Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Round robin Tank, Nuke, Heal. To complicated for the average player?
Ihmotepp
Member Posts: 14,495
I've seen a lot of threads with posts that complain about having to use team work. The common complaint is, I don't want to just do one thing. In other words, I don't want to just tank all day, or just shoot lightning bolts all day for DPS, or jjust heal all day.
How about you still need team work, not just each person fights a mob by themselves whether they are grouped or not, but everyone has a little bit of each sort of skill?
What I am NOT suggesting is letting all players be the same, a Tank Mage, without needing anyone else so they can solo everything because they can tank, nuke, and heal.
Something more along these lines.
You have a tanking ability, a healing ability, and a DPS ability. (Let's leave out CC for right not to keep it simple). But these abilities are short lived, that is they don't last long.
The tank ability, for example, could be a force field that overheats after a short period. The DPS could be a powerful gun that has to be recharged, the heal kit has to synthesize more drugs. AND you cannot activate all abilities at once, nor instantly switch between them. You can't turn on the force field, then swiitch to the gun for a shot, then heal yourself, rinse repeat.
If you are using the gun, the med kit and the force shield doesn't work, etc. (Same for fantasy, one spell negates the other or something like that. )
When you fight solo, you can use all your abilities, tank, nuke, heal, but only one at a time. But, but they time you've used them all, none are recharged.
When you fight as a group, you can take turns tanking, nuking, and healing as your abilities recharge. A decent group being two, but even better is three or more, at which point by the time the first two players tank abilities ahve worn off, the third players tank abilities have recharged.
A party of 6 could be structured many ways, depending on the mobs. If one big mob, three players could be designated to trade off tanking, while the other three trade off nuking or healing. If two mobs, four players could trade off tanking, while two trade off between nuking and healing.
Or you could do any combo your team would work out.
This, however, would require even MORE coordination, not less which is what I think some people are asking for. JJust a no brainer get in a group, each person attacks the mob, or attack one mob each if there's more than one, but I find that strategy, basically just a mini zerg, to be rather boring.
Comments
Some people like tanking or healing or dpsing all the time though.
They already have tons of content in games with tank switching and even fights where DPS or heals has to Tank stuff or Tanks get to DPS etc. etc.
I'm thinking in WoW things like Intructor Razuvious, where Priests have to Mind Control and Tank, or HKM in Gruul's lair where you need a Mage Tank or even Magister's Terrace where the Priestess fight is like an Arena PvP match, no defined roles just killing and such.
And people tend to always complain about those fights haha.
I do think things like Hybrid classes or everone becoming a Hybrid are going to be more prevelant in the future, but also coupled with something like WoW's talent trees + dual spec feature, so you really can easily switch up between roles but not as frequently and (IMO) ridiculously as you suggest.
Props for thinking outside the box, but I'll tell you now the vast majority of MMO gamers seem to like being in the box, just would like a bigger box with more in it.
Your opinion is immaterial.
One thing I'd like to see in MMOs is to not have to preselect a class at all. Everyone starts the same and then as you build your character, you pick your path from all of the available paths. Without this, players are forced into choosing thier ingame "job" based largely on nothing more than the title of that class. Yes, you might get some tankmages, but I think the game could balanced such that spreading yourself out too much would make you more vulnerable.
Also, I have to say, there's something a bit condescending about the title in your post. I don't think that old, old, old holy trinity of tank/heal/dps is complicated at all, it's just be so overdone that people are tired of it.
This is already done on fights where you have to switch up tanks or people otherwise have to rotate in and out of a fight (eg due to a nasty debuff).
It is not so much a matter of coordination but timing. If the timing on the switchovers has to be very precise then you will need very good choreography among the players and that is a matter of training and practice together.
The other factor is how good everyone has to be in all the roles for it to work. It takes a while for a person to learn how to be a good tank, healer or dps. An inexperienced player can just jump into the role but will make rookie mistakes until he/she learns the rhythms and tricks of the role. If a fight requires a player to be an expert in all three roles, you are looking at a much longer learning curve. The fact also is that some players are simply not suited for certain roles.
Also with specific roles you can have a myriad of skills and abilities that you can use depending on the situation. If you go for the rotating role model you will have to simplify the abilities to make them all manageable.
Agreed, and let's face it, unless you want your MMO to only be played by the scientists at NASA you would have to simplify each role in order to allow every play to play every role in a rotation fashion in each fight as the OP describes.
Could most old-school MMO vets and good players figure it out? Sure, but...
Eh, to me honestly I'd rather see a sysem that is simple on the outside, complicated on the inside, and allows for personal flaire and skill to really show.
Much easier to do this in a game where you can choose a role and become really good at it.
Your opinion is immaterial.
I'd like a fantasy MMO that uses a skill system like Eve Online, so you can be what you like.
It's hard enough to balance a limited number of classes, imagine balancing a set of skills with so many possible combinations... look what happened with SWG. Total balance fail.
50 skills where you can have maybe 7 at any time means that you have 50 x 50 x 7 possible combinations, unless my math is dumb (which it may be)
17,500 combinations? Good luck balancing that.
So you have to have limitations. If you have THIS skill then you can't also have THAT one. Also if you have THIS skill you also need THIS OTHER skill to make it work right.
This limits the possible combinations.
Look at UO, to be effective with a melee weapon you'd need that weapon skill + anatomy + tactics.
Your opinion is immaterial.
I don't thinkn it's condescending. I think it really could be possibly fun, but possibly overwhelming.
I remember the Hero Wheel in EQ2 when it first released. It was overwhelming for most players.
An alternate route to go would be each player can lend another some of their power in a certain ability. So, all players have so so tank, nuke, heal abilities.
But, if two players group, and one gives the other a boost in tank ability, and vice a versa for healing ability, then they each become a MUCH stronger tank nad healer, although they are now specialized instead of generalized.
It's easier than round robin, it still allows for team work instead of just zerging, and no one class is needed for grouping ever. It's just a matter of deciding who will do what, and off you go.
If you want to see a good working alternative to the Tank, Healer, DPS, just play Mass Effect.
Some Mass Effect class system points:
1. The “tank”, the person with the most armor, also does the most damage. They are the soldier. Which makes way more sense that the big warrior being the weakest at damage. And no they don't end up being over powered.
2. Everyone does range damage, falling back and using cover are important. Yes there is healing but healing is limited so you don't want anyone, even your tank just sitting there taking damage, you want to move and kill them before they kill you, like a real fight.
3. Everyone does some healing.
4. No specific class configuration is needed. Mass Effect is a single player game with a 3 character party. But any class configuration can work. So you play the classes you want to play because it's fun for you not because its the only way to do things.
Single player games do not require balance.
Ummm they don't? Really?
I am not trying to offend just simply asking how you would justify such a statement.
Your opinion is immaterial.
Uh, Mass Effect is a Single-Player game, which means there is no balance as the entire game content can be custom-tailored, and ever fight, every situation is relatively predictable. Also, in Mass Effect you arent dealing with multiple people wanting to play specific roles, are unable to do other stuff, but still want to succeed. And frankly, a party of 3 is easier to balance than one of 5 or 6.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. And lets not even get into the problem of putting FPS controls into MMORPGs.
You guys have to realize that unless someone invents a system which changes the rules and plays BETTER, does its Job BETTER and is EASIER to handle, why not go with what is proven to work?
Just being different for the sake of being different is what puts so many MMORPGs in the grave. There are reasons why we have the system we see now. Even though a few thousand players may be bored of it, that doesnt make them less good.
Still, the class system would make a good Tank, healer, dps, alternative.
And I will be proven right with ME 2 which will have 5 player co-op (don't know about the pvp yet).
Ummm they don't? Really?
I am not trying to offend just simply asking how you would justify such a statement.
It's fine to change the world, wreck the economy, and become an uber god in an Single player game. That's the point in a single player rpg. when the game is over, you either get a new single player game, or start all over and everything resets.
YOu don't affect anyone else, so this is fine, and makes you the Hero.
This would wreck an MMORPG, because it is persistent, and EVERYONE must be the Hero. It doesn't reset, so it requires more balance.
Ummm they don't? Really?
I am not trying to offend just simply asking how you would justify such a statement.
It's fine to change the world, wreck the economy, and become an uber god in an Single player game. That's the point in a single player rpg. when the game is over, you either get a new single player game, or start all over and everything resets.
YOu don't affect anyone else, so this is fine, and makes you the Hero.
This would wreck an MMORPG, because it is persistent, and EVERYONE must be the Hero. It doesn't reset, so it requires more balance.
Ah THAT kind of balance.
I was going to say, in terms of actual gameplay all games are balanced around certain aspects or difficulties. Yeah you can choose to cheat and break the balance the designers intended, or mod the game etc. but they are indeed build with a certain gameplay "balance" in mind.
Your opinion is immaterial.
Ummm they don't? Really?
I am not trying to offend just simply asking how you would justify such a statement.
It's fine to change the world, wreck the economy, and become an uber god in an Single player game. That's the point in a single player rpg. when the game is over, you either get a new single player game, or start all over and everything resets.
YOu don't affect anyone else, so this is fine, and makes you the Hero.
This would wreck an MMORPG, because it is persistent, and EVERYONE must be the Hero. It doesn't reset, so it requires more balance.
Ah THAT kind of balance.
I was going to say, in terms of actual gameplay all games are balanced around certain aspects or difficulties. Yeah you can choose to cheat and break the balance the designers intended, or mod the game etc. but they are indeed build with a certain gameplay "balance" in mind.
to add to this, take example of Fable. the begenning of the game you are "on par" with everyone...but by the end of the game you are a god and no one can stop you. which is awsome. But wouldn't work in a MMO, just for the pure fact that 1. you still need stuff to do 2. you have to be on par with other players.
So they both have to balance...but in diffrent ways.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Actually the total number of possible combinations would be 50x49x48x47x46x45x44= 503,417,376,000
Of course once you set in dependencies and exclusivity of skills the number reduces significantly.
Also SWG's balancing problems were primarily caused by the fact that many professions were artificially limited (eg rifleman had almost the same range as pistoleer since you only registered mobs in a small radius around you) and others were hopelessly bugged. So everytime a limitatation/bug was fixed, any balance went out the window.
Ah, well thanks.
But my point still stands.
The reason so many professions were "artificially limited" and why "everytime a limitation/bug was fixed" any balance went out the window because they had too much to try and balance.
They are only human and with finite talent and resources and every bug fix requires time and effort and testing etc. etc. so the more systems you have, and the more complicated those systems are, the harder it is to balance.
Your opinion is immaterial.
Ah, well thanks.
But my point still stands.
The reason so many professions were "artificially limited" and why "everytime a limitation/bug was fixed" any balance went out the window because they had too much to try and balance.
They are only human and with finite talent and resources and every bug fix requires time and effort and testing etc. etc. so the more systems you have, and the more complicated those systems are, the harder it is to balance.
But isn't UO considered by many old time gamers to be the pioneer and the crowning jewel of what an MMO should be?
EvE online uses a skill system and their playerbase is growing. Darkfall uses a skill system and they managed to get a large following.
Earthrise is in development and they've decided to use a skill system. And I believe there are more games in development which are taking that model.
I don't think anyone can really say with any justifiable certainty that today's level based, archtype system is better balanced because developers always complain one of the toughest things to do is provide character balance.
UO was very unbalanced in most senses, everyone in PvP was a Tank Mage or used Taming to use large Dragons in combat. Pretty much. Also you could only pick 7 skills and there were maybe a grand total of... 20? And of those maybe 5-6 were crafting skills, which did count against your total of 7 btw.
also you can only fly one kind of ship at a time so the other skills are moot if not in that ship type (and many are based on a certain race too)
EVE you are very limited on your possible skill builds for the most part because A) it takes time to learn skills not any leveling up system via usage and
Darkfall HAD a large following but for all intents and purposes did not yet live up to the hype, and in a FPS style combat game like that from all the complaints I have seen it is not balanced, very buggy and easily exploitable/macroable, and personally I hate FPS combat in a RPG (except Mass Effect which was a hybrid really)
I can't imagine Earthrise will be too much better but I hope it is.
I love skill based systems, but they must have restrictions and the simpler the better.
Your opinion is immaterial.
I think it is time to make a MMO without magic whatsoever. No healing, no magic, just melee and ranged combat.
Because lets face it, it worked well in real history so MMOs would feel fresher if at least a few games had more realism and focused more on actuall swordplay instead of magic and flashy effects.
In the real word there is no tanks. Usually you pick and opponent and fight until one of you is dead. And getting real stabs is very bad, that is the reason a warrior wear armor, and knights in full armor can fight for half an hour IRL before someone dies, but the winner is usuallly just having some bruises.
A fighter needs to both be able to make a lot of damage and take a lot. Of course you have people with ranged weapons, and they often have lighter armor and counting that they can take down the enemy from far away. But they dont set traps during a battle, that is something they could possibly do in a siege of their castle, since they have the time to actually set up the trap then.
Is one cool historical game to much to ask for? One that isn't WW2.
At least some games dont have tanks like Guildwars.
Actually the total number of possible combinations would be 50x49x48x47x46x45x44= 503,417,376,000
Of course once you set in dependencies and exclusivity of skills the number reduces significantly.
Also SWG's balancing problems were primarily caused by the fact that many professions were artificially limited (eg rifleman had almost the same range as pistoleer since you only registered mobs in a small radius around you) and others were hopelessly bugged. So everytime a limitatation/bug was fixed, any balance went out the window.
To be picky, its only 99,884,400. The above number is correct only if the order you picked those seven skills mattered in the long term somehow.
Well, developers will probably use WW2 as the setting since it's the most proven. Many people will hate the idea of yet another WWII game, but then again people thought that same idea with COD:WOW and look how awesome and good it's doing (also, turns out the whole nazi zombie and imperial zombie idea would end up more than just a gimmick).
I have an even more awesome idea. Create a full Nazi/Imperial zombie mmorpg based on COD:WOW's zombie concept and use this system. And to heal yourself, you actually have to manually apply the healing supplies to the wounds. Did a zombie bite your arm? Better use some rich-man neosporin on the wound and apply bandages, otherwise you'll bleed to death. During the game, your health can heal automatically, but the amount of health you "heal" after not getting swiped at for a while by zombies depends on how banged up you are. So, if you're bleeding pints of blood every minute, you probably won't "automatically heal" until you get those wounds treated. Also, include a story mode (it'd be nice to know why zombies are popping up in the first place) with online co-op.
People do this all the time in Guild Wars.
But I guess you could say the really good people at it are considerably better than the "average" and to some extent it is what separates the men from the boys
There are problems and advantages to both class-based and skill-based systems.
Class-based systems provide a tighter framework of character roles for the developers. Healers may have some options for offense, but they are built mostly to be healers. DPS may have some options for tanking or healing, but they are mostly there to cause damage. By limiting the role of each class, you give the player a better idea of what they should be doing, and how, and allow them to compare to the others doing the same thing for balance purposes.
The disadvantage is that class-based games are wholly group oriented because every role has to have someone there to make up for their deficiency. This basically means no one-on-one or two-man PVP, because you can't go out without the minimal tank-healer-DPS team and expect to survive longer than a few seconds. I've seen this happen in outdoor PVP in various games a great deal: a bunch of DPS get out there, but can't kill a tank because they aren't getting to a healer who keeps the tank alive long enough to put down all the DPS. This also causes solo PVE in such games to have issues; some classes will be able to easily solo content, others may struggle.
Skill-based systems provide enormous flexibility in the game. Players do whatever they darn well want to, consequences be darned. They can opt to go with melee DPS and some healing or protective ability to keep them going. When progressing through content, they take the skills they need without worrying if they need to get help with something, promoting more individual playstyles. PVP is much more dynamic, because you don't know if a target has certain skills or others, leading to a lot more tactical variety.
The disadvantage is that skill-based games tend to lead to homogenous gameplay; once a specific combo of skills are perceived by the players to be must-have for certain kinds of gameplay (like PVP), they universally train in those skills. For example, if physical ranged DPS is perceived as superior to magic ranged DPS, then the skills for physical ranged DPS will be taken by an overwhelming majority of players. Additionally, skill-based gameplay causes such individual playstyles that group-based activities are very difficult to develop in the game, outside of masses of mobs that are fought individually. Because nobody has to play a dedicated role, there are fewer such characters dedicated to a single role.
There is no magic cure here. Both methods have flaws that cause problems eventually. Both systems have been found in games that are wildly successful, and both are found in games that have sunk hard. The question is what is the best system for various players to use for their chosen playstyle. For some players, skill-based is the way to go because they aren't interested in role-based content. For others, class-based systems help give them a focused approach to the game so that they know their place in a group and how to perform.
Neither system, however, is perfect, and trying to both trumpet the virtues of one system while villifying the flaws of another is counterproductive. It would be more helpful to find ways to improve both systems. Skill-based systems are called "sandbox" games, but even a sandbox needs a limiting container or it's nothing more than a mess that washes away in time. Class-based games need to give some secondary builds so that when not in group-based content individual players have better options for surviving PVP or other things alone.
In other words, instead of trying to say that cake is better than ice cream, maybe we should scheme a way we can all have our cake and ice cream together. Then, if someone doesn't want cake or doesn't want ice cream, it's a choice and not a mandate.