Why didn't we see the Trinity+1 (Quadrinity?) again?

124»

Comments

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,680
    Originally posted by Enbysra
    Originally posted by waynejr2
    Originally posted by Rattenmann

    Actually the Trinity is Tank / Healer / CC.

    +1 (or better +3) has always been DPS roles.  That being said, i don't know. It was a blast, it was challaging,... it seems like we will never get that back. The broad masses simply don't want to be bothered with challange. They want easy faceroll content. Preferably solo content. Grouping is a thing of the past, "working" for your goals is something of the past (not only in gaming sadly).  If a game like EQ comes around again, ill sure play that one. Up to that point i am out of MMOs.

    From Richard Bartle:  http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html

    the "trinity" of tank, heals and dps.

    For other people in the thread, trinity existed long before EQ was developed.

    It was always "Tank, Cleric and Damage" in my experience, from Tabletop RPGs which i started playing in 1984, and the actual game was from the late 1970's (D&D Red Paperback Books from TSR). Those classes tended to also have their own versions of CC. Consider a Tank's ability to hold aggro even, it is a CC. Not sure where the idea of "Tank. Healer and CC" came from.

     

    I played chainmail before we had dnd, was an early dnd player, play tested tsr products and was a judge at the AD&D open at early  gencons.   We didn't have tanks as that comes from aggro management.  Monsters attacked players as the Dungeon Master saw fit to do.  To say we had aggro management is bs.

    As I said, tanks is a term dealing with aggro management.  Did we have fighter types with shields and sword like many fantasy mmorpgs?  You bet we did.  But don't call it tanking as there wasn't  aggro.  You are trying to twist ancient pen and paper mechanics into aggro and then declaring we had tanks.  A total load of crap.

    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?"




  • ArtificeVenatusArtificeVenatus Member UncommonPosts: 1,235
     
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100
    Originally posted by Enbysra
    Originally posted by Adjuvant1
    Originally posted by Enbysra

    What the MMORPG needs is 2 things.

    1. Interdependence between classes. 2. A Redefining of how the "Trinity" works. There are far more ways of having each part of the Trinity work with the other parts than what we have typically seen (In any game). I have even seen a few very good concepts in this "Redefining" direction in MMORPGs over the past decade. It is too bad developers can not identify good base concepts, take notes and expand on those concepts. These not only could redefine the "Trinity" but also expand beyond just a "Trinity."

    People don't like that.

    They don't like to be held accountable.

     I've waited many times for a... [insert class here]

    Eventually everyone is virtually interchangeable and no one is special in any given circumstance.

    What you should really do is just lose the term

    means... more emphasis on teamwork

    punish him, because he'll die, causing the rest of the team to suffer

    too much consequence and responsibility.

    None of these modern gamers have time for that.

    I have so many thing I want to say about these particular points, and no, not necessarily to you Adjuvant1 (unless of course you share these views too). I definitely see these points I have highlighted here as points that apply to many modern "gamers". They are NOT MMORPGers. They are NOT RPGers. 

     

    There is just so much I see that is so wrong with those points, but so much truth with respect to how those lemmings "think". I can only hope reincarnation does not exist, for I certainly would prefer never to exist again rather than see the direction of humanity if this is any indication. image

     

    Well, the real problem is those are the guys paying the paychecks. Of a million people who bought a b2p or a sub to any given game, more than half ... let's say... aren't really "into it like that". The game has to be palatable to them, somehow, or it fades quickly. So, whatever.

  • ArtificeVenatusArtificeVenatus Member UncommonPosts: 1,235
     
  • AkulasAkulas GoldcoastMember UncommonPosts: 2,090
    Because a game wants to be played by the most broadest range of people possible gameplay is going to suffer. More people = more money then it becomes about catering for the shareholders instead of the playerbase.

    This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100

    Actually, Wildstar has cc, but not a pull process where cc starts from the initial mob split, no necessary snare in pve or mez for that matter. It's all abridged into "interrupt armor", a shared ability across classes, used at specific times, with ideally spread responsibility across the party members. They added two other factors, though. First there is the action combat aspect and people who played EQ 15 years ago aren't 18yo spring chickens, generally, when it comes to hand-eye coordination and reaction time. Secondly, there is (was...) a parse requirement because passing dungeons on silver meant a time limit, so even if you were doing everything correctly, you wouldn't advance if you weren't pushing the dps the whole time, so dps was as, if not more, important at times than the control. (This has been changed to bronze with no time limit)

    So Wildstar expected too much? Maybe. Admittedly it took me doing each dungeon the better part of 5 times to get the patterns down and anticipate next moves to make the fights go smoothly. Maybe some people got it down in 2 runs, that's fine. Maybe some people it would take 20. Even if you learned it in 5, though, all told, it could equal 15 hours of online time finding the group, wiping, learning, wiping some more, losing a guy, replacing said guy, wiping, learning... hey, I don't mind, because I'm blessed with free time. Some people are only online 15 or 20 hours a week and much of that is filled with dailies and crafting, so even if they were very fast learners, they might not advance.

    Wildstar does some things right, and it's applicable to the conversation, but it adds other demands, so group A who likes articulate cc dungeons is halved to group B who likes articulate dungeons and has time online to group C who likes articulate dungeons, has time online and can grasp the twitchy combat to group D who all of the above plus has the inclination and initiative to parse well and otherwise learn most effective rotations. So you get subset group E, and not all of those are nice people.

    I got off track.

    Developers could replace the mitigation of "action combat" with stat formulae spread across multiple resists. Twitch is replaced by preparedness, and really dps suffers if most stats (assuming a total stat pool on a given toon) are relegated to said resist so combats might take a little longer each by 20-40%. Also certain classes stack more said resist with buffs, so they're necessary group contributions. Spread this across 12 or 20 different types of resist. Now, people who have "done their homework" can participate in given encounters and maybe even not need their eyes glued to the screen for 2 straight hours (which loses more player base than you might imagine). A group could do that particular content that (proper?) way or just try to strong-arm through it with higher dps, hoping it kill targets before they're killed.

    That's just one example of replacement of a game mechanic aspect. Some could argue, too, that "games have advanced to this point, with the ability to cross a platformer or fps with an mmo, and going against it is going backwards". I see that sentiment. I don't share it.

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVMember UncommonPosts: 5,135
    Originally posted by Lonzo
    Back in the days when I played EQ1 I had so much fun fighting in groups through all the dungeons gaining loot from rare spawns. It was a blast. The usual group was a typical trinity + one crowd control char like a bard or enchanter. The fights were very intense and while we had enchanter that could hold like 7-9 adds in single target mezzes, the fights were super thrilling. one runner and the hell broke out. It was fun! I wonder why no other game took this path? Why? I knew a lot of people who liked that. What do you think?

    There are 2 reasons, primarily.

    1) CC in a lot of ways was 'too powerful', which created balancing problems. Either you had a character with ridiculously good CC, but could do almost nothing else (which wasn't that fun in a lot of cases), or you had a character that was 'broken' and too good.

    2) When games started to implement more PvP systems, being CCed for a year wasn't fun for the players. No one likes to be stunlocked, or feel like they can't control their character. Which creates another problem. How do these classes enjoy pvp when their primary function is so powerful that it essentially ruins pvp for everyone else?

    That said, crowd control is still very much alive today, it's just different. You have some games (i.e. GW2) which try and get away from the trinity entirely, and give everyone various forms of CC. In a sense that role has been difused over multiple people, instead of condensed onto one person (though that game in particular has classes that can specialize into CC, as did GW1).

    You also have other games which allow for similar types of abilities, but they are more toned down. Either you can't mez an entire army (AoE cap on abilities), or the duration is significantly reduced (also diminishing returns).

  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Peoria, ILMember RarePosts: 2,100
    Originally posted by aesperus
    Originally posted by Lonzo
    Back in the days when I played EQ1 I had so much fun fighting in groups through all the dungeons gaining loot from rare spawns. It was a blast. The usual group was a typical trinity + one crowd control char like a bard or enchanter. The fights were very intense and while we had enchanter that could hold like 7-9 adds in single target mezzes, the fights were super thrilling. one runner and the hell broke out. It was fun! I wonder why no other game took this path? Why? I knew a lot of people who liked that. What do you think?

    There are 2 reasons, primarily.

    1) CC in a lot of ways was 'too powerful', which created balancing problems. Either you had a character with ridiculously good CC, but could do almost nothing else (which wasn't that fun in a lot of cases), or you had a character that was 'broken' and too good.

    2) When games started to implement more PvP systems, being CCed for a year wasn't fun for the players. No one likes to be stunlocked, or feel like they can't control their character. Which creates another problem. How do these classes enjoy pvp when their primary function is so powerful that it essentially ruins pvp for everyone else?

    That said, crowd control is still very much alive today, it's just different. You have some games (i.e. GW2) which try and get away from the trinity entirely, and give everyone various forms of CC. In a sense that role has been difused over multiple people, instead of condensed onto one person (though that game in particular has classes that can specialize into CC, as did GW1).

    You also have other games which allow for similar types of abilities, but they are more toned down. Either you can't mez an entire army (AoE cap on abilities), or the duration is significantly reduced (also diminishing returns).

    The way I understand all of this, I have no idea how someone can formulate an effective response to anything including "trinity+cc", but you managed to pull it off.

    Yes, the downside to strong cc (which is 3rd in trinity, not dps) is badly imbalanced pvp, also less preferable classes in most given situations. I agree. Warhammer and SWtoR added mechanism to make pvp recipients of cc immune for a time after 2 or 3 stuns/mez. That was more of a "band-aid on a broken arm", though, but it did push appropriate timing for pvp cc, so I guess that's good.

  • coretex666coretex666 PragueMember RarePosts: 3,214
    Originally posted by Prenho3
    Originally posted by coretex666
    I remember in Lineage II, there were tanks, dps, healers, buffers, debuffers, and mana healers. (and maybe some other role that I forgot) I miss this sort of "advanced trinity" in modern MMOs.

    This approach of L2 is very flawed because when people realised that by having a boxed PP-WC + BD they could even solo AOE in group areas like the catacombs.

     

    That's why I prefer the holy trinity where the tank is the crowd control class and the healer the live saver, you can't box those two characters and be efficient at the same time because they require to be active all the time, but you can box-tribox buffers in L2 because they just need to buff the party and sit on the floor or just get the drops.

    Well you may call it a flawed design, but it is the players' decision to box those roles. I played in a guild where all these spots were occupied by players and it was a lot of fun grinding dungeons / catas.

    I am not necessarily disagreeing with you as I am aware of the fact that many players were boxing some of those roles. I am just saying that the game was not meant to be played that way. It is not its fault that the human nature is to utilize any available means to increase efficiency even if it is screwing the game, other players who decide to play "fair" and also their own gaming experience in the process.

    Who is guilty here...the game because it allows the players to f*** with the design or the players who are actually f***ing with it.

    Instead of making a group of people covering all necessary roles and going to have some fun in a dungeon, they make more accounts, box the roles and play solo to get as much as possible as fast possible. It is their free decision to sacrifice fun and practically everything an MMORPG is supposed to be about for it.

    I personally believe that it is the players mentality that is flawed, not the game. Nevertheless, I understand there are two sides of the coin and full coverage of this topic would require a long philosophical discussion probably touching prisoner's dilemma and ethics to some degree as well. I suggest we dont go there, I understand and respect your point.

  • ArtificeVenatusArtificeVenatus Member UncommonPosts: 1,235
     
Sign In or Register to comment.