It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I don't care about a stagnent trinity system but....
I do really like defined roles in combat. (I do not think everyone should be restrained to the same role for the life of their character though)
I really like tactical combat (Ok everyone has to dps this part, now everyone has to mitigate damage with whatever they have, now we have to kite and dps adds, now we need to carefully split dps)
I really dislike mindless zerg combat. Based on the trailer this is all that has been shown.
Also lack of targeting makes for less control and less tactical. It could be done to still have tactics but it is much harder to do.
Lastly, good AI does not mean you need to scrap the trinity. Look at DnD modules where tanks function with various DM used AIs for their turns. Body blocking narrow passages, CC effects and soft taunts (less accuracy or damage unless target's attack is on the person who used it, who is generally more tanky).
I will wait and see, but color me surprised if this is not yet another mindless "action combat" game.
Originally posted by Doogiehowser Originally posted by Dren_Utogi Originally posted by Doogiehowser Originally posted by Dren_Utogi what does pvp have to with AI ? These kind of blinded statements are another reason SOe is out of touch with the what mmorpg players want.
The trinity goes further then just pve. Creating spec'd groups ofor pvp fights,ceating real community of classes that interact with each other and be destinctive from of other class, like in Shadowbane.
SOE is money grabbers,it is a reflection of Sony the company, they just want money with the easiest and most efficient way possible, and what better way to lesson the load is to not have to think about class interaction.
EVE was made as a PVP MMO from ground up. So your example of eve doesn't hold water while comparing it to EQ franchise. More over EVE is unique because it is the only space PVP sandbox MMO out there. But if you want to convince readers that you know what 'players' want you would need more than just one example of successful PVP MMO.
I am still interested in knowing how you claim to know what i or other MMORPG players want.
I agree, the entire concept of interceptors in Eve is awesome and its closest parallel is a pvp version of a puller class (locks down ship to not escape).
Originally posted by CalmOceans Originally posted by botrytis Originally posted by Shadowguy64 As long as it isn't zergy, then I'll be very pleased. That's all I ask. No zerg.
Every game has that - get over it.
EQ has no zerg whatsoever, none, and the reason is the trinity system and the dependency and controlled and strategic combat it creates.
The EQ I played from 1999-2003 sure as hell had zerging. In fact, EQ players invented the term!
Originally posted by Adrazahn Originally posted by CalmOceans Originally posted by botrytis Originally posted by Shadowguy64 As long as it isn't zergy, then I'll be very pleased. That's all I ask. No zerg.
Every game has that - get over it.
Does it now?
Originally posted by Shadowguy64 Originally posted by Adrazahn Originally posted by CalmOceans Originally posted by botrytis Originally posted by Shadowguy64 As long as it isn't zergy, then I'll be very pleased. That's all I ask. No zerg.
Every game has that - get over it.
Well technically he is right about it having zerg but the term originated around the same period of time in Starcraft 1 from the FOO strategy which later evolved into the 6 pool strategy (namely rushing to push out lings with a sprinkling of hydras should shit have gotten tits up).
Originally posted by NagelRitter ... and the Trinity gives you rigid roles that never change. The real world doesn't work like that. PvP is the representation of Trinity-less combat and PvP is not zergy unless, again, you suck.
Of course, RL has a higher degree of specialization than any mmorpg, especially in the most advanced technological countries, and in the modern army, too.
PvP may be Trinity-less, but it's not "the representation". If you ever played WAR you would know that you will be more successful in PvP when you setup your party/army around the Trinity, and play your role. Of course, with much more people on one side, zerg will do it. But "structured/organized" PvP is so much more fun, and you rip apart your opponents even if you are outnumbered (up to a certain degree). I played a tank for a while and it really worked fine and was fun.
If things become zergy, then I see two reasons: The players suck ... or/and the devs.
When it comes to EQN: Don't know why they need to remove the Trinity. It's not for their NPCs AI. Maybe they just want to do it ... reason enough I would say, it's their game. Whether it will work and will be fun ... we will see. Hard to estimate atm.
Originally posted by Shadowguy64 Does it now?
Yup, it's actually more prevalent now with the addition of Mercenaries to the game. A group of 6 can split into two groups and each player pops a merc out to help take a named on.
Originally posted by Aabel Originally posted by Shadowguy64 Does it now?
What does that have to do with zerging?
Originally posted by Adrazahn The EQ I played from 1999-2003 sure as hell had zerging. In fact, EQ players invented the term!
Originally posted by Meteora69 When it comes to EQN: Don't know why they need to remove the Trinity. It's not for their NPCs AI. Maybe they just want to do it ... reason enough I would say, it's their game. Whether it will work and will be fun ... we will see. Hard to estimate atm. Meteora
The roles of tank, dps and healer are still there, and will be there in more flavors than currently present. What is GONE is the 'taunt' button or magic threat abilities. If you want the AI to attack a particular character you have to create the scenario where that is it's best option. For example we saw two interesting wizard abilities, the one that made a wall of icy looking crystals and one that gathered enemies up and teleported the wizard away. Those two abilities could be used in a sequence, with coordination with the battle cat where the kobolds would be better off attacking the warrior as they would be blocked off from attacking the wizard.
Originally posted by Waterlily What does that have to do with zerging?
It's throwing more bodies at a situation, computer controlled ones even.
Originally posted by Waterlily Originally posted by Adrazahn The EQ I played from 1999-2003 sure as hell had zerging. In fact, EQ players invented the term!
Lol. Yeah.. everything was invented from EQ players.
Originally posted by Aabel Originally posted by Waterlily What does that have to do with zerging?
It's throwing more bodies at a situation.
That's not zerging.
Plenty of mobs in Everquest are meant to be taken down with multiple groups, even outside of instances. Queen in TSS, Hulcror and Velitorkin in WoS, they're not raid mobs, they're multi-group mobs.
Using more than 6 people isn't zerging, that has always been possible in any game.
Originally posted by Waterlily That's not zerging. Plenty of mobs in Everquest are meant to be taken down with multiple groups, even outside of instances. Queen in TSS, Hulcror and Velitorkin in WoS, they're not raid mobs, they're multi-group mobs. Using more than 6 people isn't zerging, that has always been possible in any game.
Winning through overwhelming numbers isn't zerging? that's news to me. Anyway the mobs you mentioned are all raid targets, particularly when they were current content during omens of war, and since they weren't instanced you could bring more people to kill them than you could to an instanced raid, you could 'zerg' them so to say.
People zerg in EQ, lots of people do it, particularly when getting a named in non instanced group content and nobody has raid gear. 1 or 2 DPS dropping group so more heal mercs can be popped is not uncommon, it's also not uncommon to do it so DPS mercs can be popped.
It's no secret that most group content mobs are tuned for one group, so yes it's zerging when you reform your group to allow for mercs to take it down.
Shhhh... their heads will explode if they find out that games other than EQ ever existed. Be gentle if you tread those waters.
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 Aabel Anyway the mobs you mentioned are all raid targets
We did those mobs with 2 groups during OOW, so did most guilds. Only if you were far behind in progression did you need to bring a raid for them. Most of the time we ran past them since the loot on them was worse than what you could get in PoTime even.
I am not going to despair yet, nor will I until I play EQN but I do remain a skeptic. If there was anything that made EQ arguably the best MMORPG of all time it was the group dynamic. If you didn’t have a tank, a healer, a enchanter, a puller and dps classes in a tight 6 man group you were screwed in a dungeon. Furthermore it took some time and skill development to be a good support class. How do you move away from this without having support classes be trivial to play?
Originally posted by Waterlily Originally posted by Aabel Anyway the mobs you mentioned are all raid targets
Chances are then your guild referred to anyone who couldn't take them down with 2 groups as 'zergs'.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by Waterlily Originally posted by Adrazahn The EQ I played from 1999-2003 sure as hell had zerging. In fact, EQ players invented the term!
It's true...and based on some posts...some found out already...
Originally posted by Aceshighhhh Brian Green of Storybricks tweeted this today: https://twitter.com/Psychochild/status/364200566840238080 "The holy trinity came about because of primitive MMO AI. Vastly improved AI means a new dynamic is needed. Wait before you despair." Before everyone touts GW2 references or cries about the end of the world, consider that the system SOE is building for EQN requires the removal of the holy trinity. Guild Wars 2 didn't have near the AI fidelity that EQN will have. Let's wait until we can actually see the system in context before making huge assumptions.
Here's my two cents. Imagine you are a mob in any mmo. Primitive or advance AI, you only have 1 of 4 choices when 5 guys are attacking you.
#2 Call for help.
#3 Attack the biggest guy in the group hoping to defeat him and demoralized the other "softer" members.
#4 Attack the "softest" member killing him quickly to shift the odds in your favor.
Options 1 and 2 have been done before in many mmos. We have seen mobs retreat when their health gets low. We've seen them call for help. Nothing new. These are simply fixed with crowd control.
Option 3 is the holy trinity. Focus on the guy dealing the most damage or generating the most hate. Which in a perfect world is always the tank.
Option 4 would be somewhat new, but would end the same way GW2 does.... in a Zergfest. If the AI goes after the softer DDs or mages the tankier members are still going to try and pull it off, or everyone is just going to zerg it down before it kills anyone.
A fifth option which I almost don't even care to mention is something we say in Borderlands 2. When fighting a mob, if you don't kill it fast enough it evolves into something bigger and badder. Still in the end it again becomes option 4. A Zergfest.
There are no other options in this scenario. So before we get all silly-hyped on more of SOEs promises to Reinvent the Wheel lets step back and realize that SOE just isn't that smart, and we hopefully aren't dumb enough to believe they are.
Originally posted by Sovrath Originally posted by tordurbar Originally posted by CalmOceans The thing that is primitive is action combat. It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence. And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time. So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market. On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community. Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"
I don't know what type of critical thinking schools have taught over the years but apparently "not much".
I can easily imagine an "action combat" version of crowd control, several different versions of healing, one of which requires healing "after a battle and not during" and any number of ways that you can make players require the assistance of other classes.
But apparently, because some games adopted certain ways of doing things, no other way is even remotely possible.
Or maybe we just don't have any "outside the box" thinkers here.
Do you see any evidence in the combat videos we have seen so far that show this out of the box AI thinking? If they have a proof of concept video (assuming they are pros) they should prove it to us by showing releasing the video. If not, it could just be pie in the sky.
Originally posted by Meteora69 Originally posted by NagelRitter ... and the Trinity gives you rigid roles that never change. The real world doesn't work like that. PvP is the representation of Trinity-less combat and PvP is not zergy unless, again, you suck.
That's just rubbish - I've got news for you, the real world does revolve around the majority of the population sticking to roles they know well.
PvP in MMO's is all about zerg. The number of times I have been able to 1v1 a person is minimal compared to the times I've been 1v2 or more. In organised team PvP the whole strategy revolves around isolating or setting up a single person so that they can be burned (zerged) down.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Originally posted by waynejr2 Originally posted by Sovrath
He is making a statement that action combat is limited "primitive. I addressed that.
It doesn't have to be that way. He says it doesn't allow for pulling which is ridiculous (and I don't believe in pulling anyway as per another posters earlier statement) as all one has to do is aim and pull. CC can be done any number of ways, cone around the player, cone around the player but allies block its effect so that you have to position yourself correctly, an aim and a successful hit, maybe a stat check to see if it works.
Inferior tanking? well once again I loved tanking in Tera where i would position my body between myself and the healer and slam with my shield, stun him and allow the healer to move to a better spot. In addition I really loved my chain that I could thow out and pull trash mobs to me or literally stop the boss if the effect worked. It was very "in the moment". I also had to always attack to build up my power otherwise just standing there and blocking would not only drain power but I'd lose the mob/boss's attention because it would go to someone else. But maybe a tank has more to do than just being weak but able to take hits? Maybe a tank does decent damage as he should but can grab mobs, throw them, be a barrier, have a power that is a yell that throws mobs back, maybe stunning them.
For healing? Same as CC, cone, possible position requirement, an aim, maybe even an actual touch, why not? Maybe a mechanic where the healer has to constantly be fighting and blocking. As long as the mob doesn't land a hit the healer emits an aura of protection or healing or "you name your poison" but as soon as the healer is touched the concentration breaks and he/she has to build it up again. maybe the healer has an ability where he can link to a mob, maybe forcing that mob to beat on him and he sacrifces his health but passes the loss as healing to a player he has linked to. How about a holy healer who must inscribe a holy symbol in various areas as the fighting continues and then once finishing the last one a huge heal goes off in the area the symbols cover?
It can be anything you want. Maybe a Bard that has a musical mini-game, one that is easy enough for non-musicians to master, that continually allows for a buff or a steady heal over time but that Bard can't be hit or it breaks his concentration, loses the buff/healing. Or the buff/healing is better or worse depending how how well he does in the mini-game. Tabbing to an enemy and hitting a button on a hotbar is not more "bettah" than aiming a skill, emitting a cone (or aiming a cone) or area of effect or having to touch another player. Add your layers as you see fit.
Just because some companies haven't used it to its potential doesn't mean that depth can't be added.