This is because we expect even fantasy worlds to be internally consistent. What this means is that it's fine to define whatever fantastic rules for your world you want...BUT YOU BETTER STICK TO THOSE RULES.
Well .. games are always internally consistent because the rules, once written is enforced by the computer.
And this issue is a complete red herring in the trinity discussion. What is inconsistent about the aggro management? Nothing either way. Once program, a mob will consistently have aggro, or some other rules to decide whom to attack.
This is because we expect even fantasy worlds to be internally consistent. What this means is that it's fine to define whatever fantastic rules for your world you want...BUT YOU BETTER STICK TO THOSE RULES.
Well .. games are always internally consistent because the rules, once written is enforced by the computer.
And this issue is a complete red herring in the trinity discussion. What is inconsistent about the aggro management? Nothing either way. Once program, a mob will consistently have aggro, or some other rules to decide whom to attack.
No, I think you misunderstand...
I'm not talking about internally consistent meaning that the game is written in a programming language and thus adheres to the same rules. I'm talking about internally consistent in a literary sense.
If I design my game's lore to have magic that takes health to cast...but then I program one spell to not take any health at all and never explain that in the lore, that is not internally consistent. So, yes a program will always follow rules...but these rules may be in conflict with the game's lore, or basic assumptions made about the game due to lack of lore.
For example, if I provide no special lore about the behavior of people in the world, players will assume that people are supposed to behave relatively normally. And if people start walking into fire and standing there until they die for no reason...this is not internally consistent with the game world, but may very well happen due to the AI code. And we would generally call this a bug.
Anyway, I don't want to get mired in this because I think that we all have grown to have a lot of suspension of disbelief with games due to technological limitations. However, I still think you shouldn't completely abandon the notion of internal consistency in games...
Originally posted by CorvusCorax For me trinity is very important. Any multiplayer game with team content should have it imo. I enjoy filling a specific role that has synergy with another. It is the backbone in every efficient team regardless if its in game or real life. Cant see any downside to it that trinity itself does not solve by itself or comes from design that is tied directly to the trinity.
... when you say 'trinity' here, do you mean 'roles'?
Because I think people are using the two interchangeably, and that's a little confusing.
When I complain that MMOs seem endlessly stuck following the holy trinity lately (As in heal, dps and tank), I specifically mean that particular puzzle set is overused.
Can have lots of ways of setting up roles that doesn't use those specific three roles.
Never seen a battle healer in any team sports game RL I can remember. :T
Its true that roles must not neccesarily men tank, healer and dps. It could be anything that works well within the game. For me though it is important that the roles and classes are distinct with unique abilities. Wont be very fun for me to play a healer if everyone in the group can heal themselves for example. I really like teamplay within multiplayer games and trinity really makes it shine.
The items listed as "the bad" don't apply to trinity because those are the same "bad" issues as appear in a non-trinity setup as well.
1. In non-trinity all players are dps and therefore all are doing the same rotation over and over. Trinity at least gives more variety in gameplay by offering different roles.
2. No tank = no raid is better than Raid = zergfest; besides in a non-trinity game raids will rely on raid leaders to coordinate the tough parts, and you still have the problem of no raid leader = no raid.
3. Encounters are even less dynamic in non-trinity. Players just doing their rotation over and over again. You can't criticize trinity for getting old until you can prove other systems have encounters that never get old. It doesn't exist.
I would submit most FPS or RTS games....or even PnP games demonstrate that to be inaccurate. "Non-Trinity" doesn't mean an absence of specialization or roles (though some games do go that way), it simply means that the specialization and roles are different then the standard "Tank, Healer, DPS" presented within the Trinity.
We are talking about MMORPG games, not FPS or RTS. I differ on your additional comments because most discussions of non-trinity explicitly require that there are no needs for tanks, or healers, per se. I would also like to add that most MMORPG games that have trinity almost always include the need for additional roles of CC, buffs, pullers, etc. so any argument against trinity is essentially an argument against the entire genre of games that have the tank, healer, CC, dps and special roles. The reason the genre is simplified by calling it the trinity is because in all group content you need at minimum one tank, one healer and one dps, but in the same games the more difficult group content will fail without including one CC and one group buffer.
Again, I think you are being too narrow in your view. All an MMO requires is that you have a massive amount of players, playing in a game world together. The RPG part simply implies that there is an element of role-playing involved in the game. Nothing there implies a specific type of combat dynamic or rulset.
Both Planetside2 and WWII Online ARE MMO's where the Trinity does not exist and which have combat systems that work well. It wouldn't be hard to add more of a RPG element to them as well.
Starquest Online was an MMORPG with no Trinity either (players played members of a bridge crew of starships)
This could even translate to the traditional Fantasy genre very easly as well. In the DnD, the primarly utility of a Rogue was NOT as "DPS" but as a scout who could let you find out about the enemy before they found out about you, could get you into places you couldn't access otherwise, who could disarm and set traps, who could open treasure chests, etc.
In a more historical based setting, say something akin to Mount and Blade. Horsemen have an advantage in that they are FAST and can out-manuver an enemy. However, they are lousy in difficult terrain and can't enter buildings. They can do alot of damage due shock of charge, but once they get hung up (or are charging into a pike wall) they are vulnerable. They are also vulnerable to missle fire due to thier mounts. Infantry are great close-in or in seiges or difficult terrain, but they are slower then cavalry, etc.
These combat dynamics are very different and more complex then "Tank, Healer, DPS".....because they all acount for different aspects of combat....things that most Trinity based systems don't even consider in thier rulesets.
I'm talking about internally consistent in a literary sense.
If I design my game's lore to have magic that takes health to cast...but then I program one spell to not take any health at all and never explain that in the lore, that is not internally consistent.
That is even more trivial.
For any thing that happen, in a fantasy world, you can easily write two lines of text to explain it consistent with any lore.
In your example, just say you ate a rare magic apple that let you cast spell without reduction in hell. You can justify anything with magic.
Now in many cases, games won't even bother to do so (like you can easily use some magic mumbo jumbo to explain LFD). In many cases, players don't care enough to demand that kind of consistency in everything.
You can if you add in systems to compensate for it (players being able to physical manhandle monsters away from healer if needed or block doors with their shields, etc )
Grappling is something you don't see often enough in RPG's. Giving a goblin a backbreaker or a gorilla press sounds like fun.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Problem is that its not possible to remove "aggro management"
Its like saying ,we removed anger,hate and love from world.
So are you arguing that removing "aggro management" from games is unrealistic because it removes the "emotion" from monsters?
If so...then I have to really disagree with this. Let me preface my argument by saying that I think gameplay ALWAYS trumps "realism," but since you used a realism argument, I am going to use a realism argument back.
I don't think you need a realism argument.
It is pretty obvious that games can be designed without realism, and often so. In fact, there is no anger, hate or love in mobs. There is just an aggro counter that follows specific rules. Don't tell me that a simple count that acts on simple numerical damages is realistic.
And what does realism have to do with games? Invoking realism in a game where you cast fireballs to kill rats that drops broad swords is just silly.
I'm talking about internally consistent in a literary sense.
If I design my game's lore to have magic that takes health to cast...but then I program one spell to not take any health at all and never explain that in the lore, that is not internally consistent.
That is even more trivial.
For any thing that happen, in a fantasy world, you can easily write two lines of text to explain it consistent with any lore.
In your example, just say you ate a rare magic apple that let you cast spell without reduction in hell. You can justify anything with magic.
Now in many cases, games won't even bother to do so (like you can easily use some magic mumbo jumbo to explain LFD). In many cases, players don't care enough to demand that kind of consistency in everything.
It is true that you can try justify anything with magic...BUT you can really only stretch the player's/reader's suspension of disbelief so far before it snaps. If you are constantly coming up with off the cuff, magical, one-time explanations for whatever you need to make your story work...then that probably isn't a very good story.
It's chock full of deus ex machine, and it's going to feel like a 5 year old is telling the story. If you've ever heard a five year old tell a story...you will know what I mean.
"And then I flew away because I got Superman powers!"
For more info on general consistency in literature, and thus games...look here:
Also, here is a great quote from fantasy author Brandon Sanderson about the importance of having a consistent magical system:
Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.
The point is that you NEED to present the reader with a consistent model of a world, including elements such as magic, in order for them to accept what you are feeding them.
If a game produces a system that works, no one will complain about the lack of trinity, or whatever you may call it. The problem is very simple. GW2 didn't have trinity and is closest to the standard 1st/3rd person mmo rpg experience and failed horribly. If you feel they did fine, that's good, you can enjoy your game and new games will be released with the same idea. I just feel GW2's system is a massive single player game with npc's who aren't programmed and help or ruin your gaming experience. Teamwork doesn't exist, at least not in the early levels, dungeons, not sure about the 80+ endgame dungeons, but even the not sure what it's called dungeon in lion's arch, yes you had to work together, but mostly to solve puzzles, not to fight together.
I feel a game should have a system in place that forces players to work together to achieve a goal. And if you have agro and trinity and healing and stuff, or find CC's or something else, I'm fine with that. As long as it's not going to be a kite fight all over the place. Yes I can kite pretty okay. I'd be able to kill mobs with kiting no problem, just don't feel it's a group effort. I'd rather have my tank in full armor stand and keep the mob busy.
Trinity is a way to control encounters. I can say how much I hate it when I can't control a game and feel someone is just rolling dice and if I'm lucky enough I win the game.
In EQ1 trinity resulted in "misceleneous" classes being relegated to be a buffer/debuffer, vending machine or a mana battery. I think it may be due to bad game design. The result is that raiding guilds would have 7 clerics and only a couple of necros. So if you want to see endgame, you better roll a trinity class. When looking at class roles the most fair way is to see them is in group pvp, because there is no taunt mechanic and players themselves decide who causes the highest threat. It also highlights interdependency between various roles ( the trinity in pvp are cc, healer and damage - there is no tank) and it may help when designing classes to run them through a 6v6 pvp simulation just to see that everyone has their niche role and that role makes sense.
GW2 didn't have trinity and is closest to the standard 1st/3rd person mmo rpg experience and failed horribly.
I wasn't aware of such a failure. Care to produce a link saying that GW2 has failed? Something official I mean, not something you made up in your mind, you and your friends...
GW2 didn't have trinity and is closest to the standard 1st/3rd person mmo rpg experience and failed horribly.
I wasn't aware of such a failure. Care to produce a link saying that GW2 has failed? Something official I mean, not something you made up in your mind, you and your friends...
What failure? Isn't it the "fastest selling MMO" at one point?
I get that you may not like GW2, but that does not mean that it fails. You are not the only player in the world.
GW2 didn't have trinity and is closest to the standard 1st/3rd person mmo rpg experience and failed horribly.
I wasn't aware of such a failure. Care to produce a link saying that GW2 has failed? Something official I mean, not something you made up in your mind, you and your friends...
What failure? Isn't it the "fastest selling MMO" at one point?
I get that you may not like GW2, but that does not mean that it fails. You are not the only player in the world.
Pretty much what I said... why are you quoting me? Hangover from yesterday?
GW2 didn't have trinity and is closest to the standard 1st/3rd person mmo rpg experience and failed horribly.
I wasn't aware of such a failure. Care to produce a link saying that GW2 has failed? Something official I mean, not something you made up in your mind, you and your friends...
What failure? Isn't it the "fastest selling MMO" at one point?
I get that you may not like GW2, but that does not mean that it fails. You are not the only player in the world.
Pretty much what I said... why are you quoting me? Hangover from yesterday?
I was supporting your argument with the extra "fastest selling MMO" bit.
Comments
Well .. games are always internally consistent because the rules, once written is enforced by the computer.
And this issue is a complete red herring in the trinity discussion. What is inconsistent about the aggro management? Nothing either way. Once program, a mob will consistently have aggro, or some other rules to decide whom to attack.
No, I think you misunderstand...
I'm not talking about internally consistent meaning that the game is written in a programming language and thus adheres to the same rules. I'm talking about internally consistent in a literary sense.
If I design my game's lore to have magic that takes health to cast...but then I program one spell to not take any health at all and never explain that in the lore, that is not internally consistent. So, yes a program will always follow rules...but these rules may be in conflict with the game's lore, or basic assumptions made about the game due to lack of lore.
For example, if I provide no special lore about the behavior of people in the world, players will assume that people are supposed to behave relatively normally. And if people start walking into fire and standing there until they die for no reason...this is not internally consistent with the game world, but may very well happen due to the AI code. And we would generally call this a bug.
Anyway, I don't want to get mired in this because I think that we all have grown to have a lot of suspension of disbelief with games due to technological limitations. However, I still think you shouldn't completely abandon the notion of internal consistency in games...
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
... when you say 'trinity' here, do you mean 'roles'?
Because I think people are using the two interchangeably, and that's a little confusing.
When I complain that MMOs seem endlessly stuck following the holy trinity lately (As in heal, dps and tank), I specifically mean that particular puzzle set is overused.
Can have lots of ways of setting up roles that doesn't use those specific three roles.
Never seen a battle healer in any team sports game RL I can remember. :T
Its true that roles must not neccesarily men tank, healer and dps. It could be anything that works well within the game. For me though it is important that the roles and classes are distinct with unique abilities. Wont be very fun for me to play a healer if everyone in the group can heal themselves for example. I really like teamplay within multiplayer games and trinity really makes it shine.
Again, I think you are being too narrow in your view. All an MMO requires is that you have a massive amount of players, playing in a game world together. The RPG part simply implies that there is an element of role-playing involved in the game. Nothing there implies a specific type of combat dynamic or rulset.
Both Planetside2 and WWII Online ARE MMO's where the Trinity does not exist and which have combat systems that work well. It wouldn't be hard to add more of a RPG element to them as well.
Starquest Online was an MMORPG with no Trinity either (players played members of a bridge crew of starships)
This could even translate to the traditional Fantasy genre very easly as well. In the DnD, the primarly utility of a Rogue was NOT as "DPS" but as a scout who could let you find out about the enemy before they found out about you, could get you into places you couldn't access otherwise, who could disarm and set traps, who could open treasure chests, etc.
In a more historical based setting, say something akin to Mount and Blade. Horsemen have an advantage in that they are FAST and can out-manuver an enemy. However, they are lousy in difficult terrain and can't enter buildings. They can do alot of damage due shock of charge, but once they get hung up (or are charging into a pike wall) they are vulnerable. They are also vulnerable to missle fire due to thier mounts. Infantry are great close-in or in seiges or difficult terrain, but they are slower then cavalry, etc.
These combat dynamics are very different and more complex then "Tank, Healer, DPS".....because they all acount for different aspects of combat....things that most Trinity based systems don't even consider in thier rulesets.
That is even more trivial.
For any thing that happen, in a fantasy world, you can easily write two lines of text to explain it consistent with any lore.
In your example, just say you ate a rare magic apple that let you cast spell without reduction in hell. You can justify anything with magic.
Now in many cases, games won't even bother to do so (like you can easily use some magic mumbo jumbo to explain LFD). In many cases, players don't care enough to demand that kind of consistency in everything.
Grappling is something you don't see often enough in RPG's. Giving a goblin a backbreaker or a gorilla press sounds like fun.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
this might sound like a rocket science to you.
hate|<----------------------neutral--------------------->|love
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
It is true that you can try justify anything with magic...BUT you can really only stretch the player's/reader's suspension of disbelief so far before it snaps. If you are constantly coming up with off the cuff, magical, one-time explanations for whatever you need to make your story work...then that probably isn't a very good story.
It's chock full of deus ex machine, and it's going to feel like a 5 year old is telling the story. If you've ever heard a five year old tell a story...you will know what I mean.
"And then I flew away because I got Superman powers!"
For more info on general consistency in literature, and thus games...look here:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Consistency
Also, here is a great quote from fantasy author Brandon Sanderson about the importance of having a consistent magical system:
Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.
Reference here: http://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/
The point is that you NEED to present the reader with a consistent model of a world, including elements such as magic, in order for them to accept what you are feeding them.
It really isn't trivial.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Yes, mounts are fast, blablabla.
If a game produces a system that works, no one will complain about the lack of trinity, or whatever you may call it. The problem is very simple. GW2 didn't have trinity and is closest to the standard 1st/3rd person mmo rpg experience and failed horribly. If you feel they did fine, that's good, you can enjoy your game and new games will be released with the same idea. I just feel GW2's system is a massive single player game with npc's who aren't programmed and help or ruin your gaming experience. Teamwork doesn't exist, at least not in the early levels, dungeons, not sure about the 80+ endgame dungeons, but even the not sure what it's called dungeon in lion's arch, yes you had to work together, but mostly to solve puzzles, not to fight together.
I feel a game should have a system in place that forces players to work together to achieve a goal. And if you have agro and trinity and healing and stuff, or find CC's or something else, I'm fine with that. As long as it's not going to be a kite fight all over the place. Yes I can kite pretty okay. I'd be able to kill mobs with kiting no problem, just don't feel it's a group effort. I'd rather have my tank in full armor stand and keep the mob busy.
Trinity is a way to control encounters. I can say how much I hate it when I can't control a game and feel someone is just rolling dice and if I'm lucky enough I win the game.
I wasn't aware of such a failure. Care to produce a link saying that GW2 has failed? Something official I mean, not something you made up in your mind, you and your friends...
My computer is better than yours.
What failure? Isn't it the "fastest selling MMO" at one point?
I get that you may not like GW2, but that does not mean that it fails. You are not the only player in the world.
Pretty much what I said... why are you quoting me? Hangover from yesterday?
My computer is better than yours.
I was supporting your argument with the extra "fastest selling MMO" bit.