In capture the flag maps, a tank can do pretty well.
You obviously didn't play Age of Conan. It had probably the best set up for PvP tanking (at least early on) for any game that's been released.
AoC's PvP was a mess for a long time from early on. By no sensible measuring stick was the PvP "good". And you are obviously not talking about a tank, but a flag runner, and flag runners can come far and wide depending on balance and metagame. The ideal flag runner has survivability and mobility (doesn't really matter exactly how you achieve this) - already quite different from "holding the attention of all the mobs and soaking damage".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Why do so many people get hung up on taunt? In pretty much every trinity game, taunt usually has a cooldown and is almost never used and is instead saved for emergencies when the tank actually loses aggro. Sometimes I wonder if the people complaining about taunt have ever played a tank.
And what's really bizarre about all this is that the trinity is more natural than some weird mob AI that bounces from threat to threat.
It would take less than 5 minutes of internet searches and some light reading to find out that "dps" (archers, pikemen, etc) usually hung out in the back lines while "tanks" (infantry, phalanx, etc) took the front lines.
Archers go pew pew, fall back behind the infantry, infantry advances while archers shoot to the opposing armies back ranks, and "healers" generally stayed far back at camp (although some armies had combat medics that took to the field) and tended to the wounded.
People who say "it's not realistic for a mob to stand there beating on a heavily armored enemy while a squishy person keeps them alive." Are forgetting some of the most basic rules of combat. Do not expose your flank or your back to your enemy.
That's something that has slowly faded from RPG's. Traditionally, ANY time you or an emeny exposed their back - backstab penalties were incurred. So it was generally a bad idea to do something like . . . run past an enemy. Nothing will get you killed faster than leaving yourself defenseless.
Trinity is a small scale version of non-modern military engagement. That's not to say that another system can't be developed that will be more entertaining in a video game, but I have yet to see a successful non-trinity system in place (that includes GW1).
Your examples demonstrate your glaring ignorance in warfare and tactics. Infantry was the backbone of any army. Still is. To capture something, you need to have "boots on the ground", but by no means is infantry "the tank". Infact, even the modern main battle tank is not a "tank" in the trinity sense. Neither one's purpose is not to intentionally draw fire to itself and soak damage.
The archetypical tank role is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The phalanx, legion, and a lot early infantry formations are clearly in the "tank role." If you disagree, you're just being stubborn with your absolute hatred of the trinity which is funny.
And also...
The raid boss mob is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The magic system is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The plate armor walking speed is absurd and unrealistic. It doesn't work like that in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The [insert random fantasy game race] is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
Also, it seems like these games have a whole lot more- and by a whole lot more I mean a WHOLE LOT MORE- combat oriented classes than farmers. How does everyone get supported? It seems pretty realistic to me.
In capture the flag maps, a tank can do pretty well.
You obviously didn't play Age of Conan. It had probably the best set up for PvP tanking (at least early on) for any game that's been released.
AoC's PvP was a mess for a long time from early on. By no sensible measuring stick was the PvP "good". And you are obviously not talking about a tank, but a flag runner, and flag runners can come far and wide depending on balance and metagame. The ideal flag runner has survivability and mobility - already quite different from "holding the attention of all the mobs and soaking damage".
Of course he's not holding the attention of all the mobs, he's holding the attention of a lot of players. A tank can be a flag runner. Noob alert.
Way to dance around my comments about AoC's tanks in PvP. I didn't say the PvP was good. I was talking specifically about the PvP tanking which was good. Derp derp derp, go get hooked on phonics. It might be able to help.
Why do so many people get hung up on taunt? In pretty much every trinity game, taunt usually has a cooldown and is almost never used and is instead saved for emergencies when the tank actually loses aggro. Sometimes I wonder if the people complaining about taunt have ever played a tank.
And what's really bizarre about all this is that the trinity is more natural than some weird mob AI that bounces from threat to threat.
It would take less than 5 minutes of internet searches and some light reading to find out that "dps" (archers, pikemen, etc) usually hung out in the back lines while "tanks" (infantry, phalanx, etc) took the front lines.
Archers go pew pew, fall back behind the infantry, infantry advances while archers shoot to the opposing armies back ranks, and "healers" generally stayed far back at camp (although some armies had combat medics that took to the field) and tended to the wounded.
People who say "it's not realistic for a mob to stand there beating on a heavily armored enemy while a squishy person keeps them alive." Are forgetting some of the most basic rules of combat. Do not expose your flank or your back to your enemy.
That's something that has slowly faded from RPG's. Traditionally, ANY time you or an emeny exposed their back - backstab penalties were incurred. So it was generally a bad idea to do something like . . . run past an enemy. Nothing will get you killed faster than leaving yourself defenseless.
Trinity is a small scale version of non-modern military engagement. That's not to say that another system can't be developed that will be more entertaining in a video game, but I have yet to see a successful non-trinity system in place (that includes GW1).
Your examples demonstrate your glaring ignorance in warfare and tactics. Infantry was the backbone of any army. Still is. To capture something, you need to have "boots on the ground", but by no means is infantry "the tank". Infact, even the modern main battle tank is not a "tank" in the trinity sense. Neither one's purpose is not to intentionally draw fire to itself and soak damage.
The archetypical tank role is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The phalanx, legion, and a lot early infantry formations are clearly in the "tank role." If you disagree, you're just being stubborn with your absolute hatred of the trinity which is funny.
And also...
The raid boss mob is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The magic system is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The plate armor walking speed is absurd and unrealistic. It doesn't work like that in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The [insert random fantasy game race] is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
Also, it seems like these games have a whole lot more- and by a whole lot more I mean a WHOLE LOT MORE- combat oriented classes than farmers. How does everyone get supported? It seems pretty realistic to me.
A phalanx is a frontline fighting formation. It is nothing more than that. I am amazed you can find any significant resemblance to the trinity tank.
The rest of your post is just a strawman.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
In capture the flag maps, a tank can do pretty well.
You obviously didn't play Age of Conan. It had probably the best set up for PvP tanking (at least early on) for any game that's been released.
AoC's PvP was a mess for a long time from early on. By no sensible measuring stick was the PvP "good". And you are obviously not talking about a tank, but a flag runner, and flag runners can come far and wide depending on balance and metagame. The ideal flag runner has survivability and mobility - already quite different from "holding the attention of all the mobs and soaking damage".
Of course he's not holding the attention of all the mobs, he's holding the attention of a lot of players. A tank can be a flag runner. Noob alert.
Way to dance around my comments about AoC's tanks in PvP. I didn't say the PvP was good. I was talking specifically about the PvP tanking which was good. Derp derp derp, go get hooked on phonics. It might be able to help.
Caught a glimpse of your green skin in your last post but this one definitely confirms it.
Only reason I did mention the state of AoC's PvP was that I distinctly remember a time when the only playable class was the Assassin. Can we therefore summarize that Assassin works for everything, hmm?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Its there in every mmo i currently join. There is a huge shortage of tanks, despite the fact that tanks are often the most fun mellee class to play in these games, very challenging but allowing people to shine in front of their team, because everyone notices i a tank is good at his job or not.
Fun is subjective. May be it is only you who think that tanks are most fun melee class.
Why do so many people get hung up on taunt? In pretty much every trinity game, taunt usually has a cooldown and is almost never used and is instead saved for emergencies when the tank actually loses aggro. Sometimes I wonder if the people complaining about taunt have ever played a tank.
And what's really bizarre about all this is that the trinity is more natural than some weird mob AI that bounces from threat to threat.
It would take less than 5 minutes of internet searches and some light reading to find out that "dps" (archers, pikemen, etc) usually hung out in the back lines while "tanks" (infantry, phalanx, etc) took the front lines.
Archers go pew pew, fall back behind the infantry, infantry advances while archers shoot to the opposing armies back ranks, and "healers" generally stayed far back at camp (although some armies had combat medics that took to the field) and tended to the wounded.
People who say "it's not realistic for a mob to stand there beating on a heavily armored enemy while a squishy person keeps them alive." Are forgetting some of the most basic rules of combat. Do not expose your flank or your back to your enemy.
That's something that has slowly faded from RPG's. Traditionally, ANY time you or an emeny exposed their back - backstab penalties were incurred. So it was generally a bad idea to do something like . . . run past an enemy. Nothing will get you killed faster than leaving yourself defenseless.
Trinity is a small scale version of non-modern military engagement. That's not to say that another system can't be developed that will be more entertaining in a video game, but I have yet to see a successful non-trinity system in place (that includes GW1).
Your examples demonstrate your glaring ignorance in warfare and tactics. Infantry was the backbone of any army. Still is. To capture something, you need to have "boots on the ground", but by no means is infantry "the tank". Infact, even the modern main battle tank is not a "tank" in the trinity sense. Neither one's purpose is not to intentionally draw fire to itself and soak damage.
The archetypical tank role is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The phalanx, legion, and a lot early infantry formations are clearly in the "tank role." If you disagree, you're just being stubborn with your absolute hatred of the trinity which is funny.
And also...
The raid boss mob is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The magic system is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The plate armor walking speed is absurd and unrealistic. It doesn't work like that in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The [insert random fantasy game race] is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
Also, it seems like these games have a whole lot more- and by a whole lot more I mean a WHOLE LOT MORE- combat oriented classes than farmers. How does everyone get supported? It seems pretty realistic to me.
A phalanx is a frontline fighting formation. It is nothing more than that. I am amazed you can find any significant resemblance to the trinity tank.
The rest of your post is just a strawman.
It's a defensive frontline fighting formation. It isn't anything more than that. It does hold "agro." Enemies don't go running by it to get to the back lines. Proxy agro, one of the primary agro components in EQ and the supposed origin of the Trinity? That's pretty much exactly what a trinity tank is. Thanks for playing.
It's absolutely not a strawman. You pick and choose what you want to be realistic. That's fine. We're playing a damn game with magic, people running sub 1 second 40s in plate. You see how fast these games have people swinging two-handed swords? It's appalling. No, you don't care about realism except when it's something you hate. Then you bring out the "oh em gee" it's not realistic.
Tanks are basically iron clad melee characters that rely on strength. Even WoW's magic based tanks require the iron armor and operate at melee range. There's very little variety. They all depend on taunts too.
Developers need to step away from the accepted idea of tanks and possibly even spread tanking around a bit.
For instance, allow mage classes to tank either using pets, or magical constructs such as walls. Have tanks use their shields to physically push or shove mobs back rather than taunt them. In the shield scenario, it might take more than one shield bearer to push the mobs back or a combination of shield bearers and mages creating barriers to hold the mobs back. In open spaces, perhaps the mages create circular barriers with breaks, and the shield bearers man the breaks in the walls, allowing the ranged dps to shoot through. Something like that.
They just need to get away from the idea that they need a traditional "tank" as an artificial attention grabber /slash/ damage absorber.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The best solution so far is maing 6 man groups, which numerically makes sure there are less tanks needed. If you add multi specs, allowing builds to function in 2 roles without having to respec, i think that might even be enough..
( creating smaller groups orriginated when it still held true that finding 4 buddies was easier then finding 5 buddies, with he current generation of dungeonfinders requiring people to sign up for certain roles, this no longer holds true)
and for those people complaining tanks dont work in pvp, thats a gamedesign flaw in no relation to tanking in PvE. In swtor for example they made the taunts function in PvP too, read up on that mechanic if you want to know more..
the strong point of the trinity combat is that it adds a strategical and a tactical layer to the combat. The trinity on top of that is a very natural mechanic, because its a mathematical advantage if the mobs hit the player that receives the least damage from their attacks, just as it is smart when there is someone repairing the damage done ( healer) or preventing damage ( cc) These are just logical things to do and the right things to build a strategy around...
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)
Why do so many people get hung up on taunt? In pretty much every trinity game, taunt usually has a cooldown and is almost never used and is instead saved for emergencies when the tank actually loses aggro. Sometimes I wonder if the people complaining about taunt have ever played a tank.
And what's really bizarre about all this is that the trinity is more natural than some weird mob AI that bounces from threat to threat.
It would take less than 5 minutes of internet searches and some light reading to find out that "dps" (archers, pikemen, etc) usually hung out in the back lines while "tanks" (infantry, phalanx, etc) took the front lines.
Archers go pew pew, fall back behind the infantry, infantry advances while archers shoot to the opposing armies back ranks, and "healers" generally stayed far back at camp (although some armies had combat medics that took to the field) and tended to the wounded.
People who say "it's not realistic for a mob to stand there beating on a heavily armored enemy while a squishy person keeps them alive." Are forgetting some of the most basic rules of combat. Do not expose your flank or your back to your enemy.
That's something that has slowly faded from RPG's. Traditionally, ANY time you or an emeny exposed their back - backstab penalties were incurred. So it was generally a bad idea to do something like . . . run past an enemy. Nothing will get you killed faster than leaving yourself defenseless.
Trinity is a small scale version of non-modern military engagement. That's not to say that another system can't be developed that will be more entertaining in a video game, but I have yet to see a successful non-trinity system in place (that includes GW1).
Your examples demonstrate your glaring ignorance in warfare and tactics. Infantry was the backbone of any army. Still is. To capture something, you need to have "boots on the ground", but by no means is infantry "the tank". Infact, even the modern main battle tank is not a "tank" in the trinity sense. Neither one's purpose is not to intentionally draw fire to itself and soak damage.
The archetypical tank role is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
Both views are flawed. A tank for example might not be designed to draw fire to itself but protection is part of its design and that includes offering cover to infantry. Same with the role of medieval footsoldiers(never in the role of THE tank but a tanking role was part of the strategy)
The main problem here is a different view on the thing you called archetypical tank. You think of what i would call the current trivialized abomination of what tanks used to be or could be while my personal view is much more than taunts and much more complex mechanics.
On the other hand there is something else to think about...why does everyone wan't 100% realism for the tank when you have no issues with mages or healers that can even bring back people from the dead in the heat of a battle? Even limited in-combat healing abilties mean a massive change to the current reality into the direction favoring tanking strategies in general.
In capture the flag maps, a tank can do pretty well.
You obviously didn't play Age of Conan. It had probably the best set up for PvP tanking (at least early on) for any game that's been released.
AoC's PvP was a mess for a long time from early on. By no sensible measuring stick was the PvP "good". And you are obviously not talking about a tank, but a flag runner, and flag runners can come far and wide depending on balance and metagame. The ideal flag runner has survivability and mobility - already quite different from "holding the attention of all the mobs and soaking damage".
Of course he's not holding the attention of all the mobs, he's holding the attention of a lot of players. A tank can be a flag runner. Noob alert.
Way to dance around my comments about AoC's tanks in PvP. I didn't say the PvP was good. I was talking specifically about the PvP tanking which was good. Derp derp derp, go get hooked on phonics. It might be able to help.
Caught a glimpse of your green skin in your last post but this one definitely confirms it.
Only reason I did mention the state of AoC's PvP was that I distinctly remember a time when the only playable class was the Assassin. Can we therefore summarize that Assassin works for everything, hmm?
LOL you accuse me of being a troll because you're ignorant?
No, there were a lot of classes that worked through beta and release. The assassin was by far not the most OP and playable class. And again, no, we're talking about the mechanics that you clearly and repeatedly demonstrate you have no knowledge of but continue to slam the game as if you played it. Maybe you bought it and loaded it, but you clearly didn't play the game if you don't know about the tanking mechanics for PvP.
If you attacked a non-tank group member, all tanks in the group got a stacking buff. The effect depended on the tank. The Conqueror proc'd heals. The stacking increased the amount healed. At max, it proc'd a rez on everyone in your group. For the Guardian, they had an ability called Bloody Vengeance I believe. It had a 10 second cooldown. Every stack of the buff increase the damage significantly of the ability and reduced the CD by 1 second. You have to really think carefully about attacking someone other than the tank in these situations because there are consequences and you have to be prepared for them.
A phalanx is a frontline fighting formation. It is nothing more than that. I am amazed you can find any significant resemblance to the trinity tank.
The rest of your post is just a strawman.
Right . . . a frontline fighting formation which serves what purpose? To prevent or minimize incoming attacks to them or their non-phalanxed members in back - who often used long spears, arrows, javelins or other manner of long/ranged weaponry to assault.
You can't see any resemblance? Does the trinity not resemble a paired down version of this? I'm curious as to what you see the trinity as.
Tank are tough to play special in PVP , you don't have much skill to hold down enemy player who don't stupid fall for taunt
And being tank are sad , people look for you when they need but they ignore you when you need them .
Tank don't mean you let enemy hit you until you die but keep them away from your ally by any mean
Then that's when problem start ... skill design .
I sometime feel hopeless watch my party wipe out in PVP because lack of ability to protect them.
PVE are easier with taunt but without good healer , you can't do much and you need top gears with high reinforced.
It cost too much to being a good tank moneys are problem to your little damage lol and repair for armor broken cost a lots,
tank never be a good class to chose from the start if you don't ready have friend who start with you.
It not strange to tanks and supporter go extinct in nowadays games .
phalanx not work in game ... where enemy can run past you and get your cute healer lol.
Most tactic can use to keep charge skill enemy are stun with shield at time when they touch your ally to keep them combo damage your ally then roots and slow them.
But problem are ranger class , you can't stand and block they arrow for your ally , i don't see many game that do good about it , they have damage share to keep lest damage to your ally but not complex block them from arrow.
I love if there are skills where enemy automatic change target to you when they lock on an ally under your protect, or force them to attack you and forget about your allies .
Personally i think designer should stop design tank class with aggro skill and focus on enemy/crowds control and support side skills with short effect and short delay , not a 30s effect with 5min delay
A phalanx is a frontline fighting formation. It is nothing more than that. I am amazed you can find any significant resemblance to the trinity tank.
The rest of your post is just a strawman.
It's a defensive frontline fighting formation. It isn't anything more than that. It does hold "agro." Enemies don't go running by it to get to the back lines. Proxy agro, one of the primary agro components in EQ and the supposed origin of the Trinity? That's pretty much exactly what a trinity tank is. Thanks for playing.
It's absolutely not a strawman. You pick and choose what you want to be realistic. That's fine. We're playing a damn game with magic, people running sub 1 second 40s in plate. You see how fast these games have people swinging two-handed swords? It's appalling. No, you don't care about realism except when it's something you hate. Then you bring out the "oh em gee" it's not realistic.
How you'd try to beat phalanx is to go around the sides. Certainly not the front. And to counter this, you made your formation as wide as possible. Army formations at that time were very, very wide. But this is beside the point.
You are merely extending the term tank, to any frontline fighter, which is can have many roles apart from holding aggro and soaking damage. Such a wide definition is inaccurate and useless.
And it is not about being realistic, it is about being believable. Do you accept the trinity as a framework for combat in a game with modern/sci-fi milieu? The closer it gets to home, the more absurd it is. Maybe taunts work for dumb monsters, but against, humans? And supposed evil masterminds as well?
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The best solution so far is maing 6 man groups, which numerically makes sure there are less tanks needed. If you add multi specs, allowing builds to function in 2 roles without having to respec, i think that might even be enough..
( creating smaller groups orriginated when it still held true that finding 4 buddies was easier then finding 5 buddies, with he current generation of dungeonfinders requiring people to sign up for certain roles, this no longer holds true)
and for those people complaining tanks dont work in pvp, thats a gamedesign flaw in no relation to tanking in PvE. In swtor for example they made the taunts function in PvP too, read up on that mechanic if you want to know more..
the strong point of the trinity combat is that it adds a strategical and a tactical layer to the combat. The trinity on top of that is a very natural mechanic, because its a mathematical advantage if the mobs hit the player that receives the least damage from their attacks, just as it is smart when there is someone repairing the damage done ( healer) or preventing damage ( cc) These are just logical things to do and the right things to build a strategy around...
they could balance the number of dps to tank classes. usually a game will have 10 or so classes and only 3 or 4 of them can tank, compared to allowing all of them to be damage dealers.
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
We do.
MOBA combat does not use the trinity. ARPG combat does not the trinity. Stealth game combat does not use the trinity.
Its there in every mmo i currently join. There is a huge shortage of tanks, despite the fact that tanks are often the most fun mellee class to play in these games, very challenging but allowing people to shine in front of their team, because everyone notices i a tank is good at his job or not.
so why dont more people play tanks?
- tanks are scoffed uppon everytime the group fails, wether it was his fault or not
-tanks are supposed ( should they?) to lead the group and have torough knowledge of every encounter.
-tanks require the best gear ( opinion of most dps)
and probably some more....
i have learned that stepping away from the trinity ( gw2) is not the answer, it dumbs down tactical and stratecically if you dont add anything to replace it.
so how can gamedevelopers make tanking more atractive to the masses?
They can't.
Tanks don't get played, because of low damage and not so many kill shots. They don't "stroke the ego" of those who want instant glory.
Many don't want to lead either. This stems from group finders and groups that yell at tanks that are new. "Youtube you noob, learn the instance first".
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
We do.
MOBA combat does not use the trinity. ARPG combat does not the trinity. Stealth game combat does not use the trinity.
May be MMOs can learn from these other genre.
but those games aren't mmo's and with the exception of moba are only very seldom multiplayer. stealth games don't have to use the trinity cause there's only one player...
A phalanx is a frontline fighting formation. It is nothing more than that. I am amazed you can find any significant resemblance to the trinity tank.
The rest of your post is just a strawman.
It's a defensive frontline fighting formation. It isn't anything more than that. It does hold "agro." Enemies don't go running by it to get to the back lines. Proxy agro, one of the primary agro components in EQ and the supposed origin of the Trinity? That's pretty much exactly what a trinity tank is. Thanks for playing.
It's absolutely not a strawman. You pick and choose what you want to be realistic. That's fine. We're playing a damn game with magic, people running sub 1 second 40s in plate. You see how fast these games have people swinging two-handed swords? It's appalling. No, you don't care about realism except when it's something you hate. Then you bring out the "oh em gee" it's not realistic.
How you'd try to beat phalanx is to go around the sides. Certainly not the front. And to counter this, you made your formation as wide as possible. Army formations at that time were very, very wide. But this is beside the point.
You are merely extending the term tank, to any frontline fighter, which is can have many roles apart from holding aggro and soaking damage. Such a wide definition is inaccurate and useless.
And it is not about being realistic, it is about being believable. Do you accept the trinity as a framework for combat in a game with modern/sci-fi milieu? The closer it gets to home, the more absurd it is. Maybe taunts work for dumb monsters, but against, humans? And supposed evil masterminds as well?
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
Battle of Leuctra and Thebes disagree. They crushed the Spartan phalanx head on. The actually abused what you believed is the counter. Spreading out the formation weakens it. Thebes used an unbalanced phalanx to achieve local superiority and crush the Spartan phalanx inflicting massive casualties while taking few despite having inferior equipment, inferior training, and inferior numbers.
I'm not extending the term tank to any frontline fighter. I specifically said defensive and how it protects the area behind it.
Is it believable? Yes, you can study history and see numerous taunts that have appeared to work. Regardless, it is a simplification of what goes on. Yes, I find that highly believable. What I don't like is implementation a lot of the time. Early WoW tanking I liked. I was a tank. I thought it was good. There was a limit to what you could do. Most players couldn't hold agro on a single mob, much less three which was a typical pull. And speaking of pulls, it's not very believable that you enter a room in a "dungeon" and start killing people less than 10 yards away from their buddies and they just sit there and look at you dumbfounded. That's much less believable than tanking. You appear to be confusing bad tanking and content design for the Trinity system.
Another line you've repeated over and over again about trivializing content. It doesn't. Easy content trivializes content. I played GW2. I thought it was one of the dumbest systems I'd ever seen. I agree, that we need some updating. Getting rid of the Trinity is not the answer. Finding more creative ways within it is a much better solution.
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
We do.
MOBA combat does not use the trinity. ARPG combat does not the trinity. Stealth game combat does not use the trinity.
May be MMOs can learn from these other genre.
Good night, moba does not have taunting, however lol !! Has a lot of tanking builds... As in frontline fighters that can take a lot of damage....
Stealth games are solo oriented, there is absolutely no group cohesion inbthose games. Action rpg without trinity ( and not only the solo kind) turns in to chaos...
i love group combat in mmos because their are tactics and strategies that make groups much much stronger then the sum of the individuals, so far no other gaming system has performed better in this then trinity based combat.
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)
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
We do.
MOBA combat does not use the trinity. ARPG combat does not the trinity. Stealth game combat does not use the trinity.
May be MMOs can learn from these other genre.
but those games aren't mmo's and with the exception of moba are only very seldom multiplayer. stealth games don't have to use the trinity cause there's only one player...
No they are MMOs. That is why MMOs should learn from them. Otherwise, MMOs would be already using these ideas.
ARPGs are seldom multiplayer? They are as MP as MMOs. Have you played D3, or TL2? Lots of people play MP dungeon runs in those games, even with boss fights. And there is no trinity.
As for the stealth concept, you can have a group coordinating stealth take-downs.
The point is doing something new ... and to do something new ... you have to get ideas OUTSIDE of MMOs.
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
We do.
MOBA combat does not use the trinity. ARPG combat does not the trinity. Stealth game combat does not use the trinity.
May be MMOs can learn from these other genre.
Good night, moba does not have taunting, however lol !! Has a lot of tanking builds... As in frontline fighters that can take a lot of damage....
Stealth games are solo oriented, there is absolutely no group cohesion inbthose games. Action rpg without trinity ( and not only the solo kind) turns in to chaos...
i love group combat in mmos because their are tactics and strategies that make groups much much stronger then the sum of the individuals, so far no other gaming system has performed better in this then trinity based combat.
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
We do.
MOBA combat does not use the trinity. ARPG combat does not the trinity. Stealth game combat does not use the trinity.
May be MMOs can learn from these other genre.
Good night, moba does not have taunting, however lol !! Has a lot of tanking builds... As in frontline fighters that can take a lot of damage....
Stealth games are solo oriented, there is absolutely no group cohesion inbthose games. Action rpg without trinity ( and not only the solo kind) turns in to chaos...
i love group combat in mmos because their are tactics and strategies that make groups much much stronger then the sum of the individuals, so far no other gaming system has performed better in this then trinity based combat.
MOBAs do have taunting.
Even better so for support of my statement...
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)
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
We do.
MOBA combat does not use the trinity. ARPG combat does not the trinity. Stealth game combat does not use the trinity.
May be MMOs can learn from these other genre.
but those games aren't mmo's and with the exception of moba are only very seldom multiplayer. stealth games don't have to use the trinity cause there's only one player...
No they are MMOs. That is why MMOs should learn from them. Otherwise, MMOs would be already using these ideas.
ARPGs are seldom multiplayer? They are as MP as MMOs. Have you played D3, or TL2? Lots of people play MP dungeon runs in those games, even with boss fights. And there is no trinity.
As for the stealth concept, you can have a group coordinating stealth take-downs.
The point is doing something new ... and to do something new ... you have to get ideas OUTSIDE of MMOs.
None of the games you have listed are MMOs. They are cooperative style games at best. And no you don't, there's plenty of good ideas in MMOs that have failed or ideas that were never implemented or haven't been implemented in a long time.
In LOTRO, you did have all burglar groups for a while. It was terrible.
Comments
AoC's PvP was a mess for a long time from early on. By no sensible measuring stick was the PvP "good". And you are obviously not talking about a tank, but a flag runner, and flag runners can come far and wide depending on balance and metagame. The ideal flag runner has survivability and mobility (doesn't really matter exactly how you achieve this) - already quite different from "holding the attention of all the mobs and soaking damage".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The phalanx, legion, and a lot early infantry formations are clearly in the "tank role." If you disagree, you're just being stubborn with your absolute hatred of the trinity which is funny.
And also...
The raid boss mob is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The magic system is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The plate armor walking speed is absurd and unrealistic. It doesn't work like that in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
The [insert random fantasy game race] is absurd and unrealistic. It has no equivalent in real life. Stop making yourself look like a fool and claiming that it does.
Also, it seems like these games have a whole lot more- and by a whole lot more I mean a WHOLE LOT MORE- combat oriented classes than farmers. How does everyone get supported? It seems pretty realistic to me.
Of course he's not holding the attention of all the mobs, he's holding the attention of a lot of players. A tank can be a flag runner. Noob alert.
Way to dance around my comments about AoC's tanks in PvP. I didn't say the PvP was good. I was talking specifically about the PvP tanking which was good. Derp derp derp, go get hooked on phonics. It might be able to help.
A phalanx is a frontline fighting formation. It is nothing more than that. I am amazed you can find any significant resemblance to the trinity tank.
The rest of your post is just a strawman.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Caught a glimpse of your green skin in your last post but this one definitely confirms it.
Only reason I did mention the state of AoC's PvP was that I distinctly remember a time when the only playable class was the Assassin. Can we therefore summarize that Assassin works for everything, hmm?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Fun is subjective. May be it is only you who think that tanks are most fun melee class.
It's a defensive frontline fighting formation. It isn't anything more than that. It does hold "agro." Enemies don't go running by it to get to the back lines. Proxy agro, one of the primary agro components in EQ and the supposed origin of the Trinity? That's pretty much exactly what a trinity tank is. Thanks for playing.
It's absolutely not a strawman. You pick and choose what you want to be realistic. That's fine. We're playing a damn game with magic, people running sub 1 second 40s in plate. You see how fast these games have people swinging two-handed swords? It's appalling. No, you don't care about realism except when it's something you hate. Then you bring out the "oh em gee" it's not realistic.
Tanks are basically iron clad melee characters that rely on strength. Even WoW's magic based tanks require the iron armor and operate at melee range. There's very little variety. They all depend on taunts too.
Developers need to step away from the accepted idea of tanks and possibly even spread tanking around a bit.
For instance, allow mage classes to tank either using pets, or magical constructs such as walls. Have tanks use their shields to physically push or shove mobs back rather than taunt them. In the shield scenario, it might take more than one shield bearer to push the mobs back or a combination of shield bearers and mages creating barriers to hold the mobs back. In open spaces, perhaps the mages create circular barriers with breaks, and the shield bearers man the breaks in the walls, allowing the ranged dps to shoot through. Something like that.
They just need to get away from the idea that they need a traditional "tank" as an artificial attention grabber /slash/ damage absorber.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The best solution so far is maing 6 man groups, which numerically makes sure there are less tanks needed. If you add multi specs, allowing builds to function in 2 roles without having to respec, i think that might even be enough..
( creating smaller groups orriginated when it still held true that finding 4 buddies was easier then finding 5 buddies, with he current generation of dungeonfinders requiring people to sign up for certain roles, this no longer holds true)
and for those people complaining tanks dont work in pvp, thats a gamedesign flaw in no relation to tanking in PvE. In swtor for example they made the taunts function in PvP too, read up on that mechanic if you want to know more..
the strong point of the trinity combat is that it adds a strategical and a tactical layer to the combat. The trinity on top of that is a very natural mechanic, because its a mathematical advantage if the mobs hit the player that receives the least damage from their attacks, just as it is smart when there is someone repairing the damage done ( healer) or preventing damage ( cc) These are just logical things to do and the right things to build a strategy around...
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)
Both views are flawed. A tank for example might not be designed to draw fire to itself but protection is part of its design and that includes offering cover to infantry. Same with the role of medieval footsoldiers(never in the role of THE tank but a tanking role was part of the strategy)
The main problem here is a different view on the thing you called archetypical tank. You think of what i would call the current trivialized abomination of what tanks used to be or could be while my personal view is much more than taunts and much more complex mechanics.
On the other hand there is something else to think about...why does everyone wan't 100% realism for the tank when you have no issues with mages or healers that can even bring back people from the dead in the heat of a battle? Even limited in-combat healing abilties mean a massive change to the current reality into the direction favoring tanking strategies in general.
LOL you accuse me of being a troll because you're ignorant?
No, there were a lot of classes that worked through beta and release. The assassin was by far not the most OP and playable class. And again, no, we're talking about the mechanics that you clearly and repeatedly demonstrate you have no knowledge of but continue to slam the game as if you played it. Maybe you bought it and loaded it, but you clearly didn't play the game if you don't know about the tanking mechanics for PvP.
If you attacked a non-tank group member, all tanks in the group got a stacking buff. The effect depended on the tank. The Conqueror proc'd heals. The stacking increased the amount healed. At max, it proc'd a rez on everyone in your group. For the Guardian, they had an ability called Bloody Vengeance I believe. It had a 10 second cooldown. Every stack of the buff increase the damage significantly of the ability and reduced the CD by 1 second. You have to really think carefully about attacking someone other than the tank in these situations because there are consequences and you have to be prepared for them.
Right . . . a frontline fighting formation which serves what purpose? To prevent or minimize incoming attacks to them or their non-phalanxed members in back - who often used long spears, arrows, javelins or other manner of long/ranged weaponry to assault.
You can't see any resemblance? Does the trinity not resemble a paired down version of this? I'm curious as to what you see the trinity as.
Tank are tough to play special in PVP , you don't have much skill to hold down enemy player who don't stupid fall for taunt
And being tank are sad , people look for you when they need but they ignore you when you need them .
Tank don't mean you let enemy hit you until you die but keep them away from your ally by any mean
Then that's when problem start ... skill design .
I sometime feel hopeless watch my party wipe out in PVP because lack of ability to protect them.
PVE are easier with taunt but without good healer , you can't do much and you need top gears with high reinforced.
It cost too much to being a good tank moneys are problem to your little damage lol and repair for armor broken cost a lots,
tank never be a good class to chose from the start if you don't ready have friend who start with you.
It not strange to tanks and supporter go extinct in nowadays games .
phalanx not work in game ... where enemy can run past you and get your cute healer lol.
Most tactic can use to keep charge skill enemy are stun with shield at time when they touch your ally to keep them combo damage your ally then roots and slow them.
But problem are ranger class , you can't stand and block they arrow for your ally , i don't see many game that do good about it , they have damage share to keep lest damage to your ally but not complex block them from arrow.
I love if there are skills where enemy automatic change target to you when they lock on an ally under your protect, or force them to attack you and forget about your allies .
Personally i think designer should stop design tank class with aggro skill and focus on enemy/crowds control and support side skills with short effect and short delay , not a 30s effect with 5min delay
why 30s and 5 min and not 5s and 50s delay.
How you'd try to beat phalanx is to go around the sides. Certainly not the front. And to counter this, you made your formation as wide as possible. Army formations at that time were very, very wide. But this is beside the point.
You are merely extending the term tank, to any frontline fighter, which is can have many roles apart from holding aggro and soaking damage. Such a wide definition is inaccurate and useless.
And it is not about being realistic, it is about being believable. Do you accept the trinity as a framework for combat in a game with modern/sci-fi milieu? The closer it gets to home, the more absurd it is. Maybe taunts work for dumb monsters, but against, humans? And supposed evil masterminds as well?
You also completely mistake me that I would come against the trinity because it is not believable. It also makes combat trivial - easy. And we've been using the same system for tens of years. Don't you think it's time for something else for a change?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
they could balance the number of dps to tank classes. usually a game will have 10 or so classes and only 3 or 4 of them can tank, compared to allowing all of them to be damage dealers.
We do.
MOBA combat does not use the trinity. ARPG combat does not the trinity. Stealth game combat does not use the trinity.
May be MMOs can learn from these other genre.
They can't.
Tanks don't get played, because of low damage and not so many kill shots. They don't "stroke the ego" of those who want instant glory.
Many don't want to lead either. This stems from group finders and groups that yell at tanks that are new. "Youtube you noob, learn the instance first".
There is more but meh.
but those games aren't mmo's and with the exception of moba are only very seldom multiplayer. stealth games don't have to use the trinity cause there's only one player...
Battle of Leuctra and Thebes disagree. They crushed the Spartan phalanx head on. The actually abused what you believed is the counter. Spreading out the formation weakens it. Thebes used an unbalanced phalanx to achieve local superiority and crush the Spartan phalanx inflicting massive casualties while taking few despite having inferior equipment, inferior training, and inferior numbers.
I'm not extending the term tank to any frontline fighter. I specifically said defensive and how it protects the area behind it.
Is it believable? Yes, you can study history and see numerous taunts that have appeared to work. Regardless, it is a simplification of what goes on. Yes, I find that highly believable. What I don't like is implementation a lot of the time. Early WoW tanking I liked. I was a tank. I thought it was good. There was a limit to what you could do. Most players couldn't hold agro on a single mob, much less three which was a typical pull. And speaking of pulls, it's not very believable that you enter a room in a "dungeon" and start killing people less than 10 yards away from their buddies and they just sit there and look at you dumbfounded. That's much less believable than tanking. You appear to be confusing bad tanking and content design for the Trinity system.
Another line you've repeated over and over again about trivializing content. It doesn't. Easy content trivializes content. I played GW2. I thought it was one of the dumbest systems I'd ever seen. I agree, that we need some updating. Getting rid of the Trinity is not the answer. Finding more creative ways within it is a much better solution.
Good night, moba does not have taunting, however lol !! Has a lot of tanking builds... As in frontline fighters that can take a lot of damage....
Stealth games are solo oriented, there is absolutely no group cohesion inbthose games. Action rpg without trinity ( and not only the solo kind) turns in to chaos...
i love group combat in mmos because their are tactics and strategies that make groups much much stronger then the sum of the individuals, so far no other gaming system has performed better in this then trinity based combat.
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)
No they are MMOs. That is why MMOs should learn from them. Otherwise, MMOs would be already using these ideas.
ARPGs are seldom multiplayer? They are as MP as MMOs. Have you played D3, or TL2? Lots of people play MP dungeon runs in those games, even with boss fights. And there is no trinity.
As for the stealth concept, you can have a group coordinating stealth take-downs.
The point is doing something new ... and to do something new ... you have to get ideas OUTSIDE of MMOs.
Are you ever play AXE in DOTA custom map ?
He's how taunting and tank work in MOBA thought DOTA not MOBA , just custom map.
MOBAs do have taunting.
Even better so for support of my statement...
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)
None of the games you have listed are MMOs. They are cooperative style games at best. And no you don't, there's plenty of good ideas in MMOs that have failed or ideas that were never implemented or haven't been implemented in a long time.
In LOTRO, you did have all burglar groups for a while. It was terrible.