Originally posted by Bladestrom ^^ pve and pvp can be in the same game as long as gear and skills are specific to each area.
For me I like the idea of dedicated healer-healer/ glass cannon dps/heavy crowd controller/ controller-dps/controller-healer. Get rid of tanks, outdated concept.
They can .. but they don't have to be.
I don't think we need dedicated roles. Just give everyone a little of everything, and let them coordinate .. or not. It works well in dungeon games like Diablo 1, 2 & 3, and co-op games like Borderlands.
Originally posted by Aeander Originally posted by loulaki anyway i want to say that i would like to see roles inspired by real warfare and not those childish fantasies.
"Childish" fantasies?
Seems to me like you grossly under-credit the value of fantasy. Fantasy doesn't deny reality. It reflects it and comments on it. In fantasy, we see reflections of real-world politics, religion, and, in the best fantasy novels, often human nature in its many forms. Yes, it bends the rules and creates a new setting, but the ability of a fantasy writer to do so while still immersing their readers in something so foreign to their physical surroundings is nothing short of incredible.
And roles inspired by "childish" fantasy hold value. If they fit the setting and encourage teamwork through interesting means, it matters not what their inspiration is.
Brilliant reminder, Aeander.
Re: trinity, you can see that very thing in American Football. You have tanks (front-line blockers), protecting the wizard (quarter back), while the rogue runs behind everyone (wide receiver). well something like that.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Re: trinity, you can see that very thing in American Football. You have tanks (front-line blockers), protecting the wizard (quarter back), while the rogue runs behind everyone (wide receiver). well something like that.
Re: trinity, you can see that very thing in American Football.
I guess I'm watching all the wrong games. In the ones I've watched, the team does its best to go around the opposing blockers and go after the relevant opponents. The blockers have to use proximity and positioning to physically block their opponents. If there were moments where the blocker went "neener-neener!" and the opposing players abandoned their objective to run headfirst into the blocker, I missed it.
I probably just need to watch more sports.
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
Re: trinity, you can see that very thing in American Football.
I guess I'm watching all the wrong games. In the ones I've watched, the team does its best to go around the opposing blockers and go after the relevant opponents. The blockers have to use proximity and positioning to physically block their opponents. If there were moments where the blocker went "neener-neener!" and the opposing players abandoned their objective to run headfirst into the blocker, I missed it.
I probably just need to watch more sports.
It's up to you...I love Football
But that analogy is just...wrong (not yer fault)
The trinity is outdated and not missed by most. Have fun debating it though.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Re: trinity, you can see that very thing in American Football.
I guess I'm watching all the wrong games. In the ones I've watched, the team does its best to go around the opposing blockers and go after the relevant opponents. The blockers have to use proximity and positioning to physically block their opponents. If there were moments where the blocker went "neener-neener!" and the opposing players abandoned their objective to run headfirst into the blocker, I missed it.
I probably just need to watch more sports.
Yeah. For some reason it's the running backs that taunt by showboating. They've got it all wrong.
Originally posted by Dibdabs I prefer games that don't focus on the Trinity style of gaming. I actually think it IS outdated, even though it works - it's just that's it's boring, lacks any real challenge any more and it stratifies people's thinking. They just can't think out of the box because they have their nice, cosy little roles and they've been playing it for years.
Pretty much agree. Although my personal preference is everyone is a damage dealer with alternate jobs such as buffing and healing and crowd control. I know of no one who actually looks at a good fantasy book or fantasy movie and see's any semblance of anything other then damage. The hero is always the damage dealer so to speak.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Originally posted by Dibdabs I prefer games that don't focus on the Trinity style of gaming. I actually think it IS outdated, even though it works - it's just that's it's boring, lacks any real challenge any more and it stratifies people's thinking. They just can't think out of the box because they have their nice, cosy little roles and they've been playing it for years.
Pretty much agree. Although my personal preference is everyone is a damage dealer with alternate jobs such as buffing and healing and crowd control. I know of no one who actually looks at a good fantasy book or fantasy movie and see's any semblance of anything other then damage. The hero is always the damage dealer so to speak.
Which is sort of what I was getting at. There definitely needs to be a unique niche available to each character on the team, or else the entire system tends to fall apart and it becomes less of "everyone deals damage and works together" and more of "everyone deals damage and kind of throws around some generic AoE support sometimes."
The primary failing of Guild Wars 2 is that the oversimplification of its buffs and hexes led to very simple, generic skill design. Any given class performs the same core functions as at least one other class, and the result is redundancy. Compared to the beautiful plethora of debuffs and enchantments in the first title, it's a major downgrade.
Everyone should most definitely be a damage dealer with an alternate job. That's going to mean that damage should be done in ways that encourage playing a class or a build differently from one's teammates in a way cohesive to your unique playstyle. That's going to involve class-exclusive buffs, debuffs, and/or other crucial functionalities, if not exclusivity of the roles themselves.
Re: trinity, you can see that very thing in American Football.
I guess I'm watching all the wrong games. In the ones I've watched, the team does its best to go around the opposing blockers and go after the relevant opponents. The blockers have to use proximity and positioning to physically block their opponents. If there were moments where the blocker went "neener-neener!" and the opposing players abandoned their objective to run headfirst into the blocker, I missed it.
I probably just need to watch more sports.
Yeah. For some reason it's the running backs that taunt by showboating. They've got it all wrong.
Ah, you're starting to figure it out!
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
I would like to see the game world changed a bit too to ALLOW more roles to be played.. When was the last game I could KITE? a mob? When was the last time I could "PULL" a mob out of a pack to a remote area to kill? I appreciate and like what GW2 did with allowing all classes to solo, but but but.. where are the "real" class defining skills? Classes and role playing (aka trinity) has been homogenized so bad, it's not even funny.. How did this happen? Easy.. PVP demands, and game world limitations.. You want to see pulling and kiting brought back into gaming, we need to redo how mobs react with that stupid "reset".. Allow trains if you have to..
Re: trinity, you can see that very thing in American Football.
I guess I'm watching all the wrong games. In the ones I've watched, the team does its best to go around the opposing blockers and go after the relevant opponents. The blockers have to use proximity and positioning to physically block their opponents. If there were moments where the blocker went "neener-neener!" and the opposing players abandoned their objective to run headfirst into the blocker, I missed it.
I probably just need to watch more sports.
Taunt could possibly work in 1 vs 1 fighting sports... ya know, like in boxing, one guy insults the other. But then, there's only two guys, so it's not like they have a choice about who to hit =P
Taunting is the most stupid and non realistic mechanic of those trinity MMORPGs. I was tanking in AC1, and there was no threat table. I was keeping (e.g.) Gaerlan away from my more squishy friends by putting my shield in his way. It's completely retarded that some mastermind heroic boss character can be stopped from squishing that healer just because the heavy armored guy shouts some petty insults (or whatever else) at him.
In PvP, when you hit someone, and notice his health doesn't drop, what are you doing? I know I'm looking for the healer, I'm not keeping on hitting my head against the brick wall. Those supposed epic bosses should do the same.
The truth about the taunt/threat table based trinity is simple: it allows developers to be LAZY.
I agree with this, though perhaps there is a more realistic alternative to that functionality.
If, for example, tanks were to have high-priority delayed skills that are cancelled by taking x amount of hits or x amount of damage, that would certainly give a type of pseudo-taunt for the purposes of PvP. Probably wouldn't work for PvE, unless the AI was quite smart (or it came with a taunting feature which would then at least make some modicum of sense).
Of course, then you run into the issue of needing to balance numbers to not be overwhelmingly high when the tank is fighting 1v1 and not be useless against groups.
It may be best to just remove taunting/re-focusing mechanics in their entirety.
Not outdated, players just wanted a simpler system. So, you get what we have here.
Supply always reacts to demand, not the other way around.
See, I don't actually think so. When I discuss this sort of thing with my pal, Dugal, he stands by the belief that MMO systems can't be made more difficult (such as replacing a taunt-based tank with a Braum-style blocker) because MMO players are too stupid.
I would argue that MMOs are not simplistic because MMO players are not intelligent, but rather that MMO players tend to be conditioned into a form of "accepted stupidity" because MMO design encourages it. In other words, I firmly believe that players adapt to the offerings on the market and that games tend to attract and develop players of a mindset that coincides with their design.
I'm interest in how Firefall did add a role to the trinity, or rather it has split Healing and Support into two different niches. But well, since it's a shooter, it gets a bye in that there are support (usually Engineering) roles in FPSes already.
I'm not quite sure what you would do for PvE as the roles are pretty cut and dry - tank, heal, dps. But then again it's PvE, how much innovation do you actually need for a scripted encounter that a mod/UI is telling you what to do?
However in PvP the trinity works very well as long as the game has a true way of interrupting other players. In this sense, ever role of the trinity has two roles, both which keep the player engaged in the fight at all times.
Tank - Tank provides support and damage. Support can come in the form of body guarding group mates, protecting doorways (if the game has collision detection even better), peeling off of casters, etc.
RDPS/MDPS - The big hitters in the group however they are expected to provide some level of support in the form of cc'ing, un-cc'ing, and being effective at kiting or not getting cc'd themselves.
Healer/Support - Depending on the game can be the most fun of classes to play properly when the job becomes more than just healing. Could include debuffing, cleansing groupmates of their debuffs, some damage capability, cc duties, un-cc'ing, all while properly being positionally aware and not being trained, cc'd, or debuffed themselves.
For example, most of my pvp experience comes from DAoC where you had a real interrupting system. Not a system where if you got interrupted it would delay your cast but you could still get the cast off.....no this was a true interrupt system where you could in theory lock a player completely down taking them out of the fight. That's why in DAoC the risk reward was amazing because yes it would suck when your group would get locked down and couldn't do anything but when you did it to the enemy group it was a great coordination of team effort.
There's nothing wrong with today's trinity, but each part of the trinity must have the available skills necessary to execute at least its main purpose and an additional support like purpose.
Just because most every developer is too dumb or lazy to create a really good Trinity does not mean it has any flaws at all.It actually carries more plausible ideas than games that don't use it.
I know some,very few give the Trinity a chance but still fall well short of FFXi who imo has done it the very best.
Even though i consider FFXI the best ever Trinity design,it had TONS of room for improvement,so also imo NOBODY has come close to out dating it,matter of fact most have yet to do it justice.
FFXI gave us lots of different ideas for healers,no they don't have to be simple stand in one spot and that is it,just heal,a good game gives them more to do.FFXI also used the Dancer class which could take part in combat as well as heal and other abilities.It just takes a developer to come up with some cool classes and TRY to keep the ideas plausible.
The games that try to sway away from Trinity designs leave me shaking my head at so many dumb not so plausible ideas,their games end up looking foolish.
Another thing we need to see is not only a GREAT Trinity design but one that operates within a TRUE MMO atmosphere,so ya again like FFXI using player>player combos.I don't want to be FORCED to login to play a single player game and single player mechanics and with no trinity Single minded thinking,i want a MMO and a RPG ,not to much to ask for.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Re: trinity, you can see that very thing in American Football.
I guess I'm watching all the wrong games. In the ones I've watched, the team does its best to go around the opposing blockers and go after the relevant opponents. The blockers have to use proximity and positioning to physically block their opponents. If there were moments where the blocker went "neener-neener!" and the opposing players abandoned their objective to run headfirst into the blocker, I missed it.
I probably just need to watch more sports.
Taunt could possibly work in 1 vs 1 fighting sports... ya know, like in boxing, one guy insults the other. But then, there's only two guys, so it's not like they have a choice about who to hit =P
Taunting is the most stupid and non realistic mechanic of those trinity MMORPGs. I was tanking in AC1, and there was no threat table. I was keeping (e.g.) Gaerlan away from my more squishy friends by putting my shield in his way. It's completely retarded that some mastermind heroic boss character can be stopped from squishing that healer just because the heavy armored guy shouts some petty insults (or whatever else) at him.
In PvP, when you hit someone, and notice his health doesn't drop, what are you doing? I know I'm looking for the healer, I'm not keeping on hitting my head against the brick wall. Those supposed epic bosses should do the same.
The truth about the taunt/threat table based trinity is simple: it allows developers to be LAZY.
I agree with this, though perhaps there is a more realistic alternative to that functionality.
If, for example, tanks were to have high-priority delayed skills that are cancelled by taking x amount of hits or x amount of damage, that would certainly give a type of pseudo-taunt for the purposes of PvP. Probably wouldn't work for PvE, unless the AI was quite smart (or it came with a taunting feature which would then at least make some modicum of sense).
Of course, then you run into the issue of needing to balance numbers to not be overwhelmingly high when the tank is fighting 1v1 and not be useless against groups.
It may be best to just remove taunting/re-focusing mechanics in their entirety.
I think you're right, Aeander. Devs used aggro as a quick fix when the worldspace of the combat encounter changed, and its use has been so prolific in MMOs that many players probably can't imagine group combat without it. However, breaking away from the band-aid taunt mechanic allows for changes to group dynamic (while still maintaining needed roles), different spawn rules, and more intelligent mob behavior, all of which can be seen in existing games that aren't built around the trinity system.
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
What I've been advocating this whole time is really a three-style MMO genre.
1) The Traditional Trinity in all of its slight variations. Still has a place and will no doubt continue to have games built around it.
2) The non-trinity/soft-trinity, which shows promise but is still taking its baby steps and needs to evolve. The key here is going to be making classes specialized, not generalized, with tons of diverse builds. This is for players that want greater personal responsibility and desire to contribute all roles to their team.
3) The 'evolved' trinity - Blocker, Control/Debuff, Support as laid out in paper here. This is for players who want a more "realistic," active version of the traditional trinity with greater room for error.
It would actually be more like 6-style if you count "Tab Target" and "Action Combat" styles of each.
While you said that the CC should be given to tanks, it may work for PvE, but having only 1 role doing a certain action will cause a heavy unbalance PvP.
That's why Wildstar have CC in all classes, all roles. And even bosses demand tag team CC in order to interrupt them, since interrupts stacks, and bosses have an armor count. You need to go over that armor count to interrupt your target.
Actually, I put CC under the tank and the debuffer. Chances are, it would be under all three classes.
Believe me, I thought of that issue. I've been putting my thoughts on this genre together for months.
The difference then, is which forms of cc to distribute and through what methods it will be distributed.
An Obstructor stun might look like this:
Strike the foe. Stun them if they were moving.
Or
Dash towards target ally, stunning every foe in your path.
While a debuffer stun might look like this:
Place a hex on the target and nearby foes for the next few seconds. If they cast a spell, they are stunned.
Or
Place a hex on target foe. This stuns them if it is not removed after x seconds.
And a support stun might look like this:
Stun foes surrounding target ally.
Or
Place an enchantment on target ally. Foes who attack them are stunned briefly.
What I've been advocating this whole time is really a three-style MMO genre.
1) The Traditional Trinity in all of its slight variations. Still has a place and will no doubt continue to have games built around it.
2) The non-trinity/soft-trinity, which shows promise but is still taking its baby steps and needs to evolve. The key here is going to be making classes specialized, not generalized, with tons of diverse builds. This is for players that want greater personal responsibility and desire to contribute all roles to their team.
3) The 'evolved' trinity - Blocker, Control/Debuff, Support as laid out in paper here. This is for players who want a more "realistic," active version of the traditional trinity with greater room for error.
It would actually be more like 6-style if you count "Tab Target" and "Action Combat" styles of each.
Six variations of taunt-based combat in one MMO?
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
What I've been advocating this whole time is really a three-style MMO genre.
1) The Traditional Trinity in all of its slight variations. Still has a place and will no doubt continue to have games built around it.
2) The non-trinity/soft-trinity, which shows promise but is still taking its baby steps and needs to evolve. The key here is going to be making classes specialized, not generalized, with tons of diverse builds. This is for players that want greater personal responsibility and desire to contribute all roles to their team.
3) The 'evolved' trinity - Blocker, Control/Debuff, Support as laid out in paper here. This is for players who want a more "realistic," active version of the traditional trinity with greater room for error.
It would actually be more like 6-style if you count "Tab Target" and "Action Combat" styles of each.
Six variations of taunt-based combat in one MMO?
No. Six variations of MMO in the genre - taunt-based and non-taunt based. I've yet to see a taunt-based action combat MMO, and the two don't really seem conducive to one another, so we may very well see only one or two of those types take root as taunters. Chances are, taunting will remain a staple of the type 1 MMO.
Originally posted by Aeander What I've been advocating this whole time is really a three-style MMO genre. 1) The Traditional Trinity in all of its slight variations. Still has a place and will no doubt continue to have games built around it.2) The non-trinity/soft-trinity, which shows promise but is still taking its baby steps and needs to evolve. The key here is going to be making classes specialized, not generalized, with tons of diverse builds. This is for players that want greater personal responsibility and desire to contribute all roles to their team.3) The 'evolved' trinity - Blocker, Control/Debuff, Support as laid out in paper here. This is for players who want a more "realistic," active version of the traditional trinity with greater room for error.
While I would love to see this, you have to remember that almost every major developer and publisher still look at WoW numbers with their eyes. Dividing the genre up like this divides up the playerbase, too. I just don't see this happening anytime soon.
There are also other ways to divide the genre up, instead of constantly trying to make the "one MMO fits all" formula work, when it does not. PvP/PvE/Both, Sandbox/Themepark/Themebox, Single Player Story Driven/Massive Players Interacting Online, Massive Instancing/Open World, and other differences that could be easily seprarted out instead of mashed together.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Aeander What I've been advocating this whole time is really a three-style MMO genre.
1) The Traditional Trinity in all of its slight variations. Still has a place and will no doubt continue to have games built around it.
2) The non-trinity/soft-trinity, which shows promise but is still taking its baby steps and needs to evolve. The key here is going to be making classes specialized, not generalized, with tons of diverse builds. This is for players that want greater personal responsibility and desire to contribute all roles to their team.
3) The 'evolved' trinity - Blocker, Control/Debuff, Support as laid out in paper here. This is for players who want a more "realistic," active version of the traditional trinity with greater room for error.
While I would love to see this, you have to remember that almost every major developer and publisher still look at WoW numbers with their eyes. Dividing the genre up like this divides up the playerbase, too. I just don't see this happening anytime soon.
There are also other ways to divide the genre up, instead of constantly trying to make the "one MMO fits all" formula work, when it does not. PvP/PvE/Both, Sandbox/Themepark/Themebox, Single Player Story Driven/Massive Players Interacting Online, Massive Instancing/Open World, and other differences that could be easily seprarted out instead of mashed together.
That's an unfortunate reality, and it's one that, in practice, doesn't make much financial sense. Most MMO deaths (when not caused by outright bad game design or lack of developer support) are the result of a profound failure to find their own piece of the playerbase pie.
I do think that developers are starting to figure out the need for diversity in this genre of WoW-clones, but that's slow going. Really unfortunate, given that with just basic combinations of 3-trinity styles, 2 combat systems, and every style you have listed, the genre could well have dozens of successful, diverse titles. And it would have players enough for all of them, I think.
Instead, most of the MMO playerbase is clumped into WoW and Lineage 1 with a few more (popular) niche MMOs taking most of the non-WoW player slots.
After playing diferents games, as WOW, Rift, Aion, Guild ars 1 and 2, and a lot more, i can say i prefer trinity forever, Guild Wars 2 instances were a really headache even with a group with different classes. I have to say that nothing like Wow and Rift for an enjoyable instances and raids, really funny, and not allways easy....Sorry for my english
While I would love to see this, you have to remember that almost every major developer and publisher still look at WoW numbers with their eyes. Dividing the genre up like this divides up the playerbase, too. I just don't see this happening anytime soon.
Do they? Or do they look at LoL and WoT numbers, and don't even bother with traditional MMORPGs.
Comments
They can .. but they don't have to be.
I don't think we need dedicated roles. Just give everyone a little of everything, and let them coordinate .. or not. It works well in dungeon games like Diablo 1, 2 & 3, and co-op games like Borderlands.
"Childish" fantasies?
Seems to me like you grossly under-credit the value of fantasy. Fantasy doesn't deny reality. It reflects it and comments on it. In fantasy, we see reflections of real-world politics, religion, and, in the best fantasy novels, often human nature in its many forms. Yes, it bends the rules and creates a new setting, but the ability of a fantasy writer to do so while still immersing their readers in something so foreign to their physical surroundings is nothing short of incredible.
And roles inspired by "childish" fantasy hold value. If they fit the setting and encourage teamwork through interesting means, it matters not what their inspiration is.
Brilliant reminder, Aeander.
Re: trinity, you can see that very thing in American Football. You have tanks (front-line blockers), protecting the wizard (quarter back), while the rogue runs behind everyone (wide receiver). well something like that.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Mind = blown.
I guess I'm watching all the wrong games. In the ones I've watched, the team does its best to go around the opposing blockers and go after the relevant opponents. The blockers have to use proximity and positioning to physically block their opponents. If there were moments where the blocker went "neener-neener!" and the opposing players abandoned their objective to run headfirst into the blocker, I missed it.
I probably just need to watch more sports.
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
It's up to you...I love Football
But that analogy is just...wrong (not yer fault)
The trinity is outdated and not missed by most. Have fun debating it though.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Yeah. For some reason it's the running backs that taunt by showboating. They've got it all wrong.
Pretty much agree. Although my personal preference is everyone is a damage dealer with alternate jobs such as buffing and healing and crowd control. I know of no one who actually looks at a good fantasy book or fantasy movie and see's any semblance of anything other then damage. The hero is always the damage dealer so to speak.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Which is sort of what I was getting at. There definitely needs to be a unique niche available to each character on the team, or else the entire system tends to fall apart and it becomes less of "everyone deals damage and works together" and more of "everyone deals damage and kind of throws around some generic AoE support sometimes."
The primary failing of Guild Wars 2 is that the oversimplification of its buffs and hexes led to very simple, generic skill design. Any given class performs the same core functions as at least one other class, and the result is redundancy. Compared to the beautiful plethora of debuffs and enchantments in the first title, it's a major downgrade.
Everyone should most definitely be a damage dealer with an alternate job. That's going to mean that damage should be done in ways that encourage playing a class or a build differently from one's teammates in a way cohesive to your unique playstyle. That's going to involve class-exclusive buffs, debuffs, and/or other crucial functionalities, if not exclusivity of the roles themselves.
Ah, you're starting to figure it out!
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
I would like to see the game world changed a bit too to ALLOW more roles to be played.. When was the last game I could KITE? a mob? When was the last time I could "PULL" a mob out of a pack to a remote area to kill? I appreciate and like what GW2 did with allowing all classes to solo, but but but.. where are the "real" class defining skills? Classes and role playing (aka trinity) has been homogenized so bad, it's not even funny.. How did this happen? Easy.. PVP demands, and game world limitations.. You want to see pulling and kiting brought back into gaming, we need to redo how mobs react with that stupid "reset".. Allow trains if you have to..
I agree with this, though perhaps there is a more realistic alternative to that functionality.
If, for example, tanks were to have high-priority delayed skills that are cancelled by taking x amount of hits or x amount of damage, that would certainly give a type of pseudo-taunt for the purposes of PvP. Probably wouldn't work for PvE, unless the AI was quite smart (or it came with a taunting feature which would then at least make some modicum of sense).
Of course, then you run into the issue of needing to balance numbers to not be overwhelmingly high when the tank is fighting 1v1 and not be useless against groups.
It may be best to just remove taunting/re-focusing mechanics in their entirety.
Not outdated, players just wanted a simpler system. So, you get what we have here.
Supply always reacts to demand, not the other way around.
See, I don't actually think so. When I discuss this sort of thing with my pal, Dugal, he stands by the belief that MMO systems can't be made more difficult (such as replacing a taunt-based tank with a Braum-style blocker) because MMO players are too stupid.
I would argue that MMOs are not simplistic because MMO players are not intelligent, but rather that MMO players tend to be conditioned into a form of "accepted stupidity" because MMO design encourages it. In other words, I firmly believe that players adapt to the offerings on the market and that games tend to attract and develop players of a mindset that coincides with their design.
I'm not quite sure what you would do for PvE as the roles are pretty cut and dry - tank, heal, dps. But then again it's PvE, how much innovation do you actually need for a scripted encounter that a mod/UI is telling you what to do?
However in PvP the trinity works very well as long as the game has a true way of interrupting other players. In this sense, ever role of the trinity has two roles, both which keep the player engaged in the fight at all times.
Tank - Tank provides support and damage. Support can come in the form of body guarding group mates, protecting doorways (if the game has collision detection even better), peeling off of casters, etc.
RDPS/MDPS - The big hitters in the group however they are expected to provide some level of support in the form of cc'ing, un-cc'ing, and being effective at kiting or not getting cc'd themselves.
Healer/Support - Depending on the game can be the most fun of classes to play properly when the job becomes more than just healing. Could include debuffing, cleansing groupmates of their debuffs, some damage capability, cc duties, un-cc'ing, all while properly being positionally aware and not being trained, cc'd, or debuffed themselves.
For example, most of my pvp experience comes from DAoC where you had a real interrupting system. Not a system where if you got interrupted it would delay your cast but you could still get the cast off.....no this was a true interrupt system where you could in theory lock a player completely down taking them out of the fight. That's why in DAoC the risk reward was amazing because yes it would suck when your group would get locked down and couldn't do anything but when you did it to the enemy group it was a great coordination of team effort.
There's nothing wrong with today's trinity, but each part of the trinity must have the available skills necessary to execute at least its main purpose and an additional support like purpose.
DAOC (retired): RR11 Merc
Upcoming: CU, Wasteland 2, Eternity, Planescape
Just because most every developer is too dumb or lazy to create a really good Trinity does not mean it has any flaws at all.It actually carries more plausible ideas than games that don't use it.
I know some,very few give the Trinity a chance but still fall well short of FFXi who imo has done it the very best.
Even though i consider FFXI the best ever Trinity design,it had TONS of room for improvement,so also imo NOBODY has come close to out dating it,matter of fact most have yet to do it justice.
FFXI gave us lots of different ideas for healers,no they don't have to be simple stand in one spot and that is it,just heal,a good game gives them more to do.FFXI also used the Dancer class which could take part in combat as well as heal and other abilities.It just takes a developer to come up with some cool classes and TRY to keep the ideas plausible.
The games that try to sway away from Trinity designs leave me shaking my head at so many dumb not so plausible ideas,their games end up looking foolish.
Another thing we need to see is not only a GREAT Trinity design but one that operates within a TRUE MMO atmosphere,so ya again like FFXI using player>player combos.I don't want to be FORCED to login to play a single player game and single player mechanics and with no trinity Single minded thinking,i want a MMO and a RPG ,not to much to ask for.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I think you're right, Aeander. Devs used aggro as a quick fix when the worldspace of the combat encounter changed, and its use has been so prolific in MMOs that many players probably can't imagine group combat without it. However, breaking away from the band-aid taunt mechanic allows for changes to group dynamic (while still maintaining needed roles), different spawn rules, and more intelligent mob behavior, all of which can be seen in existing games that aren't built around the trinity system.
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
What I've been advocating this whole time is really a three-style MMO genre.
1) The Traditional Trinity in all of its slight variations. Still has a place and will no doubt continue to have games built around it.
2) The non-trinity/soft-trinity, which shows promise but is still taking its baby steps and needs to evolve. The key here is going to be making classes specialized, not generalized, with tons of diverse builds. This is for players that want greater personal responsibility and desire to contribute all roles to their team.
3) The 'evolved' trinity - Blocker, Control/Debuff, Support as laid out in paper here. This is for players who want a more "realistic," active version of the traditional trinity with greater room for error.
It would actually be more like 6-style if you count "Tab Target" and "Action Combat" styles of each.
Actually, I put CC under the tank and the debuffer. Chances are, it would be under all three classes.
Believe me, I thought of that issue. I've been putting my thoughts on this genre together for months.
The difference then, is which forms of cc to distribute and through what methods it will be distributed.
An Obstructor stun might look like this:
Strike the foe. Stun them if they were moving.
Or
Dash towards target ally, stunning every foe in your path.
While a debuffer stun might look like this:
Place a hex on the target and nearby foes for the next few seconds. If they cast a spell, they are stunned.
Or
Place a hex on target foe. This stuns them if it is not removed after x seconds.
And a support stun might look like this:
Stun foes surrounding target ally.
Or
Place an enchantment on target ally. Foes who attack them are stunned briefly.
Six variations of taunt-based combat in one MMO?
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
No. Six variations of MMO in the genre - taunt-based and non-taunt based. I've yet to see a taunt-based action combat MMO, and the two don't really seem conducive to one another, so we may very well see only one or two of those types take root as taunters. Chances are, taunting will remain a staple of the type 1 MMO.
There are also other ways to divide the genre up, instead of constantly trying to make the "one MMO fits all" formula work, when it does not. PvP/PvE/Both, Sandbox/Themepark/Themebox, Single Player Story Driven/Massive Players Interacting Online, Massive Instancing/Open World, and other differences that could be easily seprarted out instead of mashed together.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
That's an unfortunate reality, and it's one that, in practice, doesn't make much financial sense. Most MMO deaths (when not caused by outright bad game design or lack of developer support) are the result of a profound failure to find their own piece of the playerbase pie.
I do think that developers are starting to figure out the need for diversity in this genre of WoW-clones, but that's slow going. Really unfortunate, given that with just basic combinations of 3-trinity styles, 2 combat systems, and every style you have listed, the genre could well have dozens of successful, diverse titles. And it would have players enough for all of them, I think.
Instead, most of the MMO playerbase is clumped into WoW and Lineage 1 with a few more (popular) niche MMOs taking most of the non-WoW player slots.
Do they? Or do they look at LoL and WoT numbers, and don't even bother with traditional MMORPGs.