Let's put that conversation in context shall we. I remember the part in the panel you're talking about.
They were referring to Taunt/Threat generation. They were saying don't expect a tank and spank. In a trinity system if you run into an encounter that needs a tank/spank you will not be able to do it without a tank.
You will not run into such an encounter in EQN. That does NOT mean a defender class won't be needed.
Granted again, this is all dependent upon how good the emergent AI actually is.
People are right to be skeptical, but let's hold off on the sky is falling before we see what they've been talking about.
".. the dedicated roles of the holy trinity are not going to be present in Everquest Next. There will be different classes and different build that are angled towards some of the roles, so there might be a class or a build or a class that is more tank-ish but you don't NEED that person to accomplish that goal and content. "
This is the part I am talking about.
They have also included healing in some of their examples on this subject.
Leading to the MANY threads on the subject
Tanking is just the example used here and I would guess they used it as its the easiest to understand.
You can be "tank-ish" if you want but you will not be NEEDED to be that way.
this just leads on to the obvious conclusions
you can be heal-ish if you want but you will not be NEEDED to be that way.
you can be support-ish if you want but you will not be NEEDED to be that way.
you can be CC-ish if you want but you will not be NEEDED to be that way.
given the natural tendency for most people to play DPS (name a game where you are not short on heals tanks and support)
games taking this approach in the past have migrated towards DPS zergfest.
P.S. i dont have any emotional investment in EQN so no thoughts of "sky is falling " over here, I will play ESO or ArcheAge or one of the many many other games that are coming out and be happy. I will even play EQN when it comes out, I just wish they had not gone down this path
SOE have clearly said that they're on a mission to remove the old "Omg, we have no Cleric online, so we can't raid tonight, because we have no healer" from their game.
In the classic trinity MMO's, one class was a specialised healer. Most of the more challenging content could not be completed without that class being there. None of the other classes in the game could fill that role, not even by overlapping their limited healing skills (if they even had any worth mentioning). Without that healer class, everybody else died.
EqNext will have 40 classes at launch.
FORTY... CLASSES...AT LAUNCH...
Could it be that 10 or 15 of those classes could be effective healers ? Be it through weapon abilities or character abilities or a combination of both. Perhaps by using certain gear and weapon mods, any one of those classes could become a dedicated healer.
Suddenly "you won't need any ONE class" takes on a whole new meaning...
You seem to have ignored the fact that they've already said you wont need specific roles for any of the content, which means those 10-15 effective healer classes are pointless, when the content is balanced so that you can beat it without specific roles you effectivly have a zerg scenario, anything can beat it so why wouldnt you maximize dps?
Gw2 should have made this plenty clear, but some people seem blind to it still, the trinity might be outdated, but roles never will be.
SOE have clearly said that they're on a mission to remove the old "Omg, we have no Cleric online, so we can't raid tonight, because we have no healer" from their game.
In the classic trinity MMO's, one class was a specialised healer. Most of the more challenging content could not be completed without that class being there. None of the other classes in the game could fill that role, not even by overlapping their limited healing skills (if they even had any worth mentioning). Without that healer class, everybody else died.
EqNext will have 40 classes at launch.
FORTY... CLASSES...AT LAUNCH...
Could it be that 10 or 15 of those classes could be effective healers ? Be it through weapon abilities or character abilities or a combination of both. Perhaps by using certain gear and weapon mods, any one of those classes could become a dedicated healer.
Suddenly "you won't need any ONE class" takes on a whole new meaning...
You seem to have ignored the fact that they've already said you wont need specific roles for any of the content, which means those 10-15 effective healer classes are pointless, when the content is balanced so that you can beat it without specific roles you effectivly have a zerg scenario, anything can beat it so why wouldnt you maximize dps?
Gw2 should have made this plenty clear, but some people seem blind to it still, the trinity might be outdated, but roles never will be.
People saw you mention Guild Wars 2 and they mentioned LoL/Dota 2.
still raises the same questions that won't be answered until the game is really playable in a decent state:
--Oculus Rift: Cool technology that is finally starting to pan out in the real world (Did you see john Carmack just became their chief technological officer? that's great news as he's always been on the bleeding edge techwise, much more so than as a game dev). While I'm planning on snatching one eventually, it still won't have much mainstream effect on MMOs for a while due to technical and sociological limitations; Obviously can't see keyboard when using it, eyestrain remains a real issue, it has a hefty price tag still for a toy, and it's not usable for many due to family interactions, or any need to keep an eye on anything outside of game.
--Not talking about PvP: It's too early for them to talk about it, they need to keep a stack of reveals they can dole out later, that's understandable. If we assume they want to change the field for pvp too (fair assumption I believe, given how giddy a couple of the speakers looked when asked PvP questions), they will avoid an instanced pvp focus. We do know based on lore and a couple of hints that we won't have two opposite factions, that system has very often proved problematic for balance so that's good. It's likely some sort of open world pvp servers is part of the plan, it would be in line with the mostly sandboxy world and most of the examples they used throughout this last week.
--No trinity: The concern for me isn't so much a change of template but more the possible lack of a any specialization. GW2 is the prime example there, unless you are trying for speedruns and maximizing synergy, the huge majority of groups are 5 people soloing in close proximity, that's a disaster for me. The modern trinity unlike the original warrior-cleric-enchanter stranglehold can work well, when healers and tanks are fun and efficient outside of dungeons. Even the good AI excuse is somewhat flawed because PvP tanks and healers exist (warhammer online was great for tanks, healers much more commonly). That said, I understand that not quite 1/5th or 1/6th of the players really want to play a tank or a healer, so making them an option is something I can appreciate.. Yet how are they going to address the soloing-within-a-group problem? There are only so many options here, the ennemy's hit points must reach zero before your team's, so you have two non-mutually exclusive paths, protect/regenerate your HPs, or take theirs down.
Damage is obvious, whether it's done through melee, nukes, DoTs, or more esoteric means like traps, pets, environmental damage.. That's the core of the GW2 problem, the DPS side offers many options, but few strategic choices. Now defense is where things get more convoluted. We have the tank/healer paradigm of course to make enemy damage irrelevant, or we can stop enemy from doing any actions (crowd control), reducing those actions' effectiveness (debuffs), protecting from them (shields/runes), or avoiding them altogether(kiting, dodging, LoS..).
So options do exist, and we've used them in the past extensively along with or instead of tanking, but I fail to see what problems we fixed that aren't just moved around. If you give the defensive side too small of a focus, you end up with the GW2 DPS strategic emptiness. If you spread your focus on all the possible defensive actions.. you end up with none of them having any actual strategic weight, and by comparison damage once against wins the fight. If you focus on any of them too heavily, you are back in the same position except your players are forced into incorporating one of a small group of skills into all builds.
So really getting rid of the trinity.. Okay, sure. While I tend to tank a lot I also play other archetypes and I don't mind change, I'm just not convinced the solution will be any better. GW2 free for all, or a reliance on another paradigm just don't look like improvements to me, at best a status quo. Of course that's all for group play.. for solo play, sure I can see the appeal, but too much solo play makes for some dull MMOs
still raises the same questions that won't be answered until the game is really playable in a decent state:
--Oculus Rift: Cool technology that is finally starting to pan out in the real world (Did you see john Carmack just became their chief technological officer? that's great news as he's always been on the bleeding edge techwise, much more so than as a game dev). While I'm planning on snatching one eventually, it still won't have much mainstream effect on MMOs for a while due to technical and sociological limitations; Obviously can't see keyboard when using it, eyestrain remains a real issue, it has a hefty price tag still for a toy, and it's not usable for many due to family interactions, or any need to keep an eye on anything outside of game.
--Not talking about PvP: It's too early for them to talk about it, they need to keep a stack of reveals they can dole out later, that's understandable. If we assume they want to change the field for pvp too (fair assumption I believe, given how giddy a couple of the speakers looked when asked PvP questions), they will avoid an instanced pvp focus. We do know based on lore and a couple of hints that we won't have two opposite factions, that system has very often proved problematic for balance so that's good. It's likely some sort of open world pvp servers is part of the plan, it would be in line with the mostly sandboxy world and most of the examples they used throughout this last week.
--No trinity: The concern for me isn't so much a change of template but more the possible lack of a any specialization. GW2 is the prime example there, unless you are trying for speedruns and maximizing synergy, the huge majority of groups are 5 people soloing in close proximity, that's a disaster for me. The modern trinity unlike the original warrior-cleric-enchanter stranglehold can work well, when healers and tanks are fun and efficient outside of dungeons. Even the good AI excuse is somewhat flawed because PvP tanks and healers exist (warhammer online was great for tanks, healers much more commonly). That said, I understand that not quite 1/5th or 1/6th of the players really want to play a tank or a healer, so making them an option is something I can appreciate.. Yet how are they going to address the soloing-within-a-group problem? There are only so many options here, the ennemy's hit points must reach zero before your team's, so you have two non-mutually exclusive paths, protect/regenerate your HPs, or take theirs down.
Damage is obvious, whether it's done through melee, nukes, DoTs, or more esoteric means like traps, pets, environmental damage.. That's the core of the GW2 problem, the DPS side offers many options, but few strategic choices. Now defense is where things get more convoluted. We have the tank/healer paradigm of course to make enemy damage irrelevant, or we can stop enemy from doing any actions (crowd control), reducing those actions' effectiveness (debuffs), protecting from them (shields/runes), or avoiding them altogether(kiting, dodging, LoS..).
So options do exist, and we've used them in the past extensively along with or instead of tanking, but I fail to see what problems we fixed that aren't just moved around. If you give the defensive side too small of a focus, you end up with the GW2 DPS strategic emptiness. If you spread your focus on all the possible defensive actions.. you end up with none of them having any actual strategic weight, and by comparison damage once against wins the fight. If you focus on any of them too heavily, you are back in the same position except your players are forced into incorporating one of a small group of skills into all builds.
So really getting rid of the trinity.. Okay, sure. While I tend to tank a lot I also play other archetypes and I don't mind change, I'm just not convinced the solution will be any better. GW2 free for all, or a reliance on another paradigm just don't look like improvements to me, at best a status quo. Of course that's all for group play.. for solo play, sure I can see the appeal, but too much solo play makes for some dull MMOs
Great post. Your friend has analyzed this problem with insight and a fair mind imo.
EvE manages to have roles without the trinity. Eve also lets you change roles by changing ships...but Eve certainly has progression in its own way.
There are ways to bring roles into a game without a trinity that have been done before it just requires a different mind set.
Crowd Control is one, WoW presented a type of crowd control that worked universally with roots and stuns, and certain glimpses of situational class crowd control with some classes that could CC undead. If you expand the types of enemies present Instead of just undead/demon/animal/humanoid you can expand the types of roles needed to combat those particular classes, especially if you create tiers under those types.
Imagine an earth elemental npc enemy that leaps around (we have already seen movement is fast from the warrior demo and his hopping around), and a few of the player classes with the ability to CC elementals to keep them from moving so fast and possibly to dispel any type of shielding they have that deflects 80% of incoming damage, this class while primarily DPS/Control would be essential in letting other DPS classes get close enough to kill the earth elemental and would cause that killing to occur 80% faster. This would be an important role in an area that you would expect such things (like say an underground cavern you just happened to now be able to dig down into).
Now in most games such a situational CC class would be a bit limited but with the ability to swap roles, and such a huge number of roles being put out, it is entirely possible that while not part of some grand trinity you would want someone in the group with that role before you went down into said cavern. Expand that out to include other elements, undead, demons and the more mixed the area you are going into the more important having appropriate roles to control certain enemies inside become.
Now imagine you go into the same situation without this role, maybe you bring just DPS and you are having to chase around this mob type smart enough to jump away from melee, and with 80% more health because you are unable to dispel that particular buff...the fight becomes LONGER with a pure dps zerg not shorter. Even your ranged dps are going to have a problem because obviously it is going to jump straight to them and start hitting them and you forgot to bring something that will slow it down.
This would depend on a few things of course and I have no idea if it is anything like EQnext, you would have to get rid of the idea that anyone can debuff anything as long as they have a universal debuff skill, and you would have to have an A.I. smart enough to not just "Attack the mage" but also avoid the melee when possible and attack the ranged...and the ability to have several of these hypothetical elementals doing this all at once....put all this together and you get a situation where you will have wish you brought the right rock-paper-scissor combination as your having to run all over the place with your dps crew taking 80% more time to do something a better put together group would have done and moved on from by now.
Maybe your DPS only crew starts to bunch up to stop the things from going straight for the ranged, well this is fine you just used a tactic to overcome a problem caused by your lack of planning...still might not save your poorly armored arrow shooting elf buddy though...hope you brought a healer.
Maybe your DPS only crew starts to bunch up to stop the things from going straight for the ranged, well this is fine you just used a tactic to overcome a problem caused by your lack of planning...still might not save your poorly armored arrow shooting elf buddy though...hope you brought a healer.
This is where much of the defence of this system in this thread falls down.
By the devs own assertions... you will not NEED any particular class
SO they have to design content that can be done by.,.. a whole group of ranged.
As for the comments by another poster that people countered the GW2 accusation with LoL/Dota
Those games have very strong class distinctions and unless you are playing against nubs, you will NEED each of those key roles
Maybe your DPS only crew starts to bunch up to stop the things from going straight for the ranged, well this is fine you just used a tactic to overcome a problem caused by your lack of planning...still might not save your poorly armored arrow shooting elf buddy though...hope you brought a healer.
This is where much of the defence of this system in this thread falls down.
By the devs own assertions... you will not NEED any particular class
SO they have to design content that can be done by.,.. a whole group of ranged.
As for the comments by another poster that people countered the GW2 accusation with LoL/Dota
Those games have very strong class distinctions and unless you are playing against nubs, you will NEED each of those key roles
Not needing a class is not the same as it being equally easy with all group compositions, they clearly said that you would run into combat scenarios that would "kick your ass" and you would have to step out and rethink your skills, well if any scenario can defeat class x then clearly class x can not as you say do all content by itself or in a group containing only class x.
It is a mistake to say just because you do not need a paladin it necessarily follows that you can do everything with a group of mages.
Maybe your DPS only crew starts to bunch up to stop the things from going straight for the ranged, well this is fine you just used a tactic to overcome a problem caused by your lack of planning...still might not save your poorly armored arrow shooting elf buddy though...hope you brought a healer.
This is where much of the defence of this system in this thread falls down.
By the devs own assertions... you will not NEED any particular class
SO they have to design content that can be done by.,.. a whole group of ranged.
Why do they have to do that for? just because everyone can be ranged or whatever does not mean they need to create content for that..
it will be up to the groups to take a good selection of different classes along and not all the same thnig.. there might not be 100% dedicated helers or whatever but there will be classes that are good at healing in groups and of course you will want to take those along when needed... it will jsut be more dynamic and yo wont be locked into needing a tank, healer, crowd control like you where before.. you will still have those people or people doing that for the group but numerous people could take on those roles..
Not needing a class is not the same as it being equally easy with all group compositions, they clearly said that you would run into combat scenarios that would "kick your ass" and you would have to step out and rethink your skills, well if any scenario can defeat class x then clearly class x can not as you say do all content by itself or in a group containing only class x.
It is a mistake to say just because you do not need a paladin it necessarily follows that you can do everything with a group of mages.
Whilst I dont disagree with your point in principle.
They have made it clear you will not NEED any class...and to make that claim they will HAVE to make the content work for ANY group comp (assuming the players are semi skilled).
If they dont make the content work for ANY group composition then they will not be able to make this claim.
If they had come out and said... some fights you will NEED a tank and some you will not
Some fights you will NEED 6 DPS
Some fights you will NEED 2 healers and a CCer
If they had said this... people would not be having a forum meltdown and what you have said would be true.
They didnt say this... they said you will not NEED a tank in the interview here and on the pannel they used a healer in the same type of example, its this that has got everyones panties in a bunch
Wow lots of dodged questions. From the reveal you got the sense they had it all sorted out, then soon afterwards you realize a lot of the stuff aren't finalized, what they say may or may not even be in the live game. I really thought they were further along than this.
Not needing a class is not the same as it being equally easy with all group compositions, they clearly said that you would run into combat scenarios that would "kick your ass" and you would have to step out and rethink your skills, well if any scenario can defeat class x then clearly class x can not as you say do all content by itself or in a group containing only class x.
It is a mistake to say just because you do not need a paladin it necessarily follows that you can do everything with a group of mages.
Whilst I dont disagree with your point in principle.
They have made it clear you will not NEED any class...and to make that claim they will HAVE to make the content work for ANY group comp (assuming the players are semi skilled).
If they dont make the content work for ANY group composition then they will not be able to make this claim.
Yea but you are really taking a logic leap that I don't think is supported by the limited information we have available, he said certain class compositions will fail, that does not mean you need a specific other class just that those compositions will fail.
If I say you do not need a hammer to put together this bed set it is not a logical assumption that all you need then is a 100 pairs of scissors. You are arguing because I said you do not need a hammer that I am also implying that you have to be able to put together the bed with 100 pair of scissors and I think that is retarded. Hell you may very well be able to do it with a pair of Scissors Mcguiver could, but I didn't say that and he didn't say you could face roll everything with one class and skill set, in fact they specifically said that was not the case.
Nevertheless I am not arguing on SOE's behalf just on the fact that we don't know enough, really we don't know anything except how 4 landscapes and two gender/race combos may look...that is all I have seen in the game...oh an an unfinished combat demo were half the AI wasn't working.
If you don't need any particular class role, that does not mean they are not useful or beneficial. A tank type of character would be useful. He could offer many benefits to the party.
Can you adventure without one instead of standing around 30 minutes trying to get one or convince someone else in your party to change specs?
YES.
You can go with an extra healer or CC person or even an extra dps with some good utility skills, therefore the tanks is not NEEDED. It would be nice to have to have someone built more tankish, but you can play and have fun without feeling that you must fill out all parties the same way.
Comments
Define successful.
GW2 sold 3 million copies didn't it?
".. the dedicated roles of the holy trinity are not going to be present in Everquest Next. There will be different classes and different build that are angled towards some of the roles, so there might be a class or a build or a class that is more tank-ish but you don't NEED that person to accomplish that goal and content. "
This is the part I am talking about.
They have also included healing in some of their examples on this subject.
Leading to the MANY threads on the subject
Tanking is just the example used here and I would guess they used it as its the easiest to understand.
You can be "tank-ish" if you want but you will not be NEEDED to be that way.
this just leads on to the obvious conclusions
you can be heal-ish if you want but you will not be NEEDED to be that way.
you can be support-ish if you want but you will not be NEEDED to be that way.
you can be CC-ish if you want but you will not be NEEDED to be that way.
given the natural tendency for most people to play DPS (name a game where you are not short on heals tanks and support)
games taking this approach in the past have migrated towards DPS zergfest.
P.S. i dont have any emotional investment in EQN so no thoughts of "sky is falling " over here, I will play ESO or ArcheAge or one of the many many other games that are coming out and be happy. I will even play EQN when it comes out, I just wish they had not gone down this path
AoC is not considered a success by many and they pre sold 2million coppies
Long term Success after release.
Just about any half decent MMO can come onto the market and sell a few million boxes.
GW2 is a B2P game, and I don't even count it as a REAL MMORPG.
You seem to have ignored the fact that they've already said you wont need specific roles for any of the content, which means those 10-15 effective healer classes are pointless, when the content is balanced so that you can beat it without specific roles you effectivly have a zerg scenario, anything can beat it so why wouldnt you maximize dps?
Gw2 should have made this plenty clear, but some people seem blind to it still, the trinity might be outdated, but roles never will be.
People saw you mention Guild Wars 2 and they mentioned LoL/Dota 2.
Keep up with the conversation.
a gamer friend of mine,
whos both excited for EQN and played EQ1 back in 1999
offered this commentary to me after reading the reddit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
still raises the same questions that won't be answered until the game is really playable in a decent state:
--No trinity: The concern for me isn't so much a change of template but more the possible lack of a any specialization. GW2 is the prime example there, unless you are trying for speedruns and maximizing synergy, the huge majority of groups are 5 people soloing in close proximity, that's a disaster for me. The modern trinity unlike the original warrior-cleric-enchanter stranglehold can work well, when healers and tanks are fun and efficient outside of dungeons. Even the good AI excuse is somewhat flawed because PvP tanks and healers exist (warhammer online was great for tanks, healers much more commonly).
That said, I understand that not quite 1/5th or 1/6th of the players really want to play a tank or a healer, so making them an option is something I can appreciate.. Yet how are they going to address the soloing-within-a-group problem? There are only so many options here, the ennemy's hit points must reach zero before your team's, so you have two non-mutually exclusive paths, protect/regenerate your HPs, or take theirs down.
Damage is obvious, whether it's done through melee, nukes, DoTs, or more esoteric means like traps, pets, environmental damage.. That's the core of the GW2 problem, the DPS side offers many options, but few strategic choices. Now defense is where things get more convoluted. We have the tank/healer paradigm of course to make enemy damage irrelevant, or we can stop enemy from doing any actions (crowd control), reducing those actions' effectiveness (debuffs), protecting from them (shields/runes), or avoiding them altogether(kiting, dodging, LoS..).
EQ2 fan sites
Great post. Your friend has analyzed this problem with insight and a fair mind imo.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
EvE manages to have roles without the trinity. Eve also lets you change roles by changing ships...but Eve certainly has progression in its own way.
There are ways to bring roles into a game without a trinity that have been done before it just requires a different mind set.
Crowd Control is one, WoW presented a type of crowd control that worked universally with roots and stuns, and certain glimpses of situational class crowd control with some classes that could CC undead. If you expand the types of enemies present Instead of just undead/demon/animal/humanoid you can expand the types of roles needed to combat those particular classes, especially if you create tiers under those types.
Imagine an earth elemental npc enemy that leaps around (we have already seen movement is fast from the warrior demo and his hopping around), and a few of the player classes with the ability to CC elementals to keep them from moving so fast and possibly to dispel any type of shielding they have that deflects 80% of incoming damage, this class while primarily DPS/Control would be essential in letting other DPS classes get close enough to kill the earth elemental and would cause that killing to occur 80% faster. This would be an important role in an area that you would expect such things (like say an underground cavern you just happened to now be able to dig down into).
Now in most games such a situational CC class would be a bit limited but with the ability to swap roles, and such a huge number of roles being put out, it is entirely possible that while not part of some grand trinity you would want someone in the group with that role before you went down into said cavern. Expand that out to include other elements, undead, demons and the more mixed the area you are going into the more important having appropriate roles to control certain enemies inside become.
Now imagine you go into the same situation without this role, maybe you bring just DPS and you are having to chase around this mob type smart enough to jump away from melee, and with 80% more health because you are unable to dispel that particular buff...the fight becomes LONGER with a pure dps zerg not shorter. Even your ranged dps are going to have a problem because obviously it is going to jump straight to them and start hitting them and you forgot to bring something that will slow it down.
This would depend on a few things of course and I have no idea if it is anything like EQnext, you would have to get rid of the idea that anyone can debuff anything as long as they have a universal debuff skill, and you would have to have an A.I. smart enough to not just "Attack the mage" but also avoid the melee when possible and attack the ranged...and the ability to have several of these hypothetical elementals doing this all at once....put all this together and you get a situation where you will have wish you brought the right rock-paper-scissor combination as your having to run all over the place with your dps crew taking 80% more time to do something a better put together group would have done and moved on from by now.
Maybe your DPS only crew starts to bunch up to stop the things from going straight for the ranged, well this is fine you just used a tactic to overcome a problem caused by your lack of planning...still might not save your poorly armored arrow shooting elf buddy though...hope you brought a healer.
Wow. o_o I did not expect this much speculation and flailing to originate from that one interview.
*waves at people*
This is where much of the defence of this system in this thread falls down.
By the devs own assertions... you will not NEED any particular class
SO they have to design content that can be done by.,.. a whole group of ranged.
As for the comments by another poster that people countered the GW2 accusation with LoL/Dota
Those games have very strong class distinctions and unless you are playing against nubs, you will NEED each of those key roles
Not needing a class is not the same as it being equally easy with all group compositions, they clearly said that you would run into combat scenarios that would "kick your ass" and you would have to step out and rethink your skills, well if any scenario can defeat class x then clearly class x can not as you say do all content by itself or in a group containing only class x.
It is a mistake to say just because you do not need a paladin it necessarily follows that you can do everything with a group of mages.
Why do they have to do that for? just because everyone can be ranged or whatever does not mean they need to create content for that..
it will be up to the groups to take a good selection of different classes along and not all the same thnig.. there might not be 100% dedicated helers or whatever but there will be classes that are good at healing in groups and of course you will want to take those along when needed... it will jsut be more dynamic and yo wont be locked into needing a tank, healer, crowd control like you where before.. you will still have those people or people doing that for the group but numerous people could take on those roles..
Whilst I dont disagree with your point in principle.
They have made it clear you will not NEED any class...and to make that claim they will HAVE to make the content work for ANY group comp (assuming the players are semi skilled).
If they dont make the content work for ANY group composition then they will not be able to make this claim.
If they had come out and said... some fights you will NEED a tank and some you will not
Some fights you will NEED 6 DPS
Some fights you will NEED 2 healers and a CCer
If they had said this... people would not be having a forum meltdown and what you have said would be true.
They didnt say this... they said you will not NEED a tank in the interview here and on the pannel they used a healer in the same type of example, its this that has got everyones panties in a bunch
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
Yea but you are really taking a logic leap that I don't think is supported by the limited information we have available, he said certain class compositions will fail, that does not mean you need a specific other class just that those compositions will fail.
If I say you do not need a hammer to put together this bed set it is not a logical assumption that all you need then is a 100 pairs of scissors. You are arguing because I said you do not need a hammer that I am also implying that you have to be able to put together the bed with 100 pair of scissors and I think that is retarded. Hell you may very well be able to do it with a pair of Scissors Mcguiver could, but I didn't say that and he didn't say you could face roll everything with one class and skill set, in fact they specifically said that was not the case.
Nevertheless I am not arguing on SOE's behalf just on the fact that we don't know enough, really we don't know anything except how 4 landscapes and two gender/race combos may look...that is all I have seen in the game...oh an an unfinished combat demo were half the AI wasn't working.
Need does not mean useless.
If you don't need any particular class role, that does not mean they are not useful or beneficial. A tank type of character would be useful. He could offer many benefits to the party.
Can you adventure without one instead of standing around 30 minutes trying to get one or convince someone else in your party to change specs?
YES.
You can go with an extra healer or CC person or even an extra dps with some good utility skills, therefore the tanks is not NEEDED. It would be nice to have to have someone built more tankish, but you can play and have fun without feeling that you must fill out all parties the same way.
Stop getting hung up on one word.