To those who want role-less classes in MMORPGs, have you even tried one? (I did try a few)
That's nice. So have I. I guess our opinions differ on the matter.
Does that bother you? It seems to, but then people around here often act in ways contradictory to how they feel.
Why do you hate roles in team/cooperative game? it doesn't make any sense to me.
I generally dislike systems that hold your hand and tell you how to play. It feels like I'm being patronized, like the devs thought I was too dumb to figure out how to work with other people if they didn't tell me what to do.
Fixed-role classes hold your hand and tell you how to play them.
(Also, I like being able to do something when the team isn't around yet. And LFG isn't that something.)
So glad none of you people are devs on the ESO, Wildstar, Bless, Neverwinter, etc... teams as you all have terrible ideas.
You all seem to think by killing the need for specific types of roles in GROUP play , and making everything section of content soloable, you make an mmo great. Instead you turn an mmo into a single player experience.
Gw2 for example, for my people i know felt like a single player experience oppose to an MMO, everyone could do everything not in terms of roles but in terms of needing the player next to you to save you, or depending on someone in your GROUP to contribute to the team by healing, controling, aggroing the said mob NOT mindlessly attacking the mob until it dies.
GW2 dungeon experience was basically here's your damage, heres your heals and heres your kiting now smash them all together and everyone is in charge of themselves, Group content felt like you were playing along side other people rather than playing with people. There was no one incharge of resource managment, no one in control of controling, no one migrating damage, no one doing anything but throwing out a 15% heal every 40 seconds or zerging.
"if u forcefully insert foriegn objects into my? body, i will die"
You see the same dynamic in single-player games. Distinctive classes fit very well in party-based games like Baldur's Gate while in solo character games the player either has the ability to learn every skill and beome a tankhealermagerogue like the ES games or the game needs separate paths depending on initial class choice like...can't think of one.
Originally posted by tupodawg999 You see the same dynamic in single-player games. Distinctive classes fit very well in party-based games like Baldur's Gate while in solo character games the player either has the ability to learn every skill and beome a tankhealermagerogue like the ES games or the game needs separate paths depending on initial class choice like...can't think of one.
Yes but the dynamics is still very different in Baldurs gate.
The healer is the same and you do need DPS (preferably at least one of them who can take some damage and bodyblock opponents) but the class you really must have is a rogue (or possibly a bard) to take care of traps and locks.
I think we all agree (well, maybe with a few excpeptions at least) that there must be some kind of group mechanics.
All classes must have something to bring into combat and working together should be the best way to win.
What differs the trinity from other system is however that it is based on the tanks taking all aggro from the mobs while the healer keeps her alive and the rest just stands around and do as much damage as they can without getting aggro.
It is really the mobs AI that is the trinity, they might be superintelligent dragons but they still attack the guy who can take loads of damage while doing pretty little themselves instead of the wizard who makes loads of damage but can easily be killed by a smack.
In pen and paper games the GM really tries to take the wizard out first instead and the rest of the players would try to bodyblock or something else to stop the wizard from dying.
A new working group dynamic system would really have to start with the AI first, if you smarted up the mobs so classic tanking wont be possible how can weaker players survive and what would the different classes add to the combat then?
Originally posted by tupodawg999 You see the same dynamic in single-player games. Distinctive classes fit very well in party-based games like Baldur's Gate while in solo character games the player either has the ability to learn every skill and beome a tankhealermagerogue like the ES games or the game needs separate paths depending on initial class choice like...can't think of one.
Yes but the dynamics is still very different in Baldurs gate.
The healer is the same and you do need DPS (preferably at least one of them who can take some damage and bodyblock opponents) but the class you really must have is a rogue (or possibly a bard) to take care of traps and locks.
I think we all agree (well, maybe with a few excpeptions at least) that there must be some kind of group mechanics.
All classes must have something to bring into combat and working together should be the best way to win.
What differs the trinity from other system is however that it is based on the tanks taking all aggro from the mobs while the healer keeps her alive and the rest just stands around and do as much damage as they can without getting aggro.
It is really the mobs AI that is the trinity, they might be superintelligent dragons but they still attack the guy who can take loads of damage while doing pretty little themselves instead of the wizard who makes loads of damage but can easily be killed by a smack.
In pen and paper games the GM really tries to take the wizard out first instead and the rest of the players would try to bodyblock or something else to stop the wizard from dying.
A new working group dynamic system would really have to start with the AI first, if you smarted up the mobs so classic tanking wont be possible how can weaker players survive and what would the different classes add to the combat then?
Any game with any opportunity to specialize your character/avatar/etc will have some form of group dynamics and teamwork. The simplest example would be the choice of weapons in an FPS game. If you choose a shotgun, you're a close-quarter specialist. If you choose a long range rifle, you're a sniper.
But I agree with the rest of your post. The quality of the AI or AI manipulation through skills is what makes of breaks a trinity; however, having proactive defense in a greater role (that is defense other than healing and armor) wouldn't hurt either.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I don't come up with somehing better eather sorry.
Maybe i am with idea, get rid of health mana bar and all numbers in game give all players same strenght to tank heal or dmg like DayZ and trinity gone:)
The thing is, for specific game designs you cannot ignore player-roles approach (just stop saying trinity please).
World of Warcraft dumbed down class-roles to Tank, Healer and Dmg (since it's the most popular a lot of people think class-roles = three roles, hence Trinity).
I've been playing games for 30 years and I'm very skeptical about an MMORPG trying to go a role-less class deisgn for their game. It doesn't work, it works for DayZ maybe or any other game designed from the ground up to have role-less player classes but in MMORPGs, I still have to see it done to believe it and it will never work.
Look at Darkfall Unholy Wars and Champions Online, I rest my case.
To those who want role-less classes in MMORPGs, have you even tried one? (I did try a few)
Why do you hate roles in team/cooperative game? it doesn't make any sense to me.
Also, stop saying Trinity. Trinity suck, bring more roles I'm sick of dumbed down games I'm tired of lack of depth. Having zero roles means you want things to be even more shallow than what they are now. How about no?
Wait, WoW didn't promote the holy trinity thing. A lot of their instances required CC in addition to DPS in the early expansions. Also it was ArenaNet who promoted the whole idea of a holy trinity. I don't remember people talking about it before ArenaNet made a big deal of it.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
It is not the trinity mechanic that is so bad it is how it is implimented. Your character is defined with what role(s) it has to play before it is out of the gate. There are of course some roles that certain classes (skill group) will never be able to fill. A warrior will never be able to heal for example. But a mage could mitagate damage with shields. A rogue could tank with dodge. A barbarian could tank with life pool/damage reduction. I think if they did away with the dps portion of the trinity and then allow a person to build their character to either be a front line fighter or a back line fighter. Then give certain classes/skill groups the ability to mitagate damage in some way. It would go a long way to adding varity back into worlds.
For me I would like a loose trinity framework, more rigid than GW2 setup, but less rigid than WoW.
All players can do anything on the fly given the skill and training, but not everything all at once.
Training and skill means both player knowledge of the game, and the avatars abilities and gear.
Characters "specs" and gear selections result in modified abilities, think GW2 weapons except all weapons are open to all players, and classes are free form that result in the abilities for those weapons based on spec and stats.
Balance should always be considered.
Everyone should be a hybrid on the fly but effective through specialization
Get rid of level gated content, enemy NPC types become easier to kill as you become familiar with their behavior and to artificially make them faster to kill you can increase critical damage on them to reprsent your characters proficiency at killing such creatures over time.
Tanks
Should not be able to facetank monstrous creatures
Less HP-centric and more skill based around available tools, skills, and terrain. I always disliked the static raid world of a small humanoid tanking a legendary dragon while a healer was having a skill race with the tanks HP.
Tank geared and specialized players should be able to tank more frequently and more reliably but not indefinitely
Tanking should mean using the right counter (Gear ability, or character ability) at the right time, again not HP tanking
Tank players should always rely on the terrain, and abilities of group mates...meaning if they rush in solo they will get crushed even if they are uber leet gear/levels.
Need that inter-dependance so this should make the tank as reliant on the DPS hybrids as he is on the healer specialist.
Healers
Risk versus reward healing, you heal by giving some of your life source or consenting party members to another in the party.
This would help for PVP balance, and make healing have a meta-game skill for players to master which usually lets individual players shine through excellence instead of simply gear/level.
Relies on Tank to hold aggro
Relies on DPS hybrids to CC aggro
Will go smoosh if gets aggro and struck since the general concept is healers are combat multipliers through healing but not durable on their own.
Wife aggro so I will leave it at that for now, if I get any responses I will expand on the ideas there for discussion...this is a huge topic to discuss and respond to in one shot lol.
Edit: I like Vengers comment of remove DPS and let players choose their degree of backline or frontline fighting.
So glad none of you people are devs on the ESO, Wildstar, Bless, Neverwinter, etc... teams as you all have terrible ideas.
You all seem to think by killing the need for specific types of roles in GROUP play , and making everything section of content soloable, you make an mmo great. Instead you turn an mmo into a single player experience.
Ironically, ESO claims it's trying to split the difference by killing the need for specific types of roles without killing the ability to play them...
(Or at least, trying to sell the idea that they're doing this.)
Gw2 for example, for my people i know felt like a single player experience oppose to an MMO, everyone could do everything not in terms of roles but in terms of needing the player next to you to save you, or depending on someone in your GROUP to contribute to the team by healing, controling, aggroing the said mob NOT mindlessly attacking the mob until it dies.
There's plenty of theoretical space in between the ideas "mindlessly attacking the mob until it dies" and "depending solely on THAT ONE GUY to control the mob and THAT ONE OTHER GUY to keep everyone alive while the rest of us near-mindlessly attack the mob until it dies."
There's also more to GW2 than PvE, though admittedly the WvW stuff did tend to devolve into zerging.
GW2 dungeon experience was basically here's your damage, heres your heals and heres your kiting now smash them all together and everyone is in charge of themselves, Group content felt like you were playing along side other people rather than playing with people.
Feh. Hard 'trinity' games these days feel more like playing with semi-competent bots than real people anyway. In fact, you probably *could* bot most of it once you figured out the dungeon script, at least for anything less than the 25+ raids, and do just as well if not better.
That is the baby boomer sentence of those satisfied with the status quo. They are the ones that sell out at the first opportunity, the ones that push outdated business models on everyone, the ones that left the future generations in debt. Are you really no better than they are? Are you really satisfied with stagnation and mundane, uninteresting ways of living? Can't you see that the next generation wants nothing but to evolve? Stagnation means humanity is broken. Where is your curiosity? Your will to outdo your elders? Your will to tinker with the world around you? Do you not have an ounce of humanity left in you?
My hats off to you, sir. Complacency is a hell of a drug.
Originally posted by tupodawg999 You see the same dynamic in single-player games. Distinctive classes fit very well in party-based games like Baldur's Gate while in solo character games the player either has the ability to learn every skill and beome a tankhealermagerogue like the ES games or the game needs separate paths depending on initial class choice like...can't think of one.
Yes but the dynamics is still very different in Baldurs gate.
Yeah by dynamics i meant design dynamics in that party-based games mostly have distinctive classes while solo games tend to have tankmagehealerrogues and the problem for mmos is they're a bit of both.
It is really the mobs AI that is the trinity, they might be superintelligent dragons but they still attack the guy who can take loads of damage while doing pretty little themselves instead of the wizard who makes loads of damage but can easily be killed by a smack.
Comments
That's nice. So have I. I guess our opinions differ on the matter.
Does that bother you? It seems to, but then people around here often act in ways contradictory to how they feel.
I generally dislike systems that hold your hand and tell you how to play. It feels like I'm being patronized, like the devs thought I was too dumb to figure out how to work with other people if they didn't tell me what to do.
Fixed-role classes hold your hand and tell you how to play them.
(Also, I like being able to do something when the team isn't around yet. And LFG isn't that something.)
BING! We have a winner. I am sick of going in with only five. Raids only ftw.
So glad none of you people are devs on the ESO, Wildstar, Bless, Neverwinter, etc... teams as you all have terrible ideas.
You all seem to think by killing the need for specific types of roles in GROUP play , and making everything section of content soloable, you make an mmo great. Instead you turn an mmo into a single player experience.
Gw2 for example, for my people i know felt like a single player experience oppose to an MMO, everyone could do everything not in terms of roles but in terms of needing the player next to you to save you, or depending on someone in your GROUP to contribute to the team by healing, controling, aggroing the said mob NOT mindlessly attacking the mob until it dies.
GW2 dungeon experience was basically here's your damage, heres your heals and heres your kiting now smash them all together and everyone is in charge of themselves, Group content felt like you were playing along side other people rather than playing with people. There was no one incharge of resource managment, no one in control of controling, no one migrating damage, no one doing anything but throwing out a 15% heal every 40 seconds or zerging.
"if u forcefully insert foriegn objects into my? body, i will die"
Yes but the dynamics is still very different in Baldurs gate.
The healer is the same and you do need DPS (preferably at least one of them who can take some damage and bodyblock opponents) but the class you really must have is a rogue (or possibly a bard) to take care of traps and locks.
I think we all agree (well, maybe with a few excpeptions at least) that there must be some kind of group mechanics.
All classes must have something to bring into combat and working together should be the best way to win.
What differs the trinity from other system is however that it is based on the tanks taking all aggro from the mobs while the healer keeps her alive and the rest just stands around and do as much damage as they can without getting aggro.
It is really the mobs AI that is the trinity, they might be superintelligent dragons but they still attack the guy who can take loads of damage while doing pretty little themselves instead of the wizard who makes loads of damage but can easily be killed by a smack.
In pen and paper games the GM really tries to take the wizard out first instead and the rest of the players would try to bodyblock or something else to stop the wizard from dying.
A new working group dynamic system would really have to start with the AI first, if you smarted up the mobs so classic tanking wont be possible how can weaker players survive and what would the different classes add to the combat then?
Any game with any opportunity to specialize your character/avatar/etc will have some form of group dynamics and teamwork. The simplest example would be the choice of weapons in an FPS game. If you choose a shotgun, you're a close-quarter specialist. If you choose a long range rifle, you're a sniper.
But I agree with the rest of your post. The quality of the AI or AI manipulation through skills is what makes of breaks a trinity; however, having proactive defense in a greater role (that is defense other than healing and armor) wouldn't hurt either.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Wait, WoW didn't promote the holy trinity thing. A lot of their instances required CC in addition to DPS in the early expansions. Also it was ArenaNet who promoted the whole idea of a holy trinity. I don't remember people talking about it before ArenaNet made a big deal of it.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
IMO:
Tanks
Ironically, ESO claims it's trying to split the difference by killing the need for specific types of roles without killing the ability to play them...
(Or at least, trying to sell the idea that they're doing this.)
There's plenty of theoretical space in between the ideas "mindlessly attacking the mob until it dies" and "depending solely on THAT ONE GUY to control the mob and THAT ONE OTHER GUY to keep everyone alive while the rest of us near-mindlessly attack the mob until it dies."
There's also more to GW2 than PvE, though admittedly the WvW stuff did tend to devolve into zerging.
Feh. Hard 'trinity' games these days feel more like playing with semi-competent bots than real people anyway. In fact, you probably *could* bot most of it once you figured out the dungeon script, at least for anything less than the 25+ raids, and do just as well if not better.
My hats off to you, sir. Complacency is a hell of a drug.