GW2, would have been an even better game with a trinnity for PvE...
However GW2´s system works perfect for PvP...
They are currently adding taunting... and other stat to build agro... If they make the lacking healing stat more efficient in PvE only and add some healing stuff that works as grouphealing with a high healing stat, they can turn the current game into a semi Trinnity... adding a system like Wildstar to CC bosses might also add more tacticall means to dungeon bossbattles..
However thats my opinion, some people just love GW2s curent system, i can live with it, no game is perfect and there are so many other things that GW2 is still on top of my list
Actually the opposite. Adding the trinity to GW2 would ruin the combat & class dynamics they spent so much effort creating. It would also remove the need to think about what you're doing. Many people point to the current zerker meta and 'how easy it is' but bring in someone who's new to the game and have them run dungeons in full zerk, and count the deaths. It seems easy to most people now because the game's been out for years now.
The problem w/ GW2's PvE isn't the classes. It's the clunky boss mechanics. Most of the original bosses can be glitched into corners, which makes any kind of trinity irrelevant. It's the reason why you can just on so many bosses and DPS them down. They have easily exploitable mechanics.
By contrast look at some of the newer encounters. Fights like TT, Teq, and VW have a need for a variety of different classes. All of those encounters have parts that need reflect teams, condition teams, in addition to your standard zerk teams. There's also a need for group buffs, and dedicated ressers in some cases. We'll see what happens after HoT, but this is the direction the game seems to be heading in.
Yes they are adding taunt, but it's not the same as what I think a lot of people are assuming. It's much more like a MOBA taunt mechanic. It's extremely temporary, and more of a form of CC than an aggro mechanic. The game already has aggro mechanics, they just aren't as simple as your typical linear threat table. The problem is most players never bother to learn how aggro actually works in this game.
Pantheon is bringing the trinity of old back in all its glory, be in no doubt the game is looking more and more that the team will pull it off. He'll who would of thought EQN would be a vague hope two months ago.
That's a very easy yes and GW2 is the prime example. From the constant chaotic nature of the dungeon crawls to the even more chaotic nature of the zerg of WvW. Everyone does DPS with minimal heals has turned what used to be more strategic gameplay into FPS meets RPG style action MMO. Don't get me wrong, this non-trinity design wasn't needed in order to make combat more engaging, since TERA kept the trinity system and managed to make what I think is just as much if not more combat oriented combat with the use of aimed targeting system. ESO is another similar game done better than GW2 with trinity and soft targeting combat system.
Probably why GW2 is going on sale right before ESO Unlimited launches because they know ESO being B2P is going to trample their customer base.
Yes, yes, and more yes. There are allot of neat things with GW2, but in the end everyone just ends up being a variation of DPS.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
That's a very easy yes and GW2 is the prime example. From the constant chaotic nature of the dungeon crawls to the even more chaotic nature of the zerg of WvW. Everyone does DPS with minimal heals has turned what used to be more strategic gameplay into FPS meets RPG style action MMO. Don't get me wrong, this non-trinity design wasn't needed in order to make combat more engaging, since TERA kept the trinity system and managed to make what I think is just as much if not more combat oriented combat with the use of aimed targeting system. ESO is another similar game done better than GW2 with trinity and soft targeting combat system.
Probably why GW2 is going on sale right before ESO Unlimited launches because they know ESO being B2P is going to trample their customer base.
Yes, yes, and more yes. There are allot of neat things with GW2, but in the end everyone just ends up being a variation of DPS.
Trinity is also just varioation of DPS. Just that some classes are awfully bad at it, and have no means not to be bad at it.
Answer is no. I will never miss the Trinity. It was dated back then...and outdated now.
How is it dated? Don't get me wrong, I don't support WoW's carebear tank and spank AOE combat, but role playing combat to me is exciting and rewarding "if" designed well.. I view role (trinity) class combat like Football.. It's a group activity that focuses on everyone doing their part in a unified orderly manner.. Similar to military units and strategy as well.. Soldiers just don't go around doing everything and anything they want..
Originally posted by Darksworm
The biggest issue with Trinity is that most people prefer to play DPS, especially in today's PvP-obsessed generation of players. Most PvP players do not want to play support. They want to pawpaw. They want to kill stuff. They want to one shot people or steamroll them. The culture of MMORPG players have changed. People play for themselves now, generally speaking, instead of in the selfless way a lot of old players were back then.
That's what makes games like EQ, DAoC, etc. so nostalgic. Not because they were better than games today, but because the people, the personalities behind the characters in the game were different - in a massively good way.
All the games focused on PvP have issues, because of the type of player bases they attract. I think that's a much bigger issue than Trinity or how easy some game like WoW is.
WoW does great because it caters to a more casual player base, and those people are generally just... nicer than the types of people you see in games like Age of Conan and Lineage II (heavy PvP-focused games).
EDIT: Orange Text on Black Background is kind of insulting. Please use a color that won't burn people's retinas.
I agree with the comment that the culture of old and new players have changed.. Many of today's players are focused on Esport (PvP) combat and status.. PvP and PvE do NOT mix well, as I believe any unbiased mind will agree.. Games that weave PvP into a role playing game always has to think about class balance issues.. When this is done, the soul and dynamics of classes is destroyed, or watered down so much, that all the classes end up feeling and playing the same..
Originally posted by discord235 Nope. I love GW2's combat and I always play DPS anyway. And GW2 has since added in more/better self-healz anyway. I find the trinity limiting and annoying because you always have to wait around for a tank/healer to fill your group.
If you have to wait around for a tank / healer to play the game, that isn't the fault of class role format.. That is the fault of the devs that created a broken system. WoW for the most part is a perfect example of that.. The designed boss combat groups of 5, (1 healer, 1 tank and 3 dps).. However, the player population prefers to play dps roles, for a number of reasons.. Therefore there are not enough spaces in a 5 person group to accommodate them all.. Granted you could increase the group sized to 6 which would in turn allow 4 dps per group, easing the burden of the LFG queue.. But then the devs would have to redo the numbers on the boss fights accordingly..
Originally posted by Enbysra
Much of the differences between those days and todays' playerbases, can be adjusted through game design. The reason it is that way today, is because game design, intentionally and because it brings in more money. Personally, I hate it.
Hardly ridiculous. I began toward designing my own pen and paper rpg. I have since beginning, taken that same system and all the ideas I had, and they are now intended toward an MMORPG. Nothing to compare really, they are fundamentally the same thing.
EDIT: Orange Text on Black Background is kind of insulting. Please use a color that won't burn people's retinas.
Are you happy now?
P.S. This is orange. Not this, of which I still prefer this, which is less issues on my eyes than white light on a black background. Same thing while needing to deal with oncoming traffic at night, regular headlights look like brights to me, while brights look even brighter.
I like the orange myself at times.. I think most view those colors as well as red as "aggressive" power colors.. Where as blues and purples are softer.. Sorta like wearing ties.. lol
Originally posted by aesperus
Not really. While trinity MMOs are fun in the sense that I can hop in and pay about as much attention to the combat as I do ordering a cup of coffee, it does get stale fairly fast.
I know I'm not in the majority on this, but I do enjoy challenges in my games. I like games that make me think. I like being able to use more than the most basic of strategies in a fight. I like how in the few non-trinity games I've played, combat may seem chaotic at first, until you actually learn what's happening and how to manipulate the situation to your advantage, and then it becomes crystal clear. Almost like a rubix cube.
I still play some trinity games, as we still seemed to be hooked on the idea that they are necessary. And I still enjoy them to an extent. But I hope we will get more games that try and implement more complex / interesting / thought provoking mechanics, instead of the usual simplistic stuff.
I would love to hear about your complex non-role playing combat, and which games those are.. Most people that complain about role combat often use broken bad examples to justify their position.. The reason your car keeps pulling to the right isn't because of snow tires, it's because you have one tire that is flat.. Fix the flat and the car drives just fine, don't argue that snow tires are bad..
Originally posted by aesperus
I think you're confusing threat (as in aggro) with threat (as in intelligent battle-strategy). ???
Aircraft Carriers get focused because they are the reinforcements. Not because they have the most armor, largest health pool, or best insults. Beep Beep back up the bus.. Who said anything about comparing a AC to a warrior? I used the AC as one of many examples that a target gets and maintains attention for a number of reasons.. Did you miss the defensive end example that was in the same sentence? Noticed how I said ALL-PRO defensive end.. Of course he gets special attention because he deserves it.. If it was just your average player, then he wouldn't get double teamed like the all pro.. YOU sir jump to conclusions not said..
Tanks get focused because they are not only hard to kill, but also dish out way more damage than your average infantry. Snipers get focused because they are a hugely damaging threat. I could go on, but this all has to do with intelligence in accordance with each group's best interests. Or, as it relates to games AI. Threat as portrayed in video games is typically THE most simplistic AI they can possibly have in the game. Monsters do not act in their best interest in the vast majority of these games. They will repeatedly target classes which are the least threatening, but have the most 'aggro', while ignore everyone who's actually killing them.You are arguing about a broken formula.. MOBS target whatever the "code" tells them to target.. Everything in a computer game is either "random" or "code".. (period)...What you are complaining about is a poorly written code, and trying to use it as the poster child why "code" needs to be abolished.. If a mob is ignoring the 200,000 points of damage because some dumbass dev formulated a code that gives the tank 500,000 points of taunt.. The problem is the BAD formula, not the use of a code.. Vanilla EQ was a good start to aggro management.. DPS had to wait for meat shield to get agro before casting.. and casters better learn how much damage they could cast, because often if they chain cast the mobs would peel away from tank and go directly after caster or healer.. Many times as a druid it was my duty to snare the mob so he wouldn't runaway when dying (notice how mobs don't do that anymore).. If the mob resisted my snare, it was my best interest to not recast it again so soon, unless I wanted agro.. If I sat down to meditate, I would pull agro if I was too close to the mob.. If a player was close to death the mob would target that player and ignore any taunts. EQ started off with a good threat(agro) meter formula..
- GW2 by contrast, does have threat, but it's not your typically aggro chart (or table if you wish). It's more dynamic, and more similar to a pie chart. Threat is determined by a number of factors; who has the least health, who has the highest toughness, who is closest to the boss, who is doing the most damage, whether or not someone is reviving, etc. Each factor is weighted, and the player with the highest weight of factors is usually the one being targetted by the boss. There are certain bosses with mechanics that supercede this general mechanic, but they are rare. Lupicus being one of the more obvious examples.
It may not be a perfect formula, but it's a lot more complex than the typical linear aggro system w/ taunts. Agreed all threat / agro formulas should have multiple variables so why are you addressing and confronting what I said.. You obviously misread something somewhere.. BTW. The carrier example, no one targets the carrier anymore if all the planes are shot down, or if the carrier is crippled.. Hell, Battleships are a thing of the past and often drew attention in battle as well in their day.. My position has always been "actions" dictate agro/threat, the tricky part is correctly writing the formula that doesn't break it.. (like WoW did)
I prefer having the choice of playing an Aircraft Carrier, Battleship, Destroyer, Cruisers, Frigates, Corvettes and Submarines as an example.. I think it's crazy to play a Naval vessel that does it all.. I like roles
I have never disliked the trinity, but GW2, that really made me appreciate it.
I dont need a hard trinity, like every single mob MUST be on the tank and the healer MUST heal 100% of the time and never contribute any dps, but I do like some kind of order to fights.
I dont need a hard trinity, like every single mob MUST be on the tank and the healer MUST heal 100% of the time and never contribute any dps, but I do like some kind of order to fights.
Agreed.. I envision a game where everyone can solo yard trash mobs that are either static at a camp location, or roaming the zone.. Using GW2 as a quick example, I like that any class can dps yard trash using weapon slot skills.. I just wish they incorporated class defining skills in those other slots instead of the watered down abilities.. But it is, what it is..
Answer is no. I will never miss the Trinity. It was dated back then...and outdated now.
How is it dated? Don't get me wrong, I don't support WoW's carebear tank and spank AOE combat, but role playing combat to me is exciting and rewarding "if" designed well.. I view role (trinity) class combat like Football.. It's a group activity that focuses on everyone doing their part in a unified orderly manner.. Similar to military units and strategy as well.. Soldiers just don't go around doing everything and anything they want..
Originally posted by Darksworm
The biggest issue with Trinity is that most people prefer to play DPS, especially in today's PvP-obsessed generation of players. Most PvP players do not want to play support. They want to pawpaw. They want to kill stuff. They want to one shot people or steamroll them. The culture of MMORPG players have changed. People play for themselves now, generally speaking, instead of in the selfless way a lot of old players were back then.
That's what makes games like EQ, DAoC, etc. so nostalgic. Not because they were better than games today, but because the people, the personalities behind the characters in the game were different - in a massively good way.
All the games focused on PvP have issues, because of the type of player bases they attract. I think that's a much bigger issue than Trinity or how easy some game like WoW is.
WoW does great because it caters to a more casual player base, and those people are generally just... nicer than the types of people you see in games like Age of Conan and Lineage II (heavy PvP-focused games).
EDIT: Orange Text on Black Background is kind of insulting. Please use a color that won't burn people's retinas.
I agree with the comment that the culture of old and new players have changed.. Many of today's players are focused on Esport (PvP) combat and status.. PvP and PvE do NOT mix well, as I believe any unbiased mind will agree.. Games that weave PvP into a role playing game always has to think about class balance issues.. When this is done, the soul and dynamics of classes is destroyed, or watered down so much, that all the classes end up feeling and playing the same..
Originally posted by discord235 Nope. I love GW2's combat and I always play DPS anyway. And GW2 has since added in more/better self-healz anyway. I find the trinity limiting and annoying because you always have to wait around for a tank/healer to fill your group.
If you have to wait around for a tank / healer to play the game, that isn't the fault of class role format.. That is the fault of the devs that created a broken system. WoW for the most part is a perfect example of that.. The designed boss combat groups of 5, (1 healer, 1 tank and 3 dps).. However, the player population prefers to play dps roles, for a number of reasons.. Therefore there are not enough spaces in a 5 person group to accommodate them all.. Granted you could increase the group sized to 6 which would in turn allow 4 dps per group, easing the burden of the LFG queue.. But then the devs would have to redo the numbers on the boss fights accordingly..
Originally posted by Enbysra
Much of the differences between those days and todays' playerbases, can be adjusted through game design. The reason it is that way today, is because game design, intentionally and because it brings in more money. Personally, I hate it.
Hardly ridiculous. I began toward designing my own pen and paper rpg. I have since beginning, taken that same system and all the ideas I had, and they are now intended toward an MMORPG. Nothing to compare really, they are fundamentally the same thing.
EDIT: Orange Text on Black Background is kind of insulting. Please use a color that won't burn people's retinas.
Are you happy now?
P.S. This is orange. Not this, of which I still prefer this, which is less issues on my eyes than white light on a black background. Same thing while needing to deal with oncoming traffic at night, regular headlights look like brights to me, while brights look even brighter.
I like the orange myself at times.. I think most view those colors as well as red as "aggressive" power colors.. Where as blues and purples are softer.. Sorta like wearing ties.. lol
Originally posted by aesperus
Not really. While trinity MMOs are fun in the sense that I can hop in and pay about as much attention to the combat as I do ordering a cup of coffee, it does get stale fairly fast.
I know I'm not in the majority on this, but I do enjoy challenges in my games. I like games that make me think. I like being able to use more than the most basic of strategies in a fight. I like how in the few non-trinity games I've played, combat may seem chaotic at first, until you actually learn what's happening and how to manipulate the situation to your advantage, and then it becomes crystal clear. Almost like a rubix cube.
I still play some trinity games, as we still seemed to be hooked on the idea that they are necessary. And I still enjoy them to an extent. But I hope we will get more games that try and implement more complex / interesting / thought provoking mechanics, instead of the usual simplistic stuff.
I would love to hear about your complex non-role playing combat, and which games those are.. Most people that complain about role combat often use broken bad examples to justify their position.. The reason your car keeps pulling to the right isn't because of snow tires, it's because you have one tire that is flat.. Fix the flat and the car drives just fine, don't argue that snow tires are bad..
Originally posted by aesperus
I think you're confusing threat (as in aggro) with threat (as in intelligent battle-strategy). ???
Aircraft Carriers get focused because they are the reinforcements. Not because they have the most armor, largest health pool, or best insults. Beep Beep back up the bus.. Who said anything about comparing a AC to a warrior? I used the AC as one of many examples that a target gets and maintains attention for a number of reasons.. Did you miss the defensive end example that was in the same sentence? Noticed how I said ALL-PRO defensive end.. Of course he gets special attention because he deserves it.. If it was just your average player, then he wouldn't get double teamed like the all pro.. YOU sir jump to conclusions not said..
Tanks get focused because they are not only hard to kill, but also dish out way more damage than your average infantry. Snipers get focused because they are a hugely damaging threat. I could go on, but this all has to do with intelligence in accordance with each group's best interests. Or, as it relates to games AI. Threat as portrayed in video games is typically THE most simplistic AI they can possibly have in the game. Monsters do not act in their best interest in the vast majority of these games. They will repeatedly target classes which are the least threatening, but have the most 'aggro', while ignore everyone who's actually killing them.You are arguing about a broken formula.. MOBS target whatever the "code" tells them to target.. Everything in a computer game is either "random" or "code".. (period)...What you are complaining about is a poorly written code, and trying to use it as the poster child why "code" needs to be abolished.. If a mob is ignoring the 200,000 points of damage because some dumbass dev formulated a code that gives the tank 500,000 points of taunt.. The problem is the BAD formula, not the use of a code.. Vanilla EQ was a good start to aggro management.. DPS had to wait for meat shield to get agro before casting.. and casters better learn how much damage they could cast, because often if they chain cast the mobs would peel away from tank and go directly after caster or healer.. Many times as a druid it was my duty to snare the mob so he wouldn't runaway when dying (notice how mobs don't do that anymore).. If the mob resisted my snare, it was my best interest to not recast it again so soon, unless I wanted agro.. If I sat down to meditate, I would pull agro if I was too close to the mob.. If a player was close to death the mob would target that player and ignore any taunts. EQ started off with a good threat(agro) meter formula..
- GW2 by contrast, does have threat, but it's not your typically aggro chart (or table if you wish). It's more dynamic, and more similar to a pie chart. Threat is determined by a number of factors; who has the least health, who has the highest toughness, who is closest to the boss, who is doing the most damage, whether or not someone is reviving, etc. Each factor is weighted, and the player with the highest weight of factors is usually the one being targetted by the boss. There are certain bosses with mechanics that supercede this general mechanic, but they are rare. Lupicus being one of the more obvious examples.
It may not be a perfect formula, but it's a lot more complex than the typical linear aggro system w/ taunts. Agreed all threat / agro formulas should have multiple variables so why are you addressing and confronting what I said.. You obviously misread something somewhere.. BTW. The carrier example, no one targets the carrier anymore if all the planes are shot down, or if the carrier is crippled.. Hell, Battleships are a thing of the past and often drew attention in battle as well in their day.. My position has always been "actions" dictate agro/threat, the tricky part is correctly writing the formula that doesn't break it.. (like WoW did)
I prefer having the choice of playing an Aircraft Carrier, Battleship, Destroyer, Cruisers, Frigates, Corvettes and Submarines as an example.. I think it's crazy to play a Naval vessel that does it all.. I like roles
Well, you enjoy being told what you are and have combat system built around all mobs being complete retards, and rest of us like figuring out things on their own and have smart (more complex) mobs.
Well, you enjoy being told what you are and have combat system built around all mobs being complete retards, and rest of us like figuring out things on their own and have smart (more complex) mobs.
Role - based class systems vs Tank-Mage class systems have nothing to do with mob AI.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Well, you enjoy being told what you are and have combat system built around all mobs being complete retards, and rest of us like figuring out things on their own and have smart (more complex) mobs.
Role - based class systems vs Tank-Mage class systems have nothing to do with mob AI.
Youre absolutely right. Theyre all plain simpletons.
Probably why GW2 is going on sale right before ESO Unlimited launches because they know ESO being B2P is going to trample their customer base.
Whoa! GW2 is more popular even now than ESO could hope to be. ESO failed out the gate for a reason, and it is not because it had a sub. Sure more people will try ESO now, but just like those who bought it the majority will likely /yawn and move along. The game just was not that good for a ton of people. GW2 is hugely popular, to say ESO is going to "trample" it now is a little ridiculous.
Saying that....ESO is not exactly the example of trinity in an MMO either. The problem with GW2 is not the game mechanics, it is the players. If you knew how to actually play the game you would know blasting water fields is very effective healing and requires team effort to accomplish at times. You can play support engineer, guardian, or ele and be pretty effective at healing if you are skilled enough. GW2 is a skill based game, you will get facerolled if you don't know what you are doing.
Well, you enjoy being told what you are and have combat system built around all mobs being complete retards, and rest of us like figuring out things on their own and have smart (more complex) mobs.
We are all ears.. Again I will ASK a SECOND time, please tell us in detail what games fulfill your complex intelligent mob combat?.. Keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between complex smart encounters like the boss fight with Mores in Kara (WoW raid) and killing a brainless stupid spider roaming the woods .. Right now your argument is using playground basketball as the excuse to bash the NBA.. (apples to oranges)..
Agro management, without benefit of meters or bars is a very real aspect of the game. More than one group has wiped when someone started spamming heals / nukes and ripped agro off the tank.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Wrong. You had classes which resisted damage better than others, but there was no tank as they exist in MMORPGs. You had no threat table. Hate to correct you, but not so.. Even back in the 70's when I started playing AD&D, we had meat shields in our adventure groups. The person with the best AC lead the group incase we walked into a problem.. Now granted the DM (whom controlled the mobs) could just say the orc ignores the warrior and heads straight to the mage, but even the DM needs to play fairly, or he'll lose his group..
Dunno what DM you had, but he wasn't very good apparently if he treated Pen and Paper like if he was playing EQ 20 years later. He must have been someone similar to those who made EQ, and dumbed down PnP RPGs into the MMORPG trinity thing.
I have years of pen and paper RPGs under my belt myself, and never did a DM keep a "threat table" and make only the plate wearer tank while the healer was unharmed. The meat shield going first to take the first hits of an ambush isn't the same has all mobs being totally retarded and staying on the meat shield without hope to kill him while getting nuked down by everyone else.
The worse is not the trinity. The worse is the threat mechanics, which are completely artificial. Afraid to tell, that threat mechanics are ALL around us, even in life.. There is a reason why Aircraft Carriers are primary focus.. There is a reason why the ALL-PRO defensive end gets double teamed.. There is a reason why cops subdue the guy first instead of his girlfriend (unless she's packing a gun), but then her threat number would change and she would be primary focus.. OUR Attention, as it should be in a game is all about "threat and grabbing attention".. Now I will agree that many devs FAILED to correctly design a better threat formula, but that is a different topic..
Thank you for confirming what I have posted, even though I doubt it was intentional. Yep, the aircraft carrioer is the primary focus... because without it, everything else falters, because it is indeed the highest threat since it generates most of the other threats, and because it actually can be crippled to make it useless.
If you apply your lousy but inadvertantly amusing analogy to a MMO with the trinity, the aircraft carrier is the healer since he carries everyone else and without him, the rest of the group is dead. So why are all mobs, including highly intelligent bosses (gods, dragons, genius level intellects), focusing on the heavy plate wearer while the healer keeps him alive unharmed?
The answer is simple... because that mechanic is dumbed down, and because it makes the developer work easy.
Want to know how threat should work in a trinity MMORPG? Looks at its PvP. You don't have agro from tanks, the players decide who to kill first. There was one encounter in WoW which was built like that, the champions in Crusader's, and it's still one of the best raid encounters of the game despite the poor quality of the rest of that instance.
You mention EQ so often, yet you never even played it, or if you did you failed to understand anything around you.
Mobs always went for the biggest threat first. They'd often run right past the tank if he hadn't built threat and bash a healer or wizard as they started casting. If they managed to land the spell, they'd basically be dead unless someone got CC off on them.
Threat in EQ was always about keeping up damage and impairments on the mob to retain aggro. It was no simple process like you explain from your World of Warcraft days. It wasn't snap aggro buttons like modern mmos, it was using the right abilities and weapons (with detrimental procs) to gradually generate aggro to prevent others from dying. If the casters didn't lay low and away from the mobs, they'd immediately turn to them and dirt nap them.
The same scenario that would happen in a police raid as described above is what would happen in Everquest. If the wizard was wielding his weapon, even so much as begun casting a spell as the mobs approached, they naturally ran to them. If they yielded and the defensive classes showed aggression, they'd engage them while remaining leery of the hostile high dmg high healing classes.
I suggest you go back and play an emu and get an education before further embarrassing yourself.
Come on, both you and me know that was not true.
I know EQ diehard fans try to make the game look like the best thing since sliced bread, but I stopped being a fan long time ago and am just an ex player now. EQ is the model of all MMOs based on threat tables. No way the mobs were going for the healers first so they could wipe a group/raid in a few seconds. If we have that kind of gameplay invading almost all games today, it's because of EQ.
I suggest you drop those rose colored glasses and come back to reality.
Actually it wasn't that simple as people have pointed out many times.
The warrior could only "taunt" one mob at a time and even then it is likely someone would pull agro from them because of DPS spam or healing spam. The person who was healing or DPSing would have to be careful not to over do it. They would also have to be concerned with adds because everyone would need to target the same mob. If you agro a mob the warrior wasn't taunting he would never get the agro back. The CC had to be very careful because as so as the CC wore of the mob would be after them. Casters died in a matter of seconds when attacked. Pullers had a dangerous job as well. The point is people died a lot more often due to the difficulty of performing against the AI if they weren't really good at executing as a group. Others have also pointed out that you didn't need the trinity to level or be effective. It was just something players found worked most efficiently.
I know GW 2's fans love it for the lack of Trinity and I am happy they do, but I loved everything about that game except the lack of dungeon trinity. If it had it, I probably would still be playing as the world, the art style, the events, everything outside of the dungeons was a lot of fun for me, and would have been even more fun with roles.
So yes, it made me realise I like the synergy of a trinity, but then I much prefer having support classes, Rift which is a game I swore off due to the increasing greed of Trion handled these very well (though not perfectly) combining that system with a world like GW 2 would make me very happy.
Actually it wasn't that simple as people have pointed out many times.
It was actually. EQ is exactly the same as vanilla WOW when it comes to threat management.
The mobs were just as dumb back then than nowadays, and always attacked the target with the highest threat, gods, dragons and demons as stupid as a rock.
And then, the technology progressed, not only client side, the scripting and what can be done server side nowadays is exponentially more than what you could do on any vanilla EQ server. If they had tried to put most of the modern WoW raid encounters in EQ back then, players wouldn't have died from the mobs, they would have died from lag. That's pretty much why early EQ relied on those more simplistic mechanics.
So at the end, the raid fights are actually less zergish and more varied and deep nowadays than they have ever been in the early (or even later) EQ times.
I have to backup Jean-Luc here. He's right.
The thing about original EQ is while it had the same formula as most modern MMOs, it was one of the first games of its kind. People playing it didn't come with all this pre-knowledge of 'how an MMO should be' and so every experience felt fresh and unknown. Many boss encounters seemed more complex because people honestly had no idea how they worked. It was all trial and error and experimentation.
Which is true of most games when you approach them with a fresh mind. Everything seems a lot harder until you get more familiar w/ them, then it's all too easy.
Actually it wasn't that simple as people have pointed out many times.
It was actually. EQ is exactly the same as vanilla WOW when it comes to threat management.
The mobs were just as dumb back then than nowadays, and always attacked the target with the highest threat, gods, dragons and demons as stupid as a rock.
And then, the technology progressed, not only client side, the scripting and what can be done server side nowadays is exponentially more than what you could do on any vanilla EQ server. If they had tried to put most of the modern WoW raid encounters in EQ back then, players wouldn't have died from the mobs, they would have died from lag. That's pretty much why early EQ relied on those more simplistic mechanics.
So at the end, the raid fights are actually less zergish and more varied and deep nowadays than they have ever been in the early (or even later) EQ times.
I would disagree. I've played both games heavily and when I went from EQ to WoW I was actually having fun for a while. The reason was that EQ was to hard for me to accomplish most of the content. In WoW I was able to complete pretty much any dungeon and even do raids. In EQ there was so much that I could not do. Even the solo advancement was quite difficult.
Originally posted by Rydeson I would love to hear about your complex non-role playing combat, and which games those are.. Most people that complain about role combat often use broken bad examples to justify their position.. The reason your car keeps pulling to the right isn't because of snow tires, it's because you have one tire that is flat.. Fix the flat and the car drives just fine, don't argue that snow tires are bad..
There are many games that have combat that doesn't rely on the trinity. And (while I'm sure this may have just been a typo on your end), there is no such thing as 'role playing combat' outside of LARPing. Class-oriented is a thing, and probably what you meant. It's what most games use. As for games that don't rely on the trinity system there are a number, I'll list a few of the MMOs, but because many of them aren't perfect examples, I know people tend to argue about them or discount them entire. However, some of the main ones we have are Eve, Planetside 2, GW2. That said, as a much more tangible example, I'll use a non-MMO game. Final Fantasy. While many of them have the option to turn your party into the standard trinity, ALL of them have enough customization as to that being unnecessary. Furthermore most bosses and encounters are much faster if you don't have your party setup as a typical trinity. I could go on, but this wall of text is getting bloated enough as is.
Originally posted by aesperus
I think you're confusing threat (as in aggro) with threat (as in intelligent battle-strategy). ??? Merely pointing out that just because the words (threat) are the same, the meanings are not automatically interchangeable. There are different ways in which the word 'threat' is used, and you used one (as applied to video game AI) in relationship to another (as applied to assessing real-world danger). They are not even remotely close to the same thing. The AI threat does the exact opposite of what you do in your real-world examples. The AI is specifically designed so that the character that is the least dangerous (the tank) holds the greatest threat.
Aircraft Carriers get focused because they are the reinforcements. Not because they have the most armor, largest health pool, or best insults. Beep Beep back up the bus.. Who said anything about comparing a AC to a warrior? I used the AC as one of many examples that a target gets and maintains attention for a number of reasons.. Did you miss the defensive end example that was in the same sentence? Noticed how I said ALL-PRO defensive end.. Of course he gets special attention because he deserves it.. If it was just your average player, then he wouldn't get double teamed like the all pro.. YOU sir jump to conclusions not said..
No one explicitly stated this. But by using real world threat as a comparison to gaming threat, you've implied similarities. This is merely an extension of the above point that the meanings are NOT interchangeable. There are no conclusions here, just examples of why the same word doesn't apply equally to both situations. Because in each case it's being used in a very different way, with a very different meaning. One is a term adopted by a primitive AI system, the other is a term used to assess danger.
You are arguing about a broken formula.. MOBS target whatever the "code" tells them to target.. Everything in a computer game is either "random" or "code".. (period)...What you are complaining about is a poorly written code, and trying to use it as the poster child why "code" needs to be abolished.. If a mob is ignoring the 200,000 points of damage because some dumbass dev formulated a code that gives the tank 500,000 points of taunt.. The problem is the BAD formula, not the use of a code.. Vanilla EQ was a good start to aggro management.. DPS had to wait for meat shield to get agro before casting.. and casters better learn how much damage they could cast, because often if they chain cast the mobs would peel away from tank and go directly after caster or healer.. Many times as a druid it was my duty to snare the mob so he wouldn't runaway when dying (notice how mobs don't do that anymore).. If the mob resisted my snare, it was my best interest to not recast it again so soon, unless I wanted agro.. If I sat down to meditate, I would pull agro if I was too close to the mob.. If a player was close to death the mob would target that player and ignore any taunts. EQ started off with a good threat(agro) meter formula..
Here is where you start to make assumptions about my meaning. I've never said anywhere about abolishing code, that would be foolish. I know how coding works, and have done a fair amount of programming myself. But I also know enough to know the difference between simplistic / primitive AI, and more advanaced AI. I know that just because a system is popular, doesn't mean it's the only way to solve the same problem, or even the best way. It just means it's the most commonly understood.
You bring up EQ as a good start to aggro management. And you'd be right. The problem is that for most MMOs, the aggro system hasn't EVOLVED since then. They're still basically using a 10+ yr old formula, because it's comfortable. And many of us gamers, have been using the same formula for so long that we ourselves have become convinced that it's the only way of doing things.
- GW2 by contrast, does have threat, but it's not your typically aggro chart (or table if you wish). It's more dynamic, and more similar to a pie chart. Threat is determined by a number of factors; who has the least health, who has the highest toughness, who is closest to the boss, who is doing the most damage, whether or not someone is reviving, etc. Each factor is weighted, and the player with the highest weight of factors is usually the one being targetted by the boss. There are certain bosses with mechanics that supercede this general mechanic, but they are rare. Lupicus being one of the more obvious examples.
It may not be a perfect formula, but it's a lot more complex than the typical linear aggro system w/ taunts. Agreed all threat / agro formulas should have multiple variables so why are you addressing and confronting what I said.. You obviously misread something somewhere.. BTW. The carrier example, no one targets the carrier anymore if all the planes are shot down, or if the carrier is crippled.. Hell, Battleships are a thing of the past and often drew attention in battle as well in their day.. My position has always been "actions" dictate agro/threat, the tricky part is correctly writing the formula that doesn't break it.. (like WoW did)
I prefer having the choice of playing an Aircraft Carrier, Battleship, Destroyer, Cruisers, Frigates, Corvettes and Submarines as an example.. I think it's crazy to play a Naval vessel that does it all.. I like roles
Answered mostly up above.
I'm not sure we disagree on all points, I just think that many of your examples / comparisons are very much flawed. Real combat works very much differently than standard MMO combat. It is chaotic, it requires quick decision making, it's not structured unless you choose to make it so. Games can very much do that same style of combat, we just refuse to let them do so, because it requires more effort on our parts (we have to be more responsible for our choices in game).
I agree with more choice, I like being able to play many different things within a game. I like versatility. What I don't like is how most of these games have roles basically limited to 1 or 2 simple rotations and we applaud it. Right now we have so much flexibility in our single player and smaller-group multiplayer games. And yet for some reason we refuse to believe that any of that could ever be applied to an MMO. Even though that is exactly how this genre was founded.
Wrong. You had classes which resisted damage better than others, but there was no tank as they exist in MMORPGs. You had no threat table. Hate to correct you, but not so.. Even back in the 70's when I started playing AD&D, we had meat shields in our adventure groups. The person with the best AC lead the group incase we walked into a problem.. Now granted the DM (whom controlled the mobs) could just say the orc ignores the warrior and heads straight to the mage, but even the DM needs to play fairly, or he'll lose his group..
Dunno what DM you had, but he wasn't very good apparently if he treated Pen and Paper like if he was playing EQ 20 years later. He must have been someone similar to those who made EQ, and dumbed down PnP RPGs into the MMORPG trinity thing.
I have years of pen and paper RPGs under my belt myself, and never did a DM keep a "threat table" and make only the plate wearer tank while the healer was unharmed. The meat shield going first to take the first hits of an ambush isn't the same has all mobs being totally retarded and staying on the meat shield without hope to kill him while getting nuked down by everyone else.
The worse is not the trinity. The worse is the threat mechanics, which are completely artificial. Afraid to tell, that threat mechanics are ALL around us, even in life.. There is a reason why Aircraft Carriers are primary focus.. There is a reason why the ALL-PRO defensive end gets double teamed.. There is a reason why cops subdue the guy first instead of his girlfriend (unless she's packing a gun), but then her threat number would change and she would be primary focus.. OUR Attention, as it should be in a game is all about "threat and grabbing attention".. Now I will agree that many devs FAILED to correctly design a better threat formula, but that is a different topic..
Thank you for confirming what I have posted, even though I doubt it was intentional. Yep, the aircraft carrioer is the primary focus... because without it, everything else falters, because it is indeed the highest threat since it generates most of the other threats, and because it actually can be crippled to make it useless.
If you apply your lousy but inadvertantly amusing analogy to a MMO with the trinity, the aircraft carrier is the healer since he carries everyone else and without him, the rest of the group is dead. So why are all mobs, including highly intelligent bosses (gods, dragons, genius level intellects), focusing on the heavy plate wearer while the healer keeps him alive unharmed?
The answer is simple... because that mechanic is dumbed down, and because it makes the developer work easy.
Want to know how threat should work in a trinity MMORPG? Looks at its PvP. You don't have agro from tanks, the players decide who to kill first. There was one encounter in WoW which was built like that, the champions in Crusader's, and it's still one of the best raid encounters of the game despite the poor quality of the rest of that instance.
You mention EQ so often, yet you never even played it, or if you did you failed to understand anything around you.
Mobs always went for the biggest threat first. They'd often run right past the tank if he hadn't built threat and bash a healer or wizard as they started casting. If they managed to land the spell, they'd basically be dead unless someone got CC off on them.
Threat in EQ was always about keeping up damage and impairments on the mob to retain aggro. It was no simple process like you explain from your World of Warcraft days. It wasn't snap aggro buttons like modern mmos, it was using the right abilities and weapons (with detrimental procs) to gradually generate aggro to prevent others from dying. If the casters didn't lay low and away from the mobs, they'd immediately turn to them and dirt nap them.
The same scenario that would happen in a police raid as described above is what would happen in Everquest. If the wizard was wielding his weapon, even so much as begun casting a spell as the mobs approached, they naturally ran to them. If they yielded and the defensive classes showed aggression, they'd engage them while remaining leery of the hostile high dmg high healing classes.
I suggest you go back and play an emu and get an education before further embarrassing yourself.
Come on, both you and me know that was not true.
I know EQ diehard fans try to make the game look like the best thing since sliced bread, but I stopped being a fan long time ago and am just an ex player now. EQ is the model of all MMOs based on threat tables. No way the mobs were going for the healers first so they could wipe a group/raid in a few seconds. If we have that kind of gameplay invading almost all games today, it's because of EQ.
I suggest you drop those rose colored glasses and come back to reality.
To be honest, you sound clueless. There were mechanics in EQ that caused players to jump to the top of the threat table which didn't even involve attacking. The threat and MOB AI mechanics were kind of impressive considering how old that game was.
The reason why Trinity was put in was because you cannot have decent PvE content balance without it.
The biggest issue why a lot of people had issues with the trinity is not because it made combat bad, but because it had an ill effect on what they could do when they logged in, if there weren't enough Warriors, Clerics, or Enchanters online to fill needed spots in groups. In that situation, you were severely limited in what you could accomplish, especially if you were end-game level and needed to go to end-game dungeons to farm loot.
Clerics would boycot in EQ when they had issues with things, and it would make tons of guilds literally unable to raid.
Those are the types of issues that make trinity bad, but from a mechanical standpoint I don't otherwise see an issue with it.
Anything else that's released trying to eschew it, has been terrible - especially from a PvE point of view so it's kind of laughable that some people go out of their way to bash it (when neither they nor any other MMORPG developers have been able to come up with a superior system).
Wrong. You had classes which resisted damage better than others, but there was no tank as they exist in MMORPGs. You had no threat table. Hate to correct you, but not so.. Even back in the 70's when I started playing AD&D, we had meat shields in our adventure groups. The person with the best AC lead the group incase we walked into a problem.. Now granted the DM (whom controlled the mobs) could just say the orc ignores the warrior and heads straight to the mage, but even the DM needs to play fairly, or he'll lose his group..
Dunno what DM you had, but he wasn't very good apparently if he treated Pen and Paper like if he was playing EQ 20 years later. He must have been someone similar to those who made EQ, and dumbed down PnP RPGs into the MMORPG trinity thing.
I have years of pen and paper RPGs under my belt myself, and never did a DM keep a "threat table" and make only the plate wearer tank while the healer was unharmed. The meat shield going first to take the first hits of an ambush isn't the same has all mobs being totally retarded and staying on the meat shield without hope to kill him while getting nuked down by everyone else.
The worse is not the trinity. The worse is the threat mechanics, which are completely artificial. Afraid to tell, that threat mechanics are ALL around us, even in life.. There is a reason why Aircraft Carriers are primary focus.. There is a reason why the ALL-PRO defensive end gets double teamed.. There is a reason why cops subdue the guy first instead of his girlfriend (unless she's packing a gun), but then her threat number would change and she would be primary focus.. OUR Attention, as it should be in a game is all about "threat and grabbing attention".. Now I will agree that many devs FAILED to correctly design a better threat formula, but that is a different topic..
Thank you for confirming what I have posted, even though I doubt it was intentional. Yep, the aircraft carrioer is the primary focus... because without it, everything else falters, because it is indeed the highest threat since it generates most of the other threats, and because it actually can be crippled to make it useless.
If you apply your lousy but inadvertantly amusing analogy to a MMO with the trinity, the aircraft carrier is the healer since he carries everyone else and without him, the rest of the group is dead. So why are all mobs, including highly intelligent bosses (gods, dragons, genius level intellects), focusing on the heavy plate wearer while the healer keeps him alive unharmed?
The answer is simple... because that mechanic is dumbed down, and because it makes the developer work easy.
Want to know how threat should work in a trinity MMORPG? Looks at its PvP. You don't have agro from tanks, the players decide who to kill first. There was one encounter in WoW which was built like that, the champions in Crusader's, and it's still one of the best raid encounters of the game despite the poor quality of the rest of that instance.
You mention EQ so often, yet you never even played it, or if you did you failed to understand anything around you.
Mobs always went for the biggest threat first. They'd often run right past the tank if he hadn't built threat and bash a healer or wizard as they started casting. If they managed to land the spell, they'd basically be dead unless someone got CC off on them.
Threat in EQ was always about keeping up damage and impairments on the mob to retain aggro. It was no simple process like you explain from your World of Warcraft days. It wasn't snap aggro buttons like modern mmos, it was using the right abilities and weapons (with detrimental procs) to gradually generate aggro to prevent others from dying. If the casters didn't lay low and away from the mobs, they'd immediately turn to them and dirt nap them.
The same scenario that would happen in a police raid as described above is what would happen in Everquest. If the wizard was wielding his weapon, even so much as begun casting a spell as the mobs approached, they naturally ran to them. If they yielded and the defensive classes showed aggression, they'd engage them while remaining leery of the hostile high dmg high healing classes.
I suggest you go back and play an emu and get an education before further embarrassing yourself.
Come on, both you and me know that was not true.
I know EQ diehard fans try to make the game look like the best thing since sliced bread, but I stopped being a fan long time ago and am just an ex player now. EQ is the model of all MMOs based on threat tables. No way the mobs were going for the healers first so they could wipe a group/raid in a few seconds. If we have that kind of gameplay invading almost all games today, it's because of EQ.
I suggest you drop those rose colored glasses and come back to reality.
To be honest, you sound clueless. There were mechanics in EQ that caused players to jump to the top of the threat table which didn't even involve attacking. The threat and MOB AI mechanics were kind of impressive considering how old that game was.
The reason why Trinity was put in was because you cannot have decent PvE content balance without it.
The biggest issue why a lot of people had issues with the trinity is not because it made combat bad, but because it had an ill effect on what they could do when they logged in, if there weren't enough Warriors, Clerics, or Enchanters online to fill needed spots in groups. In that situation, you were severely limited in what you could accomplish, especially if you were end-game level and needed to go to end-game dungeons to farm loot.
Clerics would boycot in EQ when they had issues with things, and it would make tons of guilds literally unable to raid.
Those are the types of issues that make trinity bad, but from a mechanical standpoint I don't otherwise see an issue with it.
Anything else that's released trying to eschew it, has been terrible - especially from a PvE point of view so it's kind of laughable that some people go out of their way to bash it (when neither they nor any other MMORPG developers have been able to come up with a superior system).
GW2 is superior system but they had to make game (including dungeons) because people wanted to "tank" and "heal".
But it IS superior to any trinity combat ever. Thers just lot of people who want easier simplistic combat system, just like they want wasier game in general.
The truth is that you COULD/CAN bypass trinity/GW2 sytem in majority of content in any game mentioned here.
GW2 is superior system but they had to make game (including dungeons) because people wanted to "tank" and "heal".
But it IS superior to any trinity combat ever. Thers just lot of people who want easier simplistic combat system, just like they want wasier game in general.
The truth is that you COULD/CAN bypass trinity/GW2 sytem in majority of content in any game mentioned here.
That is great. You have an opinion. We all know what it is. Saying it over and over doesn't make it a fact.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
If you want it removed, suggest a better combat puzzle.
Keep in mind that the way you create the puzzle forms how the game plays. Currently a mage in a taunt-based game is summed up as, "Flings a variety of spells at the enemy, and using utility spells situationally to augment the group or defend themselves." If you do non-threat-based AI the wrong way then a mage might be summed up as, "Fires one spell, then becomes the mob's target and spends the rest of the fight running."
Which feels more mage-like? Casting spells the whole fight or running the whole fight?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I know EQ diehard fans try to make the game look like the best thing since sliced bread, but I stopped being a fan long time ago and am just an ex player now. EQ is the model of all MMOs based on threat tables. No way the mobs were going for the healers first so they could wipe a group/raid in a few seconds. If we have that kind of gameplay invading almost all games today, it's because of EQ.
I suggest you drop those rose colored glasses and come back to reality.
In case you are not familiar with computer coding.. You have two choices in mob combat actions.. They either perform total random actions, or they follow a code formulated based on a table.. Total random threat is a possibility if the mobs are just brainless.. (I'm ok with that).. The only other option is mobs follow a written code.. Now this is where I think you are confused and misunderstanding myself and many others.. That code could be "XX amount of heals = agro".. or "closest player = agro".. or "XX amount of dps = agro".. There are many variables that can make up the threat/agro system.. I prefer a logical formulation of that.. Such as a dog or other stupid mob has NO CLUE what a healer is.. So why would a dumb animal or plant go after a healer? They have no clue why the player infront of them is not appear to be dying.. I object giving EVERY mob a genius IQ just so YOU can feel challenged by a plant..
You have stated you are against threat / agro tables.. What you need to say is that I'm against poorly designed stupid tables.. There I think we all can agree.. What WoW does with AOE "taunting" is insane, and makes the game too easy.. What EQ did way back in the day was far better then anything I've played since..
Originally posted by Nightbringe1
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Come on, both you and me know that was not true.
It was, and still is, true.
Agro management, without benefit of meters or bars is a very real aspect of the game. More than one group has wiped when someone started spamming heals / nukes and ripped agro off the tank.
So true.. So true.. It was easy to pull agro if you wanted to in EQ.. WoW on the other hand is much harder to pull agro from the tank because of their overuse of uber "taunting".. Hell I remember at times in EQ pulling agro from the tank because I cast my snare spell back to back.. OOOOPS.. my bad..
Comments
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Actually the opposite. Adding the trinity to GW2 would ruin the combat & class dynamics they spent so much effort creating. It would also remove the need to think about what you're doing. Many people point to the current zerker meta and 'how easy it is' but bring in someone who's new to the game and have them run dungeons in full zerk, and count the deaths. It seems easy to most people now because the game's been out for years now.
The problem w/ GW2's PvE isn't the classes. It's the clunky boss mechanics. Most of the original bosses can be glitched into corners, which makes any kind of trinity irrelevant. It's the reason why you can just on so many bosses and DPS them down. They have easily exploitable mechanics.
By contrast look at some of the newer encounters. Fights like TT, Teq, and VW have a need for a variety of different classes. All of those encounters have parts that need reflect teams, condition teams, in addition to your standard zerk teams. There's also a need for group buffs, and dedicated ressers in some cases. We'll see what happens after HoT, but this is the direction the game seems to be heading in.
Yes they are adding taunt, but it's not the same as what I think a lot of people are assuming. It's much more like a MOBA taunt mechanic. It's extremely temporary, and more of a form of CC than an aggro mechanic. The game already has aggro mechanics, they just aren't as simple as your typical linear threat table. The problem is most players never bother to learn how aggro actually works in this game.
Yes, yes, and more yes. There are allot of neat things with GW2, but in the end everyone just ends up being a variation of DPS.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
Trinity is also just varioation of DPS. Just that some classes are awfully bad at it, and have no means not to be bad at it.
If you have to wait around for a tank / healer to play the game, that isn't the fault of class role format.. That is the fault of the devs that created a broken system. WoW for the most part is a perfect example of that.. The designed boss combat groups of 5, (1 healer, 1 tank and 3 dps).. However, the player population prefers to play dps roles, for a number of reasons.. Therefore there are not enough spaces in a 5 person group to accommodate them all.. Granted you could increase the group sized to 6 which would in turn allow 4 dps per group, easing the burden of the LFG queue.. But then the devs would have to redo the numbers on the boss fights accordingly..
I like the orange myself at times.. I think most view those colors as well as red as "aggressive" power colors.. Where as blues and purples are softer.. Sorta like wearing ties.. lol I would love to hear about your complex non-role playing combat, and which games those are.. Most people that complain about role combat often use broken bad examples to justify their position.. The reason your car keeps pulling to the right isn't because of snow tires, it's because you have one tire that is flat.. Fix the flat and the car drives just fine, don't argue that snow tires are bad..I have never disliked the trinity, but GW2, that really made me appreciate it.
I dont need a hard trinity, like every single mob MUST be on the tank and the healer MUST heal 100% of the time and never contribute any dps, but I do like some kind of order to fights.
Agreed.. I envision a game where everyone can solo yard trash mobs that are either static at a camp location, or roaming the zone.. Using GW2 as a quick example, I like that any class can dps yard trash using weapon slot skills.. I just wish they incorporated class defining skills in those other slots instead of the watered down abilities.. But it is, what it is..
Well, you enjoy being told what you are and have combat system built around all mobs being complete retards, and rest of us like figuring out things on their own and have smart (more complex) mobs.
Role - based class systems vs Tank-Mage class systems have nothing to do with mob AI.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
So your position is: your doing something wrong if teammates rely on each other doing their assigned tasks?
Quick, someone call the military/professional sports teams and tell them they are doing it wrong.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Youre absolutely right. Theyre all plain simpletons.
Whoa! GW2 is more popular even now than ESO could hope to be. ESO failed out the gate for a reason, and it is not because it had a sub. Sure more people will try ESO now, but just like those who bought it the majority will likely /yawn and move along. The game just was not that good for a ton of people. GW2 is hugely popular, to say ESO is going to "trample" it now is a little ridiculous.
Saying that....ESO is not exactly the example of trinity in an MMO either. The problem with GW2 is not the game mechanics, it is the players. If you knew how to actually play the game you would know blasting water fields is very effective healing and requires team effort to accomplish at times. You can play support engineer, guardian, or ele and be pretty effective at healing if you are skilled enough. GW2 is a skill based game, you will get facerolled if you don't know what you are doing.
We are all ears.. Again I will ASK a SECOND time, please tell us in detail what games fulfill your complex intelligent mob combat?.. Keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between complex smart encounters like the boss fight with Mores in Kara (WoW raid) and killing a brainless stupid spider roaming the woods .. Right now your argument is using playground basketball as the excuse to bash the NBA.. (apples to oranges)..
It was, and still is, true.
Agro management, without benefit of meters or bars is a very real aspect of the game. More than one group has wiped when someone started spamming heals / nukes and ripped agro off the tank.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Actually it wasn't that simple as people have pointed out many times.
The warrior could only "taunt" one mob at a time and even then it is likely someone would pull agro from them because of DPS spam or healing spam. The person who was healing or DPSing would have to be careful not to over do it. They would also have to be concerned with adds because everyone would need to target the same mob. If you agro a mob the warrior wasn't taunting he would never get the agro back. The CC had to be very careful because as so as the CC wore of the mob would be after them. Casters died in a matter of seconds when attacked. Pullers had a dangerous job as well. The point is people died a lot more often due to the difficulty of performing against the AI if they weren't really good at executing as a group. Others have also pointed out that you didn't need the trinity to level or be effective. It was just something players found worked most efficiently.
I know GW 2's fans love it for the lack of Trinity and I am happy they do, but I loved everything about that game except the lack of dungeon trinity. If it had it, I probably would still be playing as the world, the art style, the events, everything outside of the dungeons was a lot of fun for me, and would have been even more fun with roles.
So yes, it made me realise I like the synergy of a trinity, but then I much prefer having support classes, Rift which is a game I swore off due to the increasing greed of Trion handled these very well (though not perfectly) combining that system with a world like GW 2 would make me very happy.
I have to backup Jean-Luc here. He's right.
The thing about original EQ is while it had the same formula as most modern MMOs, it was one of the first games of its kind. People playing it didn't come with all this pre-knowledge of 'how an MMO should be' and so every experience felt fresh and unknown. Many boss encounters seemed more complex because people honestly had no idea how they worked. It was all trial and error and experimentation.
Which is true of most games when you approach them with a fresh mind. Everything seems a lot harder until you get more familiar w/ them, then it's all too easy.
I would disagree. I've played both games heavily and when I went from EQ to WoW I was actually having fun for a while. The reason was that EQ was to hard for me to accomplish most of the content. In WoW I was able to complete pretty much any dungeon and even do raids. In EQ there was so much that I could not do. Even the solo advancement was quite difficult.
Answered mostly up above.
I'm not sure we disagree on all points, I just think that many of your examples / comparisons are very much flawed. Real combat works very much differently than standard MMO combat. It is chaotic, it requires quick decision making, it's not structured unless you choose to make it so. Games can very much do that same style of combat, we just refuse to let them do so, because it requires more effort on our parts (we have to be more responsible for our choices in game).
I agree with more choice, I like being able to play many different things within a game. I like versatility. What I don't like is how most of these games have roles basically limited to 1 or 2 simple rotations and we applaud it. Right now we have so much flexibility in our single player and smaller-group multiplayer games. And yet for some reason we refuse to believe that any of that could ever be applied to an MMO. Even though that is exactly how this genre was founded.
To be honest, you sound clueless. There were mechanics in EQ that caused players to jump to the top of the threat table which didn't even involve attacking. The threat and MOB AI mechanics were kind of impressive considering how old that game was.
The reason why Trinity was put in was because you cannot have decent PvE content balance without it.
The biggest issue why a lot of people had issues with the trinity is not because it made combat bad, but because it had an ill effect on what they could do when they logged in, if there weren't enough Warriors, Clerics, or Enchanters online to fill needed spots in groups. In that situation, you were severely limited in what you could accomplish, especially if you were end-game level and needed to go to end-game dungeons to farm loot.
Clerics would boycot in EQ when they had issues with things, and it would make tons of guilds literally unable to raid.
Those are the types of issues that make trinity bad, but from a mechanical standpoint I don't otherwise see an issue with it.
Anything else that's released trying to eschew it, has been terrible - especially from a PvE point of view so it's kind of laughable that some people go out of their way to bash it (when neither they nor any other MMORPG developers have been able to come up with a superior system).
GW2 is superior system but they had to make game (including dungeons) because people wanted to "tank" and "heal".
But it IS superior to any trinity combat ever. Thers just lot of people who want easier simplistic combat system, just like they want wasier game in general.
The truth is that you COULD/CAN bypass trinity/GW2 sytem in majority of content in any game mentioned here.
That is great. You have an opinion. We all know what it is. Saying it over and over doesn't make it a fact.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
Threat-based AI is a good combat puzzle.
If you want it removed, suggest a better combat puzzle.
Keep in mind that the way you create the puzzle forms how the game plays. Currently a mage in a taunt-based game is summed up as, "Flings a variety of spells at the enemy, and using utility spells situationally to augment the group or defend themselves." If you do non-threat-based AI the wrong way then a mage might be summed up as, "Fires one spell, then becomes the mob's target and spends the rest of the fight running."
Which feels more mage-like? Casting spells the whole fight or running the whole fight?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In case you are not familiar with computer coding.. You have two choices in mob combat actions.. They either perform total random actions, or they follow a code formulated based on a table.. Total random threat is a possibility if the mobs are just brainless.. (I'm ok with that).. The only other option is mobs follow a written code.. Now this is where I think you are confused and misunderstanding myself and many others.. That code could be "XX amount of heals = agro".. or "closest player = agro".. or "XX amount of dps = agro".. There are many variables that can make up the threat/agro system.. I prefer a logical formulation of that.. Such as a dog or other stupid mob has NO CLUE what a healer is.. So why would a dumb animal or plant go after a healer? They have no clue why the player infront of them is not appear to be dying.. I object giving EVERY mob a genius IQ just so YOU can feel challenged by a plant..
You have stated you are against threat / agro tables.. What you need to say is that I'm against poorly designed stupid tables.. There I think we all can agree.. What WoW does with AOE "taunting" is insane, and makes the game too easy.. What EQ did way back in the day was far better then anything I've played since..
So true.. So true.. It was easy to pull agro if you wanted to in EQ.. WoW on the other hand is much harder to pull agro from the tank because of their overuse of uber "taunting".. Hell I remember at times in EQ pulling agro from the tank because I cast my snare spell back to back.. OOOOPS.. my bad..