Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.
The trinity was of a time when the MOB AI was limited (all they could do was increase XP of the mob or give them one strong attack, buff, debuff, etc). AI's can be more complex and there are fights in GW2, for example in higher level Fractals, where a Trinity group would be absolutely wiped out with one hit.
LOL sure this is it, I have some swamp land for sale:)
Everybody talks about we have to be the same, my sixty pound gnome needs to hit like a four hundred pound ogre or its not fare:( Well they will still be talking about the early games ten years from now and you people will still saying it doesn't work. And we will still be jumping from game to game arguing.
The holy trinity essentially forces us into an archaic and rigid format with no new skills, classes or abilities.
1) Why is there no bard class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Bards are in Everquest.
2) Why is there no debuff class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Debuff classes are in Everquest, called Enchanter and Shaman.
3) Why is there no alchemist class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
The Alchemy class in Everquest is called Shaman.
4) Why are there no trading classes? Because they are not part of the holy trinity
a what?
5) Why are there usually no hybrid classes? Because they abuse the holy trinity
Half of the classes in Everquest are hybrids.
6) Why can't tanks deal decent damage? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Paladins do against undead in EQ
7) Why can't dps provide healing? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Rangers and Beastlords can heal in EQ
8) Why cant healers tank? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Clerics in EQ tanked Quarm and Paladins are healers
get a clue please
Dude. EQ was made in 1999 when the trinity was not so much enforced. In fact ALL of your responses are simply "EQ did it". A bunch of other games did this too and they were dropped because "Bard classes were not fun" "Debuff only classes were too weak" "Buff only classes were not good", "Hybrid classes are too strong", and so on.
If you're going to make a response, try to use something that wasn't made almost 15 years ago
Just a bit of history lesson for those interested. Not only was the trinity not enforced, it really didn't exist as a mechanic. EQ players 'invented' the Trinity as the most efficient way to camp and take out bosses. The trinity evolved over time as devs watched how players played EQ, the trinity became the de-facto mechanic. EQ players also 'invented' the Raid mechanic.
The reason I put 'invented' in quotes is because it was an evolving process. EQ and MMO were a new frontier. Nobody really new how players would approach content. Thus many of the systems and mechanics we see today sprang from the players of EQ and how they tackled content.
The holy trinity essentially forces us into an archaic and rigid format with no new skills, classes or abilities.
1) Why is there no bard class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Bards are in Everquest.
2) Why is there no debuff class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Debuff classes are in Everquest, called Enchanter and Shaman.
3) Why is there no alchemist class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
The Alchemy class in Everquest is called Shaman.
4) Why are there no trading classes? Because they are not part of the holy trinity
a what?
5) Why are there usually no hybrid classes? Because they abuse the holy trinity
Half of the classes in Everquest are hybrids.
6) Why can't tanks deal decent damage? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Paladins do against undead in EQ
7) Why can't dps provide healing? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Rangers and Beastlords can heal in EQ
8) Why cant healers tank? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Clerics in EQ tanked Quarm and Paladins are healers
get a clue please
Dude. EQ was made in 1999 when the trinity was not so much enforced. In fact ALL of your responses are simply "EQ did it". A bunch of other games did this too and they were dropped because "Bard classes were not fun" "Debuff only classes were too weak" "Buff only classes were not good", "Hybrid classes are too strong", and so on.
If you're going to make a response, try to use something that wasn't made almost 15 years ago
Just a bit of history lesson for those interested. Not only was the trinity not enforced, it really didn't exist as a mechanic. EQ players 'invented' the Trinity as the most efficient way to camp and take out bosses. The trinity evolved over time as devs watched how players played EQ, the trinity became the de-facto mechanic. EQ players also 'invented' the Raid mechanic.
The reason I put 'invented' in quotes is because it was an evolving process. EQ and MMO were a new frontier. Nobody really new how players would approach content. Thus many of the systems and mechanics we see today sprang from the players of EQ and how they tackled content.
The problem I see right now is balancing a game without the Trinity.
What are the balance problems you see in UO, AC, Lineage 2, EVE and Puzzle Pirates? To put it another way, why is it now problematic in a post-WOW world when it was doable in most MMOs (yes, most MMOs) prior to it?
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
Tell that to the developers at Naughty Dog. Or Valve. Heck, I don't think I've ever met a developer or programmer that would agree with that assumption. In fact, just the opposite.
Threat based AI is known. It's linear. It doesn't make for good AI, because its far too simplistic to actually be considered intelligence. And that is what AI is simulating, intelligence. Hence the name. Smart AI may be known to the person who programmed it, but it's not necessarily known to all. GW2 is one example of this. People expect it to behave in a linear fashion, thanks to years of indoctrinating the trinity mindset. When it doesn't, people call it everything from broken, to chaotic, etc. When infact it has very clear criteria for who gets hit, when. The variables are constantly changing, but those of us who paid attention know how to work the threat, and know why certain members of the group are getting hit more than they should.
Last of Us is another example of a game with smart AI (much smarter than what GW2 has), and it shows. It's a large part of what makes the game fun. It's challenging, you're constantly worried about whether you're going to altert enemies that can very easily kill you if you're not careful.
There's a reason gear progression & the trinity usually go hand-in-hand. Gear is one of the only real gauges for difficulty you can have in that game. It's all about numbers. Do you have enough for the boss? Nope, then it'll be challenging. Yep? Then it's usually a walk in the park.
AI is still relatively new, and has room for improvement, but that doesn't mean that the first attempt is the only viable way. It's just the only one that's really been tried up until now, and so we're comfortable with it.
The holy trinity essentially forces us into an archaic and rigid format with no new skills, classes or abilities.
1) Why is there no bard class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Bards are in Everquest.
2) Why is there no debuff class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Debuff classes are in Everquest, called Enchanter and Shaman.
3) Why is there no alchemist class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
The Alchemy class in Everquest is called Shaman.
4) Why are there no trading classes? Because they are not part of the holy trinity
a what?
5) Why are there usually no hybrid classes? Because they abuse the holy trinity
Half of the classes in Everquest are hybrids.
6) Why can't tanks deal decent damage? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Paladins do against undead in EQ
7) Why can't dps provide healing? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Rangers and Beastlords can heal in EQ
8) Why cant healers tank? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Clerics in EQ tanked Quarm and Paladins are healers
get a clue please
Dude. EQ was made in 1999 when the trinity was not so much enforced. In fact ALL of your responses are simply "EQ did it". A bunch of other games did this too and they were dropped because "Bard classes were not fun" "Debuff only classes were too weak" "Buff only classes were not good", "Hybrid classes are too strong", and so on.
If you're going to make a response, try to use something that wasn't made almost 15 years ago
Just a bit of history lesson for those interested. Not only was the trinity not enforced, it really didn't exist as a mechanic. EQ players 'invented' the Trinity as the most efficient way to camp and take out bosses. The trinity evolved over time as devs watched how players played EQ, the trinity became the de-facto mechanic. EQ players also 'invented' the Raid mechanic.
The reason I put 'invented' in quotes is because it was an evolving process. EQ and MMO were a new frontier. Nobody really new how players would approach content. Thus many of the systems and mechanics we see today sprang from the players of EQ and how they tackled content.
Hes actually right about this. EQ is also where the whole concept of 'end game' spawned. And players have been perpetuating it ever since.
I think it was quite natural that in a game that does not have GAME OVER players and devs are going to think about end game. I really do not think that was invented by EQ. Not only were there MMO's prior to EQ it just seems a natural evolution of game design to me.
If EQ 'invented' the trinity system, then the devs must have already put in the gaming mechanics to allow trinity to work. Not fully fleshed, but the basics must have been there. So I am not sure it was created by the players in that way. Players using that system would have been the basis for its future development of course.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm talking about personal experience. All the semantic arguments in the world aren't going to change my experience of dozens of games over a dozen or so years. That SWG example is just one example of one aspect of what I'm talking about and I'm not going to argue the toss over it.
Bottom line is this - more varieties of interpendence is good, one kind of interdepence isn't, but it's still better than none. All I want to see is an MMO that's opens up opportunities for more varied viable groups. In too many games too many classes are basically window dressing in groups, and as I said in my first post on this thread, I think this is why so many people solo now - it's the only way to feel like you're using more of your character's potential and getting some challenge out of the game.
You are assuming. You're making an assumption that only your prior experience is relevant -- that no other possibilities could exist.
Here, I'll paint a very precise picture:
A MMORPG has many classes which fill one of three roles (DPS/heal/tank)
At least one spec for each class can solo
these specs include light mitigation and healing abilities
Some solo content is brutally challenging. An example mob:
Mobs are capped at a certain number of players, so nobody can help you kill a solo mob in any way.
Perfect interrupt timing is required: The monster has a 100% self-heal on a 0.5 sec timer.
Near-perfect DPS rotation is required: The monster enrages at 60 seconds, and a perfect rotation will kill it in 58 seconds (minus some time allotted to use healing/mitigation abilities.)
Perfect self-heal timing is required. The monster will automatically interrupt your self heal except when he (rarely) casts a very long nuke at you -- you must use those brief windows to heal, or die from lack of health.
Perfect tanking cooldown use is required. The monster has an ability which deals 100% of your max HP in base damage, and you must use your tank cooldowns in succession to mitigate the damage each time it comes in.
The above mob is brutally challenging.
This answers your earlier question of how a game can be challenging even though one person can do it all themselves. The possibility exists, even if it's outside your experience (I still think it's probably within your gaming experience -- after all, most gamers have experienced challenging solo gameplay, and many games where you experience that have the same "progress towards goals" and "mitigate problems" traits which you were calling the trinity.)
As for semantics, a semantic discussion is necessary when someone says "up is down" and you have to painstakingly explain basic definitions to them. (Except instead of up you said "the trinity" and instead of down it was generalist solo play.)
I'd prefer to avoid semantics too, but when someone uses words incorrectly we have to waste time defining them. It's tedious. Let's avoid it.
As for your closing bit, it's fine to want new types of gameplay. Everyone does. (And wanting new types of gameplay doesn't conflict with being able to enjoy existing types of gameplay (the trinity) done in refreshing ways.) I suppose I'd even concede there are ways to have "more variety" in groups, although if you have 4+ types of roles you need some pretty serious solutions in place to address how much harder it will be to form a group.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Tell that to the developers at Naughty Dog. Or Valve. Heck, I don't think I've ever met a developer or programmer that would agree with that assumption. In fact, just the opposite.
Threat based AI is known. It's linear. It doesn't make for good AI, because its far too simplistic to actually be considered intelligence. And that is what AI is simulating, intelligence. Hence the name. Smart AI may be known to the person who programmed it, but it's not necessarily known to all. GW2 is one example of this. People expect it to behave in a linear fashion, thanks to years of indoctrinating the trinity mindset. When it doesn't, people call it everything from broken, to chaotic, etc. When infact it has very clear criteria for who gets hit, when. The variables are constantly changing, but those of us who paid attention know how to work the threat, and know why certain members of the group are getting hit more than they should.
Last of Us is another example of a game with smart AI (much smarter than what GW2 has), and it shows. It's a large part of what makes the game fun. It's challenging, you're constantly worried about whether you're going to altert enemies that can very easily kill you if you're not careful.
There's a reason gear progression & the trinity usually go hand-in-hand. Gear is one of the only real gauges for difficulty you can have in that game. It's all about numbers. Do you have enough for the boss? Nope, then it'll be challenging. Yep? Then it's usually a walk in the park.
AI is still relatively new, and has room for improvement, but that doesn't mean that the first attempt is the only viable way. It's just the only one that's really been tried up until now, and so we're comfortable with it.
I feel like maybe you should actually watch the video, as it's (a) from an industry veteran and (b) echoes just about everything I've ever heard every other AI programmer say (including ones I've directly worked alongside on games) about AI.
Basically there are two sides two AI in games: Decision-making and The Player's Perception.
Decision-making is what the AI is actually choosing to do. Generally I haven't seen the quality of this increase too substantially over the years. As far back as Half-Life 1 we had AI which was basically as smart as Last of Us.
What has changed then?
The Player's Perception. This is the side of AI programming which represents all of the smoke and mirrors used to trick the player into thinking the enemy is smart.
This is stuff like when the decision-making code says "Throw a grenade..." it also includes code that says "...and play a 'Grenade out!' voiceover too."
And that's really been it over the years, including The Last of Us' AI. AI has not actually become smarter (better at decision-making) but has become easier to be perceived as smart (better at informing the player of its actions.)
...which in a roundabout way is actually the AI becoming stupider.
AI hasn't failed to become better at decision-making because the AI programmers aren't trying, but because (a) in a game if the player doesn't perceive it, it doesn't exist, and (b) for the reasons clearly stated by Soren in the video where the point of the AI is to be an interesting game rule to play with, not to make the player feel stupid.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Tell that to the developers at Naughty Dog. Or Valve. Heck, I don't think I've ever met a developer or programmer that would agree with that assumption. In fact, just the opposite.
Threat based AI is known. It's linear. It doesn't make for good AI, because its far too simplistic to actually be considered intelligence. And that is what AI is simulating, intelligence. Hence the name. Smart AI may be known to the person who programmed it, but it's not necessarily known to all. GW2 is one example of this. People expect it to behave in a linear fashion, thanks to years of indoctrinating the trinity mindset. When it doesn't, people call it everything from broken, to chaotic, etc. When infact it has very clear criteria for who gets hit, when. The variables are constantly changing, but those of us who paid attention know how to work the threat, and know why certain members of the group are getting hit more than they should.
Last of Us is another example of a game with smart AI (much smarter than what GW2 has), and it shows. It's a large part of what makes the game fun. It's challenging, you're constantly worried about whether you're going to altert enemies that can very easily kill you if you're not careful.
There's a reason gear progression & the trinity usually go hand-in-hand. Gear is one of the only real gauges for difficulty you can have in that game. It's all about numbers. Do you have enough for the boss? Nope, then it'll be challenging. Yep? Then it's usually a walk in the park.
AI is still relatively new, and has room for improvement, but that doesn't mean that the first attempt is the only viable way. It's just the only one that's really been tried up until now, and so we're comfortable with it.
The video is saying that "Good" AI (AI that plays like a human) is not exactly fun, because the AI comes with all of the cards and can beat you in any and every scenario.
All AI in video games use algorithmic AI in that they simply respond to how you play. That's not smart AI and is in fact scripted AI. This tends to be more fun for people as it offers legitimate challenge and enforces change ups without giving the computer an obvious upper hand.
If monsters had true human AI, it wouldn't be fun, you know why? Because the AI would go directly for healers first, spam their strongest aoe and CC, and completely forego tanks. It wouldn't just be chaotic, it'd be unplayable.
On these boards, you might want to substitute "forced interaction" with "social interaction". Forced interactions are technically social interactions, but they aren't necessarily fun or fulfilling. I've never had any issues socializing in MMORPGs, and few if any of those have been because I needed the interactions.
A cynic might say some people like to keep the trinity because it will ensure they get invited into groups on account of their class/role choice, since if they were judged by their personality, they wouldn't get any groups at all.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm talking about personal experience. All the semantic arguments in the world aren't going to change my experience of dozens of games over a dozen or so years. That SWG example is just one example of one aspect of what I'm talking about and I'm not going to argue the toss over it.
Bottom line is this - more varieties of interpendence is good, one kind of interdepence isn't, but it's still better than none. All I want to see is an MMO that's opens up opportunities for more varied viable groups. In too many games too many classes are basically window dressing in groups, and as I said in my first post on this thread, I think this is why so many people solo now - it's the only way to feel like you're using more of your character's potential and getting some challenge out of the game.
You are assuming. You're making an assumption that only your prior experience is relevant -- that no other possibilities could exist.
Here, I'll paint a very precise picture:
A MMORPG has many classes which fill one of three roles (DPS/heal/tank)
At least one spec for each class can solo
these specs include light mitigation and healing abilities
Some solo content is brutally challenging. An example mob:
Mobs are capped at a certain number of players, so nobody can help you kill a solo mob in any way.
Perfect interrupt timing is required: The monster has a 100% self-heal on a 0.5 sec timer.
Near-perfect DPS rotation is required: The monster enrages at 60 seconds, and a perfect rotation will kill it in 58 seconds (minus some time allotted to use healing/mitigation abilities.)
Perfect self-heal timing is required. The monster will automatically interrupt your self heal except when he (rarely) casts a very long nuke at you -- you must use those brief windows to heal, or die from lack of health.
Perfect tanking cooldown use is required. The monster has an ability which deals 100% of your max HP in base damage, and you must use your tank cooldowns in succession to mitigate the damage each time it comes in.
The above mob is brutally challenging.
This answers your earlier question of how a game can be challenging even though one person can do it all themselves. The possibility exists, even if it's outside your experience (I still think it's probably within your gaming experience -- after all, most gamers have experienced challenging solo gameplay, and many games where you experience that have the same "progress towards goals" and "mitigate problems" traits which you were calling the trinity.)
As for semantics, a semantic discussion is necessary when someone says "up is down" and you have to painstakingly explain basic definitions to them. (Except instead of up you said "the trinity" and instead of down it was generalist solo play.)
I'd prefer to avoid semantics too, but when someone uses words incorrectly we have to waste time defining them. It's tedious. Let's avoid it.
As for your closing bit, it's fine to want new types of gameplay. Everyone does. (And wanting new types of gameplay doesn't conflict with being able to enjoy existing types of gameplay (the trinity) done in refreshing ways.) I suppose I'd even concede there are ways to have "more variety" in groups, although if you have 4+ types of roles you need some pretty serious solutions in place to address how much harder it will be to form a group.
As I said, I'm not arguing the toss over one example of one aspect of what I'm saying.
The highlighted bit is pretty much my point - we need new types of gameplay. We also need new ways to play in groups because many games have been too trinity heavy and seem to have forgotten the nuanced potential of their own classes. Just to make it clear, I'm not against the trinity as such - a lot of players get a lot out of that gameplay and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that a lot of other players get nothing out of it (because their favourite classes don't have much to add to it) and have little alternative but to solo or just quit MMOs altogether.
And I'm not talking about needing 4+ roles to form a group. That's the total opposite of my point. Instead of not being able to group effectively when you can't find a tank or a healer, how much better would it be if equally viable and effective teams could be made out of other combinations (without it just becoming a zerg)? This can't be done just by designing classes, it also needs a different kind of AI with different factors that determine its behaviour.
What if morale was a significant factor in the way the AI behaved (and perhaps even in how characters worked in combat)? And by morale I don't just mean in terms of a bonus to damage or whatever, I mean in terms of actual behaviour. What if flanking had a bearing on combat? What if surprise did? What if mobs organised themselves into formations depending on the way the fight was going? What if different types of armour had better or worse mitigation against certain weapons? There are loads of factors that could open up new combat and group dynamics, and even create opportunities for whole new classes.
Do me a favour; don't zero in on one or two of these ideas as if they represent everything I'm trying to say. Just think about it in general terms. I'm pretty sure you could think of loads of other factors that could mix up MMO dynamics for the better. All of the above is done in other types of games, why not MMOs? What would you or anyone else have against it?
If monsters had true human AI, it wouldn't be fun, you know why? Because the AI would go directly for healers first, spam their strongest aoe and CC, and completely forego tanks. It wouldn't just be chaotic, it'd be unplayable.
Do you know in which game that wouldn't be a problem at all? In one that doesn't have healers or tanks ...
As for your closing bit, it's fine to want new types of gameplay. Everyone does. (And wanting new types of gameplay doesn't conflict with being able to enjoy existing types of gameplay (the trinity) done in refreshing ways.) I suppose I'd even concede there are ways to have "more variety" in groups, although if you have 4+ types of roles you need some pretty serious solutions in place to address how much harder it will be to form a group.
Really? Some of the knee-jerk reaction to EQN says differently.
I think it was quite natural that in a game that does not have GAME OVER players and devs are going to think about end game. I really do not think that was invented by EQ. Not only were there MMO's prior to EQ it just seems a natural evolution of game design to me.
It's quite the opposite - horribly unnatural and quite contrary to the persistent world design. That is why it didn't come up in the MMOs prior to that. If anything, 'endgame' is what AC, EQ and other level based MMOs have consistently tried to stave off, first by adding new levels and then after that with gimmicks like RR, AA and other new ways to level once you've leveled to the existing level cap.
MMO gamers should feel embarrassed that they ever let a dev sell them on that idea.
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
But, then they might actually have to pay attention, know how to play their class, and not be terribad?
DPS tends to draw in the "wheee pew pew big numbers and phat loots!" types.
They could use a lesson or two in patience, IMO.
Is it a lack of patience to not want to waste the time you have to play not playing? I don't think so. If I have two hours to play during a sitting, why would I want to spend an hour of it looking for a proper group? I don't think it's really hard to understand what the problem with that would be, and it's certainly not an issue of patience.
I don't think there's much wrong with trinity systems, I've always enjoyed it in an MMO along with turn-based combat, yet I don't think it's absence is a negative for a game in an of itself. There are certainly other systems that work. SWG was never really a trinity based game, and it was one of my favorite MMOs.
The worst thing about trinity is the elitist attitude that comes along with it (displayed above in red).
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I NEVER understood why people attacked the Trinity. It works. Like the wheel. Why re-invent it just "we had enough of it"? It doesn't make sense to me. No other system EVER made teamwork and cooperation as meaningful as the Trinity. Period.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I feel like maybe you should actually watch the video, as it's (a) from an industry veteran and (b) echoes just about everything I've ever heard every other AI programmer say (including ones I've directly worked alongside on games) about AI.
Basically there are two sides two AI in games: Decision-making and The Player's Perception.
Decision-making is what the AI is actually choosing to do. Generally I haven't seen the quality of this increase too substantially over the years. As far back as Half-Life 1 we had AI which was basically as smart as Last of Us.
What has changed then?
The Player's Perception. This is the side of AI programming which represents all of the smoke and mirrors used to trick the player into thinking the enemy is smart.
This is stuff like when the decision-making code says "Throw a grenade..." it also includes code that says "...and play a 'Grenade out!' voiceover too."
And that's really been it over the years, including The Last of Us' AI. AI has not actually become smarter (better at decision-making) but has become easier to be perceived as smart (better at informing the player of its actions.)
...which in a roundabout way is actually the AI becoming stupider.
AI hasn't failed to become better at decision-making because the AI programmers aren't trying, but because (a) in a game if the player doesn't perceive it, it doesn't exist, and (b) for the reasons clearly stated by Soren in the video where the point of the AI is to be an interesting game rule to play with, not to make the player feel stupid.
I guess that's where we disagree.
Some players actually enjoy the challenge. I guess I'm one of them. And some developers (like the ones I've listed), not only think it's okay to have more realistic AI, they actually think it's fun.
The Player's Perception part, is a part of all game aspects, not just AI. It's basically what all good designers do to try and mask the limitations a game has. As AI is still very much in it's early years, it has many flaws. And thus, good designers try and design their games in ways that minimize the ways in which those flaws are visible. Last of Us is a good example of this. There are parts in the game where you quite clearly can see some of the AI limitations, but the game is done well enough that they aren't happening every few minutes, and they don't happen long enough to pull you out of the game.
In order for the AI to be becoming stupider, you're going to have to give examples of older games with more robust AI. I can't think of a single one. Even RTS games have been improving. ALL AI is programmed off a series of states & conditions. That 'throw a grenade' code is part of it. And in games like GW2 AND The Last of Us, those conditions go beyond a simple 'throw grenade now!' code. There are weighted conditions.
For example:
GW2:
- Threat is weighed amongst a number of conditions:
Who has the most thoughness, is doing the most damage, has the least health, is closest to the target, is reviving someone, is currently visible. Certain criteria (like toughness, damage, and health) is weighed more heavily than the others. And all are constantly being measured during a fight. Which is why you will occasionally see someone get hit out of nowhere, when they least expect it. Someone's health drops below other group members, while they are still out damaging the others, and BAM they are now the prime target. That's just one example.
Last of Us:
- Enemies act differently based on type:
Some are much more sensitive to sound, and will aggressively charge in that direction, but are bad about patrolling (clickers).
Some enemies have very small awareness ranges, but once tripped are very difficult to lose (runners).
Some enemies will actively flank you, will call out when they hear strange noises, will flush you out of hiding
Granted, a lot of that AI tech was in development since the first Uncharted game, but that's how smart companies implement robust features with limited resources.
- Soren maks a lot of good points, but I think you're confusing quite a few of them. For starters, he's not just talking about AI in games. He's comparing perfect AI to video game AI. You can't take that comparison and then make it only about implemented game AI. I know that AI has been developed (like deep blue), to be extremely efficient. There's even a web test used by certain AI programmers that attempts to simulate actual human behavior (and does a fairly convincing job of it).
And then there is AI that's actually been implemented in game design. Included in that statement (when you talk about AI getting dumber), is him referring to AI as it gets applied to games. Else you essentially have AI that 'cheats', and works on perfect information that an actual player wouldn't have.
That doesn't mean that Command & Conquer had better AI than Starcraft II, that Thief had more sophisticated AI than Last of Us, that Doom had better AI than Half Life 2, or that EQ had more sophisticated AI than GW2.
But, then they might actually have to pay attention, know how to play their class, and not be terribad?
DPS tends to draw in the "wheee pew pew big numbers and phat loots!" types.
They could use a lesson or two in patience, IMO.
Is it a lack of patience to not want to waste the time you have to play not playing? I don't think so. If I have two hours to play during a sitting, why would I want to spend an hour of it looking for a proper group? I don't think it's really hard to understand what the problem with that would be, and it's certainly not an issue of patience.
I don't think there's much wrong with trinity systems, I've always enjoyed it in an MMO along with turn-based combat, yet I don't think it's absence is a negative for a game in an of itself. There are certainly other systems that work. SWG was never really a trinity based game, and it was one of my favorite MMOs.
The worst thing about trinity is the elitist attitude that comes along with it (displayed above in red).
I don't think it's necessarily patience either. I think the problem is as follows:
DPS builds are universal. Players who roll DPS for PVE can pretty much do and go where ever they want. Solo, large groups, small groups, raids, for the most part, it doesn't matter. It's easy to transition from Questing, to dungeons, to raids as long as you don't try to skip over the normal progression. You are effective as you are.
But now when we get into other builds, now comes the trade offs. You want to tank or heal? You need to be top geared all the time. So, basically, you can't just decide you want to level a tank or a healer. Let's put aside the fact that they are traditionally more painful to level to begin with. It's still pointless to "level up" that way. Unlike DPS where you can just transition from quested gear to dungeon gear, tanks cannot do this. If you want to tank dungeons, you need to have the dungeon gear 1st. So guess what? You have to run the dungeons 1st as DPS and slowly collect tanking gear as it comes. But even then you can't roll on tank gear unless the tank doesn't want it.
It's not so much a "patience" issue, as much as it's the "Can't get there from here" issue.
Originally posted by Elikal I NEVER understood why people attacked the Trinity. It works. Like the wheel. Why re-invent it just "we had enough of it"? It doesn't make sense to me. No other system EVER made teamwork and cooperation as meaningful as the Trinity. Period.
That's because no OTHER system was ever really tried. You can't say 'this is what we've always had', and then follow it up with 'no other system'. It's a paradox.
That said, the trinity is NOT a perfect system. We have 10 years of MMOs that show this quite clearly. It's also been explained (in great detail) as to what it's flaws are.
Can anyone list an example of an MMORPG that has the traditional dungeons and organized raids that was successfully able to break from the Trinity? It's not a rhetorical question. I am not aware of any but it doesn't mean they don't exist. I want to know.
Really? Some of the knee-jerk reaction to EQN says differently.
What you're implying is that if someone rejects one new thing, they reject all new things. Are you honestly suggesting that rejecting EQN means nobody wants new experiences?
New experiences are the fundamental driving force behind not just the games industry, but all entertainment industries (yes, even that one.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But now when we get into other builds, now comes the trade offs. You want to tank or heal? You need to be top geared all the time. So, basically, you can't just decide you want to level a tank or a healer. Let's put aside the fact that they are traditionally more painful to level to begin with. It's still pointless to "level up" that way.
Have you ever played a blood death knight, protection warrior or paladin, or feral bear druid in WoW?
Unlike DPS where you can just transition from quested gear to dungeon gear, tanks cannot do this. If you want to tank dungeons, you need to have the dungeon gear 1st.
In poorly designed games, yes.
So guess what? You have to run the dungeons 1st as DPS and slowly collect tanking gear as it comes. But even then you can't roll on tank gear unless the tank doesn't want it.
Poorly designed games, with poor loot systems to boot.
It's not so much a "patience" issue, as much as it's the "Can't get there from here" issue.
Your whole argument is based on an imaginary fact that all games are as poorly designed as what you describe, and that is obviously not true.
As you should know if you read my posts, I'm no trinity defender at all, but this post of yours doesn't make much sense to me, sorry.
No, you said games are poorly designed. I am simply stating how it is. Hybrid classes still need multiple sets of gear. And that requires much more work for other specs than DPS.
Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? Do you just make this stuff up off the top of your head? Go ahead, level up a tank all the way to cap and show up at instanced content in your quested greens.
Comments
LOL sure this is it, I have some swamp land for sale:)
Just a bit of history lesson for those interested. Not only was the trinity not enforced, it really didn't exist as a mechanic. EQ players 'invented' the Trinity as the most efficient way to camp and take out bosses. The trinity evolved over time as devs watched how players played EQ, the trinity became the de-facto mechanic. EQ players also 'invented' the Raid mechanic.
The reason I put 'invented' in quotes is because it was an evolving process. EQ and MMO were a new frontier. Nobody really new how players would approach content. Thus many of the systems and mechanics we see today sprang from the players of EQ and how they tackled content.
explain deeper please
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
What are the balance problems you see in UO, AC, Lineage 2, EVE and Puzzle Pirates? To put it another way, why is it now problematic in a post-WOW world when it was doable in most MMOs (yes, most MMOs) prior to it?
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
Uhm... WHAT?!
Tell that to the developers at Naughty Dog. Or Valve. Heck, I don't think I've ever met a developer or programmer that would agree with that assumption. In fact, just the opposite.
Threat based AI is known. It's linear. It doesn't make for good AI, because its far too simplistic to actually be considered intelligence. And that is what AI is simulating, intelligence. Hence the name. Smart AI may be known to the person who programmed it, but it's not necessarily known to all. GW2 is one example of this. People expect it to behave in a linear fashion, thanks to years of indoctrinating the trinity mindset. When it doesn't, people call it everything from broken, to chaotic, etc. When infact it has very clear criteria for who gets hit, when. The variables are constantly changing, but those of us who paid attention know how to work the threat, and know why certain members of the group are getting hit more than they should.
Last of Us is another example of a game with smart AI (much smarter than what GW2 has), and it shows. It's a large part of what makes the game fun. It's challenging, you're constantly worried about whether you're going to altert enemies that can very easily kill you if you're not careful.
There's a reason gear progression & the trinity usually go hand-in-hand. Gear is one of the only real gauges for difficulty you can have in that game. It's all about numbers. Do you have enough for the boss? Nope, then it'll be challenging. Yep? Then it's usually a walk in the park.
AI is still relatively new, and has room for improvement, but that doesn't mean that the first attempt is the only viable way. It's just the only one that's really been tried up until now, and so we're comfortable with it.
Hes actually right about this. EQ is also where the whole concept of 'end game' spawned. And players have been perpetuating it ever since.
I think it was quite natural that in a game that does not have GAME OVER players and devs are going to think about end game. I really do not think that was invented by EQ. Not only were there MMO's prior to EQ it just seems a natural evolution of game design to me.
If EQ 'invented' the trinity system, then the devs must have already put in the gaming mechanics to allow trinity to work. Not fully fleshed, but the basics must have been there. So I am not sure it was created by the players in that way. Players using that system would have been the basis for its future development of course.
You are assuming. You're making an assumption that only your prior experience is relevant -- that no other possibilities could exist.
Here, I'll paint a very precise picture:
As for your closing bit, it's fine to want new types of gameplay. Everyone does. (And wanting new types of gameplay doesn't conflict with being able to enjoy existing types of gameplay (the trinity) done in refreshing ways.) I suppose I'd even concede there are ways to have "more variety" in groups, although if you have 4+ types of roles you need some pretty serious solutions in place to address how much harder it will be to form a group.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I feel like maybe you should actually watch the video, as it's (a) from an industry veteran and (b) echoes just about everything I've ever heard every other AI programmer say (including ones I've directly worked alongside on games) about AI.
Basically there are two sides two AI in games: Decision-making and The Player's Perception.
Decision-making is what the AI is actually choosing to do. Generally I haven't seen the quality of this increase too substantially over the years. As far back as Half-Life 1 we had AI which was basically as smart as Last of Us.
What has changed then?
The Player's Perception. This is the side of AI programming which represents all of the smoke and mirrors used to trick the player into thinking the enemy is smart.
This is stuff like when the decision-making code says "Throw a grenade..." it also includes code that says "...and play a 'Grenade out!' voiceover too."
And that's really been it over the years, including The Last of Us' AI. AI has not actually become smarter (better at decision-making) but has become easier to be perceived as smart (better at informing the player of its actions.)
...which in a roundabout way is actually the AI becoming stupider.
AI hasn't failed to become better at decision-making because the AI programmers aren't trying, but because (a) in a game if the player doesn't perceive it, it doesn't exist, and (b) for the reasons clearly stated by Soren in the video where the point of the AI is to be an interesting game rule to play with, not to make the player feel stupid.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The video is saying that "Good" AI (AI that plays like a human) is not exactly fun, because the AI comes with all of the cards and can beat you in any and every scenario.
All AI in video games use algorithmic AI in that they simply respond to how you play. That's not smart AI and is in fact scripted AI. This tends to be more fun for people as it offers legitimate challenge and enforces change ups without giving the computer an obvious upper hand.
If monsters had true human AI, it wouldn't be fun, you know why? Because the AI would go directly for healers first, spam their strongest aoe and CC, and completely forego tanks. It wouldn't just be chaotic, it'd be unplayable.
A cynic might say some people like to keep the trinity because it will ensure they get invited into groups on account of their class/role choice, since if they were judged by their personality, they wouldn't get any groups at all.
As I said, I'm not arguing the toss over one example of one aspect of what I'm saying.
The highlighted bit is pretty much my point - we need new types of gameplay. We also need new ways to play in groups because many games have been too trinity heavy and seem to have forgotten the nuanced potential of their own classes. Just to make it clear, I'm not against the trinity as such - a lot of players get a lot out of that gameplay and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that a lot of other players get nothing out of it (because their favourite classes don't have much to add to it) and have little alternative but to solo or just quit MMOs altogether.
And I'm not talking about needing 4+ roles to form a group. That's the total opposite of my point. Instead of not being able to group effectively when you can't find a tank or a healer, how much better would it be if equally viable and effective teams could be made out of other combinations (without it just becoming a zerg)? This can't be done just by designing classes, it also needs a different kind of AI with different factors that determine its behaviour.
What if morale was a significant factor in the way the AI behaved (and perhaps even in how characters worked in combat)? And by morale I don't just mean in terms of a bonus to damage or whatever, I mean in terms of actual behaviour. What if flanking had a bearing on combat? What if surprise did? What if mobs organised themselves into formations depending on the way the fight was going? What if different types of armour had better or worse mitigation against certain weapons? There are loads of factors that could open up new combat and group dynamics, and even create opportunities for whole new classes.
Do me a favour; don't zero in on one or two of these ideas as if they represent everything I'm trying to say. Just think about it in general terms. I'm pretty sure you could think of loads of other factors that could mix up MMO dynamics for the better. All of the above is done in other types of games, why not MMOs? What would you or anyone else have against it?
Do you know in which game that wouldn't be a problem at all? In one that doesn't have healers or tanks ...
Really? Some of the knee-jerk reaction to EQN says differently.
It's quite the opposite - horribly unnatural and quite contrary to the persistent world design. That is why it didn't come up in the MMOs prior to that. If anything, 'endgame' is what AC, EQ and other level based MMOs have consistently tried to stave off, first by adding new levels and then after that with gimmicks like RR, AA and other new ways to level once you've leveled to the existing level cap.
MMO gamers should feel embarrassed that they ever let a dev sell them on that idea.
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
Is it a lack of patience to not want to waste the time you have to play not playing? I don't think so. If I have two hours to play during a sitting, why would I want to spend an hour of it looking for a proper group? I don't think it's really hard to understand what the problem with that would be, and it's certainly not an issue of patience.
I don't think there's much wrong with trinity systems, I've always enjoyed it in an MMO along with turn-based combat, yet I don't think it's absence is a negative for a game in an of itself. There are certainly other systems that work. SWG was never really a trinity based game, and it was one of my favorite MMOs.
The worst thing about trinity is the elitist attitude that comes along with it (displayed above in red).
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I guess that's where we disagree.
Some players actually enjoy the challenge. I guess I'm one of them. And some developers (like the ones I've listed), not only think it's okay to have more realistic AI, they actually think it's fun.
The Player's Perception part, is a part of all game aspects, not just AI. It's basically what all good designers do to try and mask the limitations a game has. As AI is still very much in it's early years, it has many flaws. And thus, good designers try and design their games in ways that minimize the ways in which those flaws are visible. Last of Us is a good example of this. There are parts in the game where you quite clearly can see some of the AI limitations, but the game is done well enough that they aren't happening every few minutes, and they don't happen long enough to pull you out of the game.
In order for the AI to be becoming stupider, you're going to have to give examples of older games with more robust AI. I can't think of a single one. Even RTS games have been improving. ALL AI is programmed off a series of states & conditions. That 'throw a grenade' code is part of it. And in games like GW2 AND The Last of Us, those conditions go beyond a simple 'throw grenade now!' code. There are weighted conditions.
For example:
GW2:
- Threat is weighed amongst a number of conditions:
Who has the most thoughness, is doing the most damage, has the least health, is closest to the target, is reviving someone, is currently visible. Certain criteria (like toughness, damage, and health) is weighed more heavily than the others. And all are constantly being measured during a fight. Which is why you will occasionally see someone get hit out of nowhere, when they least expect it. Someone's health drops below other group members, while they are still out damaging the others, and BAM they are now the prime target. That's just one example.
Last of Us:
- Enemies act differently based on type:
Some are much more sensitive to sound, and will aggressively charge in that direction, but are bad about patrolling (clickers).
Some enemies have very small awareness ranges, but once tripped are very difficult to lose (runners).
Some enemies will actively flank you, will call out when they hear strange noises, will flush you out of hiding
Granted, a lot of that AI tech was in development since the first Uncharted game, but that's how smart companies implement robust features with limited resources.
- Soren maks a lot of good points, but I think you're confusing quite a few of them. For starters, he's not just talking about AI in games. He's comparing perfect AI to video game AI. You can't take that comparison and then make it only about implemented game AI. I know that AI has been developed (like deep blue), to be extremely efficient. There's even a web test used by certain AI programmers that attempts to simulate actual human behavior (and does a fairly convincing job of it).
And then there is AI that's actually been implemented in game design. Included in that statement (when you talk about AI getting dumber), is him referring to AI as it gets applied to games. Else you essentially have AI that 'cheats', and works on perfect information that an actual player wouldn't have.
That doesn't mean that Command & Conquer had better AI than Starcraft II, that Thief had more sophisticated AI than Last of Us, that Doom had better AI than Half Life 2, or that EQ had more sophisticated AI than GW2.
I don't think it's necessarily patience either. I think the problem is as follows:
DPS builds are universal. Players who roll DPS for PVE can pretty much do and go where ever they want. Solo, large groups, small groups, raids, for the most part, it doesn't matter. It's easy to transition from Questing, to dungeons, to raids as long as you don't try to skip over the normal progression. You are effective as you are.
But now when we get into other builds, now comes the trade offs. You want to tank or heal? You need to be top geared all the time. So, basically, you can't just decide you want to level a tank or a healer. Let's put aside the fact that they are traditionally more painful to level to begin with. It's still pointless to "level up" that way. Unlike DPS where you can just transition from quested gear to dungeon gear, tanks cannot do this. If you want to tank dungeons, you need to have the dungeon gear 1st. So guess what? You have to run the dungeons 1st as DPS and slowly collect tanking gear as it comes. But even then you can't roll on tank gear unless the tank doesn't want it.
It's not so much a "patience" issue, as much as it's the "Can't get there from here" issue.
That's because no OTHER system was ever really tried. You can't say 'this is what we've always had', and then follow it up with 'no other system'. It's a paradox.
That said, the trinity is NOT a perfect system. We have 10 years of MMOs that show this quite clearly. It's also been explained (in great detail) as to what it's flaws are.
Can anyone list an example of an MMORPG that has the traditional dungeons and organized raids that was successfully able to break from the Trinity? It's not a rhetorical question. I am not aware of any but it doesn't mean they don't exist. I want to know.
What you're implying is that if someone rejects one new thing, they reject all new things. Are you honestly suggesting that rejecting EQN means nobody wants new experiences?
New experiences are the fundamental driving force behind not just the games industry, but all entertainment industries (yes, even that one.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, you said games are poorly designed. I am simply stating how it is. Hybrid classes still need multiple sets of gear. And that requires much more work for other specs than DPS.
Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? Do you just make this stuff up off the top of your head? Go ahead, level up a tank all the way to cap and show up at instanced content in your quested greens.