Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

"The holy trinity came about because of primitive MMO AI. Vastly improved AI means a new dynamic is

18911131417

Comments

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,356
    Originally posted by tordurbar
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    The thing that is primitive is action combat.

    It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.

    And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.

     

    So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.

     

    On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.

     

    Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"

    /this 

    /notthis

    I don't know what type of critical thinking schools have taught over the years but apparently "not much".

    I can easily imagine an "action combat" version of crowd control, several different versions of healing, one of which requires healing "after a battle and not during"  and any number of ways that you can make players require the assistance of other classes.

    But apparently, because some games adopted certain ways of doing things, no other way is even remotely possible.

    Or maybe we just don't have any "outside the box" thinkers here.




  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130

    Many people in favor of action combat seem to have no frame of reference of what a good trinity system is. WoW isn't one of them.

  • Whiskey_SamWhiskey_Sam Member UncommonPosts: 323
    Originally posted by r0guy
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam
    Originally posted by r0guy
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam Video game combat is contrived from the outset, and it's laughable to act like having the mob fight one guy over another is more realistic when it shouldn't be fighting that badly outnumbered in the first place. 

    The whole point of strategy is to strike the enemy using advantages like outnumbering them.

    The point you're making has been shot down a hundred times by now and this is getting old. "The mob will always attack someone so there's no difference!" Really? So the strategies the romans used is no different than that of a modern army today then? Logical fallacy alert!

    And no smart enemy is going to stand there and try to fight when he is greatly outnumbered making boss fights contrived from the outset. So, irl, no-one ever fights when they are outnumbered? We can't have a discussion here if you don't know what the word strategy means.  What the hell does Roman strategy have to do with one mob fighting 5, 6, 7, or more people at once?  If you want to "shoot down" my point, then address my point and not some non sequitur you pulled out of your ass. Just because you have reading comprehension issues doesn't make an argument into a non-sequitur.

    "There is nothing smart about AI where a mob chases one guy all over the place (whether it's a tank or whatever person their script says should be attacked) while getting killed."  So are you saying that going for a tank that does no damage while being healed by 10 others guys is just as smart as possibly going for weaker or more threatening targets? Or that every single mob always going for the tank is incredibly predictable (wich is the opposite of requiring strategy?) Because it really isn't. You've create multiple dumb strawmen and you're constantly avoiding comparisons to PVP and games like MOBAs where people don't "run around in a circle" and cutting off people from the rest of their team in order to outnumber them is a viable strategy.

     

    No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest.  He either turtles, or he gets the hell out of there.  He sure as hell won't chase one guy around while the other four beat on him.  That kind of video game combat is contrived and to complain that the mob is focusing on person over another is idiotic.  We're talking about scripted AI.  It may be more or less complex, but it is still a script.  Who cares whether he beats on a tank or chases a squishy?  If the only response is attack it's still contrived, and that's just part of playing a video game.  Smart AI would incorporate more than just a threat assessment.  It would incorporate strategic retreats, calling in reinforcements, finding defensible positions, using cover.  If all they're doing is tweaking who gets attacked, that's a waste of time.

    ___________________________
    Have flask; will travel.

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,061
    Originally posted by Kiyoris

    Removing the trinity aggro system actually removed the strategy elements from the raid, because it resulted in chaos. It became a DPS faceroll.

    I hate most of the "Crusader Coliseum" raid in WoW, but there was one fight that was a pure strike of genius from Blizzard... and it was a fight without any agro/threat... the "Faction Champions" fight.

    If you think no agro and no trinity means chaos, you obviously never did that fight. If you treated it as chaos, you would inevitably end with a raid wipe.

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset and Razer Hydra controllers - Soundcard: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.

  • RohnRohn Member UncommonPosts: 3,730
    Originally posted by Shadowguy64
    As long as it isn't zergy, then I'll be very pleased. That's all I ask. No zerg.

     

    I agree.  If you're going to replace the Trinity, replace it with something better.

    That's where GW2 failed.  ANet acted as if nothing was worse than the Trinity, but the system they implemented was far, far worse.

    I'm looking forward to see what EQN is able to do.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam

    No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest. 

    If you're awaiting your opponent and you haven't started to build your strategy until after they are beating on you, you've already lost. So, yes, if a mob thinks the way you do, their only chance is to turtle up or flee.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • rodingorodingo Member RarePosts: 2,867
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by tordurbar
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    The thing that is primitive is action combat.

    It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.

    And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.

     

    So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.

     

    On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.

     

    Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"

    /this 

    What amuses me is that the Trinity is seen as developed by the developers. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Trinity was developed by role players back in paper rpgs. I remember back in the 80's having a great time in a D&D dungeon playing the healer part of the Trinity. 

     Flat out bull.

    There was nothing about any of the D&D or AD&D 1st edition sets that required the trinity. Just because the 3 types were present in the rule books, it doesn't mean it was a requirement of the game itself. I can recall so many sessions where we all played Theives and Fighters...others where everyone played Druids to fit the campaign.

    A good DM did not have the limits that would be placed with forced trinity play...just like an MMO wont have the limited design that comes with forced trinity.

    Yeh I need to throw the BS flag on the trinity thing in old D&D as well.  There was no trinity.  Fighters didn't even have "taunt" in 1st edition and when they did finally put that in the PnP it didn't function as it does in MMOs.  Good DMs used their brains to figure out who the mobs attacked, not some brainless and cheap MMO mechanic.

    "If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,356
    Originally posted by rodingo
     

    Yeh I need to throw the BS flag on the trinity thing in old D&D as well.  There was no trinity.  Fighters didn't even have "taunt" in 1st edition and when they did finally put that in the PnP it didn't function as it does in MMOs.  Good DMs used their brains to figure out who the mobs attacked, not some brainless and cheap MMO mechanic.

    True but fighters would position themselves between their mages and squishy members so that is a "type" of tanking.

    I think part of the problem here is that people just can't divorce themselves from "tanking = taunt" mentality.

    I know in our d&d campaigns the fighers/paladins/barbarians "whatever were constantly putthing themselves in harms way. Especially when you had mages with only a few d4 hit points.

     




  • Whiskey_SamWhiskey_Sam Member UncommonPosts: 323
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam

    No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest. 

    If you're awaiting your opponent and you haven't started to build your strategy until after they are beating on you, you've already lost. So, yes, if a mob thinks the way you do, their only chance is to turtle up or flee.

    You think a mob is actually sitting there plotting for when someone encounters him?  This is not a thinking being.  It's a scripted mob.  It doesn't strategize.

    ___________________________
    Have flask; will travel.

  • Shadowguy64Shadowguy64 Member Posts: 848
    Originally posted by Kiyoris

    Many people in favor of action combat seem to have no frame of reference of what a good trinity system is. WoW isn't one of them.

     

    I disagree. WoW is one of them. Not the only one, but certainly in the group of good trinity systems. If you don't like WoW,  that's fine. But please try to keep your bias in check.

  • TwoThreeFourTwoThreeFour Member UncommonPosts: 2,155
    Originally posted by botrytis
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    The thing that is primitive is action combat.

    It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go.

    And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.

    I disagree. In GW2 you can pull. I do all the time and if you can't I can teach you how to do it. The trinity was done because all they could do was make a boss with ultra high HP and the trinity was good for that. The trinity is from the by-gone era. Even games with the trinity become zergfests  - jeez.

     

    What time - 10 years? UO had no trinity......

     

    "Pulling" is one of the worst features of current MMORPGs. It is immersion-breaking because it assumes the monsters have no communication and will just let themselves be pulled 1 by 1.

  • kilunkilun Member UncommonPosts: 747
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    The thing that is primitive is action combat.

    It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.

    And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.

     

    So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.

     

    On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.

     

    Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"

    No it doesn't.  Take a look at TSW, it has a Holy Trinity setup.  But although I believe the community is strong as a whole, there are not many large cabals and the ones I know mine has taken a step back from it leaving me to pug more and its amazing how many people are not even in a cabal.

    Holy Trinity does not mean=community.  Community features such as wasted time and not instant travel help build groups.  Forced delayed interaction between combat does that.  If I just have to show up and do my role (Holy Trinity) I do not have to speak, acknowledge anyone, as long as I pull my own weight.

  • grifjgrifj Member Posts: 110
    Originally posted by Aceshighhhh

    Brian Green of Storybricks tweeted this today:

    "The holy trinity came about because of primitive MMO AI. Vastly improved AI means a new dynamic is needed. Wait before you despair." 

     

    Sounds like a whole lot of marketing gobbledy gook. 

    The holy trinity came about because EQ1 was designed for group interdependency, not because of primite MMO AI.  It was because EQ1 wanted to require grouping for taking on most content. 

    The reason today's games don't want the holy trinity is because they want everybody to be able to jump on and play for 30 minutes solo.  They are no longer MMORPGs - they are RPGs in a persistent online world.  It's basically like taking Skyrim and just adding other people in the world around you that you don't interact with other than to maybe sell them stuff or see them in town.  That's why SWTOR was such a bomb - it was a single player game in a multiplayer world.

     

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] CommonPosts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser Member Posts: 1,873
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

    what does pvp have to with AI ?

    These kind of blinded statements are another reason SOe is out of touch with the what mmorpg players want.

    And you are in touch with what players want? and if you said it is 'PVP' what is they want as in 'majority' i am going to laugh.

    Maybe SOE doesn't know what players want but it would be interesting to know how you know what they don't know.

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

  • AabelAabel Member Posts: 32
    Originally posted by grif

    Sounds like a whole lot of marketing gobbledy gook. 

    The holy trinity came about because EQ1 was designed for group interdependency, not because of primite MMO AI.  It was because EQ1 wanted to require grouping for taking on most content. 

       That's not how I remember it. Back during the Kunark era on the old Verant forums there was discussion about mob power vs. PC power and why a lower level mob was so much more powerful than a PC who was higher level. The answer given, was AI. They didn't have the resources to make the monsters more intelligent so they made them incredibly strong to compensate for their one dimensional aggro mechanics. Later when they increased the amount of threat generated by a heal or a rune spell, to make the NPC's behave more intelligently, they promised to revisit NPC strength if it proved to be too overwhelming with the new changes, it wasn't though the players were more than capable of adapting.

     Interestingly enough, during the class Q&A panel at this years unveiling, one of the designers mentioned that the goal is to have the NPC's be as strong as PC's of the same tier, that coupled with superior AI should create a very appropriate challenge much more akin to a table top RPG.

  • Joseph_KerrJoseph_Kerr Member RarePosts: 1,111
    Originally posted by wizardanim

    People arguing against instead of considering what SoE is doing for EQNext show their inability to consider new systems.  It is a human trait really, which separates the innovators from the rest.  

    If you want a cookie-cutter role playing game, there are plenty out there.

    Well said, sir.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam

    No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest. 

    If you're awaiting your opponent and you haven't started to build your strategy until after they are beating on you, you've already lost. So, yes, if a mob thinks the way you do, their only chance is to turtle up or flee.

    You think a mob is actually sitting there plotting for when someone encounters him?  This is not a thinking being.  It's a scripted mob.  It doesn't strategize.

    I can't tell if r0guy is right that you're just making up strawmen as you go along, or if you really don't get it. Either way, let's agree to disagree on what mob AI is capable of, how it's designed and what alternatives exist for it. We're not getting anywhere here.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • r0guyr0guy Member Posts: 115
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam
    Originally posted by r0guy
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam
    Originally posted by r0guy
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam Video game combat is contrived from the outset, and it's laughable to act like having the mob fight one guy over another is more realistic when it shouldn't be fighting that badly outnumbered in the first place. 

    The whole point of strategy is to strike the enemy using advantages like outnumbering them.

    The point you're making has been shot down a hundred times by now and this is getting old. "The mob will always attack someone so there's no difference!" Really? So the strategies the romans used is no different than that of a modern army today then? Logical fallacy alert!

    And no smart enemy is going to stand there and try to fight when he is greatly outnumbered making boss fights contrived from the outset. So, irl, no-one ever fights when they are outnumbered? We can't have a discussion here if you don't know what the word strategy means.  What the hell does Roman strategy have to do with one mob fighting 5, 6, 7, or more people at once?  If you want to "shoot down" my point, then address my point and not some non sequitur you pulled out of your ass. Just because you have reading comprehension issues doesn't make an argument into a non-sequitur.

    "There is nothing smart about AI where a mob chases one guy all over the place (whether it's a tank or whatever person their script says should be attacked) while getting killed."  So are you saying that going for a tank that does no damage while being healed by 10 others guys is just as smart as possibly going for weaker or more threatening targets? Or that every single mob always going for the tank is incredibly predictable (wich is the opposite of requiring strategy?) Because it really isn't. You've create multiple dumb strawmen and you're constantly avoiding comparisons to PVP and games like MOBAs where people don't "run around in a circle" and cutting off people from the rest of their team in order to outnumber them is a viable strategy.

     

    No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest.  He either turtles, or he gets the hell out of there. If I was cornered, I'd call for help, if no help comes and i couldn't talk my way out of it, I'd damn well go for the guy with the knife or gun first, instead of the unarmed dude in riot police armor who's just yelling "yomamasofat" jokes.  He sure as hell won't chase one guy around while the other four beat on him. The devs specifically said this wouldn't happen in the class panel Q&A, when someone asked if the AI meant that the mob would only go for healers. There are multiple factors/reasons for the mob going for someone according to them.  That kind of video game combat is contrived and to complain that the mob is focusing on person over another is idiotic.  We're talking about scripted AI.  It may be more or less complex, but it is still a script.  Who cares whether he beats on a tank or chases a squishy? People who like strategy and are bored with MMOs where positioning is irrelevant and where the fights are always the same.  If the only response is attack it's still contrived, and that's just part of playing a video game.  Smart AI would incorporate more than just a threat assessment.  It would incorporate strategic retreats, calling in reinforcements, finding defensible positions, using cover.  If all they're doing is tweaking who gets attacked, that's a waste of time. Game AI has nothing to do with that. The quality of an AI in games has to do with the amount and complexity of tasks it can achieve within the games logic. Example: The Half-Life 1 AI isn't stupid, bad and/or irrelevant because the soldiers don't just toss lots of nukes at Black Mesa, even if it would appear to be a sensible solution. There'd be no game.

    And saying that a mob is stupid because it doesn't take cover in a game without cover, or that a raid boss is stupid because it doesn't run out of the dungeon exit at the first sign of trouble, denying player's content and possibility of progression, is just being disingenuous.

     

  • Shadowguy64Shadowguy64 Member Posts: 848
    Originally posted by Darth-Batman
    Originally posted by wizardanim

    People arguing against instead of considering what SoE is doing for EQNext show their inability to consider new systems.  It is a human trait really, which separates the innovators from the rest.  

    If you want a cookie-cutter role playing game, there are plenty out there.

    Well said, sir.

     

    It's very difficult to have a decent discussion with an entrenched EQ1 player. They are unwilling to listen to anyone and anything new is "garbage" or "tripe" in their eyes.

  • Whiskey_SamWhiskey_Sam Member UncommonPosts: 323
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam

    No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest. 

    If you're awaiting your opponent and you haven't started to build your strategy until after they are beating on you, you've already lost. So, yes, if a mob thinks the way you do, their only chance is to turtle up or flee.

    You think a mob is actually sitting there plotting for when someone encounters him?  This is not a thinking being.  It's a scripted mob.  It doesn't strategize.

    I can't tell if r0guy is right that you're just making up strawmen as you go along, or if you really don't get it. Either way, let's agree to disagree on what mob AI is capable of, how it's designed and what alternatives exist for it. We're not getting anywhere here.

    We're getting nowhere because both of you are intent with arguing against points I'm not making.  The complaint I was specifically responding to was about mob AI attacking tanks.  If all people are asking for is for mobs to attack someone else, they have missed the boat.  The problem is not who the mob chooses to attack; it is that too many games are coming out where the mob does nothing but attack.  We need games to change up their approach and make their mobs do more.  Simply changing who the mob attacks does nothing to keep fights from turning into kiting or zergfests, and it does nothing to make combat more realistic.  I have yet to see either of you address that point, and yet you accuse me of attacking strawmen?  Pot meet kettle.

    ___________________________
    Have flask; will travel.

  • Whiskey_SamWhiskey_Sam Member UncommonPosts: 323
    Originally posted by r0guy
    No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest.  He either turtles, or he gets the hell out of there. If I was cornered, I'd call for help, if no help comes and i couldn't talk my way out of it, I'd damn well go for the guy with the knife or gun first, instead of the unarmed dude in riot police armor who's just yelling "yomamasofat" jokes.  He sure as hell won't chase one guy around while the other four beat on him. The devs specifically said this wouldn't happen in the class panel Q&A, when someone asked if the AI meant that the mob would only go for healers. There are multiple factors/reasons for the mob going for someone according to them.  That kind of video game combat is contrived and to complain that the mob is focusing on person over another is idiotic.  We're talking about scripted AI.  It may be more or less complex, but it is still a script.  Who cares whether he beats on a tank or chases a squishy? People who like strategy and are bored with MMOs where positioning is irrelevant and where the fights are always the same.  If the only response is attack it's still contrived, and that's just part of playing a video game.  Smart AI would incorporate more than just a threat assessment.  It would incorporate strategic retreats, calling in reinforcements, finding defensible positions, using cover.  If all they're doing is tweaking who gets attacked, that's a waste of time. Game AI has nothing to do with that, the quality of an AI in games has to do with the amount and complexity of tasks it can achieve within the games logic. Example: The Half-Life 1 AI isn't stupid, bad and/or irrelevant because the soldiers don't just toss lots of nukes at Black Mesa, even if it would be appear to be a sensible solution. There'd be no game otherwise.

    And saying that a mob is stupid because it doesn't take cover in a game without cover, or that a raid boss is stupid because it doesn't run out of the dungeon exit at the first sign of trouble, denying players of content and possibility of progression, is just being disingenuous.

     

    If you are cornered 1 on 5, it doesn't matter who you attack, you're getting your ass kicked unless your opponents are missing a chromosome.  

    Yes, there are multiple reasons for a mob to go after someone, but it is still going after someone. That's the entire problem.  We need them to do more than go after someone, and changing who they go after does not address that core problem.

    What new strategy are you going to come up with for a mob who goes after someone?  If the mob's only option is attack, you have a very limited set of responses.  If he's ranged, you get out of his range.  If he switches to someone else, you get back into range and ping pong aggro.  If he chases, then you kite him and let everyone else burn him down.  The problem is not who he is attacking, it is that he does nothing other than attack in far too many cases.

    ___________________________
    Have flask; will travel.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] CommonPosts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser Member Posts: 1,873
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

     


    Originally posted by Doogiehowser

    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi what does pvp have to with AI ? These kind of blinded statements are another reason SOe is out of touch with the what mmorpg players want.
    And you are in touch with what players want? and if you said it is 'PVP' what is they want as in 'majority' i am going to laugh. Maybe SOE doesn't know what players want but it would be interesting to know how you know what they don't know.
    that is why Eve has had the longest sustained subscription base of all mmorpgs.....

     

    The trinity goes further then just pve. Creating spec'd groups ofor pvp fights,ceating real community of classes that interact with each other and be destinctive from of other class, like in Shadowbane.

    SOE is money grabbers,it is a reflection of Sony the company, they just want money with the easiest and most efficient way possible, and what better way to lesson the load is to not have to think about class interaction.

     

    EVE was made as a PVP MMO from ground up. So your example of eve doesn't hold water while comparing it to EQ franchise. More over EVE is unique because it is the only space PVP sandbox MMO out there. But if you want to convince readers that you know what 'players' want you would need more than just one example of successful PVP MMO. 

    I am still interested in knowing how you claim to know what i or other MMORPG players want. 

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

  • zekeofevzekeofev Member UncommonPosts: 240

    I don't care about a stagnent trinity system but....

     

    I do really like defined roles in combat. (I do not think everyone should be restrained to the same role for the life of their character though)

     

    I really like tactical combat (Ok everyone has to dps this part, now everyone has to mitigate damage with whatever they have, now we have to kite and dps adds, now we need to carefully split dps)

     

    I really dislike mindless zerg combat. Based on the trailer this is all that has been shown.

     

    Also lack of targeting makes for less control and less tactical. It could be done to still have tactics but it is much harder to do.

     

    Lastly, good AI does not mean you need to scrap the trinity. Look at DnD modules where tanks function with various DM used AIs for their turns. Body blocking narrow passages, CC effects and soft taunts (less accuracy or damage unless target's attack is on the person who used it, who is generally more tanky).

     

    I will wait and see, but color me surprised if this is not yet another mindless "action combat" game.

Sign In or Register to comment.