And all the "old school" RPGs (not online) didn't have that kind of trinity either.
All this started with EQ
what in the world are you talking about
EQ starting tank / healer / dps? RPG had tank / healer / DPS for decades.
Shining force had tanks / DPS / healers, and it came out almost a decade before EQ.
That's great and all, but you'd think that this far into the conversation you wouldn't be this lost. Are you really that far behind in the discussion that you don't know he's talking about taunt-based threat management? Seriously?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had. Even in P&P rpg we had threat management, the big guy was running in the front of the group body tanking in narrow passages, the wizard could use illusions to reduce agro chances etc.
There always have been ways to funnel the damage to the guy best able to receive that damage. The ''taunt skill'' of EQ, WoW is just a simplified version of the intimidate skill of RPG that came before.
Also if your DM wasn't a total retard, he wouldn't get you in totally overwhelming arms way. Any DM could easily destroy any adventurer group if he wished so. He could decide to simply focus fire the cleric or wizard, while snaring your melees, but how fun would that have been ? The DM regulated the danger meter. It not an easy task to reproduce in a computer simulated world.
Its certainly not best weve ever had, and there was no threat management in PnP. Standing in doorway to block passage is not threat management, illusions has nothign to do with threat, there was no threat meter whatsoever. Mirror image is TANKING spell (for instance)
Intimidate skill in 3rd e (you might also check when THAT was out) was a debuff and had no connection to any kind of threat table since there was no threat table.
And now we have something tha actually makes some sense, PnP was never about challenge, challenge was optional if players WANTED it and ask DM to do so, it was about story, characters interaction to that story and many people liked playing gimped characters (wizard who cant cast spells) and that didnt interfere your playing one bit.
"old school" MMOs were NOT RPGs, they borrowed combat stats and were action hack&slash games, modern MMOs like SWTOR, GW2 and ESO try to close that RPG to MMOs since "old school" had none of it.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had.
Horizons (Istaria) and EVE Online are two that come to mind that easily contest that statement. I'm sure there are others, too.
I don't remember horizons since I played only like 1 month at release, but what do you mean about EVE ? Are you saying that the threat management of EVE is a good system ?
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had. Even in P&P rpg we had threat management, the big guy was running in the front of the group body tanking in narrow passages, the wizard could use illusions to reduce agro chances etc.
There always have been ways to funnel the damage to the guy best able to receive that damage. The ''taunt skill'' of EQ, WoW is just a simplified version of the intimidate skill of RPG that came before.
Also if your DM wasn't a total retard, he wouldn't get you in totally overwhelming arms way. Any DM could easily destroy any adventurer group if he wished so. He could decide to simply focus fire the cleric or wizard, while snaring your melees, but how fun would that have been ? The DM regulated the danger meter. It not an easy task to reproduce in a computer simulated world.
Its certainly not best weve ever had, and there was no threat management in PnP. Standing in doorway to block passage is not threat management, illusions has nothign to do with threat, there was no threat meter whatsoever.
Intimidate skill in 3rd e (you might also check when THAT was out) was a debuff and had no connection to any kind of threat table since there was no threat table.
And now we have something tha actually makes some sense, PnP was never about challenge, challenge was optional if players WANTED it and ask DM to do so, it was about story, characters interaction to that story and many people liked playing gimped characters (wizard who cant cast spells) and that didnt interfere your playing one bit.
"old school" MMOs were NOT RPGs, they borrowed combat stats and were action hack&slash games, modern MMOs like SWTOR, GW2 and ESO try to close that RPG to MMOs since old school had none of it.
Any action that modifies your opponent action towards you or your teammate could be considered a threat mechanic. If other mobs cannot attack your allies because you are in front of them, it's a valid tanking mechanic that force ennemies to attack you, resulting in the same as pushing a taunt button. Sure there wasn't a threat table, the DM decided if actions made by player was enough to change the ennemies actions.
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had. Even in P&P rpg we had threat management, the big guy was running in the front of the group body tanking in narrow passages, the wizard could use illusions to reduce agro chances etc.
There always have been ways to funnel the damage to the guy best able to receive that damage. The ''taunt skill'' of EQ, WoW is just a simplified version of the intimidate skill of RPG that came before.
Also if your DM wasn't a total retard, he wouldn't get you in totally overwhelming arms way. Any DM could easily destroy any adventurer group if he wished so. He could decide to simply focus fire the cleric or wizard, while snaring your melees, but how fun would that have been ? The DM regulated the danger meter. It not an easy task to reproduce in a computer simulated world.
Its certainly not best weve ever had, and there was no threat management in PnP. Standing in doorway to block passage is not threat management, illusions has nothign to do with threat, there was no threat meter whatsoever.
Intimidate skill in 3rd e (you might also check when THAT was out) was a debuff and had no connection to any kind of threat table since there was no threat table.
And now we have something tha actually makes some sense, PnP was never about challenge, challenge was optional if players WANTED it and ask DM to do so, it was about story, characters interaction to that story and many people liked playing gimped characters (wizard who cant cast spells) and that didnt interfere your playing one bit.
"old school" MMOs were NOT RPGs, they borrowed combat stats and were action hack&slash games, modern MMOs like SWTOR, GW2 and ESO try to close that RPG to MMOs since old school had none of it.
Any action that modifies your opponent action towards you or your teammate could be considered a threat mechanic. If other mobs cannot attack your allies because you are in front of them, it's a valid tanking mechanic that force ennemies to attack you, resulting in the same as pushing a taunt button. Sure there wasn't a threat table, the DM decided if actions made by player was enough to change the ennemies actions.
Its DEFENSIVE mechanic not THREAT mechanic, and any archectype could tank well, because every calss was equipped with DEFENSIVE stuff, especially dependant on opponents.
Standing in doorway DOES NOT compell anyone to attack you, that ranged guy isnt compelled and that dumb to attack one standing in doorway while hes melted by fireballs and monsters could swtich to RANGED at whim. And of course, theres whole intelligence/wisdom/race/class dependant behaviours, berserker would certainly attack first thing he sees etc.
But most intelligent monsters werent impressed by you standing in the doorway and mindlessly salsh at you while being melted by spells/arrows while you had firehose health pool healer.
The whole setup was ridiculous from THE START, and anyone who played PnP expected it to get better because exuse was "technical limitations"
Well, i would say that its about time techical limitations of 1999 give way to modern age.
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
I'd just like to start by saying I'm not having a go at anyone here but I need a definition of "threat based tanking mechanics".
I'll tell you why. I never heard of "threat" in any MMO until WoW came along with it's defensive stance and the whole reduced damage/increased threat thing. When I saw it I was like "WTF??".
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics. Somewhere in the coding you had to decide who a mob was going to attack. EQ based it on damage and nothing else. The mob had a Hate List and whoever did the most damage to it was on the top, that's who the mob attacked.
Which makes sense if you think about it. Some wizard at the back of the room keeps chucking fireballs and ice comets at the mob, it's gonna get pissed and go for him. Now the warrior could "taunt" the mob but all that did was put him 1 point above the top placed person on the hate list. If the wiz kept nuking he was dead, period. People had to manage their "aggro" by not over nuking/dps'ing. It wasn't the tank's resonsibility to "hold threat" like in WoW, and if he had to burn his taunt and people still didn't manage aggro there was nothing he could do to save them. Healing was just directly converted to damage done as far as mobs were concerned and that put healers on the hate list.
It's like this idea that tanks do low damage, again something I never saw pre WoW. EQ's warrior was the benchmark for melee DPS. Warriors did damage, they never used shields, they dual wielded. Unless the mob had a damage shield in which case you'd swap to a slow 2 hander. Pallies and SK's did slightly reduced damage due to having spells, rangers, monk and rogues in that order did increased damage because they had lower mitigation.
Every post I've seen here talking about this threat/taunt mechanic seems to go on about this reduced damage high threat tank and how taunt was this big ability that saved everyone. Not in EQ. It was an Oh Shit button and it would only work if the person taking aggro had the brains to stop doing whatever it was that got him to the top of the hate list while the Warrior/tank built up more hate through damage to allow them to continue nukeing/healing.
I wouldn't have bothered to type this but I keep seeing posts aimed at EQ and this "threat based tanking mechanic" and EQ just didn't work that way. We who played EQ know this. If a mob turned from the tank we would stop, stop doing whatever the fuck you were doing and let the warrior build up aggro/hate again. Let the warrior tank it. Tanking in EQ wasn't something the warriors did through some inate special ability, including taunt. It was something that everyone else allowed the warrior to do by not overdoing things that would piss the mob off and draw attention away from the tank. That is not threat based mechanics and it's not what we see in WoW and pretty much every MMO since.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had.
Horizons (Istaria) and EVE Online are two that come to mind that easily contest that statement. I'm sure there are others, too.
I don't remember horizons since I played only like 1 month at release, but what do you mean about EVE ? Are you saying that the threat management of EVE is a good system ?
I am saying that some mobs in EVE (ex: sleepers/drifters) are certainly smarter and definitely do contest the 'best we ever had' statement.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics.
Not only EQ not having tank mechanics is a big, fat lie, but using "agro" instead of "threat" is just using a different word to describe the same thing.
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
I'd just like to start by saying I'm not having a go at anyone here but I need a definition of "threat based tanking mechanics".
I'll tell you why. I never heard of "threat" in any MMO until WoW came along with it's defensive stance and the whole reduced damage/increased threat thing. When I saw it I was like "WTF??".
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics. Somewhere in the coding you had to decide who a mob was going to attack. EQ based it on damage and nothing else. The mob had a Hate List and whoever did the most damage to it was on the top, that's who the mob attacked.
Which makes sense if you think about it. Some wizard at the back of the room keeps chucking fireballs and ice comets at the mob, it's gonna get pissed and go for him. Now the warrior could "taunt" the mob but all that did was put him 1 point above the top placed person on the hate list. If the wiz kept nuking he was dead, period. People had to manage their "aggro" by not over nuking/dps'ing. It wasn't the tank's resonsibility to "hold threat" like in WoW, and if he had to burn his taunt and people still didn't manage aggro there was nothing he could do to save them. Healing was just directly converted to damage done as far as mobs were concerned and that put healers on the hate list.
It's like this idea that tanks do low damage, again something I never saw pre WoW. EQ's warrior was the benchmark for melee DPS. Warriors did damage, they never used shields, they dual wielded. Unless the mob had a damage shield in which case you'd swap to a slow 2 hander. Pallies and SK's did slightly reduced damage due to having spells, rangers, monk and rogues in that order did increased damage because they had lower mitigation.
Every post I've seen here talking about this threat/taunt mechanic seems to go on about this reduced damage high threat tank and how taunt was this big ability that saved everyone. Not in EQ. It was an Oh Shit button and it would only work if the person taking aggro had the brains to stop doing whatever it was that got him to the top of the hate list while the Warrior/tank built up more hate through damage to allow them to continue nukeing/healing.
I wouldn't have bothered to type this but I keep seeing posts aimed at EQ and this "threat based tanking mechanic" and EQ just didn't work that way. We who played EQ know this. If a mob turned from the tank we would stop, stop doing whatever the fuck you were doing and let the warrior build up aggro/hate again. Let the warrior tank it. Tanking in EQ wasn't something the warriors did through some inate special ability, including taunt. It was something that everyone else allowed the warrior to do by not overdoing things that would piss the mob off and draw attention away from the tank. That is not threat based mechanics and it's not what we see in WoW and pretty much every MMO since.
And it works exactly the same today in trinity games. Except tanks do low damage but have increased threat from damage and CC is replaced for DPS (for obvious reasons)
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had. Even in P&P rpg we had threat management, the big guy was running in the front of the group body tanking in narrow passages, the wizard could use illusions to reduce agro chances etc.
There always have been ways to funnel the damage to the guy best able to receive that damage. The ''taunt skill'' of EQ, WoW is just a simplified version of the intimidate skill of RPG that came before.
Also if your DM wasn't a total retard, he wouldn't get you in totally overwhelming arms way. Any DM could easily destroy any adventurer group if he wished so. He could decide to simply focus fire the cleric or wizard, while snaring your melees, but how fun would that have been ? The DM regulated the danger meter. It not an easy task to reproduce in a computer simulated world.
Its certainly not best weve ever had, and there was no threat management in PnP. Standing in doorway to block passage is not threat management, illusions has nothign to do with threat, there was no threat meter whatsoever.
Intimidate skill in 3rd e (you might also check when THAT was out) was a debuff and had no connection to any kind of threat table since there was no threat table.
And now we have something tha actually makes some sense, PnP was never about challenge, challenge was optional if players WANTED it and ask DM to do so, it was about story, characters interaction to that story and many people liked playing gimped characters (wizard who cant cast spells) and that didnt interfere your playing one bit.
"old school" MMOs were NOT RPGs, they borrowed combat stats and were action hack&slash games, modern MMOs like SWTOR, GW2 and ESO try to close that RPG to MMOs since old school had none of it.
Any action that modifies your opponent action towards you or your teammate could be considered a threat mechanic. If other mobs cannot attack your allies because you are in front of them, it's a valid tanking mechanic that force ennemies to attack you, resulting in the same as pushing a taunt button. Sure there wasn't a threat table, the DM decided if actions made by player was enough to change the ennemies actions.
Its DEFENSIVE mechanic not THREAT mechanic, and any archectype could tank well, because every calss was equipped with DEFENSIVE stuff, especially dependant on opponents.
Standing in doorway DOES NOT compell anyone to attack you, that ranged guy isnt compelled and that dumb to attack one standing in doorway while hes melted by fireballs and monsters could swtich to RANGED at whim. And of course, theres whole intelligence/wisdom/race/class dependant behaviours, berserker would certainly attack first thing he sees etc.
But most intelligent monsters werent impressed by you standing in the doorway.
Semantics at this point. Standing in the door doesn't compel mobs to attack you, it becomes the only option... sure the ranger can try to shoot past you, but he will then have a penalty to that shot.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had.
Horizons (Istaria) and EVE Online are two that come to mind that easily contest that statement. I'm sure there are others, too.
I don't remember horizons since I played only like 1 month at release, but what do you mean about EVE ? Are you saying that the threat management of EVE is a good system ?
I am saying that some mobs in EVE (ex: sleepers/drifters) are certainly smarter and definitely do contest the 'best we ever had' statement.
I meant it was the best at simulating a DM behaviour. It gives the player the option to pick the flow of battles, so it is not totally chaotic (which was before controled by the DM). The trinity gave the player some of the DM powers, since we don't have that DM anymore.
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had. Even in P&P rpg we had threat management, the big guy was running in the front of the group body tanking in narrow passages, the wizard could use illusions to reduce agro chances etc.
There always have been ways to funnel the damage to the guy best able to receive that damage. The ''taunt skill'' of EQ, WoW is just a simplified version of the intimidate skill of RPG that came before.
Also if your DM wasn't a total retard, he wouldn't get you in totally overwhelming arms way. Any DM could easily destroy any adventurer group if he wished so. He could decide to simply focus fire the cleric or wizard, while snaring your melees, but how fun would that have been ? The DM regulated the danger meter. It not an easy task to reproduce in a computer simulated world.
Its certainly not best weve ever had, and there was no threat management in PnP. Standing in doorway to block passage is not threat management, illusions has nothign to do with threat, there was no threat meter whatsoever.
Intimidate skill in 3rd e (you might also check when THAT was out) was a debuff and had no connection to any kind of threat table since there was no threat table.
And now we have something tha actually makes some sense, PnP was never about challenge, challenge was optional if players WANTED it and ask DM to do so, it was about story, characters interaction to that story and many people liked playing gimped characters (wizard who cant cast spells) and that didnt interfere your playing one bit.
"old school" MMOs were NOT RPGs, they borrowed combat stats and were action hack&slash games, modern MMOs like SWTOR, GW2 and ESO try to close that RPG to MMOs since old school had none of it.
Any action that modifies your opponent action towards you or your teammate could be considered a threat mechanic. If other mobs cannot attack your allies because you are in front of them, it's a valid tanking mechanic that force ennemies to attack you, resulting in the same as pushing a taunt button. Sure there wasn't a threat table, the DM decided if actions made by player was enough to change the ennemies actions.
Its DEFENSIVE mechanic not THREAT mechanic, and any archectype could tank well, because every calss was equipped with DEFENSIVE stuff, especially dependant on opponents.
Standing in doorway DOES NOT compell anyone to attack you, that ranged guy isnt compelled and that dumb to attack one standing in doorway while hes melted by fireballs and monsters could swtich to RANGED at whim. And of course, theres whole intelligence/wisdom/race/class dependant behaviours, berserker would certainly attack first thing he sees etc.
But most intelligent monsters werent impressed by you standing in the doorway.
Semantics at this point. Standing in the door doesn't compel mobs to attack you, it becomes the only option... sure the ranger can try to shoot past you, but he will then have a penalty to that shot.
lol at semantics. You know what semantics means, right?
and "its the only option....but you have other options" really, is that some kind of point?
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics.
Once you've read this, you know it's not worth reading the rest of your post.
Not only EQ not having tank mechanics is a big, fat lie, but using "agro" instead of "threat" is just using a different word to describe the same thing.
I'm sorry to have to say this but you are completely wrong. It's not a question of semantics or using aggro instead of threat. EQ aggro worked in a completely different way to WoW's threat. Anyone who actually played both games would be aware of this. The very fact that a WoW warrior's defensive stance reduces damage but increases threat proves this beyond doubt. Talents that would reduce threat and allow you to do damage with impunity are another.
EQ's aggro was damage based pure and simple. If you reduced a warriors damage they couldn't possibly tank anything once other players started to do damage to a mob. If you were stupid enough to deal damage without thinking about aggro management you were toast, taunt or no taunt. My so called big, fat lie is truth, in point of fact. Aggro in EQ and threat in WoW are not the same thing at all.
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
I'd just like to start by saying I'm not having a go at anyone here but I need a definition of "threat based tanking mechanics".
I'll tell you why. I never heard of "threat" in any MMO until WoW came along with it's defensive stance and the whole reduced damage/increased threat thing. When I saw it I was like "WTF??".
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics. Somewhere in the coding you had to decide who a mob was going to attack. EQ based it on damage and nothing else. The mob had a Hate List and whoever did the most damage to it was on the top, that's who the mob attacked.
You never heard of the mechanic until WOW because you probably weren't in very many discussions on it before then.
As to "EQ never worked that way"... Bartle, Koster and other people that were there at the time - that created MUDs and MMOs at the time - say otherwise.
"In the end, the central elements of phase-based combat, combat states, cool-down based special attacks, tank-healer-nuker triad, and basic aggro management are what you play today in WoW." - Raph Koster, What is a Diku?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had. Even in P&P rpg we had threat management, the big guy was running in the front of the group body tanking in narrow passages, the wizard could use illusions to reduce agro chances etc.
There always have been ways to funnel the damage to the guy best able to receive that damage. The ''taunt skill'' of EQ, WoW is just a simplified version of the intimidate skill of RPG that came before.
Also if your DM wasn't a total retard, he wouldn't get you in totally overwhelming arms way. Any DM could easily destroy any adventurer group if he wished so. He could decide to simply focus fire the cleric or wizard, while snaring your melees, but how fun would that have been ? The DM regulated the danger meter. It not an easy task to reproduce in a computer simulated world.
Its certainly not best weve ever had, and there was no threat management in PnP. Standing in doorway to block passage is not threat management, illusions has nothign to do with threat, there was no threat meter whatsoever.
Intimidate skill in 3rd e (you might also check when THAT was out) was a debuff and had no connection to any kind of threat table since there was no threat table.
And now we have something tha actually makes some sense, PnP was never about challenge, challenge was optional if players WANTED it and ask DM to do so, it was about story, characters interaction to that story and many people liked playing gimped characters (wizard who cant cast spells) and that didnt interfere your playing one bit.
"old school" MMOs were NOT RPGs, they borrowed combat stats and were action hack&slash games, modern MMOs like SWTOR, GW2 and ESO try to close that RPG to MMOs since old school had none of it.
Any action that modifies your opponent action towards you or your teammate could be considered a threat mechanic. If other mobs cannot attack your allies because you are in front of them, it's a valid tanking mechanic that force ennemies to attack you, resulting in the same as pushing a taunt button. Sure there wasn't a threat table, the DM decided if actions made by player was enough to change the ennemies actions.
Its DEFENSIVE mechanic not THREAT mechanic, and any archectype could tank well, because every calss was equipped with DEFENSIVE stuff, especially dependant on opponents.
Standing in doorway DOES NOT compell anyone to attack you, that ranged guy isnt compelled and that dumb to attack one standing in doorway while hes melted by fireballs and monsters could swtich to RANGED at whim. And of course, theres whole intelligence/wisdom/race/class dependant behaviours, berserker would certainly attack first thing he sees etc.
But most intelligent monsters werent impressed by you standing in the doorway.
Semantics at this point. Standing in the door doesn't compel mobs to attack you, it becomes the only option... sure the ranger can try to shoot past you, but he will then have a penalty to that shot.
lol at semantics. You know what semantics means, right?
and "its the only option....but you have other options" really, is that some kind of point?
Yes semantics about your defensive vs threat mechanics ...
As for my point, sure there was one, sorry it was lost on you. It becomes the only efficient option, there are always other options, but usually I go for the optimal one, maybe you are different. You go for full damage on the guy in front of you, or a 5% chance to hit a target in the back ?
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
I'd just like to start by saying I'm not having a go at anyone here but I need a definition of "threat based tanking mechanics".
I'll tell you why. I never heard of "threat" in any MMO until WoW came along with it's defensive stance and the whole reduced damage/increased threat thing. When I saw it I was like "WTF??".
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics. Somewhere in the coding you had to decide who a mob was going to attack. EQ based it on damage and nothing else. The mob had a Hate List and whoever did the most damage to it was on the top, that's who the mob attacked.
You never heard of the mechanic until WOW because you probably weren't in very many discussions on it before then.
The word "threat" was never never never never never used in EQ. We used the word aggro and hate. Threat was never used.
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had. Even in P&P rpg we had threat management, the big guy was running in the front of the group body tanking in narrow passages, the wizard could use illusions to reduce agro chances etc.
There always have been ways to funnel the damage to the guy best able to receive that damage. The ''taunt skill'' of EQ, WoW is just a simplified version of the intimidate skill of RPG that came before.
Also if your DM wasn't a total retard, he wouldn't get you in totally overwhelming arms way. Any DM could easily destroy any adventurer group if he wished so. He could decide to simply focus fire the cleric or wizard, while snaring your melees, but how fun would that have been ? The DM regulated the danger meter. It not an easy task to reproduce in a computer simulated world.
Its certainly not best weve ever had, and there was no threat management in PnP. Standing in doorway to block passage is not threat management, illusions has nothign to do with threat, there was no threat meter whatsoever.
Intimidate skill in 3rd e (you might also check when THAT was out) was a debuff and had no connection to any kind of threat table since there was no threat table.
And now we have something tha actually makes some sense, PnP was never about challenge, challenge was optional if players WANTED it and ask DM to do so, it was about story, characters interaction to that story and many people liked playing gimped characters (wizard who cant cast spells) and that didnt interfere your playing one bit.
"old school" MMOs were NOT RPGs, they borrowed combat stats and were action hack&slash games, modern MMOs like SWTOR, GW2 and ESO try to close that RPG to MMOs since old school had none of it.
Any action that modifies your opponent action towards you or your teammate could be considered a threat mechanic. If other mobs cannot attack your allies because you are in front of them, it's a valid tanking mechanic that force ennemies to attack you, resulting in the same as pushing a taunt button. Sure there wasn't a threat table, the DM decided if actions made by player was enough to change the ennemies actions.
Its DEFENSIVE mechanic not THREAT mechanic, and any archectype could tank well, because every calss was equipped with DEFENSIVE stuff, especially dependant on opponents.
Standing in doorway DOES NOT compell anyone to attack you, that ranged guy isnt compelled and that dumb to attack one standing in doorway while hes melted by fireballs and monsters could swtich to RANGED at whim. And of course, theres whole intelligence/wisdom/race/class dependant behaviours, berserker would certainly attack first thing he sees etc.
But most intelligent monsters werent impressed by you standing in the doorway.
Semantics at this point. Standing in the door doesn't compel mobs to attack you, it becomes the only option... sure the ranger can try to shoot past you, but he will then have a penalty to that shot.
lol at semantics. You know what semantics means, right?
and "its the only option....but you have other options" really, is that some kind of point?
Yes semantics about your defensive vs threat mechanics ...
As for my point, sure there was one, sorry it was lost on you. It becomes the only efficient option, there are always other options, but usually I go for the optimal one, maybe you are different. You go for full damage on the guy in front of you, or a 5% chance to hit a target in the back ?
lol, not even worth it
Oh lets throw same arbitrary numbers around, and, just FYI, it works BOTH ways. What are exactly your back liners doing if they dont have LOS to anything, so 0% chance fo hit, while opponents freely hit your door guy huh?
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
I'd just like to start by saying I'm not having a go at anyone here but I need a definition of "threat based tanking mechanics".
I'll tell you why. I never heard of "threat" in any MMO until WoW came along with it's defensive stance and the whole reduced damage/increased threat thing. When I saw it I was like "WTF??".
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics. Somewhere in the coding you had to decide who a mob was going to attack. EQ based it on damage and nothing else. The mob had a Hate List and whoever did the most damage to it was on the top, that's who the mob attacked.
You never heard of the mechanic until WOW because you probably weren't in very many discussions on it before then.
The word "threat" was never never never never never used in EQ. We used the word aggro and hate. Threat was never used.
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
I'd just like to start by saying I'm not having a go at anyone here but I need a definition of "threat based tanking mechanics".
I'll tell you why. I never heard of "threat" in any MMO until WoW came along with it's defensive stance and the whole reduced damage/increased threat thing. When I saw it I was like "WTF??".
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics. Somewhere in the coding you had to decide who a mob was going to attack. EQ based it on damage and nothing else. The mob had a Hate List and whoever did the most damage to it was on the top, that's who the mob attacked.
You never heard of the mechanic until WOW because you probably weren't in very many discussions on it before then.
The word "threat" was never never never never never used in EQ. We used the word aggro and hate. Threat was never used.
Now that that's cleared up....lol.
noone cares really, its 2015 not 1999
people care
1. because EQ gets mentioned all the time here, more than any other game
2. because this topis is trinity and there are currently not many trinity MMO (FFXIV, but I can't think of any other new ones)
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
I'd just like to start by saying I'm not having a go at anyone here but I need a definition of "threat based tanking mechanics".
I'll tell you why. I never heard of "threat" in any MMO until WoW came along with it's defensive stance and the whole reduced damage/increased threat thing. When I saw it I was like "WTF??".
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics. Somewhere in the coding you had to decide who a mob was going to attack. EQ based it on damage and nothing else. The mob had a Hate List and whoever did the most damage to it was on the top, that's who the mob attacked.
You never heard of the mechanic until WOW because you probably weren't in very many discussions on it before then.
The word "threat" was never never never never never used in EQ. We used the word aggro and hate. Threat was never used.
Now that that's cleared up....lol.
No one said it was. Do you not see the difference in conversation between drivers talking about a car (you and your EQ buddies) and mechanics talking about a car (a thread on game mechanics by people with a knowledge of them)?
By your logic, mass air flow sensors didn't exist in cars until the day a mechanic told you that you need one.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You will of course never admit it, but you are wrong. All those computer RPGs, and the P&P RPGs before, NEVER had the trinity like it was introduced by Everquest, with the dumb "threat" based tanking mechanics. NO game had that before. It was the easy way introduced by EQ to replace the human and dungeon master interactions.
It might be a lot dumber than a DM yet it's the best we ever had. Even in P&P rpg we had threat management, the big guy was running in the front of the group body tanking in narrow passages, the wizard could use illusions to reduce agro chances etc.
There always have been ways to funnel the damage to the guy best able to receive that damage. The ''taunt skill'' of EQ, WoW is just a simplified version of the intimidate skill of RPG that came before.
Also if your DM wasn't a total retard, he wouldn't get you in totally overwhelming arms way. Any DM could easily destroy any adventurer group if he wished so. He could decide to simply focus fire the cleric or wizard, while snaring your melees, but how fun would that have been ? The DM regulated the danger meter. It not an easy task to reproduce in a computer simulated world.
Its certainly not best weve ever had, and there was no threat management in PnP. Standing in doorway to block passage is not threat management, illusions has nothign to do with threat, there was no threat meter whatsoever.
Intimidate skill in 3rd e (you might also check when THAT was out) was a debuff and had no connection to any kind of threat table since there was no threat table.
And now we have something tha actually makes some sense, PnP was never about challenge, challenge was optional if players WANTED it and ask DM to do so, it was about story, characters interaction to that story and many people liked playing gimped characters (wizard who cant cast spells) and that didnt interfere your playing one bit.
"old school" MMOs were NOT RPGs, they borrowed combat stats and were action hack&slash games, modern MMOs like SWTOR, GW2 and ESO try to close that RPG to MMOs since old school had none of it.
Any action that modifies your opponent action towards you or your teammate could be considered a threat mechanic. If other mobs cannot attack your allies because you are in front of them, it's a valid tanking mechanic that force ennemies to attack you, resulting in the same as pushing a taunt button. Sure there wasn't a threat table, the DM decided if actions made by player was enough to change the ennemies actions.
Its DEFENSIVE mechanic not THREAT mechanic, and any archectype could tank well, because every calss was equipped with DEFENSIVE stuff, especially dependant on opponents.
Standing in doorway DOES NOT compell anyone to attack you, that ranged guy isnt compelled and that dumb to attack one standing in doorway while hes melted by fireballs and monsters could swtich to RANGED at whim. And of course, theres whole intelligence/wisdom/race/class dependant behaviours, berserker would certainly attack first thing he sees etc.
But most intelligent monsters werent impressed by you standing in the doorway.
Semantics at this point. Standing in the door doesn't compel mobs to attack you, it becomes the only option... sure the ranger can try to shoot past you, but he will then have a penalty to that shot.
lol at semantics. You know what semantics means, right?
and "its the only option....but you have other options" really, is that some kind of point?
Yes semantics about your defensive vs threat mechanics ...
As for my point, sure there was one, sorry it was lost on you. It becomes the only efficient option, there are always other options, but usually I go for the optimal one, maybe you are different. You go for full damage on the guy in front of you, or a 5% chance to hit a target in the back ?
lol, not even worth it
Oh lets throw same arbitrary numbers around, and, just FYI, it works BOTH ways. What are exactly your back liners doing if they dont have LOS to anything, so 0% chance fo hit, while opponents freely hit your door guy huh?
Wizard could still have LOS for droping an area effect spell in that room. Or he could be concealed from 1 attacker but have LOS to another.
Comments
That's great and all, but you'd think that this far into the conversation you wouldn't be this lost. Are you really that far behind in the discussion that you don't know he's talking about taunt-based threat management? Seriously?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Its certainly not best weve ever had, and there was no threat management in PnP. Standing in doorway to block passage is not threat management, illusions has nothign to do with threat, there was no threat meter whatsoever. Mirror image is TANKING spell (for instance)
Intimidate skill in 3rd e (you might also check when THAT was out) was a debuff and had no connection to any kind of threat table since there was no threat table.
And now we have something tha actually makes some sense, PnP was never about challenge, challenge was optional if players WANTED it and ask DM to do so, it was about story, characters interaction to that story and many people liked playing gimped characters (wizard who cant cast spells) and that didnt interfere your playing one bit.
"old school" MMOs were NOT RPGs, they borrowed combat stats and were action hack&slash games, modern MMOs like SWTOR, GW2 and ESO try to close that RPG to MMOs since "old school" had none of it.
I don't remember horizons since I played only like 1 month at release, but what do you mean about EVE ? Are you saying that the threat management of EVE is a good system ?
Any action that modifies your opponent action towards you or your teammate could be considered a threat mechanic. If other mobs cannot attack your allies because you are in front of them, it's a valid tanking mechanic that force ennemies to attack you, resulting in the same as pushing a taunt button. Sure there wasn't a threat table, the DM decided if actions made by player was enough to change the ennemies actions.
Its DEFENSIVE mechanic not THREAT mechanic, and any archectype could tank well, because every calss was equipped with DEFENSIVE stuff, especially dependant on opponents.
Standing in doorway DOES NOT compell anyone to attack you, that ranged guy isnt compelled and that dumb to attack one standing in doorway while hes melted by fireballs and monsters could swtich to RANGED at whim. And of course, theres whole intelligence/wisdom/race/class dependant behaviours, berserker would certainly attack first thing he sees etc.
But most intelligent monsters werent impressed by you standing in the doorway and mindlessly salsh at you while being melted by spells/arrows while you had firehose health pool healer.
The whole setup was ridiculous from THE START, and anyone who played PnP expected it to get better because exuse was "technical limitations"
Well, i would say that its about time techical limitations of 1999 give way to modern age.
I'd just like to start by saying I'm not having a go at anyone here but I need a definition of "threat based tanking mechanics".
I'll tell you why. I never heard of "threat" in any MMO until WoW came along with it's defensive stance and the whole reduced damage/increased threat thing. When I saw it I was like "WTF??".
See, EQ never worked that way at all. EQ had no "tank" mechanic, it had "aggro" mechanics. Somewhere in the coding you had to decide who a mob was going to attack. EQ based it on damage and nothing else. The mob had a Hate List and whoever did the most damage to it was on the top, that's who the mob attacked.
Which makes sense if you think about it. Some wizard at the back of the room keeps chucking fireballs and ice comets at the mob, it's gonna get pissed and go for him. Now the warrior could "taunt" the mob but all that did was put him 1 point above the top placed person on the hate list. If the wiz kept nuking he was dead, period. People had to manage their "aggro" by not over nuking/dps'ing. It wasn't the tank's resonsibility to "hold threat" like in WoW, and if he had to burn his taunt and people still didn't manage aggro there was nothing he could do to save them. Healing was just directly converted to damage done as far as mobs were concerned and that put healers on the hate list.
It's like this idea that tanks do low damage, again something I never saw pre WoW. EQ's warrior was the benchmark for melee DPS. Warriors did damage, they never used shields, they dual wielded. Unless the mob had a damage shield in which case you'd swap to a slow 2 hander. Pallies and SK's did slightly reduced damage due to having spells, rangers, monk and rogues in that order did increased damage because they had lower mitigation.
Every post I've seen here talking about this threat/taunt mechanic seems to go on about this reduced damage high threat tank and how taunt was this big ability that saved everyone. Not in EQ. It was an Oh Shit button and it would only work if the person taking aggro had the brains to stop doing whatever it was that got him to the top of the hate list while the Warrior/tank built up more hate through damage to allow them to continue nukeing/healing.
I wouldn't have bothered to type this but I keep seeing posts aimed at EQ and this "threat based tanking mechanic" and EQ just didn't work that way. We who played EQ know this. If a mob turned from the tank we would stop, stop doing whatever the fuck you were doing and let the warrior build up aggro/hate again. Let the warrior tank it. Tanking in EQ wasn't something the warriors did through some inate special ability, including taunt. It was something that everyone else allowed the warrior to do by not overdoing things that would piss the mob off and draw attention away from the tank. That is not threat based mechanics and it's not what we see in WoW and pretty much every MMO since.
I am saying that some mobs in EVE (ex: sleepers/drifters) are certainly smarter and definitely do contest the 'best we ever had' statement.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
lol threat, that's how you know they never played EQ and are new to MMO, lol who uses the word threat
it's aggro
aggro, 2 g's, give me a break
lol threat
And it works exactly the same today in trinity games. Except tanks do low damage but have increased threat from damage and CC is replaced for DPS (for obvious reasons)
Semantics at this point. Standing in the door doesn't compel mobs to attack you, it becomes the only option... sure the ranger can try to shoot past you, but he will then have a penalty to that shot.
Are you serious?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You can call it jelly beans if you want to.
why wouldn't I be, only WoW players used threat
I meant it was the best at simulating a DM behaviour. It gives the player the option to pick the flow of battles, so it is not totally chaotic (which was before controled by the DM). The trinity gave the player some of the DM powers, since we don't have that DM anymore.
I didn't mean it was the best system ever.
lol at semantics. You know what semantics means, right?
and "its the only option....but you have other options" really, is that some kind of point?
I'm sorry to have to say this but you are completely wrong. It's not a question of semantics or using aggro instead of threat. EQ aggro worked in a completely different way to WoW's threat. Anyone who actually played both games would be aware of this. The very fact that a WoW warrior's defensive stance reduces damage but increases threat proves this beyond doubt. Talents that would reduce threat and allow you to do damage with impunity are another.
EQ's aggro was damage based pure and simple. If you reduced a warriors damage they couldn't possibly tank anything once other players started to do damage to a mob. If you were stupid enough to deal damage without thinking about aggro management you were toast, taunt or no taunt. My so called big, fat lie is truth, in point of fact. Aggro in EQ and threat in WoW are not the same thing at all.
You never heard of the mechanic until WOW because you probably weren't in very many discussions on it before then.
As to "EQ never worked that way"... Bartle, Koster and other people that were there at the time - that created MUDs and MMOs at the time - say otherwise.
"In the end, the central elements of phase-based combat, combat states, cool-down based special attacks, tank-healer-nuker triad, and basic aggro management are what you play today in WoW." - Raph Koster, What is a Diku?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Yes semantics about your defensive vs threat mechanics ...
As for my point, sure there was one, sorry it was lost on you. It becomes the only efficient option, there are always other options, but usually I go for the optimal one, maybe you are different. You go for full damage on the guy in front of you, or a 5% chance to hit a target in the back ?
The word "threat" was never never never never never used in EQ. We used the word aggro and hate. Threat was never used.
Now that that's cleared up....lol.
lol, not even worth it
Oh lets throw same arbitrary numbers around, and, just FYI, it works BOTH ways. What are exactly your back liners doing if they dont have LOS to anything, so 0% chance fo hit, while opponents freely hit your door guy huh?
noone cares really, its 2015 not 1999
people care
1. because EQ gets mentioned all the time here, more than any other game
2. because this topis is trinity and there are currently not many trinity MMO (FFXIV, but I can't think of any other new ones)
No one said it was. Do you not see the difference in conversation between drivers talking about a car (you and your EQ buddies) and mechanics talking about a car (a thread on game mechanics by people with a knowledge of them)?
By your logic, mass air flow sensors didn't exist in cars until the day a mechanic told you that you need one.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Wizard could still have LOS for droping an area effect spell in that room. Or he could be concealed from 1 attacker but have LOS to another.