In adnd you relied on the GM not to focus fire on the clothies.
The mages also had person buffs spells, like Protection from arrows to help. Then at higher levels the mages became god-like.
In an mmo there isn't a person contoling the game, so you needed a taunt mechanic.
Really? Hehe, my GMs always targeted the most dangerous and most vulnerable first.
Happened the same in every campaign I have played in, unless the enemies were dumb as a box of rocks and it would attack the nearest player. For the vulnerable to stay a live, it took them to use their ingenuity and the abilities they had to stay alive. There have been many 1st level wizards that never made it to 2nd level.
I think the idea that you need some artificial taunting mechanic is ridiculous. Make the mobs go after who they would most likely go after based on hit points, damage output, heal output, and how close they are. Then give squishy characters like the rogue and wizard abilities that let them avoid getting hit. Whether it is a rogue's stealth, tumble, and climb walls, or a wizard's invisibility, levitation, and protection spells.
This is also where the idea of crowd control comes in. Give the ability to temporarily subdue multiple mobs and root and snare other mobs in place so the mobs are forced to attack those close by.
Yup. If the monster was just a beast, they just attacked what was in front of them unless someone was doing crazy damage and it hurt. Smarter monsters used tactics just like the players.
Heh, yeah, early levels were tough on wizards. And they didn't have a whole lot of spells. So many times I recall them just using their slings because that's all they could do. So sad. Early edition D&D thieves were also very squishy.
CC was critical. I mean how important was Sleep and Hold Person? Man, those were staples of magic users and clerics early on.
It should be pointed out that a lot of D&D and CRPG D&D games used a grid combat system, where the fighters and paladins would line up in front and physically block access to the casters and healers. It's also an artificial mechanic, since the "squares" were typically 5 x 5. Put two guys in plate armor and shields next to each other and make them cover a 10 foot line. Then throw 8 kobolds at them, with their sole intent to get past the warrriors - they'll get by.
Regarding taunting being a realistic mechanic - The Lord of the Rings movies use it, and no one complained.
It should be pointed out that a lot of D&D and CRPG D&D games used a grid combat system, where the fighters and paladins would line up in front and physically block access to the casters and healers. It's also an artificial mechanic, since the "squares" were typically 5 x 5. Put two guys in plate armor and shields next to each other and make them cover a 10 foot line. Then throw 8 kobolds at them, with their sole intent to get past the warrriors - they'll get by.
Regarding taunting being a realistic mechanic - The Lord of the Rings movies use it, and no one complained.
Actually zerging a bunch of monsters didn't always work. In PnP, you could create bottlenecks so the warriors didn't have to face all 8 at once if they used good strategy. They could whittle them down and fighters with heavy armor could avoid damage completely. Add magic users that can toss ranged spells from behind and those kobolds would be in trouble.
You're citing a movie? Taunting works in the beginning to draw attention but once fighting starts, everyone will attack the guy who is hurting most of your guys with most efficiency. It's just common sense.
The more elegant solution, is to make solo content that is designed to be conquered by the healers and tanks, and that the DPS cannot handle.
This actually brings up an interesting point. I don't like the trinity design but this idea is intriguing and has happened in at least one game: Vanguard.
In Vanguard, the disciple is a healer who is probably the best soloer in the game, even able to solo group content with great effectiveness. So there are quite a few disciples running around in the game. Your idea has merit.
I do think it's more than just the ability to solo easily. It's responsibility. In a group setting, tanks and healers are so vital that if one dies, the group usually wipes. You can lose a DPS and still stumble to a victory. The burden of success falls heavily on tanks and healers which makes them undesireable to many players.
Personally, I don't like tanks and healers because of aesthetics. DPS seems to have a variety of looks: rogue, archer, monk...etc. But look at tanks, almost all are heavy armor with a shield and weapon. Look at healers, almost all are cloth wearing casters. Vanguard again changed that (taking the idea from PnP). Cleric healers can wear heavy armor. Dread Knights tank with big two handed weapons. Skills were varied enough that each class played significantly different from one another.
Allowing tanks and healers to solo efficiently (without changing specs) would be a good first step. Spreading responsibility and varying aesthetics and skills would also be necessary.
In adnd you relied on the GM not to focus fire on the clothies.
The mages also had person buffs spells, like Protection from arrows to help. Then at higher levels the mages became god-like.
In an mmo there isn't a person contoling the game, so you needed a taunt mechanic.
Really? Hehe, my GMs always targeted the most dangerous and most vulnerable first.
Happened the same in every campaign I have played in, unless the enemies were dumb as a box of rocks and it would attack the nearest player. For the vulnerable to stay a live, it took them to use their ingenuity and the abilities they had to stay alive. There have been many 1st level wizards that never made it to 2nd level.
I think the idea that you need some artificial taunting mechanic is ridiculous. Make the mobs go after who they would most likely go after based on hit points, damage output, heal output, and how close they are. Then give squishy characters like the rogue and wizard abilities that let them avoid getting hit. Whether it is a rogue's stealth, tumble, and climb walls, or a wizard's invisibility, levitation, and protection spells.
This is also where the idea of crowd control comes in. Give the ability to temporarily subdue multiple mobs and root and snare other mobs in place so the mobs are forced to attack those close by.
Yup. If the monster was just a beast, they just attacked what was in front of them unless someone was doing crazy damage and it hurt. Smarter monsters used tactics just like the players.
Heh, yeah, early levels were tough on wizards. And they didn't have a whole lot of spells. So many times I recall them just using their slings because that's all they could do. So sad. Early edition D&D thieves were also very squishy.
CC was critical. I mean how important was Sleep and Hold Person? Man, those were staples of magic users and clerics early on.
It should be pointed out that a lot of D&D and CRPG D&D games used a grid combat system, where the fighters and paladins would line up in front and physically block access to the casters and healers. It's also an artificial mechanic, since the "squares" were typically 5 x 5. Put two guys in plate armor and shields next to each other and make them cover a 10 foot line. Then throw 8 kobolds at them, with their sole intent to get past the warrriors - they'll get by.
Regarding taunting being a realistic mechanic - The Lord of the Rings movies use it, and no one complained.
And amazingly enough, still, no one said provocation and goading wasn't real.
Funny that.
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
There was no trinity in D&D. If a mage walked up next a creature the creature would hit him even if a warrior was next to him. This was the DMs choice not a taunt mechanic. Also, clerics were not heal bots in D&D. And there was very little healing during battles compared to what MMOs force upon us. Final Fantasy probably did have trinity like components were there was a more dedicated healer and damage soakers. But MMOs took it to an absurd extreme.
Regarding taunting being a realistic mechanic - The Lord of the Rings movies use it, and no one complained.
And amazingly enough, still, no one said provocation and goading wasn't real.
Funny that.
"Except when they did: Tank /taNGk/ (noun): a heavilly armored character who hits like 9 year-old girl with rickets, but somehow manages to compel violence against themself through some variant of the Jedi Mind Trick."
If you're going to repeat something, please make some effort to be , you know, correct about it...
You're citing a movie? Taunting works in the beginning to draw attention but once fighting starts, everyone will attack the guy who is hurting most of your guys with most efficiency. It's just common sense.
At the risk of exhuming a horse. This is your logic:
This guy is throwing fireballs. That seem normal.
This guy is waving his hands and bringing people from the brink of death back to full life. An every day occurence.
This guy is yelling obscenties to get a monster's attention. No way! How could that happen?!
There literally 100's of things that go on in MMO's that wouldn't really work in the real world... what's your objection to this one? It's more established in the origin of fantasy than complete heal spells are, and arguably more so than fireballs and critical hits. Wizards cast fireballs. Warriors cast taunts. Priests cast heals. Taunting is closest to a real world mechanic.
You're citing a movie? Taunting works in the beginning to draw attention but once fighting starts, everyone will attack the guy who is hurting most of your guys with most efficiency. It's just common sense.
At the risk of exhuming a horse. This is your logic:
This guy is throwing fireballs. That seem normal.
This guy is waving his hands and bringing people from the brink of death back to full life. An every day occurence.
This guy is yelling obscenties to get a monster's attention. No way! How could that happen?!
There literally 100's of things that go on in MMO's that wouldn't really work in the real world... what's your objection to this one? It's more established in the origin of fantasy than complete heal spells are, and arguably more so than fireballs and critical hits. Wizards cast fireballs. Warriors cast taunts. Priests cast heals. Taunting is closest to a real world mechanic.
Again, no one is saying taunting can't or doesn't exist. What is common sense, even when standard fantasy fare like fireballs and heal spells exist, is that taunts can't possibly distract an opponent for extended periods of time when there are far more deadlier and harmful stuff going around. If you can't see this, we can't go further because at this point I feel as if you are being intentionally obtuse to maintain your argument.
There literally 100's of things that go on in MMO's that wouldn't really work in the real world... what's your objection to this one?
I know your question is rhetorical, but I'm going to answer it anyway: yes, there are hundreds of stupid things in MMOs. They arose in MUDs, were popularized in Everquest, and codified by WoW's success. To a one, they came about from expediency rather than a desire to stay true to source material (nevermind realism). Few question them because -- as evidenced by this thread -- very few people remember a time when these tropes were not standard.
This thread, however, is about the Trinity. The taunt mechanic is a key part of the Trinity, since it's existence enables all three members of said trinity to perform their assigned roles, and only their assigned roles. It enables the Tank to take damage without giving it in return, it enables DPS to deal damage without worrying about survival, and it forces Healers to focus on keeping the tank alive to the exclusion of all else.
That's why we're talking about it. I would love to participate in a discussion of the other atavistic systems that are holding back -- even killing -- MMO's as a genre. This thread is probably not the best place though.
Regarding taunting being a realistic mechanic - The Lord of the Rings movies use it, and no one complained.
And amazingly enough, still, no one said provocation and goading wasn't real.
Funny that.
"Except when they did: Tank /taNGk/ (noun): a heavilly armored character who hits like 9 year-old girl with rickets, but somehow manages to compel violence against themself through some variant of the Jedi Mind Trick."
If you're going to repeat something, please make some effort to be , you know, correct about it...
This might be some shocking news, so please be seated when you read it:
Star Wars isn't real. The Jedi Mind Trick doesn't really exist.
Taunt and aggro, as they exist in certain MUDs and many MMOs, are what brought about the tank class which, in turn, resulted in the ridiculous trinity and combat scenario we have in most mainstream 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
Some might not consider the original Guild Wars a MMORPG but that was probably one of the games that aplied real time combat to the pnp DnD, aside the Invicibuild+spike degeneration that exists in the game I suspect to cater to holy trinity players.
You had a frontline composed by the heavy armour melee classes, a mid line with a different number of classes that supported both the offense and the defense and a backline of support and heal.
Although I'm glad the pure healers are gone in GW2, the frontline/midline(disruption/boon removal/damage/some support/rezzing)/backline (damagemitgation/healing) structure is very good in GW1 and make for a unique game.
To keep people away from squishies the frontliners had to select proper terrain and body block the enemy mobs (using narrow passages and corners/walls was a must) that would otherwise run straight for the squishie casters (often the battle between the player group and the AI group would have the frontline at the backline of each other).
There is even the concept of a lineback, which is a warrior that put pressure on the enemy frontline.
The problem of the MMORPG combat (for those that aren't satisfied with the combat basically being "rand()" routines) is the lack of projectile physics, body detection, facing single mobs instead of organized teams that mimic players (heal/buff/debuff), auto targetting.
Even for people that don't wish an action oriented combat or an hybrid action, the removal of taunt/threat, more proactive defenses (like party wide blocks) and debuffs combined with collision detection/zoning would change things.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
You're citing a movie? Taunting works in the beginning to draw attention but once fighting starts, everyone will attack the guy who is hurting most of your guys with most efficiency. It's just common sense.
At the risk of exhuming a horse. This is your logic:
This guy is throwing fireballs. That seem normal.
This guy is waving his hands and bringing people from the brink of death back to full life. An every day occurence.
This guy is yelling obscenties to get a monster's attention. No way! How could that happen?!
There literally 100's of things that go on in MMO's that wouldn't really work in the real world... what's your objection to this one? It's more established in the origin of fantasy than complete heal spells are, and arguably more so than fireballs and critical hits. Wizards cast fireballs. Warriors cast taunts. Priests cast heals. Taunting is closest to a real world mechanic.
One thing is a world where the laws of physics are changed, although there is A.C Clarke rule "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.".
Another thing is changing the way creatures and humans react due to evolutionary/survival/reproduction pressures.
While taunting is a valid technique, attacking someone that is hurting you is also a survival imperative. As is self preservation, a trait also often misrepresented in MMORPGs.
Additionally, some of the fantasy creatures hate magic or hate a certain specific species/tribe/whatever.
Taunting and tanking is not a problem on itself - it is the fact it always work in prety much every circumstance and it always based on someone taking barely any damage due to the fact his armor is so much stronger than anyone else, that makes it silly.
They are all adventurers, they need to be ablev to survive when their tank friend or healer friend has a cold.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I think this all falls under how broad do you think the term trinity really is?
If you think very broadly you can say the trinity has existed since the beginning of time and thus it'll exist in any combat game in some fashion or another. If you think of the term very narrowly you'll say it started in EQ1.
Personally I wish games took the trinity concept and found ways of making it more interesting. I believe there's no way around it. Unfortunately I think the real culprit is very boring raid pve. As long as the monster fighting the players is basically tank and spank with special attacks thrown in... we'll see very basic trinity concepts.
I think this all falls under how broad do you think the term trinity really is?
This broad. A lot of people confuse three of the various combat roles (offense, defense, support) with the trinity.
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
The solutions are simple to conceive. The first solution, is what EQ did to fairly good success - remove the ability to solo. This causes people to "force group" but allows them to play the playstile they like.
Taunt and aggro, as they exist in certain MUDs and many MMOs, are what brought about the tank class which, in turn, resulted in the ridiculous trinity and combat scenario we have in most mainstream MMOs.
Indeed. The tank is the backbone of this perverse form of combat.
I'll also add that poor (exploitable) AI will also result in tanking as experienced in the Baldur's Gate series among many others.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think trinity was here since the dawn of RPG gaming. Your typical party was warrior (tank), thief (dps/agile tank), mage (ranged dps), cleric (healer).
I definitely remember trinity being in MUDs (precedesors of MMOs), where warrior was tanking boss, mage was blasting him from behind and cleric was trying to keep warrior alive (and when warrior died, whole group wiped in a matter of seconds )
TBH I can see trinity even further than this. I remember quite old fantasy books and movies that also used tank/dps/healer setup for adventure parties.
I think MMOs were first that made it widely known though. Before it was more of a "geek" stuff, but with massive success of MMO, people who would never touch fantasy or RPG got involved.
The roles have always been there, from DnD onwards, the online versions have altered somewhat to suit online combat. You often had a guy like a tank, a Warrior or Paladin even if their was no aggro.
The solutions are simple to conceive. The first solution, is what EQ did to fairly good success - remove the ability to solo. This causes people to "force group" but allows them to play the playstile they like.
*saddened*
comf loc
sca
l
comf lok
smi
pok lok
w
w
n
sit
Ah! That's what I did wrong! I always went west, west, south after I got the platinum bar.
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
Originally posted by Scot The roles have always been there, from DnD onwards, the online versions have altered somewhat to suit online combat. You often had a guy like a tank, a Warrior or Paladin even if their was no aggro.
Its not a tank if there is no aggro.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Scot The roles have always been there, from DnD onwards, the online versions have altered somewhat to suit online combat. You often had a guy like a tank, a Warrior or Paladin even if their was no aggro.
Its not a tank if there is no aggro.
Thats debatable, as you know, thats why we have 15 pages, for example in the last mud i played, which was based on circle, there was no aggro, but the tanking mechanic was facilitated by the tanks having skills and pasives that would make them "guard", "rescue" and "protect" any or all group members, so when the mob wanted to hit a mage, the tank "jumped" between them and started fighting the mob, taking the hits, with some added flavor of area damage (some tanks could block that if it was physical, whirlwind) and hits of oppotunity (mob would nail you one or two if your spell failed, tanks had the ability to "rescue" you, but only if he "guarded" you as a single person, the "protected" rest of the group would take a hit or two until "protect" would kick in).
Fun times, and we still didnt talk about trinity, but it had "hybrid problems"
If you have a guy in a plate armour who rushes in first smacking those gobos on the head, thats damn close to a tank in my eyes. As a GM you think about how the enemy will react:
'Ok that little gobo at the back is he going to shoot at the big guy in plate slicing his boss in two, or maybe the little human at the back drawing a bow?' Thats aggro for you.
Originally posted by Scot The roles have always been there, from DnD onwards, the online versions have altered somewhat to suit online combat. You often had a guy like a tank, a Warrior or Paladin even if their was no aggro.
Its not a tank if there is no aggro.
Thats debatable, as you know, thats why we have 15 pages, for example in the last mud i played, which was based on circle, there was no aggro, but the tanking mechanic was facilitated by the tanks having skills and pasives that would make them "guard", "rescue" and "protect" any or all group members, so when the mob wanted to hit a mage, the tank "jumped" between them and started fighting the mob, taking the hits, with some added flavor of area damage (some tanks could block that if it was physical, whirlwind) and hits of oppotunity (mob would nail you one or two if your spell failed, tanks had the ability to "rescue" you, but only if he "guarded" you as a single person, the "protected" rest of the group would take a hit or two until "protect" would kick in).
Fun times, and we still didnt talk about trinity, but it had "hybrid problems"
Flame on!
The problem is when the tank is nothing more than a meat bag and it can control who the mobs attack pretty much 100% of the time.
And as long as the healer doesn't fall asleep he is invincible and can do it 24/7.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
1. PnP games and computer based are like comparing apples and oranges.
2. EQ had 4 roles not a trinity - tank, healer, dps, and support, yes support ie bards and chanters that provided essential buffs debuffs pulls and crowd control.
3. Roles in DnD PnP games were not heavily enforced but tactics were. While Fighters and Paladins were ideal tanks, Cleric were pretty boss with the protection spells and plate armor. Bards and Wizards had so many options that it feels like your pigeon holing them in just one role. I even seen great rogue tanks that did it through verbals taunt and great dodging. its true that not every class could play every single role it isnt a closed off as you try to make it sound. In a different light, computer based games can only do what it is program to do so by this very nature it is very limited.
Comments
It should be pointed out that a lot of D&D and CRPG D&D games used a grid combat system, where the fighters and paladins would line up in front and physically block access to the casters and healers. It's also an artificial mechanic, since the "squares" were typically 5 x 5. Put two guys in plate armor and shields next to each other and make them cover a 10 foot line. Then throw 8 kobolds at them, with their sole intent to get past the warrriors - they'll get by.
Regarding taunting being a realistic mechanic - The Lord of the Rings movies use it, and no one complained.
Actually zerging a bunch of monsters didn't always work. In PnP, you could create bottlenecks so the warriors didn't have to face all 8 at once if they used good strategy. They could whittle them down and fighters with heavy armor could avoid damage completely. Add magic users that can toss ranged spells from behind and those kobolds would be in trouble.
You're citing a movie? Taunting works in the beginning to draw attention but once fighting starts, everyone will attack the guy who is hurting most of your guys with most efficiency. It's just common sense.
This actually brings up an interesting point. I don't like the trinity design but this idea is intriguing and has happened in at least one game: Vanguard.
In Vanguard, the disciple is a healer who is probably the best soloer in the game, even able to solo group content with great effectiveness. So there are quite a few disciples running around in the game. Your idea has merit.
I do think it's more than just the ability to solo easily. It's responsibility. In a group setting, tanks and healers are so vital that if one dies, the group usually wipes. You can lose a DPS and still stumble to a victory. The burden of success falls heavily on tanks and healers which makes them undesireable to many players.
Personally, I don't like tanks and healers because of aesthetics. DPS seems to have a variety of looks: rogue, archer, monk...etc. But look at tanks, almost all are heavy armor with a shield and weapon. Look at healers, almost all are cloth wearing casters. Vanguard again changed that (taking the idea from PnP). Cleric healers can wear heavy armor. Dread Knights tank with big two handed weapons. Skills were varied enough that each class played significantly different from one another.
Allowing tanks and healers to solo efficiently (without changing specs) would be a good first step. Spreading responsibility and varying aesthetics and skills would also be necessary.
And amazingly enough, still, no one said provocation and goading wasn't real.
Funny that.
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
"Except when they did: Tank /taNGk/ (noun): a heavilly armored character who hits like 9 year-old girl with rickets, but somehow manages to compel violence against themself through some variant of the Jedi Mind Trick."
If you're going to repeat something, please make some effort to be , you know, correct about it...
At the risk of exhuming a horse. This is your logic:
This guy is throwing fireballs. That seem normal.
This guy is waving his hands and bringing people from the brink of death back to full life. An every day occurence.
This guy is yelling obscenties to get a monster's attention. No way! How could that happen?!
There literally 100's of things that go on in MMO's that wouldn't really work in the real world... what's your objection to this one? It's more established in the origin of fantasy than complete heal spells are, and arguably more so than fireballs and critical hits. Wizards cast fireballs. Warriors cast taunts. Priests cast heals. Taunting is closest to a real world mechanic.
Again, no one is saying taunting can't or doesn't exist. What is common sense, even when standard fantasy fare like fireballs and heal spells exist, is that taunts can't possibly distract an opponent for extended periods of time when there are far more deadlier and harmful stuff going around. If you can't see this, we can't go further because at this point I feel as if you are being intentionally obtuse to maintain your argument.
I know your question is rhetorical, but I'm going to answer it anyway: yes, there are hundreds of stupid things in MMOs. They arose in MUDs, were popularized in Everquest, and codified by WoW's success. To a one, they came about from expediency rather than a desire to stay true to source material (nevermind realism). Few question them because -- as evidenced by this thread -- very few people remember a time when these tropes were not standard.
This thread, however, is about the Trinity. The taunt mechanic is a key part of the Trinity, since it's existence enables all three members of said trinity to perform their assigned roles, and only their assigned roles. It enables the Tank to take damage without giving it in return, it enables DPS to deal damage without worrying about survival, and it forces Healers to focus on keeping the tank alive to the exclusion of all else.
That's why we're talking about it. I would love to participate in a discussion of the other atavistic systems that are holding back -- even killing -- MMO's as a genre. This thread is probably not the best place though.
This might be some shocking news, so please be seated when you read it:
Star Wars isn't real. The Jedi Mind Trick doesn't really exist.
Taunt and aggro, as they exist in certain MUDs and many MMOs, are what brought about the tank class which, in turn, resulted in the ridiculous trinity and combat scenario we have in most mainstream 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
Some might not consider the original Guild Wars a MMORPG but that was probably one of the games that aplied real time combat to the pnp DnD, aside the Invicibuild+spike degeneration that exists in the game I suspect to cater to holy trinity players.
You had a frontline composed by the heavy armour melee classes, a mid line with a different number of classes that supported both the offense and the defense and a backline of support and heal.
Although I'm glad the pure healers are gone in GW2, the frontline/midline(disruption/boon removal/damage/some support/rezzing)/backline (damagemitgation/healing) structure is very good in GW1 and make for a unique game.
To keep people away from squishies the frontliners had to select proper terrain and body block the enemy mobs (using narrow passages and corners/walls was a must) that would otherwise run straight for the squishie casters (often the battle between the player group and the AI group would have the frontline at the backline of each other).
There is even the concept of a lineback, which is a warrior that put pressure on the enemy frontline.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Team_roles
The problem of the MMORPG combat (for those that aren't satisfied with the combat basically being "rand()" routines) is the lack of projectile physics, body detection, facing single mobs instead of organized teams that mimic players (heal/buff/debuff), auto targetting.
Even for people that don't wish an action oriented combat or an hybrid action, the removal of taunt/threat, more proactive defenses (like party wide blocks) and debuffs combined with collision detection/zoning would change things.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
One thing is a world where the laws of physics are changed, although there is A.C Clarke rule "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.".
Another thing is changing the way creatures and humans react due to evolutionary/survival/reproduction pressures.
While taunting is a valid technique, attacking someone that is hurting you is also a survival imperative. As is self preservation, a trait also often misrepresented in MMORPGs.
Additionally, some of the fantasy creatures hate magic or hate a certain specific species/tribe/whatever.
Taunting and tanking is not a problem on itself - it is the fact it always work in prety much every circumstance and it always based on someone taking barely any damage due to the fact his armor is so much stronger than anyone else, that makes it silly.
They are all adventurers, they need to be ablev to survive when their tank friend or healer friend has a cold.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I think this all falls under how broad do you think the term trinity really is?
If you think very broadly you can say the trinity has existed since the beginning of time and thus it'll exist in any combat game in some fashion or another. If you think of the term very narrowly you'll say it started in EQ1.
Personally I wish games took the trinity concept and found ways of making it more interesting. I believe there's no way around it. Unfortunately I think the real culprit is very boring raid pve. As long as the monster fighting the players is basically tank and spank with special attacks thrown in... we'll see very basic trinity concepts.
This broad. A lot of people confuse three of the various combat roles (offense, defense, support) with the trinity.
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
comf loc
sca
l
comf lok
smi
pok lok
w
w
n
sit
Flame on!
Indeed. The tank is the backbone of this perverse form of combat.
I'll also add that poor (exploitable) AI will also result in tanking as experienced in the Baldur's Gate series among many others.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think trinity was here since the dawn of RPG gaming. Your typical party was warrior (tank), thief (dps/agile tank), mage (ranged dps), cleric (healer).
I definitely remember trinity being in MUDs (precedesors of MMOs), where warrior was tanking boss, mage was blasting him from behind and cleric was trying to keep warrior alive (and when warrior died, whole group wiped in a matter of seconds
)
TBH I can see trinity even further than this. I remember quite old fantasy books and movies that also used tank/dps/healer setup for adventure parties.
I think MMOs were first that made it widely known though. Before it was more of a "geek" stuff, but with massive success of MMO, people who would never touch fantasy or RPG got involved.
Ah! That's what I did wrong! I always went west, west, south after I got the platinum bar.
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
Its not a tank if there is no aggro.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Thats debatable, as you know, thats why we have 15 pages, for example in the last mud i played, which was based on circle, there was no aggro, but the tanking mechanic was facilitated by the tanks having skills and pasives that would make them "guard", "rescue" and "protect" any or all group members, so when the mob wanted to hit a mage, the tank "jumped" between them and started fighting the mob, taking the hits, with some added flavor of area damage (some tanks could block that if it was physical, whirlwind) and hits of oppotunity (mob would nail you one or two if your spell failed, tanks had the ability to "rescue" you, but only if he "guarded" you as a single person, the "protected" rest of the group would take a hit or two until "protect" would kick in).
Fun times, and we still didnt talk about trinity, but it had "hybrid problems"
Flame on!
If you have a guy in a plate armour who rushes in first smacking those gobos on the head, thats damn close to a tank in my eyes. As a GM you think about how the enemy will react:
'Ok that little gobo at the back is he going to shoot at the big guy in plate slicing his boss in two, or maybe the little human at the back drawing a bow?' Thats aggro for you.
The problem is when the tank is nothing more than a meat bag and it can control who the mobs attack pretty much 100% of the time.
And as long as the healer doesn't fall asleep he is invincible and can do it 24/7.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
This, tank mage!! ful plate and an energy bolt...exposion
I think this post bothers me in a couple ways:
1. PnP games and computer based are like comparing apples and oranges.
2. EQ had 4 roles not a trinity - tank, healer, dps, and support, yes support ie bards and chanters that provided essential buffs debuffs pulls and crowd control.
3. Roles in DnD PnP games were not heavily enforced but tactics were. While Fighters and Paladins were ideal tanks, Cleric were pretty boss with the protection spells and plate armor. Bards and Wizards had so many options that it feels like your pigeon holing them in just one role. I even seen great rogue tanks that did it through verbals taunt and great dodging. its true that not every class could play every single role it isnt a closed off as you try to make it sound. In a different light, computer based games can only do what it is program to do so by this very nature it is very limited.