in, but not the stat inflation from other game. Gear will still be important and will allow your class to do stuff based on its abilities.
Random Forum Poster: I want an MMO that is different, original and fun.
Me: So you want something like EQN
Them: Nah dude, I want a Holy Trinity, Tab Target combat, Instanced Raiding, and Rigid classes.
Me: Double Facepalm.
This is what these forums are filled with. Someone takes a good observation and just runs wild with it. Yes they did say that healers or tanks will not be required. They also said that dedicated tanks and healers (or "pure" healers/tanks) are basically not supported.
They didn't say "DPS or GTFO." Or that a raid would be better if all DPS rather than having supports and tanks mixed in. It's just wild speculation to assume that DPS classes are the only useful classes, or obviously the most useful, or any claims made precisely 3 days after the alpha tech demo. They clearly want those classes that fit the "tank" and "healer" description to be useful and very appealing to people. They clearly also don't want those classes to be only tanking and only healing.
Then there are all these logical fallacies around GW2. You seem to be arguing that the primary or only reason this game dropped subscriptions after 6 months (labeling a game that has millions of players a "failure'), is because the combat system. Not general lack of content after the super easy solo leveling; or the small pool of abilities.
Lets just say you're right and everyone hates the GW2 combat system and that after 6 months of it they had enough. That still would be akin to arguing: "Vanguard used a standard trinity system and was an utter failure. Therefore the philosophy will lead to failure."
If two games using the same combat system, one may totally screw it up and the other may gain 7 million subscriptions. Execution is key. There is no where near enough action based, non-trinity games to fully assess the merit of the entire idea. GW2 is the most popular MMO outside of WoW in the US right now, and they are the only game so far that have tried these two ideas as far as I know.
I think the only type of play style that will not be supported are the pure buff bot and stand there and cast your 2 heals types of play style.
People don't seem to understand the distinction between "not required" and "not possible". Your strategy as a group might include a healer role or it might not. "Not required" does _not_ mean "not possible".
Oidh, I totally agree with your post.
I'm trying to stay open minded, but my experience with GW2 leaves me very concerned.