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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already while struggling to get LOS (with penalties) on 1 opponent.
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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
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?
Which is why I asked for a definition, thanks for providing that. As I said it's just that EQ's aggro and WoW's threat work differently. That's obvious to anyone that's played both games and as I said I kept seeing posts about EQ and threat based tanking. Back in 99 when playing EQ we never talked about threat based tanking, we never talked about "threat" at all. We talked about aggro, allowing the tank to build aggro, not over nuking and drawing aggro. We knew about the hate list and how damage/healing affected our place on it. Kostner even says there's a line from MUD to EQ to WOW. "Based on" doesn't mean exactly the same.
I'd have to say that while EQ does in fact seem to be based on this Diku, WoW would appear to have evolved into something a bit different in the way it handles aggro management, with the emphasis more on the tank holding aggro through skills and abilities (that generate threat), rather than EQ's more old fashioned aggro management depending upon the individual to be responsible for their own damage/aggro levels. There's a clear difference between the two systems in who is responsible for aggro management, which results in a difference in how they play. Because of that I'm sticking to my guns on that earlier post because the two games play completely differently, which wouldn't be possible if it was exactly the same mechanic.
I think we've got an evolution here from the MUD using Diku to a slighlty altered system which allowed it to work with what the EQ devs wanted to achieve and a further evolved system used in WOW to accomplish what they wanted to achieve.
As far as the term "Threat Based Tanking" goes I think it perfectly fits what we see in WoW and post WoW MMO's but I can't say the same about EQ.
Anyway I was looking for a definition, so thanks for providing that link. It was an interesting read.
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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
It obviously wouldnt work against lot of crap you encountered (unless your DM decided to play dumb for wahtever reason) and every class was eqipped with tools to deal with "aggro" and in EQ only 1 "role" was equipped for it due to gimped class design and was equipped with taunt mechanic. Just like in every trinty game that followed.
Taunt doesnt guaratee agrro in any trinity game i played. WHat its DOES do is give tank to REGAIN aggro if lost. It has worked like that from the START.
You really should get more experience with things you talk about, both of you seem to have very little undestanding of modern trinity and taunt mechinic in general.
And, oh yeah, its hate=threat these days. You should get up to speed on that one too.
What is "The Trinity"? Mostly Extinct. Killed by the prevalent PvP balancing needs, a system that didn't exist in the beginning because the focus was on control (survival) and teamwork, not competition. Remove the PvP needs from any MMO and I believe roles will naturally evolve again to encompass the trinity which will in turn allow for much more interesting encounter dynamics.
What was "The Trinity"? Threat / agro mechanics encompassing three factors which were absorption, replenishment, and mitigation. DPS was everyones secondary job. Knowing when NOT to DPS was far more important in most cases than how much DPS you did.
Please note that none of the posts seem to discuss the trinity in any way outside the MMO realm. For example in a standard single player RPG. As such I have limited my response to the MMO realm as well.
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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
It obviously wouldnt work against lot of crap you encountered (unless your DM decided to play dumb for wahtever reason) and every class was eqipped with tools to deal with "aggro" and in EQ only 1 "role" was equipped for it due to gimped class design and was equipped with taunt mechanic. Just like in every trinty game that followed.
Taunt doesnt guaratee agrro in any trinity game i played. WHat its DOES do is give tank to REGAIN aggro if lost. It has worked like that from the START.
You really should get more experience with things you talk about, both of you seem to have very little undestanding of modern trinity and taunt mechinic in general.
And, oh yeah, its hate=threat these days. You should get up to speed on that one too.
It worked pretty often, you were not always fighting intelligent creatures.
To me there doesn't need to be a taunt skill to be a trinity. You could take EQ, remove the taunt skill, and it would still be a trinity game. The warrior always had to be doing more damage than anyone else no matter what.
You can spin it any way you want, the Trinity, for the majority of people, is tank, healer, dps (or support, cc). You can complain all you want, it is what people will use. Same as today any game that is played online is a MMO, we might not agree with it but the majority determines what a word means. You either let it go, or complain about it all your life.
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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
It obviously wouldnt work against lot of crap you encountered (unless your DM decided to play dumb for wahtever reason) and every class was eqipped with tools to deal with "aggro" and in EQ only 1 "role" was equipped for it due to gimped class design and was equipped with taunt mechanic. Just like in every trinty game that followed.
Taunt doesnt guaratee agrro in any trinity game i played. WHat its DOES do is give tank to REGAIN aggro if lost. It has worked like that from the START.
You really should get more experience with things you talk about, both of you seem to have very little undestanding of modern trinity and taunt mechinic in general.
And, oh yeah, its hate=threat these days. You should get up to speed on that one too.
It worked pretty often, you were not always fighting intelligent creatures.
To me there doesn't need to be a taunt skill to be a trinity. You could take EQ, remove the taunt skill, and it would still be a trinity game. The warrior always had to be doing more damage than anyone else no matter what.
You can spin it any way you want, the Trinity, for the majority of people, is tank, healer, dps (or support, cc). You can complain all you want, it is what people will use. Same as today any game that is played online is a MMO, we might not agree with it but the majority determines what a word means. You either let it go, or complain about it all your life.
Players never decide what combat system for game is, thats where you get confused.
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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
It obviously wouldnt work against lot of crap you encountered (unless your DM decided to play dumb for wahtever reason) and every class was eqipped with tools to deal with "aggro" and in EQ only 1 "role" was equipped for it due to gimped class design and was equipped with taunt mechanic. Just like in every trinty game that followed.
Taunt doesnt guaratee agrro in any trinity game i played. WHat its DOES do is give tank to REGAIN aggro if lost. It has worked like that from the START.
You really should get more experience with things you talk about, both of you seem to have very little undestanding of modern trinity and taunt mechinic in general.
And, oh yeah, its hate=threat these days. You should get up to speed on that one too.
It worked pretty often, you were not always fighting intelligent creatures.
To me there doesn't need to be a taunt skill to be a trinity. You could take EQ, remove the taunt skill, and it would still be a trinity game. The warrior always had to be doing more damage than anyone else no matter what.
You can spin it any way you want, the Trinity, for the majority of people, is tank, healer, dps (or support, cc). You can complain all you want, it is what people will use. Same as today any game that is played online is a MMO, we might not agree with it but the majority determines what a word means. You either let it go, or complain about it all your life.
Players never decide what combat system for game is, thats where you get confused.
Players decide the meaning of the words used. Which is the subject of this thread.
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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
It obviously wouldnt work against lot of crap you encountered (unless your DM decided to play dumb for wahtever reason) and every class was eqipped with tools to deal with "aggro" and in EQ only 1 "role" was equipped for it due to gimped class design and was equipped with taunt mechanic. Just like in every trinty game that followed.
Taunt doesnt guaratee agrro in any trinity game i played. WHat its DOES do is give tank to REGAIN aggro if lost. It has worked like that from the START.
You really should get more experience with things you talk about, both of you seem to have very little undestanding of modern trinity and taunt mechinic in general.
And, oh yeah, its hate=threat these days. You should get up to speed on that one too.
It worked pretty often, you were not always fighting intelligent creatures.
To me there doesn't need to be a taunt skill to be a trinity. You could take EQ, remove the taunt skill, and it would still be a trinity game. The warrior always had to be doing more damage than anyone else no matter what.
You can spin it any way you want, the Trinity, for the majority of people, is tank, healer, dps (or support, cc). You can complain all you want, it is what people will use. Same as today any game that is played online is a MMO, we might not agree with it but the majority determines what a word means. You either let it go, or complain about it all your life.
Players never decide what combat system for game is, thats where you get confused.
Players decide the meaning of the words used. Which is the subject of this thread.
"All I will say in this OP is that we seem to have some minor dispute to what the trinity actually is in threads that are trying to discuss it's pro's and cons so I thought it might be beneficial if we could actually define it."
You can of course think whatever you want, ill stick to what it actually is and use definition properly.
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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
It obviously wouldnt work against lot of crap you encountered (unless your DM decided to play dumb for wahtever reason) and every class was eqipped with tools to deal with "aggro" and in EQ only 1 "role" was equipped for it due to gimped class design and was equipped with taunt mechanic. Just like in every trinty game that followed.
Taunt doesnt guaratee agrro in any trinity game i played. WHat its DOES do is give tank to REGAIN aggro if lost. It has worked like that from the START.
You really should get more experience with things you talk about, both of you seem to have very little undestanding of modern trinity and taunt mechinic in general.
And, oh yeah, its hate=threat these days. You should get up to speed on that one too.
It worked pretty often, you were not always fighting intelligent creatures.
To me there doesn't need to be a taunt skill to be a trinity. You could take EQ, remove the taunt skill, and it would still be a trinity game. The warrior always had to be doing more damage than anyone else no matter what.
You can spin it any way you want, the Trinity, for the majority of people, is tank, healer, dps (or support, cc). You can complain all you want, it is what people will use. Same as today any game that is played online is a MMO, we might not agree with it but the majority determines what a word means. You either let it go, or complain about it all your life.
Players never decide what combat system for game is, thats where you get confused.
Players decide the meaning of the words used. Which is the subject of this thread.
"All I will say in this OP is that we seem to have some minor dispute to what the trinity actually is in threads that are trying to discuss it's pro's and cons so I thought it might be beneficial if we could actually define it."
You can of course think whatever you want, ill stick to what it actually is and use definition properly.
And 90% don't agree with you, which is why eventually you have to cave in and accept the definition the majority agrees on. If not, any further conversation will always be confusing.
To me there doesn't need to be a taunt skill to be a trinity.
You're then confusing combat roles with combat systems.
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 ?
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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
It obviously wouldnt work against lot of crap you encountered (unless your DM decided to play dumb for wahtever reason) and every class was eqipped with tools to deal with "aggro" and in EQ only 1 "role" was equipped for it due to gimped class design and was equipped with taunt mechanic. Just like in every trinty game that followed.
Taunt doesnt guaratee agrro in any trinity game i played. WHat its DOES do is give tank to REGAIN aggro if lost. It has worked like that from the START.
You really should get more experience with things you talk about, both of you seem to have very little undestanding of modern trinity and taunt mechinic in general.
And, oh yeah, its hate=threat these days. You should get up to speed on that one too.
It worked pretty often, you were not always fighting intelligent creatures.
To me there doesn't need to be a taunt skill to be a trinity. You could take EQ, remove the taunt skill, and it would still be a trinity game. The warrior always had to be doing more damage than anyone else no matter what.
You can spin it any way you want, the Trinity, for the majority of people, is tank, healer, dps (or support, cc). You can complain all you want, it is what people will use. Same as today any game that is played online is a MMO, we might not agree with it but the majority determines what a word means. You either let it go, or complain about it all your life.
Players never decide what combat system for game is, thats where you get confused.
Players decide the meaning of the words used. Which is the subject of this thread.
"All I will say in this OP is that we seem to have some minor dispute to what the trinity actually is in threads that are trying to discuss it's pro's and cons so I thought it might be beneficial if we could actually define it."
You can of course think whatever you want, ill stick to what it actually is and use definition properly.
And 90% don't agree with you, which is why eventually you have to cave in and accept the definition the majority agrees on. If not, any further conversation will always be confusing.
proper definition is thats it is (currently) BOTH options from the poll, option which isnt present in the poll.
So you cannot possibly know how many people agree or disagree, and only confusion stems from improper use of definition/lack of understanding what it is.
So you will either understand what it is and use definition properly.....or stay confused.
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.
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
It obviously wouldnt work against lot of crap you encountered (unless your DM decided to play dumb for wahtever reason) and every class was eqipped with tools to deal with "aggro" and in EQ only 1 "role" was equipped for it due to gimped class design and was equipped with taunt mechanic. Just like in every trinty game that followed.
Taunt doesnt guaratee agrro in any trinity game i played. WHat its DOES do is give tank to REGAIN aggro if lost. It has worked like that from the START.
You really should get more experience with things you talk about, both of you seem to have very little undestanding of modern trinity and taunt mechinic in general.
And, oh yeah, its hate=threat these days. You should get up to speed on that one too.
It worked pretty often, you were not always fighting intelligent creatures.
To me there doesn't need to be a taunt skill to be a trinity. You could take EQ, remove the taunt skill, and it would still be a trinity game. The warrior always had to be doing more damage than anyone else no matter what.
You can spin it any way you want, the Trinity, for the majority of people, is tank, healer, dps (or support, cc). You can complain all you want, it is what people will use. Same as today any game that is played online is a MMO, we might not agree with it but the majority determines what a word means. You either let it go, or complain about it all your life.
Players never decide what combat system for game is, thats where you get confused.
Players decide the meaning of the words used. Which is the subject of this thread.
"All I will say in this OP is that we seem to have some minor dispute to what the trinity actually is in threads that are trying to discuss it's pro's and cons so I thought it might be beneficial if we could actually define it."
You can of course think whatever you want, ill stick to what it actually is and use definition properly.
And 90% don't agree with you, which is why eventually you have to cave in and accept the definition the majority agrees on. If not, any further conversation will always be confusing.
proper definition is thats it is (currently) BOTH options from the poll, option which isnt present in the poll.
So you cannot possibly know how many people agree or disagree, and only confusion stems from improper use of definition/lack of understanding what it is.
So you will either understand what it is and use definition properly.....or stay confused.
Can you give me YOUR definition so I could figure out what you are trying to say ? If someone ask you, what is the trinity in an mmorpg?
It sounds to me like the confusion is arising due to a mix up between defined roles in gameplay, or classes used in gameplay and a game mechanic that deals with threat/aggro and how mobs react to it.
Threat based or taunt based tanking is a game mechanic. "The Trinity" is defined roles in WoW and post WoW MMO's of tank, healer and dps. I don't think you can say that the trinity is the game mechanic, you can't say the trinity is threat based tanking, because Threat Based Tanking is not the roles used to counter the game mechanic, it's the combat mechanic itself. They may be tied together, one forcing the other to be used in the game design but they are two seperate things in and of themselves.
In EQ it was Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter and a hate/damage based list which defined who a mob attacked. Not exactly the same thing but both appear to be based on this Diku system Loktofeit was kind enough to point out to me. Thanks again for that. Lok.
One is a combat mechanic and the other is how certain classes/roles are used within that system. It also seems that people who talk about threat based tanking are also aware that this automatically means the inclusion of a trinity and so they perhaps don't bother to specify that they're talking about a trinity because that's a given.
I could also be talking complete bollocks. I think we should all cut each other a little slack on this one.
The model is well know by all. A Tank is not a tank if he cannot hold the attention of the boss, that means managing threat. threat and the trinity are closely tied. If the boss is attacking healers they cant heal, they die, fight over. If the boss attacks dps, they don't have the armor or skills to survive so the fight runs out of dps, fight over.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
It sounds to me like the confusion is arising due to a mix up between defined roles in gameplay, or classes used in gameplay and a game mechanic that deals with threat/aggro and how mobs react to it.
Threat based or taunt based tanking is a game mechanic. "The Trinity" is defined roles in WoW and post WoW MMO's of tank, healer and dps. I don't think you can say that the trinity is the game mechanic, you can't say the trinity is threat based tanking, because Threat Based Tanking is not the roles used to counter the game mechanic, it's the combat mechanic itself. They may be tied together, one forcing the other to be used in the game design but they are two seperate things in and of themselves.
In EQ it was Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter and a hate/damage based list which defined who a mob attacked. Not exactly the same thing but both appear to be based on this Diku system Loktofeit was kind enough to point out to me. Thanks again for that. Lok.
One is a combat mechanic and the other is how certain classes/roles are used within that system. It also seems that people who talk about threat based tanking are also aware that this automatically means the inclusion of a trinity and so they perhaps don't bother to specify that they're talking about a trinity because that's a given.
I could also be talking complete bollocks. I think we should all cut each other a little slack on this one.
Yup, and the only constant in trinity is tank/threat/taunt, rest is optional. Threat is produced exactly same way as it was 15 years ago, taunt is same skill as it was 15 years ago, nothing changed because it wouldnt work without that (you would have to redesign classes so they arent reliant on tank tanking, but then tank is redundant so you have to redesign tank, and so on and you then you dont have trinity any more)
So for now its pretty much binary, you either have games wih trinity that work same like 15 years ago, or games without. Until something new comes out that can replace threat/taunt as mechanic, trinity is straightforward and theres really no confuison what it is.
Yup, and the only constant in trinity is tank/threat/taunt, rest is optional. Threat is produced exactly same way as it was 15 years ago, taunt is same skill as it was 15 years ago, nothing changed because it wouldnt work without that (you would have to redesign classes so they arent reliant on tank tanking, but then tank is redundant so you have to redesign tank, and so on and you then you dont have trinity any more)
So for now its pretty much binary, you either have games wih trinity that work same like 15 years ago, or games without. Until something new comes out that can replace threat/taunt as mechanic, trinity is straightforward and theres really no confuison what it is.
Taunt always were an optional part in threat-based mechanics for WoW since quite a lot of bosses were immune to taunt. Threat has been changed quite a lot of times, and it doesn't behave the same way in tera online like it does in WoW, even though both games have tanks, healers and damage dealers.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
Yeah, everyone gets mad at that pawn and mindlessly attack ti while it gets healed by bishop while rook and queen range opposing pieces from bacline and nothing can get passed by that pawn in any way because it has all the aggro.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
Yeah, everyone gets mad at that pawn and mindlessly attack ti while it gets healed by bishop while rook and queen range opposing pieces from bacline and nothing can get passed by that pawn in any way because it has all the aggro.
Just like chess rofl.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by PAL-18
Trinity is like playing chess.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
I don't remember any threat/aggro mecanic in chess. The opponent is usually smart enough not to attack the most well protected piece instead of the weakest one.
Just take it like this,King = tank and then you have support roles and attackers
Like holy trinity,we have suppopt roles,tank and attackers and cc and kiting etc.
Thats what makes holy trinity interesting like chess,some people can play as healer but cant handle for example tanking or vice verca etc..
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/ **
Yup, and the only constant in trinity is tank/threat/taunt, rest is optional. Threat is produced exactly same way as it was 15 years ago, taunt is same skill as it was 15 years ago, nothing changed because it wouldnt work without that (you would have to redesign classes so they arent reliant on tank tanking, but then tank is redundant so you have to redesign tank, and so on and you then you dont have trinity any more)
So for now its pretty much binary, you either have games wih trinity that work same like 15 years ago, or games without. Until something new comes out that can replace threat/taunt as mechanic, trinity is straightforward and theres really no confuison what it is.
Taunt always were an optional part in threat-based mechanics for WoW since quite a lot of bosses were immune to taunt. Threat has been changed quite a lot of times, and it doesn't behave the same way in tera online like it does in WoW, even though both games have tanks, healers and damage dealers.
It wasnt optional, bosses that were immune to taunt had sepcific gals in mind, and explain to me how do you swap aggro dealing with bosses that requre aggro swap between tanks.
Threat generation hasnt changed and works the same for 15 years.
Now is a good time for you to demonstrate how threat generation is different between WoW and TERA.
And funny, but you yourself mention both games feature tank/threat/taunt rofl (not that it is unknown, both are trinity games working in same way) and taunt is even required in rotation in TERA.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
Yeah, everyone gets mad at that pawn and mindlessly attack ti while it gets healed by bishop while rook and queen range opposing pieces from bacline and nothing can get passed by that pawn in any way because it has all the aggro.
Just like chess rofl.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by PAL-18
Trinity is like playing chess.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
I don't remember any threat/aggro mecanic in chess. The opponent is usually smart enough not to attack the most well protected piece instead of the weakest one.
Just take it like this,King = tank and then you have support roles and attackers
Like holy trinity,we have suppopt roles,tank and attackers and cc and kiting etc.
Thats what makes holy trinity interesting like chess,some people can play as healer but cant handle for example tanking or vice verca etc..
Yeah, i regularly tank with my king in chess. *facepalm"
You just made my day.
Chess is oppsite of trinity, any piece can be highest threat at any time depending on situation on the board and pieces change their defensive/offensive role all the time.
YOu certainly wont go after that pawn if opposing bsihop is about to take your king just because some arbitrary threat meter. Well, not if you are intelligent and have understanding of chess.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
Yeah, everyone gets mad at that pawn and mindlessly attack ti while it gets healed by bishop while rook and queen range opposing pieces from bacline and nothing can get passed by that pawn in any way because it has all the aggro.
Just like chess rofl.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by PAL-18
Trinity is like playing chess.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
I don't remember any threat/aggro mecanic in chess. The opponent is usually smart enough not to attack the most well protected piece instead of the weakest one.
Just take it like this,King = tank and then you have support roles and attackers
Like holy trinity,we have suppopt roles,tank and attackers and cc and kiting etc.
Thats what makes holy trinity interesting like chess,some people can play as healer but cant handle for example tanking or vice verca etc..
Yeah, i regularly tank with my king in chess. *facepalm"
You just made my day.
Thats the difference of the mindset you need in holy trinity,you support your tank or it will die.
But obviously you lack that kind of mindset.
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/ **
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
Yeah, everyone gets mad at that pawn and mindlessly attack ti while it gets healed by bishop while rook and queen range opposing pieces from bacline and nothing can get passed by that pawn in any way because it has all the aggro.
Just like chess rofl.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by PAL-18
Trinity is like playing chess.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
I don't remember any threat/aggro mecanic in chess. The opponent is usually smart enough not to attack the most well protected piece instead of the weakest one.
Just take it like this,King = tank and then you have support roles and attackers
Like holy trinity,we have suppopt roles,tank and attackers and cc and kiting etc.
Thats what makes holy trinity interesting like chess,some people can play as healer but cant handle for example tanking or vice verca etc..
Yeah, i regularly tank with my king in chess. *facepalm"
You just made my day.
Thats the difference of the mindset you need in holy trinity,you support your tank or it will die.
But obviously you lack that kind of mindset.
King has least threat in chess, sorry, you just have no clue about playing chess.
Thats why PvP players dont mindlessly beat on tank that gets healing while being killed in the process. Well, not good ones. People like you OTOH....
Comments
you mean same like opponent wizards already unloaded their AOEs on your back liners, while your door guy is going down while your back liners twiddle their thumbs if not dead already while struggling to get LOS (with penalties) on 1 opponent.
Youre screwed.
It is a situational tactic, obviously it wouldn't work against wizards. All I say is that there have always been ways to make your big guy take most of the damage while your others guys cleared the area. Doesn't mean that your backliner never took any damage. I guess in that sense it is closer to EQ as in the ''tank'' would never have garanteed aggro compared to WoW with cheap taunts.
Which is why I asked for a definition, thanks for providing that. As I said it's just that EQ's aggro and WoW's threat work differently. That's obvious to anyone that's played both games and as I said I kept seeing posts about EQ and threat based tanking. Back in 99 when playing EQ we never talked about threat based tanking, we never talked about "threat" at all. We talked about aggro, allowing the tank to build aggro, not over nuking and drawing aggro. We knew about the hate list and how damage/healing affected our place on it. Kostner even says there's a line from MUD to EQ to WOW. "Based on" doesn't mean exactly the same.
I'd have to say that while EQ does in fact seem to be based on this Diku, WoW would appear to have evolved into something a bit different in the way it handles aggro management, with the emphasis more on the tank holding aggro through skills and abilities (that generate threat), rather than EQ's more old fashioned aggro management depending upon the individual to be responsible for their own damage/aggro levels. There's a clear difference between the two systems in who is responsible for aggro management, which results in a difference in how they play. Because of that I'm sticking to my guns on that earlier post because the two games play completely differently, which wouldn't be possible if it was exactly the same mechanic.
I think we've got an evolution here from the MUD using Diku to a slighlty altered system which allowed it to work with what the EQ devs wanted to achieve and a further evolved system used in WOW to accomplish what they wanted to achieve.
As far as the term "Threat Based Tanking" goes I think it perfectly fits what we see in WoW and post WoW MMO's but I can't say the same about EQ.
Anyway I was looking for a definition, so thanks for providing that link. It was an interesting read.
It obviously wouldnt work against lot of crap you encountered (unless your DM decided to play dumb for wahtever reason) and every class was eqipped with tools to deal with "aggro" and in EQ only 1 "role" was equipped for it due to gimped class design and was equipped with taunt mechanic. Just like in every trinty game that followed.
Taunt doesnt guaratee agrro in any trinity game i played. WHat its DOES do is give tank to REGAIN aggro if lost. It has worked like that from the START.
You really should get more experience with things you talk about, both of you seem to have very little undestanding of modern trinity and taunt mechinic in general.
And, oh yeah, its hate=threat these days. You should get up to speed on that one too.
What is "The Trinity"? Mostly Extinct. Killed by the prevalent PvP balancing needs, a system that didn't exist in the beginning because the focus was on control (survival) and teamwork, not competition. Remove the PvP needs from any MMO and I believe roles will naturally evolve again to encompass the trinity which will in turn allow for much more interesting encounter dynamics.
What was "The Trinity"? Threat / agro mechanics encompassing three factors which were absorption, replenishment, and mitigation. DPS was everyones secondary job. Knowing when NOT to DPS was far more important in most cases than how much DPS you did.
Please note that none of the posts seem to discuss the trinity in any way outside the MMO realm. For example in a standard single player RPG. As such I have limited my response to the MMO realm as well.
Slayer
It worked pretty often, you were not always fighting intelligent creatures.
To me there doesn't need to be a taunt skill to be a trinity. You could take EQ, remove the taunt skill, and it would still be a trinity game. The warrior always had to be doing more damage than anyone else no matter what.
You can spin it any way you want, the Trinity, for the majority of people, is tank, healer, dps (or support, cc). You can complain all you want, it is what people will use. Same as today any game that is played online is a MMO, we might not agree with it but the majority determines what a word means. You either let it go, or complain about it all your life.
Players never decide what combat system for game is, thats where you get confused.
Players decide the meaning of the words used. Which is the subject of this thread.
"All I will say in this OP is that we seem to have some minor dispute to what the trinity actually is in threads that are trying to discuss it's pro's and cons so I thought it might be beneficial if we could actually define it."
You can of course think whatever you want, ill stick to what it actually is and use definition properly.
And 90% don't agree with you, which is why eventually you have to cave in and accept the definition the majority agrees on. If not, any further conversation will always be confusing.
You're then confusing combat roles with combat systems.
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
What would be the holy trinity to you then ?
proper definition is thats it is (currently) BOTH options from the poll, option which isnt present in the poll.
So you cannot possibly know how many people agree or disagree, and only confusion stems from improper use of definition/lack of understanding what it is.
So you will either understand what it is and use definition properly.....or stay confused.
Can you give me YOUR definition so I could figure out what you are trying to say ? If someone ask you, what is the trinity in an mmorpg?
It sounds to me like the confusion is arising due to a mix up between defined roles in gameplay, or classes used in gameplay and a game mechanic that deals with threat/aggro and how mobs react to it.
Threat based or taunt based tanking is a game mechanic. "The Trinity" is defined roles in WoW and post WoW MMO's of tank, healer and dps. I don't think you can say that the trinity is the game mechanic, you can't say the trinity is threat based tanking, because Threat Based Tanking is not the roles used to counter the game mechanic, it's the combat mechanic itself. They may be tied together, one forcing the other to be used in the game design but they are two seperate things in and of themselves.
In EQ it was Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter and a hate/damage based list which defined who a mob attacked. Not exactly the same thing but both appear to be based on this Diku system Loktofeit was kind enough to point out to me. Thanks again for that. Lok.
One is a combat mechanic and the other is how certain classes/roles are used within that system. It also seems that people who talk about threat based tanking are also aware that this automatically means the inclusion of a trinity and so they perhaps don't bother to specify that they're talking about a trinity because that's a given.
I could also be talking complete bollocks. I think we should all cut each other a little slack on this one.
The model is well know by all. A Tank is not a tank if he cannot hold the attention of the boss, that means managing threat. threat and the trinity are closely tied. If the boss is attacking healers they cant heal, they die, fight over. If the boss attacks dps, they don't have the armor or skills to survive so the fight runs out of dps, fight over.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Yup, and the only constant in trinity is tank/threat/taunt, rest is optional. Threat is produced exactly same way as it was 15 years ago, taunt is same skill as it was 15 years ago, nothing changed because it wouldnt work without that (you would have to redesign classes so they arent reliant on tank tanking, but then tank is redundant so you have to redesign tank, and so on and you then you dont have trinity any more)
So for now its pretty much binary, you either have games wih trinity that work same like 15 years ago, or games without. Until something new comes out that can replace threat/taunt as mechanic, trinity is straightforward and theres really no confuison what it is.
Taunt always were an optional part in threat-based mechanics for WoW since quite a lot of bosses were immune to taunt. Threat has been changed quite a lot of times, and it doesn't behave the same way in tera online like it does in WoW, even though both games have tanks, healers and damage dealers.
Trinity is like playing chess.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
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/ **
Yeah, everyone gets mad at that pawn and mindlessly attack ti while it gets healed by bishop while rook and queen range opposing pieces from bacline and nothing can get passed by that pawn in any way because it has all the aggro.
Just like chess rofl.
Just take it like this,King = tank and then you have support roles and attackers
Like holy trinity,we have suppopt roles,tank and attackers and cc and kiting etc.
Thats what makes holy trinity interesting like chess,some people can play as healer but cant handle for example tanking or vice verca etc..
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/ **
It wasnt optional, bosses that were immune to taunt had sepcific gals in mind, and explain to me how do you swap aggro dealing with bosses that requre aggro swap between tanks.
Threat generation hasnt changed and works the same for 15 years.
Now is a good time for you to demonstrate how threat generation is different between WoW and TERA.
And funny, but you yourself mention both games feature tank/threat/taunt rofl (not that it is unknown, both are trinity games working in same way) and taunt is even required in rotation in TERA.
Yeah, i regularly tank with my king in chess. *facepalm"
You just made my day.
Chess is oppsite of trinity, any piece can be highest threat at any time depending on situation on the board and pieces change their defensive/offensive role all the time.
YOu certainly wont go after that pawn if opposing bsihop is about to take your king just because some arbitrary threat meter. Well, not if you are intelligent and have understanding of chess.
Thats the difference of the mindset you need in holy trinity,you support your tank or it will die.
But obviously you lack that kind of mindset.
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/ **
King has least threat in chess, sorry, you just have no clue about playing chess.
Thats why PvP players dont mindlessly beat on tank that gets healing while being killed in the process. Well, not good ones. People like you OTOH....