A tank, as it is classified in gaming, after all, is any character that specializes in absorbing damage by forcing foes to attack it.
Get rid of the arbitrary criteria added at the end and you're spot on!
Is it arbitrary? MMO players don't normally think about it, as they are traditionally inclined to take that as a given. Tanks in most games tend to have taunts and/or threat generation, which, if used properly, essentially force the attention of PvE foes.
The criteria was actually added when it became apparent that tank was not a universal role - namely in PvP, and primarily in the MOBA genre, where anything without a taunt can only be called a tank or an off-tank as flavor. This is less necessary in Smite, where everything is a skill shot anyway, but in most competitive games, a high-durability "damage-absorber" can't actually perform the role of damage absorbing without forcing enemy attention. As such, they tend to be cc-fountains and fight starters - initiators.
A tank, as it is classified in gaming, after all, is any character that specializes in absorbing damage by forcing foes to attack it.
Get rid of the arbitrary criteria added at the end and you're spot on!
Aggro manipulation is quite central to the role, I think. The ability to take a hit is secondary.
The original term people used was 'meat shield'. Older games - pen and paper, MUDs, earlier MMOs - had positioning and/or collision detection. "Aggro" didn't exist in many RPGs, only later popularized by dikuMUD and EQ. The tank formed a physical wall between the enemy and the rest of the group. The tank absorbs damage. This can be achieve several ways, the two most popular being physically blocking and 'aggro' manipulation, that latter pretty much relegated to MMOs.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Nice thread Aeander. Well thought out. I do agree is time for the tired trinity to evolve as is time for the npc/mob/boss to evolve. Much of what you offer is a refreshing change of pace from the many tired threads I have read that do a lot of complaining but with very little actual thinking about how this design might change.
DPS has gotten a bit out of control. How many times i have seen this because of some mysterious buff the raid team receives as they enter a raid. Actually rather strange and unnatural. When fighting bosses the damage numbers as well as the healing procs and crits are astronomical. Why? Because the boss of course is going to force the team to dance for the majority of the fight.
I have been in older mmo encounters where in truth it is the other way round. We as the raid team actually lost much of our power mainly or simply because the boss had greater armor. You had to move occasionally, but it wasn't some outrageous disco dance. Eventually, with perseverance the team might prevail. It was an archaic trinity model, but with a lot less outlandish dps numbers. Hell we didn't have parsing systems back in Lineage 2.
Movement as a teamwork system should feel much more natural as a group encounter progresses I should think. Possibly I suggest the days of "poo avoidance" should come to an end gradually. Boss and other mob type AI should be given scaling intelligence based on the depth of the fight.
We can hope,
Alyn
All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth John Lennon
A tank, as it is classified in gaming, after all, is any character that specializes in absorbing damage by forcing foes to attack it.
Get rid of the arbitrary criteria added at the end and you're spot on!
Aggro manipulation is quite central to the role, I think. The ability to take a hit is secondary.
The original term people used was 'meat shield'. Older games - pen and paper, MUDs, earlier MMOs - had positioning and/or collision detection. "Aggro" didn't exist in many RPGs, only later popularized by dikuMUD and EQ. The tank formed a physical wall between the enemy and the rest of the group. The tank absorbs damage. This can be achieve several ways, the two most popular being physically blocking and 'aggro' manipulation, that latter pretty much relegated to MMOs.
Come on... I know how front line fighters work outside aggro mechanics. Even if you don't have aggro, your main job is to obstruct, control, initiate, pressure. Your main job is not to absorb or avoid damage. It is entirely secondary even if it is common among front line fighters to do it well. Often you can get that additional toughness through allied buffs.
Looking from a highly optimized perspective, you need only have "just enough" defense. After that, you're only making yourself less attractive as a target (in PvP) and you don't want to do that. If you prioritize to your defense, you're doing it wrong (and many do).
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
GW2 taught me that I like the trinity. Having more positions would be okay, like crowd control and buffs, but sometimes having more classes makes it hard to get groups or form raids.
I certainly would be open to trying any system. It's hard to read about it and imagine whether or not it would work well.
Originally posted by Aeander A tank, as it is classified in gaming, after all, is any character that specializes in absorbing damage by forcing foes to attack it.
Get rid of the arbitrary criteria added at the end and you're spot on!
Aggro manipulation is quite central to the role, I think. The ability to take a hit is secondary.
The original term people used was 'meat shield'. Older games - pen and paper, MUDs, earlier MMOs - had positioning and/or collision detection. "Aggro" didn't exist in many RPGs, only later popularized by dikuMUD and EQ. The tank formed a physical wall between the enemy and the rest of the group. The tank absorbs damage. This can be achieve several ways, the two most popular being physically blocking and 'aggro' manipulation, that latter pretty much relegated to MMOs.
I agree. The "aggro tables" used is a strange mechanic, to me. Positioning is the key to tanking. I was kind of hoping for that with action or turn based combat, but have not really seen it well implemented.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Horusra Crowd control is great in pve, but leads to whine in pvp.
That is the hitch, isn't it? Also, the classic "Tank" roll does not work in PvP where players decide who to attack instead of a threat table.
Just had a thought. If other game actions (charm, blind, mesmerize, sleep, fear) can control another player's actions; why can't taunt? A successful taunt should force the target to attack the taunter for a specified amount of time.
You could also implement things like push, pull, etc; actions that move the target. Be fun to push them off a bridge, right?
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by Horusra Crowd control is great in pve, but leads to whine in pvp.
That is the hitch, isn't it? Also, the classic "Tank" roll does not work in PvP where players decide who to attack instead of a threat table.
Just had a thought. If other game actions (charm, blind, mesmerize, sleep, fear) can control another player's actions; why can't taunt? A successful taunt should force the target to attack the taunter for a specified amount of time.
You could also implement things like push, pull, etc; actions that move the target. Be fun to push them off a bridge, right?
We've already seen this in some games. Though it certainly is a wonder why there are so few mmos with taunts that work on players as crowd control. It's not exactly a gamebreaking form of cc. Even in games with long-duration taunts, all the developers would need to do is reduce the duration against players.
Originally posted by Horusra Crowd control is great in pve, but leads to whine in pvp.
That is the hitch, isn't it? Also, the classic "Tank" roll does not work in PvP where players decide who to attack instead of a threat table.
Just had a thought. If other game actions (charm, blind, mesmerize, sleep, fear) can control another player's actions; why can't taunt? A successful taunt should force the target to attack the taunter for a specified amount of time.
You could also implement things like push, pull, etc; actions that move the target. Be fun to push them off a bridge, right?
We've already seen this in some games. Though it certainly is a wonder why there are so few mmos with taunts that work on players as crowd control. It's not exactly a gamebreaking form of cc. Even in games with long-duration taunts, all the developers would need to do is reduce the duration against players.
Tanks don't belong in PVP. You would have to balance their immense HP advantage with a similar debuff that is equally annoying. I liken it to the Paladins bubble in WoW... once it could be dispelled, it was literally a useless ability, but before then, a Paladin was immune to all damage but could stick whack-a-mole on you. That sort of ability is ridiculous in PVP but has a purpose in PVE. Hence why you can't have PVE and PVP roles that are the same. To make it fair in PVP, you gimp them in PVE and vice-versa.
^^ pve and pvp can be in the same game as long as gear and skills are specific to each area.
For me I like the idea of dedicated healer-healer/ glass cannon dps/heavy crowd controller/ controller-dps/controller-healer. Get rid of tanks, outdated concept.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I much, much, much prefer the City of Heroes trinity of Crowd Control, Support, Damage. I can only think of one fight in the game actually needed a tank (Arachnos in the Statesman TF); for pretty much everything else in the game, you could get by with various combinations, though having at least one from all three was generally easier.
I loved CoH as well as IMO it allowed us to have many types of groups.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
i can't agree more, people love roles, even in GuildWars2 without the holy trinity, casual players define their own roles and you can see a great variety but its problem is the lack of mesh collision. i see videos from BlackDesertOnline and i hope it wont end on a missed opportunity. there exist mesh collision and there is no healer but different ways to deliver damage or avoid damage, so the roles are defined by their position on the area: players with shields creating a true shield wall, others with leaps getting into the enemy crowd for massive aoe attacks and rangers for flanking attacks and yet we havent seen all the classes.
i believe we have the technologies to copy the medieval warfare or ancient times and create big maps like northern Italy in order to replicate again the renaissance wars between the city states of northern italy or the peloponnesean civil war between the greeks, both occasions had politics and wars. into these wars we saw roles the cavalry, the infantry man and the rangers and every one of these roles had their own variations ...
anyway i want to say that i would like to see roles inspired by real warfare and not those childish fantasies.
also something i loved in GuildWars2 is that every class would be able to act ion every role, the sad part is that the PvE was only about fast damage deal so every role died ... at least in WvW or sPvP its different and dont listen the trolls who talk about zerg fights.
anyway i want to say that i would like to see roles inspired by real warfare and not those childish fantasies.
"Childish" fantasies?
Seems to me like you grossly under-credit the value of fantasy. Fantasy doesn't deny reality. It reflects it and comments on it. In fantasy, we see reflections of real-world politics, religion, and, in the best fantasy novels, often human nature in its many forms. Yes, it bends the rules and creates a new setting, but the ability of a fantasy writer to do so while still immersing their readers in something so foreign to their physical surroundings is nothing short of incredible.
And roles inspired by "childish" fantasy hold value. If they fit the setting and encourage teamwork through interesting means, it matters not what their inspiration is.
Offense, defense and support, that is how it should work, and that is how real combat always have been.
Using tanks ain't good enough except if you use body blocking mechanics, the opponents just get so dang retarded if you let people taunt them.
As for dedicated healers that is a mistake as well, a support role should be able to do more than just spam the heal button.
The most important thing for group mechanics is that you need to work together to bring down a powerful enemy, if you change roles during combat or not doesn't really matter for that. And MMO combat should be tactical, not just by using the right attacks but also with timing and positioning.
If you want to CC you should use traps, body blocking, shieldwalls, slowing the enemy down by hitting their legs and similar things since that forces players to actually think while they fight instead of just spamming a bunch of taunts.
anyway i want to say that i would like to see roles inspired by real warfare and not those childish fantasies.
"Childish" fantasies?
Seems to me like you grossly under-credit the value of fantasy. Fantasy doesn't deny reality. It reflects it and comments on it. In fantasy, we see reflections of real-world politics, religion, and, in the best fantasy novels, often human nature in its many forms. Yes, it bends the rules and creates a new setting, but the ability of a fantasy writer to do so while still immersing their readers in something so foreign to their physical surroundings is nothing short of incredible.
And roles inspired by "childish" fantasy hold value. If they fit the setting and encourage teamwork through interesting means, it matters not what their inspiration is.
Yes, that is true but the question is still if adding a bit more historical combat (that actually works) wouldn't add something interesting to the genre. MMO combat really needs to move away from skill rotations but so far have the so called "action combat" not really been good enough to replace the old system even if a few games have had a rather acceptable action combat.
Of course would stuff like magic (in the game settings were it exists) change some things but many others would be the same.
Many people seems to think that the more realistic combat gets the less fun but I think there can be many interesting compromises.
Offense, defense and support, that is how it should work, and that is how real combat always have been.
Using tanks ain't good enough except if you use body blocking mechanics, the opponents just get so dang retarded if you let people taunt them.
As for dedicated healers that is a mistake as well, a support role should be able to do more than just spam the heal button.
The most important thing for group mechanics is that you need to work together to bring down a powerful enemy, if you change roles during combat or not doesn't really matter for that. And MMO combat should be tactical, not just by using the right attacks but also with timing and positioning.
If you want to CC you should use traps, body blocking, shieldwalls, slowing the enemy down by hitting their legs and similar things since that forces players to actually think while they fight instead of just spamming a bunch of taunts.
This is what GW2 was trying to get at... the fact that every player should be equally responsible for all elements of a fight. The whole trinity thing means you just worry about one thing and one thing only... over simplifies things. People see non-trinity as chaotic because they still play like its trinity based, only now they seem themselves purely as a dps role. In other words, players don't like being tasked with more than one job. They either want to just heal, just tank, just dps... etc.
"I'm not picking that up, it's the vacuum cleaners' job"
Offense, defense and support, that is how it should work, and that is how real combat always have been.
Using tanks ain't good enough except if you use body blocking mechanics, the opponents just get so dang retarded if you let people taunt them.
As for dedicated healers that is a mistake as well, a support role should be able to do more than just spam the heal button.
The most important thing for group mechanics is that you need to work together to bring down a powerful enemy, if you change roles during combat or not doesn't really matter for that. And MMO combat should be tactical, not just by using the right attacks but also with timing and positioning.
If you want to CC you should use traps, body blocking, shieldwalls, slowing the enemy down by hitting their legs and similar things since that forces players to actually think while they fight instead of just spamming a bunch of taunts.
This is what GW2 was trying to get at... the fact that every player should be equally responsible for all elements of a fight. The whole trinity thing means you just worry about one thing and one thing only... over simplifies things. People see non-trinity as chaotic because they still play like its trinity based, only now they seem themselves purely as a dps role. In other words, players don't like being tasked with more than one job. They either want to just heal, just tank, just dps... etc.
"I'm not picking that up, it's the vacuum cleaners' job"
Yes, I do play but I think the group dynamics and timing still could be better. Switching between roles have an interesting potential, particularly between offense and defense makes the game more tactical but GW2 might be a little too simple.
Where you are as example matters little, things like standing on the higher ground and body blocking the opponent in the right place would add a new dimension to it.
Also they could put a little more focus on using the right skill at the right time and add more helpful things for the group.
anyway i want to say that i would like to see roles inspired by real warfare and not those childish fantasies.
"Childish" fantasies?
Seems to me like you grossly under-credit the value of fantasy. Fantasy doesn't deny reality. It reflects it and comments on it. In fantasy, we see reflections of real-world politics, religion, and, in the best fantasy novels, often human nature in its many forms. Yes, it bends the rules and creates a new setting, but the ability of a fantasy writer to do so while still immersing their readers in something so foreign to their physical surroundings is nothing short of incredible.
And roles inspired by "childish" fantasy hold value. If they fit the setting and encourage teamwork through interesting means, it matters not what their inspiration is.
Yes, that is true but the question is still if adding a bit more historical combat (that actually works) wouldn't add something interesting to the genre. MMO combat really needs to move away from skill rotations but so far have the so called "action combat" not really been good enough to replace the old system even if a few games have had a rather acceptable action combat.
Of course would stuff like magic (in the game settings were it exists) change some things but many others would be the same.
Many people seems to think that the more realistic combat gets the less fun but I think there can be many interesting compromises.
Yes, historical combat and historical settings would add something interesting to the genre. First and foremost, they'd add variety, as the genre is lacking in compelling historical titles. No doubt, if done well, roles and skills invented in these could also influence those in a fantasy setting.
As for action combat not living up to the hype, that is simply a matter of it being in the "beta" of its existence. We haven't had many of these titles, and we have yet to witness a fraction of what action combat systems are capable of.
I can tell you why action combat systems haven't been working.
First off - skills. A good skill system has nothing to do with the number of skills on a bar. The key words to a good skill system are specialization and variety. In action combat games, we've seen neither, as developers have felt the need to make up for the smaller skill bars with greater self-sufficiency and generalization in skill designs. The result, aside from class redundancy (in the worst case scenario), is that we not only have a limited number of skills to slot, but a low number of skills to choose from and little ability to specialize.
The second issue is, of course, content. Traditional MMO content is designed around traditional combat systems. Thus far, action combat games have also been built with traditional content, and the result is jarring and doesn't synergize. This isn't an issue that can easily be fixed, as it is one that is going to require more trial and error than anything.
The issue with the trinity is a measure of the way roles have evolved.
A tanks job in 90% of MMO's is to soak damage. They are the ones who are getting hit. Therefore in order to progress in their role they have to get better at it. This results over time in their health pools and mitigation getting bigger and better.
That's good, right?
Wrong. Bigger health pools and better mitigation mean that the mobs have to hit harder to create a challenge. Which results in ONLY tanks being able to take the hits. It creates an exclusivity and a dependency on that function.
It's the same way with heals.
A healer's job is to make the health bars full. It's a great role and it feels good to be that lynchpin that keeps the group alive, but then we have the same problem. They cast spells that make the health bars go in the opposite directions from what the mobs want. As the player progresses, their heals get better.
That's good, right?
Wrong. Bigger heals mean players have to take more damage in order for the healer to be challenged. This results in another exclusivity and a dependency as well, because when the healer isn't around, nobody's gonna live very long.
But where we really run into problems is the combination of the two.
When you have mobs hitting too hard for classes other than tanks to take their hits and when you have to have a healer casting constantly to keep even that tank alive, it means that any other class taking a hit is going to get pasted.
So now we have an enforced trinity.
So, say we change it. And we have obstructors instead of tanks with stuns and knockbacks and such. What's to stop a team from fielding a full group of obstructors and completely locking a boss mob down, trivializing the traditionally hardest content (the boss battle)?
This is why Boss Mobs are usually immune to CC in conventional MMO design.
How do we make combat interesting and still keep it challenging if we don't:
A) Let the players control the Boss
Let the players mitigate the majority of the damage
C) Heal that damage up, on the fly.
I have some ideas, but I'm curious what others think and I'm already in TLDR territory for some.
The issue with the trinity is a measure of the way roles have evolved.
A tanks job in 90% of MMO's is to soak damage. They are the ones who are getting hit. Therefore in order to progress in their role they have to get better at it. This results over time in their health pools and mitigation getting bigger and better.
That's good, right?
Wrong. Bigger health pools and better mitigation mean that the mobs have to hit harder to create a challenge. Which results in ONLY tanks being able to take the hits. It creates an exclusivity and a dependency on that function.
It's the same way with heals.
A healer's job is to make the health bars full. It's a great role and it feels good to be that lynchpin that keeps the group alive, but then we have the same problem. They cast spells that make the health bars go in the opposite directions from what the mobs want. As the player progresses, their heals get better.
That's good, right?
Wrong. Bigger heals mean players have to take more damage in order for the healer to be challenged. This results in another exclusivity and a dependency as well, because when the healer isn't around, nobody's gonna live very long.
But where we really run into problems is the combination of the two.
When you have mobs hitting too hard for classes other than tanks to take their hits and when you have to have a healer casting constantly to keep even that tank alive, it means that any other class taking a hit is going to get pasted.
So now we have an enforced trinity.
So, say we change it. And we have obstructors instead of tanks with stuns and knockbacks and such. What's to stop a team from fielding a full group of obstructors and completely locking a boss mob down, trivializing the traditionally hardest content (the boss battle)?
This is why Boss Mobs are usually immune to CC in conventional MMO design.
How do we make combat interesting and still keep it challenging if we don't:
A) Let the players control the Boss
Let the players mitigate the majority of the damage
C) Heal that damage up, on the fly.
I have some ideas, but I'm curious what others think and I'm already in TLDR territory for some.
Honestly, that's a flaw with vertical progression more than anything. Progression that involves expanding the number of skills one can choose from as opposed to their power tends to... well, avoid that and ensure that content remains challenging and compelling much more easily.
Yes, that is true but the question is still if adding a bit more historical combat (that actually works) wouldn't add something interesting to the genre. MMO combat really needs to move away from skill rotations but so far have the so called "action combat" not really been good enough to replace the old system even if a few games have had a rather acceptable action combat.
Of course would stuff like magic (in the game settings were it exists) change some things but many others would be the same.
Many people seems to think that the more realistic combat gets the less fun but I think there can be many interesting compromises.
Yes, historical combat and historical settings would add something interesting to the genre. First and foremost, they'd add variety, as the genre is lacking in compelling historical titles. No doubt, if done well, roles and skills invented in these could also influence those in a fantasy setting.
As for action combat not living up to the hype, that is simply a matter of it being in the "beta" of its existence. We haven't had many of these titles, and we have yet to witness a fraction of what action combat systems are capable of.
I can tell you why action combat systems haven't been working.
First off - skills. A good skill system has nothing to do with the number of skills available. The key words to a good skill system are specialization and variety. In action combat games, we've seen neither, as developers have felt the need to make up for the smaller skill bars with greater self-sufficiency and generalization in skill designs. The result, aside from class redundancy (in the worst case scenario), is that we not only have a limited number of skills to slot, but a low number of skills to choose from and little ability to specialize.
The second issue is, of course, content. Traditional MMO content is designed around traditional combat systems. Thus far, action combat games have also been built with traditional content, and the result is jarring and doesn't synergize. This isn't an issue that can easily be fixed, as it is one that is going to require more trial and error than anything.
Agreed, and I wonder frankly if a console action combat MMO close to the Soul Calibur games in combat mechanics wouldn't work better than most of what we seen.
Personally do I think we had a great missed opportunity with Chronicles of Spellborn. The original idea there was that your skillbar would change depending on what you have done for the last few combat moves but sadly did it become a really short bar that rolled between 4 different sets instead of a truly dynamic system. The idea was solid but the result was disappointing.
Anyone who used a real sword (or axe or whatever but I can't use the rest myself)can tell you that fighting is not unlike a dance where you and your opponent try to outsmart eachother and opening yourself up is dangerous but can also get the job done if your attack comes right. MMO combat should also be about outsmarting the opponent and while that works to some degree in PvP it could be done a lot better.
Honestly, that's a flaw with vertical progression more than anything. Progression that involves expanding the number of skills one can choose from as opposed to their power tends to... well, avoid that and ensure that content remains challenging and compelling much more easily.
Well, that isn't easy that either. I think you'll need a bit of both.
If people progress too much too fast in power it splits up the players a lot making finding groups hard, and it also means you outlevel any content really fast.
Players need to slowly grow in power, and adding more choices as they grow in that speed will feel more fun.
The whole idea of having a 80 level tutorial that takes 3 weeks and let you make 90% of the game grey in that time isn't good at all, it means that the game will be really small fast no matter how much content you add. It also means that you fast can level up until any content except endgame is so easy that you don't need to learn how to play the game, and then when you do hit the endgame many people will just quit because it suddenly don't feel fun (if you can't play and the challenge goes up from really easy to hard the shock are often too much).
Honestly, that's a flaw with vertical progression more than anything. Progression that involves expanding the number of skills one can choose from as opposed to their power tends to... well, avoid that and ensure that content remains challenging and compelling much more easily.
Well, that isn't easy that either. I think you'll need a bit of both.
If people progress too much too fast in power it splits up the players a lot making finding groups hard, and it also means you outlevel any content really fast.
Players need to slowly grow in power, and adding more choices as they grow in that speed will feel more fun.
The whole idea of having a 80 level tutorial that takes 3 weeks and let you make 90% of the game grey in that time isn't good at all, it means that the game will be really small fast no matter how much content you add. It also means that you fast can level up until any content except endgame is so easy that you don't need to learn how to play the game, and then when you do hit the endgame many people will just quit because it suddenly don't feel fun (if you can't play and the challenge goes up from really easy to hard the shock are often too much).
Level-free systems are more conducive to good sandbox play.
But in terms of power progression, i've been thinking that something along the lines of Diablo 3's skill system might be fantastic for that. You don't really need stats, but being able to change the functionalities of your skills in advantageous ways can go a long way in making a player feel like they pack more potential.
Content irrelevancy has always been the greatest drawback of vertical progression. The best fix to that is something we've already seen. Downscaling. It's a system that still needs tweaking to hit the right sweet spots on power nerfing and reward adjustment, but it's the best method of turning any vertical themepark into a retroactive sandbox.
Comments
Is it arbitrary? MMO players don't normally think about it, as they are traditionally inclined to take that as a given. Tanks in most games tend to have taunts and/or threat generation, which, if used properly, essentially force the attention of PvE foes.
The criteria was actually added when it became apparent that tank was not a universal role - namely in PvP, and primarily in the MOBA genre, where anything without a taunt can only be called a tank or an off-tank as flavor. This is less necessary in Smite, where everything is a skill shot anyway, but in most competitive games, a high-durability "damage-absorber" can't actually perform the role of damage absorbing without forcing enemy attention. As such, they tend to be cc-fountains and fight starters - initiators.
Aggro manipulation is quite central to the role, I think. The ability to take a hit is secondary.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The original term people used was 'meat shield'. Older games - pen and paper, MUDs, earlier MMOs - had positioning and/or collision detection. "Aggro" didn't exist in many RPGs, only later popularized by dikuMUD and EQ. The tank formed a physical wall between the enemy and the rest of the group. The tank absorbs damage. This can be achieve several ways, the two most popular being physically blocking and 'aggro' manipulation, that latter pretty much relegated to MMOs.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Nice thread Aeander. Well thought out. I do agree is time for the tired trinity to evolve as is time for the npc/mob/boss to evolve. Much of what you offer is a refreshing change of pace from the many tired threads I have read that do a lot of complaining but with very little actual thinking about how this design might change.
DPS has gotten a bit out of control. How many times i have seen this because of some mysterious buff the raid team receives as they enter a raid. Actually rather strange and unnatural. When fighting bosses the damage numbers as well as the healing procs and crits are astronomical. Why? Because the boss of course is going to force the team to dance for the majority of the fight.
I have been in older mmo encounters where in truth it is the other way round. We as the raid team actually lost much of our power mainly or simply because the boss had greater armor. You had to move occasionally, but it wasn't some outrageous disco dance. Eventually, with perseverance the team might prevail. It was an archaic trinity model, but with a lot less outlandish dps numbers. Hell we didn't have parsing systems back in Lineage 2.
Movement as a teamwork system should feel much more natural as a group encounter progresses I should think. Possibly I suggest the days of "poo avoidance" should come to an end gradually. Boss and other mob type AI should be given scaling intelligence based on the depth of the fight.
We can hope,
Alyn
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
Come on... I know how front line fighters work outside aggro mechanics.
Even if you don't have aggro, your main job is to obstruct, control, initiate, pressure. Your main job is not to absorb or avoid damage. It is entirely secondary even if it is common among front line fighters to do it well. Often you can get that additional toughness through allied buffs.
Looking from a highly optimized perspective, you need only have "just enough" defense. After that, you're only making yourself less attractive as a target (in PvP) and you don't want to do that. If you prioritize to your defense, you're doing it wrong (and many do).
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
GW2 taught me that I like the trinity. Having more positions would be okay, like crowd control and buffs, but sometimes having more classes makes it hard to get groups or form raids.
I certainly would be open to trying any system. It's hard to read about it and imagine whether or not it would work well.
http://gnomophobia.com
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Just had a thought. If other game actions (charm, blind, mesmerize, sleep, fear) can control another player's actions; why can't taunt? A successful taunt should force the target to attack the taunter for a specified amount of time.
You could also implement things like push, pull, etc; actions that move the target. Be fun to push them off a bridge, right?
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
We've already seen this in some games. Though it certainly is a wonder why there are so few mmos with taunts that work on players as crowd control. It's not exactly a gamebreaking form of cc. Even in games with long-duration taunts, all the developers would need to do is reduce the duration against players.
Tanks don't belong in PVP. You would have to balance their immense HP advantage with a similar debuff that is equally annoying. I liken it to the Paladins bubble in WoW... once it could be dispelled, it was literally a useless ability, but before then, a Paladin was immune to all damage but could stick whack-a-mole on you. That sort of ability is ridiculous in PVP but has a purpose in PVE. Hence why you can't have PVE and PVP roles that are the same. To make it fair in PVP, you gimp them in PVE and vice-versa.
pve and pvp do not have to be in the same game.
For me I like the idea of dedicated healer-healer/ glass cannon dps/heavy crowd controller/ controller-dps/controller-healer. Get rid of tanks, outdated concept.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I loved CoH as well as IMO it allowed us to have many types of groups.OP: You might want to check out what Richard Bartle wrote: http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
i can't agree more, people love roles, even in GuildWars2 without the holy trinity, casual players define their own roles and you can see a great variety but its problem is the lack of mesh collision. i see videos from BlackDesertOnline and i hope it wont end on a missed opportunity. there exist mesh collision and there is no healer but different ways to deliver damage or avoid damage, so the roles are defined by their position on the area: players with shields creating a true shield wall, others with leaps getting into the enemy crowd for massive aoe attacks and rangers for flanking attacks and yet we havent seen all the classes.
i believe we have the technologies to copy the medieval warfare or ancient times and create big maps like northern Italy in order to replicate again the renaissance wars between the city states of northern italy or the peloponnesean civil war between the greeks, both occasions had politics and wars. into these wars we saw roles the cavalry, the infantry man and the rangers and every one of these roles had their own variations ...
anyway i want to say that i would like to see roles inspired by real warfare and not those childish fantasies.
also something i loved in GuildWars2 is that every class would be able to act ion every role, the sad part is that the PvE was only about fast damage deal so every role died ... at least in WvW or sPvP its different and dont listen the trolls who talk about zerg fights.
"Childish" fantasies?
Seems to me like you grossly under-credit the value of fantasy. Fantasy doesn't deny reality. It reflects it and comments on it. In fantasy, we see reflections of real-world politics, religion, and, in the best fantasy novels, often human nature in its many forms. Yes, it bends the rules and creates a new setting, but the ability of a fantasy writer to do so while still immersing their readers in something so foreign to their physical surroundings is nothing short of incredible.
And roles inspired by "childish" fantasy hold value. If they fit the setting and encourage teamwork through interesting means, it matters not what their inspiration is.
Offense, defense and support, that is how it should work, and that is how real combat always have been.
Using tanks ain't good enough except if you use body blocking mechanics, the opponents just get so dang retarded if you let people taunt them.
As for dedicated healers that is a mistake as well, a support role should be able to do more than just spam the heal button.
The most important thing for group mechanics is that you need to work together to bring down a powerful enemy, if you change roles during combat or not doesn't really matter for that. And MMO combat should be tactical, not just by using the right attacks but also with timing and positioning.
If you want to CC you should use traps, body blocking, shieldwalls, slowing the enemy down by hitting their legs and similar things since that forces players to actually think while they fight instead of just spamming a bunch of taunts.
Yes, that is true but the question is still if adding a bit more historical combat (that actually works) wouldn't add something interesting to the genre. MMO combat really needs to move away from skill rotations but so far have the so called "action combat" not really been good enough to replace the old system even if a few games have had a rather acceptable action combat.
Of course would stuff like magic (in the game settings were it exists) change some things but many others would be the same.
Many people seems to think that the more realistic combat gets the less fun but I think there can be many interesting compromises.
This is what GW2 was trying to get at... the fact that every player should be equally responsible for all elements of a fight. The whole trinity thing means you just worry about one thing and one thing only... over simplifies things. People see non-trinity as chaotic because they still play like its trinity based, only now they seem themselves purely as a dps role. In other words, players don't like being tasked with more than one job. They either want to just heal, just tank, just dps... etc.
"I'm not picking that up, it's the vacuum cleaners' job"
Yes, I do play but I think the group dynamics and timing still could be better. Switching between roles have an interesting potential, particularly between offense and defense makes the game more tactical but GW2 might be a little too simple.
Where you are as example matters little, things like standing on the higher ground and body blocking the opponent in the right place would add a new dimension to it.
Also they could put a little more focus on using the right skill at the right time and add more helpful things for the group.
Yes, historical combat and historical settings would add something interesting to the genre. First and foremost, they'd add variety, as the genre is lacking in compelling historical titles. No doubt, if done well, roles and skills invented in these could also influence those in a fantasy setting.
As for action combat not living up to the hype, that is simply a matter of it being in the "beta" of its existence. We haven't had many of these titles, and we have yet to witness a fraction of what action combat systems are capable of.
I can tell you why action combat systems haven't been working.
First off - skills. A good skill system has nothing to do with the number of skills on a bar. The key words to a good skill system are specialization and variety. In action combat games, we've seen neither, as developers have felt the need to make up for the smaller skill bars with greater self-sufficiency and generalization in skill designs. The result, aside from class redundancy (in the worst case scenario), is that we not only have a limited number of skills to slot, but a low number of skills to choose from and little ability to specialize.
The second issue is, of course, content. Traditional MMO content is designed around traditional combat systems. Thus far, action combat games have also been built with traditional content, and the result is jarring and doesn't synergize. This isn't an issue that can easily be fixed, as it is one that is going to require more trial and error than anything.
The issue with the trinity is a measure of the way roles have evolved.
A tanks job in 90% of MMO's is to soak damage. They are the ones who are getting hit. Therefore in order to progress in their role they have to get better at it. This results over time in their health pools and mitigation getting bigger and better.
That's good, right?
Wrong. Bigger health pools and better mitigation mean that the mobs have to hit harder to create a challenge. Which results in ONLY tanks being able to take the hits. It creates an exclusivity and a dependency on that function.
It's the same way with heals.
A healer's job is to make the health bars full. It's a great role and it feels good to be that lynchpin that keeps the group alive, but then we have the same problem. They cast spells that make the health bars go in the opposite directions from what the mobs want. As the player progresses, their heals get better.
That's good, right?
Wrong. Bigger heals mean players have to take more damage in order for the healer to be challenged. This results in another exclusivity and a dependency as well, because when the healer isn't around, nobody's gonna live very long.
But where we really run into problems is the combination of the two.
When you have mobs hitting too hard for classes other than tanks to take their hits and when you have to have a healer casting constantly to keep even that tank alive, it means that any other class taking a hit is going to get pasted.
So now we have an enforced trinity.
So, say we change it. And we have obstructors instead of tanks with stuns and knockbacks and such. What's to stop a team from fielding a full group of obstructors and completely locking a boss mob down, trivializing the traditionally hardest content (the boss battle)?
This is why Boss Mobs are usually immune to CC in conventional MMO design.
How do we make combat interesting and still keep it challenging if we don't:
A) Let the players control the Boss
C) Heal that damage up, on the fly.
I have some ideas, but I'm curious what others think and I'm already in TLDR territory for some.
Honestly, that's a flaw with vertical progression more than anything. Progression that involves expanding the number of skills one can choose from as opposed to their power tends to... well, avoid that and ensure that content remains challenging and compelling much more easily.
Agreed, and I wonder frankly if a console action combat MMO close to the Soul Calibur games in combat mechanics wouldn't work better than most of what we seen.
Personally do I think we had a great missed opportunity with Chronicles of Spellborn. The original idea there was that your skillbar would change depending on what you have done for the last few combat moves but sadly did it become a really short bar that rolled between 4 different sets instead of a truly dynamic system. The idea was solid but the result was disappointing.
Anyone who used a real sword (or axe or whatever but I can't use the rest myself)can tell you that fighting is not unlike a dance where you and your opponent try to outsmart eachother and opening yourself up is dangerous but can also get the job done if your attack comes right. MMO combat should also be about outsmarting the opponent and while that works to some degree in PvP it could be done a lot better.
Well, that isn't easy that either. I think you'll need a bit of both.
If people progress too much too fast in power it splits up the players a lot making finding groups hard, and it also means you outlevel any content really fast.
Players need to slowly grow in power, and adding more choices as they grow in that speed will feel more fun.
The whole idea of having a 80 level tutorial that takes 3 weeks and let you make 90% of the game grey in that time isn't good at all, it means that the game will be really small fast no matter how much content you add. It also means that you fast can level up until any content except endgame is so easy that you don't need to learn how to play the game, and then when you do hit the endgame many people will just quit because it suddenly don't feel fun (if you can't play and the challenge goes up from really easy to hard the shock are often too much).
Level-free systems are more conducive to good sandbox play.
But in terms of power progression, i've been thinking that something along the lines of Diablo 3's skill system might be fantastic for that. You don't really need stats, but being able to change the functionalities of your skills in advantageous ways can go a long way in making a player feel like they pack more potential.
Content irrelevancy has always been the greatest drawback of vertical progression. The best fix to that is something we've already seen. Downscaling. It's a system that still needs tweaking to hit the right sweet spots on power nerfing and reward adjustment, but it's the best method of turning any vertical themepark into a retroactive sandbox.