If that means I can once again play a character who snares, roots and messes the mobs,
yes please.
I don't think its needed to include GW2 into the discussion.
The lack of an aggro system or trinity isn't the reason GW2 didn't pan out as a lot of us hoped.
Well....maybe a little.
GW2 is one of the most successful MMORPGs to date and the dev team releases additional content (holiday themed and story expansion content) just about every month lol.
3 million copies sold? Sold. Not even F2P 3 million users. 3 million boxes sold at $59.99 to 39.99 a piece. Not including cash shop sales either.
Any game company would be lucky to see those kinds of numbers
Or if you mean't "Didn't pan out" as in some people here didn't like it. Ok cool. Gotcha. Different people like different things.
That's called Hype. A lot of the community left very early on once they realized it was boring. That's why they started doing these free content updates and spamming my email with COME BACK messages.
The community didn't leave. The standard amount of drop off happened as people went to try other games. The holiday content and the story line continuation content that they add in was promoted as a planned part of the game before the game even launched. It does work to bring some people back, but the point of the content is to keep the players there happy with new stuff to work on and experience. The steady player base that reaches close to a million active players. Hardly anything to gawk at.
A big part of the community left once Anet started to pull their FoTM shenanigans.
I and obviously many other posters on this forum left for a myriad of reasons.
Perhaps we weren't part of the community? :shock:
I've been keeping up with the thread and I often see you say things like: Old systems, learn to adapt etc.
Wich is fine, but what do you propose then?
I already asked you but you decided to ignore that in favour of keeping the talk focused on defending GW2.
We already established that collision blocking is a no go.
A hate system could work but that will lead us to spamville. You can not deny that group combat in GW2 is an AoE spam fest. Where only the very few actually try to set up combo fields. And I don't care that the majority was to dumb to understand their class/role as you claim.
You can not deny that group combat in GW2 is an AoE spam fest. Where only the very few actually try to set up combo fields. And I don't care that the majority was to dumb to understand their class/role as you claim.
Of course he can deny it. He's been denying everything relating to that game. The game is good and has a lot of great things, but dungeons/hate system/storyline are not one of those things.
I mean I stopped listening when I heard him trying to defend the level 30 dungeon at launch as being a case where players needed to L2P. Seriously how crazed fanboy can you get? lol just wow.
A big part of the community left once Anet started to pull their FoTM shenanigans.
I and obviously many other posters on this forum left for a myriad of reasons.
Perhaps we weren't part of the community? :shock:
I've been keeping up with the thread and I often see you say things like: Old systems, learn to adapt etc.
Wich is fine, but what do you propose then?
I already asked you but you decided to ignore that in favour of keeping the talk focused on defending GW2.
We already established that collision blocking is a no go.
A hate system could work but that will lead us to spamville. You can not deny that group combat in GW2 is an AoE spam fest. Where only the very few actually try to set up combo fields. And I don't care that the majority was to dumb to understand their class/role as you claim.
So what kind of system could replace aggro?
Ya the collusion thing wasn't my idea nor did anyone establish that it was a no go. It is certainly more reasonable than the taunt button / agro management system of trinity based games so far.
GW2 was not a spam fest. There were clear benefits from understanding the mechanics of the game, and using the right abilities at the right time and having different specced people in the group, just as there are clear benefits from having a healer, tank, dps,support and CC people in your group in EQ, EQ2, Aion, etc...
The fact that people were able to fumble through some* dungeons, downing and dying and zerg rushing and running around kiting mobs in the most unorganized and sloppy way possible does not mean there was an issue with GW2's system. Just means people didn't take the time to learn the mechanics and make life easier on them and learn how to do the harder dungeons (Good luck doing high lvl FoTM or Arah with just a buncha kiting / fumbling around / no role coordination. I bet it would not even be close to fun. It's no different than a group in EQ saying "Hey, we don't need CC and a tank going into this dungeon, we'll just work with what we got...." There are many times in EQ where you didn't have all the classes needed for something and you just fumbled through the dungeon. The difference is that GW2 doesn't make roles so apparent and clear cut. But it happened in both games.
My personal suggestion? It would be a system where tanks are defenders of the group. All Mobs don't just walk up and stick to them the whole fight just because he pushed an AOE taunt button. Tanks would shield bash, kick, knock back, stun and tackle mobs that are attacking the group's softer classes. Maybe these attacks get the monster's attention for a temporary moment, Maybe there is a system where the tank can choose to engage and hold a single mob's attention for a prolonged period of time, but encounters would not be 1 mob VS 6 players. It would be hoards of monsters attacking players of the group.
This kind of system would simulate more realistic battles. Encounters in the game would be frantic, action packed and no class would be safe.
To combat this, each class would need defensive and reactive abilities.
Archers would need to switch quickly to melee weapons and focus on timing parries and dodging attacks.
Rogues would have to parry, blind and stun mobs to avoid taking damage. Stealthing away from combat and then jumping back into the battle when the mob's attention turns to another companion.
Mages would make use of magical barriers, blinking away from enemies, blocking with their staff, using magic spells to push, CC, stun, etc.
In this system combat would be more realistic. It wouldn't devolve into illogical battles where 1 monster attacks the least vulnerable person over and over again while 5 other people spam damage and heal the "tank" like in older games.
There's a reason why PVP and PVE are completely different games. Because the taunt system is unrealistic. Any attacker with common sense is not going to keep spamming attacks onto a player who is taking extremely mitigated damage and getting spam healed, when there are much more vulnerable enemies around.
...I believe that we should see an end to the tank in MMORPGs and move to a different model of combat...
I really think mobs should attack based on different algorithims ones that never allow any player to be 100% certain to be subject the next target for an attack and no player in range would have a 0% chance of being the next target for an attack.
That sounds like the worst thing I've ever heard of. Just awful. If you can't predict how the game will probably behave and attempt to exercise some amount of control over it then you aren't really playing a game, you're just watching a movie.
Monster AI should be factored into threat algorithms so that certain monsters will gain more hatred from healing whereas others will go after the highest DPS or whomever appears to be the lightest armored. Some monsters may be able to detect stealth and especially hate people sneaking around or stabbing them in the back.
These things would make a fight more interesting, but it should always be learnable and repeatable the next time. If I go into a fight and all the rogues quickly die because the tank can't taunt off them then I should be able to learn that this monster does that. Next time I go to fight that monster someone will say: "Hey guys, don't get behind him - he hates that." or "don't shoot fireballs; stick to ice" or some such thing.
...I believe that we should see an end to the tank in MMORPGs and move to a different model of combat...
I really think mobs should attack based on different algorithims ones that never allow any player to be 100% certain to be subject the next target for an attack and no player in range would have a 0% chance of being the next target for an attack.
That sounds like the worst thing I've ever heard of. Just awful. If you can't predict how the game will probably behave and attempt to exercise some amount of control over it then you aren't really playing a game, you're just watching a movie.
It should never be random.
Not accurate in accordance to what a game is by definition. It doesn't have to be predictable. In fact, the best games are unpredictable.
Think more to PVP. It's random, with logic. You can never know for sure what another player is going to do, but you can have some idea. Reacting quickly to the unpredictable is a trademark of a good gamer.
If a game becomes predictable, it becomes boring. That's a fact.
Think more to PVP. It's random, with logic. You can never know for sure what another player is going to do, but you can have some idea. Reacting quickly to the unpredictable is a trademark of a good gamer.
If a game becomes predictable, it becomes boring. That's a fact.
I hate PVP. If PVE was like PVP then I wouldn't play it. A lot of people wouldn't play it. And game companies would come out with games with PVE what was not like PVP and they would have a lot of paying customers for these games.
Not everyone is a good gamer. Making a game totally unpredictable is going to make the game not much fun for those people who aren't gamers, who will then cease playing the game.
Needing to be able to react quickly to everything will also alienate all of the otherwise good gamers without a top of the line internet connection.
I don't believe predictability makes a game boring all by itself. Its when a game is predictable and easy that it becomes boring. A game that is predictable and challenging remains fun.
Strawberry ice cream is green. That's a fact... supported by no evidence at all.
"That's a fact." - One of the most illogical arguements or support statements that can be made. Try making a reference to actual supporting facts. I shouldn't have to teach people how to debate on a forum, but to argue against them I do have to point out how illogical your arguements are if you insist on using them.
Think more to PVP. It's random, with logic. You can never know for sure what another player is going to do, but you can have some idea. Reacting quickly to the unpredictable is a trademark of a good gamer.
If a game becomes predictable, it becomes boring. That's a fact.
I hate PVP. If PVE was like PVP then I wouldn't play it. A lot of people wouldn't play it. And game companies would come out with games with PVE what was not like PVP and they would have a lot of paying customers for these games.
Not everyone is a good gamer. Making a game totally unpredictable is going to make the game not much fun for those people who aren't gamers, who will then cease playing the game.
Needing to be able to react quickly to everything will also alienate all of the otherwise good gamers without a top of the line internet connection.
I don't believe predictability makes a game boring all by itself. Its when a game is predictable and easy that it becomes boring. A game that is predictable and challenging remains fun.
Strawberry ice cream is green. That's a fact... supported by no evidence at all.
"That's a fact." - One of the most illogical arguements or support statements that can be made. Try making a reference to actual supporting facts. I shouldn't have to teach people how to debate on a forum, but to argue against them I do have to point out how illogical your arguements are if you insist on using them.
My point is that if PVE was realistic, it would look like PVP.
No good game is predictable. If it does become predictable, it becomes boring / useless to play. Let me give you an example.
Chess. There are huge amounts of possible moves a player can make each game. It's unpredictable. There are things you can expect, but you never know exactly what you're opponent is going to throw at you. However, if I played 100 games of chess with you, and did the same exact moves every single game, would you want to play chess with me?
What if I gave you a piece of paper that laid out every single move I was going to make before we even started. Eventually you learn how to "beat me", and then I never change, and never do anything different. I do the same moves and do the same actions every single time we play. Eventually you get to the point where you know* that victory is yours before we even start.
And by definition this is not even a game at this point.
That is exactly what agro-based trinity games turn into. It's exactly why it needs to change.
My point is that if PVE was realistic, it would look like PVP.
No good game is predictable. If it does become predictable, it becomes boring / useless to play. Let me give you an example.
Chess. There are huge amounts of possible moves a player can make each game. It's unpredictable. There are things you can expect, but you never know exactly what you're opponent is going to throw at you. However, if I played 100 games of chess with you, and did the same exact moves every single game, would you want to play chess with me?
What if I gave you a piece of paper that laid out every single move I was going to make before we even started. Eventually you learn how to "beat me", and then I never change, and never do anything different. I do the same moves and do the same actions every single time we play. Eventually you get to the point where you know* that victory is yours before we even start.
And by definition this is not even a game at this point.
That is exactly what agro-based trinity games turn into. It's exactly why it needs to change.
If PVE were realistic then it would NOT look like PVP. The whole reason that the player can win 100 times in a row is because that player is a hero. He's the guy that everyone asks to do stuff because they can't do it themselves because they are not heroic.
If PVP were realistic it would look a lot more like PVE. There would be a hundred guys running around that you could one-shot for every hero that was an actual challenge. Or you'd be one of the bottom 99% and you'd just be one-shotted by the hero as he ran past you... though most PVP already feels that way to me anyway.
I wouldn't want to play chess with you no matter what moves you did. Its boring. And its PVP. Already stated I hated PVP.
No challenging fight in any MMO is 100% predictable. If the DPS goes too hard or the tank isn't taunting or healing isn't sufficient then things become very unpredictable. When they do people die and groups wipe. If your fight isn't challenging anymore then it may not be fun anymore. But that isn't because of the predictability factor; its because it isn't challenging.
If you could PVP and one-shot everyone all the time and never died then it wouldn't be fun, not because the other people were any less predictable, but because they were no challenge.
"Game" has ten definitions. The first one I found was: " An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime." Different people are amused by different things. I was very much amused by taking a high level character and kicking the snot out of every monster in a dungeon at the same time even though the process and results were very predictable.
I'll agree that anything that is 100% predictable isn't fun all the time. The game does need to venture somewhere into the gray area of unpredictablilty. I do NOT think that removing the threat system is the way to do that.
Maybe you're looking for a game where the entire game is completely unpredictable. Maybe you're looking for a PVP-only game. They're out there for you; please don't think that ruining PVE is the way to make your game fun.
My point is that if PVE was realistic, it would look like PVP.
No good game is predictable. If it does become predictable, it becomes boring / useless to play. Let me give you an example.
Chess. There are huge amounts of possible moves a player can make each game. It's unpredictable. There are things you can expect, but you never know exactly what you're opponent is going to throw at you. However, if I played 100 games of chess with you, and did the same exact moves every single game, would you want to play chess with me?
What if I gave you a piece of paper that laid out every single move I was going to make before we even started. Eventually you learn how to "beat me", and then I never change, and never do anything different. I do the same moves and do the same actions every single time we play. Eventually you get to the point where you know* that victory is yours before we even start.
And by definition this is not even a game at this point.
That is exactly what agro-based trinity games turn into. It's exactly why it needs to change.
If PVE were realistic then it would NOT look like PVP. The whole reason that the player can win 100 times in a row is because that player is a hero. He's the guy that everyone asks to do stuff because they can't do it themselves because they are not heroic.
If PVP were realistic it would look a lot more like PVE. There would be a hundred guys running around that you could one-shot for every hero that was an actual challenge. Or you'd be one of the bottom 99% and you'd just be one-shotted by the hero as he ran past you... though most PVP already feels that way to me anyway.
I wouldn't want to play chess with you no matter what moves you did. Its boring. And its PVP. Already stated I hated PVP.
No challenging fight in any MMO is 100% predictable. If the DPS goes too hard or the tank isn't taunting or healing isn't sufficient then things become very unpredictable. When they do people die and groups wipe. If your fight isn't challenging anymore then it may not be fun anymore. But that isn't because of the predictability factor; its because it isn't challenging.
If you could PVP and one-shot everyone all the time and never died then it wouldn't be fun, not because the other people were any less predictable, but because they were no challenge.
"Game" has ten definitions. The first one I found was: " An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime." Different people are amused by different things. I was very much amused by taking a high level character and kicking the snot out of every monster in a dungeon at the same time even though the process and results were very predictable.
I'll agree that anything that is 100% predictable isn't fun all the time. The game does need to venture somewhere into the gray area of unpredictablilty. I do NOT think that removing the threat system is the way to do that.
Maybe you're looking for a game where the entire game is completely unpredictable. Maybe you're looking for a PVP-only game. They're out there for you; please don't think that ruining PVE is the way to make your game fun.
You gave the definition of playing. Not a game.
A game is not a game unless: It has rules that other players must follow. A goal. And has an unpredictable winner.
If any of these are not present, it is not a game. It is playing, killing time, a pastime, etc. Which are fine, but it's not a game.
Having fun does not make something a game. I might have fun programming code. That does not make it a game.
Your idea of a good combat system. Your "If Dps goes to hard...." example. Is predictable. You can gauge your actions and know what the AI enemy is going to do. That's why no one hardly wipes in MMORPGs any more. You just find a skill rotation, a taunt/agro rotation, a heal rotation, that works, and it works 99.9999% of the time, wash rinse and repeat.
Dungeons become predictable. They're not a matter of "Oh no, this is a dangerous dungeon, I wonder if we'll survive this time". Instead, MMORPG dungeons have become "How long is this going to take before I win?"
Same with raids, in agro-based games they are simply a series of trials and error. The harder "raids" just require learning more steps. But once you learn the steps, and have the gear to withstand the gear-check, the trinity/agro systems of old in a raid scenario become nothing more than a glorified game of Simon-Says.
You repeat the same pattern and win. After a few successful raids, it's not even a game any more. It becomes "Farm status". Everyone repeats the same, predictable, pattern of steps and opens their loot pinata.
Then you see something break from that mold a little bit (GW2), and people lose their minds. The caster who decided to not pay attention, who is wearing a dress and slotted zero defensive skills/traits gets wiped the moment a monster lays eyes on him. And then the system gets criticized.
Bottom line.
Expect to be out of your comfort zone on August 2nd.
A game is not a game unless: It has rules that other players must follow. A goal. And has an unpredictable winner.
If any of these are not present, it is not a game. It is playing, killing time, a pastime, etc. Which are fine, but it's not a game.
Having fun does not make something a game. I might have fun programming code. That does not make it a game.
Your idea of a good combat system. Your "If Dps goes to hard...." example. Is predictable. You can gauge your actions and know what the AI enemy is going to do. That's why no one hardly wipes in MMORPGs any more. You just find a skill rotation, a taunt/agro rotation, a heal rotation, that works, and it works 99.9999% of the time, wash rinse and repeat.
Dungeons become predictable. They're not a matter of "Oh no, this is a dangerous dungeon, I wonder if we'll survive this time". Instead, MMORPG dungeons have become "How long is this going to take before I win?"
Same with raids, in agro-based games they are simply a series of trials and error. The harder "raids" just require learning more steps. But once you learn the steps, and have the gear to withstand the gear-check, the trinity/agro systems of old in a raid scenario become nothing more than a glorified game of Simon-Says.
You repeat the same pattern and win. After a few successful raids, it's not even a game any more. It becomes "Farm status". Everyone repeats the same, predictable, pattern of steps and opens their loot pinata.
Then you see something break from that mold a little bit (GW2), and people lose their minds. The caster who decided to not pay attention, who is wearing a dress and slotted zero defensive skills/traits gets wiped the moment a monster lays eyes on him. And then the system gets criticized.
Bottom line.
Expect to be out of your comfort zone on August 2nd.
I gave the first definition of a game, as listed on thefreedictionary.com. I can't find any definition of the word game where it says that it has to be unpredictable, so now I feel like you're just making stuff up.
Facebook is full of games. All of them are VERY predictable. There's literally no randomness in some of them. And yet they are still games, with millions of players who would disagree with your definition of "Game". You can also "Play a game of catch" which doesn't even have a winner.
"That's why no one hardly wipes in MMORPGs any more" - NO. Its because there's no CHALLENGE.
If the dungeon is just a question of how long till you win, then its because there's no CHALLENGE. Drop to two characters in the group and do it again on heroic and you'll start to question if you're going to win because suddenly there's challenge. Its like you're ignoring me. How many times do I need to repeat that?
Something doesn't stop being a game just because it becomes easy to you. Its still a game, its just not a fun game.
"Bottom Line" What's the bottom line? This is an incomplete sentence and not really attached to any other statement. You totally won this arguement with that illogical mess; might as well follow up with your victory gloating.
"Expect to be out of your comfort zone on August 2nd." AND THERE IT IS. You're acting like you already know how EQN combat will be. If you're working for SOE then you should be fired. If you're anyone else then you're a liar.
The real question STILL remains as to how removing the threat system from an MMO actually improves the gameplay.
Imagine a fight with no threat system. Someone pulls. It doesn't matter who, because it won't keep hitting them anyway. You can DPS as hard as you want; it doesn't matter because you can't affect what the monster is going to do. The monster randomly switches targets. The party might survive only because the damage was spread around so evenly. Or maybe some of the squishier party members die. Or maybe nobody dies because they've all equipped appropriate defensive gear which basically means that every single member of the party is THE SAME despite any attempts to be different and special. That sounds horrible to me.
Why don't you describe to me what an ideal combat would be like for you?
These debates on a better solution for mob AI and the aggro system are older than the genre itself.
Aggro is simply a rule that allows a mob to select a target that players and enemies can change during combat. When you force mobs to circumvent that aggro generating mechanic, you essentially remove the tank role from the RPG, and break down the role system as a whole.
What many of you don't seem to understand, is that RPG AI is always (and should always be) limited to a system thats conducive to the role system that the RPG is founded on. Aggro is a concept that goes back to pen and paper rpgs, and was created to be a system of logic to allow each player class to play their part or role in the game. The system is contingent upon an aggressive tank role that blocks, distracts or overpowers enemies in order for the other roles to perform their duties.
Using the chaos of PvP to undermine the established logic found in PvE simply breaks the laws or principles the fantasy RPG was founded on. The simple fact of the matter is, tanks should be able to aggro players or at least shift their target and focus in PvP as they do in PvE. Thats not to say there aren't more intelligent forms of AI that would work in another system, but not the classic role based RPG.
When you talk about replacing agro, the next conclusion you will come to will always be that you need to fundamentally change the way each role works, along with many changes in the way gameplay works as well. If you haven't figured that out yet, keep thinking it through.
Here are some blogs I found when searching for solutions to agro in the fantasy rpg (which I knew didn't exist). Spoiler, there are no solutions without breaking down and rebuilding the role system from the ground up.
The best part of these blogs are the comments at the bottom. According to their own admissions the authors of the blogs did not find a way to "replace agro", though they did think of some interesting ways to enhance it. Comments of Lee Cummings and Bart Stewart are especially informative.
These games where almost any class can handle 2 and 3 roles just isn't fun in my opinion. Having to put together a group and actually play your role, not one of any 3 needed, makes the game challenging and builds a better community of groups. Too many PUGs around when anyone can tank or swap to DPS with the click of a button.
A game is not a game unless: It has rules that other players must follow. A goal. And has an unpredictable winner.
If any of these are not present, it is not a game. It is playing, killing time, a pastime, etc. Which are fine, but it's not a game.
Having fun does not make something a game. I might have fun programming code. That does not make it a game.
Your idea of a good combat system. Your "If Dps goes to hard...." example. Is predictable. You can gauge your actions and know what the AI enemy is going to do. That's why no one hardly wipes in MMORPGs any more. You just find a skill rotation, a taunt/agro rotation, a heal rotation, that works, and it works 99.9999% of the time, wash rinse and repeat.
Dungeons become predictable. They're not a matter of "Oh no, this is a dangerous dungeon, I wonder if we'll survive this time". Instead, MMORPG dungeons have become "How long is this going to take before I win?"
Same with raids, in agro-based games they are simply a series of trials and error. The harder "raids" just require learning more steps. But once you learn the steps, and have the gear to withstand the gear-check, the trinity/agro systems of old in a raid scenario become nothing more than a glorified game of Simon-Says.
You repeat the same pattern and win. After a few successful raids, it's not even a game any more. It becomes "Farm status". Everyone repeats the same, predictable, pattern of steps and opens their loot pinata.
Then you see something break from that mold a little bit (GW2), and people lose their minds. The caster who decided to not pay attention, who is wearing a dress and slotted zero defensive skills/traits gets wiped the moment a monster lays eyes on him. And then the system gets criticized.
Bottom line.
Expect to be out of your comfort zone on August 2nd.
I gave the first definition of a game, as listed on thefreedictionary.com. I can't find any definition of the word game where it says that it has to be unpredictable, so now I feel like you're just making stuff up.
Facebook is full of games. All of them are VERY predictable. There's literally no randomness in some of them. And yet they are still games, with millions of players who would disagree with your definition of "Game". You can also "Play a game of catch" which doesn't even have a winner.
"That's why no one hardly wipes in MMORPGs any more" - NO. Its because there's no CHALLENGE.
If the dungeon is just a question of how long till you win, then its because there's no CHALLENGE. Drop to two characters in the group and do it again on heroic and you'll start to question if you're going to win because suddenly there's challenge. Its like you're ignoring me. How many times do I need to repeat that?
Something doesn't stop being a game just because it becomes easy to you. Its still a game, its just not a fun game.
"Bottom Line" What's the bottom line? This is an incomplete sentence and not really attached to any other statement. You totally won this arguement with that illogical mess; might as well follow up with your victory gloating.
"Expect to be out of your comfort zone on August 2nd." AND THERE IT IS. You're acting like you already know how EQN combat will be. If you're working for SOE then you should be fired. If you're anyone else then you're a liar.
The real question STILL remains as to how removing the threat system from an MMO actually improves the gameplay.
Imagine a fight with no threat system. Someone pulls. It doesn't matter who, because it won't keep hitting them anyway. You can DPS as hard as you want; it doesn't matter because you can't affect what the monster is going to do. The monster randomly switches targets. The party might survive only because the damage was spread around so evenly. Or maybe some of the squishier party members die. Or maybe nobody dies because they've all equipped appropriate defensive gear which basically means that every single member of the party is THE SAME despite any attempts to be different and special. That sounds horrible to me.
Why don't you describe to me what an ideal combat would be like for you?
-I'm not making anything up. Take any class on game theory, video game design, video game development or anything similar and you will learn the nuances of what it means to create a game*, and what aspects are needed for Game Play.
Written language always has multiple meanings for words. For example, if I say "Our theory for the cause of death is homicide" it is completely different in meaning than a scientist who says "This is the theory of gravity". One is a declaration of a presupposition. One is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
Games*, as they pertain to our conversation, is not the same as "playing". You play catch. It has no goal, no rules. Baseball has rules and goals that players abide by and strive to achieve, respectfully. It also can not have a predictable winner. Lets play a game... it's called "The person on these forums named Gallus85 wins"... Oh I win! That's not a game either.
-There's no challenge in MMORPGs because they're predictable. Even EQ's dungeons were predictable and non-challenging. They had a gear/level check, and followed the same predictable patterns, in accordance with agro based game play. Once you learned how to pull mobs, or had a monk pull so he can FD bad pulls, It was predictable and was generally not challenging by any means. It was a time sink. A grind. The only difficult part was staying awake at the keyboard.
-You can add challenge by creating a combat system like GW2, where everyone has to be on their toes. The mobs are more realistic, they attack different players and you have to dodge their big attacks at the right time. Taking away the threat system made players react to unpredictable AI and forced team work and cooperation.
-You can also have a Combat system much like GW2, but with my rigid roles. Instead of tanks simply AOE taunting or forcing agro from single mob on himself, you can make it so the tank is a protector. He can bash, stun, and knock back mobs that are on the soft characters. He can use an emergency skill that forces the monster to engage him for a short timed duration.
-CC classes can help controlling mobs in these situations. DPS characters can focus on big damage and healers have to be on their toes to heal the correct people who need it. You can have an unpredictable, challenging and rewarding combat system, with no agro, and still keep class roles as an important and viable part of group formations.
I'm sorry, why should I be fired if I worked at SOE? Because I feel that old systems of unrealistic combat that have been rehashed a million times since 1999 should be reworked and improved? Give me a break.
Spoiler, there are no solutions without breaking down and rebuilding the role system from the ground up. i
GW2 system of no true agro management, unpredictable, realistic fighting AI and combined with a more rigid role system.
Tanks in combat
Does some damage, On par or slightly more than healers, less than DPS classes
The ability to take mitigated damage from mobs striking them. (Block, Parry)
Abilities to take heat off other party members. /Knockback Kick. /Stunning Shield Bad. /Paladin Protection Bubble on Ally. /Shadowknight Fear. /Temp Forced Snap Agro (After timer AI of mob returns to normal). etc
Healer
Some damage, on par or less than tanks, less than DPS classes
Heals players
Can cast protection skills on self/allies (temp invul, short duration increased mit bubble, etc)
DPS Melee
Does lots of damage.
Has some forms of evasion or ways to avoid damage (Bard stun, Ranger sword parry, Rogue smoke bomb/stealth, Monk defense stance)
DPS Caster
Lots of damage
Some defensive abilities (Blink away from the enemy, Levitate CC, Fear CC, Push Mob away, Magic Barrier, Mez, etc)
+
I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn!
Look at that, game has GW2 style no agro system + roles that make sense. People get rigid class roles they want and more realistic, less predictable, skill based combat to add Challenge.
-I'm not making anything up. Take any class on game theory, video game design, video game development or anything similar and you will learn the nuances of what it means to create a game*, and what aspects are needed for Game Play.
Written language always has multiple meanings for words. For example, if I say "Our theory for the cause of death is homicide" it is completely different in meaning than a scientist who says "This is the theory of gravity". One is a declaration of a presupposition. One is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
Games*, as they pertain to our conversation, is not the same as "playing". You play catch. It has no goal, no rules. Baseball has rules and goals that players abide by and strive to achieve, respectfully. It also can not have a predictable winner. Lets play a game... it's called "The person on these forums named Gallus85 wins"... Oh I win! That's not a game either.
-There's no challenge in MMORPGs because they're predictable. Even EQ's dungeons were predictable and non-challenging. They had a gear/level check, and followed the same predictable patterns, in accordance with agro based game play. Once you learned how to pull mobs, or had a monk pull so he can FD bad pulls, It was predictable and was generally not challenging by any means. It was a time sink. A grind. The only difficult part was staying awake at the keyboard.
-You can add challenge by creating a combat system like GW2, where everyone has to be on their toes. The mobs are more realistic, they attack different players and you have to dodge their big attacks at the right time. Taking away the threat system made players react to unpredictable AI and forced team work and cooperation.
-You can also have a Combat system much like GW2, but with my rigid roles. Instead of tanks simply AOE taunting or forcing agro from single mob on himself, you can make it so the tank is a protector. He can bash, stun, and knock back mobs that are on the soft characters. He can use an emergency skill that forces the monster to engage him for a short timed duration.
-CC classes can help controlling mobs in these situations. DPS characters can focus on big damage and healers have to be on their toes to heal the correct people who need it. You can have an unpredictable, challenging and rewarding combat system, with no agro, and still keep class roles as an important and viable part of group formations.
I'm sorry, why should I be fired if I worked at SOE? Because I feel that old systems of unrealistic combat that have been rehashed a million times since 1999 should be reworked and improved? Give me a break.
I've defined a game, as you referred to the definition of a "game" and said that it wasn't a game anymore when it was too easy. I think you're trying to define a "Good Game", which is a much more specific subsection of a game. The game design classes will try to help you figure out how to make a good game, but you're too quickly dismissing things as not being a game at all and I think that's where we're disagreeing.
"There's no challenge in MMORPGs because they're predictable." that's a generalization. MMORPGs can be challenging while also completely predictable.
The description of a game where you have to be on your toes doesn't sound like much fun. I played Neverwinter, where that was the case, and I didn't enjoy it. I can see where some people might enjoy it.
I think this whole conversation comes down to this: There are multiple play styles. That is, some people enjoy certain things that other people hate and vice-versa. I pretty much hate everything you describe and you hate everything I describe? (or you hate that I hate what you describe.) Agreed?
You're acting like you know exactly how EQN will be, not just on this forum post but on other forum posts as well. I can come to the conclusion that either you're making unfounded assumptions, or you actually know these things because you work at SOE. If you worked at SOE then you should be fired for breaching contract and talking about the game. This has nothing to do with how valid your arguements are, just that they are unfounded assumptions. You really know how to read things out of context, I'll give you that.
I've defined a game, as you referred to the definition of a "game" and said that it wasn't a game anymore when it was too easy.
Incorrect. There's a difference between a pre-determined outcome and "easy". I already gave you examples and explained why you're using an incorrect term for game. You're equating "playing" with "game", they are two different things.
SimCity is not a game. It has no goal. It's a tool set, a sandbox, that you play with. You can make your own game with it (I want to have a city with 1 million population and no traffic jams) or (I want to make a small coal mining town that looks like where my grandfather grew up)
Just as you can take a ball and some bats and make a game out of them (baseball), but a ball or a bat by itself is not a game. Throwing a ball back and forth with no rules or goals is not a game. It's playing, just as twirling a pencil in your hand is not a game. It's playing.
I don't make assumptions. I'm telling you about reality.
Also, you can* have an agro system, and make it unpredictable. Tera touches on this a little bit. A tank is in charge of holding a boss mob and "tanking" it, but the mob will randomly spin around and damage/knock people down. Or shoot fireballs to the side and damage the ranged players, etc. All players are still expected to pay attention to combat, dodge attacks/spells and avoid death, even with a tank using a traditional agro system.
I would say it's a bare minimum system, but it works well enough to bring a little* realism to big fights while still having an agro system.
Bottom line, EQN is being made with the PS4 in mind, you can count on that. If you think you're going to get some tab target number/agro game on August 2nd, you might just want to bring a box of tissues.
i love the system used in GW2, it just needs to have more work put into it to be a better system. I prefer that over the aggro system, but EQN is a traditional mmo and i dont see why would they change their traditional roots for newer systems stuff (which is sad) but yeah. Id love to see more companies move away from all (or most) of the traditional mechanics. Specially the aggro mechanic.
Originally posted by rojo6934 i love the system used in GW2, it just needs to have more work put into it to be a better system. I prefer that over the aggro system, but EQN is a traditional mmo and i dont see why would they change their traditional roots for newer systems stuff (which is sad) but yeah. Id love to see more companies stepping aside from all (or most) of the traditional mechanics. Specially the aggro mechanic.
EQN is being designed with next gen combat and the PS4 in mind.
Expect something similar to Neverwinter, GW2, Tera, Skyrim, come August 2nd.
Originally posted by rojo6934 i love the system used in GW2, it just needs to have more work put into it to be a better system. I prefer that over the aggro system, but EQN is a traditional mmo and i dont see why would they change their traditional roots for newer systems stuff (which is sad) but yeah. Id love to see more companies stepping aside from all (or most) of the traditional mechanics. Specially the aggro mechanic.
EQN is being designed with next gen combat and the PS4 in mind.
Expect something similar to Neverwinter, GW2, Tera, Skyrim, come August 2nd.
its not a deal breaker to me, but its an old system that really needs to take a break, and allow better and fresher mechanics to flourish. Lets see whats up on august 2nd. Maybe you are right, who knows.
GW2 combat is garbage. You can do 99% of the stuff by just mashing your skills on cooldown (and yes I have done it). MMOs need roles but they could stand to change the aggro system a little.
Originally posted by Masterfuzzfuzz GW2 combat is garbage. You can do 99% of the stuff by just mashing your skills on cooldown (and yes I have done it). MMOs need roles but they could stand to change the aggro system a little.
Name one combat system as good or better than GW2.
Originally posted by Masterfuzzfuzz GW2 combat is garbage. You can do 99% of the stuff by just mashing your skills on cooldown (and yes I have done it). MMOs need roles but they could stand to change the aggro system a little.
Name one combat system as good or better than GW2.
[mod edit]
Originally posted by Gallus85
Originally posted by rojo6934 i love the system used in GW2, it just needs to have more work put into it to be a better system. I prefer that over the aggro system, but EQN is a traditional mmo and i dont see why would they change their traditional roots for newer systems stuff (which is sad) but yeah. Id love to see more companies stepping aside from all (or most) of the traditional mechanics. Specially the aggro mechanic.
EQN is being designed with next gen combat and the PS4 in mind.
Expect something similar to Neverwinter, GW2, Tera, Skyrim, come August 2nd.
[mod edit]
GW2 is a great game and one of the few MMORPGs to make a combat system that was difficult past staying awake at the keyboard.
I was just comparing combat systems. Expect something similar to Neverwinter, Skyrim, GW2, Tera, etc.... for EQN.
The game itself will be quite different in many aspects though outside of that.
Remember your words when August 2nd comes around :P
I think you'll see that most/all of what I have said will not have been "assumptions". And for good reason.
I don't make assumptions. I'm telling you about reality.
I'd really like to know where you got your information, since I'm pretty sure that I've read, watched and listened to everything that has been released about EQN.
I'm still assuming all of your assumptions are unfounded until you can provide some evidence that didn't originate inside your own head. Can you even differentiate any more between something that you've assumed and something that you've actually heard? I'm doubting it.
I will log into EQN, set my target with tab and laugh to myself about how you were so wrong. (You see what I'm doing here? I'm making an unfounded assumption, just like you do all the time. Stating fact like this is pretty hard to disprove if you don't cite a source, isn't it?)
Comments
The community didn't leave. The standard amount of drop off happened as people went to try other games. The holiday content and the story line continuation content that they add in was promoted as a planned part of the game before the game even launched. It does work to bring some people back, but the point of the content is to keep the players there happy with new stuff to work on and experience. The steady player base that reaches close to a million active players. Hardly anything to gawk at.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Thats not completly true.
A big part of the community left once Anet started to pull their FoTM shenanigans.
I and obviously many other posters on this forum left for a myriad of reasons.
Perhaps we weren't part of the community? :shock:
I've been keeping up with the thread and I often see you say things like: Old systems, learn to adapt etc.
Wich is fine, but what do you propose then?
I already asked you but you decided to ignore that in favour of keeping the talk focused on defending GW2.
We already established that collision blocking is a no go.
A hate system could work but that will lead us to spamville. You can not deny that group combat in GW2 is an AoE spam fest. Where only the very few actually try to set up combo fields. And I don't care that the majority was to dumb to understand their class/role as you claim.
So what kind of system could replace aggro?
Of course he can deny it. He's been denying everything relating to that game. The game is good and has a lot of great things, but dungeons/hate system/storyline are not one of those things.
I mean I stopped listening when I heard him trying to defend the level 30 dungeon at launch as being a case where players needed to L2P. Seriously how crazed fanboy can you get? lol just wow.
Ya the collusion thing wasn't my idea nor did anyone establish that it was a no go. It is certainly more reasonable than the taunt button / agro management system of trinity based games so far.
GW2 was not a spam fest. There were clear benefits from understanding the mechanics of the game, and using the right abilities at the right time and having different specced people in the group, just as there are clear benefits from having a healer, tank, dps,support and CC people in your group in EQ, EQ2, Aion, etc...
The fact that people were able to fumble through some* dungeons, downing and dying and zerg rushing and running around kiting mobs in the most unorganized and sloppy way possible does not mean there was an issue with GW2's system. Just means people didn't take the time to learn the mechanics and make life easier on them and learn how to do the harder dungeons (Good luck doing high lvl FoTM or Arah with just a buncha kiting / fumbling around / no role coordination. I bet it would not even be close to fun. It's no different than a group in EQ saying "Hey, we don't need CC and a tank going into this dungeon, we'll just work with what we got...." There are many times in EQ where you didn't have all the classes needed for something and you just fumbled through the dungeon. The difference is that GW2 doesn't make roles so apparent and clear cut. But it happened in both games.
My personal suggestion? It would be a system where tanks are defenders of the group. All Mobs don't just walk up and stick to them the whole fight just because he pushed an AOE taunt button. Tanks would shield bash, kick, knock back, stun and tackle mobs that are attacking the group's softer classes. Maybe these attacks get the monster's attention for a temporary moment, Maybe there is a system where the tank can choose to engage and hold a single mob's attention for a prolonged period of time, but encounters would not be 1 mob VS 6 players. It would be hoards of monsters attacking players of the group.
This kind of system would simulate more realistic battles. Encounters in the game would be frantic, action packed and no class would be safe.
To combat this, each class would need defensive and reactive abilities.
Archers would need to switch quickly to melee weapons and focus on timing parries and dodging attacks.
Rogues would have to parry, blind and stun mobs to avoid taking damage. Stealthing away from combat and then jumping back into the battle when the mob's attention turns to another companion.
Mages would make use of magical barriers, blinking away from enemies, blocking with their staff, using magic spells to push, CC, stun, etc.
In this system combat would be more realistic. It wouldn't devolve into illogical battles where 1 monster attacks the least vulnerable person over and over again while 5 other people spam damage and heal the "tank" like in older games.
There's a reason why PVP and PVE are completely different games. Because the taunt system is unrealistic. Any attacker with common sense is not going to keep spamming attacks onto a player who is taking extremely mitigated damage and getting spam healed, when there are much more vulnerable enemies around.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
That sounds like the worst thing I've ever heard of. Just awful. If you can't predict how the game will probably behave and attempt to exercise some amount of control over it then you aren't really playing a game, you're just watching a movie.
Monster AI should be factored into threat algorithms so that certain monsters will gain more hatred from healing whereas others will go after the highest DPS or whomever appears to be the lightest armored. Some monsters may be able to detect stealth and especially hate people sneaking around or stabbing them in the back.
These things would make a fight more interesting, but it should always be learnable and repeatable the next time. If I go into a fight and all the rogues quickly die because the tank can't taunt off them then I should be able to learn that this monster does that. Next time I go to fight that monster someone will say: "Hey guys, don't get behind him - he hates that." or "don't shoot fireballs; stick to ice" or some such thing.
It should never be random.
Not accurate in accordance to what a game is by definition. It doesn't have to be predictable. In fact, the best games are unpredictable.
Think more to PVP. It's random, with logic. You can never know for sure what another player is going to do, but you can have some idea. Reacting quickly to the unpredictable is a trademark of a good gamer.
If a game becomes predictable, it becomes boring. That's a fact.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I hate PVP. If PVE was like PVP then I wouldn't play it. A lot of people wouldn't play it. And game companies would come out with games with PVE what was not like PVP and they would have a lot of paying customers for these games.
Not everyone is a good gamer. Making a game totally unpredictable is going to make the game not much fun for those people who aren't gamers, who will then cease playing the game.
Needing to be able to react quickly to everything will also alienate all of the otherwise good gamers without a top of the line internet connection.
I don't believe predictability makes a game boring all by itself. Its when a game is predictable and easy that it becomes boring. A game that is predictable and challenging remains fun.
Strawberry ice cream is green. That's a fact... supported by no evidence at all.
"That's a fact." - One of the most illogical arguements or support statements that can be made. Try making a reference to actual supporting facts. I shouldn't have to teach people how to debate on a forum, but to argue against them I do have to point out how illogical your arguements are if you insist on using them.
My point is that if PVE was realistic, it would look like PVP.
No good game is predictable. If it does become predictable, it becomes boring / useless to play. Let me give you an example.
Chess. There are huge amounts of possible moves a player can make each game. It's unpredictable. There are things you can expect, but you never know exactly what you're opponent is going to throw at you. However, if I played 100 games of chess with you, and did the same exact moves every single game, would you want to play chess with me?
What if I gave you a piece of paper that laid out every single move I was going to make before we even started. Eventually you learn how to "beat me", and then I never change, and never do anything different. I do the same moves and do the same actions every single time we play. Eventually you get to the point where you know* that victory is yours before we even start.
And by definition this is not even a game at this point.
That is exactly what agro-based trinity games turn into. It's exactly why it needs to change.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
If PVE were realistic then it would NOT look like PVP. The whole reason that the player can win 100 times in a row is because that player is a hero. He's the guy that everyone asks to do stuff because they can't do it themselves because they are not heroic.
If PVP were realistic it would look a lot more like PVE. There would be a hundred guys running around that you could one-shot for every hero that was an actual challenge. Or you'd be one of the bottom 99% and you'd just be one-shotted by the hero as he ran past you... though most PVP already feels that way to me anyway.
I wouldn't want to play chess with you no matter what moves you did. Its boring. And its PVP. Already stated I hated PVP.
No challenging fight in any MMO is 100% predictable. If the DPS goes too hard or the tank isn't taunting or healing isn't sufficient then things become very unpredictable. When they do people die and groups wipe. If your fight isn't challenging anymore then it may not be fun anymore. But that isn't because of the predictability factor; its because it isn't challenging.
If you could PVP and one-shot everyone all the time and never died then it wouldn't be fun, not because the other people were any less predictable, but because they were no challenge.
"Game" has ten definitions. The first one I found was: " An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime." Different people are amused by different things. I was very much amused by taking a high level character and kicking the snot out of every monster in a dungeon at the same time even though the process and results were very predictable.
I'll agree that anything that is 100% predictable isn't fun all the time. The game does need to venture somewhere into the gray area of unpredictablilty. I do NOT think that removing the threat system is the way to do that.
Maybe you're looking for a game where the entire game is completely unpredictable. Maybe you're looking for a PVP-only game. They're out there for you; please don't think that ruining PVE is the way to make your game fun.
You gave the definition of playing. Not a game.
A game is not a game unless: It has rules that other players must follow. A goal. And has an unpredictable winner.
If any of these are not present, it is not a game. It is playing, killing time, a pastime, etc. Which are fine, but it's not a game.
Having fun does not make something a game. I might have fun programming code. That does not make it a game.
Your idea of a good combat system. Your "If Dps goes to hard...." example. Is predictable. You can gauge your actions and know what the AI enemy is going to do. That's why no one hardly wipes in MMORPGs any more. You just find a skill rotation, a taunt/agro rotation, a heal rotation, that works, and it works 99.9999% of the time, wash rinse and repeat.
Dungeons become predictable. They're not a matter of "Oh no, this is a dangerous dungeon, I wonder if we'll survive this time". Instead, MMORPG dungeons have become "How long is this going to take before I win?"
Same with raids, in agro-based games they are simply a series of trials and error. The harder "raids" just require learning more steps. But once you learn the steps, and have the gear to withstand the gear-check, the trinity/agro systems of old in a raid scenario become nothing more than a glorified game of Simon-Says.
You repeat the same pattern and win. After a few successful raids, it's not even a game any more. It becomes "Farm status". Everyone repeats the same, predictable, pattern of steps and opens their loot pinata.
Then you see something break from that mold a little bit (GW2), and people lose their minds. The caster who decided to not pay attention, who is wearing a dress and slotted zero defensive skills/traits gets wiped the moment a monster lays eyes on him. And then the system gets criticized.
Bottom line.
Expect to be out of your comfort zone on August 2nd.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I gave the first definition of a game, as listed on thefreedictionary.com. I can't find any definition of the word game where it says that it has to be unpredictable, so now I feel like you're just making stuff up.
Facebook is full of games. All of them are VERY predictable. There's literally no randomness in some of them. And yet they are still games, with millions of players who would disagree with your definition of "Game". You can also "Play a game of catch" which doesn't even have a winner.
"That's why no one hardly wipes in MMORPGs any more" - NO. Its because there's no CHALLENGE.
If the dungeon is just a question of how long till you win, then its because there's no CHALLENGE. Drop to two characters in the group and do it again on heroic and you'll start to question if you're going to win because suddenly there's challenge. Its like you're ignoring me. How many times do I need to repeat that?
Something doesn't stop being a game just because it becomes easy to you. Its still a game, its just not a fun game.
"Bottom Line" What's the bottom line? This is an incomplete sentence and not really attached to any other statement. You totally won this arguement with that illogical mess; might as well follow up with your victory gloating.
"Expect to be out of your comfort zone on August 2nd." AND THERE IT IS. You're acting like you already know how EQN combat will be. If you're working for SOE then you should be fired. If you're anyone else then you're a liar.
The real question STILL remains as to how removing the threat system from an MMO actually improves the gameplay.
Imagine a fight with no threat system. Someone pulls. It doesn't matter who, because it won't keep hitting them anyway. You can DPS as hard as you want; it doesn't matter because you can't affect what the monster is going to do. The monster randomly switches targets. The party might survive only because the damage was spread around so evenly. Or maybe some of the squishier party members die. Or maybe nobody dies because they've all equipped appropriate defensive gear which basically means that every single member of the party is THE SAME despite any attempts to be different and special. That sounds horrible to me.
Why don't you describe to me what an ideal combat would be like for you?
These debates on a better solution for mob AI and the aggro system are older than the genre itself.
Aggro is simply a rule that allows a mob to select a target that players and enemies can change during combat. When you force mobs to circumvent that aggro generating mechanic, you essentially remove the tank role from the RPG, and break down the role system as a whole.
What many of you don't seem to understand, is that RPG AI is always (and should always be) limited to a system thats conducive to the role system that the RPG is founded on. Aggro is a concept that goes back to pen and paper rpgs, and was created to be a system of logic to allow each player class to play their part or role in the game. The system is contingent upon an aggressive tank role that blocks, distracts or overpowers enemies in order for the other roles to perform their duties.
Using the chaos of PvP to undermine the established logic found in PvE simply breaks the laws or principles the fantasy RPG was founded on. The simple fact of the matter is, tanks should be able to aggro players or at least shift their target and focus in PvP as they do in PvE. Thats not to say there aren't more intelligent forms of AI that would work in another system, but not the classic role based RPG.
When you talk about replacing agro, the next conclusion you will come to will always be that you need to fundamentally change the way each role works, along with many changes in the way gameplay works as well. If you haven't figured that out yet, keep thinking it through.
Here are some blogs I found when searching for solutions to agro in the fantasy rpg (which I knew didn't exist). Spoiler, there are no solutions without breaking down and rebuilding the role system from the ground up.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BartStewart/20090902/2908/An_Alternative_to_Aggro.php
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DaveMark/20090906/2942/AI_and_MMOs%20__The_Controver#comment29512
The best part of these blogs are the comments at the bottom. According to their own admissions the authors of the blogs did not find a way to "replace agro", though they did think of some interesting ways to enhance it. Comments of Lee Cummings and Bart Stewart are especially informative.
-I'm not making anything up. Take any class on game theory, video game design, video game development or anything similar and you will learn the nuances of what it means to create a game*, and what aspects are needed for Game Play.
Written language always has multiple meanings for words. For example, if I say "Our theory for the cause of death is homicide" it is completely different in meaning than a scientist who says "This is the theory of gravity". One is a declaration of a presupposition. One is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
Games*, as they pertain to our conversation, is not the same as "playing". You play catch. It has no goal, no rules. Baseball has rules and goals that players abide by and strive to achieve, respectfully. It also can not have a predictable winner. Lets play a game... it's called "The person on these forums named Gallus85 wins"... Oh I win! That's not a game either.
-There's no challenge in MMORPGs because they're predictable. Even EQ's dungeons were predictable and non-challenging. They had a gear/level check, and followed the same predictable patterns, in accordance with agro based game play. Once you learned how to pull mobs, or had a monk pull so he can FD bad pulls, It was predictable and was generally not challenging by any means. It was a time sink. A grind. The only difficult part was staying awake at the keyboard.
-You can add challenge by creating a combat system like GW2, where everyone has to be on their toes. The mobs are more realistic, they attack different players and you have to dodge their big attacks at the right time. Taking away the threat system made players react to unpredictable AI and forced team work and cooperation.
-You can also have a Combat system much like GW2, but with my rigid roles. Instead of tanks simply AOE taunting or forcing agro from single mob on himself, you can make it so the tank is a protector. He can bash, stun, and knock back mobs that are on the soft characters. He can use an emergency skill that forces the monster to engage him for a short timed duration.
-CC classes can help controlling mobs in these situations. DPS characters can focus on big damage and healers have to be on their toes to heal the correct people who need it. You can have an unpredictable, challenging and rewarding combat system, with no agro, and still keep class roles as an important and viable part of group formations.
I'm sorry, why should I be fired if I worked at SOE? Because I feel that old systems of unrealistic combat that have been rehashed a million times since 1999 should be reworked and improved? Give me a break.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
GW2 system of no true agro management, unpredictable, realistic fighting AI and combined with a more rigid role system.
Tanks in combat
Does some damage, On par or slightly more than healers, less than DPS classes
The ability to take mitigated damage from mobs striking them. (Block, Parry)
Abilities to take heat off other party members. /Knockback Kick. /Stunning Shield Bad. /Paladin Protection Bubble on Ally. /Shadowknight Fear. /Temp Forced Snap Agro (After timer AI of mob returns to normal). etc
Healer
Some damage, on par or less than tanks, less than DPS classes
Heals players
Can cast protection skills on self/allies (temp invul, short duration increased mit bubble, etc)
DPS Melee
Does lots of damage.
Has some forms of evasion or ways to avoid damage (Bard stun, Ranger sword parry, Rogue smoke bomb/stealth, Monk defense stance)
DPS Caster
Lots of damage
Some defensive abilities (Blink away from the enemy, Levitate CC, Fear CC, Push Mob away, Magic Barrier, Mez, etc)
+
I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn!
Look at that, game has GW2 style no agro system + roles that make sense. People get rigid class roles they want and more realistic, less predictable, skill based combat to add Challenge.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I've defined a game, as you referred to the definition of a "game" and said that it wasn't a game anymore when it was too easy. I think you're trying to define a "Good Game", which is a much more specific subsection of a game. The game design classes will try to help you figure out how to make a good game, but you're too quickly dismissing things as not being a game at all and I think that's where we're disagreeing.
"There's no challenge in MMORPGs because they're predictable." that's a generalization. MMORPGs can be challenging while also completely predictable.
The description of a game where you have to be on your toes doesn't sound like much fun. I played Neverwinter, where that was the case, and I didn't enjoy it. I can see where some people might enjoy it.
I think this whole conversation comes down to this: There are multiple play styles. That is, some people enjoy certain things that other people hate and vice-versa. I pretty much hate everything you describe and you hate everything I describe? (or you hate that I hate what you describe.) Agreed?
You're acting like you know exactly how EQN will be, not just on this forum post but on other forum posts as well. I can come to the conclusion that either you're making unfounded assumptions, or you actually know these things because you work at SOE. If you worked at SOE then you should be fired for breaching contract and talking about the game. This has nothing to do with how valid your arguements are, just that they are unfounded assumptions. You really know how to read things out of context, I'll give you that.
Incorrect. There's a difference between a pre-determined outcome and "easy". I already gave you examples and explained why you're using an incorrect term for game. You're equating "playing" with "game", they are two different things.
SimCity is not a game. It has no goal. It's a tool set, a sandbox, that you play with. You can make your own game with it (I want to have a city with 1 million population and no traffic jams) or (I want to make a small coal mining town that looks like where my grandfather grew up)
Just as you can take a ball and some bats and make a game out of them (baseball), but a ball or a bat by itself is not a game. Throwing a ball back and forth with no rules or goals is not a game. It's playing, just as twirling a pencil in your hand is not a game. It's playing.
I don't make assumptions. I'm telling you about reality.
Also, you can* have an agro system, and make it unpredictable. Tera touches on this a little bit. A tank is in charge of holding a boss mob and "tanking" it, but the mob will randomly spin around and damage/knock people down. Or shoot fireballs to the side and damage the ranged players, etc. All players are still expected to pay attention to combat, dodge attacks/spells and avoid death, even with a tank using a traditional agro system.
I would say it's a bare minimum system, but it works well enough to bring a little* realism to big fights while still having an agro system.
Bottom line, EQN is being made with the PS4 in mind, you can count on that. If you think you're going to get some tab target number/agro game on August 2nd, you might just want to bring a box of tissues.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
EQN is being designed with next gen combat and the PS4 in mind.
Expect something similar to Neverwinter, GW2, Tera, Skyrim, come August 2nd.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
its not a deal breaker to me, but its an old system that really needs to take a break, and allow better and fresher mechanics to flourish. Lets see whats up on august 2nd. Maybe you are right, who knows.
Name one combat system as good or better than GW2.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
GW2 is a great game and one of the few MMORPGs to make a combat system that was difficult past staying awake at the keyboard.
I was just comparing combat systems. Expect something similar to Neverwinter, Skyrim, GW2, Tera, etc.... for EQN.
The game itself will be quite different in many aspects though outside of that.
Remember your words when August 2nd comes around :P
I think you'll see that most/all of what I have said will not have been "assumptions". And for good reason.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I'd really like to know where you got your information, since I'm pretty sure that I've read, watched and listened to everything that has been released about EQN.
I'm still assuming all of your assumptions are unfounded until you can provide some evidence that didn't originate inside your own head. Can you even differentiate any more between something that you've assumed and something that you've actually heard? I'm doubting it.
I will log into EQN, set my target with tab and laugh to myself about how you were so wrong. (You see what I'm doing here? I'm making an unfounded assumption, just like you do all the time. Stating fact like this is pretty hard to disprove if you don't cite a source, isn't it?)
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring