Probably has been mentioned already, but you can replace holy trinity with AC1's character design....where every men/women can have the choice to be anything they want, including a bit of healing. You can be in a group with someone who's specialized more in melee, so you would still want to find someone who has some healing abilities. But for the most part AC1 had it so you could handle yourself and be self sufficient, yet there were plenty of things you want to do in a group (or in many cases large groups).
If you want to heal better, spec in life magic, and put points into healing. If you want to run faster put your points into run. Kinda takes holy trinity out because you can be a bit of everything.
-shrug- You have your opinions. I have mine. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the setup. Does that mean there's not room for other approaches? Of course not. The more options/playstyles the better. I just don't think there's anything wrong with the HT so long as there are those who enjoy that particular setup - who's to say that what someone enjoys is "wrong" or "bad" because you (you in general, not you specifically, Drach) don't enjoy it, ya know?
It's a sort of mentality I see a lot across the genre as a whole, and also in the context of a given game... there's a lot of this whole "I don't like X, so it needs to go away and replaced by Y, because that's what I prefer. I don't care that others enjoy X".
Well, if you could replace a HT role with NPC then it would be as good as other potential options. Like I said, realism and immersion aside, the biggest problem with HT is it makes forming groups very difficult. If the content is challenging, then it is going to be pretty unforgiving about how many of each role you need to bring into a dungeon or raid. That is a constant problem that interferes with fun in HT games. Letting you replace someone with an NPC would help this out a lot -- of course, some might find that an NPC healer or whatever does a better job than some players, which would suck a bit for those players, I suppose, until they upped their game at least. Overall it would be a positive change.
Anyhow, having a more flexible combat system could alleviate the above problem. I would enjoy a non-HT system if it was more realistic than HT, of course, but I admit I'd still be a bit annoyed if it also devolved into "you must have this role composition to play" that HT games have.
Originally posted by tro44_1 Thats because WoW uses the HT concept, and is a branch from the DnD TT (damn even WoW has a DnD RPG TT game). The concept still follows. As I explained before. Leaders are normally Armored in RPG (DnD the Cleric and Warloard for example) in WoW, the leaders are Paladins and Knights (for Alliance), and they Protect the weak and others [Role Playing wise]. This Protection fits the Idea of Tanking as well. Also Like I said above. Killing the Leaders is a tactical plan. an in these cases, the Leaders are up front Meleeing you. Also with Taunts being thrown out their mouth(or what ever hole on their body), that causes even more hatred towards the leader in emotional ways.
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
Problem is with the WoW kids is they are too ADD to play a game as great as DnD. I loved setting up battles in DnD games. Another thing is the kiddies are to bad at gaming to do crowd control and silences etc. All they want to do is mindlessly zerg AOE fight now. You are right though, DnD wasn't about tanking but usually you did put your armored classes in front of a doorway where your healer was blocked in safe and your other members would silence, crowd control the monsters. Very fun wish I had an MMO to play like that.
Originally posted by tro44_1 Thats because WoW uses the HT concept, and is a branch from the DnD TT (damn even WoW has a DnD RPG TT game). The concept still follows. As I explained before. Leaders are normally Armored in RPG (DnD the Cleric and Warloard for example) in WoW, the leaders are Paladins and Knights (for Alliance), and they Protect the weak and others [Role Playing wise]. This Protection fits the Idea of Tanking as well. Also Like I said above. Killing the Leaders is a tactical plan. an in these cases, the Leaders are up front Meleeing you. Also with Taunts being thrown out their mouth(or what ever hole on their body), that causes even more hatred towards the leader in emotional ways.
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
Problem is with the WoW kids is they are too ADD to play a game as great as DnD. I loved setting up battles in DnD games. Another thing is the kiddies are to bad at gaming to do crowd control and silences etc. All they want to do is mindlessly zerg AOE fight now. You are right though, DnD wasn't about tanking but usually you did put your armored classes in front of a doorway where your healer was blocked in safe and your other members would silence, crowd control the monsters. Very fun wish I had an MMO to play like that.
Excuse me, but AoE tanking didnt even exsist pre TBC. So CCing was a main goal in vanilla WoW. yet it to used the same Tanking system
Originally posted by qombi Problem is with the WoW kids is they are too ADD to play a game as great as DnD. I loved setting up battles in DnD games. Another thing is the kiddies are to bad at gaming to do crowd control and silences etc. All they want to do is mindlessly zerg AOE fight now. You are right though, DnD wasn't about tanking but usually you did put your armored classes in front of a doorway where your healer was blocked in safe and your other members would silence, crowd control the monsters. Very fun wish I had an MMO to play like that.
Excuse me, but AoE tanking didnt even exsist pre TBC. So CCing was a main goal in vanilla WoW. yet it to used the same Tanking system
Well, not the SAME tanking system, as they changed it so that there was AoE tanking.
Anyhow, D&D crown control is generally NOT sheeping stuff or the like. Positioning and such is generally a lot more important, but once you get to a decent level everyone can still take more punishment than is typical of HT games.
You are making a RPG and you want combat to be more than just attacking.What are you replacing the Holy trinity with?
A skill-based game where no such thing exists other than player skill and character skill & attributes; a wide range of skills to be improved that enables you to create your own template outside the 'window-dressing' pigeon-holed norm, and player skill that improves and can be fine-tuned over-time with game-play. The only such newest freedom of play and development I've found is Darkfall.
You are making a RPG and you want combat to be more than just attacking.What are you replacing the Holy trinity with?
A skill-based game where no such thing exists other than player skill and character skill & attributes; a wide range of skills to be improved that enables you to create your own template outside the 'window-dressing' pigeon-holed norm, and player skill that improves and can be fine-tuned over-time with game-play. The only such newest freedom of play and development I've found is Darkfall.
And as you can see. Darkfall's PvE is far from Epic. Cant even match Vanilla WoW's Raids (which uses the HT)
If you dont have a tank class that means everyone has to tank some. If you dont have a healer class that means either everyone heals or no one heals. If you dont have a dps class then that means that everyone is dps.
But if you dont have roles then you dont have a role playing game.
That's confusing what "role" means in RPG. "Role" was about acting out a character more or less, not about your job in combat. Anyhoo, the bigger point is that tank/healer/dps is far from the only way to have combat roles. In fact it is even a pretty recent development in games. There are plenty of other ways to do it.
Originally posted by Drachasor That's confusing what "role" means in RPG. "Role" was about acting out a character more or less, not about your job in combat. In RPGs (not just MMORPGs) combat is a major part of the game. Your role in combat IS part of your character. Anyhoo, the bigger point is that tank/healer/dps is far from the only way to have combat roles. In fact it is even a pretty recent development in games. There are plenty of other ways to do it.
I wouldn't say "plenty". You can have everyone be a hybrid (classless, which doesn't appeal to me), or you can have blocking and use of terrain features to protect squishies (like Neverwinter Nights had, and I preferred). I don't know of any others.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Originally posted by Drachasor That's confusing what "role" means in RPG. "Role" was about acting out a character more or less, not about your job in combat. In RPGs (not just MMORPGs) combat is a major part of the game. Your role in combat IS part of your character. Anyhoo, the bigger point is that tank/healer/dps is far from the only way to have combat roles. In fact it is even a pretty recent development in games. There are plenty of other ways to do it.
I wouldn't say "plenty". You can have everyone be a hybrid (classless, which doesn't appeal to me), or you can have blocking and use of terrain features to protect squishies (like Neverwinter Nights had, and I preferred). I don't know of any others.
NWN generally had the squishies less squishy. Yeah, there are going to be differences in how tough various guys are, but an HT system takes this to a ludicrous extreme. If you have two guys of equal level, and one dies and one hit to an attack and another takes like 6 hits, then that's crazy. As long as you have something crazy like that, then you HAVE to keep the people made of glass out of ANY combat (and then AoE attacks by the enemy boss(es) are attuned to not be one-shots). So, imho, the first step into stopping this kind of madness is to decrease the difference in toughness between characters by a substantial margin.
From there you can then add in considerations such a terrain (including cover), abilities that change terrain (such as making temporary walls), long range abilities, many types of debuffing abilities (this is far from a single group of things, as various debuffs have their own uses), short range abilities, melee abilities, and defensive abilities (such as those that protect other people).
Let's say you have THIS!!! IS!!! SPARTA!!!! The MMO. Now, in this game you can play a Hoplite, a Cavalryperson, or Slinger/Archer (ehh, I'll call them just "Archers). When you form a group, you then make a strategy for it. 2+ Hoplites should probably form up together because their shield abilities let them protect those adjacent to them. Archers generally should stay back, but if you have just 1 and several Hoplites, then maybe they should stand in the middle of a triangle or square formation. Obviously if there is good terrain to give them cover, then they should use it. If you have Cavalry, then they should probably do hit and runs on the enemy (which would probably include some sort of ability to slow the enemy down a bit). No Hoplites and just Cavalry and Archers? Then the Cavalry keep the enemy slowed and busy (while doing damage) and the archers rain them with arrows. All Hoplites? Then they don't have anyone to go after people trying to flank them, so they should get in a circular formation (rotating around as if needed to give people a chance to rest/recover). Now obviously there could be other classes, but the important thing here is that there is not one set strategy on how to take on things, but you form one based on your composition. Obviously PVE group content is going to have to be tough enough to make sure Zerging doesn't work and there might be some compositions that don't work well. That said, there's no reason an Archer in the above couldn't handle himself OK if he got into melee, but it is just a bad choice tactically for him to remain there (he's a lot less effective) so he should try to avoid it, on the other hand it also means that he won't die in one hit if a guy lands a blow on him and so his hit points might help the group survive if he takes a blow for someone else in a close fight.
Now the trick is making sure most of the group combinations in such a thing are pretty balanced compared to each other (maybe having some advantages some of the time). You stretch realism a bit here, but it makes grouping relatively easy (you don't have to look for that one particular class) and combat more varied.
The holy trinity gives me an uneasy feeling. But then it's not the trinity itself that is the problem. Rather it's all the side effects you encounter in MMOs:
Game-play mechanics are streamlined to make the trinity work in (almost) every situation Threat mechanics almost all NPCs react in similar ways (except usage of abilities) and get predictable You are forced into a role (actually I don't mind fitting to a role) and you cannot easily switch roles because of itemization issues (which is mostly an issue with games that focus on item hunting)
My main problem with the HT is that the non-HT classes and roles are almost always left on the sidelines until the HT spots are filled, leaving those of us who prefer non-HT or mixed roles to a frustrating fate in almost every MMO developed. This is one of the primary reasons players curse the HT.
Let me sidestep a tad and recall a bit from a post I made on the CoX forums oh-so-long ago about how a combat system could be made that didn't rely on so many "standards" that developers use today. Keep in mind that this isn't meant to be taken as a complete system but just ideas that could be used. And yes, some of these have been mentioned in some form already I believe.
I think approaching this from a "Superhero MMO" perspective might help open the ideas up a bit.
HEALERS:
No in-combat healing. I know that healers enjoy it, but hear me out. What do you really enjoy about healing? Watching the hitpoint bar go up? Really? Are you sure? Or is it being the person who saves a life/helps the party?
If it is the second answer, then why not explore doing it in other, more exciting ways than watching HP bars all day long?
Example? Jean Grey. What does she primarily do? Support. ACTIVE support. Forcefields. Why not have the ability to shield someone that is taking damage? If the enemy has varied attacks, and being a good support guy you have learned the attacks, you will know when to put up the shield. Maybe you have a shield for the whole team to block big AoE attacks that you can put up instead. Maybe the shield can only take so much before it breaks, but you block a good bit of damage. And to be clear, I'm talking about active, channeled shielding here, not just a buff.
Maybe you can also use it as CC when you don't need to shield someone.
This sounds much more fun than watching HP bars (and yes, I enjoy healing myself).
"DEATH"
How about we have knockouts like in the comics? When teams are fighting in comics, guys get knocked out all of the time. So if your HP goes to zero you faint (sorta like you did in EQ) and will eventually recover as long as your "faint hp" doesn't get taken out. Of course, hopefully you will come back with more HP than you did in EQ. But I think this would make for a much more satisfying comeback and combat experience when the two group members who got nailed right at the start get back on their feet and save the day.
Of course, this will mean if you are soloing that the mob will still pound you and you will die. Oh well.
TANKS
Lets go with the collision plus knockdowns, knockbacks, and body blocking. I think most tank-types would be thrilled with that, yes?
Wrong. "Aggro" or "hate" or tanking for that matter was from a time when a mob would attack the first player it would see and never change target. Actually, I was talking about the Holy Trinity itself. Cleric, Fighters, Wizards, etc. The players were always trying to accomplish the same things they do in MMO's. How much the DM allows them to succeed is definitely the difference. Players learn to play this metagame and put the toughest character first to take the aggro.When I was a DM, smart mobs attacked whichever suited them. I would never "hold back" since my players would know and it wouldn't be challenging. Hate and aggro come from dumb mobs and is supported by lazy players. The main challenge for MMO's is to try to duplicate a living, breathing, creative (usually), and adaptive DM with programming. All games are destined to fail in this to a greater or lesser degree. IMO the AI controlling mobs is one of the (if not THE) weakest aspect of MMO's when compared to P&P RPG's. Ironically, EQ and old school DAoC seemed to me to have a pretty decent AI even when compared to later generation MMO's. Everything from medium sized nukes to healing would draw aggro in those games. It still didn't come close to the adaptability of a human controller, but it was closer even than everyone's favorite, WoW.
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
Yep. When I GM/DM, if the party tries to march a Fighter out front I'll either have an add or 2 show up from the sides or behind. In the case of using a dragon, I'd never have him act in the "rage" manner talked about above. Any dragon I place against the group would fight intelligently. He'd use his own magic to counter mind effecting spells and the like.
Course, I'm speaking from 3rd edition D&D and before. I have no idea what kind of crap Wizards has done with monsters in 4th. I having seen the core books before they went retail I knew better than to buy 4th ed. IMO Wizards was making a system to translate to a modern day themepark MMO, not a true followup to the table-top RPG gaming system that got them their initial fortunes.
We're pretty much in agreement here, but I am talking about things from the players' perspective, as the system overall encourages it, and players, being the lazy peeps we are, adopted it. A group needs healing, tanking, and damage dealing, and if a game allows players all of these, then there is no reason to group in the first place (except, of course, P&P rpg's where that is the whole point).
Also, I wasn't talking about putting the tank OUT FRONT, that's the ranger's/rogue's place. What I was saying is that in P&P, there are tanks, DPS, and Healing. In P&P, do intelligent DM's force players to look for ways to fight other than the so called Holy Trinity? You bet. Can a P&P group roll without one or more of the Trinity? Absolutely (and sometimes those are the funnest groups, it forces the players get real creative with their mission planning). Is the Holy Trinity a viable tactic in P&P? Yep.
The main problem is players (especially in MMO's), use the Trinity as a crutch, and never consider any other form. In P&P, mundane healing secondary skills could somewhat mitigate the need to even have a cleric. "Wolfpack" tactics (attacking from several different directions, trying to divide the NPC's attention and damage amongst everyone) can all but eliminate the need for a tank. Of course almost everyone does their share of DPS, so you never really need a dedicated "glass cannon". In fact, in p&p, when hiking through the wilderness, the ranger/pathfinder/scout was prolly as critical (if not more so) then any of the Trinity.
Originally posted by Samkin772 We're pretty much in agreement here, but I am talking about things from the players' perspective, as the system overall encourages it, and players, being the lazy peeps we are, adopted it. A group needs healing, tanking, and damage dealing, and if a game allows players all of these, then there is no reason to group in the first place (except, of course, P&P rpg's where that is the whole point). Also, I wasn't talking about putting the tank OUT FRONT, that's the ranger's/rogue's place. What I was saying is that in P&P, there are tanks, DPS, and Healing. In P&P, do intelligent DM's force players to look for ways to fight other than the so called Holy Trinity? You bet. Can a P&P group roll without one or more of the Trinity? Absolutely (and sometimes those are the funnest groups, it forces the players get real creative with their mission planning). Is the Holy Trinity a viable tactic in P&P? Yep. The main problem is players (especially in MMO's), use the Trinity as a crutch, and never consider any other form. In P&P, mundane healing secondary skills could somewhat mitigate the need to even have a cleric. "Wolfpack" tactics (attacking from several different directions, trying to divide the NPC's attention and damage amongst everyone) can all but eliminate the need for a tank. Of course almost everyone does their share of DPS, so you never really need a dedicated "glass cannon". In fact, in p&p, when hiking through the wilderness, the ranger/pathfinder/scout was prolly as critical (if not more so) then any of the Trinity.
That is only in D&D, my Palladium group have a totally different tactic. We don't use a healer, we try to not get hurt instead. We don't have any true tank either (but our Styfon Paladin have a good armor). My Archer is an expert on hiding and enemies rarely see him, same thing for our thief. Shaggy (got that name for his stupid dog and the fact that he fails horror checks a lot even if he needs a 0 on a D20 to do that and then ans up in a kitchen) is really good on dodging things. I think Shaggy is a mystic or Psionic.
Everybody do have an emergency pot in the belt but we rarely use it and still have very interesting and challenging combats.
With good tactics you don't need tanks and healers, but the healer is still good i you mess up. The tanks however you don't need at all, as long as the classes are balanced.
How do you get away from this? Well, first off, is that necessary? It's a mechanic that is widely embraced, it's familiar, and provides functionality and flexibility for a wide array of possible encounter structures. My first thought would be: make it more involving, interesting, demanding.
It is simple.They are games already do this like CoX or Guild Wars to extent.No game you should ever hear we are looking for healer.You should be able to any quest,any mission with any group. If you have six dps or six tanks,They should be way to always to do a mission with class at hand. In CoX the other two support concepts CC and buffing are as strong as healing.You beat missions CC,tank and dps, buffing/debuffing,tank and dps or healing/dps/tank.Also tanks and dps are versatile enough that they could do other roles so that helps.The most fun i have every had playing mmo is playing a with a team of 5 blasters and 1 controller .
The key is having healers in the game but they are a option not the only option.
I can agree with this.
I was playing my Ice / ForceField controller in CoH earlier today. She could have taken a nice healing secondary but I chose to go for buffs instead, since my primary is already full of debuffs. How does she work? The bad guys simply deal so little damage that we don't need a regular healer.
Of course, it helps that the "tank" was a /fire scrapper that could spam her own moderate self heal, that that also steps outside the usual trinity.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Originally posted by Cortechs My main problem with the HT is that the non-HT classes and roles are almost always left on the sidelines until the HT spots are filled, leaving those of us who prefer non-HT or mixed roles to a frustrating fate in almost every MMO developed. This is one of the primary reasons players curse the HT.
Let me sidestep a tad and recall a bit from a post I made on the CoX forums oh-so-long ago about how a combat system could be made that didn't rely on so many "standards" that developers use today. Keep in mind that this isn't meant to be taken as a complete system but just ideas that could be used. And yes, some of these have been mentioned in some form already I believe. I think approaching this from a "Superhero MMO" perspective might help open the ideas up a bit. HEALERS: No in-combat healing. I know that healers enjoy it, but hear me out. What do you really enjoy about healing? Watching the hitpoint bar go up? Really? Are you sure? Or is it being the person who saves a life/helps the party? If it is the second answer, then why not explore doing it in other, more exciting ways than watching HP bars all day long? Example? Jean Grey. What does she primarily do? Support. ACTIVE support. Forcefields. Why not have the ability to shield someone that is taking damage? If the enemy has varied attacks, and being a good support guy you have learned the attacks, you will know when to put up the shield. Maybe you have a shield for the whole team to block big AoE attacks that you can put up instead. Maybe the shield can only take so much before it breaks, but you block a good bit of damage. And to be clear, I'm talking about active, channeled shielding here, not just a buff. Maybe you can also use it as CC when you don't need to shield someone. This sounds much more fun than watching HP bars (and yes, I enjoy healing myself). "DEATH" How about we have knockouts like in the comics? When teams are fighting in comics, guys get knocked out all of the time. So if your HP goes to zero you faint (sorta like you did in EQ) and will eventually recover as long as your "faint hp" doesn't get taken out. Of course, hopefully you will come back with more HP than you did in EQ. But I think this would make for a much more satisfying comeback and combat experience when the two group members who got nailed right at the start get back on their feet and save the day. Of course, this will mean if you are soloing that the mob will still pound you and you will die. Oh well. TANKS Lets go with the collision plus knockdowns, knockbacks, and body blocking. I think most tank-types would be thrilled with that, yes?
Those are some very good suggestions.
I could definitely see Jean Grey using both shields and CC as staples in combat.
The tanking mechanisms would be good too.
As I have said before, while I got acustomed to the aggro system in games like WoW, I preferred the blocking/terrain use of Neverwinter Nights. It looks and feels much more believable.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Functionally, there's no difference between damage prevention and in-combat healing. It still just serves to negate incoming damage. As someone who often plays a healer, I want healing spells AND shields, not one or the other. On the practical side of playing a shield based healer, how would you know how effective your shields are? Why, they'd have "shield bars", of course. Oh wait, that's just like a mini health bar. So, it functions like a less streamlined version of healing, and makes a healer not feel like a healer. Not seeing the benefit.
On the other hand, expanding the party so that you use a regular healer AND a shielder... That could the interesting.
Important facts: 1. Free to Play games are poorly made. 2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals. 3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE. 4. Community is more important than you think.
Originally posted by Cortechs My main problem with the HT is that the non-HT classes and roles are almost always left on the sidelines until the HT spots are filled, leaving those of us who prefer non-HT or mixed roles to a frustrating fate in almost every MMO developed. This is one of the primary reasons players curse the HT.
Let me sidestep a tad and recall a bit from a post I made on the CoX forums oh-so-long ago about how a combat system could be made that didn't rely on so many "standards" that developers use today. Keep in mind that this isn't meant to be taken as a complete system but just ideas that could be used. And yes, some of these have been mentioned in some form already I believe. I think approaching this from a "Superhero MMO" perspective might help open the ideas up a bit. HEALERS: No in-combat healing. I know that healers enjoy it, but hear me out. What do you really enjoy about healing? Watching the hitpoint bar go up? Really? Are you sure? Or is it being the person who saves a life/helps the party? If it is the second answer, then why not explore doing it in other, more exciting ways than watching HP bars all day long? Example? Jean Grey. What does she primarily do? Support. ACTIVE support. Forcefields. Why not have the ability to shield someone that is taking damage? If the enemy has varied attacks, and being a good support guy you have learned the attacks, you will know when to put up the shield. Maybe you have a shield for the whole team to block big AoE attacks that you can put up instead. Maybe the shield can only take so much before it breaks, but you block a good bit of damage. And to be clear, I'm talking about active, channeled shielding here, not just a buff. Maybe you can also use it as CC when you don't need to shield someone. This sounds much more fun than watching HP bars (and yes, I enjoy healing myself). "DEATH" How about we have knockouts like in the comics? When teams are fighting in comics, guys get knocked out all of the time. So if your HP goes to zero you faint (sorta like you did in EQ) and will eventually recover as long as your "faint hp" doesn't get taken out. Of course, hopefully you will come back with more HP than you did in EQ. But I think this would make for a much more satisfying comeback and combat experience when the two group members who got nailed right at the start get back on their feet and save the day. Of course, this will mean if you are soloing that the mob will still pound you and you will die. Oh well. TANKS Lets go with the collision plus knockdowns, knockbacks, and body blocking. I think most tank-types would be thrilled with that, yes?
Those are some very good suggestions.
I could definitely see Jean Grey using both shields and CC as staples in combat.
The tanking mechanisms would be good too.
As I have said before, while I got acustomed to the aggro system in games like WoW, I preferred the blocking/terrain use of Neverwinter Nights. It looks and feels much more believable.
Yup, he had a great post. And those "tanking" mechanisms aren't tanking in the sense we use in MMOs, they are more like temporary interceding to help someone out. Let's say you have a guy who physically is about 80-90% as tough as you are, then if he gets into a bit of a jam you might have to rush to his aid in some way. For a physical character that could be charging in and pushing back an enemy. You aren't trying to get everyone to attack you (even you couldn't take that punishment), you are just trying to help out your friend for a bit. Or another way to think of it is forcing a little bit of area denial into a particular spot which is currently occupied by an enemy.
Let's take Superheroes as an example again (they do seem handy). In the comics generally all Supers can handle things hand-to-hand to an extent (heck even Batman can when he's in the Justice League which is kinda crazy). You generally don't have healing in these situations either (and the Justice League generally doesn't have a lot of force shields...at least not to the extent of FF4 even though Green Lantern could do that). You still have teamwork though. People trying to maintain areas of control to an extent and push the enemy back or to accomplish some other goal. You have people covering the weaknesses of others (old school JL if a yellow arrow was headed to GL then Supes or someone else would stop it for instance) and generally helping each other out ACTIVELY. Or combining their attacks together to make a better attack (even if it is just knocking two goons into each other).
Final Fantasy XI, though it is a HT system, has something that encourages group cooperation and planning. Skill Chains are using abilities together in a sequences. As a made-up example, the Warrior might do a special attack that is Light-based, and if followed by the Black Mage using an ice-based attack it produces a special and more powerful effect (and the Red Mage could follow up with a fire attack perhaps and keep that chain going). That encourages cooperation. So half the problem is that most games don't have any interactions between classes or abilities like that. Yeah, maybe in game X you can knock an enemy up into the air, but no one else can follow that attack up on the airborne guy with an attack that is now even more effective. Some games subvert this general failing VERY slightly by having small buffs for things, but most buffs and debuffs are very general and long-lasting. What would be more ideal are essential buffs and debuffs that are very short in scope and only exist to help out a follow-up ability (which can be one of many that exist in the game).
FFXI is too small in scope however. What would be ideal is to have these effects vary greatly in what they do, make them somewhat specific to the circumstance. If you ally charges in, then perhaps you can grab him and turn his single-target charge into a small AoE where he wacks a bunch of guys in a circle around you. Have that not be the only thing you can do with that charge though (adds ways to just power it up against a single target for instance). Make it so that basically a team of heroes has a stockpile of combos they can use and the key to doing extremely well is using the right ones in the right situation instead of doing the same thing over and over. Now, some people are going to be better at this split-second thinking than others, so make sure you have quests, instances, and the like scale with group size but ALSO be configurable by the players for difficulty. If you suck, then you can still play the game, but you can't do the missions on the hardest level (and as such you get less rewards).
Of course, I don't mean to neglect the importance of terrain, if anything terrain should be something you can play with and incorporate into your tactics in multiple ways. If there are trees, then maybe you can set them on fire or something for a bonus (or just get in them or break branches so they fall on people's heads or something). Terrain should be about more than just restricting or enabling movement.
One could view HT as a very simplistic and worn out combo system that essentially only has one combo (someone grabs enemy attention, some others do damage, one person heals). We should be able to do so much better.
How do you get away from this? Well, first off, is that necessary? It's a mechanic that is widely embraced, it's familiar, and provides functionality and flexibility for a wide array of possible encounter structures. My first thought would be: make it more involving, interesting, demanding.
It is simple.They are games already do this like CoX or Guild Wars to extent.No game you should ever hear we are looking for healer.You should be able to any quest,any mission with any group. If you have six dps or six tanks,They should be way to always to do a mission with class at hand. In CoX the other two support concepts CC and buffing are as strong as healing.You beat missions CC,tank and dps, buffing/debuffing,tank and dps or healing/dps/tank.Also tanks and dps are versatile enough that they could do other roles so that helps.The most fun i have every had playing mmo is playing a with a team of 5 blasters and 1 controller .
The key is having healers in the game but they are a option not the only option.
I can agree with this.
I was playing my Ice / ForceField controller in CoH earlier today. She could have taken a nice healing secondary but I chose to go for buffs instead, since my primary is already full of debuffs. How does she work? The bad guys simply deal so little damage that we don't need a regular healer.
Of course, it helps that the "tank" was a /fire scrapper that could spam her own moderate self heal, that that also steps outside the usual trinity.
You are not stepping outside of the holy trinity. You are collapsing the holy trinity into a single character.
To step outside of the holy trinity would be to not have one of the 3 legs of the trinity. IE no dps, no tanking or no healing.
If you never healed you would eventually die. If you never did any dps you would never kill anything. If you get hit you are tanking. You may be a lousy tank but you are tanking nonetheless.
There is no way to have combat without all three of those things present. Thus you can not get rid of the holy trinity in a game that has combat.
Originally posted by Maelkor You are not stepping outside of the holy trinity. You are collapsing the holy trinity into a single character. To step outside of the holy trinity would be to not have one of the 3 legs of the trinity. IE no dps, no tanking or no healing. If you never healed you would eventually die. If you never did any dps you would never kill anything. If you get hit you are tanking. You may be a lousy tank but you are tanking nonetheless. There is no way to have combat without all three of those things present. Thus you can not get rid of the holy trinity in a game that has combat.
That's not how the Holy Trinity works. I mean, I suppose you could use that as a definition, but it is a crappy definition (by "crappy", I mean it is not useful at all).
The Holy Trinity is defined as having someone (or ones) whose job it is to get all the enemies to attack them. This is the tank. Then you have someone whose job it is to heal/buff, this is the healer. Then you have someone whose job it is to deal damage. Combat then consists of the tank getting all aggro, the dps killing the enemy, and the healer keeping the tank alive (and everyone else when there is AoE or aggro-ignoring damage). It's important to realize all these are COMBAT roles, so if you have a game where there is a healer, but they heal outside of combat only, then it isn't a Holy Trinity game. Now, probably not all that more interesting than an HT game is a Tank + DPS game where you drop the healer. Same with a "collapsed" trinity where one person handles two of the HT jobs, but the HT jobs ARE the combat roles. Naturally minor additions to combat duties are allowed, such as if a healer, dps or tank also needs to use some CC.
Anyhow, one of the more defining characteristics of the HT system is the extreme specialization. If the tank couldn't take much more damage than everyone else, then you wouldn't need a tank so HT would fall apart. Hence the Tank is FAR, FAR more resilient than anyone else (this gives him job security, but being tough doesn't make one an HT tank since you also need those aggro abilities or some other method to ensure you take all damage). If people didn't take enough damage to need healing in combat or everyone could heal themselves easily enough, then the Healer wouldn't be needed, so everyone else has to have relatively crappy-healing. If tanks could do great DPS then DPS wouldn't be needed (you'd go all tanks since they are tougher). If healers could do great dps, then you'd go tanks + healers and no pure DPS, since your DPS could switch to healing in a pinch. (Important, the scope of these comparisons is a single combat, not multiple combats inbetween which you might be able to change your abilities). Anyhow, all this forces each role to be highly specialized and not able to do a good job at the other roles, otherwise the specialists in those other roles just wouldn't be needed.
All that together is the HT, you start mucking around with that a lot and the system would break down. Usually this results in a lot of people complaining on the forums about how a class or something is overpowered (or one is underpowered).
You are making a RPG and you want combat to be more than just attacking.What are you replacing the Holy trinity with?
A skill-based game where no such thing exists other than player skill and character skill & attributes; a wide range of skills to be improved that enables you to create your own template outside the 'window-dressing' pigeon-holed norm, and player skill that improves and can be fine-tuned over-time with game-play. The only such newest freedom of play and development I've found is Darkfall.
And as you can see. Darkfall's PvE is far from Epic. Cant even match Vanilla WoW's Raids (which uses the HT)
Just touching back to look. So. . .well. . .there are different game-ecosystems for different folks. The DF-like game, player-driven ecosystem, is not about scripted artificial code combat against a tethered game-controlled pixel. And i didnt think my response to the topic was about pve. Nor did i intend to get into a match about WoW, rather with an intention to respond in support of an open-skilled/attributes gaining system over a rigid class system.
How do you get away from this? Well, first off, is that necessary? It's a mechanic that is widely embraced, it's familiar, and provides functionality and flexibility for a wide array of possible encounter structures. My first thought would be: make it more involving, interesting, demanding.
It is simple.They are games already do this like CoX or Guild Wars to extent.No game you should ever hear we are looking for healer.You should be able to any quest,any mission with any group. If you have six dps or six tanks,They should be way to always to do a mission with class at hand. In CoX the other two support concepts CC and buffing are as strong as healing.You beat missions CC,tank and dps, buffing/debuffing,tank and dps or healing/dps/tank.Also tanks and dps are versatile enough that they could do other roles so that helps.The most fun i have every had playing mmo is playing a with a team of 5 blasters and 1 controller .
The key is having healers in the game but they are a option not the only option.
I can agree with this.
I was playing my Ice / ForceField controller in CoH earlier today. She could have taken a nice healing secondary but I chose to go for buffs instead, since my primary is already full of debuffs. How does she work? The bad guys simply deal so little damage that we don't need a regular healer.
Of course, it helps that the "tank" was a /fire scrapper that could spam her own moderate self heal, that that also steps outside the usual trinity.
Originally posted by Cortechs My main problem with the HT is that the non-HT classes and roles are almost always left on the sidelines until the HT spots are filled, leaving those of us who prefer non-HT or mixed roles to a frustrating fate in almost every MMO developed. This is one of the primary reasons players curse the HT.
Let me sidestep a tad and recall a bit from a post I made on the CoX forums oh-so-long ago about how a combat system could be made that didn't rely on so many "standards" that developers use today. Keep in mind that this isn't meant to be taken as a complete system but just ideas that could be used. And yes, some of these have been mentioned in some form already I believe. I think approaching this from a "Superhero MMO" perspective might help open the ideas up a bit. HEALERS: No in-combat healing. I know that healers enjoy it, but hear me out. What do you really enjoy about healing? Watching the hitpoint bar go up? Really? Are you sure? Or is it being the person who saves a life/helps the party? If it is the second answer, then why not explore doing it in other, more exciting ways than watching HP bars all day long? Example? Jean Grey. What does she primarily do? Support. ACTIVE support. Forcefields. Why not have the ability to shield someone that is taking damage? If the enemy has varied attacks, and being a good support guy you have learned the attacks, you will know when to put up the shield. Maybe you have a shield for the whole team to block big AoE attacks that you can put up instead. Maybe the shield can only take so much before it breaks, but you block a good bit of damage. And to be clear, I'm talking about active, channeled shielding here, not just a buff. Maybe you can also use it as CC when you don't need to shield someone. This sounds much more fun than watching HP bars (and yes, I enjoy healing myself). "DEATH" How about we have knockouts like in the comics? When teams are fighting in comics, guys get knocked out all of the time. So if your HP goes to zero you faint (sorta like you did in EQ) and will eventually recover as long as your "faint hp" doesn't get taken out. Of course, hopefully you will come back with more HP than you did in EQ. But I think this would make for a much more satisfying comeback and combat experience when the two group members who got nailed right at the start get back on their feet and save the day. Of course, this will mean if you are soloing that the mob will still pound you and you will die. Oh well. TANKS Lets go with the collision plus knockdowns, knockbacks, and body blocking. I think most tank-types would be thrilled with that, yes?
Those are some very good suggestions.
I could definitely see Jean Grey using both shields and CC as staples in combat.
The tanking mechanisms would be good too.
As I have said before, while I got acustomed to the aggro system in games like WoW, I preferred the blocking/terrain use of Neverwinter Nights. It looks and feels much more believable.
I agree with this 100%, I can not wait for a MMO to come out with collision detection! Where as a tank you can use your body and the terrain to shield other classes. Why oh why has no one done this yet with a MMO?
Originally posted by Cortechs My main problem with the HT is that the non-HT classes and roles are almost always left on the sidelines until the HT spots are filled, leaving those of us who prefer non-HT or mixed roles to a frustrating fate in almost every MMO developed. This is one of the primary reasons players curse the HT.
Let me sidestep a tad and recall a bit from a post I made on the CoX forums oh-so-long ago about how a combat system could be made that didn't rely on so many "standards" that developers use today. Keep in mind that this isn't meant to be taken as a complete system but just ideas that could be used. And yes, some of these have been mentioned in some form already I believe. I think approaching this from a "Superhero MMO" perspective might help open the ideas up a bit. HEALERS: No in-combat healing. I know that healers enjoy it, but hear me out. What do you really enjoy about healing? Watching the hitpoint bar go up? Really? Are you sure? Or is it being the person who saves a life/helps the party? If it is the second answer, then why not explore doing it in other, more exciting ways than watching HP bars all day long? Example? Jean Grey. What does she primarily do? Support. ACTIVE support. Forcefields. Why not have the ability to shield someone that is taking damage? If the enemy has varied attacks, and being a good support guy you have learned the attacks, you will know when to put up the shield. Maybe you have a shield for the whole team to block big AoE attacks that you can put up instead. Maybe the shield can only take so much before it breaks, but you block a good bit of damage. And to be clear, I'm talking about active, channeled shielding here, not just a buff. Maybe you can also use it as CC when you don't need to shield someone. This sounds much more fun than watching HP bars (and yes, I enjoy healing myself). "DEATH" How about we have knockouts like in the comics? When teams are fighting in comics, guys get knocked out all of the time. So if your HP goes to zero you faint (sorta like you did in EQ) and will eventually recover as long as your "faint hp" doesn't get taken out. Of course, hopefully you will come back with more HP than you did in EQ. But I think this would make for a much more satisfying comeback and combat experience when the two group members who got nailed right at the start get back on their feet and save the day. Of course, this will mean if you are soloing that the mob will still pound you and you will die. Oh well. TANKS Lets go with the collision plus knockdowns, knockbacks, and body blocking. I think most tank-types would be thrilled with that, yes?
Those are some very good suggestions.
I could definitely see Jean Grey using both shields and CC as staples in combat.
The tanking mechanisms would be good too.
As I have said before, while I got acustomed to the aggro system in games like WoW, I preferred the blocking/terrain use of Neverwinter Nights. It looks and feels much more believable.
I agree with this 100%, I can not wait for a MMO to come out with collision detection! Where as a tank you can use your body and the terrain to shield other classes. Why oh why has no one done this yet with a MMO?
Comments
Probably has been mentioned already, but you can replace holy trinity with AC1's character design....where every men/women can have the choice to be anything they want, including a bit of healing. You can be in a group with someone who's specialized more in melee, so you would still want to find someone who has some healing abilities. But for the most part AC1 had it so you could handle yourself and be self sufficient, yet there were plenty of things you want to do in a group (or in many cases large groups).
If you want to heal better, spec in life magic, and put points into healing. If you want to run faster put your points into run. Kinda takes holy trinity out because you can be a bit of everything.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
Well, if you could replace a HT role with NPC then it would be as good as other potential options. Like I said, realism and immersion aside, the biggest problem with HT is it makes forming groups very difficult. If the content is challenging, then it is going to be pretty unforgiving about how many of each role you need to bring into a dungeon or raid. That is a constant problem that interferes with fun in HT games. Letting you replace someone with an NPC would help this out a lot -- of course, some might find that an NPC healer or whatever does a better job than some players, which would suck a bit for those players, I suppose, until they upped their game at least. Overall it would be a positive change.
Anyhow, having a more flexible combat system could alleviate the above problem. I would enjoy a non-HT system if it was more realistic than HT, of course, but I admit I'd still be a bit annoyed if it also devolved into "you must have this role composition to play" that HT games have.
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
Problem is with the WoW kids is they are too ADD to play a game as great as DnD. I loved setting up battles in DnD games. Another thing is the kiddies are to bad at gaming to do crowd control and silences etc. All they want to do is mindlessly zerg AOE fight now. You are right though, DnD wasn't about tanking but usually you did put your armored classes in front of a doorway where your healer was blocked in safe and your other members would silence, crowd control the monsters. Very fun wish I had an MMO to play like that.
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
Problem is with the WoW kids is they are too ADD to play a game as great as DnD. I loved setting up battles in DnD games. Another thing is the kiddies are to bad at gaming to do crowd control and silences etc. All they want to do is mindlessly zerg AOE fight now. You are right though, DnD wasn't about tanking but usually you did put your armored classes in front of a doorway where your healer was blocked in safe and your other members would silence, crowd control the monsters. Very fun wish I had an MMO to play like that.
Excuse me, but AoE tanking didnt even exsist pre TBC. So CCing was a main goal in vanilla WoW. yet it to used the same Tanking system
Excuse me, but AoE tanking didnt even exsist pre TBC. So CCing was a main goal in vanilla WoW. yet it to used the same Tanking system
Well, not the SAME tanking system, as they changed it so that there was AoE tanking.
Anyhow, D&D crown control is generally NOT sheeping stuff or the like. Positioning and such is generally a lot more important, but once you get to a decent level everyone can still take more punishment than is typical of HT games.
A skill-based game where no such thing exists other than player skill and character skill & attributes; a wide range of skills to be improved that enables you to create your own template outside the 'window-dressing' pigeon-holed norm, and player skill that improves and can be fine-tuned over-time with game-play. The only such newest freedom of play and development I've found is Darkfall.
A skill-based game where no such thing exists other than player skill and character skill & attributes; a wide range of skills to be improved that enables you to create your own template outside the 'window-dressing' pigeon-holed norm, and player skill that improves and can be fine-tuned over-time with game-play. The only such newest freedom of play and development I've found is Darkfall.
And as you can see. Darkfall's PvE is far from Epic. Cant even match Vanilla WoW's Raids (which uses the HT)
If you dont have a tank class that means everyone has to tank some.
If you dont have a healer class that means either everyone heals or no one heals.
If you dont have a dps class then that means that everyone is dps.
But if you dont have roles then you dont have a role playing game.
That's confusing what "role" means in RPG. "Role" was about acting out a character more or less, not about your job in combat. Anyhoo, the bigger point is that tank/healer/dps is far from the only way to have combat roles. In fact it is even a pretty recent development in games. There are plenty of other ways to do it.
I wouldn't say "plenty". You can have everyone be a hybrid (classless, which doesn't appeal to me), or you can have blocking and use of terrain features to protect squishies (like Neverwinter Nights had, and I preferred). I don't know of any others.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
that is easy ... you replace it with an "I win" button that displays a graphic saying how special you are
I wouldn't say "plenty". You can have everyone be a hybrid (classless, which doesn't appeal to me), or you can have blocking and use of terrain features to protect squishies (like Neverwinter Nights had, and I preferred). I don't know of any others.
NWN generally had the squishies less squishy. Yeah, there are going to be differences in how tough various guys are, but an HT system takes this to a ludicrous extreme. If you have two guys of equal level, and one dies and one hit to an attack and another takes like 6 hits, then that's crazy. As long as you have something crazy like that, then you HAVE to keep the people made of glass out of ANY combat (and then AoE attacks by the enemy boss(es) are attuned to not be one-shots). So, imho, the first step into stopping this kind of madness is to decrease the difference in toughness between characters by a substantial margin.
From there you can then add in considerations such a terrain (including cover), abilities that change terrain (such as making temporary walls), long range abilities, many types of debuffing abilities (this is far from a single group of things, as various debuffs have their own uses), short range abilities, melee abilities, and defensive abilities (such as those that protect other people).
Let's say you have THIS!!! IS!!! SPARTA!!!! The MMO. Now, in this game you can play a Hoplite, a Cavalryperson, or Slinger/Archer (ehh, I'll call them just "Archers). When you form a group, you then make a strategy for it. 2+ Hoplites should probably form up together because their shield abilities let them protect those adjacent to them. Archers generally should stay back, but if you have just 1 and several Hoplites, then maybe they should stand in the middle of a triangle or square formation. Obviously if there is good terrain to give them cover, then they should use it. If you have Cavalry, then they should probably do hit and runs on the enemy (which would probably include some sort of ability to slow the enemy down a bit). No Hoplites and just Cavalry and Archers? Then the Cavalry keep the enemy slowed and busy (while doing damage) and the archers rain them with arrows. All Hoplites? Then they don't have anyone to go after people trying to flank them, so they should get in a circular formation (rotating around as if needed to give people a chance to rest/recover). Now obviously there could be other classes, but the important thing here is that there is not one set strategy on how to take on things, but you form one based on your composition. Obviously PVE group content is going to have to be tough enough to make sure Zerging doesn't work and there might be some compositions that don't work well. That said, there's no reason an Archer in the above couldn't handle himself OK if he got into melee, but it is just a bad choice tactically for him to remain there (he's a lot less effective) so he should try to avoid it, on the other hand it also means that he won't die in one hit if a guy lands a blow on him and so his hit points might help the group survive if he takes a blow for someone else in a close fight.
Now the trick is making sure most of the group combinations in such a thing are pretty balanced compared to each other (maybe having some advantages some of the time). You stretch realism a bit here, but it makes grouping relatively easy (you don't have to look for that one particular class) and combat more varied.
My main problem with the HT is that the non-HT classes and roles are almost always left on the sidelines until the HT spots are filled, leaving those of us who prefer non-HT or mixed roles to a frustrating fate in almost every MMO developed. This is one of the primary reasons players curse the HT.
Let me sidestep a tad and recall a bit from a post I made on the CoX forums oh-so-long ago about how a combat system could be made that didn't rely on so many "standards" that developers use today. Keep in mind that this isn't meant to be taken as a complete system but just ideas that could be used. And yes, some of these have been mentioned in some form already I believe.
I think approaching this from a "Superhero MMO" perspective might help open the ideas up a bit.
HEALERS:
No in-combat healing. I know that healers enjoy it, but hear me out. What do you really enjoy about healing? Watching the hitpoint bar go up? Really? Are you sure? Or is it being the person who saves a life/helps the party?
If it is the second answer, then why not explore doing it in other, more exciting ways than watching HP bars all day long?
Example? Jean Grey. What does she primarily do? Support. ACTIVE support. Forcefields. Why not have the ability to shield someone that is taking damage? If the enemy has varied attacks, and being a good support guy you have learned the attacks, you will know when to put up the shield. Maybe you have a shield for the whole team to block big AoE attacks that you can put up instead. Maybe the shield can only take so much before it breaks, but you block a good bit of damage. And to be clear, I'm talking about active, channeled shielding here, not just a buff.
Maybe you can also use it as CC when you don't need to shield someone.
This sounds much more fun than watching HP bars (and yes, I enjoy healing myself).
"DEATH"
How about we have knockouts like in the comics? When teams are fighting in comics, guys get knocked out all of the time. So if your HP goes to zero you faint (sorta like you did in EQ) and will eventually recover as long as your "faint hp" doesn't get taken out. Of course, hopefully you will come back with more HP than you did in EQ. But I think this would make for a much more satisfying comeback and combat experience when the two group members who got nailed right at the start get back on their feet and save the day.
Of course, this will mean if you are soloing that the mob will still pound you and you will die. Oh well.
TANKS
Lets go with the collision plus knockdowns, knockbacks, and body blocking. I think most tank-types would be thrilled with that, yes?
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
Yep. When I GM/DM, if the party tries to march a Fighter out front I'll either have an add or 2 show up from the sides or behind. In the case of using a dragon, I'd never have him act in the "rage" manner talked about above. Any dragon I place against the group would fight intelligently. He'd use his own magic to counter mind effecting spells and the like.
Course, I'm speaking from 3rd edition D&D and before. I have no idea what kind of crap Wizards has done with monsters in 4th. I having seen the core books before they went retail I knew better than to buy 4th ed. IMO Wizards was making a system to translate to a modern day themepark MMO, not a true followup to the table-top RPG gaming system that got them their initial fortunes.
We're pretty much in agreement here, but I am talking about things from the players' perspective, as the system overall encourages it, and players, being the lazy peeps we are, adopted it. A group needs healing, tanking, and damage dealing, and if a game allows players all of these, then there is no reason to group in the first place (except, of course, P&P rpg's where that is the whole point).
Also, I wasn't talking about putting the tank OUT FRONT, that's the ranger's/rogue's place. What I was saying is that in P&P, there are tanks, DPS, and Healing. In P&P, do intelligent DM's force players to look for ways to fight other than the so called Holy Trinity? You bet. Can a P&P group roll without one or more of the Trinity? Absolutely (and sometimes those are the funnest groups, it forces the players get real creative with their mission planning). Is the Holy Trinity a viable tactic in P&P? Yep.
The main problem is players (especially in MMO's), use the Trinity as a crutch, and never consider any other form. In P&P, mundane healing secondary skills could somewhat mitigate the need to even have a cleric. "Wolfpack" tactics (attacking from several different directions, trying to divide the NPC's attention and damage amongst everyone) can all but eliminate the need for a tank. Of course almost everyone does their share of DPS, so you never really need a dedicated "glass cannon". In fact, in p&p, when hiking through the wilderness, the ranger/pathfinder/scout was prolly as critical (if not more so) then any of the Trinity.
That is only in D&D, my Palladium group have a totally different tactic. We don't use a healer, we try to not get hurt instead. We don't have any true tank either (but our Styfon Paladin have a good armor). My Archer is an expert on hiding and enemies rarely see him, same thing for our thief. Shaggy (got that name for his stupid dog and the fact that he fails horror checks a lot even if he needs a 0 on a D20 to do that and then ans up in a kitchen) is really good on dodging things. I think Shaggy is a mystic or Psionic.
Everybody do have an emergency pot in the belt but we rarely use it and still have very interesting and challenging combats.
With good tactics you don't need tanks and healers, but the healer is still good i you mess up. The tanks however you don't need at all, as long as the classes are balanced.
It is simple.They are games already do this like CoX or Guild Wars to extent.No game you should ever hear we are looking for healer.You should be able to any quest,any mission with any group. If you have six dps or six tanks,They should be way to always to do a mission with class at hand. In CoX the other two support concepts CC and buffing are as strong as healing.You beat missions CC,tank and dps, buffing/debuffing,tank and dps or healing/dps/tank.Also tanks and dps are versatile enough that they could do other roles so that helps.The most fun i have every had playing mmo is playing a with a team of 5 blasters and 1 controller .
The key is having healers in the game but they are a option not the only option.
I can agree with this.
I was playing my Ice / ForceField controller in CoH earlier today. She could have taken a nice healing secondary but I chose to go for buffs instead, since my primary is already full of debuffs. How does she work? The bad guys simply deal so little damage that we don't need a regular healer.
Of course, it helps that the "tank" was a /fire scrapper that could spam her own moderate self heal, that that also steps outside the usual trinity.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Those are some very good suggestions.
I could definitely see Jean Grey using both shields and CC as staples in combat.
The tanking mechanisms would be good too.
As I have said before, while I got acustomed to the aggro system in games like WoW, I preferred the blocking/terrain use of Neverwinter Nights. It looks and feels much more believable.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Functionally, there's no difference between damage prevention and in-combat healing. It still just serves to negate incoming damage. As someone who often plays a healer, I want healing spells AND shields, not one or the other. On the practical side of playing a shield based healer, how would you know how effective your shields are? Why, they'd have "shield bars", of course. Oh wait, that's just like a mini health bar. So, it functions like a less streamlined version of healing, and makes a healer not feel like a healer. Not seeing the benefit.
On the other hand, expanding the party so that you use a regular healer AND a shielder... That could the interesting.
Important facts:
1. Free to Play games are poorly made.
2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals.
3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE.
4. Community is more important than you think.
Those are some very good suggestions.
I could definitely see Jean Grey using both shields and CC as staples in combat.
The tanking mechanisms would be good too.
As I have said before, while I got acustomed to the aggro system in games like WoW, I preferred the blocking/terrain use of Neverwinter Nights. It looks and feels much more believable.
Yup, he had a great post. And those "tanking" mechanisms aren't tanking in the sense we use in MMOs, they are more like temporary interceding to help someone out. Let's say you have a guy who physically is about 80-90% as tough as you are, then if he gets into a bit of a jam you might have to rush to his aid in some way. For a physical character that could be charging in and pushing back an enemy. You aren't trying to get everyone to attack you (even you couldn't take that punishment), you are just trying to help out your friend for a bit. Or another way to think of it is forcing a little bit of area denial into a particular spot which is currently occupied by an enemy.
Let's take Superheroes as an example again (they do seem handy). In the comics generally all Supers can handle things hand-to-hand to an extent (heck even Batman can when he's in the Justice League which is kinda crazy). You generally don't have healing in these situations either (and the Justice League generally doesn't have a lot of force shields...at least not to the extent of FF4 even though Green Lantern could do that). You still have teamwork though. People trying to maintain areas of control to an extent and push the enemy back or to accomplish some other goal. You have people covering the weaknesses of others (old school JL if a yellow arrow was headed to GL then Supes or someone else would stop it for instance) and generally helping each other out ACTIVELY. Or combining their attacks together to make a better attack (even if it is just knocking two goons into each other).
Final Fantasy XI, though it is a HT system, has something that encourages group cooperation and planning. Skill Chains are using abilities together in a sequences. As a made-up example, the Warrior might do a special attack that is Light-based, and if followed by the Black Mage using an ice-based attack it produces a special and more powerful effect (and the Red Mage could follow up with a fire attack perhaps and keep that chain going). That encourages cooperation. So half the problem is that most games don't have any interactions between classes or abilities like that. Yeah, maybe in game X you can knock an enemy up into the air, but no one else can follow that attack up on the airborne guy with an attack that is now even more effective. Some games subvert this general failing VERY slightly by having small buffs for things, but most buffs and debuffs are very general and long-lasting. What would be more ideal are essential buffs and debuffs that are very short in scope and only exist to help out a follow-up ability (which can be one of many that exist in the game).
FFXI is too small in scope however. What would be ideal is to have these effects vary greatly in what they do, make them somewhat specific to the circumstance. If you ally charges in, then perhaps you can grab him and turn his single-target charge into a small AoE where he wacks a bunch of guys in a circle around you. Have that not be the only thing you can do with that charge though (adds ways to just power it up against a single target for instance). Make it so that basically a team of heroes has a stockpile of combos they can use and the key to doing extremely well is using the right ones in the right situation instead of doing the same thing over and over. Now, some people are going to be better at this split-second thinking than others, so make sure you have quests, instances, and the like scale with group size but ALSO be configurable by the players for difficulty. If you suck, then you can still play the game, but you can't do the missions on the hardest level (and as such you get less rewards).
Of course, I don't mean to neglect the importance of terrain, if anything terrain should be something you can play with and incorporate into your tactics in multiple ways. If there are trees, then maybe you can set them on fire or something for a bonus (or just get in them or break branches so they fall on people's heads or something). Terrain should be about more than just restricting or enabling movement.
One could view HT as a very simplistic and worn out combo system that essentially only has one combo (someone grabs enemy attention, some others do damage, one person heals). We should be able to do so much better.
It is simple.They are games already do this like CoX or Guild Wars to extent.No game you should ever hear we are looking for healer.You should be able to any quest,any mission with any group. If you have six dps or six tanks,They should be way to always to do a mission with class at hand. In CoX the other two support concepts CC and buffing are as strong as healing.You beat missions CC,tank and dps, buffing/debuffing,tank and dps or healing/dps/tank.Also tanks and dps are versatile enough that they could do other roles so that helps.The most fun i have every had playing mmo is playing a with a team of 5 blasters and 1 controller .
The key is having healers in the game but they are a option not the only option.
I can agree with this.
I was playing my Ice / ForceField controller in CoH earlier today. She could have taken a nice healing secondary but I chose to go for buffs instead, since my primary is already full of debuffs. How does she work? The bad guys simply deal so little damage that we don't need a regular healer.
Of course, it helps that the "tank" was a /fire scrapper that could spam her own moderate self heal, that that also steps outside the usual trinity.
You are not stepping outside of the holy trinity. You are collapsing the holy trinity into a single character.
To step outside of the holy trinity would be to not have one of the 3 legs of the trinity. IE no dps, no tanking or no healing.
If you never healed you would eventually die. If you never did any dps you would never kill anything. If you get hit you are tanking. You may be a lousy tank but you are tanking nonetheless.
There is no way to have combat without all three of those things present. Thus you can not get rid of the holy trinity in a game that has combat.
That's not how the Holy Trinity works. I mean, I suppose you could use that as a definition, but it is a crappy definition (by "crappy", I mean it is not useful at all).
The Holy Trinity is defined as having someone (or ones) whose job it is to get all the enemies to attack them. This is the tank. Then you have someone whose job it is to heal/buff, this is the healer. Then you have someone whose job it is to deal damage. Combat then consists of the tank getting all aggro, the dps killing the enemy, and the healer keeping the tank alive (and everyone else when there is AoE or aggro-ignoring damage). It's important to realize all these are COMBAT roles, so if you have a game where there is a healer, but they heal outside of combat only, then it isn't a Holy Trinity game. Now, probably not all that more interesting than an HT game is a Tank + DPS game where you drop the healer. Same with a "collapsed" trinity where one person handles two of the HT jobs, but the HT jobs ARE the combat roles. Naturally minor additions to combat duties are allowed, such as if a healer, dps or tank also needs to use some CC.
Anyhow, one of the more defining characteristics of the HT system is the extreme specialization. If the tank couldn't take much more damage than everyone else, then you wouldn't need a tank so HT would fall apart. Hence the Tank is FAR, FAR more resilient than anyone else (this gives him job security, but being tough doesn't make one an HT tank since you also need those aggro abilities or some other method to ensure you take all damage). If people didn't take enough damage to need healing in combat or everyone could heal themselves easily enough, then the Healer wouldn't be needed, so everyone else has to have relatively crappy-healing. If tanks could do great DPS then DPS wouldn't be needed (you'd go all tanks since they are tougher). If healers could do great dps, then you'd go tanks + healers and no pure DPS, since your DPS could switch to healing in a pinch. (Important, the scope of these comparisons is a single combat, not multiple combats inbetween which you might be able to change your abilities). Anyhow, all this forces each role to be highly specialized and not able to do a good job at the other roles, otherwise the specialists in those other roles just wouldn't be needed.
All that together is the HT, you start mucking around with that a lot and the system would break down. Usually this results in a lot of people complaining on the forums about how a class or something is overpowered (or one is underpowered).
A skill-based game where no such thing exists other than player skill and character skill & attributes; a wide range of skills to be improved that enables you to create your own template outside the 'window-dressing' pigeon-holed norm, and player skill that improves and can be fine-tuned over-time with game-play. The only such newest freedom of play and development I've found is Darkfall.
And as you can see. Darkfall's PvE is far from Epic. Cant even match Vanilla WoW's Raids (which uses the HT)
Just touching back to look. So. . .well. . .there are different game-ecosystems for different folks. The DF-like game, player-driven ecosystem, is not about scripted artificial code combat against a tethered game-controlled pixel. And i didnt think my response to the topic was about pve. Nor did i intend to get into a match about WoW, rather with an intention to respond in support of an open-skilled/attributes gaining system over a rigid class system.
It is simple.They are games already do this like CoX or Guild Wars to extent.No game you should ever hear we are looking for healer.You should be able to any quest,any mission with any group. If you have six dps or six tanks,They should be way to always to do a mission with class at hand. In CoX the other two support concepts CC and buffing are as strong as healing.You beat missions CC,tank and dps, buffing/debuffing,tank and dps or healing/dps/tank.Also tanks and dps are versatile enough that they could do other roles so that helps.The most fun i have every had playing mmo is playing a with a team of 5 blasters and 1 controller .
The key is having healers in the game but they are a option not the only option.
I can agree with this.
I was playing my Ice / ForceField controller in CoH earlier today. She could have taken a nice healing secondary but I chose to go for buffs instead, since my primary is already full of debuffs. How does she work? The bad guys simply deal so little damage that we don't need a regular healer.
Of course, it helps that the "tank" was a /fire scrapper that could spam her own moderate self heal, that that also steps outside the usual trinity.
That could never be Balanced in a PvP/PvE mmo
Those are some very good suggestions.
I could definitely see Jean Grey using both shields and CC as staples in combat.
The tanking mechanisms would be good too.
As I have said before, while I got acustomed to the aggro system in games like WoW, I preferred the blocking/terrain use of Neverwinter Nights. It looks and feels much more believable.
I agree with this 100%, I can not wait for a MMO to come out with collision detection! Where as a tank you can use your body and the terrain to shield other classes. Why oh why has no one done this yet with a MMO?
Those are some very good suggestions.
I could definitely see Jean Grey using both shields and CC as staples in combat.
The tanking mechanisms would be good too.
As I have said before, while I got acustomed to the aggro system in games like WoW, I preferred the blocking/terrain use of Neverwinter Nights. It looks and feels much more believable.
I agree with this 100%, I can not wait for a MMO to come out with collision detection! Where as a tank you can use your body and the terrain to shield other classes. Why oh why has no one done this yet with a MMO?
???
Couldnt you do this in Guild Wars and Warhammer?