In a "realistic" situation one would often have no idea who is the most threatening.
In PvP we often know exactly what a person is capable of becuase the game tells us. It tells us their class and forces them to look a certain way to it is visible.
This is not true in all games. But it is the common trend currently.
However if your argument is that NPC should always be more stupid than humans then that is simply invalid. Batman and Robin is an example of cartoonish writing for story purposes. In fact in Batman comics the smrater villains like Riddler or Joker often attempt to out maneuver Batman by attacking or capturing weaker people so the premise is wrong to begin with.
Look it is very simple. Simplistic threat mechanics take out the ability for something to out maneuver you by forcing them to act stupid. Maneuver to counter maneuver is the heart of strategy and tactics. Threat mechanics degrade and destroy the idea of a tactical fight.
However they do this for a reason. Generally because games in the EQ model have very little in the way of move/counter-move to begin and generally because many things in real life that make such stuff possible is not implemented or does not fit well into an RPG environment.
If you know that I am skilled with a weapon and well armored. I should be difficult to kill and dangerous to fight. However I will be slow. Maybe you could just run around me if you wore normal clothes or leather.
But there is a VERY LARGE caveat here. If I have engaged you in sword range and you try that I WILL KILL you. You will epose a flank or your back which is one of the biggest and most deadly no-no's of any form of fighting. No matter how heavily armored I am I will be able to perform a deadly lunge if you try to simply run past me. However I could not possible keep ten things glued to me simply by shouting Your Momma jokes or anything else.
The mechanics of instant mortal wounds due to un-wise positioning moves is largely absent from MMOs. Partially due to engine mechanics of having no mechanical ability to do so. And partially because instant mortal wounds in RPGs are not well recieved.
In the end the discussion of "Threat" in the context of reality is pointless for MMOs. Part of the reason it exists is because MMO like EQ and WoW are no where close to real. But Threat in the context of strategy and tactics is relevant and often it is a 2nd rate mechanic in my opinion because there is no real maneuvering or out maneuvering going on. Just gen it up back off DPS, gen it up back off DPS.
The entire idea of threat is that you proactively force the NPC to act stupidly. It is at its very heart, non-tactical. You are not out smarting the opponent by being smart (either by excuting something well or by tricking them into doing something dumb). You are outsmarting them by pressing a button to make them stupid.
It is a simple plug in the numbers formula that always works. It has no tactical value or dimension at all. None. Generate X amount of threat from tank, be sure Y amount of threat from DPS/Healing is lower. Badda Bing profit. The NPC's do not even enter into the equation.
Granted there has been scripting in encounter and aggro wipes etc. But the basic premise remains the same.
Threat may be a useful mechanic because it is simple and in a social environment it is very valuable to have everyone on the same page. But it is not realistic. It is not tactical. It is a 2nd rate mechanic used for the sake of simplicity.
Excellent points. At some point I may put a typical WoW combat into a fictional story framework to show how threat is "realistic" where pvp tactics in WoW, as others have stated in this thread, are not. Regardless - your comments make a lot of sense.
But I think you bring up more of a qualm with general mechanics of mmo's than the threat mechanic specifically. I think that the EQ and WoW model are not trying to make the challenge of their game based on the team tactics in each fight (WoW does make tactics play a role in some, but not most fights) in the way that we are all hoping that GW2 will. Instead, WoW has made the challenge more individually based: how well can you play your character? If everyone is playing their character well, particularly in the context of their team make-up, they will beat the instance. In this sense, the mechanics set tactics for you so all you have to figure out is how to do your part - which in a good game will be at least moderately challenging.
I was pleasantly surprised when I went from Apprentice to full 5 star Elite in under 2 months. I was pleasantly surprised again when I went from Elite to just barely Hardcore in 2 weeks. Apprentice, here I come!
Unless foes are by definition shortsighted, stupid bastards with the attention span of a goldfish. Only then someone would repeatedly attack the most obviously well protected shiny armour wearing person which is banging his shield (I dont believe tanks are able to taunt with witty remarks). Instead of going for the skinny nightgown wearing person holding the staff with a knob on its end.
The reality is, most bad guys will go after Batman even if Robin is carrying the bigger gun because Batman is the bigger prize. Most bad guys will also look for the guy who seems to be the leader of the group because most of the time if you kill the leader, you kill the group.
The bad guys that you've met are dumber than MMO mob AI.
Comic book characters aside, if you (or ANYONE you know for that matter) were faced with the following two opponents, which would you attack first:
- heavily armoured guy that can't really hurt you
- easily damaged or weak guy that can hurt you
The former is of no threat at all and can't really be damaged. There's absolutely no return from attacking it. The later poses a threat and can be destroyed.
Why would anyone attack the tank?
"Look it is very simple. Simplistic threat mechanics take out the ability for something to out maneuver you by forcing them to act stupid. Maneuver to counter maneuver is the heart of strategy and tactics. Threat mechanics degrade and destroy the idea of a tactical fight.
However they do this for a reason. Generally because games in the EQ model have very little in the way of move/counter-move to begin and generally because many things in real life that make such stuff possible is not implemented or does not fit well into an RPG environment." - gestalt11
Well said!
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
In a "realistic" situation one would often have no idea who is the most threatening.
In PvP we often know exactly what a person is capable of becuase the game tells us. It tells us their class and forces them to look a certain way to it is visible.
This is not true in all games. But it is the common trend currently.
However if your argument is that NPC should always be more stupid than humans then that is simply invalid. Batman and Robin is an example of cartoonish writing for story purposes. In fact in Batman comics the smrater villains like Riddler or Joker often attempt to out maneuver Batman by attacking or capturing weaker people so the premise is wrong to begin with.
Look it is very simple. Simplistic threat mechanics take out the ability for something to out maneuver you by forcing them to act stupid. Maneuver to counter maneuver is the heart of strategy and tactics. Threat mechanics degrade and destroy the idea of a tactical fight.
However they do this for a reason. Generally because games in the EQ model have very little in the way of move/counter-move to begin and generally because many things in real life that make such stuff possible is not implemented or does not fit well into an RPG environment.
If you know that I am skilled with a weapon and well armored. I should be difficult to kill and dangerous to fight. However I will be slow. Maybe you could just run around me if you wore normal clothes or leather.
But there is a VERY LARGE caveat here. If I have engaged you in sword range and you try that I WILL KILL you. You will epose a flank or your back which is one of the biggest and most deadly no-no's of any form of fighting. No matter how heavily armored I am I will be able to perform a deadly lunge if you try to simply run past me. However I could not possible keep ten things glued to me simply by shouting Your Momma jokes or anything else.
The mechanics of instant mortal wounds due to un-wise positioning moves is largely absent from MMOs. Partially due to engine mechanics of having no mechanical ability to do so. And partially because instant mortal wounds in RPGs are not well recieved.
In the end the discussion of "Threat" in the context of reality is pointless for MMOs. Part of the reason it exists is because MMO like EQ and WoW are no where close to real. But Threat in the context of strategy and tactics is relevant and often it is a 2nd rate mechanic in my opinion because there is no real maneuvering or out maneuvering going on. Just gen it up back off DPS, gen it up back off DPS.
The entire idea of threat is that you proactively force the NPC to act stupidly. It is at its very heart, non-tactical. You are not out smarting the opponent by being smart (either by excuting something well or by tricking them into doing something dumb). You are outsmarting them by pressing a button to make them stupid.
It is a simple plug in the numbers formula that always works. It has no tactical value or dimension at all. None. Generate X amount of threat from tank, be sure Y amount of threat from DPS/Healing is lower. Badda Bing profit. The NPC's do not even enter into the equation.
Granted there has been scripting in encounter and aggro wipes etc. But the basic premise remains the same.
Threat may be a useful mechanic because it is simple and in a social environment it is very valuable to have everyone on the same page. But it is not realistic. It is not tactical. It is a 2nd rate mechanic used for the sake of simplicity.
Excellent points. At some point I may put a typical WoW combat into a fictional story framework to show how threat is "realistic" where pvp tactics in WoW, as others have stated in this thread, are not. Regardless - your comments make a lot of sense.
But I think you bring up more of a qualm with general mechanics of mmo's than the threat mechanic specifically. I think that the EQ and WoW model are not trying to make the challenge of their game based on the team tactics in each fight (WoW does make tactics play a role in some, but not most fights) in the way that we are all hoping that GW2 will. Instead, WoW has made the challenge more individually based: how well can you play your character? If everyone is playing their character well, particularly in the context of their team make-up, they will beat the instance. In this sense, the mechanics set tactics for you so all you have to figure out is how to do your part - which in a good game will be at least moderately challenging.
I am not goign to try to suggest a better system be implemented in WoW or EQ, because the games are simply limited. I doubt there is something that can be all that great other just being a game that relies on CC instead of threat. Adn that has other problems in a group context
How would you have people fight in a Phalanx in WoW? You can't there is no collision. There is not way to simulate the idea of a backline stepping up when a frontline goes down. There is not way to implement the idea of the phalanx as a unit pushing its shields against a less organized line and running the over.
But what I would like people to understand is that a real "fight" against a skilled opponent is more than just an equation. Whether its chess or boxing or UFC is a series of move to counter move. And that no plan of battle survies the first 5 minutes.
This is the sort of stuff that good games should emulate. Threat does not do this. Almost every fighter goes in with a plan. Then they adjust sometimes they adjust the circumstance so that something simialr to thier plan works. Sometimes they must changed to a different strategy. In the Threat design you cannot have this because it has no dimensions to it.
When I spar with people in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu I often get armbars. I may even go into the sparring session intending to armbar them. But I have no idea how I am going to get it. I do not know what setup will present itself. I do not know if my first move will be countered. I must have a certain amount of knowledge and I must be fluid enough to adapt.
Threat is completely contrary to this. Yet if you analyze chess you could say exactly the same thign I said about BJJ. And this is why chess is a timeless game and WoW is not.
WoW has unpredicatable things happen or mistakes made. But the answer is always the same; get threat on the tank, keep tank alive. There is no setup, there is no counter. There is no fluidity. There is no chess match. There no field general.
Perhaps threat could be an element of a timeless game. But it is not sufficient on its own.
Guild Wars 1 has a more realistic threat mechanic then the taunt based games have. It has no taunt skills. Foes tend to go for the soft or easy looking targets and only change target if you get in their way, blocking their path or hindering them otherwise. Unfortunately, its just not that noticable anymore because with the downloadable hero templates and overpowered PVE skills you can crush most npc groups without even knowing how to play.
No, they aren't realistic mechanics for reasons that have already been rehashed 1000 times. Don't chalk it up to fantasy with weak analogies or beg the question of why mobs should be unable to simulate thinking and learning.
The real argument is whether they are good game design and honestly I believe there are more elegant (and realistic) ways of doing it. In 10 years, someone will bring up the holy trinity, and we'll all have a good laugh about how absurd and clumsy it was compared to what we have then.
I think gamewise there are 2 choices. Either the threat system you are against or else blocking. That is, yea he wants to kill the sorc but first he has to get past the tank and he isnt allowed to just run through him. Blocking is theoretically superior but very difficult to achieve. Think about how many times in how many mmo's you have gotten stuck on world geometry. Now think how bad that would be if you could get stuck on mobs and other players. I think it would be a nightmare.
If you dont use threat or blocking then I cant think of another way.
I don't think the taunt mechanic is realistic on any mob that is supposed to be reasonably intelligent or above though it's perfectly realistic on anything below a certain intellignece level.It's even realsitic against foes with a high arrogance or narcissism level.
That being said I don't care about realism in gaming only about fun.The traditional threat mechnaics can be as fun as any other game mechanic it's how it's presented to the player.Peopel forget some poeple like playing tanks or healers and enjoy balancing effectiveness with threat generation.
But I would agree tha tmaybe the Holy Trinity is an over used mechanic but that doesn'y make it a bad one.Again it's only seems overused because of the Dominance of Fantasy MMORPGs in the MMO market.I also beleive that there could be other threat/group mechanics in MMORPGs that could be equally effective and fun.
A game without tanks would be more interesting, CC, Healing and DPS should be enough.
Tank n Spank FTL!
So you are saying everyone in the party should have equal ability to take or avoid hits? Thats interesting but wouldnt that make the game more vanilla?
A game without tanks would be more interesting, CC, Healing and DPS should be enough.
Tank n Spank FTL!
The game exists. It's called CoX. Granted, CoX has a tanking class, it's just completely expendable. What has happened in CoX is that the CC classes are king. The more you have in your party the better. I used to enjoy CoX crowd control but I have to say that its evolution has caused me to think less is much more when it comes to control. Maybe there is a better way to do CC, Healing and DPS as the primary model than CoX does, but I haven't seen it.
I was pleasantly surprised when I went from Apprentice to full 5 star Elite in under 2 months. I was pleasantly surprised again when I went from Elite to just barely Hardcore in 2 weeks. Apprentice, here I come!
So you are saying everyone in the party should have equal ability to take or avoid hits? Thats interesting but wouldnt that make the game more vanilla?
Have you tried EVE, UO or Asheron's Call?
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
while you do raise interesting points - your comparisons are not completely valid.
The reason Batman is the bigger prize is because he is much more dangerous than Robin. He has acquired a name for himself and as such would be the primary target.
If you look at how the trinity works in a PVP scenario, when you leave it to players to decide who they need to kill in order to kill the group, they never go for the tank. Who cares that the tank taunted you - killing him achieves nothing. In real life when someone says "pick on someone your own size" (assuming they are refering to themselves as the new larger target) they acuire the attention because they are larger, stronger, and will kick your butt if you keep focusing on the puny guy.
The reality is that in MMOs that big scary 'pick on your someone your own size' tank is nothing more that a wall. If in real life you gave a bully the option of punching a weak kid or a wall with a speaker that announces "pick on someone your own size" the bully would just keep punching the kid.
That is why the trinity does not make sense in MMOs, not until tanks actually become dangerous (think WAR - it made not attacking the tank a dangerous thing... or at least it tried to).
A game without tanks would be more interesting, CC, Healing and DPS should be enough.
Tank n Spank FTL!
So you are saying everyone in the party should have equal ability to take or avoid hits? Thats interesting but wouldnt that make the game more vanilla?
Depemds on how it's done. If you balance a warrior's abilities with a healers combined healing and offensive capabilities, and balance those with a mages abilities both offensive and defensive, you'd have a balance but with different styles. And if you add to that group abilities for each to affect the rest of the group both offensively and defensively, you'd have a lot of options for each while still maintaining balance. And each class would have their own styles of doing things.
Just a note on "Threat". It's not "realistic" in that in combat, realistically you'd attack the weakest link first. If you were fighting a Liche and it's Skelleton "pet", wouldn't you want to get rid of that pesky Skel first and then concentrate on the Liche without the interuptions and minor damage you'd have if that Skel were still around? But to do that to players, especially if they have a weaker party member, just doesn't seem fun to that person. Always being taken out first, just not fun.
The Threat Systems seem like a very cheap way to handle it though. Where's the AI? Shouldn't MOBs go after healers first? Weakly armored mages? Shouldn't the party have to use tactics to defend them?
No way! Threat mechanics are not a realisic game design. But it have for long been the best the most part of the industry have could come up with. To a degree where alot of players think it can't be different, and i think that OP is trapped in that mindset
well maybe its possible to free him .
Basicly threat lead to that there is a frontline character that have a different role and playstyle in PvP and PvE. Because developers have yet to give frontline chars the tools to fullfill their role, and instead have resorted to a mechanic that makes AI behave stupid. And the term tank now covers the character that fullfill that role, to taunt the stupid AI that way, while absorbing the brute of attacks.
In the beginning that mechanic lead to a very passiv and nonchalling gamestyle. Where the tank repetive press the same attack . And while being developed to be more challening and variated in use in the best games , the basic premise is still that the AI has to be stupid to make it work. And in most cases it lead to passive and static game eksperience.
And with a UI where you look at threat meters, healthbars and damage metee its even more mechanical and immerssion breaking, if someone shows an alternative.
And that alternative have been there for years as GW1 have shown. The frontline warrior in GW1 had a very active role, against an AI going for the weak , getting in the way of monsters, using position and CC. A role that was not that different from the PvP
There is a new thing in GW2. Missiles are real objekts, that means a frontline character can also block and absorb damage targetted at other chars,if he gets in the way. This again leads to a more active role.
Comments
Excellent points. At some point I may put a typical WoW combat into a fictional story framework to show how threat is "realistic" where pvp tactics in WoW, as others have stated in this thread, are not. Regardless - your comments make a lot of sense.
But I think you bring up more of a qualm with general mechanics of mmo's than the threat mechanic specifically. I think that the EQ and WoW model are not trying to make the challenge of their game based on the team tactics in each fight (WoW does make tactics play a role in some, but not most fights) in the way that we are all hoping that GW2 will. Instead, WoW has made the challenge more individually based: how well can you play your character? If everyone is playing their character well, particularly in the context of their team make-up, they will beat the instance. In this sense, the mechanics set tactics for you so all you have to figure out is how to do your part - which in a good game will be at least moderately challenging.
I was pleasantly surprised when I went from Apprentice to full 5 star Elite in under 2 months. I was pleasantly surprised again when I went from Elite to just barely Hardcore in 2 weeks. Apprentice, here I come!
Taunt skills are as unrealistic as you can get.
Unless foes are by definition shortsighted, stupid bastards with the attention span of a goldfish. Only then someone would repeatedly attack the most obviously well protected shiny armour wearing person which is banging his shield (I dont believe tanks are able to taunt with witty remarks). Instead of going for the skinny nightgown wearing person holding the staff with a knob on its end.
The bad guys that you've met are dumber than MMO mob AI.
Comic book characters aside, if you (or ANYONE you know for that matter) were faced with the following two opponents, which would you attack first:
- heavily armoured guy that can't really hurt you
- easily damaged or weak guy that can hurt you
The former is of no threat at all and can't really be damaged. There's absolutely no return from attacking it. The later poses a threat and can be destroyed.
Why would anyone attack the tank?
"Look it is very simple. Simplistic threat mechanics take out the ability for something to out maneuver you by forcing them to act stupid. Maneuver to counter maneuver is the heart of strategy and tactics. Threat mechanics degrade and destroy the idea of a tactical fight.
However they do this for a reason. Generally because games in the EQ model have very little in the way of move/counter-move to begin and generally because many things in real life that make such stuff possible is not implemented or does not fit well into an RPG environment." - gestalt11
Well said!
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 am not goign to try to suggest a better system be implemented in WoW or EQ, because the games are simply limited. I doubt there is something that can be all that great other just being a game that relies on CC instead of threat. Adn that has other problems in a group context
How would you have people fight in a Phalanx in WoW? You can't there is no collision. There is not way to simulate the idea of a backline stepping up when a frontline goes down. There is not way to implement the idea of the phalanx as a unit pushing its shields against a less organized line and running the over.
But what I would like people to understand is that a real "fight" against a skilled opponent is more than just an equation. Whether its chess or boxing or UFC is a series of move to counter move. And that no plan of battle survies the first 5 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz
This is the sort of stuff that good games should emulate. Threat does not do this. Almost every fighter goes in with a plan. Then they adjust sometimes they adjust the circumstance so that something simialr to thier plan works. Sometimes they must changed to a different strategy. In the Threat design you cannot have this because it has no dimensions to it.
When I spar with people in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu I often get armbars. I may even go into the sparring session intending to armbar them. But I have no idea how I am going to get it. I do not know what setup will present itself. I do not know if my first move will be countered. I must have a certain amount of knowledge and I must be fluid enough to adapt.
Threat is completely contrary to this. Yet if you analyze chess you could say exactly the same thign I said about BJJ. And this is why chess is a timeless game and WoW is not.
WoW has unpredicatable things happen or mistakes made. But the answer is always the same; get threat on the tank, keep tank alive. There is no setup, there is no counter. There is no fluidity. There is no chess match. There no field general.
Perhaps threat could be an element of a timeless game. But it is not sufficient on its own.
Guild Wars 1 has a more realistic threat mechanic then the taunt based games have. It has no taunt skills. Foes tend to go for the soft or easy looking targets and only change target if you get in their way, blocking their path or hindering them otherwise. Unfortunately, its just not that noticable anymore because with the downloadable hero templates and overpowered PVE skills you can crush most npc groups without even knowing how to play.
No, they aren't realistic mechanics for reasons that have already been rehashed 1000 times. Don't chalk it up to fantasy with weak analogies or beg the question of why mobs should be unable to simulate thinking and learning.
The real argument is whether they are good game design and honestly I believe there are more elegant (and realistic) ways of doing it. In 10 years, someone will bring up the holy trinity, and we'll all have a good laugh about how absurd and clumsy it was compared to what we have then.
I think gamewise there are 2 choices. Either the threat system you are against or else blocking. That is, yea he wants to kill the sorc but first he has to get past the tank and he isnt allowed to just run through him. Blocking is theoretically superior but very difficult to achieve. Think about how many times in how many mmo's you have gotten stuck on world geometry. Now think how bad that would be if you could get stuck on mobs and other players. I think it would be a nightmare.
If you dont use threat or blocking then I cant think of another way.
A game without tanks would be more interesting, CC, Healing and DPS should be enough.
Tank n Spank FTL!
Please do not hype any gam.. oh wait, nevermind... forgot what forum I was on.
I don't think the taunt mechanic is realistic on any mob that is supposed to be reasonably intelligent or above though it's perfectly realistic on anything below a certain intellignece level.It's even realsitic against foes with a high arrogance or narcissism level.
That being said I don't care about realism in gaming only about fun.The traditional threat mechnaics can be as fun as any other game mechanic it's how it's presented to the player.Peopel forget some poeple like playing tanks or healers and enjoy balancing effectiveness with threat generation.
But I would agree tha tmaybe the Holy Trinity is an over used mechanic but that doesn'y make it a bad one.Again it's only seems overused because of the Dominance of Fantasy MMORPGs in the MMO market.I also beleive that there could be other threat/group mechanics in MMORPGs that could be equally effective and fun.
So you are saying everyone in the party should have equal ability to take or avoid hits? Thats interesting but wouldnt that make the game more vanilla?
The game exists. It's called CoX. Granted, CoX has a tanking class, it's just completely expendable. What has happened in CoX is that the CC classes are king. The more you have in your party the better. I used to enjoy CoX crowd control but I have to say that its evolution has caused me to think less is much more when it comes to control. Maybe there is a better way to do CC, Healing and DPS as the primary model than CoX does, but I haven't seen it.
I was pleasantly surprised when I went from Apprentice to full 5 star Elite in under 2 months. I was pleasantly surprised again when I went from Elite to just barely Hardcore in 2 weeks. Apprentice, here I come!
Have you tried EVE, UO or Asheron's Call?
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
while you do raise interesting points - your comparisons are not completely valid.
The reason Batman is the bigger prize is because he is much more dangerous than Robin. He has acquired a name for himself and as such would be the primary target.
If you look at how the trinity works in a PVP scenario, when you leave it to players to decide who they need to kill in order to kill the group, they never go for the tank. Who cares that the tank taunted you - killing him achieves nothing. In real life when someone says "pick on someone your own size" (assuming they are refering to themselves as the new larger target) they acuire the attention because they are larger, stronger, and will kick your butt if you keep focusing on the puny guy.
The reality is that in MMOs that big scary 'pick on your someone your own size' tank is nothing more that a wall. If in real life you gave a bully the option of punching a weak kid or a wall with a speaker that announces "pick on someone your own size" the bully would just keep punching the kid.
That is why the trinity does not make sense in MMOs, not until tanks actually become dangerous (think WAR - it made not attacking the tank a dangerous thing... or at least it tried to).
Depemds on how it's done. If you balance a warrior's abilities with a healers combined healing and offensive capabilities, and balance those with a mages abilities both offensive and defensive, you'd have a balance but with different styles. And if you add to that group abilities for each to affect the rest of the group both offensively and defensively, you'd have a lot of options for each while still maintaining balance. And each class would have their own styles of doing things.
Just a note on "Threat". It's not "realistic" in that in combat, realistically you'd attack the weakest link first. If you were fighting a Liche and it's Skelleton "pet", wouldn't you want to get rid of that pesky Skel first and then concentrate on the Liche without the interuptions and minor damage you'd have if that Skel were still around? But to do that to players, especially if they have a weaker party member, just doesn't seem fun to that person. Always being taken out first, just not fun.
The Threat Systems seem like a very cheap way to handle it though. Where's the AI? Shouldn't MOBs go after healers first? Weakly armored mages? Shouldn't the party have to use tactics to defend them?
Once upon a time....
No way! Threat mechanics are not a realisic game design. But it have for long been the best the most part of the industry have could come up with. To a degree where alot of players think it can't be different, and i think that OP is trapped in that mindset
well maybe its possible to free him
.
Basicly threat lead to that there is a frontline character that have a different role and playstyle in PvP and PvE. Because developers have yet to give frontline chars the tools to fullfill their role, and instead have resorted to a mechanic that makes AI behave stupid. And the term tank now covers the character that fullfill that role, to taunt the stupid AI that way, while absorbing the brute of attacks.
In the beginning that mechanic lead to a very passiv and nonchalling gamestyle. Where the tank repetive press the same attack . And while being developed to be more challening and variated in use in the best games , the basic premise is still that the AI has to be stupid to make it work. And in most cases it lead to passive and static game eksperience.
And with a UI where you look at threat meters, healthbars and damage metee its even more mechanical and immerssion breaking, if someone shows an alternative.
And that alternative have been there for years as GW1 have shown. The frontline warrior in GW1 had a very active role, against an AI going for the weak , getting in the way of monsters, using position and CC. A role that was not that different from the PvP
There is a new thing in GW2. Missiles are real objekts, that means a frontline character can also block and absorb damage targetted at other chars,if he gets in the way. This again leads to a more active role.
Whats not to like?