Originally posted by Loktofeit You've been very consistent in expressing that it isn't that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion, it is that you don't care there is a difference.
Wizard 101 (not sure its a MMO).
I think EVE has a very different group combat mechanic, but it is not a MMO in my eyes.
When I made that statement, I was hoping you would understand it is something to work on correcting and not something to proudly reinforce in your very next post.
This is for the other fellow - when did I say GW2 was not a MMO?
Loktofeit if that is your only answer, it seems to me you have no reply. You seem to know these games better than me, tell us what is different.
I am making an argument about mainstream MMOs, If you wish to widen this out to PvP in all games, then yes there have been changes. That does not answer my issues about where the MMO industry has gone.
You made it so that no one can give you an answer, because when you get an example that you don't like, you just stick your head in the sand and say "Thats not an MMO in my eyes."
Scot, I gave you a reply. You returned with this. Honestly, crap like that should get you punted from the forum or at least the thread, because you've been here long enough that a reply like that is either intentionally trying to provoke a negative response or simply a refusal to understand even the basics of the discussion you are interjecting in. I say 'refusal' because you have been posting here in these same types of threads for over a decade. If you don't understanding even the basics of the subject matter by now, it is because you simply don't want to.
It's like discussing mathematics and every time the number four comes up in an equation some guy jumps in to insist the solution is wrong because in their world the value of four is nine and a quarter.
It's pretty frustrating.
We are discussing group combat mechanics, I think its pretty fair not to put EVE in that discussion, because we cant compare like for like. Same for Wizard 101. But I am happy to hear about those combat systems, as I don't even know all those games I am not saying all of them are not MMOs. I just replied to what I had played.
Maybe this will make more sense to you. If the group combat PvP had evolved or just changed, it would have evolved in MMOs that have existed a long time. So has that happened? I don't see it, if anything it has just got more easymode, more non-existent. I am not saying we see no MMOs coming out with decent group combat mechanics either, ESO was good. But AAA used to always have them, now you just can't be sure what they will launch with.
No two players are going to always agree on what games are a MMO, I struggle to understand your beef with that. We are no different from all the others.
There is something to enjoy about having a defined role in the game world, knowing what you are supposed to bring to the table and how each member of the group can/will contribute. That stability for party play is something other types of combat have failed to rectify.
Action combat (for lack of a better term, or "Non-Trinity I suppose) is by no means bad or undesirable; however, it is my opinion that people play better and offer better experiences with each other when it is clear what each class/person is trying to do with their setup. Games like GW2, ESO, and the like do a poor job of giving the players an innate ability to understand what other players are trying to accomplish and how their playstyle will mesh with others. This leads to a bit of confusion, and diminishes the desire to work together towards common goals since when anonymous people group together in a less defined class setting, confusion most often follows.
I personally believe that the best party based system that could be offered for group play is one where the Trinity system is in effect, while also giving players the ability to change their roles to suit what needs to be done for particular groups. People always harp on the biggest negative with Trinity, which is having to rely on other people to play and sometimes missing that key element in the party (healer, tank, support). Allow players to be fluid in their class, being able to play multiple classes at a time or switch at a given moment (think FF14) while also having a defined Trinity based system which players can understand what roles need to be filled and played in a party situation. This, in my opinion, provides great flexibility which allows players to make up for the lack of available roles or players in a given situation while also creating necessary structure to group play.
I prefer a soft trinity. I am not for or against tanking but I am a fan of support, healing, and CC. GW1 accomplished this gloriously.
These non trinity MMOs do feel like everyone is just plain DPS and no defined roles - I hate it with a passion.
I love Trions approach with Rift, any class can be any role. I want to heal on my rogue? Swap to physician. I want to tank? Swap to Riftstalker. I want to Dps? Swap to whatever I prefer AoE or single target or even a mix of both. I want to support? Swap to Bard or similar. This is what an MMO should be in my opinion.
Certainly I feel that the encounters in non trinity raids and dungeons pale in comparison to trinity raids and dungeons. You don't feel the team work in non trinity, it just feels like every man for himself.. fuck those guys cuz I got my own heals and CC plus the DPS to boot. What is the point in even grouping, hell just make everything solo instanced may as well.
I prefer a soft trinity. I am not for or against tanking but I am a fan of support, healing, and CC. GW1 accomplished this gloriously.
These non trinity MMOs do feel like everyone is just plain DPS and no defined roles - I hate it with a passion.
I love Trions approach with Rift, any class can be any role. I want to heal on my rogue? Swap to physician. I want to tank? Swap to Riftstalker. I want to Dps? Swap to whatever I prefer AoE or single target or even a mix of both. I want to support? Swap to Bard or similar. This is what an MMO should be in my opinion.
Certainly I feel that the encounters in non trinity raids and dungeons pale in comparison to trinity raids and dungeons. You don't feel the team work in non trinity, it just feels like every man for himself.. fuck those guys cuz I got my own heals and CC plus the DPS to boot. What is the point in even grouping, hell just make everything solo instanced may as well.
The Rift approach was good, being able to swap your role made for more variety and allowed groups to form more easily as players could change their role to fit the group. That leads to one way of squaring the circle of solo and group, but it is not easily accessible, not easymode.
You have a different class in a group than you do solo, your group class. With its own role like healer, but back when soloing you switch to more rounded character.
I doubt switching to other classes and putting a different 'playing hat' on has been seen as easily accessible, so unfortunately I am not sure we will see that again in a hurry.
I prefer a soft trinity. I am not for or against tanking but I am a fan of support, healing, and CC. GW1 accomplished this gloriously.
These non trinity MMOs do feel like everyone is just plain DPS and no defined roles - I hate it with a passion.
I love Trions approach with Rift, any class can be any role. I want to heal on my rogue? Swap to physician. I want to tank? Swap to Riftstalker. I want to Dps? Swap to whatever I prefer AoE or single target or even a mix of both. I want to support? Swap to Bard or similar. This is what an MMO should be in my opinion.
Certainly I feel that the encounters in non trinity raids and dungeons pale in comparison to trinity raids and dungeons. You don't feel the team work in non trinity, it just feels like every man for himself.. fuck those guys cuz I got my own heals and CC plus the DPS to boot. What is the point in even grouping, hell just make everything solo instanced may as well.
The Rift approach was good, being able to swap your role made for more variety and allowed groups to form more easily as players could change their role to fit the group. That leads to one way of squaring the circle of solo and group, but it is not easily accessible, not easymode.
You have a different class in a group than you do solo, your group class. With its own role like healer, but back when soloing you switch to more rounded character.
I doubt switching to other classes and putting a different 'playing hat' on has been seen as easily accessible, so unfortunately I am not sure we will see that again in a hurry.
I agree with both post above as they address some good points.. I've played Rift for a bit, and while I liked some aspects of the game, other parts were just dull.. For me, most of the classes (roles) felt the same.. Unlike in the old age of gaming where playing a druid could never feel like playing a bard, or necro or chanter.. I blame most of this on the PvP crowd.. Lets be honest here, CLASSES are designed first and foremost for PvP balance, and given little to no consideration to PvE play.. This is why I think most combat mechanics steer away from trinity role playing, and lean towards action non-trinity play..
You can't have an EQ type chanter going around in a PvP battle MEZING and mind controlling other players for minutes on end.. You can't have an EQ type druid kiting a warrior to death.. Most of the skills and abilities in older games are just too OP for today's PvP Esport MMO's.. Look at Blizzard, they nerf the shit out of most class definiing skills in PvP play.. As I have always talked about, you can't have a vibrant exciting trinity combat while still pleasing the PvP crowd.. As long as companies are still trying to make their games both PvP and PvE playable, we'll continue to get half assed trinity role combat..
I prefer a soft trinity. I am not for or against tanking but I am a fan of support, healing, and CC. GW1 accomplished this gloriously.
These non trinity MMOs do feel like everyone is just plain DPS and no defined roles - I hate it with a passion.
I love Trions approach with Rift, any class can be any role. I want to heal on my rogue? Swap to physician. I want to tank? Swap to Riftstalker. I want to Dps? Swap to whatever I prefer AoE or single target or even a mix of both. I want to support? Swap to Bard or similar. This is what an MMO should be in my opinion.
Certainly I feel that the encounters in non trinity raids and dungeons pale in comparison to trinity raids and dungeons. You don't feel the team work in non trinity, it just feels like every man for himself.. fuck those guys cuz I got my own heals and CC plus the DPS to boot. What is the point in even grouping, hell just make everything solo instanced may as well.
The Rift approach was good, being able to swap your role made for more variety and allowed groups to form more easily as players could change their role to fit the group. That leads to one way of squaring the circle of solo and group, but it is not easily accessible, not easymode.
You have a different class in a group than you do solo, your group class. With its own role like healer, but back when soloing you switch to more rounded character.
I doubt switching to other classes and putting a different 'playing hat' on has been seen as easily accessible, so unfortunately I am not sure we will see that again in a hurry.
I agree with both post above as they address some good points.. I've played Rift for a bit, and while I liked some aspects of the game, other parts were just dull.. For me, most of the classes (roles) felt the same.. Unlike in the old age of gaming where playing a druid could never feel like playing a bard, or necro or chanter.. I blame most of this on the PvP crowd.. Lets be honest here, CLASSES are designed first and foremost for PvP balance, and given little to no consideration to PvE play.. This is why I think most combat mechanics steer away from trinity role playing, and lean towards action non-trinity play..
You can't have an EQ type chanter going around in a PvP battle MEZING and mind controlling other players for minutes on end.. You can't have an EQ type druid kiting a warrior to death.. Most of the skills and abilities in older games are just too OP for today's PvP Esport MMO's.. Look at Blizzard, they nerf the shit out of most class definiing skills in PvP play.. As I have always talked about, you can't have a vibrant exciting trinity combat while still pleasing the PvP crowd.. As long as companies are still trying to make their games both PvP and PvE playable, we'll continue to get half assed trinity role combat..
Just like you could have a class you only play in a group you could have a class you only play in PvP. So when I solo I am a fairly well rounded class, lets call my class Templar. I have a two handed sword and do some nice dps while wandering around in my plate armour. But when I go to a pvp arena or zone that changes. I picked Templar because in pvp they are healers. My class skills change in PvP and are heavily focused on healing. I still have the 2handed sword but I do less damage. I now wear red and white Templar robes not plate.
This switch would be automatic as you go in, no fuss. But we come up against the "accessibility" problem again. It is not easymode to have two styles of play for one class. Some players (no matter how few) would be put of and the driving force of easymode design is that no one is put off. No one. So again I don't see this sort of solution being brought in.
We are discussing group combat mechanics, I think its pretty fair not to put EVE in that discussion, because we cant compare like for like. Same for Wizard 101. But I am happy to hear about those combat systems, as I don't even know all those games I am not saying all of them are not MMOs. I just replied to what I had played.
Maybe this will make more sense to you. If the group combat PvP had evolved or just changed, it would have evolved in MMOs that have existed a long time. So has that happened? I don't see it, if anything it has just got more easymode, more non-existent. I am not saying we see no MMOs coming out with decent group combat mechanics either, ESO was good. But AAA used to always have them, now you just can't be sure what they will launch with.
No two players are going to always agree on what games are a MMO, I struggle to understand your beef with that. We are no different from all the others.
In the context of group combat mechanics, it doesn't matter whether a game is MMO or not. Or if you think it does, why don't you explain the connection?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
We are discussing group combat mechanics, I think its pretty fair not to put EVE in that discussion, because we cant compare like for like. Same for Wizard 101. But I am happy to hear about those combat systems, as I don't even know all those games I am not saying all of them are not MMOs. I just replied to what I had played.
Maybe this will make more sense to you. If the group combat PvP had evolved or just changed, it would have evolved in MMOs that have existed a long time. So has that happened? I don't see it, if anything it has just got more easymode, more non-existent. I am not saying we see no MMOs coming out with decent group combat mechanics either, ESO was good. But AAA used to always have them, now you just can't be sure what they will launch with.
No two players are going to always agree on what games are a MMO, I struggle to understand your beef with that. We are no different from all the others.
In the context of group combat mechanics, it doesn't matter whether a game is MMO or not. Or if you think it does, why don't you explain the connection?
Is that why you mentioned tabletop RPG's before? Sometimes I wonder if we are even talking about the same issues on here. I may see where you are coming from now. I was looking at group mechanics in MMOs, MMOs are a defined group from other gaming genres so it puzzles me you think I have to "explain a connection". My argument is that MMOs are losing trinity and nothing is replacing it. Obviously this is in the wider context of group mechanics you find in games, but are you saying they have not changed too? Otherwise I see no relevance here, do you want to talk about how chess has not changed much?
Accessibly leads to a game design that pleases us all somewhat, but no one a lot. By trying to please every player, you end up truly pleasing none. I point to the fact that modern easymode MMO's find it very hard to keep their player base beyond the first month. If you do not appeal to a core of players, that's what happens.
That's why we have different gaming genres. FPS does not suit everyone nor do point and click adventures. But what we see in MMOs is a merging of gameplay, giving soloing pre-eminence in a multiplayer game is one example of that.
So indeed MMO group combat mechanics are just a subset of gaming as a whole, but I don't see group interplay in FPS disappearing, I don't see the importance of being a medic or whatever there disappearing. It has in MMOs.
In the context of group combat mechanics, it doesn't matter whether a game is MMO or not. Or if you think it does, why don't you explain the connection?
Is that why you mentioned tabletop RPG's before? Sometimes I wonder if we are even talking about the same issues on here. I may see where you are coming from now. I was looking at group mechanics in MMOs, MMOs are a defined group from other gaming genres so it puzzles me you think I have to "explain a connection". My argument is that MMOs are losing trinity and nothing is replacing it. Obviously this is in the wider context of group mechanics you find in games, but are you saying they have not changed too? Otherwise I see no relevance here, do you want to talk about how chess has not changed much?
Yes, group combat mechanics have changed in other games too. I've noticed, to my distress, that many have tank 'n' spank combat in them.
Accessibly leads to a game design that pleases us all somewhat, but no one a lot. By trying to please every player, you end up truly pleasing none. I point to the fact that modern easymode MMO's find it very hard to keep their player base beyond the first month. If you do not appeal to a core of players, that's what happens.
That's why we have different gaming genres. FPS does not suit everyone nor do point and click adventures. But what we see in MMOs is a merging of gameplay, giving soloing pre-eminence in a multiplayer game is one example of that.
I think you are mixing few terms here. Making a game solo friendly doesn't make that game necessarily accessible. Accessibility means you have things like good introduction, good tutorials, intuitive UI to make it easier for people to start enjoying the game. Although accessiblity can suffer if the game gets too complicated or too "big" later in the game's lifespan (Magic the Gathering, D&D, Guild Wars 1), it is generally a good idea to begin with an accessible game and atleast attempt to keep it as accessible as possible.
Otherwise potential new customers would be discouraged to find out what the game is about (Eve Online and Baldur's Gate).
So indeed MMO group combat mechanics are just a subset of gaming as a whole, but I don't see group interplay in FPS disappearing, I don't see the importance of being a medic or whatever there disappearing. It has in MMOs.
Group interplay is not disappearing from MMOs either. Rest assured whenever there's a chance to specialize, there will be roles, and specialization isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It just might not be the tank 'n' spank style everyone is used to. And those aren't going to die off completely either.
However, it is discouraging to see so many people declare group combat a zerg when the game veers away from "the holy trinity" and spread doom & gloom when few games are finally trying something new. It shows some people don't know or cannot imagine cooperation beyond the traditional tank-heal-dps or tank-heal-cc.
Just chill, the boat is not sinking.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Scot But what we see in MMOs is a merging of gameplay, giving soloing pre-eminence in a multiplayer game is one example of that.
Solo play has always been a significant part of MMO gameplay. EQ was the exception, not the rule. I know that completely shatters a lot of ingrained beliefs for some, but the truth always hurts. Your argument is built of a rather emphatically false premise.
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
In the context of group combat mechanics, it doesn't matter whether a game is MMO or not. Or if you think it does, why don't you explain the connection?
Is that why you mentioned tabletop RPG's before? Sometimes I wonder if we are even talking about the same issues on here. I may see where you are coming from now. I was looking at group mechanics in MMOs, MMOs are a defined group from other gaming genres so it puzzles me you think I have to "explain a connection". My argument is that MMOs are losing trinity and nothing is replacing it. Obviously this is in the wider context of group mechanics you find in games, but are you saying they have not changed too? Otherwise I see no relevance here, do you want to talk about how chess has not changed much?
Yes, group combat mechanics have changed in other games too. I've noticed, to my distress, that many have tank 'n' spank combat in them.
Accessibly leads to a game design that pleases us all somewhat, but no one a lot. By trying to please every player, you end up truly pleasing none. I point to the fact that modern easymode MMO's find it very hard to keep their player base beyond the first month. If you do not appeal to a core of players, that's what happens.
That's why we have different gaming genres. FPS does not suit everyone nor do point and click adventures. But what we see in MMOs is a merging of gameplay, giving soloing pre-eminence in a multiplayer game is one example of that.
I think you are mixing few terms here. Making a game solo friendly doesn't make that game necessarily accessible. Accessibility means you have things like good introduction, good tutorials, intuitive UI to make it easier for people to start enjoying the game. Although accessiblity can suffer if the game gets too complicated or too "big" later in the game's lifespan (Magic the Gathering, D&D, Guild Wars 1), it is generally a good idea to begin with an accessible game and atleast attempt to keep it as accessible as possible.
Otherwise potential new customers would be discouraged to find out what the game is about (Eve Online and Baldur's Gate).
So indeed MMO group combat mechanics are just a subset of gaming as a whole, but I don't see group interplay in FPS disappearing, I don't see the importance of being a medic or whatever there disappearing. It has in MMOs.
Group interplay is not disappearing from MMOs either. Rest assured whenever there's a chance to specialize, there will be roles, and specialization isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It just might not be the tank 'n' spank style everyone is used to. And those aren't going to die off completely either.
However, it is discouraging to see so many people declare group combat a zerg when the game veers away from "the holy trinity" and spread doom & gloom when few games are finally trying something new. It shows some people don't know or cannot imagine cooperation beyond the traditional tank-heal-dps or tank-heal-cc.
Just chill, the boat is not sinking.
You are right that trinity has moved into areas where perhaps it should not, I do not see this as all one way, or that trinity is better than anything else that could be done. Only that if you remove it, replace it with something other than a zerg.
I am totally in favour of using accessibility in the way you describe. Unfortunately it has extended beyond that concept. One area where this effects MMOs is in the solo friendly play, which is seen as making games more accessible, as you do not need a group. Whatever words you use for it, merging gameplay so everyone is happy leads to games people do not want to play beyond the short term. It leads to games that are more limited in what they can do and what they expect their players to do in the making of good gameplay.
It is not all doom and gloom, that's just the way I see most MMOs going. There are many exceptions, TERRA has a good action combat system but the roles are not so defined. ESO is good at grouping, but you solo to top level. The direction of travel for the industry is for groups having less importance and therefore group class roles being less important. But it is not as if that is the whole story.
We do see co-operation in group events, but it is "anyone could stand here and do this" co-operation, what class you have is irrelevant. That adds something, but takes far too much away in return.
Loktofeit - The history of MMOs has been a move to solo-centric, driven by wanting to be accessible first to those playing solo PC games and then console players. Solo has always been there but over the years it has taken up more and more of the gameplay. You have been in the genre for over five years I am sure, so you can't have missed that.
Loktofeit - The history of MMOs has been a move to solo-centric, driven by wanting to be accessible first to those playing solo PC games and then console players. Solo has always been there but over the years it has taken up more and more of the gameplay. You have been in the genre for over five years I am sure, so you can't have missed that.
Again, your argument is built on the false premise that solo play has not always been a significant part of MMO gameplay. That is false. You are making up history to support your point which, when done in a group that actually does know history, seems like the least stellar direction to go.
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
Loktofeit - The history of MMOs has been a move to solo-centric, driven by wanting to be accessible first to those playing solo PC games and then console players. Solo has always been there but over the years it has taken up more and more of the gameplay. You have been in the genre for over five years I am sure, so you can't have missed that.
Again, your argument is built on the false premise that solo play has not always been a significant part of MMO gameplay. That is false. You are making up history to support your point which, when done in a group that actually does know history, seems like the least stellar direction to go.
From EQ to DAOC, from AC to AO it was virtually impossible to get to top level on your own. If you were prepared to put in uncounted hours maybe you could solo them, but players grouped so they could get to top level in the same year they joined the game! So in a sense you can say there was forced grouping, I see it as grouping being the best choice. For years now you can comfortably solo to top level in a couple of months, that's assuming you are not looking for short cuts. So I find it hard to understand what you are going on about there.
As for do I think grouping should not be optional? I give a reserved 'Yes'. In that I think we need more ways to lead players into grouping. Over the years there have been some innovations, but they tend to something like PvP scenarios, with the limited time you have to form tactics. These types of scenarios seem to be saying "this is where you group, it is not something you do during the normal course of the game." This is in stark contrast to something like a siege in AoC, which is far more group orientated. It is a tricky area, but if the rewards are there and they are the right kind of rewards you could tempt more players into grouping at earlier levels. After all that's what end game raiding does, that's what lower level group dungeons do.
You are always going to get those who do not like grouping, just like you will get those who do not like PvP. But we have seen how those who do like PvP can be tempted, the football PvP in SWTOR is an example. Make it not seem like straight pvp and you can draw more in. You can do the same for grouping, but it does not fit the easymode design philosophy so prevalent now. So I don't see it being pursued, if anything the reverse will happen.
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
Comments
We are discussing group combat mechanics, I think its pretty fair not to put EVE in that discussion, because we cant compare like for like. Same for Wizard 101. But I am happy to hear about those combat systems, as I don't even know all those games I am not saying all of them are not MMOs. I just replied to what I had played.
Maybe this will make more sense to you. If the group combat PvP had evolved or just changed, it would have evolved in MMOs that have existed a long time. So has that happened? I don't see it, if anything it has just got more easymode, more non-existent. I am not saying we see no MMOs coming out with decent group combat mechanics either, ESO was good. But AAA used to always have them, now you just can't be sure what they will launch with.
No two players are going to always agree on what games are a MMO, I struggle to understand your beef with that. We are no different from all the others.
There is something to enjoy about having a defined role in the game world, knowing what you are supposed to bring to the table and how each member of the group can/will contribute. That stability for party play is something other types of combat have failed to rectify.
Action combat (for lack of a better term, or "Non-Trinity I suppose) is by no means bad or undesirable; however, it is my opinion that people play better and offer better experiences with each other when it is clear what each class/person is trying to do with their setup. Games like GW2, ESO, and the like do a poor job of giving the players an innate ability to understand what other players are trying to accomplish and how their playstyle will mesh with others. This leads to a bit of confusion, and diminishes the desire to work together towards common goals since when anonymous people group together in a less defined class setting, confusion most often follows.
I personally believe that the best party based system that could be offered for group play is one where the Trinity system is in effect, while also giving players the ability to change their roles to suit what needs to be done for particular groups. People always harp on the biggest negative with Trinity, which is having to rely on other people to play and sometimes missing that key element in the party (healer, tank, support). Allow players to be fluid in their class, being able to play multiple classes at a time or switch at a given moment (think FF14) while also having a defined Trinity based system which players can understand what roles need to be filled and played in a party situation. This, in my opinion, provides great flexibility which allows players to make up for the lack of available roles or players in a given situation while also creating necessary structure to group play.
I prefer a soft trinity. I am not for or against tanking but I am a fan of support, healing, and CC. GW1 accomplished this gloriously.
These non trinity MMOs do feel like everyone is just plain DPS and no defined roles - I hate it with a passion.
I love Trions approach with Rift, any class can be any role. I want to heal on my rogue? Swap to physician. I want to tank? Swap to Riftstalker. I want to Dps? Swap to whatever I prefer AoE or single target or even a mix of both. I want to support? Swap to Bard or similar. This is what an MMO should be in my opinion.
Certainly I feel that the encounters in non trinity raids and dungeons pale in comparison to trinity raids and dungeons. You don't feel the team work in non trinity, it just feels like every man for himself.. fuck those guys cuz I got my own heals and CC plus the DPS to boot. What is the point in even grouping, hell just make everything solo instanced may as well.
The Rift approach was good, being able to swap your role made for more variety and allowed groups to form more easily as players could change their role to fit the group. That leads to one way of squaring the circle of solo and group, but it is not easily accessible, not easymode.
You have a different class in a group than you do solo, your group class. With its own role like healer, but back when soloing you switch to more rounded character.
I doubt switching to other classes and putting a different 'playing hat' on has been seen as easily accessible, so unfortunately I am not sure we will see that again in a hurry.
Soft Trinity describes non-trinity in reality perfectly, where cc can in itself be a form of tanking, e.g grab aggro, slow and kite boss.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I agree with both post above as they address some good points.. I've played Rift for a bit, and while I liked some aspects of the game, other parts were just dull.. For me, most of the classes (roles) felt the same.. Unlike in the old age of gaming where playing a druid could never feel like playing a bard, or necro or chanter.. I blame most of this on the PvP crowd.. Lets be honest here, CLASSES are designed first and foremost for PvP balance, and given little to no consideration to PvE play.. This is why I think most combat mechanics steer away from trinity role playing, and lean towards action non-trinity play..
You can't have an EQ type chanter going around in a PvP battle MEZING and mind controlling other players for minutes on end.. You can't have an EQ type druid kiting a warrior to death.. Most of the skills and abilities in older games are just too OP for today's PvP Esport MMO's.. Look at Blizzard, they nerf the shit out of most class definiing skills in PvP play.. As I have always talked about, you can't have a vibrant exciting trinity combat while still pleasing the PvP crowd.. As long as companies are still trying to make their games both PvP and PvE playable, we'll continue to get half assed trinity role combat..
Just like you could have a class you only play in a group you could have a class you only play in PvP. So when I solo I am a fairly well rounded class, lets call my class Templar. I have a two handed sword and do some nice dps while wandering around in my plate armour. But when I go to a pvp arena or zone that changes. I picked Templar because in pvp they are healers. My class skills change in PvP and are heavily focused on healing. I still have the 2handed sword but I do less damage. I now wear red and white Templar robes not plate.
This switch would be automatic as you go in, no fuss. But we come up against the "accessibility" problem again. It is not easymode to have two styles of play for one class. Some players (no matter how few) would be put of and the driving force of easymode design is that no one is put off. No one. So again I don't see this sort of solution being brought in.
It is mind boggling to see someone railing against accessibility. I'm sure you have misunderstood something fundamental somewhere along the way.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
In the context of group combat mechanics, it doesn't matter whether a game is MMO or not. Or if you think it does, why don't you explain the connection?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Is that why you mentioned tabletop RPG's before? Sometimes I wonder if we are even talking about the same issues on here. I may see where you are coming from now. I was looking at group mechanics in MMOs, MMOs are a defined group from other gaming genres so it puzzles me you think I have to "explain a connection". My argument is that MMOs are losing trinity and nothing is replacing it. Obviously this is in the wider context of group mechanics you find in games, but are you saying they have not changed too? Otherwise I see no relevance here, do you want to talk about how chess has not changed much?
Accessibly leads to a game design that pleases us all somewhat, but no one a lot. By trying to please every player, you end up truly pleasing none. I point to the fact that modern easymode MMO's find it very hard to keep their player base beyond the first month. If you do not appeal to a core of players, that's what happens.
That's why we have different gaming genres. FPS does not suit everyone nor do point and click adventures. But what we see in MMOs is a merging of gameplay, giving soloing pre-eminence in a multiplayer game is one example of that.
So indeed MMO group combat mechanics are just a subset of gaming as a whole, but I don't see group interplay in FPS disappearing, I don't see the importance of being a medic or whatever there disappearing. It has in MMOs.
Yes, group combat mechanics have changed in other games too. I've noticed, to my distress, that many have tank 'n' spank combat in them.
I think you are mixing few terms here. Making a game solo friendly doesn't make that game necessarily accessible. Accessibility means you have things like good introduction, good tutorials, intuitive UI to make it easier for people to start enjoying the game. Although accessiblity can suffer if the game gets too complicated or too "big" later in the game's lifespan (Magic the Gathering, D&D, Guild Wars 1), it is generally a good idea to begin with an accessible game and atleast attempt to keep it as accessible as possible.
Otherwise potential new customers would be discouraged to find out what the game is about (Eve Online and Baldur's Gate).
Group interplay is not disappearing from MMOs either. Rest assured whenever there's a chance to specialize, there will be roles, and specialization isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It just might not be the tank 'n' spank style everyone is used to. And those aren't going to die off completely either.
However, it is discouraging to see so many people declare group combat a zerg when the game veers away from "the holy trinity" and spread doom & gloom when few games are finally trying something new. It shows some people don't know or cannot imagine cooperation beyond the traditional tank-heal-dps or tank-heal-cc.
Just chill, the boat is not sinking.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Solo play has always been a significant part of MMO gameplay. EQ was the exception, not the rule. I know that completely shatters a lot of ingrained beliefs for some, but the truth always hurts. Your argument is built of a rather emphatically false premise.
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
You are right that trinity has moved into areas where perhaps it should not, I do not see this as all one way, or that trinity is better than anything else that could be done. Only that if you remove it, replace it with something other than a zerg.
I am totally in favour of using accessibility in the way you describe. Unfortunately it has extended beyond that concept. One area where this effects MMOs is in the solo friendly play, which is seen as making games more accessible, as you do not need a group. Whatever words you use for it, merging gameplay so everyone is happy leads to games people do not want to play beyond the short term. It leads to games that are more limited in what they can do and what they expect their players to do in the making of good gameplay.
It is not all doom and gloom, that's just the way I see most MMOs going. There are many exceptions, TERRA has a good action combat system but the roles are not so defined. ESO is good at grouping, but you solo to top level. The direction of travel for the industry is for groups having less importance and therefore group class roles being less important. But it is not as if that is the whole story.
We do see co-operation in group events, but it is "anyone could stand here and do this" co-operation, what class you have is irrelevant. That adds something, but takes far too much away in return.
Loktofeit - The history of MMOs has been a move to solo-centric, driven by wanting to be accessible first to those playing solo PC games and then console players. Solo has always been there but over the years it has taken up more and more of the gameplay. You have been in the genre for over five years I am sure, so you can't have missed that.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Again, your argument is built on the false premise that solo play has not always been a significant part of MMO gameplay. That is false. You are making up history to support your point which, when done in a group that actually does know history, seems like the least stellar direction to go.
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
From EQ to DAOC, from AC to AO it was virtually impossible to get to top level on your own. If you were prepared to put in uncounted hours maybe you could solo them, but players grouped so they could get to top level in the same year they joined the game! So in a sense you can say there was forced grouping, I see it as grouping being the best choice. For years now you can comfortably solo to top level in a couple of months, that's assuming you are not looking for short cuts. So I find it hard to understand what you are going on about there.
As for do I think grouping should not be optional? I give a reserved 'Yes'. In that I think we need more ways to lead players into grouping. Over the years there have been some innovations, but they tend to something like PvP scenarios, with the limited time you have to form tactics. These types of scenarios seem to be saying "this is where you group, it is not something you do during the normal course of the game." This is in stark contrast to something like a siege in AoC, which is far more group orientated. It is a tricky area, but if the rewards are there and they are the right kind of rewards you could tempt more players into grouping at earlier levels. After all that's what end game raiding does, that's what lower level group dungeons do.
You are always going to get those who do not like grouping, just like you will get those who do not like PvP. But we have seen how those who do like PvP can be tempted, the football PvP in SWTOR is an example. Make it not seem like straight pvp and you can draw more in. You can do the same for grouping, but it does not fit the easymode design philosophy so prevalent now. So I don't see it being pursued, if anything the reverse will happen.
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