We're arguing so hard about what is a trinity based game.
Here's a question. If you consider D&D to be a trinity based game is there any game with healing that you do NOT consider to be trinity based?
For that matter. Is there any kind of melee combatants you DON'T consider to be a tank?
Non trinity games, let me see. First person shooters, grand strategy games, I understand GW2 is in that category but I haven't played it, Tunnels and Trolls. Probably lots of others.
Melee combatants, sure in Everquest 2 there are Dirges, Assasins Swashbucklers and Brigands. Although Brigands can occasionally tank for a group or be an off tank in a specific encounter. Also Inquisitors although clerics melee and heal that way definitely not tanks. In Rift Rogues can be tanks or melee depending on equipment and current spec. Same for clerics.
The thing is there are a host of options out there that do not fit your narrow definitions. Your rules suck.
Many FPSes have healing. The doctor in Team Fortress 2, logistics suits in Dust 514 etc. Both those games also have heavy suits that can take hits and tend to be the first to breach doors. Snipers and other classes that focus entirely on damage. Guild Wars 2 has characters with healing. Some characters that can take more damage than others.
What separates these games from Dungeons and Dragons? How are these games not trinity based by your definitions? Those characters not healers or tanks by your definitions?
If a brigand can draw attention doesn't that make it a tank?
Also the the fact there are a whole host of options that don't fit my narrow definition is THE POINT! If there isn't things that don't fit my definition then the definition has no meaning. I would assert your definition sucks on the basis of being so broad as to have no real meaning.
Also the fact that I can create your TRInity with only 2 character classes. Heck a paladin in actually a trinity in itself. It fits your definition of a healer, tank, and DPS.
Taunt first shows up in D&D in 2nd Edition. It's a mage spell.
Early D&D, despite its murky and haphazard design, was not nearly so straitjacketed as classic Holy Trinity game play. Holy Trinity was designed for ease of use during early internet days. It replaced positioning as the scheme that controlled who took the brunt of attacks.
Period fighters were usually quite capable of dishing out damage. They were fighters, not immovable blocks that shouted insults in all languages. In our bits of dungeoneering, we always had secondary fighters or clerics in the back, as ambushes could happen in any direction. Pre battle party arrangement and placement were major points of tactics.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Final Fantasy I had the trinity first before Final Fantasy IV. The character in the top spot got hit the most so you put the tank there and then put the mages in the lower spots. Look it up. I know it's been years but come on, guys. You shouldn't be THAT old and senile yet.
The same concept applied to lots of dungeon crawler RPG videogames like Swords and Serpents. The top spot got targetted by the AI the most, so you'd put your warrior there, then typically the thief (more durable than wizards, less durable than warrior) in the second spot and two wizards (wizards were both healers and DPS in that game) in the last spots.
Ultima Exodus had a variation of it except since that game was on a grid, the "top spot" tbat you placed your tanks in worked by defaulting them to the spot closest to the enemy (unless you got surrounded, of course, of which the main point of that ambush was to screw with your trinity formation).
Like I said. Go into any MMO that still allows for customization. Make a tank/DPS combo build and post LFG as a tank. See if anyone agrees that's a tank build.
I guarantee you more than just @Eldurian will laugh at you when you tell them it's a tank.
Brawlers are excellent in PvP but tanks they are not.
Happens all the time. Dps specced Palladins in wow dps specced bruisers in eq2. Seen this in most class based mmo Games.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
To start off, my pnp gaming history predates AD&D and so have seen many changes over time as the games went from role playing to rule playing. In olden times we would run a game (say AD&D v1) and it would have taunting and blocking etc. because we decided that it did. The original pnp games were a framework around which you built your world. In modern games there does appear to have to be a rule for everything and all aspects of a character need to be defined over numerous sheets of paper before they can be used (and take an age for people to find "that" statistic when it is needed), In ADnD v1 or 2, if a character died you could have another up and running in 10 minutes.
I ran a Rolemaster campaign recently and the number of books that I needed was ridiculous as all of the publications are deemed "official". One of the reasons that DnD version 3 and later were developed was so that there could be a standard set of rules so that they could run official campaigns and people could easily swap between games and worlds. These later do not have a taunt mechanic and so it can't exist, in earlier games it could easily exist because that is what the group wanted.
In the games I played we would have one or two big hunks (male or female) wearing lots of metal standing between the evil monsters and the rest of the party (very much like a shield wall) whilst the wizards and archers sniped from behind - the cleric healed and stopped anyone who managed to avoid the fighters. Was it realistic - no, was it fun - yes.
For me the trinity existed back in those days and was later codified for computer games so that they could work in a fun way. For this reason, for me, the trinity was born back then. If I had started playing D&D after the era of ADnD 2 then I would probably say that it was created when MMOs came out. In many ways it is all a matter of perspective and so it is possible that both groups are right (or wrong).
@Eldurian Oh and by the way brawlers in Everquest 2 (Monks and Bruisers) are tanks and in some raid encounters you actually require one to tank.
If everquest was built to evolve around the trinity that would hold water. The trinity was born out of the game by accident. It wasn't by design of the developers. When the design of developers got involved we see how it is today and Eldurian is right. Try taking some hybrid build into one of the dungeons in a trinity game and see how they laugh at you.
We're arguing so hard about what is a trinity based game.
Here's a question. If you consider D&D to be a trinity based game is there any game with healing that you do NOT consider to be trinity based?
For that matter. Is there any kind of melee combatants you DON'T consider to be a tank?
Non trinity games, let me see. First person shooters, grand strategy games, I understand GW2 is in that category but I haven't played it, Tunnels and Trolls. Probably lots of others.
Melee combatants, sure in Everquest 2 there are Dirges, Assasins Swashbucklers and Brigands. Although Brigands can occasionally tank for a group or be an off tank in a specific encounter. Also Inquisitors although clerics melee and heal that way definitely not tanks. In Rift Rogues can be tanks or melee depending on equipment and current spec. Same for clerics.
The thing is there are a host of options out there that do not fit your narrow definitions. Your rules suck.
When you make the definition so broad it covers every mmo ever created then maybe you haven't played a trinity game or ran in a dungeon. The trinity games you will enter a queue for a dungon and it tells you to pick one of the roles healer, tank, dps, sometimes support. Why does it bother to do such a thing? Because the game is built in such a way that the trinity roles must be played or the dungeon is failed. Now you can usually get away with hybrid builds at low levels but higher competetive dungeons you will not. Personally I enjoy games that don't focus on trinity play. Which is why I enjoyed muds so much.
@Eldurian Oh and by the way brawlers in Everquest 2 (Monks and Bruisers) are tanks and in some raid encounters you actually require one to tank.
If everquest was built to evolve around the trinity that would hold water. The trinity was born out of the game by accident. It wasn't by design of the developers. When the design of developers got involved we see how it is today and Eldurian is right. Try taking some hybrid build into one of the dungeons in a trinity game and see how they laugh at you.
EQ2, not EQ. There are three types of fighter, each type has two classes. These types are warrior, crusader and BRAWLER. There is a raid encounter in the Palace of Roehn Theer, the three sages. In this encounter each sage mast be tanked separately and by a different type of warrior. No ifs no buts if you don't engage each sage with the right type of tank the raid wipes.
There are other raid encounters in other expacs were using a brawler as the main or off tank makes sense. Not a laughing matter, the top guilds worked that way back in the day. All of them had a brawler equipped up to act as raid tank when required even though their normal main tank was probably a warrior or a crusader.
But I do agree, the Trinity emerged in Everquest, it started as emergent game play and was later supported by the developers.
That's my point really, the trinity is often a case of emergent game play that people adopt, and they often adopt it long before it is in the 'rule book' or consciously coded into a game by the developers.
wth. I'm starting to understand why so many people are getting so upset with the millenials. It's like you think the world started the day you were born.
That has to be the best lines I have read in these forums in a while. Almost fell out of my chair laughing.
We're arguing so hard about what is a trinity based game.
Here's a question. If you consider D&D to be a trinity based game is there any game with healing that you do NOT consider to be trinity based?
For that matter. Is there any kind of melee combatants you DON'T consider to be a tank?
Non trinity games, let me see. First person shooters, grand strategy games, I understand GW2 is in that category but I haven't played it, Tunnels and Trolls. Probably lots of others.
Melee combatants, sure in Everquest 2 there are Dirges, Assasins Swashbucklers and Brigands. Although Brigands can occasionally tank for a group or be an off tank in a specific encounter. Also Inquisitors although clerics melee and heal that way definitely not tanks. In Rift Rogues can be tanks or melee depending on equipment and current spec. Same for clerics.
The thing is there are a host of options out there that do not fit your narrow definitions. Your rules suck.
When you make the definition so broad it covers every mmo ever created then maybe you haven't played a trinity game or ran in a dungeon. The trinity games you will enter a queue for a dungon and it tells you to pick one of the roles healer, tank, dps, sometimes support. Why does it bother to do such a thing? Because the game is built in such a way that the trinity roles must be played or the dungeon is failed. Now you can usually get away with hybrid builds at low levels but higher competetive dungeons you will not. Personally I enjoy games that don't focus on trinity play. Which is why I enjoyed muds so much.
This is where the meaning behind your topic comes into question.
I view the Trinity as a tactic, a party makeup. Trinity based games confine you to that tactic. They are very shallow when it comes to giving you options in tactics to successfully complete the more difficult encounters.
Plenty of the early mmorpg developer were MUD-players and many of them also were part of the teams behind muds, Raph Koster, Mark Jacobs both created muds, Brad Mcquaid was a huge fan of forgotten realms inspired diku-mud, many from the meridian 59 team played diku-mud.
Tank, healer, damage dealer were already concepts in MUD. Plenty of MUD also had things like FFA-PvP, full loot drop, XP penalty on death and battlegrounds. The LP-mud I mostly played also had concepts like rez-killing where you killed someone, used a resurrection scroll on them to bring them back to life just so you could have a chance to kill them again for double XP penalty.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
@Eldurian Oh and by the way brawlers in Everquest 2 (Monks and Bruisers) are tanks and in some raid encounters you actually require one to tank.
If everquest was built to evolve around the trinity that would hold water. The trinity was born out of the game by accident. It wasn't by design of the developers. When the design of developers got involved we see how it is today and Eldurian is right. Try taking some hybrid build into one of the dungeons in a trinity game and see how they laugh at you.
EQ2, not EQ. There are three types of fighter, each type has two classes. These types are warrior, crusader and BRAWLER. There is a raid encounter in the Palace of Roehn Theer, the three sages. In this encounter each sage mast be tanked separately and by a different type of warrior. No ifs no buts if you don't engage each sage with the right type of tank the raid wipes.
So if I make an encounter that mechanically requires a healer to tank it, does that make a healer a tank?
Sounds like an encounter that forces you to use an off-tank as a main tank in order to create additional challenge. Not an encounter that proves in any way those classes are true tanks.
Plenty of the early mmorpg developer were MUD-players and many of them also were part of the teams behind muds, Raph Koster, Mark Jacobs both created muds, Brad Mcquaid was a huge fan of forgotten realms inspired diku-mud, many from the meridian 59 team played diku-mud.
Tank, healer, damage dealer were already concepts in MUD.
But was healer really present? The tank is subjective because in muds the mobs didn't change targets. So all you had to do was let the tank attack the mob and he was taking the damage. Also depending on the mud you usually just used mobs to tank pve. In the mud you played was it possible for a healer to heal? In all the ones I played it was a waste of mana over 90% of the time.
Plenty of the early mmorpg developer were MUD-players and many of them also were part of the teams behind muds, Raph Koster, Mark Jacobs both created muds, Brad Mcquaid was a huge fan of forgotten realms inspired diku-mud, many from the meridian 59 team played diku-mud.
Tank, healer, damage dealer were already concepts in MUD.
But was healer really present? The tank is subjective because in muds the mobs didn't change targets. So all you had to do was let the tank attack the mob and he was taking the damage. Also depending on the mud you usually just used mobs to tank pve. In the mud you played was it possible for a healer to heal? In all the ones I played it was a waste of mana over 90% of the time.
Merc, Copper, Diku, and Circle all had the same four classes. One of which was Cleric. The Cleric was the designated healer, often a class (sometimes the only class) with a weapon restriction.
To ask the same of most other MUDs would be disingenuous, as Diku and the variants made from its codebase were combat-centric. LP, Tiny, and others at the time weren't the Diku/EQ/WOW formula by any stretch of the imagination.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Its about finding a class that can prevent other players from getting hit by taking the damage themselves. Then finding another class that is capable of healing more then 1 person a day. You think tank and healer should be something else then please tell us.
DND back in the 70s didn't have tanks or aggros etc. Aggro came from the fact that computer games weren't run by a human Dungeon Master. I know you have read the link to the trinity origins and you can't understand it enough to accept it.
Now, you know who says we had tanks in dnd in the 70s? BS Artists who are projecting backwards in time to claim such a thing. Anyone who thinks that dnd, adnd 1st or 2nd had aggro, show me where it is in the DMG or the PH. You won't find it.
Now dnd had character who had armor and shield and that doesn't make it a tank. THe DM would move opponents against the PCs.
You really need to take a look at what you are trying to pull here. I think you are just looking for attention. You can't rewrite history even when you don't believe it.
So you agreed with what I said and somehow made it look like you disagreed. Good job.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Its about finding a class that can prevent other players from getting hit by taking the damage themselves. Then finding another class that is capable of healing more then 1 person a day. You think tank and healer should be something else then please tell us.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Plenty of the early mmorpg developer were MUD-players and many of them also were part of the teams behind muds, Raph Koster, Mark Jacobs both created muds, Brad Mcquaid was a huge fan of forgotten realms inspired diku-mud, many from the meridian 59 team played diku-mud.
Tank, healer, damage dealer were already concepts in MUD.
But was healer really present? The tank is subjective because in muds the mobs didn't change targets. So all you had to do was let the tank attack the mob and he was taking the damage. Also depending on the mud you usually just used mobs to tank pve. In the mud you played was it possible for a healer to heal? In all the ones I played it was a waste of mana over 90% of the time.
A cleric doing unmodded heals would have a 5/1 hp to mp ratio, downranking heals you would get 10/1 ratio, my first character was a hybrid that had a 3/1 ratio on heals. While aggro was simple in MUD there's an abundance of tank and spank fights in mmorpg where its almost impossible for tanks to lose aggro.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
@Eldurian Oh and by the way brawlers in Everquest 2 (Monks and Bruisers) are tanks and in some raid encounters you actually require one to tank.
If everquest was built to evolve around the trinity that would hold water. The trinity was born out of the game by accident. It wasn't by design of the developers. When the design of developers got involved we see how it is today and Eldurian is right. Try taking some hybrid build into one of the dungeons in a trinity game and see how they laugh at you.
EQ2, not EQ. There are three types of fighter, each type has two classes. These types are warrior, crusader and BRAWLER. There is a raid encounter in the Palace of Roehn Theer, the three sages. In this encounter each sage mast be tanked separately and by a different type of warrior. No ifs no buts if you don't engage each sage with the right type of tank the raid wipes.
So if I make an encounter that mechanically requires a healer to tank it, does that make a healer a tank?
Sounds like an encounter that forces you to use an off-tank as a main tank in order to create additional challenge. Not an encounter that proves in any way those classes are true tanks.
Utter rubbish your lack of knowledge is appalling. Monks and Bruisers are recognized as tanks in Everquest 2. For both raiding and single groups. From the Everquest 2 Forums.
Thanks to Prestiges a Pally is as defensive as a Monk/Guardian - better in some way less so in others. The only issue is we are bound to one side of the tree in order to get the same benefits as the other two get from previous updates.
Normally I am always on some level annoyed at the "ease" crusaders get but to me I don't mind the new paladins. Tbh Guards and Monks have some more control over their stuff. (please keep in mind I am a bit tank-bias as a Guardian myself) That aside though crusaders are the easiest to solo with a merc. As someone above said just because you CAN solo current (or skyshrine) zones on a Guardian doesn't mean its easy.
If you are just coming back and want to tank with a merc/your wife's dirge I would highly recommend a Paladin or Monk/Bruiser for you specially since if you are a paladin you and the dirge both have rezzes you can cast in combat provided Stonewall is up to keep you from being interrupted. Have fun though.
I'm sorry. EQ2 is a crap game. I've played it. It was boring. I went on to better games and never looked back. So I really don't know what is and isn't a tank in EQ2.
My apologies I don't have detailed knowledge of every MMO ever made and that appalls you.
All I know is the evidence YOU submitted. Which was:
"EQ2, not EQ. There are three types of fighter, each type has two classes. These types are warrior, crusader and BRAWLER. There is a raid encounter in the Palace of Roehn Theer, the three sages. In this encounter each sage mast be tanked separately and by a different type of warrior. No ifs no buts if you don't engage each sage with the right type of tank the raid wipes."
And that right there is not evidence that those classes are true tanks in any way shape or form.
Also your fixation on the fact EQ2 classes which may or may not be tanks brawlers is idiotic. I was referring to the PvP role of brawler which a character with a strong mix of defense and offence, used for the purpose of breaking into enemy lines and causing considerable damage without dying in seconds like a true DPS would if used in that capacity. The tank is there to supplement the DPS, not as the purpose of the character.
If there is a class of tanks called brawlers in EQ2 that doesn't matter because that isn't what I was talking about. That argument is based on equivocation, and therefore invalid.
I'm sorry. EQ2 is a crap game. I've played it. It was boring. I went on to better games and never looked back. So I really don't know what is and isn't a tank in EQ2.
My apologies I don't have detailed knowledge of every MMO ever made and that appalls you.
All I know is the evidence YOU submitted. Which was:
"EQ2, not EQ. There are three types of fighter, each type has two classes. These types are warrior, crusader and BRAWLER. There is a raid encounter in the Palace of Roehn Theer, the three sages. In this encounter each sage mast be tanked separately and by a different type of warrior. No ifs no buts if you don't engage each sage with the right type of tank the raid wipes."
And that right there is not evidence that those classes are true tanks in any way shape or form other than that the game is forcing you to use them in the capacity of tanks for that encounter. Which it could do with literally any role ever.
Also your fixation on the fact EQ2 classes which may or may not be tanks named brawlers is ridiculous. I was referring to the PvP role of brawler which is a character with a strong mix of defense and offence, used for the purpose of breaking into enemy lines and causing considerable damage without dying in seconds like a true DPS would if used in that capacity. The tank is there to supplement the DPS, not as the purpose of the character.
If there is a class of tanks called brawlers in EQ2 that doesn't matter because that isn't what I was talking about. That argument is based on equivocation, and therefore invalid.
Plenty of the early mmorpg developer were MUD-players and many of them also were part of the teams behind muds, Raph Koster, Mark Jacobs both created muds, Brad Mcquaid was a huge fan of forgotten realms inspired diku-mud, many from the meridian 59 team played diku-mud.
Tank, healer, damage dealer were already concepts in MUD.
But was healer really present? The tank is subjective because in muds the mobs didn't change targets. So all you had to do was let the tank attack the mob and he was taking the damage. Also depending on the mud you usually just used mobs to tank pve. In the mud you played was it possible for a healer to heal? In all the ones I played it was a waste of mana over 90% of the time.
Merc, Copper, Diku, and Circle all had the same four classes. One of which was Cleric. The Cleric was the designated healer, often a class (sometimes the only class) with a weapon restriction.
To ask the same of most other MUDs would be disingenuous, as Diku and the variants made from its codebase were combat-centric. LP, Tiny, and others at the time weren't the Diku/EQ/WOW formula by any stretch of the imagination.
I was asking the person who actually played a mud.
Plenty of the early mmorpg developer were MUD-players and many of them also were part of the teams behind muds, Raph Koster, Mark Jacobs both created muds, Brad Mcquaid was a huge fan of forgotten realms inspired diku-mud, many from the meridian 59 team played diku-mud.
Tank, healer, damage dealer were already concepts in MUD.
But was healer really present? The tank is subjective because in muds the mobs didn't change targets. So all you had to do was let the tank attack the mob and he was taking the damage. Also depending on the mud you usually just used mobs to tank pve. In the mud you played was it possible for a healer to heal? In all the ones I played it was a waste of mana over 90% of the time.
A cleric doing unmodded heals would have a 5/1 hp to mp ratio, downranking heals you would get 10/1 ratio, my first character was a hybrid that had a 3/1 ratio on heals. While aggro was simple in MUD there's an abundance of tank and spank fights in mmorpg where its almost impossible for tanks to lose aggro.
What mud did you play where they used heals? Out of the 20 I played, clerics had too many usefull spells. Sure you could get more hps but they always used mobs for tanks so heals were unnecessary and very costly. Even in pvp I was hard pressed to find a mud where healing was done. I'm not saying they didn't exist it wasn't very popular in the muds. Maybe the mushes, moo's and mucks. Or heavily modified versions of muds.
That class system you are describing is a heavily modified mud. What year we talking about?
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Its about finding a class that can prevent other players from getting hit by taking the damage themselves. Then finding another class that is capable of healing more then 1 person a day. You think tank and healer should be something else then please tell us.
DND back in the 70s didn't have tanks or aggros etc. Aggro came from the fact that computer games weren't run by a human Dungeon Master. I know you have read the link to the trinity origins and you can't understand it enough to accept it.
Now, you know who says we had tanks in dnd in the 70s? BS Artists who are projecting backwards in time to claim such a thing. Anyone who thinks that dnd, adnd 1st or 2nd had aggro, show me where it is in the DMG or the PH. You won't find it.
Now dnd had character who had armor and shield and that doesn't make it a tank. THe DM would move opponents against the PCs.
You really need to take a look at what you are trying to pull here. I think you are just looking for attention. You can't rewrite history even when you don't believe it.
So you agreed with what I said and somehow made it look like you disagreed. Good job.
Nope.
I will break it down for you.
1. I never said tanks existed in D&D. 2. I don't know what you are saying because it has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted. 3. Aggro is npc attacking person. If the npc is attacking person then they have maintained aggro. How can you not see this? Its fairly simple that the word itself is not what makes a tank. It is the idea that something is getting attacked by the npc. Meaning it has somehow gotten aggro from it. Man this really isnt that hard to understand why am I explaining it? 4. According to your link it was taunt that invented the tank. Taunt is the ability to get something to attack you. In muds everything had taunt because all you had to do is attack a mob and *ding* it automatically attacked you. And if you wanted it to stop attacking someone else all they had to do was flee and come back. It would then be attacking you.
Plenty of the early mmorpg developer were MUD-players and many of them also were part of the teams behind muds, Raph Koster, Mark Jacobs both created muds, Brad Mcquaid was a huge fan of forgotten realms inspired diku-mud, many from the meridian 59 team played diku-mud.
Tank, healer, damage dealer were already concepts in MUD.
But was healer really present? The tank is subjective because in muds the mobs didn't change targets. So all you had to do was let the tank attack the mob and he was taking the damage. Also depending on the mud you usually just used mobs to tank pve. In the mud you played was it possible for a healer to heal? In all the ones I played it was a waste of mana over 90% of the time.
Merc, Copper, Diku, and Circle all had the same four classes. One of which was Cleric. The Cleric was the designated healer, often a class (sometimes the only class) with a weapon restriction.
To ask the same of most other MUDs would be disingenuous, as Diku and the variants made from its codebase were combat-centric. LP, Tiny, and others at the time weren't the Diku/EQ/WOW formula by any stretch of the imagination.
I was asking the person who actually played a mud.
Plenty of the early mmorpg developer were MUD-players and many of them also were part of the teams behind muds, Raph Koster, Mark Jacobs both created muds, Brad Mcquaid was a huge fan of forgotten realms inspired diku-mud, many from the meridian 59 team played diku-mud.
Tank, healer, damage dealer were already concepts in MUD.
But was healer really present? The tank is subjective because in muds the mobs didn't change targets. So all you had to do was let the tank attack the mob and he was taking the damage. Also depending on the mud you usually just used mobs to tank pve. In the mud you played was it possible for a healer to heal? In all the ones I played it was a waste of mana over 90% of the time.
A cleric doing unmodded heals would have a 5/1 hp to mp ratio, downranking heals you would get 10/1 ratio, my first character was a hybrid that had a 3/1 ratio on heals. While aggro was simple in MUD there's an abundance of tank and spank fights in mmorpg where its almost impossible for tanks to lose aggro.
What mud did you play where they used heals? Out of the 20 I played, clerics had too many usefull spells. Sure you could get more hps but they always used mobs for tanks so heals were unnecessary and very costly. Even in pvp I was hard pressed to find a mud where healing was done. I'm not saying they didn't exist it wasn't very popular in the muds. Maybe the mushes, moo's and mucks. Or heavily modified versions of muds.
That class system you are describing is a heavily modified mud. What year we talking about?
Mostly played an LP-mud called tsunami that has its origin in 1990 and still think its running in a form. From the start you had classic classes but when I quit it in 2001 it had a monster guild, a dragon's guild and an undead guild.
Back then most spells could be modified positive and negative which was dependant on your level, for instance level 19 characters could do -14 up to +100 which made the spell cost less or more mp where plus-modifier meant the spell did 100 more damage before vulnerabilities. Templars heal was somewhat unique since you couldn't modify it but it was instant.
Mostly played it for the battlegrounds where the mud was closed down to either do team, group or individual wars on a specific battleground or in the mud world. When I started there were also a few university based PK wars but those died out after a while.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Comments
We're arguing so hard about what is a trinity based game.
Here's a question. If you consider D&D to be a trinity based game is there any game with healing that you do NOT consider to be trinity based?
For that matter. Is there any kind of melee combatants you DON'T consider to be a tank?
Melee combatants, sure in Everquest 2 there are Dirges, Assasins Swashbucklers and Brigands. Although Brigands can occasionally tank for a group or be an off tank in a specific encounter. Also Inquisitors although clerics melee and heal that way definitely not tanks. In Rift Rogues can be tanks or melee depending on equipment and current spec. Same for clerics.
The thing is there are a host of options out there that do not fit your narrow definitions. Your rules suck.
What separates these games from Dungeons and Dragons? How are these games not trinity based by your definitions? Those characters not healers or tanks by your definitions?
If a brigand can draw attention doesn't that make it a tank?
Also the the fact there are a whole host of options that don't fit my narrow definition is THE POINT! If there isn't things that don't fit my definition then the definition has no meaning. I would assert your definition sucks on the basis of being so broad as to have no real meaning.
Also the fact that I can create your TRInity with only 2 character classes. Heck a paladin in actually a trinity in itself. It fits your definition of a healer, tank, and DPS.
Taunt first shows up in D&D in 2nd Edition. It's a mage spell.
Early D&D, despite its murky and haphazard design, was not nearly so straitjacketed as classic Holy Trinity game play. Holy Trinity was designed for ease of use during early internet days. It replaced positioning as the scheme that controlled who took the brunt of attacks.
Period fighters were usually quite capable of dishing out damage. They were fighters, not immovable blocks that shouted insults in all languages. In our bits of dungeoneering, we always had secondary fighters or clerics in the back, as ambushes could happen in any direction. Pre battle party arrangement and placement were major points of tactics.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/nes/570737-final-fantasy-i-and-ii/faqs
The same concept applied to lots of dungeon crawler RPG videogames like Swords and Serpents. The top spot got targetted by the AI the most, so you'd put your warrior there, then typically the thief (more durable than wizards, less durable than warrior) in the second spot and two wizards (wizards were both healers and DPS in that game) in the last spots.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/nes/587676-swords-and-serpents
Ultima Exodus had a variation of it except since that game was on a grid, the "top spot" tbat you placed your tanks in worked by defaulting them to the spot closest to the enemy (unless you got surrounded, of course, of which the main point of that ambush was to screw with your trinity formation).
http://www.gamefaqs.com/search?game=Ultima+Exodus
I ran a Rolemaster campaign recently and the number of books that I needed was ridiculous as all of the publications are deemed "official". One of the reasons that DnD version 3 and later were developed was so that there could be a standard set of rules so that they could run official campaigns and people could easily swap between games and worlds. These later do not have a taunt mechanic and so it can't exist, in earlier games it could easily exist because that is what the group wanted.
In the games I played we would have one or two big hunks (male or female) wearing lots of metal standing between the evil monsters and the rest of the party (very much like a shield wall) whilst the wizards and archers sniped from behind - the cleric healed and stopped anyone who managed to avoid the fighters. Was it realistic - no, was it fun - yes.
For me the trinity existed back in those days and was later codified for computer games so that they could work in a fun way. For this reason, for me, the trinity was born back then. If I had started playing D&D after the era of ADnD 2 then I would probably say that it was created when MMOs came out. In many ways it is all a matter of perspective and so it is possible that both groups are right (or wrong).
There are other raid encounters in other expacs were using a brawler as the main or off tank makes sense. Not a laughing matter, the top guilds worked that way back in the day. All of them had a brawler equipped up to act as raid tank when required even though their normal main tank was probably a warrior or a crusader.
But I do agree, the Trinity emerged in Everquest, it started as emergent game play and was later supported by the developers.
That's my point really, the trinity is often a case of emergent game play that people adopt, and they often adopt it long before it is in the 'rule book' or consciously coded into a game by the developers.
I view the Trinity as a tactic, a party makeup. Trinity based games confine you to that tactic. They are very shallow when it comes to giving you options in tactics to successfully complete the more difficult encounters.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Tank, healer, damage dealer were already concepts in MUD. Plenty of MUD also had things like FFA-PvP, full loot drop, XP penalty on death and battlegrounds. The LP-mud I mostly played also had concepts like rez-killing where you killed someone, used a resurrection scroll on them to bring them back to life just so you could have a chance to kill them again for double XP penalty.
Sounds like an encounter that forces you to use an off-tank as a main tank in order to create additional challenge. Not an encounter that proves in any way those classes are true tanks.
To ask the same of most other MUDs would be disingenuous, as Diku and the variants made from its codebase were combat-centric. LP, Tiny, and others at the time weren't the Diku/EQ/WOW formula by any stretch of the imagination.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Nope.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
You have twisted thinking.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
From the Everquest 2 Forums.
RegolasWell-Known Member
BoliActive Member
EstredWell-Known Member
My apologies I don't have detailed knowledge of every MMO ever made and that appalls you.
All I know is the evidence YOU submitted. Which was:
"EQ2, not EQ. There are three types of fighter, each type has two classes. These types are warrior, crusader and BRAWLER. There is a raid encounter in the Palace of Roehn Theer, the three sages. In this encounter each sage mast be tanked separately and by a different type of warrior. No ifs no buts if you don't engage each sage with the right type of tank the raid wipes."
And that right there is not evidence that those classes are true tanks in any way shape or form.
Also your fixation on the fact EQ2 classes which may or may not be tanks brawlers is idiotic. I was referring to the PvP role of brawler which a character with a strong mix of defense and offence, used for the purpose of breaking into enemy lines and causing considerable damage without dying in seconds like a true DPS would if used in that capacity. The tank is there to supplement the DPS, not as the purpose of the character.
If there is a class of tanks called brawlers in EQ2 that doesn't matter because that isn't what I was talking about. That argument is based on equivocation, and therefore invalid.
My apologies I don't have detailed knowledge of every MMO ever made and that appalls you.
All I know is the evidence YOU submitted. Which was:
"EQ2, not EQ. There are three types of fighter, each type has two classes. These types are warrior, crusader and BRAWLER. There is a raid encounter in the Palace of Roehn Theer, the three sages. In this encounter each sage mast be tanked separately and by a different type of warrior. No ifs no buts if you don't engage each sage with the right type of tank the raid wipes."
And that right there is not evidence that those classes are true tanks in any way shape or form other than that the game is forcing you to use them in the capacity of tanks for that encounter. Which it could do with literally any role ever.
Also your fixation on the fact EQ2 classes which may or may not be tanks named brawlers is ridiculous. I was referring to the PvP role of brawler which is a character with a strong mix of defense and offence, used for the purpose of breaking into enemy lines and causing considerable damage without dying in seconds like a true DPS would if used in that capacity. The tank is there to supplement the DPS, not as the purpose of the character.
If there is a class of tanks called brawlers in EQ2 that doesn't matter because that isn't what I was talking about. That argument is based on equivocation, and therefore invalid.
What mud did you play where they used heals? Out of the 20 I played, clerics had too many usefull spells. Sure you could get more hps but they always used mobs for tanks so heals were unnecessary and very costly. Even in pvp I was hard pressed to find a mud where healing was done. I'm not saying they didn't exist it wasn't very popular in the muds. Maybe the mushes, moo's and mucks. Or heavily modified versions of muds.
That class system you are describing is a heavily modified mud. What year we talking about?
1. I never said tanks existed in D&D.
2. I don't know what you are saying because it has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted.
3. Aggro is npc attacking person. If the npc is attacking person then they have maintained aggro. How can you not see this? Its fairly simple that the word itself is not what makes a tank. It is the idea that something is getting attacked by the npc. Meaning it has somehow gotten aggro from it. Man this really isnt that hard to understand why am I explaining it?
4. According to your link it was taunt that invented the tank. Taunt is the ability to get something to attack you. In muds everything had taunt because all you had to do is attack a mob and *ding* it automatically attacked you. And if you wanted it to stop attacking someone else all they had to do was flee and come back. It would then be attacking you.
Back then most spells could be modified positive and negative which was dependant on your level, for instance level 19 characters could do -14 up to +100 which made the spell cost less or more mp where plus-modifier meant the spell did 100 more damage before vulnerabilities. Templars heal was somewhat unique since you couldn't modify it but it was instant.
Mostly played it for the battlegrounds where the mud was closed down to either do team, group or individual wars on a specific battleground or in the mud world. When I started there were also a few university based PK wars but those died out after a while.