Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

What happened to classes in games? Formerly: It was never a trinity.

123457»

Comments

  • AesowhreapAesowhreap Omaha, NEPosts: 78Member
    Dude this is getting to me also. And another feature I saw in an old 2d game was schools. You had to travel to the school each time you had enough exp even if you had to get a party to get in to the area. I liked that.

    Best Regards, ...

  • noluknoluk Castaic, CAPosts: 21Member Uncommon
      It is more than obvious that we as gamers created our games.  We have railed against grinds, we have railed out at forced grouping, we have expressed outrage and frustration at guilds that can accomplish things and get gear that our 3 buddies can't accomplish while half drunk.  And the most important thing to the game makers is how often we will pay for what we ask for.  There was a time when there were two games on the horizon.  EQ and AC.  Most players chose EQ and that developed the path of game development from that time forth.  Both in games trying to be like EQ and games trying not to be like EQ. 
  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,757Member Uncommon

    When easier MMO's came out I was one of those that applauded the new systems like quest question marks. It did not take me long to realise the inherant problems though. And those problems were not real issues at first, WoW at launch was not the easyMMO that it would become.

    That is why I say any changes you see today are just the start; be it cash shops, P2W, cross platforming with mobile phones, intergration with social media. It never looks too bad in the begining.

     

    Good to see an old but rare poster like noluk speaking up. :)

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Scot

    When easier MMO's came out I was one of those that applauded the new systems like quest question marks. It did not take me long to realise the inherant problems though. And those problems were not real issues at first, WoW at launch was not the easyMMO that it would become.

    That is why I say any changes you see today are just the start; be it cash shops, P2W, cross platforming with mobile phones, intergration with social media. It never looks too bad in the begining.

     

    Good to see an old but rare poster like noluk speaking up. :)

    You're saying you weren't always this bad. There is hope for you yet.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • tupodawg999tupodawg999 LondonPosts: 724Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Shorun

    ===

     Guild Wars 2 got rid of the tanks and healers because very little people wanted to play them. The game isn't easier because everyone has the ability to heal and to rez, it's just different. GW2 is a game that did the classes right in my opinion.

     

    Tanks and healers became over-specialized for group play and as a consequence became very dull for solo play. As games became mostly solo those classes became mostly dull.

    However even if a game is group-based or includes a separate group-based path it's still better for channeling reasons if the group classes are soloable. A group-based game or a separate group-based path inside a mostly solo game needs to channel the group players to the group-based content. If parts of the group dungeons are soloable then players don't need to form a group in advance. They can just run to the nearest dungeon knowing they can solo until other players show up. If it was me i'd have the group content be big EQ-style open dungeons with the difficulty level set something like

    - 1/2 challenging solo / easy duo

    - 1/4 challenging duo

    - 1/4 challenging larger group

     

    The group classes could then have a solo and group mode e.g.

    Fighters

    - half their dps abilities requiring any weapon

    - half requiring either dual wielding or two handed weapons

    - half their tank abilities requiring any weapon

    - half requiring a shield

    so a fighter can switch between all dps and half tank or all tank and half dps depending on gear

     

    Priests

    - dps + self-heals/buffs with a weapon equipped

    - group heals/buffs with a holy symbol equipped

     

    Enchanter

    - dps (via charmed pets) with dagger equipped

    - CC with mystic orb equipped

     

    etc

    so the classes are still distinct but have a solo/group mode that fits the distinction

     

    Obviously games don't have to do this. They can go the Rift / GW way as the players who like group fights that require teamwork may only be a minority and may play the solo games anyway. However i think the other aspect is replayability. Distinct classes with distinct paths through the game potentially increases replayability imo but distinct classes requires either a group-based path through the game with class-specific group roles or separate solo paths or a bit of both.

     

    ==

     

    Although there are a lot of possible roles the only ones i can think of which seem to particularly appeal to particular niche of players are

    - tank, dps, heal/buff, crowd control, pulling

  • tupodawg999tupodawg999 LondonPosts: 724Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by noluk
      It is more than obvious that we as gamers created our games.  We have railed against grinds, we have railed out at forced grouping, we have expressed outrage and frustration at guilds that can accomplish things and get gear that our 3 buddies can't accomplish while half drunk.  And the most important thing to the game makers is how often we will pay for what we ask for.  There was a time when there were two games on the horizon.  EQ and AC.  Most players chose EQ and that developed the path of game development from that time forth.  Both in games trying to be like EQ and games trying not to be like EQ. 

    "We" didn't do anything. Players who didn't like forced grouping and all the problems that went with it railed against forced grouping - which is fair enough - and the games changed to suit. Now the players who liked grouping rail against the solo games but there's fewer of them so it doesn't change things back. However, separately there are also people who are fine with the idea of the solo games but not with one or more of the logical consequences that have developed over time e.g. dumbing down, lack of distinct classes etc.

     

    There are multiple sets of "we." The question is how you can satisfy the multiple sets of "we" in the same game.

     

    I think it's possible but it first requires accepting that multiple play-styles require multiple paths. You see attempts to square the logical circle in some of the latest games with for example swtor's attempt at separate solo paths (which overlap too much) or GW2 with its mixture of personal story, solo hearting and non-grouped group fights but no one has nailed it yet.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,757Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Scot

    When easier MMO's came out I was one of those that applauded the new systems like quest question marks. It did not take me long to realise the inherant problems though. And those problems were not real issues at first, WoW at launch was not the easyMMO that it would become.

    That is why I say any changes you see today are just the start; be it cash shops, P2W, cross platforming with mobile phones, intergration with social media. It never looks too bad in the begining.

     

    Good to see an old but rare poster like noluk speaking up. :)

    You're saying you weren't always this bad. There is hope for you yet.

    I think as you realise, I am saying I was blinded by the glitter and did not see its shallowness. But it is how MMO's developed since WoW that is the problem, we have gone from having a few more handy tools to being given everything on a plate if we pay at the cash shop.

  • sfc1971sfc1971 UtrechtPosts: 421Member

    It was ALWAYS a trinity, extra support classes doesn't change this. The trinity is engrained into everything D&D and for that matter wargames.

    In simple game terms, it is the damage soaker, the damage dealer and the one who keeps both on their feet.

    In simple military terms, it is the army, the special forces and the support troops. The regular army is good at sustained fighting but can't move fast. Special forces can move fast and hit hard but can't sustain a long fight and both need someone to cook their food and bandage their ouchies.

    You can then start to sub divide those three groups like agile tanks and strong tanks and fighting support troops but that doesn't get rid of the basic trinity idea.

    And GW2 did NOT get rid of the trinity, they just made it a mess. But Guardians still are the healing class, warriors the tanking class, rangers do single target DPS, Mages AoE DPS. Yes, rangers got a pretty good heal but not as sustainlable as Guardians. The only thing they really messed up is crowd control but that is okay, the group content is to simplistic to need it. 

    Games like GW2 that try to blur the trinity end up with games were grouping is more of a pain, what is that guardian specced for? At least in classic game, you can ask for X and be sure that X is what that player would do, you could PLAN your battles.

    GW2 would be like going to war with mysterie troops and only in the heat of battle would you find out that your marines can't actually swim and don't have any boats in their arsenal and oh, those bang stick? Well, that is so trinity nazi rules, they opted to spec for flowers instead.

    It is like playing Team Fortress and finding yourself in a team with a heavy gunner dude trying to sneak. Lotro did this with its expansions, getting a lore-master in the raid who couldn't stun always led to much facepalming.

    You got to wonder how these people would fare in the army, sign up for sniper school, insist on making all kills with a knife.

     

    IF you want to change the trinity you need to change combat. Currently MMO combat is unrealistic in that damage is taken for granted. In medieval times, ANY damage was usually fatal. The OP even dares to mention natural healing... before anti-biotics a scratch could kill. Getting a blow from a heavy sword... that is NOT something you walk away from. If you want to get rid of damage soakers and in combat healers, you need to get rid of unavoidable damage. 

    Combat would instead have to be like fencing where the entire fight is spend NOT hitting each other because the moment you DO score a hit, the battle is over. Gun combat is even worse, you do NOT take a bullet to the head and there is nothing to resurrect if your brains are splattered over the wall.

    THAT is the reason for the trinity. If damage MUST be taken, you will ALWAYS develop classes that focus on either soaking it up, doing more damage then they receive (either by doing it faster or evading) or on healing damage faster then it is received. THAT is the trinity. 

    And every game where you can choose your class or alter your stats one way or another has the trinity even if they try to blur it.

  • ZagatoMKRZagatoMKR FinlandPosts: 188Member Uncommon

    I don't know if this was mentioned already, but in Aion a usual party was tank (templar or sometimes even sin/glad), sorc for dps/cc, cleric for heals... those were main 3 then filler two would be one dps (glad/sin/ranger) and chanter as buffer/offheals/rezzer. People usually want chanter than a dpser. So party composition resembles one OP posted.

    Some "anime-style" MMOs with multiple classes still have party compositions that closely resemble OP's. A bit "older" game for example would be Dream of Mirror Online where you had a tank, healer/buffer/rezzer (doc), buffer/mana-infuse (muse), (two I think) dps and a puller.

    In Rift I remember always getting a raid party when I was playing a bard (buffer), but then again... raid party size is a lot bigger than a normal party.

    I think it really depends on a game, how many different classes it has and what is the max party size.

    Cheers.

  • AwDiddumsAwDiddums Great YarmouthPosts: 394Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by HeroEvermore

    I have changed the title of my post to express the meaning behind it. It was never meant to flame anyone for using the word trinity. It was meant to explain that games were not always limited to such simplistic class design.

    That being said I am merely expressing my opinions.

     

    I love all the silly trinity threads. Obviously something thought up by younger gamers who never experienced older mmorpgs.

    Trinity to me = lack of imagination.

    The above statement is not meant to hurt anyones feelings it is merely an opinion and as a human I think i have that right still?

     

    Games had way more then a trinity.

    Tank

    Healer

    Mana-feed/Buffer (remember enchanters, they were NOT dps)

    Puller

    Crowd control

    Rezzer (not always the healer)

    Damage dealer (the most unwanted role in many games, now it is the most common filler role)

    Attack Buffer (atk spd or atk output not neccesarily from a dps role)

     

    I could go on and on.

     

    Want to know why you do not see this as much anymore?

    GAMING COMPANYS GOT LAZY!!!! They started combining this stuff into other roles so they could get away with less classes. You think Guild Wars 2 got rid of healers and tanks to be innovative? LOL! It was lazy. They gave everyone a rez. Gave everyone a heal. Gave everyone the ability to safely pull mobs. Something challenging will come along eventually that will once again REQUIRE such specified teamwork. Until then enjoy easy mode.

     

    Edited in:

    Killing the trinity:

    Tank role deletion: All damage is based on getting hit or not getting hit (avoidance). All characters have the same defensive standpoint.

    Healer role deletion: Take out all abilities to regen HP except a natural passive heal over time. Like real life wounds are healed.

    DPS role deletion: Take out differentials in damage output. Take out enemy HP. What part of a monster you attack starts to weaken and break him down. (obviously this would be the hardest role to take out but if there was no damage differential in skills it would all be skill based and therefore having no tank or healer role naturally takes this role out as well.) It's like: Mortal Kombat as an example. Everyone fights but you don't call them DPS.

    Now make me a game! go go go! :P

    I remember when I played Dungeon Master on my old Atari ST, when I made my grp of adventurers I wanted a War (Tank) Mage (Dps) Cleric (Healer) and a Thief (Picking locks/traps).

    Now this wasn't an online game but this game came out in 1987, but before even that you had the PnP versions, and you built your grp in a similar way.

    Why oh why after all these years of having the optimal team to meet all challenges within a gaming enviroment would companies want to tell us "The Holy Trinity isn't the way to play a game, we want to give you more choice" and yet when they take away our specific roles and give us a hybrid class we suddenly feel as if all our choices have gone, we are left with a class system that tries to be everything yet fails to do any one thing well enough to fulfil any specific role, where you needed 1 healer you now need 2-3 hybrids, the same for each class role.

    Playing GW2 I find myself not needing to grp at all, due to the fact I'm everything at once, this destroys communities, and infact I gave up playing GW2 and went instead to a far superior game that could offer me an RPG experience, Skyrim, if I'm not grping in GW2 whats the point in playing the game online? I may aswell play something else that at least has a deep and meaningful story and a world to play in, and have a more defined role that I can fill.

    I need my healer role, I want to be defined by my healer, I'm the guy that can save the day on a bad pull, I can keep the grp up when we face off against the big bad, I don't want to play a character thats got dps/defensive/control and healing all thrown into one, I want a clear cut path in what my responsibilites are in the grp.

     

     

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,757Member Uncommon
    It is quite simple, class roles do not fit solo play, so out with the class roles. There is no mystery about why MMO's have gone down this route. If you hear the team of a MMO talking about less complexity in classes, allowing all players to do something that was class specific or making changes to the trinity you will find it always helps solo play. Always. So the driving force behind all this is easy to spot.
  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Scot
    It is quite simple, class roles do not fit solo play, so out with the class roles. There is no mystery about why MMO's have gone down this route. If you hear the team of a MMO talking about less complexity in classes, allowing all players to do something that was class specific or making changes to the trinity you will find it always helps solo play. Always. So the driving force behind all this is easy to spot.

    Pure dps also does not fit solo play, yet we still have it.

    It is unfortunately not so simple, the way you describe it it may have been in the beginning, but we dont get pure healers and pure tanks for some time now.

    It boils as usual down to "what can i do with my toon", if you could and would be willing to maintain outlets for every role, say undead monsters aplenty for healers with their exorcism as only attack spell, medium tough monsters where longevity is more important than burst for tanks and so on, we would not have such a big problem.

    But we are not willing for some reason, it has become somehow unreasonable to expect anything more than world monsters you can oneshot regardless and raids where we can qq to no end that a specific role has not enough spots.

    Ironically, and this is the part where i will partially agree, the system has devolved into a state when specialists get shafted and jacks of all trades are masters of all.

    EDIT: and dont think i would have something against old d&d outlets and activities, even specialist ones, wail of the banshee comes to mind, but if we are unable to make outlets for classes, i dont have much faith into creating complex systems like a dm would in a p&p game, lockpicking, critical trick shots, time stop...

    Flame on!

    :)

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,912Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by HeroEvermore

    GAMING COMPANYS GOT LAZY!!!! They started combining this stuff into other roles so they could get away with less classes. You think Guild Wars 2 got rid of healers and tanks to be innovative? LOL! It was lazy. They gave everyone a rez. Gave everyone a heal. Gave everyone the ability to safely pull mobs. Something challenging will come along eventually that will once again REQUIRE such specified teamwork. Until then enjoy easy mode.

     

    Edited in:

    Killing the trinity:

    Tank role deletion: All damage is based on getting hit or not getting hit (avoidance). All characters have the same defensive standpoint.

    Healer role deletion: Take out all abilities to regen HP except a natural passive heal over time. Like real life wounds are healed.

    DPS role deletion: Take out differentials in damage output. Take out enemy HP. What part of a monster you attack starts to weaken and break him down. (obviously this would be the hardest role to take out but if there was no damage differential in skills it would all be skill based and therefore having no tank or healer role naturally takes this role out as well.) It's like: Mortal Kombat as an example. Everyone fights but you don't call them DPS.

    Now make me a game! go go go! :P

     

    OP, you have me a bit confused with the edit.

     

    GW2 killed the trinity to be lazy.  But in the section "Edited in" it looks like you're suggesting killing even further?

     


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,757Member Uncommon

    “Pure dps does not fit solo play”. - How so? Seems fine for soloing to me.

     

    “But we are not willing for some reason, it has become somehow unreasonable to expect anything more than world monsters you can oneshot”

    – That’s solo gameplay design for you, the grouping gameplay is made easier, because it makes it easier for solo players to understand and they will put up with it as it is all over quickly. When I say that remember this is what designers think of solo players, I think solo players could do and want so much more from a MMO. They just need help going over to a more grouping style of gameplay.

     

    “GW2 killed the trinity to be lazy”

    - Somehow I doubt this. The answer here is in the word, 'trinity', you need more than one player for that! Once again, grouping has been denigrated to a pointless playstyle to make solo players want to play MMO’s. Solo players were and are the much bigger demographic of players. MMO players were only a fraction of the gaming population. So seeking more sales, MMO’s have become shaped to appeal to solo players, in the process stripping them of nearly everything that made them MMO’s in the first place. Look at what has happened to crafting, quests, PvE, PvP, housing, roleplaying tools; look at any aspect of gameplay in MMO’s and you will see how it has become more solo friendly.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Scot

    “Pure dps does not fit solo play”. - How so? Seems fine for soloing to me.

     

    “But we are not willing for some reason, it has become somehow unreasonable to expect anything more than world monsters you can oneshot”

    – That’s solo gameplay design for you, the grouping gameplay is made easier, because it makes it easier for solo players to understand and they will put up with it as it is all over quickly. When I say that remember this is what designers think of solo players, I think solo players could do and want so much more from a MMO. They just need help going over to a more grouping style of gameplay.

     

    Quite right, once you go past that definition, and you start considering soloing group content or past group content, meaning that the speed of killing a thing does not become the most important in the consideration, someone who can heal or simply take more beating (or both) will be in a much better position.

    Depending on the degree the system is broken you can even end up in a unfavorable position when twoshotting things, healers get more often than not superior mechanics in resource regeneration just to be able to heal more, yet it will also enable them to kill more.

    Oh, really? So your answer is to brainwash them or bribe them to enjoy grouping? Isnt that the reason even groupers are unhappy these days, because group content becomes "random individuals" content ? :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • znaiikaznaiika denver, PAPosts: 203Member

    Any kind of reward in a group play is broken "xp, items, etc" in any MMO because of tagging system and lack of scaling system, why bother grouping?

    If MMO makers learn how to script scaling system which will reward everyone who take part similar to solo? then that will help with grouping.

    AI should be scaled-up prior to a sise of a group, and so dose the reward system.

    No more TERA's reward system and tag system, reward should be individual and fair in a group play.

    If someone join a fight he/she should be rewarded based on many factors " support, dps, tank, time and level", remember if higher level character join a group AI should be scaled accordingly, or that character should be scaled down to the level of AI.

  • HeroEvermoreHeroEvermore salem, ORPosts: 672Member

    ^

    what he said for sure. Some games do that thankfully. Not common enough though. Though i see both sides of the arguement It is nice grouping with people who CAN rob you, because when they dont you made a new friend!

    Hero Evermore
    Guild Master of Dragonspine since 1982.
    Playing Path of Exile and deeply in love with it.

  • PurutzilPurutzil East Stroudsburg, PAPosts: 2,924Member Uncommon

    I feel it was less about a trinity as a 'defining role' guide as much as a very basic archetecture in a game. Its existed for a good deal of time but it isn't as cut and dry as some games make it to be.  Even with a vast spread of different roles, they could basically be put into the trinity in some linked way. 

     

    Tanks could be actual characters built to absorb damage but they also could be 'off tanks' or 'distractions of sorts, meant to maybe guard allies without expecting to be taking everything on at once. This could even apply to Crowd Control Arch-types that might disable enemies in combat in some cases.

     

    Support (Heals as people gravitated to considering it) essencially acted as the buffers/debuffers. This might mean as well healing which people tend to consider the branch, which isn't really what it was considered to be originally. Support goes beyond just healing and works on aiding a party.

     

    Damage is just as its said. Little explination needed.

     

    In that regard, roles were often dipped into and the trinity itself might relied not on having a character fit one specific arch type, but also in part some other. It did give more dynamic then most games do explorer. It was the trinity, but it was a far more eleborate version.

123457»
Sign In or Register to comment.