My greatest pleasure in EQ was setting up groups that had none of the holy trinity. As a magician I would pet tank. My wife was a shaman, and damned good at pulling and CC. She could lock down a half dozen mobs while keeping a HOT on my pet.
Was it ideal? No, and it took a lot of skill to be effective at CC as a shaman, but it was possible.
Heck, we even managed to 3-man my magician's epic 2.0 with a cleric's help. (Magician / Shaman / Cleric). I spent 30 minutes trying to explain to the guild leader how I managed to acquire my 2.0 when magicians were not on the rotation yet, and he didn't believe me until the cleric lead confirmed he was there.
Yeah, that part was fun. You could even do it in EQ2, my swashie tanked a while for my guild and that took far more skill but was also more fun.
But that still asks the question is trinity really is the best group mechanics.
In pen and paper games (no matter what some people here seems to think) you can take a group of any 4-6 classes and still be very effective, you don't tank and often don't even have a healer, you work together using the groups strenghts against the opponents weaknesses. That was even true in old AD&D.
I think each class should be a "role" in itself, but none should be a must. A good class design allows that.
No, not at all. The trinity have become worse and worse for many years anyways, now it is so dumbed down that it is neither challenging nor fun.
If a game have trinity or not doesn't really matter as long as it have group dynamics. I can adapt to new ways, no problem.
What is a problem is any game where you can skill rotate through through most or all of the content.
Nice one, and the more "specialized" preset roles you have the worse it gets
Not to mention whole combat with"agrro" is nonsensical in itself, it was then, it is today.
And i said, trinity "works" because its dumbed down and simplified, when you meet someone he has his preset role, he push his button, you have your role, you push your button and it works. Just like that.
I know most people want it dumbified, but not everyone wants it like that, sorry folks.
i remember when ANet messed around with dailies, there was 1 daily where you had to kill something with combo finisher. So i grabbed 2 randoms and we went to do it. 2 of us got our 20/20 and a third guy had 0/20 and no amount of explaining and showing would do. I guess he missed trinity also. probably 1 of posters here.
Of course they removed that 1 and it never showed up again lol
A trinity-based system does not mean the system needs to be dumbed down, at all. To even suggest that, certainly says how few skills you can think of as being involved from class to class. A trinity-based system would include interdependence, something that is gravely missing from today's zerg- and rush-fest MMOs. The "aggro included" system does not need to mean that keeping said aggro should at all be easy to do either.
Aggro is far from nonsense, given you can think about how we as players will react in a team verse team scenario. Who would you go after first? The guy whose health is not moving when you hit a few times, or the one healing his ass? Given purely random attacks from encounters, that would be nonsense.
What does your highlighted story have to do with the trinity? It begs the question, do you even know what the trinity is?
A smart opponent usually either go for the healer or the weakest link to quickly reducing the numbers of enemies, yes. Aggro in itself is not really a problem in MMOs, it is the taunting that is illogical against sentinent opponents. The warrior might be up in your face and shouting stuff about your mom but a smart opponent knows that taking out the healer first will hurt him far more than focusing on him.
Trinity don't have to be dumbed down but it have certainly become less and less complicated since EQs early days. And frankly with the simple roles of today I don't see any need for it at all.
I believe that the future of MMOs needs a group dynamic system that works equally in PvP and PvE, where sentinent mobs will act far more like humans than the keat heads they are today. You still will need to balance the difficulty but we need to get away from the skill rotations MMOs have turned into.
Group dynamics still should be about timing things together but just locking the mobs with a tank makes combat predictable. At least the players with more HP and armor should be forced to bodyblock mobs going for the more squishy players.
And, yeah, I don't get the highlighted part either.
You are aware that making AI that will mop the floor with players corpses is easy right?
Also, you want realistic behaviour when you are talking about video game. For the lulz. Note to be asshole but you are aware that taunting, aggro mechanic is just the best idea ATM right? Exactly like the fact that sword deals d8 dmg + strength. It is the same boat. Or HP. Or skills with numerical value. Or cooldown on skills. All are game mechanics, and GW2 show us that not trinity system is worse than trinity one.
Point is - it is not hard to make hard encounters. It is really simple. But you know, mobs are made with the mind that they should be killed and looted. They should not be to easy but if they are too hard people will leave (Blizz admited they got AI that will destroy any combination of best pvp players in 3vs3 but they only use it in internal testing, because that AI DONT MAKE MISTAKES).
It is exactly like you are DMing in pen'n'paper rpg. Enemies, challenges MUST be made with the mind "they should ge defeated" - if basic random encounter kill your players, because it need special treatment, certain spells, eq and strategy, then im sorry but you failed as a GM. SImple as that. Fun and engagement are top priorities with making any kind of game session, and mmorpg.
BTW i want proof from anyone (not specific to you, kind sir) who say "games is easy, hurr durr" to provide us with video of Battletoads made with one life, no dying, and then video of killed current top mythic boss in wow (cause everyone know that wow is for sissys right? )
A smart opponent usually either go for the healer or the weakest link to quickly reducing the numbers of enemies, yes. Aggro in itself is not really a problem in MMOs, it is the taunting that is illogical against sentinent opponents. The warrior might be up in your face and shouting stuff about your mom but a smart opponent knows that taking out the healer first will hurt him far more than focusing on him.
Trinity don't have to be dumbed down but it have certainly become less and less complicated since EQs early days. And frankly with the simple roles of today I don't see any need for it at all.
I believe that the future of MMOs needs a group dynamic system that works equally in PvP and PvE, where sentinent mobs will act far more like humans than the keat heads they are today. You still will need to balance the difficulty but we need to get away from the skill rotations MMOs have turned into.
Group dynamics still should be about timing things together but just locking the mobs with a tank makes combat predictable. At least the players with more HP and armor should be forced to bodyblock mobs going for the more squishy players.
And, yeah, I don't get the highlighted part either.
You are aware that making AI that will mop the floor with players corpses is easy right?
Also, you want realistic behaviour when you are talking about video game. For the lulz. Note to be asshole but you are aware that taunting, aggro mechanic is just the best idea ATM right? Exactly like the fact that sword deals d8 dmg + strength. It is the same boat. Or HP. Or skills with numerical value. Or cooldown on skills. All are game mechanics, and GW2 show us that not trinity system is worse than trinity one.
Point is - it is not hard to make hard encounters. It is really simple. But you know, mobs are made with the mind that they should be killed and looted. They should not be to easy but if they are too hard people will leave (Blizz admited they got AI that will destroy any combination of best pvp players in 3vs3 but they only use it in internal testing, because that AI DONT MAKE MISTAKES).
It is exactly like you are DMing in pen'n'paper rpg. Enemies, challenges MUST be made with the mind "they should ge defeated" - if basic random encounter kill your players, because it need special treatment, certain spells, eq and strategy, then im sorry but you failed as a GM. SImple as that. Fun and engagement are top priorities with making any kind of game session, and mmorpg.
BTW i want proof from anyone (not specific to you, kind sir) who say "games is easy, hurr durr" to provide us with video of Battletoads made with one life, no dying, and then video of killed current top mythic boss in wow (cause everyone know that wow is for sissys right? )
Yes, I am well aware that you can do impossible opponents but we seen that in trinity games as well, EQ had to nerf some raids because they initially were totally impossible.
Right now you use HP and attack strengths (among others) to balance the difficulty, you need to do the same in a system where taunts don't exist like they did in old Guildwars (1).
As for making misstakes AIs does that if you code them for it, single player games does that, or any strategy game would be impossible for 99.9% of the players.
As for games being easy, I didn't say that but games have becomming easier the last 15 years. Just try a C-64 emulated game or something on an old Nintendo game and you see that. Now, MMOs shouldn't be as hard as "Megaman" but the difficulty slider should not go from incredibly easy (level 1-max) to incredible hard (endgame raids) in 2 to 3 steps. The game should slowly constantly becomes harder.
Most MMOs have the perfect difficulty where it is as hard as it get but it's open world content is so easy that it takes close to zero effort and that isn't good, that should just be the first zone where you learn the ropes of the game.
There is a reason so few players actually even try the hard stuff, the game lure them to think they are masters since they very rarely die and then bam do they realize they havn't learned much at all. If they instead constantly had to become a little better I think more players would stay longer in the same game.
Guildwars 2. I didn't really ever see the trinity as bad just overly simplified. GW2 really shines in showing WHY you need the trinity and some sort of order. It was a hilarious showing of why the system is there for group content.
No, not at all. The trinity have become worse and worse for many years anyways, now it is so dumbed down that it is neither challenging nor fun.
If a game have trinity or not doesn't really matter as long as it have group dynamics. I can adapt to new ways, no problem.
What is a problem is any game where you can skill rotate through through most or all of the content.
Nice one, and the more "specialized" preset roles you have the worse it gets
Not to mention whole combat with"agrro" is nonsensical in itself, it was then, it is today.
And i said, trinity "works" because its dumbed down and simplified, when you meet someone he has his preset role, he push his button, you have your role, you push your button and it works. Just like that.
I know most people want it dumbified, but not everyone wants it like that, sorry folks.
i remember when ANet messed around with dailies, there was 1 daily where you had to kill something with combo finisher. So i grabbed 2 randoms and we went to do it. 2 of us got our 20/20 and a third guy had 0/20 and no amount of explaining and showing would do. I guess he missed trinity also. probably 1 of posters here.
Of course they removed that 1 and it never showed up again lol
A trinity-based system does not mean the system needs to be dumbed down, at all. To even suggest that, certainly says how few skills you can think of as being involved from class to class. A trinity-based system would include interdependence, something that is gravely missing from today's zerg- and rush-fest MMOs. The "aggro included" system does not need to mean that keeping said aggro should at all be easy to do either.
Aggro is far from nonsense, given you can think about how we as players will react in a team verse team scenario. Who would you go after first? The guy whose health is not moving when you hit a few times, or the one healing his ass? Given purely random attacks from encounters, that would be nonsense.
What does your highlighted story have to do with the trinity? It begs the question, do you even know what the trinity is?
A smart opponent usually either go for the healer or the weakest link to quickly reducing the numbers of enemies, yes. Aggro in itself is not really a problem in MMOs, it is the taunting that is illogical against sentinent opponents. The warrior might be up in your face and shouting stuff about your mom but a smart opponent knows that taking out the healer first will hurt him far more than focusing on him.
Trinity don't have to be dumbed down but it have certainly become less and less complicated since EQs early days. And frankly with the simple roles of today I don't see any need for it at all.
I believe that the future of MMOs needs a group dynamic system that works equally in PvP and PvE, where sentinent mobs will act far more like humans than the keat heads they are today. You still will need to balance the difficulty but we need to get away from the skill rotations MMOs have turned into.
Group dynamics still should be about timing things together but just locking the mobs with a tank makes combat predictable. At least the players with more HP and armor should be forced to bodyblock mobs going for the more squishy players.
And, yeah, I don't get the highlighted part either.
You are aware that making AI that will mop the floor with players corpses is easy right?
Also, you want realistic behaviour when you are talking about video game. For the lulz. Note to be asshole but you are aware that taunting, aggro mechanic is just the best idea ATM right? Exactly like the fact that sword deals d8 dmg + strength. It is the same boat. Or HP. Or skills with numerical value. Or cooldown on skills. All are game mechanics, and GW2 show us that not trinity system is worse than trinity one.
Point is - it is not hard to make hard encounters. It is really simple. But you know, mobs are made with the mind that they should be killed and looted. They should not be to easy but if they are too hard people will leave (Blizz admited they got AI that will destroy any combination of best pvp players in 3vs3 but they only use it in internal testing, because that AI DONT MAKE MISTAKES).
It is exactly like you are DMing in pen'n'paper rpg. Enemies, challenges MUST be made with the mind "they should ge defeated" - if basic random encounter kill your players, because it need special treatment, certain spells, eq and strategy, then im sorry but you failed as a GM. SImple as that. Fun and engagement are top priorities with making any kind of game session, and mmorpg.
BTW i want proof from anyone (not specific to you, kind sir) who say "games is easy, hurr durr" to provide us with video of Battletoads made with one life, no dying, and then video of killed current top mythic boss in wow (cause everyone know that wow is for sissys right? )
I guess it all depends on how you look at it.
EQ mobs were often scripted to attacked the largest DPS threat. The tank wasn't always able to hold agro even when taunting. It would often be lost if the DPS didn't use their brain and hold back a bit at the times. The same with healers and CCers. They had to be careful how much they healed or CCed or they would get agro. Not all mobs in EQ could be deemed as intelligent. You had things like Orcs and Sand giants, Trolls, and Orgres who were brutes. Then you had things like animals who might have some form of intelligence, but would not likely be able to determine the greatest threat. It's still not eintirely realistic, but it's a complex system when you add things like pullers to the mix and everyone has to do their job correctly.
As I mentioned EQ classes were almost a copy from D&D 2nd edition. D&D 2nd edition didn't really have balanced classes at all. They were more made on the basis of fun and how their skills would fit the class. If you played Baldur's Gate 1/2 you know the classes were not balanced in terms of combat. They all did have useful abilities though. In orignal EQ before there were raids you could pretty much use any group that had some type of healer, DPS, and tank. The Warrior and Cleric were just the most powerful. Even after that point many people chose a class that could solo just because of the conviences. They didn't care if they could do all the group/raid content. They just liked the challenge of progressing in the game at all.
My greatest pleasure in EQ was setting up groups that had none of the holy trinity. As a magician I would pet tank. My wife was a shaman, and damned good at pulling and CC. She could lock down a half dozen mobs while keeping a HOT on my pet.
Was it ideal? No, and it took a lot of skill to be effective at CC as a shaman, but it was possible.
Heck, we even managed to 3-man my magician's epic 2.0 with a cleric's help. (Magician / Shaman / Cleric). I spent 30 minutes trying to explain to the guild leader how I managed to acquire my 2.0 when magicians were not on the rotation yet, and he didn't believe me until the cleric lead confirmed he was there.
Yeah, that part was fun. You could even do it in EQ2, my swashie tanked a while for my guild and that took far more skill but was also more fun.
But that still asks the question is trinity really is the best group mechanics.
In pen and paper games (no matter what some people here seems to think) you can take a group of any 4-6 classes and still be very effective, you don't tank and often don't even have a healer, you work together using the groups strenghts against the opponents weaknesses. That was even true in old AD&D.
I think each class should be a "role" in itself, but none should be a must. A good class design allows that.
That is because many of the classes could do different things. It also depends on the adventure you were running. A decent DM always made sure there was a means of accomplishing what needed to get done. You don't have this luxury in a video game. There is no telling as to what the class combinations might be, and you end up with crap like the dungeons in GW2. There was also a lot of redundancy, like the knock spell in pen and paper. You could replace some of the rogues functions with mage spells. Squishies were still squishy too. Arcane casters and rogues really could not stand toe to toe with something for too long at lower levels since the HP was always d4 or d6. The heavy-armored classes always needed to be up front. To mimic this in a video game, you would need collision detection so that they could physically block the enemies.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
No, had the opposite effect on me. When I played first played Vindictus it made all the trinity games I play after that feel old, tired and boring. Nice to have action spread out between everyone in the group it's so much more immersive. The idea of one person doing all the fighting (tanking) while everyone else was on autopilot just doesn't make sense anymore. Best part of non-trinity is going on runs with any freaking combo of classes you want. And no blame game going on. Mostly, I don't want do the same crap with a different wrapper for the next 10 years.
Not going back to "trinity based" games ever. The concept of an armored tank shouting insults while doing 0 damage, yet grabbing all the attention of a foe is an insult - And immersion breaking at best.
Locked down roles + slow as fsck combat does NOT equal strategy!
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!! (repeat ad infinitum)
In pen and paper games (no matter what some people here seems to think) you can take a group of any 4-6 classes and still be very effective, you don't tank and often don't even have a healer, you work together using the groups strenghts against the opponents weaknesses. That was even true in old AD&D.
My weekly experience with Pen and Paper is completely opposite this. As the tank, I can and do force opponents to deal with me instead of the less armored / higher damage party members. I have several tools in my characters build that enable this, and am very effective at my role.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
trinity combat dosen't have to be slow... Wildstar is trinity based yet very fast-paced. Also, everyone definatly have a role and not only the tank... don't compare 16 years old EQ1 mechanic to what modern trinity-based games can do.
I get alot more challenge from coordinating a group, using the class pro's and con's to defeat an encounter, than just grabbing 5 random people and DPS'ing my way through a dunjons without really caring what the other 4 do...
But one thing we can all agree on: having every class different but balanced, equally desirable yet not required, in small scale or large scale PvP, in solo, group or raid PvE content, with a couple different viable spec/skill/talent build along with a large selection of equally powerfull armor who have different, interesting stats yet dosen't require any form of min-maxing or tougth put into the creation... is definatly the way to go. And it's soo easy , why nobody do it?!
if everyone is a special snowflake, nobody is a special snowflake
No, not at all. The trinity have become worse and worse for many years anyways, now it is so dumbed down that it is neither challenging nor fun.
If a game have trinity or not doesn't really matter as long as it have group dynamics. I can adapt to new ways, no problem.
What is a problem is any game where you can skill rotate through through most or all of the content.
Nice one, and the more "specialized" preset roles you have the worse it gets
Not to mention whole combat with"agrro" is nonsensical in itself, it was then, it is today.
And i said, trinity "works" because its dumbed down and simplified, when you meet someone he has his preset role, he push his button, you have your role, you push your button and it works. Just like that.
I know most people want it dumbified, but not everyone wants it like that, sorry folks.
i remember when ANet messed around with dailies, there was 1 daily where you had to kill something with combo finisher. So i grabbed 2 randoms and we went to do it. 2 of us got our 20/20 and a third guy had 0/20 and no amount of explaining and showing would do. I guess he missed trinity also. probably 1 of posters here.
Of course they removed that 1 and it never showed up again lol
A trinity-based system does not mean the system needs to be dumbed down, at all. To even suggest that, certainly says how few skills you can think of as being involved from class to class. A trinity-based system would include interdependence, something that is gravely missing from today's zerg- and rush-fest MMOs. The "aggro included" system does not need to mean that keeping said aggro should at all be easy to do either.
Aggro is far from nonsense, given you can think about how we as players will react in a team verse team scenario. Who would you go after first? The guy whose health is not moving when you hit a few times, or the one healing his ass? Given purely random attacks from encounters, that would be nonsense.
What does your highlighted story have to do with the trinity? It begs the question, do you even know what the trinity is?
A smart opponent usually either go for the healer or the weakest link to quickly reducing the numbers of enemies, yes. Aggro in itself is not really a problem in MMOs, it is the taunting that is illogical against sentinent opponents. The warrior might be up in your face and shouting stuff about your mom but a smart opponent knows that taking out the healer first will hurt him far more than focusing on him.
Trinity don't have to be dumbed down but it have certainly become less and less complicated since EQs early days. And frankly with the simple roles of today I don't see any need for it at all.
I believe that the future of MMOs needs a group dynamic system that works equally in PvP and PvE, where sentinent mobs will act far more like humans than the keat heads they are today. You still will need to balance the difficulty but we need to get away from the skill rotations MMOs have turned into.
Group dynamics still should be about timing things together but just locking the mobs with a tank makes combat predictable. At least the players with more HP and armor should be forced to bodyblock mobs going for the more squishy players.
And, yeah, I don't get the highlighted part either.
You are aware that making AI that will mop the floor with players corpses is easy right?
Also, you want realistic behaviour when you are talking about video game. For the lulz. Note to be asshole but you are aware that taunting, aggro mechanic is just the best idea ATM right? Exactly like the fact that sword deals d8 dmg + strength. It is the same boat. Or HP. Or skills with numerical value. Or cooldown on skills. All are game mechanics, and GW2 show us that not trinity system is worse than trinity one.
Point is - it is not hard to make hard encounters. It is really simple. But you know, mobs are made with the mind that they should be killed and looted. They should not be to easy but if they are too hard people will leave (Blizz admited they got AI that will destroy any combination of best pvp players in 3vs3 but they only use it in internal testing, because that AI DONT MAKE MISTAKES).
It is exactly like you are DMing in pen'n'paper rpg. Enemies, challenges MUST be made with the mind "they should ge defeated" - if basic random encounter kill your players, because it need special treatment, certain spells, eq and strategy, then im sorry but you failed as a GM. SImple as that. Fun and engagement are top priorities with making any kind of game session, and mmorpg.
BTW i want proof from anyone (not specific to you, kind sir) who say "games is easy, hurr durr" to provide us with video of Battletoads made with one life, no dying, and then video of killed current top mythic boss in wow (cause everyone know that wow is for sissys right? )
I guess it all depends on how you look at it.
EQ mobs were often scripted to attacked the largest DPS threat. The tank wasn't always able to hold agro even when taunting. It would often be lost if the DPS didn't use their brain and hold back a bit at the times. The same with healers and CCers. They had to be careful how much they healed or CCed or they would get agro. Not all mobs in EQ could be deemed as intelligent. You had things like Orcs and Sand giants, Trolls, and Orgres who were brutes. Then you had things like animals who might have some form of intelligence, but would not likely be able to determine the greatest threat. It's still not eintirely realistic, but it's a complex system when you add things like pullers to the mix and everyone has to do their job correctly.
As I mentioned EQ classes were almost a copy from D&D 2nd edition. D&D 2nd edition didn't really have balanced classes at all. They were more made on the basis of fun and how their skills would fit the class. If you played Baldur's Gate 1/2 you know the classes were not balanced in terms of combat. They all did have useful abilities though. In orignal EQ before there were raids you could pretty much use any group that had some type of healer, DPS, and tank. The Warrior and Cleric were just the most powerful. Even after that point many people chose a class that could solo just because of the conviences. They didn't care if they could do all the group/raid content. They just liked the challenge of progressing in the game at all.
I agree it is how you look at it.
I find the threat mechanic realistic because many people act exactly the same way!
I find real players in pvp act about the same as AI most of the time. Sure people try to go after the healers and casters first, but when you have the front line fighters hamstringing and snaring them, they chase the healers, never get to them, and do no damage, they turn on the fighters that are right there, to try and get rid of them who are in essence taunting them.
Just like the monster running after the caster because of all the damage it is doing, being hacked up from behind as it never reaches them, it eventually turns on the people slashing at it from behind because those attacks are annoying, hampering their progress, a threat to be hopefully eliminated quickly to finally go after that caster they can never catch!
No, not at all. The trinity have become worse and worse for many years anyways, now it is so dumbed down that it is neither challenging nor fun.
If a game have trinity or not doesn't really matter as long as it have group dynamics. I can adapt to new ways, no problem.
What is a problem is any game where you can skill rotate through through most or all of the content.
Nice one, and the more "specialized" preset roles you have the worse it gets
Not to mention whole combat with"agrro" is nonsensical in itself, it was then, it is today.
And i said, trinity "works" because its dumbed down and simplified, when you meet someone he has his preset role, he push his button, you have your role, you push your button and it works. Just like that.
I know most people want it dumbified, but not everyone wants it like that, sorry folks.
i remember when ANet messed around with dailies, there was 1 daily where you had to kill something with combo finisher. So i grabbed 2 randoms and we went to do it. 2 of us got our 20/20 and a third guy had 0/20 and no amount of explaining and showing would do. I guess he missed trinity also. probably 1 of posters here.
Of course they removed that 1 and it never showed up again lol
A trinity-based system does not mean the system needs to be dumbed down, at all. To even suggest that, certainly says how few skills you can think of as being involved from class to class. A trinity-based system would include interdependence, something that is gravely missing from today's zerg- and rush-fest MMOs. The "aggro included" system does not need to mean that keeping said aggro should at all be easy to do either.
Aggro is far from nonsense, given you can think about how we as players will react in a team verse team scenario. Who would you go after first? The guy whose health is not moving when you hit a few times, or the one healing his ass? Given purely random attacks from encounters, that would be nonsense.
What does your highlighted story have to do with the trinity? It begs the question, do you even know what the trinity is?
A smart opponent usually either go for the healer or the weakest link to quickly reducing the numbers of enemies, yes. Aggro in itself is not really a problem in MMOs, it is the taunting that is illogical against sentinent opponents. The warrior might be up in your face and shouting stuff about your mom but a smart opponent knows that taking out the healer first will hurt him far more than focusing on him.
Trinity don't have to be dumbed down but it have certainly become less and less complicated since EQs early days. And frankly with the simple roles of today I don't see any need for it at all.
I believe that the future of MMOs needs a group dynamic system that works equally in PvP and PvE, where sentinent mobs will act far more like humans than the keat heads they are today. You still will need to balance the difficulty but we need to get away from the skill rotations MMOs have turned into.
Group dynamics still should be about timing things together but just locking the mobs with a tank makes combat predictable. At least the players with more HP and armor should be forced to bodyblock mobs going for the more squishy players.
And, yeah, I don't get the highlighted part either.
You are aware that making AI that will mop the floor with players corpses is easy right?
Also, you want realistic behaviour when you are talking about video game. For the lulz. Note to be asshole but you are aware that taunting, aggro mechanic is just the best idea ATM right? Exactly like the fact that sword deals d8 dmg + strength. It is the same boat. Or HP. Or skills with numerical value. Or cooldown on skills. All are game mechanics, and GW2 show us that not trinity system is worse than trinity one.
Point is - it is not hard to make hard encounters. It is really simple. But you know, mobs are made with the mind that they should be killed and looted. They should not be to easy but if they are too hard people will leave (Blizz admited they got AI that will destroy any combination of best pvp players in 3vs3 but they only use it in internal testing, because that AI DONT MAKE MISTAKES).
It is exactly like you are DMing in pen'n'paper rpg. Enemies, challenges MUST be made with the mind "they should ge defeated" - if basic random encounter kill your players, because it need special treatment, certain spells, eq and strategy, then im sorry but you failed as a GM. SImple as that. Fun and engagement are top priorities with making any kind of game session, and mmorpg.
BTW i want proof from anyone (not specific to you, kind sir) who say "games is easy, hurr durr" to provide us with video of Battletoads made with one life, no dying, and then video of killed current top mythic boss in wow (cause everyone know that wow is for sissys right? )
I guess it all depends on how you look at it.
EQ mobs were often scripted to attacked the largest DPS threat. The tank wasn't always able to hold agro even when taunting. It would often be lost if the DPS didn't use their brain and hold back a bit at the times. The same with healers and CCers. They had to be careful how much they healed or CCed or they would get agro. Not all mobs in EQ could be deemed as intelligent. You had things like Orcs and Sand giants, Trolls, and Orgres who were brutes. Then you had things like animals who might have some form of intelligence, but would not likely be able to determine the greatest threat. It's still not eintirely realistic, but it's a complex system when you add things like pullers to the mix and everyone has to do their job correctly.
As I mentioned EQ classes were almost a copy from D&D 2nd edition. D&D 2nd edition didn't really have balanced classes at all. They were more made on the basis of fun and how their skills would fit the class. If you played Baldur's Gate 1/2 you know the classes were not balanced in terms of combat. They all did have useful abilities though. In orignal EQ before there were raids you could pretty much use any group that had some type of healer, DPS, and tank. The Warrior and Cleric were just the most powerful. Even after that point many people chose a class that could solo just because of the conviences. They didn't care if they could do all the group/raid content. They just liked the challenge of progressing in the game at all.
I agree it is how you look at it.
I find the threat mechanic realistic because many people act exactly the same way!
I find real players in pvp act about the same as AI most of the time. Sure people try to go after the healers and casters first, but when you have the front line fighters hamstringing and snaring them, they chase the healers, never get to them, and do no damage, they turn on the fighters that are right there, to try and get rid of them who are in essence taunting them.
Just like the monster running after the caster because of all the damage it is doing, being hacked up from behind as it never reaches them, it eventually turns on the people slashing at it from behind because those attacks are annoying, hampering their progress, a threat to be hopefully eliminated quickly to finally go after that caster they can never catch!
If we are looking for more realism I think one fighter isn't enough to block people from attacking others. It works well in a turn based game where you move like chess pieces or in a game like EQ where you have taunt, but even with the ability to block it would be difficult to stop someone from running around you. You wold probably need at least two or three fighter type classes. In Baldur's Gate I would usually take 2 fighters and use classes like theives or clerics to protect mage types if there were a lot of mobs coming. That doesn't mean the trinity system is bad. It has a lot of strategy with having to manage the amount of agro you are generating and performing your role at the right time. It's good for a game of this nature if you are looking for something more like a chess match as opposed to a more zerg like combat where you run in a mash buttons (regardless if some of those buttons are heals/cc/etc that are part of your rotation. It is less strategic because you don't really have to worry as much about agro or doing something at and exact time IMO.
Not going back to "trinity based" games ever. The concept of an armored tank shouting insults while doing 0 damage, yet grabbing all the attention of a foe is an insult - And immersion breaking at best.
Locked down roles + slow as fsck combat does NOT equal strategy!
I like how to discredit the threat system people have to describe the process of getting aggro in the most infantile manner possible.
Tanks did do damage, and threat from most classes came from more than just a Taunt button. It came from spells and abilities that debuffed or damaged the target considerably.
Like I've said a dozen times, threat is just necessary in a role system for tactical combat. In a turn based game, you wouldn't need a taunt, because you could position your troops in such a way that the tank blocks incoming attacks on frailer players. In a 3d game, that sort of movement completely changes the nature of combat. Don't get me wrong, some people like more twitchy skill based combat over strategic combat, but it ostracizes players who just want to play an mmoRPG. There is no tactics in having a mob simply go for the weakest target. You end up using the squishiest target as bait and kiting the mob. The alternatives have only proven to require less skill.
No, not at all. The trinity have become worse and worse for many years anyways, now it is so dumbed down that it is neither challenging nor fun.
If a game have trinity or not doesn't really matter as long as it have group dynamics. I can adapt to new ways, no problem.
What is a problem is any game where you can skill rotate through through most or all of the content.
Nice one, and the more "specialized" preset roles you have the worse it gets
Not to mention whole combat with"agrro" is nonsensical in itself, it was then, it is today.
And i said, trinity "works" because its dumbed down and simplified, when you meet someone he has his preset role, he push his button, you have your role, you push your button and it works. Just like that.
I know most people want it dumbified, but not everyone wants it like that, sorry folks.
i remember when ANet messed around with dailies, there was 1 daily where you had to kill something with combo finisher. So i grabbed 2 randoms and we went to do it. 2 of us got our 20/20 and a third guy had 0/20 and no amount of explaining and showing would do. I guess he missed trinity also. probably 1 of posters here.
Of course they removed that 1 and it never showed up again lol
A trinity-based system does not mean the system needs to be dumbed down, at all. To even suggest that, certainly says how few skills you can think of as being involved from class to class. A trinity-based system would include interdependence, something that is gravely missing from today's zerg- and rush-fest MMOs. The "aggro included" system does not need to mean that keeping said aggro should at all be easy to do either.
Aggro is far from nonsense, given you can think about how we as players will react in a team verse team scenario. Who would you go after first? The guy whose health is not moving when you hit a few times, or the one healing his ass? Given purely random attacks from encounters, that would be nonsense.
What does your highlighted story have to do with the trinity? It begs the question, do you even know what the trinity is?
A smart opponent usually either go for the healer or the weakest link to quickly reducing the numbers of enemies, yes. Aggro in itself is not really a problem in MMOs, it is the taunting that is illogical against sentinent opponents. The warrior might be up in your face and shouting stuff about your mom but a smart opponent knows that taking out the healer first will hurt him far more than focusing on him.
Trinity don't have to be dumbed down but it have certainly become less and less complicated since EQs early days. And frankly with the simple roles of today I don't see any need for it at all.
I believe that the future of MMOs needs a group dynamic system that works equally in PvP and PvE, where sentinent mobs will act far more like humans than the keat heads they are today. You still will need to balance the difficulty but we need to get away from the skill rotations MMOs have turned into.
Group dynamics still should be about timing things together but just locking the mobs with a tank makes combat predictable. At least the players with more HP and armor should be forced to bodyblock mobs going for the more squishy players.
And, yeah, I don't get the highlighted part either.
You are aware that making AI that will mop the floor with players corpses is easy right?
Also, you want realistic behaviour when you are talking about video game. For the lulz. Note to be asshole but you are aware that taunting, aggro mechanic is just the best idea ATM right? Exactly like the fact that sword deals d8 dmg + strength. It is the same boat. Or HP. Or skills with numerical value. Or cooldown on skills. All are game mechanics, and GW2 show us that not trinity system is worse than trinity one.
Point is - it is not hard to make hard encounters. It is really simple. But you know, mobs are made with the mind that they should be killed and looted. They should not be to easy but if they are too hard people will leave (Blizz admited they got AI that will destroy any combination of best pvp players in 3vs3 but they only use it in internal testing, because that AI DONT MAKE MISTAKES).
It is exactly like you are DMing in pen'n'paper rpg. Enemies, challenges MUST be made with the mind "they should ge defeated" - if basic random encounter kill your players, because it need special treatment, certain spells, eq and strategy, then im sorry but you failed as a GM. SImple as that. Fun and engagement are top priorities with making any kind of game session, and mmorpg.
BTW i want proof from anyone (not specific to you, kind sir) who say "games is easy, hurr durr" to provide us with video of Battletoads made with one life, no dying, and then video of killed current top mythic boss in wow (cause everyone know that wow is for sissys right? )
Yeah, and Big Blue beat Kasparov, but that doesnt mean that if you play against AI you will lose by default, there are levels of difficulty, but if you DO want to go against Big Blue - in the end - why not
and this isnt about difficulty, thats easy, just change a number in database and youre all one shot. WoW tab target combat is just playing with numbers, predictable with no surprises possible, its not very hard to script "perfect opponent", hell, people macroed and botted helluva out of "old school" games because they were so simple.
And we get to the next point, if you look at WoW, or any such game encounters are not setup like that, you absolutely NEED certain combination of classes, and of course, its normal that you take classes that excel over classes that - dont. If yopu wanted to play campaign in D&D with 4 paladins - no problem. Try that in WoW (just paladains) and see how far youll get.
This is about dumbing down the combat system in the name of "interdependance". That might have been best idea 15 years ago, but not today. The things have moved forward, but MMOs seem to be stuck in the past. And not just in combat
Yeah, that part was fun. You could even do it in EQ2, my swashie tanked a while for my guild and that took far more skill but was also more fun.
But that still asks the question is trinity really is the best group mechanics.
In pen and paper games (no matter what some people here seems to think) you can take a group of any 4-6 classes and still be very effective, you don't tank and often don't even have a healer, you work together using the groups strenghts against the opponents weaknesses. That was even true in old AD&D.
I think each class should be a "role" in itself, but none should be a must. A good class design allows that.
That is because many of the classes could do different things. It also depends on the adventure you were running. A decent DM always made sure there was a means of accomplishing what needed to get done. You don't have this luxury in a video game. There is no telling as to what the class combinations might be, and you end up with crap like the dungeons in GW2. There was also a lot of redundancy, like the knock spell in pen and paper. You could replace some of the rogues functions with mage spells. Squishies were still squishy too. Arcane casters and rogues really could not stand toe to toe with something for too long at lower levels since the HP was always d4 or d6. The heavy-armored classes always needed to be up front. To mimic this in a video game, you would need collision detection so that they could physically block the enemies.
If AoC had collision detection 7 years ago I don't see the problem of having it in a modern game... And yes, that is exactly what I think MMOs need.
And the different classes of a MMO should be able to do different things. Having classes that are very limited one trick ponies is rather boring after all.
As for GW2s dungeons, I never had any problem with them, maybe you havn't gotten it's group dynamics right?
In pen and paper games (no matter what some people here seems to think) you can take a group of any 4-6 classes and still be very effective, you don't tank and often don't even have a healer, you work together using the groups strenghts against the opponents weaknesses. That was even true in old AD&D.
My weekly experience with Pen and Paper is completely opposite this. As the tank, I can and do force opponents to deal with me instead of the less armored / higher damage party members. I have several tools in my characters build that enable this, and am very effective at my role.
You can play combat that way, yes. We rarely use any tanks. But even so your P&P tank is very different from a MMO tanks, in P&P things are closer to the armor classes of Guildwars (1) than EQ or Wow.
In my Pathfinder group we have 1 player in heavy armor, our cleric. He is hardly just a tank or healer and neither is my bard/Gunslinger, our alchemist or the mage. We still make a surpisingly effective fighter unit since we work together.
Pen and paper combat is far more about offense, defence and support than tank, healer and DPS.
In pen and paper games (no matter what some people here seems to think) you can take a group of any 4-6 classes and still be very effective, you don't tank and often don't even have a healer, you work together using the groups strenghts against the opponents weaknesses. That was even true in old AD&D.
My weekly experience with Pen and Paper is completely opposite this. As the tank, I can and do force opponents to deal with me instead of the less armored / higher damage party members. I have several tools in my characters build that enable this, and am very effective at my role.
You can play combat that way, yes. We rarely use any tanks. But even so your P&P tank is very different from a MMO tanks, in P&P things are closer to the armor classes of Guildwars (1) than EQ or Wow.
In my Pathfinder group we have 1 player in heavy armor, our cleric. He is hardly just a tank or healer and neither is my bard/Gunslinger, our alchemist or the mage. We still make a surpisingly effective fighter unit since we work together.
Pen and paper combat is far more about offense, defence and support than tank, healer and DPS.
This is a really great point. I think a lot of people who've only experienced limited trinity mechanics with forced taunting and easy aggro generation confuse that for a more complex role system with CC and tactics. They're not the same. The original Guild Wars system was a good example to use.
All of the things you just mentioned were part of the trinity system. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea it was just pressing taunt, holding agro, and healing. It was a far more complex argo system then that as many have pointed out. It also had CC and tactics. You also didn't have to use that makeup as mentioned by other people. It was just was the most effective way to level quickly in early MMOs like EQ. You needed a puller, tank, Healer, CC, DPS for a trinity group. You might have an off tank or a tank that was for AOE agro. If the puller did a bad pull everyone died. If someone over agroed everyone died. If the healer didn't time his heals so as not to over agro everyone died. If The enchanger didn't remez or agro wipe before it wore off he was dead. If certain classes didn't root or snare you were dead. Basically it was a lot easier to die by making a misake. That was with the optimal group setup. There were other effective ways to advance using creativity with things like charm, snare, fear, dot, and nukes. This combined with mobs that were exceedingly powerful and equipment that hardly added anything to you character in most cases made for very difficult fights. I don't believe there is a MMO today to match that difficulty. It had a high rate of people not making it past certain levels. It took me from start to planes of power to get to max level, but I soloed a lot and changed classes a bunch of times.
For the person talking about macros it's true people came up with macros, but that is possible for any video game. It just takes the right numbers. If those people played without macros they would probably miss their timing just like they do in WoW where macros seem to be mandatory at high levels now. Macros mean people won't screw up since the computer is doing it for them. I don't believe many people use them in today's MMOs because you level so quickly and it's so easy to level solo you never die. There is also little in the way of farming due to items not really having much value. This is because there is no competition for items. Everyone can get items due to instances. Another thing that makes it an easier experience overall. EQ didn't have macros that I recall. It just had external programs that would be considered cheating.
I'm not saying there can't be a better system implimented, but for people saying the new systems being used are harder that amazes me. You can't even die in solo play. You have to really try to do so. The skills don't generally need to be timed at all because of this. The only hard things are raid and group as I've pointed out before, but they are still far simplier. In EQ barely any guilds got to and unlocked content because it was extremely hard. It was hard enough just to do group content in most cases. I think if people are really looking for a challenge one day perhaps we will see some real challenge again with competition over areas and the need to either manage agro, be in a certain place, or use certain skills at the right time. It seems to me most people are not looking for a challenge. It's why games like Dark Souls are rare in this day and age.
That's a very easy yes and GW2 is the prime example. From the constant chaotic nature of the dungeon crawls to the even more chaotic nature of the zerg of WvW. Everyone does DPS with minimal heals has turned what used to be more strategic gameplay into FPS meets RPG style action MMO. Don't get me wrong, this non-trinity design wasn't needed in order to make combat more engaging, since TERA kept the trinity system and managed to make what I think is just as much if not more combat oriented combat with the use of aimed targeting system. ESO is another similar game done better than GW2 with trinity and soft targeting combat system.
Probably why GW2 is going on sale right before ESO Unlimited launches because they know ESO being B2P is going to trample their customer base.
I think its completely a matter of preference. I have found far more strategy in high level gw2 play then i have in any non world-first raid wow raid. Its interesting that you compare GW2 to an FPS or RPG because it is in some ways an accurate annollogy. Ofcourse both those genres are generaly considered to have far more strategy and tactics than MMORPG's so I find the context of your statement very odd.
I don't think that a game being a trinity game or not has anything to do with the amount of strategy or tactics involved. Breaking the trinity was more about not having to be reliant on other people. In gw2 if you want to do a dungeon or boss you just show up and go in, no waiting or planning involved. That gives alot of freedom to players that most other MMORPGS don't offer. Its probably part of the reason why gw2 has a much older population than alot of other MMORPGS.
Also GW2 has been going on sale in conjuction with each major expansion announcement which is standard for all games.
In pen and paper games (no matter what some people here seems to think) you can take a group of any 4-6 classes and still be very effective, you don't tank and often don't even have a healer, you work together using the groups strenghts against the opponents weaknesses. That was even true in old AD&D.
My weekly experience with Pen and Paper is completely opposite this. As the tank, I can and do force opponents to deal with me instead of the less armored / higher damage party members. I have several tools in my characters build that enable this, and am very effective at my role.
You can play combat that way, yes. We rarely use any tanks. But even so your P&P tank is very different from a MMO tanks, in P&P things are closer to the armor classes of Guildwars (1) than EQ or Wow.
In my Pathfinder group we have 1 player in heavy armor, our cleric. He is hardly just a tank or healer and neither is my bard/Gunslinger, our alchemist or the mage. We still make a surpisingly effective fighter unit since we work together.
Pen and paper combat is far more about offense, defence and support than tank, healer and DPS.
This is a really great point. I think a lot of people who've only experienced limited trinity mechanics with forced taunting and easy aggro generation confuse that for a more complex role system with CC and tactics. They're not the same. The original Guild Wars system was a good example to use.
All of the things you just mentioned were part of the trinity system. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea it was just pressing taunt, holding agro, and healing. It was a far more complex argo system then that as many have pointed out. It also had CC and tactics. You also didn't have to use that makeup as mentioned by other people. It was just was the most effective way to level quickly in early MMOs like EQ. You needed a puller, tank, Healer, CC, DPS for a trinity group. You might have an off tank or a tank that was for AOE agro. If the puller did a bad pull everyone died. If someone over agroed everyone died. If the healer didn't time his heals so as not to over agro everyone died. If The enchanger didn't remez or agro wipe before it wore off he was dead. If certain classes didn't root or snare you were dead. Basically it was a lot easier to die by making a misake. That was with the optimal group setup. There were other effective ways to advance using creativity with things like charm, snare, fear, dot, and nukes. This combined with mobs that were exceedingly powerful and equipment that hardly added anything to you character in most cases made for very difficult fights. I don't believe there is a MMO today to match that difficulty. It had a high rate of people not making it past certain levels. It took me from start to planes of power to get to max level, but I soloed a lot and changed classes a bunch of times.
For the person talking about macros it's true people came up with macros, but that is possible for any video game. It just takes the right numbers. If those people played without macros they would probably miss their timing just like they do in WoW where macros seem to be mandatory at high levels now. Macros mean people won't screw up since the computer is doing it for them. I don't believe many people use them in today's MMOs because you level so quickly and it's so easy to level solo you never die. There is also little in the way of farming due to items not really having much value. This is because there is no competition for items. Everyone can get items due to instances. Another thing that makes it an easier experience overall. EQ didn't have macros that I recall. It just had external programs that would be considered cheating.
I'm not saying there can't be a better system implimented, but for people saying the new systems being used are harder that amazes me. You can't even die in solo play. You have to really try to do so. The skills don't generally need to be timed at all because of this. The only hard things are raid and group as I've pointed out before, but they are still far simplier. In EQ barely any guilds got to and unlocked content because it was extremely hard. It was hard enough just to do group content in most cases. I think if people are really looking for a challenge one day perhaps we will see some real challenge again with competition over areas and the need to either manage agro, be in a certain place, or use certain skills at the right time. It seems to me most people are not looking for a challenge. It's why games like Dark Souls are rare in this day and age.
Most people dont want to be forced to play a game 12 hours/day, but thats really not topic of this thread.
In my Pathfinder group we have 1 player in heavy armor, our cleric. He is hardly just a tank or healer and neither is my bard/Gunslinger, our alchemist or the mage. We still make a surpisingly effective fighter unit since we work together.
Pen and paper combat is far more about offense, defence and support than tank, healer and DPS.
Defense in Pathfinder is just as powerful, or more powerful than offense, if you have sufficient system mastery. If anything breaks Pathfinder, it is not a character with too much damage, it is a character with too much defense.
Combat reflexes, Bodyguard, Gloves of Arcane Striking, Step Up, Stand Still, Compel Hostility, Enlarge, Divine Favor, APL +25 AC:
I bolster the defenses of those adjacent to me, making it impractical to attack them.
I get Multiple AoO per round, for those attempting to bypass me, denying them the ability to move.
Reach, extending the area I can control.
I can force opponents to attack me (Compel Hostility is useful, if situational).
Even APL+4 opponents need a 19-20 to hit.
The GM went with the common forum advice and tried to ignore me, attacking less well defended party members. It did not work, I have far too much battlefield control to bypass with anything short of a completely overwhelming force (which I might well survive, though no one else would.)
So yes; I am the party tank. Opponents must get through me before they have the option to deal serious damage to anyone else, and I don't go down.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
There is a lot of hate for the trinity because many of us were spurned by it and carry those memories but it also had its merits and I see a lot of blind hate for it without really considering what it did for groups and how it was intuitive.
My greatest pleasure in EQ was setting up groups that had none of the holy trinity. As a magician I would pet tank. My wife was a shaman, and damned good at pulling and CC. She could lock down a half dozen mobs while keeping a HOT on my pet.
Was it ideal? No, and it took a lot of skill to be effective at CC as a shaman, but it was possible.
Heck, we even managed to 3-man my magician's epic 2.0 with a cleric's help. (Magician / Shaman / Cleric). I spent 30 minutes trying to explain to the guild leader how I managed to acquire my 2.0 when magicians were not on the rotation yet, and he didn't believe me until the cleric lead confirmed he was there.
There was no Holy Trinity by the time OMENS OF WAR expansion hit EQ. By the time OoW hit, a Shaman or Druid could heal decently. A SK or Paladin could tank great. There were a ton of pet DPS and Survivability AAs that didn't exist before Gates of Discord Expansion. Mages couldn't get a decent Focus Effect for their pets outside of Lost Dungeons of Norrath, which didn't exist back when there was an actual Holy Trinity.
The Holy Trinity was not about the EXISTENCE of a Tank or Healer Archetype. It was an issue people had with the viability of other Fighter Classes (SK, Paladin) or "Healer" Classes (Druid, Shaman) compared to Warrior and Cleric, and the monopoly the Enchanter had on certain buffs and CC ability. The issue was one of three specific classes and how group and raid content were balanced to assume they would be there, and playing decently.
By the time OoW hit, a lot of those issues didn't exist. MOBs mitigated Slows, lots of MOBs were immune to CCs and Snares (this started in GoD to a large extent). SoE did a lot of balancing patches to alter classes into viability as well as using the AA system to do so as well..
There were a few Epic 2.0 MOBs that were way undermined compared to others in Omens of War. A mage could never pet tank the Necro 1.5 MOB in the lower level OoW zone because the pet would die and the fight mechanics spawned Adds that hit hard as hell. Pets were rather imp back then and simply did not tank well. You're talking about the game after the classes had largely been revamped and trying to make it seem like the people who played it back in Classic - Luclin were just bad players who didn't think out of the box enough to get shit done...
I was in an end-game guild that cleared most of Tacvi before OoW launched. The top mage in my guild was one of the best geared in the game. His pets could not tank that MOB. We tried. The MOB did too much DPS, mitigated slow, and was immune to CC. Like many other OoW MOBs and practically all named MOBs in that expansion.
You weren't rocking it as a pet tank unless you were doing that content after the level cap went up and more expansions were released. The MOBs did entirely too much DPS for GoD/OoW geared mages with those pets to tank them that well.
And good luck finding any Shaman that could lock down that many MOBs, with Roots, Lol. Really, that part is just an outright lie.
HoTs don't help much when the MOBs one round more than half your Pet's HP away. That's the way it was for OoW Mages and Necros trying to pet tank back then. The MOB could spike your pet down at any moment. Trying to level that way was like rolling dice, and I certainly wasn't caring to do it without a pocket rez.
I played a Necro and had an Alt Mage with Qvic+ level gear and focus effects when OoW launched. I've tried it all :-)
I like the defined roles. It creates multiple experiences of the same content. Running a dungeon as a healer vs tank vs dps vs support/cc can offer a fresh perspective on the same content. Needing a specific skill set to overcome a group challenge is a cornerstone of fantasy role playing.Goes back to the beginning; "But we have the white wizard. That's got to count for something."
Exactly how I feel and have said before.. Today's games I feel that one class plays and feels like another.. Back in the days of vanilla EQ, playing a druid is completely different then playing a necro or shadow knight, or warrior.. ESPECIALLY when grouped..
Originally posted by BadSpock
As others have said - GW2.
The non-trinity combat just... no, not for me.
Fun solo? For sure.
Fun in groups? Not for me, way too chaotic and uncontrolled. Too loose, not enough specialization... I don't know, I'm sure others would disagree that gave it more time/effort to understand and excel at the system, but I was instantly and I mean instantly turned off by it so much in my first dungeon run in GW2 - I've never actually done another. Ever.
That part about fun in groups.. BINGO.. Groups just feel zergy, chaotic and sloppy.. I think of GW2's UI for example and I'm ok with players being able to solo using hotkeys 1-5.. But it's what GW2 did with group content and keys 6-10 that turn me off.. I don't want group content to be zerged using buttons 1-5 by everyone.. To me, I want buttons 6-10 to be CLASS DEFINING skills that have minimal impact on solo play, but are HUGE roles to be used in a group situation.. One quick cheap example would be "battle rez".. Obviously you can see this skill doesn't really come into play while soloing, but in a group event, OH YEAH.. this one is a keeper.. Another skill can be "summoning" of a group member.. Or a particular form of CC.. The list of class defining skills and spells is long and more then enough to satisfy giving each class their own special flavor in a group set up..
Comments
Yeah, that part was fun. You could even do it in EQ2, my swashie tanked a while for my guild and that took far more skill but was also more fun.
But that still asks the question is trinity really is the best group mechanics.
In pen and paper games (no matter what some people here seems to think) you can take a group of any 4-6 classes and still be very effective, you don't tank and often don't even have a healer, you work together using the groups strenghts against the opponents weaknesses. That was even true in old AD&D.
I think each class should be a "role" in itself, but none should be a must. A good class design allows that.
You are aware that making AI that will mop the floor with players corpses is easy right?
Also, you want realistic behaviour when you are talking about video game. For the lulz. Note to be asshole but you are aware that taunting, aggro mechanic is just the best idea ATM right? Exactly like the fact that sword deals d8 dmg + strength. It is the same boat. Or HP. Or skills with numerical value. Or cooldown on skills. All are game mechanics, and GW2 show us that not trinity system is worse than trinity one.
Point is - it is not hard to make hard encounters. It is really simple. But you know, mobs are made with the mind that they should be killed and looted. They should not be to easy but if they are too hard people will leave (Blizz admited they got AI that will destroy any combination of best pvp players in 3vs3 but they only use it in internal testing, because that AI DONT MAKE MISTAKES).
It is exactly like you are DMing in pen'n'paper rpg. Enemies, challenges MUST be made with the mind "they should ge defeated" - if basic random encounter kill your players, because it need special treatment, certain spells, eq and strategy, then im sorry but you failed as a GM. SImple as that. Fun and engagement are top priorities with making any kind of game session, and mmorpg.
BTW i want proof from anyone (not specific to you, kind sir) who say "games is easy, hurr durr" to provide us with video of Battletoads made with one life, no dying, and then video of killed current top mythic boss in wow (cause everyone know that wow is for sissys right?
)
Guild Wars 2, For sure
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Yes, I am well aware that you can do impossible opponents but we seen that in trinity games as well, EQ had to nerf some raids because they initially were totally impossible.
Right now you use HP and attack strengths (among others) to balance the difficulty, you need to do the same in a system where taunts don't exist like they did in old Guildwars (1).
As for making misstakes AIs does that if you code them for it, single player games does that, or any strategy game would be impossible for 99.9% of the players.
As for games being easy, I didn't say that but games have becomming easier the last 15 years. Just try a C-64 emulated game or something on an old Nintendo game and you see that. Now, MMOs shouldn't be as hard as "Megaman" but the difficulty slider should not go from incredibly easy (level 1-max) to incredible hard (endgame raids) in 2 to 3 steps. The game should slowly constantly becomes harder.
Most MMOs have the perfect difficulty where it is as hard as it get but it's open world content is so easy that it takes close to zero effort and that isn't good, that should just be the first zone where you learn the ropes of the game.
There is a reason so few players actually even try the hard stuff, the game lure them to think they are masters since they very rarely die and then bam do they realize they havn't learned much at all. If they instead constantly had to become a little better I think more players would stay longer in the same game.
I guess it all depends on how you look at it.
EQ mobs were often scripted to attacked the largest DPS threat. The tank wasn't always able to hold agro even when taunting. It would often be lost if the DPS didn't use their brain and hold back a bit at the times. The same with healers and CCers. They had to be careful how much they healed or CCed or they would get agro. Not all mobs in EQ could be deemed as intelligent. You had things like Orcs and Sand giants, Trolls, and Orgres who were brutes. Then you had things like animals who might have some form of intelligence, but would not likely be able to determine the greatest threat. It's still not eintirely realistic, but it's a complex system when you add things like pullers to the mix and everyone has to do their job correctly.
As I mentioned EQ classes were almost a copy from D&D 2nd edition. D&D 2nd edition didn't really have balanced classes at all. They were more made on the basis of fun and how their skills would fit the class. If you played Baldur's Gate 1/2 you know the classes were not balanced in terms of combat. They all did have useful abilities though. In orignal EQ before there were raids you could pretty much use any group that had some type of healer, DPS, and tank. The Warrior and Cleric were just the most powerful. Even after that point many people chose a class that could solo just because of the conviences. They didn't care if they could do all the group/raid content. They just liked the challenge of progressing in the game at all.
That is because many of the classes could do different things. It also depends on the adventure you were running. A decent DM always made sure there was a means of accomplishing what needed to get done. You don't have this luxury in a video game. There is no telling as to what the class combinations might be, and you end up with crap like the dungeons in GW2. There was also a lot of redundancy, like the knock spell in pen and paper. You could replace some of the rogues functions with mage spells. Squishies were still squishy too. Arcane casters and rogues really could not stand toe to toe with something for too long at lower levels since the HP was always d4 or d6. The heavy-armored classes always needed to be up front. To mimic this in a video game, you would need collision detection so that they could physically block the enemies.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
Same here (opposite effect).
Not going back to "trinity based" games ever. The concept of an armored tank shouting insults while doing 0 damage, yet grabbing all the attention of a foe is an insult - And immersion breaking at best.
Locked down roles + slow as fsck combat does NOT equal strategy!
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
My weekly experience with Pen and Paper is completely opposite this. As the tank, I can and do force opponents to deal with me instead of the less armored / higher damage party members. I have several tools in my characters build that enable this, and am very effective at my role.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
trinity combat dosen't have to be slow... Wildstar is trinity based yet very fast-paced. Also, everyone definatly have a role and not only the tank... don't compare 16 years old EQ1 mechanic to what modern trinity-based games can do.
I get alot more challenge from coordinating a group, using the class pro's and con's to defeat an encounter, than just grabbing 5 random people and DPS'ing my way through a dunjons without really caring what the other 4 do...
But one thing we can all agree on: having every class different but balanced, equally desirable yet not required, in small scale or large scale PvP, in solo, group or raid PvE content, with a couple different viable spec/skill/talent build along with a large selection of equally powerfull armor who have different, interesting stats yet dosen't require any form of min-maxing or tougth put into the creation... is definatly the way to go. And it's soo easy , why nobody do it?!
if everyone is a special snowflake, nobody is a special snowflake
You never played EQ, where the difference between skilled CC and unskilled CC was the difference between a successful run and a TPK.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
I agree it is how you look at it.
I find the threat mechanic realistic because many people act exactly the same way!
I find real players in pvp act about the same as AI most of the time. Sure people try to go after the healers and casters first, but when you have the front line fighters hamstringing and snaring them, they chase the healers, never get to them, and do no damage, they turn on the fighters that are right there, to try and get rid of them who are in essence taunting them.
Just like the monster running after the caster because of all the damage it is doing, being hacked up from behind as it never reaches them, it eventually turns on the people slashing at it from behind because those attacks are annoying, hampering their progress, a threat to be hopefully eliminated quickly to finally go after that caster they can never catch!
If we are looking for more realism I think one fighter isn't enough to block people from attacking others. It works well in a turn based game where you move like chess pieces or in a game like EQ where you have taunt, but even with the ability to block it would be difficult to stop someone from running around you. You wold probably need at least two or three fighter type classes. In Baldur's Gate I would usually take 2 fighters and use classes like theives or clerics to protect mage types if there were a lot of mobs coming. That doesn't mean the trinity system is bad. It has a lot of strategy with having to manage the amount of agro you are generating and performing your role at the right time. It's good for a game of this nature if you are looking for something more like a chess match as opposed to a more zerg like combat where you run in a mash buttons (regardless if some of those buttons are heals/cc/etc that are part of your rotation. It is less strategic because you don't really have to worry as much about agro or doing something at and exact time IMO.
I like how to discredit the threat system people have to describe the process of getting aggro in the most infantile manner possible.
Tanks did do damage, and threat from most classes came from more than just a Taunt button. It came from spells and abilities that debuffed or damaged the target considerably.
Like I've said a dozen times, threat is just necessary in a role system for tactical combat. In a turn based game, you wouldn't need a taunt, because you could position your troops in such a way that the tank blocks incoming attacks on frailer players. In a 3d game, that sort of movement completely changes the nature of combat. Don't get me wrong, some people like more twitchy skill based combat over strategic combat, but it ostracizes players who just want to play an mmoRPG. There is no tactics in having a mob simply go for the weakest target. You end up using the squishiest target as bait and kiting the mob. The alternatives have only proven to require less skill.
Yeah, and Big Blue beat Kasparov, but that doesnt mean that if you play against AI you will lose by default, there are levels of difficulty, but if you DO want to go against Big Blue - in the end - why not
and this isnt about difficulty, thats easy, just change a number in database and youre all one shot. WoW tab target combat is just playing with numbers, predictable with no surprises possible, its not very hard to script "perfect opponent", hell, people macroed and botted helluva out of "old school" games because they were so simple.
And we get to the next point, if you look at WoW, or any such game encounters are not setup like that, you absolutely NEED certain combination of classes, and of course, its normal that you take classes that excel over classes that - dont. If yopu wanted to play campaign in D&D with 4 paladins - no problem. Try that in WoW (just paladains) and see how far youll get.
This is about dumbing down the combat system in the name of "interdependance". That might have been best idea 15 years ago, but not today. The things have moved forward, but MMOs seem to be stuck in the past. And not just in combat
If AoC had collision detection 7 years ago I don't see the problem of having it in a modern game... And yes, that is exactly what I think MMOs need.
And the different classes of a MMO should be able to do different things. Having classes that are very limited one trick ponies is rather boring after all.
As for GW2s dungeons, I never had any problem with them, maybe you havn't gotten it's group dynamics right?
You can play combat that way, yes. We rarely use any tanks. But even so your P&P tank is very different from a MMO tanks, in P&P things are closer to the armor classes of Guildwars (1) than EQ or Wow.
In my Pathfinder group we have 1 player in heavy armor, our cleric. He is hardly just a tank or healer and neither is my bard/Gunslinger, our alchemist or the mage. We still make a surpisingly effective fighter unit since we work together.
Pen and paper combat is far more about offense, defence and support than tank, healer and DPS.
GW2 made me realize how shallow PvE tends to be without a trinity.
All of the things you just mentioned were part of the trinity system. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea it was just pressing taunt, holding agro, and healing. It was a far more complex argo system then that as many have pointed out. It also had CC and tactics. You also didn't have to use that makeup as mentioned by other people. It was just was the most effective way to level quickly in early MMOs like EQ. You needed a puller, tank, Healer, CC, DPS for a trinity group. You might have an off tank or a tank that was for AOE agro. If the puller did a bad pull everyone died. If someone over agroed everyone died. If the healer didn't time his heals so as not to over agro everyone died. If The enchanger didn't remez or agro wipe before it wore off he was dead. If certain classes didn't root or snare you were dead. Basically it was a lot easier to die by making a misake. That was with the optimal group setup. There were other effective ways to advance using creativity with things like charm, snare, fear, dot, and nukes. This combined with mobs that were exceedingly powerful and equipment that hardly added anything to you character in most cases made for very difficult fights. I don't believe there is a MMO today to match that difficulty. It had a high rate of people not making it past certain levels. It took me from start to planes of power to get to max level, but I soloed a lot and changed classes a bunch of times.
For the person talking about macros it's true people came up with macros, but that is possible for any video game. It just takes the right numbers. If those people played without macros they would probably miss their timing just like they do in WoW where macros seem to be mandatory at high levels now. Macros mean people won't screw up since the computer is doing it for them. I don't believe many people use them in today's MMOs because you level so quickly and it's so easy to level solo you never die. There is also little in the way of farming due to items not really having much value. This is because there is no competition for items. Everyone can get items due to instances. Another thing that makes it an easier experience overall. EQ didn't have macros that I recall. It just had external programs that would be considered cheating.
I'm not saying there can't be a better system implimented, but for people saying the new systems being used are harder that amazes me. You can't even die in solo play. You have to really try to do so. The skills don't generally need to be timed at all because of this. The only hard things are raid and group as I've pointed out before, but they are still far simplier. In EQ barely any guilds got to and unlocked content because it was extremely hard. It was hard enough just to do group content in most cases. I think if people are really looking for a challenge one day perhaps we will see some real challenge again with competition over areas and the need to either manage agro, be in a certain place, or use certain skills at the right time. It seems to me most people are not looking for a challenge. It's why games like Dark Souls are rare in this day and age.
I think its completely a matter of preference. I have found far more strategy in high level gw2 play then i have in any non world-first raid wow raid. Its interesting that you compare GW2 to an FPS or RPG because it is in some ways an accurate annollogy. Ofcourse both those genres are generaly considered to have far more strategy and tactics than MMORPG's so I find the context of your statement very odd.
I don't think that a game being a trinity game or not has anything to do with the amount of strategy or tactics involved. Breaking the trinity was more about not having to be reliant on other people. In gw2 if you want to do a dungeon or boss you just show up and go in, no waiting or planning involved. That gives alot of freedom to players that most other MMORPGS don't offer. Its probably part of the reason why gw2 has a much older population than alot of other MMORPGS.
Also GW2 has been going on sale in conjuction with each major expansion announcement which is standard for all games.
Most people dont want to be forced to play a game 12 hours/day, but thats really not topic of this thread.
Defense in Pathfinder is just as powerful, or more powerful than offense, if you have sufficient system mastery. If anything breaks Pathfinder, it is not a character with too much damage, it is a character with too much defense.
Combat reflexes, Bodyguard, Gloves of Arcane Striking, Step Up, Stand Still, Compel Hostility, Enlarge, Divine Favor, APL +25 AC:
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
There was no Holy Trinity by the time OMENS OF WAR expansion hit EQ. By the time OoW hit, a Shaman or Druid could heal decently. A SK or Paladin could tank great. There were a ton of pet DPS and Survivability AAs that didn't exist before Gates of Discord Expansion. Mages couldn't get a decent Focus Effect for their pets outside of Lost Dungeons of Norrath, which didn't exist back when there was an actual Holy Trinity.
The Holy Trinity was not about the EXISTENCE of a Tank or Healer Archetype. It was an issue people had with the viability of other Fighter Classes (SK, Paladin) or "Healer" Classes (Druid, Shaman) compared to Warrior and Cleric, and the monopoly the Enchanter had on certain buffs and CC ability. The issue was one of three specific classes and how group and raid content were balanced to assume they would be there, and playing decently.
By the time OoW hit, a lot of those issues didn't exist. MOBs mitigated Slows, lots of MOBs were immune to CCs and Snares (this started in GoD to a large extent). SoE did a lot of balancing patches to alter classes into viability as well as using the AA system to do so as well..
There were a few Epic 2.0 MOBs that were way undermined compared to others in Omens of War. A mage could never pet tank the Necro 1.5 MOB in the lower level OoW zone because the pet would die and the fight mechanics spawned Adds that hit hard as hell. Pets were rather imp back then and simply did not tank well. You're talking about the game after the classes had largely been revamped and trying to make it seem like the people who played it back in Classic - Luclin were just bad players who didn't think out of the box enough to get shit done...
I was in an end-game guild that cleared most of Tacvi before OoW launched. The top mage in my guild was one of the best geared in the game. His pets could not tank that MOB. We tried. The MOB did too much DPS, mitigated slow, and was immune to CC. Like many other OoW MOBs and practically all named MOBs in that expansion.
You weren't rocking it as a pet tank unless you were doing that content after the level cap went up and more expansions were released. The MOBs did entirely too much DPS for GoD/OoW geared mages with those pets to tank them that well.
And good luck finding any Shaman that could lock down that many MOBs, with Roots, Lol. Really, that part is just an outright lie.
HoTs don't help much when the MOBs one round more than half your Pet's HP away. That's the way it was for OoW Mages and Necros trying to pet tank back then. The MOB could spike your pet down at any moment. Trying to level that way was like rolling dice, and I certainly wasn't caring to do it without a pocket rez.
I played a Necro and had an Alt Mage with Qvic+ level gear and focus effects when OoW launched. I've tried it all :-)