Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

[Column] EverQuest Next: Class Roles Are A Riot

SBFordSBFord Associate Editor - News ManagerThe Land of AZPosts: 16,659MMORPG.COM Staff Uncommon

In most MMOs, player roles are fairly well defined. In EverQuest Next, however, players will be met with a fluid ability to choose what role will fit various situations they encounter. In our latest EQN column, we take a look at how that might look. See what we think before heading to the comments.

The first thing, aside from the choice of art style, that fans picked apart about EverQuest Next’s big reveal was the intentionally cagey information we received about class roles (tanks, heals, DPS, control, support). In short, EverQuest Next won’t have the traditional class roles we’re used to. Immediately fans got a little worried that what would be in the new Norrath instead is a sort of DPS-zerg that’s found in ArenaNet’s Guild Wars 2.  Recently thanks to a very well-thought out post by a Redditor, and later confirmed by Dave Georgeson (Smokejumper on Reddit and the SOE forums), we’re starting to get a sense of what the EQN devs hope to achieve with their combat. In short, it might have more in common with Riot’s League of Legends and the art of constantly changing roles based on situational dynamics. 

Read more of Bill Murphy's EverQuest Next: Class Roles Are A Riot.

Associate Editor: MMORPG.com
Follow me on Twitter: @MMORPGMom

image
«13456

Comments

  • nationalcitynationalcity Decatur, MIPosts: 330Member Uncommon

    I still can't help but worry that it's gonna turn into a DPS zerg because it just seems like it will be easier just to DPS down the mobs then bother with anything else.......

    People will eventually do like they did in GW2 and if your not DPS you will be shunned.......

     

    Whack-a-mole anyone?

     

    Hope I'm wrong I love healing but if it's like GW2 whats the point.......

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderPosts: 9,065Member Uncommon
    The problem os that stepping away from trinity combat eemoves both a tactical and a strategical layer from the combat, with nothing to replace these layers.. Which decrease a games depth...  In the end this dumbs down a game...

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • eldelpuebloeldelpueblo MadridPosts: 27Member

    So, we have "trinity roles" without trinity...

     

    Just a point, we have PCs, no the "Deep Blue" machine. I'm very worried about the new IA, let's see how smart he can be. Because remember, IA uses patterns, humans... well, humans can but are supposed to be smarter

  • DauzqulDauzqul Detroit, MIPosts: 1,411Member Uncommon
    Good. I'm sick of being some gigantic warrior that wields a 7-foot sword and can only do 1/100th of the damage from a 70lb female elf dagger poke.
     
    Raiding, however, better still require some extreme strategy.
  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by eldelpueblo

    So, we have "trinity roles" without trinity...

    GW1 had trinity roles without the trinity

    no class was able to taunt but plate classes had defensive skills

     

    example

    http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/List_of_warrior_skills

  • AnthurAnthur StolbergPosts: 686Member Uncommon

    When you have no dedicated tank (and therefore aggro/taunt) systems, what will be your best setup  comparing these two groups ?

    Group1 (trinity)

    1 char: low dps/high armor

    2. char: high dps / low armor

    3. char heals/medium dps / mediium armor

    compared to

    Group 2 (Jack of all trades)

    1.-3. char: each one medium dps/armor/heals

     

    Let's say in group 1 char 2 (the high dps char) gets attacked by the mob (because he is smart). The healer has to heal char 2. So char 2 gets interrupted by the mob, char 3 is busy healing and only char only does low dps on the mob.

    In group 2 the mob attacks any of those 3. But as the attacked char has medium armorr and some self heals he stays alive but can't do serious damage. The other two chars do medium dps to the mob and kill him.

    Which group is more effective ? Group 2 , isn't it ?

    And that's my fear, We end with the GW2 zerg combat. Why have roles when the best setup is to have no roles ?

    I believe in the new EQN system as soon as I can try it myself. I doubt even a developer demos would do the trick for me. So far we have seen nothing about EQN combat, only words.
     

  • eldelpuebloeldelpueblo MadridPosts: 27Member
    Originally posted by Nadia
    Originally posted by eldelpueblo

    So, we have "trinity roles" without trinity...

    GW1 had trinity roles without the trinity

    no class was able to taunt but plate classes had defensive skills

     

    It's fine for me, really. I just said that because a lot of people start to flame on the holy trinity system and now we have something wuite similar with the "label". 

     

    I really want this game to succeed, but only the future knows

  • sakersaker harrisburg, PAPosts: 993Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    The problem os that stepping away from trinity combat eemoves both a tactical and a strategical layer from the combat, with nothing to replace these layers.. Which decrease a games depth...  In the end this dumbs down a game...

    Agree, that may well be what it boils down to. We've seen years of this dumbing-down hope this isn't just more of that.

  • RocknissRockniss Youngstown, OHPosts: 1,034Member
    The ai isnt going after the most immediate threat, its making a decision as to who can it eliminate the easiest. I wonder if the algorithm for that has factored in the formation of the player group.

    Let's say I bring a weakling along just so I know who the ai will attack first. Put that weakling next to a cliff, let the ai charge in and a. Have the weakling kamikaze dive off or b. Wait until the ai is near the edge and bust up the ground enough that the ai falls off road runner and wyle coyote style.
  • ZorgoZorgo Deepintheheartof, TXPosts: 2,226Member
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    The problem os that stepping away from trinity combat eemoves both a tactical and a strategical layer from the combat, with nothing to replace these layers.. Which decrease a games depth...  In the end this dumbs down a game...

    Hmm, and here I thought this was an article actually describing how the tactical and strategical layers were being replaced with the EQN system.

    Are you sure you read it?

     

    _______________

    In fact there seem to be a lot of folks here that either didn't read or understand the article, because I'm not seeing them change their argument with this new information.

    Detractors: 'non-trinity zerg fest!'

    Article: How EQN isn't a non-trinity zerg fest

    Detractors: 'Non-trinity zerg fest!"

  • TekaelonTekaelon Brookhaven, MSPosts: 532Member Uncommon
    Yep, GW2 combat did dumb down group combat. I don't wish to see this in EQN!
  • TorcipTorcip Sterling Heights, MIPosts: 669Member
    So it seems to me from reading that post that the trinity still exists, just with out that stupid threat generation mechanic that never made any sense to me at all being a big PvPer and playing a lot of GW1.  So, is everyone complaining about not being able to spam taunts anymore?
  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Tekaelon
    Yep, GW2 combat did dumb down group combat. I don't wish to see this in EQN!

    both GW1 and FFXI had no taunt - their combat was not "dumbed down"

  • grimfallgrimfall Missouri City, TXPosts: 1,155Member Uncommon

    Basically it's just talk.  As discussed in the forums, it's not hard at all for game developers to program difficult AI.  Also, there is a large percentage of gamers, that don't want to chase monsters around the screen.  I find it fucking annoying.  The thing about CRPG's that the developers are really missing (or forgot) is that arcade style combat was never intended to be included in them.  RPG's mix well with tactical and strategic, slower based combat, because that enables you to act in a role.  Chasing mobs around the screen and clicking GCD buttons in a set pattern does not lend itself to playing an RPG.

    I do have to laugh at the absurdity of the "taunting mechanic is not realistic" , mindset though, because none of the other proposed mechanics are realistic either. Let's put all the magic and healing things aside and look at other "realistic" combat mechanics:

    You can't use a sword (or big hammer or shield) to blast eight (or even 1) creatures back 10 feet. Nor can it destroy stone.

    If you get hamstrung in a fight, you're going to be hamstrung.  You may be able to crawl or hop on one foot, but you're essentially a sitting target, and soon to be dead.  It does not wear off it 8 seconds.

    You can't use an arrow to pin someone's ankle to the ground.  You could possibly sever their achillies' (ironically), but this would be akin to hamstringing.

    If you "stun" or "sap" someone with a blow to the head, odds are that's going to be a fight ender as well.  You do not recover from sever concussions in a matter of seconds.  Watch a boxing or MMA if you don't understand what really happens when you get concussed.  The fight is over.

     

    We'll certainly see how it plays out, but remember GW2 trumpeted their "fix" to the "taunting problem" as well, and you all bought into it.  Fool you once...

  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by eldelpueblo  now we have something  similar with the "label". 

    I really want this game to succeed, but only the future knows

    i agree

    what the game mechanics really come down to is 

    mmos with a taunt mechanic   vs   mmos w no taunt

  • TorcipTorcip Sterling Heights, MIPosts: 669Member
    Originally posted by grimfall

    Basically it's just talk.  As discussed in the forums, it's not hard at all for game developers to program difficult AI.  Also, there is a large percentage of gamers, that don't want to chase monsters around the screen.  I find it fucking annoying.  The thing about CRPG's that the developers are really missing (or forgot) is that arcade style combat was never intended to be included in them.  RPG's mix well with tactical and strategic, slower based combat, because that enables you to act in a role.  Chasing mobs around the screen and clicking GCD buttons in a set pattern does not lend itself to playing an RPG.

    I do have to laugh at the absurdity of the "taunting mechanic is not realistic" , mindset though, because none of the other proposed mechanics are realistic either. Let's put all the magic and healing things aside and look at other "realistic" combat mechanics:

    You can't use a sword (or big hammer or shield) to blast eight (or even 1) creatures back 10 feet. Nor can it destroy stone.

    If you get hamstrung in a fight, you're going to be hamstrung.  You may be able to crawl or hop on one foot, but you're essentially a sitting target, and soon to be dead.  It does not wear off it 8 seconds.

    You can't use an arrow to pin someone's ankle to the ground.  You could possibly sever their achillies' (ironically), but this would be akin to hamstringing.

    If you "stun" or "sap" someone with a blow to the head, odds are that's going to be a fight ender as well.  You do not recover from sever concussions in a matter of seconds.  Watch a boxing or MMA if you don't understand what really happens when you get concussed.  The fight is over.

     

    We'll certainly see how it plays out, but remember GW2 trumpeted their "fix" to the "taunting problem" as well, and you all bought into it.  Fool you once...

    GW1 did the no threat generation combat much, much better than GW2. 

  • AntariousAntarious Greenville, SCPosts: 2,802Member

    In the article...  more or less one line "I hope that you can block attacks with a shield, since that's the point of holding one."

     

    Really?   Part of the point of holding a shield per the SOE vids is ... Shield Smash.   Which they give a tiny bit of info on.. so apparently the point of holding a shield is to  use it for a range defensive abilities.   As opposed to just trying to block attacks... and no I don't think they have mentioned if you can block attacks.. even tho it would seem rather strange if you had no chance to block.

     

    One of the things that I always liked in DAoC was the guard ability... so if you were close enough to another player based on your shield skill you could block attacks directed at them (edit: to be clear for those that did not play daoc you had to put the skill on a particular person it wasn't a passive thing that worked for any ally near you.).   I think something like that would be nice in this system because... it is not part of a taunt mechanic but instead part of a defensive build.

    Moderator's on this site allow certain posters to create endless troll threads. Yet "warn" people for giving recommendations... account *pending* deletion because.. why bother.

  • ShojuShoju Hicksville, NYPosts: 771Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nadia
    Originally posted by Tekaelon
    Yep, GW2 combat did dumb down group combat. I don't wish to see this in EQN!

    both GW1 and FFXI had no taunt - their combat was not "dumbed down"

    I seem to recall using Provke quite a lot in FFXI to 'taunt' mobs.

  • finnmacool1finnmacool1 Corona, CAPosts: 453Member
    I have zero interest in speculation and zero faith that $oe will create anything remotely resembling what they hype.
  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Shoju

    I seem to recall using Provke quite a lot in FFXI to 'taunt' mobs.

    FFXI had taunt but it was weak  w 30 sec cooldown

    it was nothing like the multiple taunts in EQ1, EQ2, WOW, etc

  • TygranirTygranir Colordo Springs, COPosts: 741Member
    Originally posted by finnmacool1
    I have zero interest in speculation and zero faith that $oe will create anything remotely resembling what they hype.

    Good to know I guess.

    SWTOR Referral Bonus!
    Referral link
    7 day subscriber level access
    Returning players get 1 free server transfer

    Leveling assistance items given to new player!

    See all perks Here

  • Whiskey_SamWhiskey_Sam Lynchburg, VAPosts: 294Member Uncommon
    Oh look, more hype

    ___________________________
    Have flask; will travel.

  • ApraxisApraxis RegensburgPosts: 1,515Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    The problem os that stepping away from trinity combat eemoves both a tactical and a strategical layer from the combat, with nothing to replace these layers.. Which decrease a games depth...  In the end this dumbs down a game...

    I thought you played DAoC(PvP)? You don't have any Taunt in DAoC PvP, but there really is not any less tactic or strategic in DAoC PvP as in any PvE Encounter i have ever played or could imagine.

    And in DAoC with Guard/Interception you got a lot of Protection Abilities working in PvP to play as kind of a Tank.

    Well.. as i played a lot of PvP, including DAoC or some MoBAs like DoTA2, LoL and HoN, and i really can't say that you do have less tactics in pvp than in any pve encounter.

    Where is the tactic if one guy holds all aggro, and one other guy can heal only the Tank.. and all the rest deals damage, with sometimes avoiding some special attack behaivor from the Boss?

  • ApraxisApraxis RegensburgPosts: 1,515Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Anthur

    When you have no dedicated tank (and therefore aggro/taunt) systems, what will be your best setup  comparing these two groups ?

    Group1 (trinity)

    1 char: low dps/high armor

    2. char: high dps / low armor

    3. char heals/medium dps / mediium armor

    compared to

    Group 2 (Jack of all trades)

    1.-3. char: each one medium dps/armor/heals

     

    Let's say in group 1 char 2 (the high dps char) gets attacked by the mob (because he is smart). The healer has to heal char 2. So char 2 gets interrupted by the mob, char 3 is busy healing and only char only does low dps on the mob.

    In group 2 the mob attacks any of those 3. But as the attacked char has medium armorr and some self heals he stays alive but can't do serious damage. The other two chars do medium dps to the mob and kill him.

    Which group is more effective ? Group 2 , isn't it ?

    And that's my fear, We end with the GW2 zerg combat. Why have roles when the best setup is to have no roles ?

    I believe in the new EQN system as soon as I can try it myself. I doubt even a developer demos would do the trick for me. So far we have seen nothing about EQN combat, only words.
     

    Because usually with a good balance the ones with low armor do either heal or deal a lot more damage? In almost all MMOs with PvP you almost never saw a group of Jack of all trades, because Specialists with the right combination and teamwork work a lot better as a group of jack of all trades.

    Sometimes i assume noone of you have ever played seriously pvp.

  • grimfallgrimfall Missouri City, TXPosts: 1,155Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nadia
    Originally posted by Tekaelon
    Yep, GW2 combat did dumb down group combat. I don't wish to see this in EQN!

    both GW1 and FFXI had no taunt - their combat was not "dumbed down"

    I asked my friend if this was true about FFXI.  This is what he said:

     

    Oh well then that person was wrong… FF11 did have a taunt. 

    It was called “Provoke”. 

    Native skill to Warrior; 30-sec recast (one of the faster ones, lol); creates a large enmity spike.

    At max level some Paladins had enough tools to get by without using WAR as a sub-class (for Provoke).  Not sure how they did it, because I didn’t play it very far.  But I think it mostly revolved around “Flash”, a near-instant cast spell that provided short-term blindness (like only a couple seconds) but provided enormous enmity.

     

    Which of course makes me wonder if GW1 also had taunt.

«13456
Sign In or Register to comment.