Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Sandbox Class in the Class System
Decemvirus
Member Posts: 52
I'm a strict defender of the class system. The specialization system, as far as combat goes, started in the Ancient Armies and since then we have the division of "Infantary, Cavalary and Archery - now Artillary". Also, the ability to pick a class accounts for a major choice in your playstyle and how you see your character to start with.
This kind of division makes it possible to enhance each class individually so it gets to the best of its gameplay, on a particular role or playstyle. Furthermore, the holy trinity is instituitionalized for a particular reason: The major aspects of combat in MMOs are: 1) Dealing Damage; 2) Taking Damage; 3) Healing or Avoiding Damage; 4) Controlling Mobs. Unless we invent something such as air combat or marines, I can't see any other big variables coming.
It is true that games such as GW2 are aiming for a remarkable change at this system, but still the paradigm is that in order to grow better in one of those variables you need to lose on the other ones. Therefore, if you're a better damage dealer, you're probably going to be a worse tank, if you're a better healer, you're probably going to be a worse damage dealer than you could be. So that's the central aspect of the class system.
On the other hand, I see a lot of posts about "Freedom in gameplay" and being able to perform sandbox roles such as Crafting in a main way and not simply as some kind of mini-game. So what about introducing some kind of "Sandbox" class? A class that does not stand out in-combat, but rather has its focus on other aspects of the game.
"You know, this place makes me wonder. Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man?"
Comments
I get the impression that you think trinity and classes were synonomous with each other and I disagree with this. Trinity can exist without classes (one example is Eve Online) and classes can exist without trinity (Battlefield 3).
All combat roles are born from the gamemechanics. If mob AI can be manipulated (or it is very stupid) a tank role is born. If this same character cannot sustain itself, a healer role is born. If neither of these can do enough damage to sensibly complete the encounter a damage dealer role is born. If mobs aggro in groups an additional CC role may arise.
If you can't control mob aggro, you don't have a tank. If you cannot outheal incoming damage, the focus goes from repairing damage to avoiding damage. So on so forth.
You look at League of Legends for example you have:
AD and AP carries - there are two main damage types in the game
Support - brings utility and sustainability
Jungler - because jungle offers a viable alternative to grinding lanes
There's also bruisers, tanks, initiators and roamers... plenty outside the holy trinity all born out of how the game works and plays.
If you wanted to think of sandbox classes/roles that exist outside combat you'd have to create that support this. Limit the things one character can do and you inevitably create roles which are dependant of each other. If you can't be both good in crafting and selling your wares you'd need one to make items and another to sell them.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
To be fair, classes aren't required for specialization. They're just a great way to package specialization.
(And for what it's worth, inventing new roles to revolutionize MMORPG combat the way artillery did is pretty much what players want.)
Freedom isn't really something you want to cram into a single class, safely walling it away from the other classes. If there are interesting parts of the game players want to engage with, like crafting, then there's no good reason to limit that to a single class.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Real world armies have more classes than infantry cavalry artillery. That is because in the real world an army has special counter attack units. MMOs are forced to balance each class against the other or else whining. Armies don't have to do that because war isn't supposed to be fair.
What I mean is if there are roles such as tanking, healing and dpsing it is better, therefore, to have a class system that enforces those role so they can be polished to a further extent. If the roles are necessary, the class-free argument is a lie on itself because players would be "creating" this classes with the mechanics provided by the game to do so. Then, it is far more productive for gameplay if the roles are adressed properly on the system so they are properly adressed. Main point is the so called freedom of classes is unreal. I believe, as such, that expanding and evolving the class system is far better than completely denying it. The development of a class free model brings up enormous issues that goes way beyond balancing classes. Personally, every single non class game I play have some issue with combat that instead of implementing diversity actually seem to portray a monotous and similar sort of fighting to all playstyles."You know, this place makes me wonder. Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man?"
You my friend need to go play some p&p d&d then come back and talk about classes vs roles. It sounds like you never experienced anything beside the dumbed down cookie cutter class = role that the gaming industry has been feeding us for decades.
Roles and classes do not have to equal each other the way most video games have distorted it. If you want to be a front line person you need to have X amount of defense. You can get that defense via armor, shield, dodge, parry, magic, etc. It is your choice how you want to be a front line person. If you prefer to be more versatile person then your defense would not hold up on the front line. You want to be a front line healer (cleric) no problem pick the defensive skills you need and pick up a healing skill. You perfer to stay in the back and toss spells, arrows, or crowd control then pick the skills that fit your play style.
What makes the trinity a complete joke is the idea that (insert pew pew class of the month) can do more dps then every other class. Using your example the archer's arrow doesn't magically do more damage then the infantry's sword. Plus the cavalary in your example has the most potential for damage and is still heavly armored.
I am interested to see how TSW skill system works with filling roles. If Failcom doesn't completely screw things up I think this could be a new industry standard, roles without classes.
I see what you meant now and I agree.
If there are little to no limitations to skills and abilities, at worst there is just handful of builds that rule over others (tankmage anyone?) But because of these limitations the varying builds always outline something which can be interpreted as classes. The freedom of classes or the freedom of choice is actually the freedom to make mistakes when designing your build. This is what some people call illusion of choice. That you can make any build you want but only a handful of them are useful. This is especially apparent in games that have PvP.
However like I wrote earlier, the surrounding game and how it works has atleast as much impact on the emerging roles than character development system alone. So e.g. whether you have a warrior-class or merely skills that vaguely outline a warrior, there will be no tank class if players cannot manipulate mob aggro.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Or simply because, a bullet from a Rifle a Pistol or a Machine gun can be equally deadly. It is non sensical to me when a Warrior swinging a big sword does less damage than a rogue with a Knife.
It is all artificially and arbirarilly decided in order to sustain a given vision of gameplay in a game. If people do not want or like this approach then the problem resides on the vision of gameplay.
Ultimatelly it is all about choice for us players, if you like the trinity roles, there are many games that have it, so play these, if you do not like it play a game that does not have it...soon enough GW2.
it is not necessarilly about which game has it right and which game has it wrong. Albeit, the idea that a certain game can have it right because it happens to appeal to agreater number of people could be used as justification, yet in reality it is about available choice variation, and I am glad we are starting to get some.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
And to not neglect the OP's question.
Classes and Trinity roles could be compatible with a Sandbox game, provided that you also let players change that class on the same character as they see fit, because the essence of a Sandbox is to be flexible and maleable just like a Career can be in RL, we are not obligated to have the same trade or career in RL we can change it at any moment as we grow and evolve in life.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I don't really see the need to have one of the classes to be freely built by the player. There should be enough classes to fill all the roles to not need it. More freedom would be better attained by having each class with a larger set of equally benefitial skills and abilities that the player would pick and choose to fit their playstyle but still be within that role.
All of you are forgetting how awful combat is in its current context. The reason we even have this problem is because of the lack of use of environment to gain advantages, nothing more than arbitrary skill rotations, poor AI on the monsters and a lack of physics (collision, mainly). If you solve all these issues, the idea of a holy trinity seems silly, because combat comes down to using your skills and wits to surivive an encounter, not pressing a few abilties in succession.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
The game industry hasn't fed us that anytime recently. After WOW:BC, it's been extremely rare to find an MMORPG where a class equals a role (and only one role, forever and ever.) Maybe the rare class slips through (mages/rogues in WOW) but the genre has largely stepped away from class equalling role.
Even moreso outside MMORPGs (LoL, Tribes, TF2)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I didn't really mean specifically mmorpgs, more so rpgs in general since the beginning. Recently mmos have soften the class = roles some. But that only allows tanks to float to dps and healers to float to dps. I'd rather see the dps taken out of the equation completely.
And do not forget the Hunter....
In any case, the addition of specs to diversify the role of certain classes may have been good however it is not without downsides...because then you go in to comparisons, is a DPS specced Warrior better than a rogue and similar comparisons which take place on the field despite the best intentions of the design?
I have seen many Warriors (amongst other classes) to get booted from raids because they had some different spec than the main one associated by people with the class.
So in WoW at least it created more confusions to some people than it solved issues.
I would agree that classes do not necessarilly need to be attributed a role on the trinity, but most MMO's do that association. Still looking forward to see the variation in GW2 thought!
Ultimatelly I think this is why a Skill based system and not classes is more suited for a Sandbox game, so that through the choice of skills people create their own classes for a specific role as per their own playstyle.
And I think it is better if the game addapts to the player rather than expecting the player to addapt to the game in this regard and context.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I am also a defender of the class system and I agree with your post here. I would like to comment on two things. "Freedom in gameplay". When players say that, it means they don't want to be restricted to a class. They want to make thier "own" class by selecting from an arsnal of skills. What some don't realize is that they are still designing a class. However, it's outside of the class parameters. I wouldn't say that it's "freedom in gameplay", it's allows different types of choices.
What players really want is "freedom within the structure of combat mechanics". Combat mechanics are still focused for the player to find the best possible output. Once that is reached then there becomes one way to essentially play that class to produce the maximum output for whatever that class role is. Both class design and combat mechanics must be able to compliment each other to allow freedom for a player to not be restrictive. Essentially, that there is not one way but multiple ways to accomplish the role that class might offer.
Which leads me to your question. Can there be a sandbox class that doesn't focus on combat? Well absolutely. I think you probably mean a different type of class perhaps not a sandbox type. If you mean the sandbox "class" structure being able to be in the same class structure, then no. In my class design, I have adventuring classes and crafting classes. Both are seperate. Crafting classes cannot participate within the combat mechanics. As you know that most games have the adventuring classes be able to craft, and have multiple non combat oriented professions.
Originally posted by lifesbrink
All of you are forgetting how awful combat is in its current context. The reason we even have this problem is because of the lack of use of environment to gain advantages, nothing more than arbitrary skill rotations, poor AI on the monsters and a lack of physics (collision, mainly). If you solve all these issues, the idea of a holy trinity seems silly, because combat comes down to using your skills and wits to surivive an encounter, not pressing a few abilties in succession.
Eronakis, I like your ideas on crafting being separate from adventuring, however, I still don't get why you and the others are defending old-school combat, which has been shown time and time again to be boring. This is not the type of combat we see in books, movies, and the like, it is droll and relegated to repetition. This is why the trinity exists now. So why defend it?
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
I'm also not 100% sure of my vision regarding this Sandbox Class, but just to make it clearer I meant something like a Citzen All-Around funny class that could take Main Roles as Crafters, Explorers, Economists, Etc. without being tied to all that combat focus most games, and essentially 100% of the Theme Parks, provides us with.
Heck, it could even be a lvl-free class that does not get aggro from mobs. I understand that for such a thing to be actually be a complete experience would require new game mechanics and all, but I'm pretty sure some people would find it interesting. The active skills of this class would be built around the needs of crafters, explorers, etc. like crafting fasters, enhancing critical crafting. They could have access to some exclusive stuff and areas also, to some books spread around the game, idk, I'm just illustrating a mental picture of what I believe would be nice.
These guys could play for reputation system instead, they would be an extra class, a chill out class, a sandbox class in a way they are not attached to the main combat goals of the game, but roleplaywise to whatever they want to be without being labeled a "Hunter" or a "Warrior" or whatever.
Of course now I have to observe:
1 - I know I'm flying high here, no wonder, its just pure speculation for forum fun.
2 - Yes, I know we can do most of this things with our current characters since those are aspects of the game most combat classes can do but roleplay wise I think it would be very nice for people who want to have a class not targeted for combat to be able to their stuff around properly.
3 - To be honest, my opinion is that today's crafting system as in WoW is generally just another grind-source you need to do either for money, for the perks or the itens. Personally I don't have any fun with this kind of crafting and I'm more than willing to even give away all my crafting capabilities for a class specialized in that, which I think would be cool and add to the experience rather than insert some annoying time-sinking mini-game mandatory for anyone who wants max stat on their combat characters. But I'm not discussing that anyway, since it is personal opinion.
4 - Of course some content would need to be implemented.
I just picture a world where we don't need to look everywhere around and see bows, axes and staves on everyone's back, but rather see some unarmed people with fishing rods, smithing hammers and telescopes having fun while being able to truly roleplay these kinds of jobs.
"You know, this place makes me wonder. Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man?"
Sure, back when the game balance didn't really allow for alternate specs that makes sense.
But once those specs became viable, Warriors were only kicked through player ignorance. And you have to be extremely draconic with your class design to completely avoid players kicking others through their own ignorance of game mechanics.
Even in games where class is nonexistant people get kicked through player ignorance. (Wanting to play a certain character in L4D) The problem is player ignorance, not class design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
while I prefer skillbased to classbased, I can see how classes would work in a virtual word sandbox. and its nothing like the op.
the main thing about a sandbox is choice. the ability to choose not to fight [well in ffa pvp you may get ambushed, but I specifically mean seeking out fights, not random encouters]. the ability to choose a certain role.
I can see an easy way of doing that. have certain guilds or orders in the game and let players decide which one they want to join. if they join the shipwrighs guild they get the ability to build ships. if they join the order of the forest rangers they get ranger abilities.
of course there should be skills within those classes to help specialise. say the rangers guild has the skill options of: archery, tracking, swordsmanship. while thr scout guild would have the skill options of tracking, swordsmanship and light armour.
So different guilds could share certain similar skills becuase it makes sense. both a carpenter and a shipwright would work in wood. so they'd both need carpentry skills.
and of course the different skills would allow specialisation within that guild. the knights guild may have the skills of axework or swordmanship. one knight may specialise in a sword and the other in an axe. or onne engineer may specialise in digging ditches for armies while another may specialise in supporting the earth to stop collapses in mines.
This is just to stop each member of a guild from being a clone of every other member in that guild. it would still allow the overall specialisation of classess.
finally in order to give players a full bag of freedom while still keeping specialisation there should be secondary and hobby skills. even a foot soldier may need to ride a horse in transport. but he'd be crap at using one in fighting. someone who knows first aid might be able to do some healing, but he'd be crap compared to a dedicated healer. etc. etc.
also, the trinity should really be avoided in a sandbox. what should be done is allow the use of group tactics to work.
for example, at the battle of agincourt there were forests surrounf the english longbowmen. this stopped them getting flanked. the mud caused by rain slowed down the heavily armoured french knights [even when on foot]. in most other conditions the french [who outnumbered the english quite a bit] would have won, but the tactics the english used allowed them to destroy the french army.
similarly, in a game a mage may be able to fight a warrior at a distance. but if the warrior is fast enough to catch the mage the mage will die. someone who has a decent grasp of tactics would have another warrior destract the first and let the mage help from a distance. but if the enemy had an archer, the mage would have to hide behind a rock and time his spells to when the archer is destracted or reloading or whatever.
of course in any decent comabt there should be a lot more going one. maybe a scout is sneaking up behind the mage in order to ambush and kill him. maybe the mage has a friendly scout hidden behind him to watch for and stop any danger. maybe the weather has turned to mud slowing down the heavily armed warrior enough so the mage can kill him without another warrior destracting him.
this sort of thing doesnt need a balanced trinity. a group that works together and plans better than the enemy would win against an enemy that doesnt. and a trinity would only have three variables. if there were fifty different roles in combat it would make combat more diverse, and if you only had access to seven of those roles it would require a lot more planning and skill to be able to win.
I defend the class design philosophy of each class having distinct roles that compliment each other for group play. I really enjoy group play more so than solo play. I think the OP has a good argument for the trinity. The trinity is essentially the role of the class, it's apart of class design not the whole. But yet the roles also play off the class design. Class design is pretty complex and usually is layered. The reason why people feel as if the trinity is old and boring is because of the combat mechanics that are associated with it. I believe that the combat mechanics has to change to make the trinity more appealing beyond the tank and spank stratagem that everyone is used too.
And so they should. Aggro, while based on real life ideas, is an artificial and stupid system that forgets the idea of multiple AI attitudes in a world. Every monster lives by the same aggro arrangement. In reality, it would be different though, based on what you are fighting. The thing is, most monsters just feel like repetitive tests of will to fight. Gr. WANT new combat, a lot.
I love Spiral Knights combat, however, that game is on a smaller context, and for a different perspective, IE, topdown.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
has been shown to be booring....to some , maybe most people , not to everyone
and pray tell me what would those skills be , except twitch
cause` if it`s only twitch , then please say skill not skills
Allso...why do so many people insist on better and better NPC AI in mmorpgs? Especially if you need to fight said NPC more then once?Spare that for single player games , because in themepark mmo`s , nomatter how good or bad the ai is , by the time average joe gets to the tough instance , there are 1000 videos on how to do it on youtube...and he`ll probably do it 100 times to get some shiny
So...isnt the AI totally wasted there? nomatter how good you make it , all you end up with is making players learn longer and more complicated sequences of actions and just repeating those over and over and over
The only real challange AI NPC`ss can ever pose in a MMORPG is endurance and rezistance to grind and booredom
Exactly, no doubt the combat system needs a revamp. I haven't tried TERA yet, so I don't know if all that dynamic combat hype is for real. Unfortunatly, I don't have enough time to play any game currently so I kind of just get the taste of our genre from the forums. Notwithstanding, I like the tank and spank kind of strategy, but I do agree that the way it is set today is getting extremely boring. Therefore, I believe the best way to address this is by creating dynamic playstyles for the people who are actually playing the strategy. For instance, this whole rotation thing is no more than spanking buttons while standing still so this really needs to change. I also think that the nature of the MMO genre is incompatible with gameplay like Dark Souls or some of its kind.
I haven't yet seen a non skill based combat that actually works on our MMORPGs, whenever the "auto attack" is tied to player action I don't know why I feel like I'm sort of losing gameplay or the game is lacking something. Maybe that is my problem after overplaying WOW and similar, but tell me how you feel about that?
"You know, this place makes me wonder. Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man?"
i believe mount and blade did a pretty good job of tiyng a few simple mechanics into very solid combat gameplay...would something like that work out in a MMORPG?
how about the risen combat system?
as for healers , how about AOE heals that affect both friendlies and hopstiles if not aimed/timed properly?
For casters , i think BGII had it right and it went downhill after that untill it`s just ranged projectile combat with maybe 2 dots and 2 aoe...what i mean make spells more then just do damage , come up with interesting and varried effects , limmited uses , etc , not firebal->ultrafireball->megafireball->gigafireball
I`d really love to see inovation in combat mechanics aswell , it`s just that personally i dont enjoy twitch heavy games , that doesnt mean i wanna be stuck with diablo 2 combat forever
Allso , how about gear beeing the decisive factor in a role , rather then character skills? i mean , wear heavy armor and your casting skills suffer heavy penalty , wear robes and you dont get any armor but a bonus to magic , etc . Not a new ideea but at least it would allow for more variation in the game . Allso make it possible to eventually train everything in game , but only use some skills at any given time
Think about it , everyone who sticks around a mmo ends up with lots of alts anyway....why not let them work on the same character longer? you could make it waay longer to max out a character then roling alts , and some people would do it just because anyway...carot and stick compliant , and to me it would feel a hell of a lot more free , and diverse (sure it will be a bitch balancing it but it`s doable)
You two should read my thread, "Innovation, Adaptive Combat Mechanics." In that thread, I give an introduction to the combat mechanics I designed to compliment adaptive AI. In my opinion AI has to become adaptive in order to evolve PVE gameplay. When I say adaptive that means the AI or the player can adapt thier strategy on the fly. In order for the player to adapt, the combat mechanics must offer a vast array of different options and pathways to victory. A dozen warrior classes can tank many different ways but there is not one "correct" way to victory. I know some people complain about that when they read my design, but its the adventure getting their, not the destination. Taking that into a combat perspective. No more min and maxes. I understand that, on the programming part for AI to become adaptive will probably be a monumental tedious task.
Because you are confusing better AI with nothing more than different and more complex scripts. Better AI allows for monsters and the like to adapt to the players as well as seem more randomized, thus enforcing variety. All creatures in a game world should have a basic "personality" that dictates who they are and what they do, in and out of combat.
Note as an example, all NPC's have few aggro states: attack on getting in range, attack after being in range for X seconds, attack after being attacked, and scripted attack through situations. These behaviors are boring. What would be better is if NPC's attacked you after a variety of conditions were met, IE the creature is hungry, it decides it hates mages only, the NPC has an issue with you wearing certain armor, and so on. These behaviors make a creature retain personality and are part of the overall package of AI that enables interesting combat.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.