There are folks who enjoy managing the group/encounters: Here are the classes I want. Here are the players I want. Here is what I want you to do. Here is what you will do. Nothing wrong with that, to each their own. But, It's nice to play something different also.
Also, I keep seeing the common assertion that trinity structures bring structure to combat. Only problem is, the combat is already structured (scripted). So what I'm really hearing is, "I uncomfortable palying a game in which combat scripts cannot be memorized."
One thing the SOE developers keep saying over and over again is that trinitiy structures are just silly within a wise AI system, because the whole point is that mobs will adjust strategy and tactics based on what they see us doing. Well, this is aside from the fact having one dude stand in front of the mob hurling insults while 3 to 5 healers dumps heals on him and everyone else nukes the crap out of the mob is really kind of silly on it's own.
There is plenty of room for tactics and strategies within games with multiclassing and action combat. There are also still roles, and if anything, a group of good cooperative players will be even more important than it was before. The only difference is, now folks are also going to have be more creative, do more than simply study parsers to extract the script, and have everyone target through the tank and start mashing buttons.
Is the trinity more structured? Of course it is. Is it interesting? Not really.
I'm not going to get into the rest of your statement.. but I do want to address that highlighted portion.. That is what we are TOLD is that "their" AI mobs are too smart to be fooled by the trinity..... That is just hogwash silly strawman argument by the devs and they damn well know it.. They act if they are doing us a favor, allowing people to do dps, but mobs are too smart to ignore the healer in the shadows.. Lets assume Mr Smart Mob says, "screw this, I'm taking out the healer".. ( that shit used to happen a lot in original EQ early days).. It was very common for someone such as myself to say, "OH NO YOU DON'T, leave my healer alone".... I used to have macros that said that, the split second I "rooted" his ass in the corner.. Or an Enchanter would step up with their macro saying, "Mez the gnoll, you break it, you own it".. and POOF.. the add was taken care of..... Those OPTIONS were NEVER considered in EQN... They were ignored, and instead went the way of Zerg DPS..
In my opinion having a variety of class roles as states is far more dynamic and challenging then just hack and slash zerging.. and in case the devs are reading any of this.. I haven't drank "KOOL AID" since I was a kid
There are folks who enjoy managing the group/encounters: Here are the classes I want. Here are the players I want. Here is what I want you to do. Here is what you will do. Nothing wrong with that, to each their own. But, It's nice to play something different also.
Also, I keep seeing the common assertion that trinity structures bring structure to combat. Only problem is, the combat is already structured (scripted). So what I'm really hearing is, "I uncomfortable palying a game in which combat scripts cannot be memorized."
One thing the SOE developers keep saying over and over again is that trinitiy structures are just silly within a wise AI system, because the whole point is that mobs will adjust strategy and tactics based on what they see us doing. Well, this is aside from the fact having one dude stand in front of the mob hurling insults while 3 to 5 healers dumps heals on him and everyone else nukes the crap out of the mob is really kind of silly on it's own.
There is plenty of room for tactics and strategies within games with multiclassing and action combat. There are also still roles, and if anything, a group of good cooperative players will be even more important than it was before. The only difference is, now folks are also going to have be more creative, do more than simply study parsers to extract the script, and have everyone target through the tank and start mashing buttons.
Is the trinity more structured? Of course it is. Is it interesting? Not really.
I'm not going to get into the rest of your statement.. but I do want to address that highlighted portion.. That is what we are TOLD is that "their" AI mobs are too smart to be fooled by the trinity..... That is just hogwash silly strawman argument by the devs and they damn well know it.. They act if they are doing us a favor, allowing people to do dps, but mobs are too smart to ignore the healer in the shadows.. Lets assume Mr Smart Mob says, "screw this, I'm taking out the healer".. ( that shit used to happen a lot in original EQ early days).. It was very common for someone such as myself to say, "OH NO YOU DON'T, leave my healer alone".... I used to have macros that said that, the split second I "rooted" his ass in the corner.. Or an Enchanter would step up with their macro saying, "Mez the gnoll, you break it, you won it".. and POOF.. the add was taken care of..... Those OPTIONS were NEVER considered in EQN... They were ignored, and instead went the way of Zerg DPS..
In my opinion having a variety of class roles as states is far more dynamic and challenging then just hack and slash zerging.. and in case the devs are reading any of this.. I haven't drank "KOOL AID" since I was a kid
Well, I understand what you're saying. I will also say that the section you hi-lighted was intended to be placed in context with the all the other things I said.
Look, if folks like playing structured combat games, fine. Keep playing what you're playing. But why waste all the energy walking around the eqn forums complaining that it's the game that it is?
This just speculation and inference, but it seems like majority of the complaints are coming from players who enjoy playing tanks and healers, so the mindful effort to reduce group dependencies on these two classes would probably tick me off a bit also. However, as I almost always play a scouts because I like them.
When EQ2 first came out, I played a ranger main......
Then I played a warlock main.....
Then I played a swashbuckler main.....
Then I went back to my ranger main ....
(Any of you who raided eq2 will understand that progression.....)
Then I got fed-up, tired, bored with adjusting to the flavor of the month and just stopped playing.
This aside, I'm excited about the ability to customize my game play and to NEVER have to roll another alt or main again. I'm also excited about the AI elements and the dynamic game play.
Healers will still be needed. Tanks will still be needed. However, what SOE has done is tried to minimize how my game play and ability to enjoy the game is effected by the presence of other classes.
I do however agree with you about the zerging stuff. I also found that it is possible to group with players who don't play this way, and for really hard encounters, this will certianly lead to a wipe. One still needs intelligent strategy and tactics, and for me, this means transcending trinity structured content mechanics to make the fight more dynamic and interesting, even if it changes the traditional power and dependency structures of the trinity.
I am all for people wanting to fulfill a role in a group but it's how that seems to be changing for the better IMO. Instead of a tank holding aggro and positioning a mob for the duration of a fight, they're going to need to use things like shield bash and dash to keep mobs away from other members.
It's been said that in EQN the mob AI will not register threat priority based on the standard method. It's not going to keep attacking the tank when others are beating it to death. Movement and the tanks ability to use its skills to rescue group members will be key. As a tank I would be excited because you can still build your character for defense but it will take skill to be a good one. Having competent group members also seems important as you can't do it all and they will need to make sure they are paying attention.
One important thing is for SoE to make fights hard enough so the system works with roles. When the round tables start I'd be pushing this if you want to see it in EQN.
This just speculation and inference, but it seems like majority of the complaints are coming from players who enjoy playing tanks and healers, so the mindful effort to reduce group dependencies on these two classes would probably tick me off a bit also. However, as I almost always play a scouts because I like them.
When EQ2 first came out, I played a ranger main......
Then I played a warlock main.....
Then I played a swashbuckler main.....
Then I went back to my ranger main ....
(Any of you who raided eq2 will understand that progression.....)
Then I got fed-up, tired, bored with adjusting to the flavor of the month and just stopped playing.
This aside, I'm excited about the ability to customize my game play and to NEVER have to roll another alt or main again. I'm also excited about the AI elements and the dynamic game play.
Healers will still be needed. Tanks will still be needed. However, what SOE has done is tried to minimize how my game play and ability to enjoy the game is effected by the presence of other classes.
I do however agree with you about the zerging stuff. I also found that it is possible to group with players who don't play this way, and for really hard encounters, this will certianly lead to a wipe. One still needs intelligent strategy and tactics, and for me, this means transcending trinity structured content mechanics to make the fight more dynamic and interesting, even if it changes the traditional power and dependency structures of the trinity.
OK I highlighted those two sections.. First.. EVERY game I have ever played from original EQ to WoW, to CoH, to Rift, to TOR, to whatever, there is always a MIN / MAX flavor of the month thing going on.. That will never stop unless you just have a one class game... Now secondly you say, Healers and Tanks are still needed.. but that is direct contradiction and stance you took earlier that people shouldn't be dependent on roles... What if 5 guys like you come together and NONE of you want to do a heal or tank skill.. Still needed? You can't have it both ways.. I have played GW2 since the first day, and there is no dynamics to that game.. I play all 5 characters the same way.. I have #1 button on auto, and I follow the group around mashing buttons 2 thru 6 as needed.. ADDS mean nothing, Someone drops, I run over and "revive".. then keep on Zerging..
I like GW2 honestly, but it is the easiest and most brain dead combat I have ever done.. I have played EQ, EQII, SWG, CoH, Rift, TOR, GW2 and WoW.. Even Diablo 3 is more challenging then GW2.. No offense Arenet, I like ya guys..
I am obviously missing something......is the article wrong? did one of the panel videos dispell this? Could someone link where people are getting the impression their won't be a trinity?
trinity all the way , the boss encounter scripts w/o trinity are boring
but oh well... with 8 skills only.....the bosses are going to be boring , no matter trinity or not
EQ1 had 8 skills/spells, and the bosses were amazing.
Spamming aggro and threat abilities is less boring than strategically reacting to a situation? Having to save someone because the monster is mad they are doing huge damage?
They never said there would be no aggro. There is still room for snap aggro and short term disabling of monsters. There said there will be no tank-in-corner-spam-taunt mechanic.
I am obviously missing something......is the article wrong? did one of the panel videos dispell this? Could someone link where people are getting the impression their won't be a trinity?
You are correct. People are just complaining that it isn't familiar enough.
It is like me saying, 'I'm making cookies!', and then saying that the cookies are made with raisins, rather than chocolate chips. There will be a group of people that say, 'That isn't a cookie!'. Hell yes it is a cookie.
Like I said before, there can still be aggro. Just not 100% all time sit-in-corner aggro.
I am obviously missing something......is the article wrong? did one of the panel videos dispell this? Could someone link where people are getting the impression their won't be a trinity?
Zorgo.. my impression tells me that EQN will be 90% dps and 10% other.... So technically, I guess heals, tanking, cc and support are still in the game.but at the lesser 10% level.. JUST because it's there, doesn't mean it's going to be useful.... That is the issue I have and concern.. If we all are playing nothing more then a DPS hybrid class, it won't take long before groups evolve and learn to ignore the 10%, and just concentrate on maxing the 90% DPS (like GW2 did)..
My answer to ALL of this is make buttons 1-4 DPS and leave buttons 5-8 class defined.. So if non trinity groups get into a fight, they can mash 1-4 buttons all day long.. But if trinity groups want to keep with tank, heals and cc.... they have the option to use buttons 5-8 Problem solved.. This is what I haven't heard from the EQN panel and they were very elusive how they responded when trinity was brought up..
From my point of view there is innovation that is truly new and refreshing and moves the genre forward and there is innovation for the sake of innovation that doesn't do anything to move the genre forward.
I don't believe the Trinity system was broken and in need of major overhaul in MMOs. What I see is that companies simply dumbed the trinity down so far that people felt it was broken.
Back when EQ was at its height, or hell, even Vanilla WoW, group combat was hard and people all had things to do. The problem I see with the trinity is that games like WoW have stripped it down so that Aggro doesn't matter and everything is a zerg, well for 5-man encounters anyway.
For me it would go a long way to have a new game go back to the trinity system and partially take it back to its roots and also innovate slightly off that.
When there were truly tight aggro tables the mobs did react appropriately within their limited AI script. The tank went in and if you were a DPS you damn well better hold off on attacking a few seconds for the tank to grab aggro, or you were toast. Groups had to utilize 'cc' because it was virtually impossible for a tank to hold threat on more then 2-3 mobs. You had better assist of the right target (the one the tank had highest threat on) because if you didn't the mob would break for you and you were probably toast.
These encounters were like controlled chaos. If you had good players, who communicated, and knew their roles then things could go smoothly, but if not they became just as chaotic as games like GW2 with mobs bouncing around to all different characters and other mobs targetting different players.
My take would be to make aggro and aggro management matter again. Let their be true tanks, but give them limited 'snap' aggro abilities. Go back to where it was just as much the DPS and healers job to manage aggro as the tank.
If you want to change and innovate then just make sure every class is a form of hybrid to help alleviate the one major issue with the trinity and that is not being able to get groups easily as you wait on a tank or healer. Why can't a mage/wizard tank? I'm not saying have them switch to a warrior either. I'm saying, why can't they have some talent tree, or talent abilities or whatever where they focus their magic on defense. They create magical shields and such for themselves. Games like Rift already allow a Rogue-type to evasion tank.
Why can't the necromancer/warlock type heal? They could do cool things where they steal the life force from the enemies and their minions to heal people, etc.
I agree with those who say that trinity combat is still the most compelling in that you can make the best encounters. To me, the innovation shouldn't be to totally remove the trinity, but rather to innovate on it and the classes that make it up, along with going back to the older days where aggro and "cc" were important.
People who refer to loaded terminology to say what they want in not so many words, actually do not know what they want, or did not articulate what they wanted.
Trinity is a loaded term. Its a label and a category with a certain aspect that defines the trinity, and its class roles.
However, what anyone wants is fun combat. But instead of saying i want combat to be easy, dynamic, balanced or whatever issue or joy of combat they generalize it to trinity or not trinity.
Stop derailing discussions and using generalizations. Its not useful, and especially not helping to get what you want.
Since i could argue that the trinity exists in EQN by them simply having class roles.
I am not sure if people are just angry and negative and want to watch the world burn, or in their attempt to get what they want they add obscurity to what is fun combat.
Well, what us fun combat. Can you say it without using the word trinity? I believe you will find yourself realizing that EQN might have what you want.
However, they are marketing against the trinity system. Yet that seems contradictory to theorycrafting that EQN has class roles. Maybe by no trinity, they mean content will not force healers to be in a group, or even a tank. Does that mean content is easier, difficult, different? Well we dont know, but the A.I. is intelligent, and the combat can feel as distinguished as the roles of a trinity.
Again, using trinity vs non trinity, are loaded terms which are not even clearly defined.
What is the difference between trinity and non trinity? And what would you like from either, or neither?
Thats a real question.
Iam sorry. This may all be new to you in how developers exploit marketing. But many of us know what developers mean when they say no trinity. It means just that, no Aggro control mechanics that we have dirrect access to. Aka no tank.
healing isn't a focused role, aka everybody has access to quality heals, including the top DPS nukers.
and DPS role never is removed in a combat game. So really it becomes the only role left behind.
the PvE becomes a "kill before being killed" Zerg match like in everyother MMO non trinity game.
show us examples of this not being the case for large scale PvE, then maybe you would have an argument.
This just speculation and inference, but it seems like majority of the complaints are coming from players who enjoy playing tanks and healers, so the mindful effort to reduce group dependencies on these two classes would probably tick me off a bit also. However, as I almost always play a scouts because I like them.
When EQ2 first came out, I played a ranger main......
Then I played a warlock main.....
Then I played a swashbuckler main.....
Then I went back to my ranger main ....
(Any of you who raided eq2 will understand that progression.....)
Then I got fed-up, tired, bored with adjusting to the flavor of the month and just stopped playing.
This aside, I'm excited about the ability to customize my game play and to NEVER have to roll another alt or main again. I'm also excited about the AI elements and the dynamic game play.
Healers will still be needed. Tanks will still be needed. However, what SOE has done is tried to minimize how my game play and ability to enjoy the game is effected by the presence of other classes.
I do however agree with you about the zerging stuff. I also found that it is possible to group with players who don't play this way, and for really hard encounters, this will certianly lead to a wipe. One still needs intelligent strategy and tactics, and for me, this means transcending trinity structured content mechanics to make the fight more dynamic and interesting, even if it changes the traditional power and dependency structures of the trinity.
OK I highlighted those two sections.. First.. EVERY game I have ever played from original EQ to WoW, to CoH, to Rift, to TOR, to whatever, there is always a MIN / MAX flavor of the month thing going on.. That will never stop unless you just have a one class game... Now secondly you say, Healers and Tanks are still needed.. but that is direct contradiction and stance you took earlier that people shouldn't be dependent on roles... What if 5 guys like you come together and NONE of you want to do a heal or tank skill.. Still needed? You can't have it both ways.. I have played GW2 since the first day, and there is no dynamics to that game.. I play all 5 characters the same way.. I have #1 button on auto, and I follow the group around mashing buttons 2 thru 6 as needed.. ADDS mean nothing, Someone drops, I run over and "revive".. then keep on Zerging..
I like GW2 honestly, but it is the easiest and most brain dead combat I have ever done.. I have played EQ, EQII, SWG, CoH, Rift, TOR, GW2 and WoW.. Even Diablo 3 is more challenging then GW2.. No offense Arenet, I like ya guys..
Poorly articulated on my part, so my apologies.
I love min/maxing, both at the character and the group or raid level. What I don't love is being forced to roll a new character to do it. I loathe this, and I'm mostly done with it (Allthough I still like eq2 and will keep playing it).
Regarding tanks/healer roles and dependencies, there are two points I'm attempting to make here.
The first is that multi-classing provides the group flexibility. I agree with the panels, that sitting around waiting for a healer or tank to log on so I can engage some of the content can be frustrating. So, if the new structure can provide me with new ways to entertain myself that are just as challening, I'm all for it.
Secondly, I wasn't trying to imply that content can our should be rolled without a tank or healer. In the multi-classing games I've played, pure healers and tanks were still required to beat the encounters. And this was kind of the point that was trying to make, is that while yes, the in-group dependencies of trinity are being disrupted based on changes to combat mechanics, but, the interelated dependencies or various roles still exist.
So, I suppose to actually be parsimonious about this (and again, this is just MY opinion):
(1) I like the added flexibility that muli-classing provides to my game play, both from a personal perspective and from a group one.
(2) I've become bored with trinity-based combat mechanics, which to me, are little more the script memorizing where everyone targets through the tank and employs "whack-a-mole" button mashing for what ever is not on cooldown. Let the tank pin the mob, throw in the jousting and in-combat gear switches based on the form of attack you know is coming, and that's the fight. I'm not saying it can't be hard, but I am saying it's not all that interesting.
Do you remember the days of earlier WoW when you could put symbols on the heads of mobs.. That wasn't just for decoration.. Tank square, Off tank triangle, Sleep moon.. etc etc.. Everyone had to be alert to the fights.. Those fights were dynamic as was the early ones in EQ..... BUT YES, today's trinity isn't that anymore, they became AOE taunt DPS zergs.. Pally runs in, pulls agro on ALL 4 mobs (screw cc) , healer heals and DPS just AOE burns them down.. That is the prime example of trinity GONE BAD.. but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. FIX IT instead..
With the current trash/boss dungeon design trinity is still required. If devs designed dungeons differently so that it focuses on the abilities of the players and not blowing the crap out of everything we can get away from the trinity, until then we are stuck with it.
Was there a genuine backlash against the trinity or was it a marketing gimmick for games like GW2 that unsuccessfully tried to break away from tradition? I lost interest in WoW years ago but not because of the way it handled classes.
I feel like this whole 'sandbox vs. theme park' meme is also a marketing gimmick meant to encourage simplistic thinking. It turns people into reactionary extremists incapable of defining exactly what they want in an MMO without first putting it through a 'right or wrong' filter. I really wish people would resist using these terms because it takes shades of gray completely out of the conversation.
The backlash came from some decisions A.Net made and those have changed, for the better. The only backlash I see is on this forum, which is a real minority but a vocal one.
So, one of the primary topics now seems to be the lack of a trinity (or possible lack of it) for EQNext.. It wasn't very long ago that a great number of people (many of them being tired of WoW's mechanics) were screaming and yelling about being rid of the trinity all together.. This discontent seemed to almost directly spawn the genesis of GW2, which many heralded as amazing for its lack of trinity.. But now, hilariously enough, EQNext's not-too-clear stance on the trinity has brought out throngs of trinity-loving statements all over the place..
So.. If you were able to discuss the trinity with the next generation of game developers, what would you say? Where do you stand on the whole trinity issue.. Are you for it? Against it?
That's fairly easy to explain. No trinity sounded freaking awesome. So people were optimistic about it, then when they tried it they realized it didn't work and are now wanting the system back. I myself NEVER liked the idea of no trinity because I love to tank and see no reason I should be forced into being a glass cannon.
Since when were you ever forced?
You pick the type of character that you want to play, and you play it.
My suggestion for bad group play? Stop playing with pubs, and play with guild mates who have characters designed for a particular role.
Perhaps certain games are designed around he players not going the typical 'trinity' route. However, those trinity concepts are always very important in group play. You should have a tank class. You should have a healer. You should probably have some sort of hybrid utility class. You should have a ranged damage dealer. You should also probably have a melee damage dealer. More balance is always better. As others have said, it also promotes strategy and teamwork.
Why couldn't you do this in EQN? Why can't I take skills (for example), from all 6 of the tank oriented classes? Combine them to use all of my favorite tank like abilities. Play as a tank. You guys do know that even though you can take skills from 40+ classes, you don't have to take skills that don't fit well with one another right? I mean, as a tank, would you pick up a spell that increases your intelligence? Highly unlikely unless your class was based around something very unconventional for tanks.
EQN is giving people choice. They are allowing players to do what they want for the most part. This also means, they are allowing players to make really stupid choices. So, as a player, don't make a stupid choice. Build characters that are efficient and particularly strong in one or two areas. Use common sense.
I am obviously missing something......is the article wrong? did one of the panel videos dispell this? Could someone link where people are getting the impression their won't be a trinity?
Zorgo.. my impression tells me that EQN will be 90% dps and 10% other.... So technically, I guess heals, tanking, cc and support are still in the game.but at the lesser 10% level.. JUST because it's there, doesn't mean it's going to be useful.... That is the issue I have and concern.. If we all are playing nothing more then a DPS hybrid class, it won't take long before groups evolve and learn to ignore the 10%, and just concentrate on maxing the 90% DPS (like GW2 did)..
My answer to ALL of this is make buttons 1-4 DPS and leave buttons 5-8 class defined.. So if non trinity groups get into a fight, they can mash 1-4 buttons all day long.. But if trinity groups want to keep with tank, heals and cc.... they have the option to use buttons 5-8 Problem solved.. This is what I haven't heard from the EQN panel and they were very elusive how they responded when trinity was brought up..
This is what causes problems. Don't give me percentage numbers of what the game will be until we have a chance to try out their system! The 90/10 metric is surely wrong. Why does everyone always give the least amount of credit?
The game has promise and it will be amazing or horrible when it is available.
Oh Brom.. you missed a good era of trinity then with original EQ pre PoP.. Trust me, it was far from being whack a mole trinity.. DPS had to watch what they were doing.. Tank had to be alert (there was only one taunt) button and it was NOT AOE either.. Healers had to be careful, and as a caster, I better be patient with my cast or I'll be dead in seconds, and nothing tank can do to prevent it.. Those are the days I and others want back, and it wasn't delivered..
With the current trash/boss dungeon design trinity is still required. If devs designed dungeons differently so that it focuses on the abilities of the players and not blowing the crap out of everything we can get away from the trinity, until then we are stuck with it.
Not true. If done with group coordination, like on mumble or vent, you can go through dungeons with out the trinity. The trinity is designed not to be adjustable. One needs to actually communicate with your group to get through, with the trinity not so much.
Originally posted by Rydeson Oh Brom.. you missed a good era of trinity then with original EQ pre PoP.. Trust me, it was far from being whack a mole trinity.. DPS had to watch what they were doing.. Tank had to be alert (there was only one taunt) button and it was NOT AOE either.. Healers had to be careful, and as a caster, I better be patient with my cast or I'll be dead in seconds, and nothing tank can do to prevent it.. Those are the days I and others want back, and it wasn't delivered..
Likely true. I didn't play Eq. I started playing these games right when eq2 came out, and have played different styles since that time (trinity, action combat; single class, multi-class).
I had more fun in the first 3 dungeons of FFXIV:ARR, and playing through old Vanilla WoW dungeons while leveling a new toon, than I ever had in a dungeon in GW2.
Originally posted by Rydeson Oh Brom.. you missed a good era of trinity then with original EQ pre PoP.. Trust me, it was far from being whack a mole trinity.. DPS had to watch what they were doing.. Tank had to be alert (there was only one taunt) button and it was NOT AOE either.. Healers had to be careful, and as a caster, I better be patient with my cast or I'll be dead in seconds, and nothing tank can do to prevent it.. Those are the days I and others want back, and it wasn't delivered..
The core game though, for grinding and collection (ts/gear) was wack a mole. Events were build on top of that. Multiple adds hindered your group, because of the one-taunt-button mechanic. Big AE hurt, because mana limitations for healers. If you pulled correctly in a group, which was fun in itself, you'd have a set number of mobs to deal with. CC was a big part of it, yes. But generally, standing in front of one mob at a time having someone keep stabbing him in the back could be augmented by smarter AI, having the frog react to what is happening to him, instead of being a dummy getting hit on.
I think there is more than one way to accomplish a fun game. I hope they make sense of all of the things they have promised.
I would prefer a system more akin to GW1 than GW2.
In GW1 you had dedicated healers, but every class could spec for self healing if they were willing to give up something in return (damage, control, interrupts). There were no tanks in GW1, but you could position yourself to intercept damage for your healers or provide damage reduction for the group with shouts / debuffs.
I really hope that EQN has a place for dedicated healers, otherwise my partner will flat out refuse to play, and the game will suck for me haha. There needs to be healing clerics / druids / shaman at the very minimum. I don't care if they DPS as well, as long as the heals and support is there to allow for that kind of specialised role group play.
Tanks? Eh I kind of agree that they are outdated, forced threat mechanics are stupid. I would rather they gave shield / defensive warriors interrupts, shield push backs / slams, hamstrings and damage debuffs (sever tendon -> lowers attack damage) to help protect their friends, rather than cussing and magically having everything run at them.
If it's done like GW2 I will never bother with dungeons because I can't stand playing PONG which is basically what I feel like when I'm in one of the dungeons on that game... There was no need for anything besides DPS because it was just easier to burn the mob down faster then bother with any other build.....
I was one of the people praising the no trinity design until I actually got to try it myself and it was terrible GW2 has some of the worst dungeons I have ever seen in any mmo IMO.....
I really hope that EQN developers don't make the same mistake.....
It already kinda makes me sad that there is no traditional healer but I can live with a class that is healing suppot as long as I feel like I'm able to provide something to that affect.....And not like in GW2 where it's not even worth it because the healing is so weak compared to just being outright DPS..........
But if they just expect everyone to be a DPS I won't even bother with it.........
Guild Wars 2 was originally praised for its lack of trinity because it seemed like a good idea, an innovative idea.
It turns out, we were wrong. Did you play GW2? The group play was awful. The dungeons were awful. There was no reason to focus on being a support player, leaving everyone to just build a max DPS character. In dungeons, it was every man/woman for him/herself just spamming attacks and running around in chaos. No tactics. No group play. No coordination. Sure, there might be a few minor exceptions on very specific dungeons, but in a nutshell, spamming keys and running was all it was.
In light of that, we know all know that the trinity is good for group gameplay. It encourages things like I mentioned earlier; tactics and coordination. The complexity of dungeons in trinity-based games vastly exceeds the level of complexity in a non-trinity game. There is just such better combat and more potential for exciting dungeons.
GW2 system is amazing. It was developed so your skills as a player are being used, and thus you play your character and not your UI. Many would argue that it is more challenging in dungeons than trinity, and once again those folks are skilled and have no problems. sidenote: Folks say GW2 is to easy yet they complain that it also is to hard. hmmm
Either way, the trinity system is the furthest worry on my mind for this title. There are way more concerns than how how individuals play a role in a group. Either way, trinity or Non-trinity, players will work together and mobs will go down, it just depends on the experience/skill of each person.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Comments
I'm not going to get into the rest of your statement.. but I do want to address that highlighted portion.. That is what we are TOLD is that "their" AI mobs are too smart to be fooled by the trinity..... That is just hogwash silly strawman argument by the devs and they damn well know it.. They act if they are doing us a favor, allowing people to do dps, but mobs are too smart to ignore the healer in the shadows.. Lets assume Mr Smart Mob says, "screw this, I'm taking out the healer".. ( that shit used to happen a lot in original EQ early days).. It was very common for someone such as myself to say, "OH NO YOU DON'T, leave my healer alone".... I used to have macros that said that, the split second I "rooted" his ass in the corner.. Or an Enchanter would step up with their macro saying, "Mez the gnoll, you break it, you own it".. and POOF.. the add was taken care of..... Those OPTIONS were NEVER considered in EQN... They were ignored, and instead went the way of Zerg DPS..
In my opinion having a variety of class roles as states is far more dynamic and challenging then just hack and slash zerging.. and in case the devs are reading any of this.. I haven't drank "KOOL AID" since I was a kid
Well, I understand what you're saying. I will also say that the section you hi-lighted was intended to be placed in context with the all the other things I said.
Look, if folks like playing structured combat games, fine. Keep playing what you're playing. But why waste all the energy walking around the eqn forums complaining that it's the game that it is?
This just speculation and inference, but it seems like majority of the complaints are coming from players who enjoy playing tanks and healers, so the mindful effort to reduce group dependencies on these two classes would probably tick me off a bit also. However, as I almost always play a scouts because I like them.
When EQ2 first came out, I played a ranger main......
Then I played a warlock main.....
Then I played a swashbuckler main.....
Then I went back to my ranger main ....
(Any of you who raided eq2 will understand that progression.....)
Then I got fed-up, tired, bored with adjusting to the flavor of the month and just stopped playing.
This aside, I'm excited about the ability to customize my game play and to NEVER have to roll another alt or main again. I'm also excited about the AI elements and the dynamic game play.
Healers will still be needed. Tanks will still be needed. However, what SOE has done is tried to minimize how my game play and ability to enjoy the game is effected by the presence of other classes.
I do however agree with you about the zerging stuff. I also found that it is possible to group with players who don't play this way, and for really hard encounters, this will certianly lead to a wipe. One still needs intelligent strategy and tactics, and for me, this means transcending trinity structured content mechanics to make the fight more dynamic and interesting, even if it changes the traditional power and dependency structures of the trinity.
It's been said that in EQN the mob AI will not register threat priority based on the standard method. It's not going to keep attacking the tank when others are beating it to death. Movement and the tanks ability to use its skills to rescue group members will be key. As a tank I would be excited because you can still build your character for defense but it will take skill to be a good one. Having competent group members also seems important as you can't do it all and they will need to make sure they are paying attention.
One important thing is for SoE to make fights hard enough so the system works with roles. When the round tables start I'd be pushing this if you want to see it in EQN.
OK I highlighted those two sections.. First.. EVERY game I have ever played from original EQ to WoW, to CoH, to Rift, to TOR, to whatever, there is always a MIN / MAX flavor of the month thing going on.. That will never stop unless you just have a one class game... Now secondly you say, Healers and Tanks are still needed.. but that is direct contradiction and stance you took earlier that people shouldn't be dependent on roles... What if 5 guys like you come together and NONE of you want to do a heal or tank skill.. Still needed? You can't have it both ways.. I have played GW2 since the first day, and there is no dynamics to that game.. I play all 5 characters the same way.. I have #1 button on auto, and I follow the group around mashing buttons 2 thru 6 as needed.. ADDS mean nothing, Someone drops, I run over and "revive".. then keep on Zerging..
I like GW2 honestly, but it is the easiest and most brain dead combat I have ever done.. I have played EQ, EQII, SWG, CoH, Rift, TOR, GW2 and WoW.. Even Diablo 3 is more challenging then GW2.. No offense Arenet, I like ya guys..
" But let's be clear here: EQN will sport the trinity and traditional class roles. Healers, Support, Crowd Control, DPS, Tanks, rejoice!"
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/952/feature/7640/EverQuest-Next-The-Future-of-the-MMORPG-Lies-in-Norrath.html
I am obviously missing something......is the article wrong? did one of the panel videos dispell this? Could someone link where people are getting the impression their won't be a trinity?
EQ1 had 8 skills/spells, and the bosses were amazing.
Spamming aggro and threat abilities is less boring than strategically reacting to a situation? Having to save someone because the monster is mad they are doing huge damage?
They never said there would be no aggro. There is still room for snap aggro and short term disabling of monsters. There said there will be no tank-in-corner-spam-taunt mechanic.
You are correct. People are just complaining that it isn't familiar enough.
It is like me saying, 'I'm making cookies!', and then saying that the cookies are made with raisins, rather than chocolate chips. There will be a group of people that say, 'That isn't a cookie!'. Hell yes it is a cookie.
Like I said before, there can still be aggro. Just not 100% all time sit-in-corner aggro.
Zorgo.. my impression tells me that EQN will be 90% dps and 10% other.... So technically, I guess heals, tanking, cc and support are still in the game.but at the lesser 10% level.. JUST because it's there, doesn't mean it's going to be useful.... That is the issue I have and concern.. If we all are playing nothing more then a DPS hybrid class, it won't take long before groups evolve and learn to ignore the 10%, and just concentrate on maxing the 90% DPS (like GW2 did)..
My answer to ALL of this is make buttons 1-4 DPS and leave buttons 5-8 class defined.. So if non trinity groups get into a fight, they can mash 1-4 buttons all day long.. But if trinity groups want to keep with tank, heals and cc.... they have the option to use buttons 5-8
Problem solved.. This is what I haven't heard from the EQN panel and they were very elusive how they responded when trinity was brought up..
Yes. The class and Q&A Panel. I don't have time to link them here, but if you take a few minutes to look, the info is simple to find.
From my point of view there is innovation that is truly new and refreshing and moves the genre forward and there is innovation for the sake of innovation that doesn't do anything to move the genre forward.
I don't believe the Trinity system was broken and in need of major overhaul in MMOs. What I see is that companies simply dumbed the trinity down so far that people felt it was broken.
Back when EQ was at its height, or hell, even Vanilla WoW, group combat was hard and people all had things to do. The problem I see with the trinity is that games like WoW have stripped it down so that Aggro doesn't matter and everything is a zerg, well for 5-man encounters anyway.
For me it would go a long way to have a new game go back to the trinity system and partially take it back to its roots and also innovate slightly off that.
When there were truly tight aggro tables the mobs did react appropriately within their limited AI script. The tank went in and if you were a DPS you damn well better hold off on attacking a few seconds for the tank to grab aggro, or you were toast. Groups had to utilize 'cc' because it was virtually impossible for a tank to hold threat on more then 2-3 mobs. You had better assist of the right target (the one the tank had highest threat on) because if you didn't the mob would break for you and you were probably toast.
These encounters were like controlled chaos. If you had good players, who communicated, and knew their roles then things could go smoothly, but if not they became just as chaotic as games like GW2 with mobs bouncing around to all different characters and other mobs targetting different players.
My take would be to make aggro and aggro management matter again. Let their be true tanks, but give them limited 'snap' aggro abilities. Go back to where it was just as much the DPS and healers job to manage aggro as the tank.
If you want to change and innovate then just make sure every class is a form of hybrid to help alleviate the one major issue with the trinity and that is not being able to get groups easily as you wait on a tank or healer. Why can't a mage/wizard tank? I'm not saying have them switch to a warrior either. I'm saying, why can't they have some talent tree, or talent abilities or whatever where they focus their magic on defense. They create magical shields and such for themselves. Games like Rift already allow a Rogue-type to evasion tank.
Why can't the necromancer/warlock type heal? They could do cool things where they steal the life force from the enemies and their minions to heal people, etc.
I agree with those who say that trinity combat is still the most compelling in that you can make the best encounters. To me, the innovation shouldn't be to totally remove the trinity, but rather to innovate on it and the classes that make it up, along with going back to the older days where aggro and "cc" were important.
Iam sorry. This may all be new to you in how developers exploit marketing. But many of us know what developers mean when they say no trinity. It means just that, no Aggro control mechanics that we have dirrect access to. Aka no tank.
healing isn't a focused role, aka everybody has access to quality heals, including the top DPS nukers.
and DPS role never is removed in a combat game. So really it becomes the only role left behind.
the PvE becomes a "kill before being killed" Zerg match like in everyother MMO non trinity game.
show us examples of this not being the case for large scale PvE, then maybe you would have an argument.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Poorly articulated on my part, so my apologies.
I love min/maxing, both at the character and the group or raid level. What I don't love is being forced to roll a new character to do it. I loathe this, and I'm mostly done with it (Allthough I still like eq2 and will keep playing it).
Regarding tanks/healer roles and dependencies, there are two points I'm attempting to make here.
The first is that multi-classing provides the group flexibility. I agree with the panels, that sitting around waiting for a healer or tank to log on so I can engage some of the content can be frustrating. So, if the new structure can provide me with new ways to entertain myself that are just as challening, I'm all for it.
Secondly, I wasn't trying to imply that content can our should be rolled without a tank or healer. In the multi-classing games I've played, pure healers and tanks were still required to beat the encounters. And this was kind of the point that was trying to make, is that while yes, the in-group dependencies of trinity are being disrupted based on changes to combat mechanics, but, the interelated dependencies or various roles still exist.
So, I suppose to actually be parsimonious about this (and again, this is just MY opinion):
(1) I like the added flexibility that muli-classing provides to my game play, both from a personal perspective and from a group one.
(2) I've become bored with trinity-based combat mechanics, which to me, are little more the script memorizing where everyone targets through the tank and employs "whack-a-mole" button mashing for what ever is not on cooldown. Let the tank pin the mob, throw in the jousting and in-combat gear switches based on the form of attack you know is coming, and that's the fight. I'm not saying it can't be hard, but I am saying it's not all that interesting.
Exactly Grim.. PERFECT..
Do you remember the days of earlier WoW when you could put symbols on the heads of mobs.. That wasn't just for decoration.. Tank square, Off tank triangle, Sleep moon.. etc etc.. Everyone had to be alert to the fights.. Those fights were dynamic as was the early ones in EQ..... BUT YES, today's trinity isn't that anymore, they became AOE taunt DPS zergs.. Pally runs in, pulls agro on ALL 4 mobs (screw cc) , healer heals and DPS just AOE burns them down.. That is the prime example of trinity GONE BAD.. but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. FIX IT instead..
With the current trash/boss dungeon design trinity is still required. If devs designed dungeons differently so that it focuses on the abilities of the players and not blowing the crap out of everything we can get away from the trinity, until then we are stuck with it.
The backlash came from some decisions A.Net made and those have changed, for the better. The only backlash I see is on this forum, which is a real minority but a vocal one.
Since when were you ever forced?
You pick the type of character that you want to play, and you play it.
My suggestion for bad group play? Stop playing with pubs, and play with guild mates who have characters designed for a particular role.
Perhaps certain games are designed around he players not going the typical 'trinity' route. However, those trinity concepts are always very important in group play. You should have a tank class. You should have a healer. You should probably have some sort of hybrid utility class. You should have a ranged damage dealer. You should also probably have a melee damage dealer. More balance is always better. As others have said, it also promotes strategy and teamwork.
Why couldn't you do this in EQN? Why can't I take skills (for example), from all 6 of the tank oriented classes? Combine them to use all of my favorite tank like abilities. Play as a tank. You guys do know that even though you can take skills from 40+ classes, you don't have to take skills that don't fit well with one another right? I mean, as a tank, would you pick up a spell that increases your intelligence? Highly unlikely unless your class was based around something very unconventional for tanks.
EQN is giving people choice. They are allowing players to do what they want for the most part. This also means, they are allowing players to make really stupid choices. So, as a player, don't make a stupid choice. Build characters that are efficient and particularly strong in one or two areas. Use common sense.
This is what causes problems. Don't give me percentage numbers of what the game will be until we have a chance to try out their system! The 90/10 metric is surely wrong. Why does everyone always give the least amount of credit?
The game has promise and it will be amazing or horrible when it is available.
Not true. If done with group coordination, like on mumble or vent, you can go through dungeons with out the trinity. The trinity is designed not to be adjustable. One needs to actually communicate with your group to get through, with the trinity not so much.
Likely true. I didn't play Eq. I started playing these games right when eq2 came out, and have played different styles since that time (trinity, action combat; single class, multi-class).
Trinity. 100%
I had more fun in the first 3 dungeons of FFXIV:ARR, and playing through old Vanilla WoW dungeons while leveling a new toon, than I ever had in a dungeon in GW2.
The core game though, for grinding and collection (ts/gear) was wack a mole. Events were build on top of that. Multiple adds hindered your group, because of the one-taunt-button mechanic. Big AE hurt, because mana limitations for healers. If you pulled correctly in a group, which was fun in itself, you'd have a set number of mobs to deal with. CC was a big part of it, yes. But generally, standing in front of one mob at a time having someone keep stabbing him in the back could be augmented by smarter AI, having the frog react to what is happening to him, instead of being a dummy getting hit on.
I think there is more than one way to accomplish a fun game. I hope they make sense of all of the things they have promised.
I would prefer a system more akin to GW1 than GW2.
In GW1 you had dedicated healers, but every class could spec for self healing if they were willing to give up something in return (damage, control, interrupts). There were no tanks in GW1, but you could position yourself to intercept damage for your healers or provide damage reduction for the group with shouts / debuffs.
I really hope that EQN has a place for dedicated healers, otherwise my partner will flat out refuse to play, and the game will suck for me haha. There needs to be healing clerics / druids / shaman at the very minimum. I don't care if they DPS as well, as long as the heals and support is there to allow for that kind of specialised role group play.
Tanks? Eh I kind of agree that they are outdated, forced threat mechanics are stupid. I would rather they gave shield / defensive warriors interrupts, shield push backs / slams, hamstrings and damage debuffs (sever tendon -> lowers attack damage) to help protect their friends, rather than cussing and magically having everything run at them.
I'm in the wait and see category.
If it's done like GW2 I will never bother with dungeons because I can't stand playing PONG which is basically what I feel like when I'm in one of the dungeons on that game... There was no need for anything besides DPS because it was just easier to burn the mob down faster then bother with any other build.....
I was one of the people praising the no trinity design until I actually got to try it myself and it was terrible GW2 has some of the worst dungeons I have ever seen in any mmo IMO.....
I really hope that EQN developers don't make the same mistake.....
It already kinda makes me sad that there is no traditional healer but I can live with a class that is healing suppot as long as I feel like I'm able to provide something to that affect.....And not like in GW2 where it's not even worth it because the healing is so weak compared to just being outright DPS..........
But if they just expect everyone to be a DPS I won't even bother with it.........
GW2 system is amazing. It was developed so your skills as a player are being used, and thus you play your character and not your UI. Many would argue that it is more challenging in dungeons than trinity, and once again those folks are skilled and have no problems. sidenote: Folks say GW2 is to easy yet they complain that it also is to hard. hmmm
Either way, the trinity system is the furthest worry on my mind for this title. There are way more concerns than how how individuals play a role in a group. Either way, trinity or Non-trinity, players will work together and mobs will go down, it just depends on the experience/skill of each person.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.