Now you may say that this set-up makes it hypocritcal of me to say bad things about the trinity, given that I had a full trinity setup all of my own. But think about it - if one player can play the whole trinity himself, what does that say about the trinity? It's not difficult, it's not challenging and in terms of what a player is capable of it's not even necessary.
Er, it actually doesn't say anything about the trinity.
The trinity is player specialization in groups.
You described a generalist soloing.
So what you described wasn't the trinity.
...and actually could be construed as being the exact opposite of the trinity.
The very nature of soloing assumes you're going to be able to mitigate damage (tank), DPS, and/or heal enough on your own to survive solo fights. So it's not automatically bad for a single class to be able to do everything while soloing -- that's just the nature of soloing!
The only thing that's bad is if a game's systems are so shallow that it's not ever challenging. But that has more to do with whether a game offers challenging solo gameplay at all (virtually all MMORPGs don't, and it's a missed opportunity.) It isn't related to a discussion on trinity at all really.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The holy trinity essentially forces us into an archaic and rigid format with no new skills, classes or abilities.
1) Why is there no bard class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
2) Why is there no debuff class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
3) Why is there no alchemist class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
4) Why are there no trading classes? Because they are not part of the holy trinity
5) Why are there usually no hybrid classes? Because they abuse the holy trinity
6) Why can't tanks deal decent damage? Because it abuses the holy trinity
7) Why can't dps provide healing? Because it abuses the holy trinity
8) Why cant healers tank? Because it abuses the holy trinity
That's totally not the case.
I will try to explain.
1) what you mean no bard class? rift has a bard soul. Again not sure what you are trying to get at there.
2) no debuff class? Did you play WoW? Even it has debuffer. That's what the warlock was titled as, before the hybrids got better offense tools in PvE. And not even going to get into PvP. Because that is full of debuffers in pvp trinity.So no idea what you going on about.
3) huh what ? Why can't it be? Depends on what the class is designed to do. Is it just a crafting profession or a combat class? If its the first, than that doesn't apply to the trinity since the trinity only deals with combat.
4) again trading is not a combat role. Trinity applies to combat roles, not non combat objectives. Can't believe you just went there with trading as an excuse against trinity. Seriously?
5) huh? WoW and Rift has hybrids. What are you talking about?
6) WoW and Rift both made changes to Tank Damage. We don't know how it is in WoW in MoP, but in CATA early release they buffed tanks and other hybrid roles damage. So again no idea what you are talking about.
7) what? Do you play Rift? Support role is a DPS with heals. That's what you just asked for. Again you are way off wi your argument.
8) I tank as a healer in pvp often when a tank or ccer miss a enemy target. Same in PvE. In WoW, you had a thing called HealTanking. Basically holding Aggro from self heals while keeping self alive. In Rift, the Justicar does just that( well in vanilla). So you are once again wrong.
Sorry - has nothing to do with solo-friendly (that is a red herring argument). It has to do with the AI getting more complex with mobs and the set roles of the Trinity being limiting (play-wise for players). There is noting inherently wrong with the Trinity except players do prefer what is more comfortable to them rather than trying something new.
The trinity was of a time when the MOB AI was limited (all they could do was increase XP of the mob or give them one strong attack, buff, debuff, etc). AI's can be more complex and there are fights in GW2, for example in higher level Fractals, where a Trinity group would be absolutely wiped out with one hit.
Um... No, it's called a personal opinion.
I find it very hard to believe that a mob that could wipe a trinity group in one hit wouldn't do the same to any other type of group. This has nothing to do with mob AI and everything to do with making group dynamics a thing of the past.
Bren
I'm afraid he's right Bren. Let's put it this way... if the AI is smart enough to not be taunted and kill the "healer" first, what happens to your trinity?
Nice try, but again even if a character was smart enough to ignore a taunt, that doesn't change the fact that the skill being used "FORCED" to do something against their will. If my paladin uses his mental magic to enter the enemy mind and force the enemy to target me by clouding its mind with thoughts of repentance which forces the creature to Challenge the Paladin.
That spell the Paladin tank used "FORCED THE CREATURE TO ATTACK THE PALADIN OR SPECIFIC TARGET" and it was explained by lore. Intelligence of the creature has nothing to do with it. The skill used FORCED an action.
In PvP against real players, a priest may mind control my character against his will. The priest FORCED AN ACTION. Intelligence has nothing to do with that event.
The removal of holy trinity have everything to do with making games more casual friendly, and making games more solo friendly. It has nothing to do with AI, I don't get where people get this idea from. AI in games are still not smarter than gamers. The only thing that has changed these days is that everybody can tank, everybody can heal, everybody can cc, and everybody can dps. Mobs die just as fast and as quickly as before. This whole getting rid of holy trinity because AI has become too smart is a bunch of rubbish.
I'm saying this as someone who embraced the move for these MMO's to be more soloable. I don't have the time anymore to wait on groups or spend 6 hours camping in the same spot inside a dungeon. But let's be real. Games are making the move to simplify everything. Less abilities, less buttons, more powerful individual characters, less dependency on others, less dependency on other classes, everybody's a hero.
Holy trinity was not a bad thing, times just have changed. People bash WoW but yet that game utilizes holy trinity, but was able to find a way to still make the game casual friendly. Blizzard's a genius, it's amazing how almost 10 years now and people still don't get why that game was #1 for so long. It gave people what they wanted, soloability while leveling, holy trinity grouping & raiding endgame, smooth animation and combat, and PvP.
There's really nothing wrong with holy trinity, it's just that companies have found easier ways to develop games for the wider audience.
For those of you who think that the Trinity was ditched to allow different types of gameplay, do you think the play you now have is better? Can you tell us what this playstyle is and how it is better? Mass brawl is how I would describe it and I can't see the appeal.
If MMO companies were truly trying to develop something different they would add have changed how groups work, not just removed the need for a healer and tank. In the same way Terra brought an interesting dodge to the combat mix what did removing class roles bring to gameplay?
The trinity was ditched purely to make MMO's as easymode as possible, as solo friendly as possible. However, lets say that this was an attempt at new gameplay, as ridiculous as that seems. Well I am all for us trying out something new, for giving the devs a chance and not jumping on them because they make a change. But if your idea of an advance in gameplay was removing a gameplay system and leaving nothing then it is hardly surprising that has not worked out.
So either bring back the trinity or come up with something else, 'nothing' as a gameplay system rarely works well.
Now you may say that this set-up makes it hypocritcal of me to say bad things about the trinity, given that I had a full trinity setup all of my own. But think about it - if one player can play the whole trinity himself, what does that say about the trinity? It's not difficult, it's not challenging and in terms of what a player is capable of it's not even necessary.
Er, it actually doesn't say anything about the trinity.
The trinity is player specialization in groups.
You described a generalist soloing.
So what you described wasn't the trinity.
...and actually could be construed as being the exact opposite of the trinity.
The very nature of soloing assumes you're going to be able to mitigate damage (tank), DPS, and/or heal enough on your own to survive solo fights. So it's not automatically bad for a single class to be able to do everything while soloing -- that's just the nature of soloing!
The only thing that's bad is if a game's systems are so shallow that it's not ever challenging. But that has more to do with whether a game offers challenging solo gameplay at all (virtually all MMORPGs don't, and it's a missed opportunity.) It isn't related to a discussion on trinity at all really.
It says everything about the trinity. If one person can manage a full trinity set up with controllable pets, how is it challenging to split that across three roles and multiple players?
The SWG example I used was simply to illustrate how simplistic straight trinity gameplay actually is. The second example I gave, of the old DAOC Scout duo I played in, was there to show how things could be if MMOs weren't so fixated on the trinity at the expense of all other possible class interdependencies.
Not that DAOC had it down, it was just that it was loosely designed enough to allow for other styles of group gameplay. Too many modern MMOs are too tightly designed around the trinity group play, and I think that's one of the reasons that gamers are tiring of MMOs. Group play is the area that has seen the least innovation in MMOs and it has become even more formulaic and less challenging (and therefore less interesting) over the past few years.
Personally I think its rather odd to think that all the enemies should just run to one person and attack them... Combat should be more dynamic where they realize to attack a healer/dps instead of this thing in heavy armor that it has no chance to kill.
Of course that can still support a trinity but you have to play a bit more actively.. which I would enjoy a lot more than the Mario brothers tactics most raids use instead...
It says everything about the trinity. If one person can manage a full trinity set up with controllable pets, how is it challenging to split that across three roles and multiple players?
The SWG example I used was simply to illustrate how simplistic straight trinity gameplay actually is. The second example I gave, of the old DAOC Scout duo I played in, was there to show how things could be if MMOs weren't so fixated on the trinity at the expense of all other possible class interdependencies.
Not that DAOC had it down, it was just that it was loosely designed enough to allow for other styles of group gameplay. Too many modern MMOs are too tightly designed around the trinity group play, and I think that's one of the reasons that gamers are tiring of MMOs. Group play is the area that has seen the least innovation in MMOs and it has become even more formulaic and less challenging (and therefore less interesting) over the past few years.
Let's try this again:
What you're describing is not the trinity. The trinity requires grouping, and it requires specialization. You're describing a solo generalist. Not the trinity.
What you're describing is the core traits of any game: progressing towards a goal (dealing damage, DPS), mitigating problems (damage mitigation, tanking), and recovery (which is really just another form of problem mitigation; CC is yet another form of problem mitigation.)
None of these traits make a game easy/hard or shallow/deep.
Only the specific balance of abilities and monsters determines that.
Given that, it's possible for a class which can "do everything" to experience incredibly challenging solo fights.
It all depends on how things are balanced -- not on whether you can do everything yourself (you can always do everything, if you can solo a mob.)
So what you've done is provided an example of a too-easy game, and made the mistake of assuming that it's the ability to "do everything" that made it easy -- when it fact that's not the case. The thing that made it easy was that it was balanced to be easy. That's it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I really think the root of the push back on the trinity was the difficulty making groups. In games where you have set roles for a group to be effective you need to assemble a team of those roles in order to play.
So in eq you would have to wait a long time if you were not one of the special roles that every group required. I think this was the beginning of the real push back on the trinity mechanic.
So to counter this you can say lets have roleless players where there are no set classes. This makes it far easier to assemble a group. However the game becomes rather bland and players don't like being all the same. So strick that approach.
Now several games have tried to minimize class differences while retaining some mechanics differences and visual flavor. Think guild wars 2. Unfortunately when you do have a group encounter the strategic dynamic of the fight tends to be lost. If all players are really undifferentiated and accustom to just going in and DPSing thats gonna be the case with any pickup groups. Maybe a group that plays together a lot will have some strategy but ultimately the lack of differentiation will make group fights zerg fests and un interesting.
Some games have tried being classless and letting players pick and choose skills to build the special character. So you can still have roles but players can change the roles of their characters on the fly. Unfortunately most players have to solo a lot and end up with a jack of all trades character as their leveling character. Then when grouping they really have no experience with any other role and for the most case want to play the character role they are used to. As a result groups are either roleless and non functional against tough encounters or you have the same problems making groups because less people that even in class based games will want to play a required role.
So I think EQ Next is going with this last option.
That said the trinity isn't necessarily dead it still needs to exist if you are going to have a role based combat. It sounds like eqn is going to put you in a role to start with and let you grow from there. It also won't have any long leveling requirement. So I take this that right out of the gate pretty much you will be able to play in groups and you will be playing a role in groups. So you still get to play a role and you won't spend a huge amount of required time leveling up your character. Then over time you gain the ability to diversify and play additional roles or make your role a custom hybrid.
In a good role based encounter the sum of the parts is greater than the individuals. So the trinity or some incarnation of it upgraded to newer AI is required. That doesn't mean that the roles or functions of the classes are the same as we are used to. Tanks won't maybe taunt but they will need to tank. Else what is the purpose of having a tank type character in a group? The mechanic and method of how they fight will be different.
People say PvP style fight shows that the trinity can't work because players are the best example of it not working. How would you feel as a player if a tank could force you to stop and fight him.... Never would work with players. However maybe PvP players are thinking within the limited context of the game. If you have a dps characters like a wizard, a healer like a cleric, and a tank like warrior. You would need to give each class abilities that would work with an AI and be reasonable within the context of that class and it's role.
So lets make the healer durable, invulnerabilty for a time and able to teleport
Lets give the tank stuns, bashes and the ability to knock oponents down. Maybe even block damage. Make him resistant to magic.
Give the dps the ability to slow, create illusions, maybe charm.
Now the AI becomes a lot more complicated. Build on this with variations with roots, mez, bufs, debufs, wards, and so on.
You don't have a taunt per say but if you construct the roles and abilities correctly you still end up with the same result but with very different abilities and skills. This is what I'm hoping if the direction eqn is going in.
1. You start as a role!
2. Abilities create the roles for an advanced AI.
3. Players gain the ability over time to switch roles and enhance existing roles.
The holy trinity essentially forces us into an archaic and rigid format with no new skills, classes or abilities.
1) Why is there no bard class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Bards are in Everquest.
2) Why is there no debuff class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Debuff classes are in Everquest, called Enchanter and Shaman.
3) Why is there no alchemist class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
The Alchemy class in Everquest is called Shaman.
4) Why are there no trading classes? Because they are not part of the holy trinity
a what?
5) Why are there usually no hybrid classes? Because they abuse the holy trinity
Half of the classes in Everquest are hybrids.
6) Why can't tanks deal decent damage? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Paladins do against undead in EQ
7) Why can't dps provide healing? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Rangers and Beastlords can heal in EQ
8) Why cant healers tank? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Clerics in EQ tanked Quarm and Paladins are healers
get a clue please
The quoted text generalized the trinity. Those things I replied to were in relation to trinity based games, which debunks that OP's argument.
This is an almost comical list of questions...
Lets have one class, DPS mage, with Tank armor, a big axe for killer melee damage, and healing. Why would anyone want to play anything else. Why can't we have just that? Because of the evil trinity. Is the original poster 8 years old??
For those of you who think that the Trinity was ditched to allow different types of gameplay, do you think the play you now have is better? Can you tell us what this playstyle is and how it is better? Mass brawl is how I would describe it and I can't see the appeal.
If MMO companies were truly trying to develop something different they would add have changed how groups work, not just removed the need for a healer and tank. In the same way Terra brought an interesting dodge to the combat mix what did removing class roles bring to gameplay?
The trinity was ditched purely to make MMO's as easymode as possible, as solo friendly as possible. However, lets say that this was an attempt at new gameplay, as ridiculous as that seems. Well I am all for us trying out something new, for giving the devs a chance and not jumping on them because they make a change. But if your idea of an advance in gameplay was removing a gameplay system and leaving nothing then it is hardly surprising that has not worked out.
So either bring back the trinity or come up with something else, 'nothing' as a gameplay system rarely works well.
The holy trinity essentially forces us into an archaic and rigid format with no new skills, classes or abilities.
1) Why is there no bard class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Bards are in Everquest.
2) Why is there no debuff class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Debuff classes are in Everquest, called Enchanter and Shaman.
3) Why is there no alchemist class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
The Alchemy class in Everquest is called Shaman.
4) Why are there no trading classes? Because they are not part of the holy trinity
a what?
5) Why are there usually no hybrid classes? Because they abuse the holy trinity
Half of the classes in Everquest are hybrids.
6) Why can't tanks deal decent damage? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Paladins do against undead in EQ
7) Why can't dps provide healing? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Rangers and Beastlords can heal in EQ
8) Why cant healers tank? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Clerics in EQ tanked Quarm and Paladins are healers
get a clue please
The quoted text generalized the trinity. Those things I replied to were in relation to trinity based games, which debunks that OP's argument.
This is an almost comical list of questions...
Lets have one class, DPS mage, with Tank armor, a big axe for killer melee damage, and healing. Why would anyone want to play anything else. Why can't we have just that? Because of the evil trinity. Is the original poster 8 years old??
Sound like Enhancement Shamans from WoW, or Druid Clerics from Rift.
THose are trinity games and have what you are looking for. so again. No idea what you are getting at.
The problem I see right now is balancing a game without the Trinity. Guild Wars 2 has an issue with this problem. Even though there is obviously a semi-trinity in place (Notice how there are still traits and stats geared towards certain roles? I noticed that immediately.) people just decided that going straight DPS is more "Efficient". What they do I would call mindless grinding....
The Secret World gets it right, classless play with an acknowledgement that the Trinity is in effect. They get around this by making different kind of healers and tanks and DPS. Are you a direct heal or heal over time. Do you throw up barriers? Are you an evasion tank or Damage soaker.
Otherwise, the Trinity provides balance where people cannot be expected to do the same....
Originally posted by moosecatlol Tanking as a whole is testament to bad AI programming.
because "good" AI programming is not desired by players.
Back in WOTLK, Blizz tried better AI in an encounter called Faction Champion. The mobs will go for mage/healers first, will use player abilities and CC players and so on. It is really not that difficult to program.
What happened? Players complained that it is too hard, and they nerfed it and never tried again.
Players don't want advanced AI. They want combat challenge as a pattern puzzle that can be figured out and beaten.
The holy trinity essentially forces us into an archaic and rigid format with no new skills, classes or abilities.
1) Why is there no bard class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Bards are in Everquest.
2) Why is there no debuff class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
Debuff classes are in Everquest, called Enchanter and Shaman.
3) Why is there no alchemist class? Because it's not part of the holy trinity
The Alchemy class in Everquest is called Shaman.
4) Why are there no trading classes? Because they are not part of the holy trinity
a what?
5) Why are there usually no hybrid classes? Because they abuse the holy trinity
Half of the classes in Everquest are hybrids.
6) Why can't tanks deal decent damage? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Paladins do against undead in EQ
7) Why can't dps provide healing? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Rangers and Beastlords can heal in EQ
8) Why cant healers tank? Because it abuses the holy trinity
Clerics in EQ tanked Quarm and Paladins are healers
get a clue please
Dude. EQ was made in 1999 when the trinity was not so much enforced. In fact ALL of your responses are simply "EQ did it". A bunch of other games did this too and they were dropped because "Bard classes were not fun" "Debuff only classes were too weak" "Buff only classes were not good", "Hybrid classes are too strong", and so on.
If you're going to make a response, try to use something that wasn't made almost 15 years ago
It says everything about the trinity. If one person can manage a full trinity set up with controllable pets, how is it challenging to split that across three roles and multiple players?
The SWG example I used was simply to illustrate how simplistic straight trinity gameplay actually is. The second example I gave, of the old DAOC Scout duo I played in, was there to show how things could be if MMOs weren't so fixated on the trinity at the expense of all other possible class interdependencies.
Not that DAOC had it down, it was just that it was loosely designed enough to allow for other styles of group gameplay. Too many modern MMOs are too tightly designed around the trinity group play, and I think that's one of the reasons that gamers are tiring of MMOs. Group play is the area that has seen the least innovation in MMOs and it has become even more formulaic and less challenging (and therefore less interesting) over the past few years.
Let's try this again:
What you're describing is not the trinity. The trinity requires grouping, and it requires specialization. You're describing a solo generalist. Not the trinity.
What you're describing is the core traits of any game: progressing towards a goal (dealing damage, DPS), mitigating problems (damage mitigation, tanking), and recovery (which is really just another form of problem mitigation; CC is yet another form of problem mitigation.)
None of these traits make a game easy/hard or shallow/deep.
Only the specific balance of abilities and monsters determines that.
Given that, it's possible for a class which can "do everything" to experience incredibly challenging solo fights.
It all depends on how things are balanced -- not on whether you can do everything yourself (you can always do everything, if you can solo a mob.)
So what you've done is provided an example of a too-easy game, and made the mistake of assuming that it's the ability to "do everything" that made it easy -- when it fact that's not the case. The thing that made it easy was that it was balanced to be easy. That's it.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm talking about personal experience. All the semantic arguments in the world aren't going to change my experience of dozens of games over a dozen or so years. That SWG example is just one example of one aspect of what I'm talking about and I'm not going to argue the toss over it.
Bottom line is this - more varieties of interpendence is good, one kind of interdepence isn't, but it's still better than none. All I want to see is an MMO that's opens up opportunities for more varied viable groups. In too many games too many classes are basically window dressing in groups, and as I said in my first post on this thread, I think this is why so many people solo now - it's the only way to feel like you're using more of your character's potential and getting some challenge out of the game.
Comments
Er, it actually doesn't say anything about the trinity.
The very nature of soloing assumes you're going to be able to mitigate damage (tank), DPS, and/or heal enough on your own to survive solo fights. So it's not automatically bad for a single class to be able to do everything while soloing -- that's just the nature of soloing!
The only thing that's bad is if a game's systems are so shallow that it's not ever challenging. But that has more to do with whether a game offers challenging solo gameplay at all (virtually all MMORPGs don't, and it's a missed opportunity.) It isn't related to a discussion on trinity at all really.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's totally not the case.
I will try to explain.
1) what you mean no bard class? rift has a bard soul. Again not sure what you are trying to get at there.
2) no debuff class? Did you play WoW? Even it has debuffer. That's what the warlock was titled as, before the hybrids got better offense tools in PvE. And not even going to get into PvP. Because that is full of debuffers in pvp trinity.So no idea what you going on about.
3) huh what ? Why can't it be? Depends on what the class is designed to do. Is it just a crafting profession or a combat class? If its the first, than that doesn't apply to the trinity since the trinity only deals with combat.
4) again trading is not a combat role. Trinity applies to combat roles, not non combat objectives. Can't believe you just went there with trading as an excuse against trinity. Seriously?
5) huh? WoW and Rift has hybrids. What are you talking about?
6) WoW and Rift both made changes to Tank Damage. We don't know how it is in WoW in MoP, but in CATA early release they buffed tanks and other hybrid roles damage. So again no idea what you are talking about.
7) what? Do you play Rift? Support role is a DPS with heals. That's what you just asked for. Again you are way off wi your argument.
8) I tank as a healer in pvp often when a tank or ccer miss a enemy target. Same in PvE. In WoW, you had a thing called HealTanking. Basically holding Aggro from self heals while keeping self alive. In Rift, the Justicar does just that( well in vanilla). So you are once again wrong.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
People who hate waiting for a tank/healer or support class decided it was bad.
The quoted text generalized the trinity. Those things I replied to were in relation to trinity based games, which debunks that OP's argument.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
People who can't find a tank or healer need to learn how to communicate instead of blaming the game.
The removal of holy trinity have everything to do with making games more casual friendly, and making games more solo friendly. It has nothing to do with AI, I don't get where people get this idea from. AI in games are still not smarter than gamers. The only thing that has changed these days is that everybody can tank, everybody can heal, everybody can cc, and everybody can dps. Mobs die just as fast and as quickly as before. This whole getting rid of holy trinity because AI has become too smart is a bunch of rubbish.
I'm saying this as someone who embraced the move for these MMO's to be more soloable. I don't have the time anymore to wait on groups or spend 6 hours camping in the same spot inside a dungeon. But let's be real. Games are making the move to simplify everything. Less abilities, less buttons, more powerful individual characters, less dependency on others, less dependency on other classes, everybody's a hero.
Holy trinity was not a bad thing, times just have changed. People bash WoW but yet that game utilizes holy trinity, but was able to find a way to still make the game casual friendly. Blizzard's a genius, it's amazing how almost 10 years now and people still don't get why that game was #1 for so long. It gave people what they wanted, soloability while leveling, holy trinity grouping & raiding endgame, smooth animation and combat, and PvP.
There's really nothing wrong with holy trinity, it's just that companies have found easier ways to develop games for the wider audience.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
For those of you who think that the Trinity was ditched to allow different types of gameplay, do you think the play you now have is better? Can you tell us what this playstyle is and how it is better? Mass brawl is how I would describe it and I can't see the appeal.
If MMO companies were truly trying to develop something different they would add have changed how groups work, not just removed the need for a healer and tank. In the same way Terra brought an interesting dodge to the combat mix what did removing class roles bring to gameplay?
The trinity was ditched purely to make MMO's as easymode as possible, as solo friendly as possible. However, lets say that this was an attempt at new gameplay, as ridiculous as that seems. Well I am all for us trying out something new, for giving the devs a chance and not jumping on them because they make a change. But if your idea of an advance in gameplay was removing a gameplay system and leaving nothing then it is hardly surprising that has not worked out.
So either bring back the trinity or come up with something else, 'nothing' as a gameplay system rarely works well.
That and companies need to stop trying to create MMORPG's for people who dont like MMORPG's or atleast brand their games as another genre.
It says everything about the trinity. If one person can manage a full trinity set up with controllable pets, how is it challenging to split that across three roles and multiple players?
The SWG example I used was simply to illustrate how simplistic straight trinity gameplay actually is. The second example I gave, of the old DAOC Scout duo I played in, was there to show how things could be if MMOs weren't so fixated on the trinity at the expense of all other possible class interdependencies.
Not that DAOC had it down, it was just that it was loosely designed enough to allow for other styles of group gameplay. Too many modern MMOs are too tightly designed around the trinity group play, and I think that's one of the reasons that gamers are tiring of MMOs. Group play is the area that has seen the least innovation in MMOs and it has become even more formulaic and less challenging (and therefore less interesting) over the past few years.
Trinity is not bad if you enjoy it...
Personally I think its rather odd to think that all the enemies should just run to one person and attack them... Combat should be more dynamic where they realize to attack a healer/dps instead of this thing in heavy armor that it has no chance to kill.
Of course that can still support a trinity but you have to play a bit more actively.. which I would enjoy a lot more than the Mario brothers tactics most raids use instead...
Let's try this again:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Most mobs tend to be animals or creatures. I have never seen an animal suddenly change to another prey.
Aggro onto a single person makes a lot of sense, you anger a creature and it attacks you and ignores everyone else, that's what happens with animals.
I really think the root of the push back on the trinity was the difficulty making groups. In games where you have set roles for a group to be effective you need to assemble a team of those roles in order to play.
So in eq you would have to wait a long time if you were not one of the special roles that every group required. I think this was the beginning of the real push back on the trinity mechanic.
So to counter this you can say lets have roleless players where there are no set classes. This makes it far easier to assemble a group. However the game becomes rather bland and players don't like being all the same. So strick that approach.
Now several games have tried to minimize class differences while retaining some mechanics differences and visual flavor. Think guild wars 2. Unfortunately when you do have a group encounter the strategic dynamic of the fight tends to be lost. If all players are really undifferentiated and accustom to just going in and DPSing thats gonna be the case with any pickup groups. Maybe a group that plays together a lot will have some strategy but ultimately the lack of differentiation will make group fights zerg fests and un interesting.
Some games have tried being classless and letting players pick and choose skills to build the special character. So you can still have roles but players can change the roles of their characters on the fly. Unfortunately most players have to solo a lot and end up with a jack of all trades character as their leveling character. Then when grouping they really have no experience with any other role and for the most case want to play the character role they are used to. As a result groups are either roleless and non functional against tough encounters or you have the same problems making groups because less people that even in class based games will want to play a required role.
So I think EQ Next is going with this last option.
That said the trinity isn't necessarily dead it still needs to exist if you are going to have a role based combat. It sounds like eqn is going to put you in a role to start with and let you grow from there. It also won't have any long leveling requirement. So I take this that right out of the gate pretty much you will be able to play in groups and you will be playing a role in groups. So you still get to play a role and you won't spend a huge amount of required time leveling up your character. Then over time you gain the ability to diversify and play additional roles or make your role a custom hybrid.
In a good role based encounter the sum of the parts is greater than the individuals. So the trinity or some incarnation of it upgraded to newer AI is required. That doesn't mean that the roles or functions of the classes are the same as we are used to. Tanks won't maybe taunt but they will need to tank. Else what is the purpose of having a tank type character in a group? The mechanic and method of how they fight will be different.
People say PvP style fight shows that the trinity can't work because players are the best example of it not working. How would you feel as a player if a tank could force you to stop and fight him.... Never would work with players. However maybe PvP players are thinking within the limited context of the game. If you have a dps characters like a wizard, a healer like a cleric, and a tank like warrior. You would need to give each class abilities that would work with an AI and be reasonable within the context of that class and it's role.
So lets make the healer durable, invulnerabilty for a time and able to teleport
Lets give the tank stuns, bashes and the ability to knock oponents down. Maybe even block damage. Make him resistant to magic.
Give the dps the ability to slow, create illusions, maybe charm.
Now the AI becomes a lot more complicated. Build on this with variations with roots, mez, bufs, debufs, wards, and so on.
You don't have a taunt per say but if you construct the roles and abilities correctly you still end up with the same result but with very different abilities and skills. This is what I'm hoping if the direction eqn is going in.
1. You start as a role!
2. Abilities create the roles for an advanced AI.
3. Players gain the ability over time to switch roles and enhance existing roles.
---
Ethion
This is an almost comical list of questions...
Lets have one class, DPS mage, with Tank armor, a big axe for killer melee damage, and healing. Why would anyone want to play anything else. Why can't we have just that? Because of the evil trinity. Is the original poster 8 years old??
---
Ethion
+1
Sound like Enhancement Shamans from WoW, or Druid Clerics from Rift.
THose are trinity games and have what you are looking for. so again. No idea what you are getting at.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
The problem I see right now is balancing a game without the Trinity. Guild Wars 2 has an issue with this problem. Even though there is obviously a semi-trinity in place (Notice how there are still traits and stats geared towards certain roles? I noticed that immediately.) people just decided that going straight DPS is more "Efficient". What they do I would call mindless grinding....
The Secret World gets it right, classless play with an acknowledgement that the Trinity is in effect. They get around this by making different kind of healers and tanks and DPS. Are you a direct heal or heal over time. Do you throw up barriers? Are you an evasion tank or Damage soaker.
Otherwise, the Trinity provides balance where people cannot be expected to do the same....
because "good" AI programming is not desired by players.
Back in WOTLK, Blizz tried better AI in an encounter called Faction Champion. The mobs will go for mage/healers first, will use player abilities and CC players and so on. It is really not that difficult to program.
What happened? Players complained that it is too hard, and they nerfed it and never tried again.
Players don't want advanced AI. They want combat challenge as a pattern puzzle that can be figured out and beaten.
Threat-based AI is a puzzle. It's gameplay. That makes it good AI (if we measure by fun.)
Smart AI is known, among developers who've tried it, to be bad AI in most cases.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Dude. EQ was made in 1999 when the trinity was not so much enforced. In fact ALL of your responses are simply "EQ did it". A bunch of other games did this too and they were dropped because "Bard classes were not fun" "Debuff only classes were too weak" "Buff only classes were not good", "Hybrid classes are too strong", and so on.
If you're going to make a response, try to use something that wasn't made almost 15 years ago
I'm not assuming anything, I'm talking about personal experience. All the semantic arguments in the world aren't going to change my experience of dozens of games over a dozen or so years. That SWG example is just one example of one aspect of what I'm talking about and I'm not going to argue the toss over it.
Bottom line is this - more varieties of interpendence is good, one kind of interdepence isn't, but it's still better than none. All I want to see is an MMO that's opens up opportunities for more varied viable groups. In too many games too many classes are basically window dressing in groups, and as I said in my first post on this thread, I think this is why so many people solo now - it's the only way to feel like you're using more of your character's potential and getting some challenge out of the game.