Instead what we got are dev cheat coads of mirroring roles. Defeating the purpose of defined roles if you can do hybrid your character to not need to cooperate with others of course you are going to. They clearly have no intension of making content hard enough to need a tank or dedicated healer they basically have told us this.
This is exactly what I fear is gonna happen and here's why:
The act of roleplaying an adventure implies you fight, explore, interact. The part of the adventure that we seem to be arguing about most is the fight part. There's two ways to fight, both alone and in groups: With discipline or without.
As any member of military or any martial arts expert will tell you, there is a huge difference between fighting with discipline and without it. Fighting with discipline is always more efficient and effective than fighting without it. But discipline is not always required to win. If you are stronger than your opponent and/or luckier then you can win without discipline. However, discipline in combat shows its value when facing a force greater than your own, and it is there where tactics are truly needed if you want to win consistently without luck.
To fight with discipline means to have structure; a framework that forms you or your group's responses when faced with any combat scenario. The structure of group combat is determined by roles; responsibilities that each member of a group will fulfill in a grand fighting scenario. Roleplayers like the principle of assigning "roles" in combat scenarios because people inherently know that structured combat against a stronger opponent is more likely to succeed than an unstructured approach. The designation of roles makes a struggle feel more lifelike; because without the need for roles to consistently win implies that the players are either stronger than the enemy (and thus it is easy) or just very lucky.
Tanks and healers are just some of the many roles that roleplayers have invented over the years to give structure to combat scenarios. The"holy trinity" is by no means necessary for combat to have structure though. The only thing that is needed for structure in combat is roles for the players to fulfill.
At its core, the only "role" that any fight in a game requires is DPS. The reason for this is because the only way to "win" an encounter is to do enough damage to kill the enemy or make it give up. Sure you could theoretically design a game with different victory objectives like distracting the enemy, surviving a certain amount of time or luring them to a certain location, but such games are seldom made. Assuming that EQN will employ the standard combat objective of hurting/killing the enemy then the statement that tanks/healers will not be NEEDED is very concerning to me due to the aforementioned "necessity" of DPS in any hurt/kill combat scenario.
Almost by definition, a DIFFICULT encounter is one which has a number of REQUIREMENTS that need to be met in order to be completed. Obviously the more REQUIREMENTS that an encounter has, the more difficult it is. As we've already established in a hurt/kill scenario the only irreplaceable requirement is DPS, whether the fight be hard or easy. Now if a fight does not REQUIRE tanking or healing (as a "holy trinity" structure of combat would) in order to be successful, what does it require? I am by no means saying that tanking or healing are the only roles that can be required for success in a combat scenario but for structured combat to take place some kinds of roles/responsibilities need to be required for it to be considered difficult. And if it's not difficult? Then I would find it boring.
Now there is one way that I can think of that would allow for all kinds of roles to be deemed "unnecessary" and yet could still make the encounters be difficult and require structure: Allow for multiple WAYS to achieve "victory" (as mentioned earlier) in any given encounter. In such a system even DPS would not always be a required role to achieve victory; if none of the players felt like playing that way. I would like to think that with their "advanced AI" the SOE devs plan to pursue something along these lines but I suspect that they intend to mostly go with the standard kill/hurt scenarios based on so many mentions of "killing" the enemies in their interviews. If that is the case then I do have reason to worry about the possible lack of structure in EQN's group combat.
In summary: Assuming that the standard "victory condition" in EQN is kill/hurt, then the only NECESSARY role is DPS. If the other roles ARE NOT NECESSARY then combat strategies may very well be overly simplistic (because everything works).
I know that until we actually play the game everything is speculation, but I would like to hear specific ways from players or even the devs themselves that they can make this work out without making the content easy or the classes shallow. I've layed out a perfectly reasonable argument why making roles other than DPS unnecessary in kill/hurt scenarios does not lend itself well to structured group combat. Can you think of specific ways to avoid this problem? The only one I can think of is multiple "victory conditions" per combat scenario.
As a final roleplay thought: The reason people wear heavy armor is to be able to survive getting hit. If heavy armor/tank "classes" have no mechanics of forcing the enemy to hit them then what's the point of wearing the armor in the first place? I am truly hoping that if they do allow tank playstyles to exist they implement some form of way to force the enemy to hit them, maybe not through something as simplistic as threat or taunts but rather through giving them CC, bodyblocking or something else like the "tanks" do in MOBAs (where the enemies are REAL PEOPLE and still get forced to attack them when played well). That would actually be pretty cool.
your completely right the only way to take out those roles and have it work it to completely change the way mechanics work and I'm talking down to a is hp used anymore does armor class exsist are their other systems in place such as and just making this up
3 seriate hp bars one represents physical fortitude one represents mental fortitude and one represents hp they all regenerate over time
the higher physical fortitude is the faster hp regenerates
if physical fortitude is to high it will be almost impossible to bring the mob down. physical fortitude can be brought down by skills that specifically damage it, such as crippling moves snares etc etc
mental fortitude changes goes up or down how fast physical fortitude regenerates
mental fortitude goes down every time the one of your allies gets healed, or an attack is blocked and health decides how has mental fortitude regenerates.
all attacks decrease health
acually that doesent sound that bad as long as only tanks can block only healers and tanks effect mental fortitude
One of the main reasons why there is no Holy Trinity is because Georgeson has specifically stated.. "Do you think a boss is stupid enough to just attack a tank. He is going to attack who is the biggest threat.. which is the people doing the most damage or healing"
This is pretty believable considering in PVP do we as players attack the Tank? No we go after the healer and the strongest dps and kill them as quick as possible.
One of the main reasons why there is no Holy Trinity is because Georgeson has specifically stated.. "Do you think a boss is stupid enough to just attack a tank. He is going to attack who is the biggest threat.. which is the people doing the most damage or healing"
This is pretty believable considering in PVP do we as players attack the Tank? No we go after the healer and the strongest dps and kill them as quick as possible.
It is believable, but far from the truth. Didn't armies irl wish they could take out the back line archers? Cavalry was implemented for just that reason, break the frontline "tanks" and get the squishies. Tanks in MOBAs are used the same way, they can actually stop you from reaching the squishies with CC and bodyblock. With a life-like AI tanks would have to work like that to be important.
It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.
And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.
So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.
On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.
Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"
WE have had a zillion "Trinity" focused mmo's out there, and the past years have shown that the market is DRIED up and failing, so many mmo's trying to copy the same old same old mmo formula are failing left and riight.
Action combat primitive? In mmo's? Please.
Guild Wars 2, Neverwinter Nights, Vindictus,, Tera. OUt of those none are truly "action" in the sense of a full action combat system. Many still rely on hotkeys and soft-targetting of some type (Neverwinter even uses soft-targetting, and pushes your cursor toward near targets).
No pulling? You mean the old archaic "AI" that would STAND THERE while you hit a friend of his right in front of him and he twiddles his thumb while his buddy gets slaughtered?
Inferior CC? You mean skill-shot based CC? Where to be good with CC you might actually have to aim or something? An action combat system can have plenty of CC abilties, the balance is getting them right and making them feel good to use.
Inferior Tanking? You mean hitting your taunt and standing there while the healer heals you? Whereas now you might actually have to do things like Knockback targets, knock them down with your shield, physically block them with your shield by standing in front of what they try to hit, etc? That sounds a lot les sfun then /tab target press taunt.
There's a lot of things a well designed action combat system can bring tot he table, GW2 isn't one of them.
One of the main reasons why there is no Holy Trinity is because Georgeson has specifically stated.. "Do you think a boss is stupid enough to just attack a tank. He is going to attack who is the biggest threat.. which is the people doing the most damage or healing"
This is pretty believable considering in PVP do we as players attack the Tank? No we go after the healer and the strongest dps and kill them as quick as possible.
It is believable, but far from the truth. Didn't armies irl wish they could take out the back line archers? Cavalry was implemented for just that reason, break the frontline "tanks" and get the squishies. Tanks in MOBAs are used the same way, they can actually stop you from reaching the squishies with CC and bodyblock. With a life-like AI tanks would have to work like that to be important.
You can't compare an army against 1 person. It's not the same and a 12 foot boss can just move around a tank.
MMO FPS is what is should be IMO, we are seeing that more and more now, the Holy Trinity is a refinement of tab targeting to achieve game balance.
What I don't understand that in more advanced games with tab targeting, at higher levels the game becomes "twitch like" and the same fan boi for that type of game tend not to like a MMOFPS; but look at it this way, a MMOFPS is still just as twitchy in a round about way.
I would like to imagine one day to be able to fly in my spaceship and dog fight, land the ship on a planet, and hop out and get into a fire fight on the ground, (no instancing) with my group of friends that specialize in heavy support, medic and long range attacks, but can toggle to different weapons and switch roles as needed. I think the bandwith is there and the tech to do it, but it "cost money" and so for right now, most gaming companies will still play the "its to expensive to do it" card
Wouldn't it seem that as the years go on that gaming tech should improve? but really has it? we are still seeing WoW 2003, with graphics of 2013 in most new MMOs; (does Guild wars need to be instanted as it is, compared to 2003 vanallia WoW? na I don't think so, nor do I think the tech of Guild wars is sooo advanced that it requires the instancing that it does, if it does then it things we don't really see or does not have much impact)
There is a lot of incorrect information in this thread:
1. There was no combat AI at the demo. The Void Goliath was piloted by Michael Mann (Class & Combat Lead).
2. The Trinity still exists in EQN. It's just not Pure Tank, Pure Healer, Pure DPS. If you want to take on a high level mob you will need to organize into a tank, dps & support (healing/cc). However the support will also be able to dps if he has sufficient energy. The Tank might have a CC abilities. Etc.
The reason EQ was fun is because you grouped with other people made friends and defeated tough things that couldn't be done alone .
If everyone is DPS then I feel the game will not last long . Whoever makes a similar destructible game world with trinity will sell more than non trinity .
People still believe what they want to believe. I can say that AI is overrated so much.
Let me give you an example, they can make AI so "smart" >"Scripted"< is the right word tbh that you can never win in a 1on1 battle. Thats fun AI right there.
AI - dumbed down for non trinity action rpg as you cannot heal trough much damage you need to run away / use Defensive cooldowns.
AI - scaled up for Trinity, much more complex AI can be made as AI "expects" their damage to be healed / tanked, now you can add tons of CC / Damage spikes / AoE for mobs that cannot be done for Non Trinity.
So lets go trough it again shall we ?
Non trinity:
I have 8 skills, 2 defensive and 1 heal, i get attacked by 1 mob. He hits me hard i counter with heal Get mob to 60% health and needed to use my defensive cooldowns. Get mob to 30% health, i have no cooldowns left, just mashing buttan over and over but i need to be in range for that. I died....
Or we now have bridges and envirements to destroy, so now i need to wreck the bridge run away to wait for my cooldowns to get up again and try to kite it for as long as posible.
What happens if you have 2 or 3 or 5 mobs ? Their smart AI would always target the weakest on health, otherwise they are dumb AI right ? So what will happen ? RUN TOBY !!!!!! RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP RUNNING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aggro dropped, and give it another try, but we are facing smart AI so pulling 1 mob out of a group of 5 is imposible....its smart AI remember.
So we try to pull one of the mobs from the group and the group offcourse cant let one of their smart AI broski's die, so they all charge in to that pesky player dumb enough to pull one of our broski's.
And you can start running again !!!!!!!
Is that smart AI ? i think so yes Will it be fun ? running away the hero you are in a fantasy mmo ? running away from mobs with your pants down ?
No thanks......GW2 with its "dumbed down" AI already have this, mobs run around "randomly" Mobs run away on low health calling for backup, now you can start running. GW2 also have "smart AI"
But we all know its just scripts.....there is no AI......
The more advanced scripting mobs have the harder they are to kill, depending on their stats given by them from developers.
So how smart is EQN AI then ? or how advanced are mobs scripted ? Good luck with no healers or tanks...
Remember you are mostly playing solo in this anti-social "GW2" incarnation. EQN contains only public events much like GW2 has.
No one is going to group up, just rush in drop the hammer and move along. No talk, no grouping, one big massive zergfest. No healers no tanks..... No need to make friends or group up. Just you and you action RPG with smart AI.
yes iam being sarcastic again, people need to stop eating turds from developers who claim they invented AI, took it to a new level.
No healers No tanks, you will see GW2 all over again, no amount of AI / Scripting is going to take that away.
And personally.. I think SOE truly backed themselves into a corner here.. At least with GW2 I still have tab targeting.. I prefer that style.. However, EQN does not, they instead went with a skill based twitch combat style.. For me that is almost a game breaker there.. It is no secret that medically as people age,, their twitch reflexes slow down, even to the point of being unskilled.. At age 50, my hand eye coordination is no longer what it used to be.. I admit I rely on tab targeting to pick up the slack.. When using range combat, I like that the computer auto aims me without fail.. Now SOE demands me to aim myself as if I"m playing Black Ops.. I'm either going to die a lot, or the mobs are going to be so easy that a blind man can kill their target..
This is even beyond the debate of trinity or not, add in the twitch requirement, and you want to talk about NICHE market, I don't think you can find a smaller market then non trinity twitch combat.. When I played WoW, most PvP were classes that didn't have to worry about range issues.. It will become very frustrating when the so called super smart AI's move to avoid being hit, and players are struggling to keep in range and in the right direction.. You better have alot of AOE attacks with huge range.. My gut tells me this isn't going to end well after the honeymoon wears off
The original Everquest was not all pure DPS,tank,healer classes either the Paladin could heal even rez and tank. I have done dungeons with a pally tank. The wizard could cc with root and snare. The druid could heal and DPS and CC. The shaman was a pet class with heal,damage debuffs and buffs. The Shadowknight could fear kite and had a pet and was a tank too and could heal some.
When did EQ become so one dimensional .People keep putting it down when in truth it had layers of depth and it was not all tank and spank either. As a caster you had like 8 gems on your spell bar and had to be careful not to over nuke and get killed because no tank can get agro back if you over dd. The cleric had to be careful when to use their full heal as agro was very bad on a full heal. The other classes had to help out with roots and snares and stuns to keep other mobs at bay not every group ran with an enchanter.
I am not sure how putting down Everquest and making it look like a poor game is going to advance EQN but I think fooling yourself into thinking that the original Everquest was a poor game just because of the poor AI then is not going to diminish the tactical considerations that were made within it taking into account that classes in Everquest had way more abilities than many games have these days.
"The holy trinity came about because of primitive MMO AI. Vastly improved AI means a new dynamic is needed. Wait before you despair."
Before everyone touts GW2 references or cries about the end of the world, consider that the system SOE is building for EQN requires the removal of the holy trinity. Guild Wars 2 didn't have near the AI fidelity that EQN will have. Let's wait until we can actually see the system in context before making huge assumptions.
One of the most sensible posts on EQN I've seen so far this week.
Not sensible at all. It's simply ignorance to believe that you have to remove the trinity system with the inclusion of a smart AI.
The trinity did not come about because of primitive AI either. As someone said far better than me, the trinity system has been used far far longer than even D&D. The system of people specializing in specific individual roles will work towards the betterment of the group as a whole as opposed to everyone dabbling into a little of everything.
You're confusing the presence of roles with the function of the trinity. It did not exist in PnP RPGs unless your DM was a complete idiot, because it certainly wasn't in the manuals. The Trinity can be traced right back to DikuMUD, which is the great grandfather of EQ, WOW and most other mainstream MMOs.
Do some research before calling others ignorant.
Well if your players were complete idiots and every single one them was cleric then thats a different story.
For example in D&D ,thief was a support class who tried to de-taunt in combat,cleric was trying to keep his comrades alive and fighter was trying to protect others every way possible,if your DM did not understand taunts for example ,me thinks he was a complete idiot.
For example.
Orc named Bek is preparing his finishing blow against our Fighter named Bromir,Bek feels confident and some happiness ,he allready feels heroic since he thinks that he is going to win this battle,wrong! Cleric named Sandovall cures and heals or casts protection on his friend and makes Bek quite unhappy and angry and Bek realizes that its better if he tries to take Sandovall down first.
In mmo terms,heal/supporting taunts and Sandovall gets her aggrometer pretty high.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
There's this guy behind you who keeps stabbing you in the back with a dagger that really hurts. Meanwhile, another guy in the corner is shooting lightning bolts out of his finger tips and shocking the hell out of you. Another guy is hiding in the back healing everyone. But you are gonna focus on the one guy standing in front of you, hiding behind a shield and gently tapping you with his sword, the guy you can't seem to scratch and who isn't scratching you, because he keeps calling you names?
Just doesn't make any sense.
They need to take, and I suspect they are taking, a page from D&D (and not 4E). Healers did most of their healing out of combat, putting themselves at great risk if they tried to heal during combat. Wizards hid behind their more melee oriented friends, maybe using a sling or casting cantrips from time to time until the opportunity presented itself for them to really let loose with a powerful spell. Rogues either stood back and shot their bows at the enemies or hid in the shadows until the enemy passed, then jumped out to either one-shot it or, if it was engaged with a fighter, finish it off... and if they didn't finish it off, they usually got the hell out of there, afterward. Even fighter-types had to be cautious, usually using the terrain to their advantage to keep from being overwhelmed.
All of this because any DM worth his weight in salt would not permit anyone to "tank" a mob. Even a cornered badger has the good sense to attack the weakest wolf in an effort to escape. You'd think a group of orcs would probably be smart enough to kill the guy who kept healing everyone else first as well, right?
But back to EQN:
I think what people concerned about losing the trinity don't realize is that if you advance the mob AI so that it can react more intelligently, it instantly invalidates the holy trinity. Any reasonably conscious thing will go after the caster or the healer, no matter what the tank does. The tank is pointless to attack in PvP and so he should be in PvE. The tank will then go roll something else because he's useless. In the end, the only class that will be left is the one that can survive the best. The others will mostly go unplayed and the game will pretty much suck.
This is why the holy trinity has lasted so long, I think. It's the system that—so long as mobs are morons—manages to maintain a balance across the classes.
If you're going to abolish the holy trinity, you need to boost mob AI, and vice versa. But you will also have to design classes that are equally compelling because each is better than the others at some essential activity. Maybe one class is the best at melee damage. Another the best at ranged damage. Another the best at conditions, another at buffs and still another at control. Each class should probably have a different weakness, too. With this kind of design, all the classes are essential for taking down a "boss".
As for whether this paradigm is fun, though, of course, we won't really know until someone tries it. All that GW2 managed to show is that removing the trinity without buffing the AI and truly diversifying the classes just isn't that much fun. But it doesn't mean that removing the holy trinity can't work—it only shows that their approach to doing so doesn't.
This is evolution, guys. It's innovation. If you want to advance, you have to experiment. Edison learned 100 ways not to make a light bulb before he finally got it right.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
Yep Pal and that happened many times in early EQ.. A healer had to watch WHO got healed and when.. That was one bonus clerics had over druids and shamans.. Why do you think clerics were allowed PLATE armor to begin with? There were many times an add (2nd mob) would jump in, and whack someone besides the tank, and when this happen if the healer was not alert and healed the innocent player that just got whacked, the healer immediately gained agro himself because a tank or off tank was unable to establish taunt on that add..... I as a druid, being a group healer also filled the roll of "CC" by parking mobs off to the side.. LOL joy joy.. Many classes had access to many skills that allowed them to multi-role their character such as BARD's.. I love Bards.. In my opinion the hardest class EVER designed to play..
The problem I see with the trinity isn't the trinity, it's the dumbing down of mobs, and OVERKILL of taunting.. When tanks can stand there and grab agro from 3 or more mobs at the same time.. YES, that makes combat too easy.. and that leads to AOE dps'fest which I hated in WoW and GW2.. I say leave taunting in. but nerf it so it only has limited effect on ONE mob at a time.. Trust me, you do things like that, combat will become dynamic and challenging again..
Yep Pal and that happened many times in early EQ.. A healer had to watch WHO got healed and when.. That was one bonus clerics had over druids and shamans.. Why do you think clerics were allowed PLATE armor to begin with? There were many times an add (2nd mob) would jump in, and whack someone besides the tank, and when this happen if the healer was not alert and healed the innocent player that just got whacked, the healer immediately gained agro himself because a tank or off tank was unable to establish taunt on that add..... I as a druid, being a group healer also filled the roll of "CC" by parking mobs off to the side.. LOL joy joy.. Many classes had access to many skills that allowed them to multi-role their character such as BARD's.. I love Bards.. In my opinion the hardest class EVER designed to play..
The problem I see with the trinity isn't the trinity, it's the dumbing down of mobs, and OVERKILL of taunting.. When tanks can stand there and grab agro from 3 or more mobs at the same time.. YES, that makes combat too easy.. and that leads to AOE dps'fest which I hated in WoW and GW2.. I say leave taunting in. but nerf it so it only has limited effect on ONE mob at a time.. Trust me, you do things like that, combat will become dynamic and challenging again..
This.
But if we give some attributes to NPCs and make it "dynamic" well what happens then
Orc ,str 20 int 2 wis 3 ,he doesnt know how play ,easy to taunt ,orc trusts on his str
Orc ,str 10 ,int 20 ,wis 20 ,he is wiseguy,hard to taunt,tries to kill healer first if that is the way to victory,calls for help,runs away even since he knows he is pretty weak but he is smart.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
There's this guy behind you who keeps stabbing you in the back with a dagger that really hurts. Meanwhile, another guy in the corner is shooting lightning bolts out of his finger tips and shocking the hell out of you. Another guy is hiding in the back healing everyone. But you are gonna focus on the one guy standing in front of you, hiding behind a shield and gently tapping you with his sword, the guy you can't seem to scratch and who isn't scratching you, because he keeps calling you names?
Just doesn't make any sense.
As to the way you put it.. YES.. it doesn't make sense and rather stupid actually.. But that isn't the trinity's fault, that is the devs fault for poorly implementing it.. Let me change that around a little.. The rogue behind the mob, does damage according to weapon, however IF he used "backstab" that should be a HUGE agro meter attack.. The same with Mr Wizzy in the corner, sure the wizzy can toss out sparks that cause the same damage as that small dagger or the TANKS sword.. but if Mr Wizzy launches a lightning bolt (which is the same damage as a backstab).. HUGE agro meter attack..
Now as for the Tank.. I want his sword to cause the same damage as any other DPS sword or weapons.. His ONLY taunt should come from his Shield Bash.. and lets be honest, if you are the mob and someone paste a shield in your face stunning you and breaking your nose.. I no longer give a shit about that bee sting in the back.. LOL There are ways the trinity can work perfectly, the devs just need to implement it correctly and not get stupid with it..
Dear sweet Jesus... I've seen some bad, bad logic in my day but people saying that without fixed trinity roles and gameplay everything will be a zerg is some of the most amusing... especially considering that zerging is a noob-level tactic used due to its ease which can easily be defeated in PVP where coherent mixtures of classes with defined combat duties could whoop the every loving shit out of zergs and if in PVE the AI isn't brain dead or zombified it will prioritize people in terms of importance to the group (tanks are lynchpins in groups but without healers no tanks or off tanks survive, for example).
If the game is made with some forethought as to the general human tendency of going for the easiest tactic first (zergs) and the devs build in effective counter strategies (both for PVP and PVE/AI) for anti-zerg groups then most people will use zergs as a alternative not a main tactic (see the youtube video above for a more eloquent explanation).
Yep Pal and that happened many times in early EQ.. A healer had to watch WHO got healed and when.. That was one bonus clerics had over druids and shamans.. Why do you think clerics were allowed PLATE armor to begin with? There were many times an add (2nd mob) would jump in, and whack someone besides the tank, and when this happen if the healer was not alert and healed the innocent player that just got whacked, the healer immediately gained agro himself because a tank or off tank was unable to establish taunt on that add..... I as a druid, being a group healer also filled the roll of "CC" by parking mobs off to the side.. LOL joy joy.. Many classes had access to many skills that allowed them to multi-role their character such as BARD's.. I love Bards.. In my opinion the hardest class EVER designed to play..
The problem I see with the trinity isn't the trinity, it's the dumbing down of mobs, and OVERKILL of taunting.. When tanks can stand there and grab agro from 3 or more mobs at the same time.. YES, that makes combat too easy.. and that leads to AOE dps'fest which I hated in WoW and GW2.. I say leave taunting in. but nerf it so it only has limited effect on ONE mob at a time.. Trust me, you do things like that, combat will become dynamic and challenging again..
This.
But if we give some attributes to NPCs and make it "dynamic" well what happens then
Orc ,str 20 int 2 wis 3 ,he doesnt know how play ,easy to taunt ,orc trusts on his str
Orc ,str 10 ,int 20 ,wis 20 ,he is wiseguy,hard to taunt,tries to kill healer first if that is the way to victory.
And I am perfectly fine with that.. as long as there are some forms of control to prevent that smart AI making a bee line to the healer or squishy and killing them in seconds.. like rooting.. Which in your example is a must.. But I am ALL for expanding the trinity not abandoning it.. I like the dynamic that a mob is unpredicable, but give the players the tools to work with
"The holy trinity came about because of primitive MMO AI. Vastly improved AI means a new dynamic is needed. Wait before you despair."
Before everyone touts GW2 references or cries about the end of the world, consider that the system SOE is building for EQN requires the removal of the holy trinity. Guild Wars 2 didn't have near the AI fidelity that EQN will have. Let's wait until we can actually see the system in context before making huge assumptions.
I'm about 95% certain this is just bullshit devspeak and that the end result will be predictable.
I've seen this play out before. The gamers are like "this isn't going to work, you should listen to us; we literally have no lives and play games 60 hours a week and have 10-20 years of game playing experience". And the devs are like "trust us, it's going to be great; I'm an AI programmer who spend copious amount of my life staring at a compiler and learning syntax and logic flow. I'm way smarter than you"
In a lot of ways it's like that green Ensign that just comes out of college trying to tell a Senior Chief with 15yrs of exerience how to run his engine room.
Of course, they're right. They are smarter than us. But they don't understand gaming at the same level.
Yep Pal and that happened many times in early EQ.. A healer had to watch WHO got healed and when.. That was one bonus clerics had over druids and shamans.. Why do you think clerics were allowed PLATE armor to begin with? There were many times an add (2nd mob) would jump in, and whack someone besides the tank, and when this happen if the healer was not alert and healed the innocent player that just got whacked, the healer immediately gained agro himself because a tank or off tank was unable to establish taunt on that add..... I as a druid, being a group healer also filled the roll of "CC" by parking mobs off to the side.. LOL joy joy.. Many classes had access to many skills that allowed them to multi-role their character such as BARD's.. I love Bards.. In my opinion the hardest class EVER designed to play..
The problem I see with the trinity isn't the trinity, it's the dumbing down of mobs, and OVERKILL of taunting.. When tanks can stand there and grab agro from 3 or more mobs at the same time.. YES, that makes combat too easy.. and that leads to AOE dps'fest which I hated in WoW and GW2.. I say leave taunting in. but nerf it so it only has limited effect on ONE mob at a time.. Trust me, you do things like that, combat will become dynamic and challenging again..
The biproduct of which has always been a substantial increase in the amount (and duration) of CC. Something which we've also seen the problem with, though it does make things more dynamic to some extent (at least if the people doing the CC screw up. Else the fights basically exactly the same w/ multiple mobs on 'pause', waiting to be killed).
If you're not proposing an increase in CC to compensate, then you essential end up with almost exactly what GW2 already has, and we've all seen the complaints to go with it.
The thing is, most supporters of the trinity model like the certainty & stability it provides. It simplifies things to where people know what to expect from each & every group. You take that away, and it makes combat a lot more dynamic, but also a lot more ambiguous, and a lot of people don't like that. To use GW2 again as an example, you can still play it like a trinity game, but the game plays by a different set of rules. You don't know if a class is going to support you properly, go for debuffs, utlity, straight damage, survivability, or some kind of wierd hybrid until you play with them.
That doesn't mean the system is broken, just that it requires a very different mental approach to understand it. However, that doesn't change that this basically boils down to a matter of personal preference. I.E. Some people like the certainty of the trinity, while others realize & are comfortable with the possibilities moving passed that model provides.
Personally with adapted AI, I would love to see more practical uses of magic, the impractical combat only uses that magic has is one of peeves when playing any fantasy themed mmo. Often times elemental magic is limited to combat functions and nothing more.
Maybe I would like light some unlit or discarded candles in an abandoned crypt with a fire spell. Or even more technical the ability to in a sense "Rocket Jump" with the use of an explosive fire spell, sacrificing health for mobility. You could even make it extremely simple, you have a set of 8 spells and you combine them for up to at least 30 different abilities.
Unfortunately I've yet to find a 3D use of such functions.
The biproduct of which has always been a substantial increase in the amount (and duration) of CC. Something which we've also seen the problem with, though it does make things more dynamic to some extent (at least if the people doing the CC screw up. Else the fights basically exactly the same w/ multiple mobs on 'pause', waiting to be killed). True and that needs to be addressed as well.. That was on thing I did like with all EQ cc and most of WoW's cc is that it was breakable.. (as it should be).. I don't like that cc's become unbreakable because then it truly is only a pause button for mob killing.. That is boring too.. CC's need to be long enough to be effective, but short enough to keep your attention to a degree..
If you're not proposing an increase in CC to compensate, then you essential end up with almost exactly what GW2 already has, and we've all seen the complaints to go with it. True.. I"m not a fan of GW2's cc's because they are only 3 second disturbances before mob is back in your face again and the problem still exist..
The thing is, most supporters of the trinity model like the certainty & stability it provides. It simplifies things to where people know what to expect from each & every group. You take that away, and it makes combat a lot more dynamic, but also a lot more ambiguous, and a lot of people don't like that. True, and that was one beauty I always loved about early EQ.. CC in the forms of Mez and Roots were designed for a minute,, BUT.. at any AI checkpoint the mob can break root or mez prematurely.. I LOVED THAT.. Nothing should be absolute and on a timer.. However, classes should have the ability to reapply root or mez as needed.. To use GW2 again as an example, you can still play it like a trinity game, but the game plays by a different set of rules. You don't know if a class is going to support you properly, go for debuffs, utlity, straight damage, survivability, or some kind of wierd hybrid until you play with them. True, it has limited forms of trinity, but not game breakers.. I consider GW2 to be 90% dps, and 10% trinity.. Sure there is limited trinity involved, but if it's weak or broken, it doesn't = WIPE FAIL, and I think that is what the devs wanted to avoid.. We all know that if Tank screws up or Healer screws up, WIPE, there is no recovery.. But in GW2, with limited trinity, someone can screw up or burp, but it doesn't wipe the group and often gives them a chance to recover and move on..
That doesn't mean the system is broken, just that it requires a very different mental approach to understand it. However, that doesn't change that this basically boils down to a matter of personal preference. I.E. Some people like the certainty of the trinity, while others realize & are comfortable with the possibilities moving passed that model provides. The issue I have is that when too much of a class or fight is dps focused, it truly removes a lot of options by the group.. such as CC control or support.. The devs want us to believe that watching the hotkey for CC reload or buff/debuff reload is a bad thing.. But I'm doing exactly that same thing with my weapons hotkeys. I'm am still LOOKING AT hotkey #3 and #4 to refresh.. The only difference is that those keys are now dps keys focusing on mob.. Where as with trinity those keys could be dps on mob, OR support keys targeting player.. (which in my opinion makes it more difficult cause now you have to pay attention to multiple targets).. Lets me honest here.. using GW2.. A group member NEVER really has the skill or the need to watch his teammates health or actions.. UNLESS he needs revived..
Personally with adapted AI, I would love to see more practical uses of magic, the impractical combat only uses that magic has is one of peeves when playing any fantasy themed mmo. Often times elemental magic is limited to combat functions and nothing more.
Maybe I would like light some unlit or discarded candles in an abandoned crypt with a fire spell. Or even more technical the ability to in a sense "Rocket Jump" with the use of an explosive fire spell, sacrificing health for mobility. You could even make it extremely simple, you have a set of 8 spells and you combine them for up to at least 30 different abilities.
Unfortunately I've yet to find a 3D use of such functions.
Early EQ went down that path a little.. Magic was used for many things other then DPS.. Even WoW used magic in non combat roles.. Summoning food/drink? Summoning players? Porting? Invis/see Invis? Illusions? Harmony? etc etc.. You could even have a wizzy "light" his staff like Gandalf did in LoTR to give light to a dark area..
Comments
This is exactly what I fear is gonna happen and here's why:
The act of roleplaying an adventure implies you fight, explore, interact. The part of the adventure that we seem to be arguing about most is the fight part. There's two ways to fight, both alone and in groups: With discipline or without.
As any member of military or any martial arts expert will tell you, there is a huge difference between fighting with discipline and without it. Fighting with discipline is always more efficient and effective than fighting without it. But discipline is not always required to win. If you are stronger than your opponent and/or luckier then you can win without discipline. However, discipline in combat shows its value when facing a force greater than your own, and it is there where tactics are truly needed if you want to win consistently without luck.
To fight with discipline means to have structure; a framework that forms you or your group's responses when faced with any combat scenario. The structure of group combat is determined by roles; responsibilities that each member of a group will fulfill in a grand fighting scenario. Roleplayers like the principle of assigning "roles" in combat scenarios because people inherently know that structured combat against a stronger opponent is more likely to succeed than an unstructured approach. The designation of roles makes a struggle feel more lifelike; because without the need for roles to consistently win implies that the players are either stronger than the enemy (and thus it is easy) or just very lucky.
Tanks and healers are just some of the many roles that roleplayers have invented over the years to give structure to combat scenarios. The"holy trinity" is by no means necessary for combat to have structure though. The only thing that is needed for structure in combat is roles for the players to fulfill.
At its core, the only "role" that any fight in a game requires is DPS. The reason for this is because the only way to "win" an encounter is to do enough damage to kill the enemy or make it give up. Sure you could theoretically design a game with different victory objectives like distracting the enemy, surviving a certain amount of time or luring them to a certain location, but such games are seldom made. Assuming that EQN will employ the standard combat objective of hurting/killing the enemy then the statement that tanks/healers will not be NEEDED is very concerning to me due to the aforementioned "necessity" of DPS in any hurt/kill combat scenario.
Almost by definition, a DIFFICULT encounter is one which has a number of REQUIREMENTS that need to be met in order to be completed. Obviously the more REQUIREMENTS that an encounter has, the more difficult it is. As we've already established in a hurt/kill scenario the only irreplaceable requirement is DPS, whether the fight be hard or easy. Now if a fight does not REQUIRE tanking or healing (as a "holy trinity" structure of combat would) in order to be successful, what does it require? I am by no means saying that tanking or healing are the only roles that can be required for success in a combat scenario but for structured combat to take place some kinds of roles/responsibilities need to be required for it to be considered difficult. And if it's not difficult? Then I would find it boring.
Now there is one way that I can think of that would allow for all kinds of roles to be deemed "unnecessary" and yet could still make the encounters be difficult and require structure: Allow for multiple WAYS to achieve "victory" (as mentioned earlier) in any given encounter. In such a system even DPS would not always be a required role to achieve victory; if none of the players felt like playing that way. I would like to think that with their "advanced AI" the SOE devs plan to pursue something along these lines but I suspect that they intend to mostly go with the standard kill/hurt scenarios based on so many mentions of "killing" the enemies in their interviews. If that is the case then I do have reason to worry about the possible lack of structure in EQN's group combat.
In summary: Assuming that the standard "victory condition" in EQN is kill/hurt, then the only NECESSARY role is DPS. If the other roles ARE NOT NECESSARY then combat strategies may very well be overly simplistic (because everything works).
I know that until we actually play the game everything is speculation, but I would like to hear specific ways from players or even the devs themselves that they can make this work out without making the content easy or the classes shallow. I've layed out a perfectly reasonable argument why making roles other than DPS unnecessary in kill/hurt scenarios does not lend itself well to structured group combat. Can you think of specific ways to avoid this problem? The only one I can think of is multiple "victory conditions" per combat scenario.
As a final roleplay thought: The reason people wear heavy armor is to be able to survive getting hit. If heavy armor/tank "classes" have no mechanics of forcing the enemy to hit them then what's the point of wearing the armor in the first place? I am truly hoping that if they do allow tank playstyles to exist they implement some form of way to force the enemy to hit them, maybe not through something as simplistic as threat or taunts but rather through giving them CC, bodyblocking or something else like the "tanks" do in MOBAs (where the enemies are REAL PEOPLE and still get forced to attack them when played well). That would actually be pretty cool.
your completely right the only way to take out those roles and have it work it to completely change the way mechanics work and I'm talking down to a is hp used anymore does armor class exsist are their other systems in place such as and just making this up
3 seriate hp bars one represents physical fortitude one represents mental fortitude and one represents hp they all regenerate over time
the higher physical fortitude is the faster hp regenerates
if physical fortitude is to high it will be almost impossible to bring the mob down. physical fortitude can be brought down by skills that specifically damage it, such as crippling moves snares etc etc
mental fortitude changes goes up or down how fast physical fortitude regenerates
mental fortitude goes down every time the one of your allies gets healed, or an attack is blocked and health decides how has mental fortitude regenerates.
all attacks decrease health
acually that doesent sound that bad as long as only tanks can block only healers and tanks effect mental fortitude
One of the main reasons why there is no Holy Trinity is because Georgeson has specifically stated.. "Do you think a boss is stupid enough to just attack a tank. He is going to attack who is the biggest threat.. which is the people doing the most damage or healing"
This is pretty believable considering in PVP do we as players attack the Tank? No we go after the healer and the strongest dps and kill them as quick as possible.
It is believable, but far from the truth. Didn't armies irl wish they could take out the back line archers? Cavalry was implemented for just that reason, break the frontline "tanks" and get the squishies. Tanks in MOBAs are used the same way, they can actually stop you from reaching the squishies with CC and bodyblock. With a life-like AI tanks would have to work like that to be important.
WE have had a zillion "Trinity" focused mmo's out there, and the past years have shown that the market is DRIED up and failing, so many mmo's trying to copy the same old same old mmo formula are failing left and riight.
Action combat primitive? In mmo's? Please.
Guild Wars 2, Neverwinter Nights, Vindictus,, Tera. OUt of those none are truly "action" in the sense of a full action combat system. Many still rely on hotkeys and soft-targetting of some type (Neverwinter even uses soft-targetting, and pushes your cursor toward near targets).
No pulling? You mean the old archaic "AI" that would STAND THERE while you hit a friend of his right in front of him and he twiddles his thumb while his buddy gets slaughtered?
Inferior CC? You mean skill-shot based CC? Where to be good with CC you might actually have to aim or something? An action combat system can have plenty of CC abilties, the balance is getting them right and making them feel good to use.
Inferior Tanking? You mean hitting your taunt and standing there while the healer heals you? Whereas now you might actually have to do things like Knockback targets, knock them down with your shield, physically block them with your shield by standing in front of what they try to hit, etc? That sounds a lot les sfun then /tab target press taunt.
There's a lot of things a well designed action combat system can bring tot he table, GW2 isn't one of them.
You can't compare an army against 1 person. It's not the same and a 12 foot boss can just move around a tank.
MMO FPS is what is should be IMO, we are seeing that more and more now, the Holy Trinity is a refinement of tab targeting to achieve game balance.
What I don't understand that in more advanced games with tab targeting, at higher levels the game becomes "twitch like" and the same fan boi for that type of game tend not to like a MMOFPS; but look at it this way, a MMOFPS is still just as twitchy in a round about way.
I would like to imagine one day to be able to fly in my spaceship and dog fight, land the ship on a planet, and hop out and get into a fire fight on the ground, (no instancing) with my group of friends that specialize in heavy support, medic and long range attacks, but can toggle to different weapons and switch roles as needed. I think the bandwith is there and the tech to do it, but it "cost money" and so for right now, most gaming companies will still play the "its to expensive to do it" card
Wouldn't it seem that as the years go on that gaming tech should improve? but really has it? we are still seeing WoW 2003, with graphics of 2013 in most new MMOs; (does Guild wars need to be instanted as it is, compared to 2003 vanallia WoW? na I don't think so, nor do I think the tech of Guild wars is sooo advanced that it requires the instancing that it does, if it does then it things we don't really see or does not have much impact)
There is a lot of incorrect information in this thread:
1. There was no combat AI at the demo. The Void Goliath was piloted by Michael Mann (Class & Combat Lead).
2. The Trinity still exists in EQN. It's just not Pure Tank, Pure Healer, Pure DPS. If you want to take on a high level mob you will need to organize into a tank, dps & support (healing/cc). However the support will also be able to dps if he has sufficient energy. The Tank might have a CC abilities. Etc.
The game is gonna suck without holy trinity .
The reason EQ was fun is because you grouped with other people made friends and defeated tough things that couldn't be done alone .
If everyone is DPS then I feel the game will not last long . Whoever makes a similar destructible game world with trinity will sell more than non trinity .
People still believe what they want to believe.
I can say that AI is overrated so much.
Let me give you an example, they can make AI so "smart" >"Scripted"< is the right word tbh that you can never win in a 1on1 battle.
Thats fun AI right there.
AI - dumbed down for non trinity action rpg as you cannot heal trough much damage you need to run away / use Defensive cooldowns.
AI - scaled up for Trinity, much more complex AI can be made as AI "expects" their damage to be healed / tanked, now you can add tons of CC / Damage spikes / AoE for mobs that cannot be done for Non Trinity.
So lets go trough it again shall we ?
Non trinity:
I have 8 skills, 2 defensive and 1 heal, i get attacked by 1 mob.
He hits me hard i counter with heal
Get mob to 60% health and needed to use my defensive cooldowns.
Get mob to 30% health, i have no cooldowns left, just mashing buttan over and over but i need to be in range for that.
I died....
Or we now have bridges and envirements to destroy, so now i need to wreck the bridge run away to wait for my cooldowns to get up again and try to kite it for as long as posible.
What happens if you have 2 or 3 or 5 mobs ?
Their smart AI would always target the weakest on health, otherwise they are dumb AI right ?
So what will happen ?
RUN TOBY !!!!!! RUN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP RUNNING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
aggro dropped, and give it another try, but we are facing smart AI so pulling 1 mob out of a group of 5 is imposible....its smart AI remember.
So we try to pull one of the mobs from the group and the group offcourse cant let one of their smart AI broski's die, so they all charge in to that pesky player dumb enough to pull one of our broski's.
And you can start running again !!!!!!!
Is that smart AI ? i think so yes
Will it be fun ? running away the hero you are in a fantasy mmo ? running away from mobs with your pants down ?
No thanks......GW2 with its "dumbed down" AI already have this, mobs run around "randomly" Mobs run away on low health calling for backup, now you can start running.
GW2 also have "smart AI"
But we all know its just scripts.....there is no AI......
The more advanced scripting mobs have the harder they are to kill, depending on their stats given by them from developers.
So how smart is EQN AI then ? or how advanced are mobs scripted ?
Good luck with no healers or tanks...
Remember you are mostly playing solo in this anti-social "GW2" incarnation.
EQN contains only public events much like GW2 has.
No one is going to group up, just rush in drop the hammer and move along.
No talk, no grouping, one big massive zergfest.
No healers no tanks.....
No need to make friends or group up.
Just you and you action RPG with smart AI.
yes iam being sarcastic again, people need to stop eating turds from developers who claim they invented AI, took it to a new level.
No healers No tanks, you will see GW2 all over again, no amount of AI / Scripting is going to take that away.
And personally.. I think SOE truly backed themselves into a corner here.. At least with GW2 I still have tab targeting.. I prefer that style.. However, EQN does not, they instead went with a skill based twitch combat style.. For me that is almost a game breaker there.. It is no secret that medically as people age,, their twitch reflexes slow down, even to the point of being unskilled.. At age 50, my hand eye coordination is no longer what it used to be.. I admit I rely on tab targeting to pick up the slack.. When using range combat, I like that the computer auto aims me without fail.. Now SOE demands me to aim myself as if I"m playing Black Ops.. I'm either going to die a lot, or the mobs are going to be so easy that a blind man can kill their target..
This is even beyond the debate of trinity or not, add in the twitch requirement, and you want to talk about NICHE market, I don't think you can find a smaller market then non trinity twitch combat.. When I played WoW, most PvP were classes that didn't have to worry about range issues.. It will become very frustrating when the so called super smart AI's move to avoid being hit, and players are struggling to keep in range and in the right direction.. You better have alot of AOE attacks with huge range.. My gut tells me this isn't going to end well after the honeymoon wears off
The original Everquest was not all pure DPS,tank,healer classes either the Paladin could heal even rez and tank. I have done dungeons with a pally tank. The wizard could cc with root and snare. The druid could heal and DPS and CC. The shaman was a pet class with heal,damage debuffs and buffs. The Shadowknight could fear kite and had a pet and was a tank too and could heal some.
When did EQ become so one dimensional .People keep putting it down when in truth it had layers of depth and it was not all tank and spank either. As a caster you had like 8 gems on your spell bar and had to be careful not to over nuke and get killed because no tank can get agro back if you over dd. The cleric had to be careful when to use their full heal as agro was very bad on a full heal. The other classes had to help out with roots and snares and stuns to keep other mobs at bay not every group ran with an enchanter.
I am not sure how putting down Everquest and making it look like a poor game is going to advance EQN but I think fooling yourself into thinking that the original Everquest was a poor game just because of the poor AI then is not going to diminish the tactical considerations that were made within it taking into account that classes in Everquest had way more abilities than many games have these days.
Well if your players were complete idiots and every single one them was cleric then thats a different story.
For example in D&D ,thief was a support class who tried to de-taunt in combat,cleric was trying to keep his comrades alive and fighter was trying to protect others every way possible,if your DM did not understand taunts for example ,me thinks he was a complete idiot.
For example.
Orc named Bek is preparing his finishing blow against our Fighter named Bromir,Bek feels confident and some happiness ,he allready feels heroic since he thinks that he is going to win this battle,wrong! Cleric named Sandovall cures and heals or casts protection on his friend and makes Bek quite unhappy and angry and Bek realizes that its better if he tries to take Sandovall down first.
In mmo terms,heal/supporting taunts and Sandovall gets her aggrometer pretty high.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
There's this guy behind you who keeps stabbing you in the back with a dagger that really hurts. Meanwhile, another guy in the corner is shooting lightning bolts out of his finger tips and shocking the hell out of you. Another guy is hiding in the back healing everyone. But you are gonna focus on the one guy standing in front of you, hiding behind a shield and gently tapping you with his sword, the guy you can't seem to scratch and who isn't scratching you, because he keeps calling you names?
Just doesn't make any sense.
They need to take, and I suspect they are taking, a page from D&D (and not 4E). Healers did most of their healing out of combat, putting themselves at great risk if they tried to heal during combat. Wizards hid behind their more melee oriented friends, maybe using a sling or casting cantrips from time to time until the opportunity presented itself for them to really let loose with a powerful spell. Rogues either stood back and shot their bows at the enemies or hid in the shadows until the enemy passed, then jumped out to either one-shot it or, if it was engaged with a fighter, finish it off... and if they didn't finish it off, they usually got the hell out of there, afterward. Even fighter-types had to be cautious, usually using the terrain to their advantage to keep from being overwhelmed.
All of this because any DM worth his weight in salt would not permit anyone to "tank" a mob. Even a cornered badger has the good sense to attack the weakest wolf in an effort to escape. You'd think a group of orcs would probably be smart enough to kill the guy who kept healing everyone else first as well, right?
But back to EQN:
I think what people concerned about losing the trinity don't realize is that if you advance the mob AI so that it can react more intelligently, it instantly invalidates the holy trinity. Any reasonably conscious thing will go after the caster or the healer, no matter what the tank does. The tank is pointless to attack in PvP and so he should be in PvE. The tank will then go roll something else because he's useless. In the end, the only class that will be left is the one that can survive the best. The others will mostly go unplayed and the game will pretty much suck.
This is why the holy trinity has lasted so long, I think. It's the system that—so long as mobs are morons—manages to maintain a balance across the classes.
If you're going to abolish the holy trinity, you need to boost mob AI, and vice versa. But you will also have to design classes that are equally compelling because each is better than the others at some essential activity. Maybe one class is the best at melee damage. Another the best at ranged damage. Another the best at conditions, another at buffs and still another at control. Each class should probably have a different weakness, too. With this kind of design, all the classes are essential for taking down a "boss".
As for whether this paradigm is fun, though, of course, we won't really know until someone tries it. All that GW2 managed to show is that removing the trinity without buffing the AI and truly diversifying the classes just isn't that much fun. But it doesn't mean that removing the holy trinity can't work—it only shows that their approach to doing so doesn't.
This is evolution, guys. It's innovation. If you want to advance, you have to experiment. Edison learned 100 ways not to make a light bulb before he finally got it right.
Yep Pal and that happened many times in early EQ.. A healer had to watch WHO got healed and when.. That was one bonus clerics had over druids and shamans.. Why do you think clerics were allowed PLATE armor to begin with? There were many times an add (2nd mob) would jump in, and whack someone besides the tank, and when this happen if the healer was not alert and healed the innocent player that just got whacked, the healer immediately gained agro himself because a tank or off tank was unable to establish taunt on that add..... I as a druid, being a group healer also filled the roll of "CC" by parking mobs off to the side.. LOL joy joy.. Many classes had access to many skills that allowed them to multi-role their character such as BARD's.. I love Bards.. In my opinion the hardest class EVER designed to play..
The problem I see with the trinity isn't the trinity, it's the dumbing down of mobs, and OVERKILL of taunting.. When tanks can stand there and grab agro from 3 or more mobs at the same time.. YES, that makes combat too easy.. and that leads to AOE dps'fest which I hated in WoW and GW2.. I say leave taunting in. but nerf it so it only has limited effect on ONE mob at a time.. Trust me, you do things like that, combat will become dynamic and challenging again..
This.
But if we give some attributes to NPCs and make it "dynamic" well what happens then
Orc ,str 20 int 2 wis 3 ,he doesnt know how play ,easy to taunt ,orc trusts on his str
Orc ,str 10 ,int 20 ,wis 20 ,he is wiseguy,hard to taunt,tries to kill healer first if that is the way to victory,calls for help,runs away even since he knows he is pretty weak but he is smart.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
As to the way you put it.. YES.. it doesn't make sense and rather stupid actually.. But that isn't the trinity's fault, that is the devs fault for poorly implementing it.. Let me change that around a little.. The rogue behind the mob, does damage according to weapon, however IF he used "backstab" that should be a HUGE agro meter attack.. The same with Mr Wizzy in the corner, sure the wizzy can toss out sparks that cause the same damage as that small dagger or the TANKS sword.. but if Mr Wizzy launches a lightning bolt (which is the same damage as a backstab).. HUGE agro meter attack..
Now as for the Tank.. I want his sword to cause the same damage as any other DPS sword or weapons.. His ONLY taunt should come from his Shield Bash.. and lets be honest, if you are the mob and someone paste a shield in your face stunning you and breaking your nose.. I no longer give a shit about that bee sting in the back.. LOL There are ways the trinity can work perfectly, the devs just need to implement it correctly and not get stupid with it..
Dear sweet Jesus... I've seen some bad, bad logic in my day but people saying that without fixed trinity roles and gameplay everything will be a zerg is some of the most amusing... especially considering that zerging is a noob-level tactic used due to its ease which can easily be defeated in PVP where coherent mixtures of classes with defined combat duties could whoop the every loving shit out of zergs and if in PVE the AI isn't brain dead or zombified it will prioritize people in terms of importance to the group (tanks are lynchpins in groups but without healers no tanks or off tanks survive, for example).
If the game is made with some forethought as to the general human tendency of going for the easiest tactic first (zergs) and the devs build in effective counter strategies (both for PVP and PVE/AI) for anti-zerg groups then most people will use zergs as a alternative not a main tactic (see the youtube video above for a more eloquent explanation).
And I am perfectly fine with that.. as long as there are some forms of control to prevent that smart AI making a bee line to the healer or squishy and killing them in seconds.. like rooting.. Which in your example is a must.. But I am ALL for expanding the trinity not abandoning it.. I like the dynamic that a mob is unpredicable, but give the players the tools to work with
I'm about 95% certain this is just bullshit devspeak and that the end result will be predictable.
I've seen this play out before. The gamers are like "this isn't going to work, you should listen to us; we literally have no lives and play games 60 hours a week and have 10-20 years of game playing experience". And the devs are like "trust us, it's going to be great; I'm an AI programmer who spend copious amount of my life staring at a compiler and learning syntax and logic flow. I'm way smarter than you"
In a lot of ways it's like that green Ensign that just comes out of college trying to tell a Senior Chief with 15yrs of exerience how to run his engine room.
Of course, they're right. They are smarter than us. But they don't understand gaming at the same level.
The biproduct of which has always been a substantial increase in the amount (and duration) of CC. Something which we've also seen the problem with, though it does make things more dynamic to some extent (at least if the people doing the CC screw up. Else the fights basically exactly the same w/ multiple mobs on 'pause', waiting to be killed).
If you're not proposing an increase in CC to compensate, then you essential end up with almost exactly what GW2 already has, and we've all seen the complaints to go with it.
The thing is, most supporters of the trinity model like the certainty & stability it provides. It simplifies things to where people know what to expect from each & every group. You take that away, and it makes combat a lot more dynamic, but also a lot more ambiguous, and a lot of people don't like that. To use GW2 again as an example, you can still play it like a trinity game, but the game plays by a different set of rules. You don't know if a class is going to support you properly, go for debuffs, utlity, straight damage, survivability, or some kind of wierd hybrid until you play with them.
That doesn't mean the system is broken, just that it requires a very different mental approach to understand it. However, that doesn't change that this basically boils down to a matter of personal preference. I.E. Some people like the certainty of the trinity, while others realize & are comfortable with the possibilities moving passed that model provides.
Personally with adapted AI, I would love to see more practical uses of magic, the impractical combat only uses that magic has is one of peeves when playing any fantasy themed mmo. Often times elemental magic is limited to combat functions and nothing more.
Maybe I would like light some unlit or discarded candles in an abandoned crypt with a fire spell. Or even more technical the ability to in a sense "Rocket Jump" with the use of an explosive fire spell, sacrificing health for mobility. You could even make it extremely simple, you have a set of 8 spells and you combine them for up to at least 30 different abilities.
Unfortunately I've yet to find a 3D use of such functions.
Early EQ went down that path a little.. Magic was used for many things other then DPS.. Even WoW used magic in non combat roles.. Summoning food/drink? Summoning players? Porting? Invis/see Invis? Illusions? Harmony? etc etc.. You could even have a wizzy "light" his staff like Gandalf did in LoTR to give light to a dark area..