People are just amazing, they think because every game or combat simulation must rely on taking damage, regenerating damage, and avoiding damage, they think they all have the trinity. Trinity is about tank/healer/dps, thats quiet a huge difference here. Once more the so called trinity is a design mechanism, it is not about the pure trio that revolve around damage simulation. It could be but it is not. Fps don't have healer, neither tank, and it is a combat mechanism that still revolve about damage mechanism, so once more, if you talk about something be aware of its definition. Just don't throw words like this as if they meant everything and nothing.
In d&d neither the warrior could pull agro, neither the healer was a healing machine, it had at best 3/5 heal spell maybe less, it wasn't weak at all in fact it was a melee build with chain mail and blunt weapon and did go at contact. Dps and mage/rogue never rely on crowd control for their survival either when alone in front of monster, just like healer never survive with self healing chain. The tank/heal/dps in mmo is just a game mechanism that exist only in some mmo. FPS certainly don't use the trinity, i think this one is obvious for everyone is it? lol. Honestly i'm kind of scred someone will come here and claim the trinity exist even in fps games...
Aye, it's like saying combat has to involve doing damage at a distance, doing it close, and movement. So naturally you need to split those roles up into Movers (guys that move themselves and others), melee, and ranged. You can play this silly game with any 3 things combat might involve as long as you ignore all the others, then pretend all group combat has to be divied up the same way.
You seem to have completely missed my point. The RPS dynamic is NOT what the Holy Trinity is. You don't have tanks beating healers beating dps. The interelation is just not the same at all.
I assure you I have not missed your point, I'm just having trouble finding the words to simplify population dynamics to a quick couple of paragraphs that make sense in a forum post.
You are getting stuck in imagining 1-vs-1 PVP - that's not what I'm trying to compare it to. But given that you cannot see the abstract population dynamic I'm trying to describe, I'll have to accept that it's not a useful analogy to use in forum discussions.
Quite frankly, the Trinity doesn't exist outside the three games I mentioned. Heck, last night I was in a Dark Age of Camelot group that only had 2 healers, and the rest were mages or pet users. No tanks, and we did more than a "Holy Trinity" group is possible of doing with fewer deaths...if any.
As others have mentioned, you clearly have not played enough MMOs if you think DAoC also doesn't have the concept of the Holy Trinity. There are most definitely classes which "tank" better than others. For example, a Furbolg Hero skilled in shields (at least when I last played). You have your healing classes and your damage. The only reason your group survived is because you had pet classes in the group. Pets often fill the role of tank when one isn't available.
You can change the formula a tad, but at the end of the day that's still the Holy Trinity.Just beacause the tank won't aggro doesnt mean he's not a TANK and therefore meant to take damage. Just beacause the healer can fight doens't mean its not a HEALER, and meant to heal. Just beacause a rouge can survive a while without the tank, by no means says that that char. isn't a DPS char, therefore meant to do the most damge...per...second...so don't call someone's view foolish and then regurgitate there info with a "twist" on it.
You seem to have completely missed my point. The RPS dynamic is NOT what the Holy Trinity is. You don't have tanks beating healers beating dps. The interelation is just not the same at all.
I assure you I have not missed your point, I'm just having trouble finding the words to simplify population dynamics to a quick couple of paragraphs that make sense in a forum post.
You are getting stuck in imagining 1-vs-1 PVP - that's not what I'm trying to compare it to. But given that you cannot see the abstract population dynamic I'm trying to describe, I'll have to accept that it's not a useful analogy to use in forum discussions.
No, I'm NOT imagining 1v1 PvP. I in fact gave an example of RPS that worked more or less in a historical setting (and in many RTS games) that primarily was about group on group combat. Again, just because you have 3 different specializations does not mean their relationship to each other is at all like rock-paper-scissors. Also, like I said, just because you have 3 different specializations doesn't mean there aren't other factors that are really important in combat (or should be).
Probably the reason you are having trouble describing your point is because it isn't true at all.
You can change the formula a tad, but at the end of the day that's still the Holy Trinity.Just beacause the tank won't aggro doesnt mean he's not a TANK and therefore meant to take damage. Just beacause the healer can fight doens't mean its not a HEALER, and meant to heal. Just beacause a rouge can survive a while without the tank, by no means says that that char. isn't a DPS char, therefore meant to do the most damge...per...second...so don't call someone's view foolish and then regurgitate there info with a "twist" on it.
If tough people can't make other things attack them, ignoring the real threats, then they aren't HT tanks because they can't do the job an HT tank can do. There are a lot of elements even in MMO combat, and HT is only one out of many ways to offer specialization for them. It happens to be one that doesn't make a whole lot of sense and requires enemies to behave like idiots.
Acting like everyone MMORPG has to use this is ridiculous in the extreme. Heck, most RPGs where you have a group of guys on your side don't use anything like HT..it's an oddity of the MMORPG world (and isn't even the only one in MMORPGs). You can pretend all you want it is the only possible game in town, but this simply isn't the case. Like I said a few posts ago, might as well propose all combat has to have Movers (people who move themselves and others), Melee, and Ranged specilizations. Pretending HT must be is just as crazy as pretending MoMeRa must be as well. You can play this game with any three combat elements.
I have actually always been a fan of games with no class.free form class (UO, Fallen Earth etc) or Hybrid classes in the MMO's I have played.
That said normally my first alt in an MMO will be rolled as a specialist class. I like the idea of being a jack of all trades character and master of none for the flexibility but in some situations you do need a specific tank/dps/healer. The gap between what a hybrid class and a specialist class can achieve is diminishing especially as MMO's become more skill based than Uber build based but I think the option of specialist classes will always remain.
Even with Fallen Earth's system you are basically better off concentrating on specific skills for combat rathern then trying spread between all mutations, rilfes, pistols and melee.
I have actually always been a fan of games with no class.free form class (UO, Fallen Earth etc) or Hybrid classes in the MMO's I have played.
That said normally my first alt in an MMO will be rolled as a specialist class. I like the idea of being a jack of all trades character and master of none for the flexibility but in some situations you do need a specific tank/dps/healer. The gap between what a hybrid class and a specialist class can achieve is diminishing especially as MMO's become more skill based than Uber build based but I think the option of specialist classes will always remain.
Even with Fallen Earth's system you are basically better off concentrating on specific skills for combat rathern then trying spread between all mutations, rilfes, pistols and melee.
Once again, just because you have a system with specialities doesn't mean it even needs to allow tank/healer/dps specialities. There are many, many, many ways to have specialized roles and thinking that the Holy Trinity is the only way to do that is absurd.
I am still waiting for an explaination of why anything needs to change. Again, all I read is people wanting to change a genre into what they want it to be. The fact of the matter is that the core issue is that most people today want a mmofps. And while that is fine and good, why does that have to come about via destroying the classic mmorpg framework? There is no reason to be stuck in the "one game to rule them all" mindset. If you want a mmofps, great. There should be several games to address that market. But people should not be talking about changing a whole genre to fit that vision. And again, it is amazing how many people are talking about GW2 like its already out and they know 100% how its going to be in live form. The fact of the matter is the AI will be the same it always has and no amount of phasing is going to change that. Until a true AI is implimented or a Dungeon Master is brought into games. AI will be roughly the same and respond the same way whether we are talking free role or holy trinity mechanics.
I am still waiting for an explaination of why anything needs to change. Again, all I read is people wanting to change a genre into what they want it to be. The fact of the matter is that the core issue is that most people today want a mmofps. And while that is fine and good, why does that have to come about via destroying the classic mmorpg framework? There is no reason to be stuck in the "one game to rule them all" mindset. If you want a mmofps, great. There should be several games to address that market. But people should not be talking about changing a whole genre to fit that vision. And again, it is amazing how many people are talking about GW2 like its already out and they know 100% how its going to be in live form. The fact of the matter is the AI will be the same it always has and no amount of phasing is going to change that. Until a true AI is implimented or a Dungeon Master is brought into games. AI will be roughly the same and respond the same way whether we are talking free role or holy trinity mechanics.
Have I said I wanted an MMOFPS? Seems like this is something you are projecting on people you disagree with and hence lumping them into one big category. I and many others have simply said that the vast, vast, vast majority of RPGs both in pen and in computer do not use the Holy Trinity. We've said it is bad because the specializations it has ARE silly. You simply don't see any other games of any stripe where someone is designed to only take damage and not deal it, only do damage and not take it, and only heal and not do anything else. Having the specialization be in these three areas rather than another three is quite silly and requires very, very artificial mechanics to support..including having enemies act like morons.
The Holy Trinity is bad because it is not immersive, which is what an RPG should ideally be striving for.
And no, you are wrong about AI. AI in games can vary quite a lot, and it CAN act far more intelligently than you see in HT games. Simply having it programmed to target the healer first would be a far more effective strategy in an HT game. Other equations to figure out the biggest threat or most easily killed person would also work (and in fact GW1 does this). Acting like AI is the same everyone shows that you really don't have much experience with non-HT games or you simply don't pay attention to them. HT games have the AI programmed to act Artificially Stupid, and that's easy enough to avoid by just adjusting how it assembles a threat table. Will it be human-level? No, but it isn't hard to make it better than it is in HT games.
Really, what is most amazing to me about some advocates of HT is how they seem to refuse to believe that anything else can possibly exist, even when it does exist and existed before HT was ever conceived.
I am still waiting for an explaination of why anything needs to change. Again, all I read is people wanting to change a genre into what they want it to be. The fact of the matter is that the core issue is that most people today want a mmofps. And while that is fine and good, why does that have to come about via destroying the classic mmorpg framework? There is no reason to be stuck in the "one game to rule them all" mindset. If you want a mmofps, great. There should be several games to address that market. But people should not be talking about changing a whole genre to fit that vision. And again, it is amazing how many people are talking about GW2 like its already out and they know 100% how its going to be in live form. The fact of the matter is the AI will be the same it always has and no amount of phasing is going to change that. Until a true AI is implimented or a Dungeon Master is brought into games. AI will be roughly the same and respond the same way whether we are talking free role or holy trinity mechanics.
Wow, so you come here, first you ignore the fact sandbox does exist, you simply deny it entirely, claiming around only trinity exist blbal, tank are everywhere blbla. Which is plain false, Uo was lauched in 97. We have told you many time they are o tank, no healer, no dps in this mmo. But you keep on pretending themepark is the only possible design. Then because its the only design, we people that like sandbox are trying to pervert the genre with our new ideas? The first mmo is a sandbox mmo, the first themepark with trinity build is lanched few years later. Do you even know that? it doesn't seam.
And once more, haven't you ever had this discussion in your themepark:
LF tank
Hi, i'm a warrior can i join
Are you paladin or warrior?
Im' warrior but i have more hp than the paladin, i can tank
Man you only have 1 agro skill you are not a tank
yes im
no thanks, next time maybe
LF tank
Even in themeparks the people that think they can tank with all the class aren't very smart you know.
So please stop claiming every class that have a bunch of hp and a plate armor is a tank, you know perfectly well its not true even in your world; so, stop pretend and claim false facts all around to build your twisted logic.
Wow, so you come here, first you ignore the fact sandbox does exist, you simply deny it entirely, claiming around only trinity exist blbal, tank are everywhere blbla. Which is plain false, Uo was lauched in 97. We have told you many time they are o tank, no healer, no dps in this mmo. But you keep on pretending themepark is the only possible design. Then because its the only design, we people that like sandbox are trying to pervert the genre with our new ideas? The first mmo is a sandbox mmo, the first themepark with trinity build is lanched few years later. Do you even know that? it doesn't seam.
Small point, I don't think themeparks vs. sandboxes has anything to do with Holy Trinity per se. You could certainly have a themepark without HT (GW2 looks like it will do this), and I think you could potentially have a PvE Sandbox with HT.
I am still waiting for an explaination of why anything needs to change. Again, all I read is people wanting to change a genre into what they want it to be. The fact of the matter is that the core issue is that most people today want a mmofps. And while that is fine and good, why does that have to come about via destroying the classic mmorpg framework? There is no reason to be stuck in the "one game to rule them all" mindset. If you want a mmofps, great. There should be several games to address that market. But people should not be talking about changing a whole genre to fit that vision. And again, it is amazing how many people are talking about GW2 like its already out and they know 100% how its going to be in live form. The fact of the matter is the AI will be the same it always has and no amount of phasing is going to change that. Until a true AI is implimented or a Dungeon Master is brought into games. AI will be roughly the same and respond the same way whether we are talking free role or holy trinity mechanics.
We talk like we know how GW2 will be like, because we know how GW1 was like, and it didn't revolve around the holy trinity. Oh, some of the elements were there, but not all of them, and the best, most efficient groups did not stick to tank-dps-heal, they stuck to frontline-midline-backline, in which each role is supporting the others. You seem to think that "no trinity = MASS CHAOS!!!" where no teamwork is necessary, and that's just proving that you've never even tried to play a non-trinity game, at least not at a competitive level.
Let me walk you through a pretty standard 8 man dungeon group. I'm going with something that's meta, but not so specialized or complicated that you won't be able to put together a PUG for it. Your frontline would consist of 1-2 melee classes (warrior, dervish, or assassin). These classes focus on, believe it or not, huge damage, with shutdown abilities coming secondary. There are no taunts; if you want to keep the monster's attention, you need to get in there first, smack them in the face, and hopefully bodyblock them into a corner to prevent them from getting to your squishies. Frontliners have ample access to control abilities like cripples and knockdowns that further keep mobs focused on them, and let their squishies run away from harm.
Backing up the frontliners are the midliners. These characters are your offensive casters and ranged physicals. Rangers pump out conditions, interrupts, and damage. Paragons have the best party-wide damage mitigation in the game, plus good single-target damage and a ton of great physical damage buffs for the party. Eles do aoe damage (though not very much, when you play in Hard Mode), plus control abilities like snares, blinds, knockdowns, etc. They can also run a truly overpowered healing build. Mesmers do excellent armor-ignoring abilities, shatter hexes on allies and enchantments on foes, have crazy interrupts, not to mention their other great control effects. Rits lay down damaging spirits and damage-boosting weapon spells, can do some damage of their own, and/or run some very effective party-wide healing. Necros can do basically anything, including supplementing the frontline with a minion army, and throwing hexes on foes that make the frontline absolutely blow crap up. In short: the midline does some damage, pumps out control, and buffs damage for the party, particularly the frontline.
The backline consists of monks, rits, and sometimes eles or necros using their secondaries to heal. Note that these aren't just healbots, though; monks have protection spells, which basically turn any character in the game into a tank briefly. Rits can heal while also using support or damage abilities, same with necros. Their most important job, after making sure people don't die, is to clean up the frontline to let them do their damage.
This interplay between front, mid, and backlines is much more pronounced in organized PvP. In that mode (in a healthy meta), the entire game revolves around each line supporting the others. Frontline deals damage, and linebacks against the other team's frontliners attacking their own backline (meaning: they come back and start attacking enemy warriors to prevent them from using Frenzy, which greatly increases their damage but makes them take double damage). Midliners shut down enemy frontliners to save their own backline, and enemy backliners to help out their frontline kill stuff. Backliners clean up damage and catch damage spikes, while also cleaning their frontline of debilitating conditions and hexes to let them deal their damage unopposed. There is absolutely no holy trinity gameplay here, but it is IMMENSELY teamwork oriented. The times when the PvP playerbase are at their unhappiest is when some balance update breaks something and disrupts this paradigm.
So, does that explain to you a little better why we're NOT asking for an MMOFPS, and neither are we asking for a system where everyone can function independently of everyone else all the time and teamwork doesn't matter, but simply for something where the AI does not have to be intentionally crippled in order for the stupid system to function?
I am still waiting for an explaination of why anything needs to change. Again, all I read is people wanting to change a genre into what they want it to be. The fact of the matter is that the core issue is that most people today want a mmofps. And while that is fine and good, why does that have to come about via destroying the classic mmorpg framework? There is no reason to be stuck in the "one game to rule them all" mindset. If you want a mmofps, great. There should be several games to address that market. But people should not be talking about changing a whole genre to fit that vision. And again, it is amazing how many people are talking about GW2 like its already out and they know 100% how its going to be in live form. The fact of the matter is the AI will be the same it always has and no amount of phasing is going to change that. Until a true AI is implimented or a Dungeon Master is brought into games. AI will be roughly the same and respond the same way whether we are talking free role or holy trinity mechanics.
We talk like we know how GW2 will be like, because we know how GW1 was like, and it didn't revolve around the holy trinity. Oh, some of the elements were there, but not all of them, and the best, most efficient groups did not stick to tank-dps-heal, they stuck to frontline-midline-backline, in which each role is supporting the others. You seem to think that "no trinity = MASS CHAOS!!!" where no teamwork is necessary, and that's just proving that you've never even tried to play a non-trinity game, at least not at a competitive level.
Let me walk you through a pretty standard 8 man dungeon group. I'm going with something that's meta, but not so specialized or complicated that you won't be able to put together a PUG for it. Your frontline would consist of 1-2 melee classes (warrior, dervish, or assassin). These classes focus on, believe it or not, huge damage, with shutdown abilities coming secondary. There are no taunts; if you want to keep the monster's attention, you need to get in there first, smack them in the face, and hopefully bodyblock them into a corner to prevent them from getting to your squishies. Frontliners have ample access to control abilities like cripples and knockdowns that further keep mobs focused on them, and let their squishies run away from harm.
Backing up the frontliners are the midliners. These characters are your offensive casters and ranged physicals. Rangers pump out conditions, interrupts, and damage. Paragons have the best party-wide damage mitigation in the game, plus good single-target damage and a ton of great physical damage buffs for the party. Eles do aoe damage (though not very much, when you play in Hard Mode), plus control abilities like snares, blinds, knockdowns, etc. They can also run a truly overpowered healing build. Mesmers do excellent armor-ignoring abilities, shatter hexes on allies and enchantments on foes, have crazy interrupts, not to mention their other great control effects. Rits lay down damaging spirits and damage-boosting weapon spells, can do some damage of their own, and/or run some very effective party-wide healing. Necros can do basically anything, including supplementing the frontline with a minion army, and throwing hexes on foes that make the frontline absolutely blow crap up. In short: the midline does some damage, pumps out control, and buffs damage for the party, particularly the frontline.
The backline consists of monks, rits, and sometimes eles or necros using their secondaries to heal. Note that these aren't just healbots, though; monks have protection spells, which basically turn any character in the game into a tank briefly. Rits can heal while also using support or damage abilities, same with necros. Their most important job, after making sure people don't die, is to clean up the frontline to let them do their damage.
This interplay between front, mid, and backlines is much more pronounced in organized PvP. In that mode (in a healthy meta), the entire game revolves around each line supporting the others. Frontline deals damage, and linebacks against the other team's frontliners attacking their own backline (meaning: they come back and start attacking enemy warriors to prevent them from using Frenzy, which greatly increases their damage but makes them take double damage). Midliners shut down enemy frontliners to save their own backline, and enemy backliners to help out their frontline kill stuff. Backliners clean up damage and catch damage spikes, while also cleaning their frontline of debilitating conditions and hexes to let them deal their damage unopposed. There is absolutely no holy trinity gameplay here, but it is IMMENSELY teamwork oriented. The times when the PvP playerbase are at their unhappiest is when some balance update breaks something and disrupts this paradigm.
So, does that explain to you a little better why we're NOT asking for an MMOFPS, and neither are we asking for a system where everyone can function independently of everyone else all the time and teamwork doesn't matter, but simply for something where the AI does not have to be intentionally crippled in order for the stupid system to function?
First off, using GW as an example for what GW2 will be is silly. Not to mention that GW was basically a glorified single player rpg with online capability. Advanced grouping and specialization were simply not needed.
As for the setup you set forth in your post, how is that not a modified holy trinity? You have "tanks" controlling agro through dps (nothing new about this) and using positioning (nothing new here either). Then you have your main dps on the second line and support in the rear. How is this just not a semantics argument? The only difference I can see is that you dont have a classic tank that soaks up damage and perhaps not a full-time heal dispenser.
As for organized PvP, any group based pvp game worth a damn uses the holy trinity (to some extent). Sure, there will always be ways to get around it if certain classes are given cc abilities, but in essence, its the same thing. You are always going to have melee classes with heavy armor to fight in the front, you will always have dps classes that cannot perform at peak (or survive) if placed on the front line, and others fulfilling the support role, however it may be. And it doesnt matter if you are a necro, blood mage, etc. If you are providing support . . . you are a support class.
And finally, I still see all of this as a request for a mmofps (and for the guy accusing me of being anti-sandbox: lol). What I see in the majority of these posts are people wanting a toon that can function independently of others (many have stated this quite clearly, they dont want to have to put groups together, rely on others, etc.). That can take damage, dish it out, and still have some healing abilities (stimpaks anyone?).. When I read these posts I just think of the 1000 archer-class people with some variation of the name legolas fighting an epic/raid boss. To me, this actually requires a dumbed down AI because it will require the mobs to ping pong off agro. How will you keep a epic/raid mob off your caster classes? There has to be some sort of agro management or it will be chaos. And at the end of the day, agro management = tank.
So how does a system that is based on distracting a mob away from softer targets have a dumber AI than one with free roles? Where if the tank does not hold agro the group/raid wipe? How does free role improve AI? What options does it open up? Won't it really devolve AI to either the mob kills whoever is closer or whoever pisses it off the most? AI will have to be alot simpler and dumbed down to prevent mobs from hacking down the easy targets. So again, how is this "better" and how does it provide a higher functioning AI?
So how does a system that is based on distracting a mob away from softer targets have a dumber AI than one with free roles? Where if the tank does not hold agro the group/raid wipe? How does free role improve AI? What options does it open up? Won't it really devolve AI to either the mob kills whoever is closer or whoever pisses it off the most? AI will have to be alot simpler and dumbed down to prevent mobs from hacking down the easy targets. So again, how is this "better" and how does it provide a higher functioning AI?
... why?
The AI should hack down the easy targets. That sounds ideal to me. What kind of a person wants to only play games where the AI only attacks the character it's least likely to kill? That's some horrible priorities right there.
You can change the formula a tad, but at the end of the day that's still the Holy Trinity.Just beacause the tank won't aggro doesnt mean he's not a TANK and therefore meant to take damage. Just beacause the healer can fight doens't mean its not a HEALER, and meant to heal. Just beacause a rouge can survive a while without the tank, by no means says that that char. isn't a DPS char, therefore meant to do the most damge...per...second...so don't call someone's view foolish and then regurgitate there info with a "twist" on it.
Actually you missed the point and got overly defensive. He is trying to say that its possible to construct classes in such a way that nobody is _meant_ to do anything. You _can_ do anything, but you have to choose what it is you are doing. Thats the strategy and the group dynamic is more involved.
First off, using GW as an example for what GW2 will be is silly. Not to mention that GW was basically a glorified single player rpg with online capability. Advanced grouping and specialization were simply not needed.
As for the setup you set forth in your post, how is that not a modified holy trinity? You have "tanks" controlling agro through dps (nothing new about this) and using positioning (nothing new here either). Then you have your main dps on the second line and support in the rear. How is this just not a semantics argument? The only difference I can see is that you dont have a classic tank that soaks up damage and perhaps not a full-time heal dispenser.
As for organized PvP, any group based pvp game worth a damn uses the holy trinity (to some extent). Sure, there will always be ways to get around it if certain classes are given cc abilities, but in essence, its the same thing. You are always going to have melee classes with heavy armor to fight in the front, you will always have dps classes that cannot perform at peak (or survive) if placed on the front line, and others fulfilling the support role, however it may be. And it doesnt matter if you are a necro, blood mage, etc. If you are providing support . . . you are a support class.
And finally, I still see all of this as a request for a mmofps (and for the guy accusing me of being anti-sandbox: lol). What I see in the majority of these posts are people wanting a toon that can function independently of others (many have stated this quite clearly, they dont want to have to put groups together, rely on others, etc.). That can take damage, dish it out, and still have some healing abilities (stimpaks anyone?).. When I read these posts I just think of the 1000 archer-class people with some variation of the name legolas fighting an epic/raid boss. To me, this actually requires a dumbed down AI because it will require the mobs to ping pong off agro. How will you keep a epic/raid mob off your caster classes? There has to be some sort of agro management or it will be chaos. And at the end of the day, agro management = tank.
So how does a system that is based on distracting a mob away from softer targets have a dumber AI than one with free roles? Where if the tank does not hold agro the group/raid wipe? How does free role improve AI? What options does it open up? Won't it really devolve AI to either the mob kills whoever is closer or whoever pisses it off the most? AI will have to be alot simpler and dumbed down to prevent mobs from hacking down the easy targets. So again, how is this "better" and how does it provide a higher functioning AI?
This has nothing to do with whether GW1 was a Co-op RPG or an MMORPG, what matters is the combat mechanics within the game and the combat mechanics DID not have a tank pulling aggro which made the people actually watch their backs BECAUSE enemies looked for the softer targets.
You haven't played the game so you won't understand what we're saying, you're assuming that they'll make the game easier because there are no aggro pulling mechanics for tanks and you couldn't be more wrong. Having no aggro mechanics doesn't make the game harder or easier, just more tactical.
Everyone being self-sufficient takes the pressure of one person to try to support everyone and keep everyone up. If you're in trouble, you can get yourself out of the trouble you don't have to wait for heals from the person standing behind you because you can save yourself. And because everyone can do almost everything, EVERYONE can save EVERYONE; a warrior can heal the guardian, the elementalist can protect the necro, the assassin can save the warrior from certain death, so on and so forth. It works, it helps and it makes sense if done right.
I think a large part of the reason that the HT became so prevelant in MMO's was due to the lack of VARIETY in the types of challenges and threats presented to players of those games. Heck the whole concept of "aggro" is partly due to older game engines having issues supporting collision detection. If you look at pen & paper games, the way "tanks" operated was NOT by "drawing the ire" of the bad guys, it was by physicaly blocking access to the more vulnerable party members. A party that found itself flanked or attacked from an unexpected direction was in trouble.
Again, if we look at traditional pen & paper fantasy games... the types and variety of challenges presented for players to deal with were MUCH larger then in most MMO's. If you look at the heavly armored melee fighters in most pen & paper games....they tended to be pretty good at dealing out physical damage as well as defending against it (especialy against single opponents) but there were certain types of threats that cold steel just wasn't very effective against (either offensively or defensively). Mages weren't just "glass cannons" and clerics weren't just "healers" & "buffers"....they were neccesary to deal with things that raw physical force wasn't very effective against. Alot of thier utility came being able to tackle objectives that you just couldn't otherwise. Things like "Feather Fall" or "Jump" or "Wall of Stone" often had far more value then "Fireball". Look at Thieves, backstab was just a nice extra...not the core of thier being. Their real utility came in as scouts, finding safe routes through dungeons.... spotting the enemies and traps and threats before they could do harm and getting the party into and out of places that they couldn't otherwise handle.
Heck and that's all just fantasy themed MMO's.... you get away from the fantasy theme and start dealing with things like guns and lasers...and the HT dynamics become even more absurd.
(IMO) The real reason why the HT is so popular in MMO's is because the variety of challenges and threats presented to players tends to be about 5 percent of that which you'd encounter in the typical Pen & Paper game....
Everything is pretty much vulnerable to both physical and magical damage....every type of attack is pretty much defended against in the same way with the same effectiveness. Traps are almost non-existant. Recon & scouting the enemy/dungeon is pretty much uneccesary.... no special skills are needed to access different areas or get past difficult challenges in other ways. Other then a few gimmecky special boss fights....everything is the same encounter and the same sort of fight repeated over and over again..... let alone any sort of non-combat challenge (like finding you way through the wilderness, sheltering from a blizzard, foraging for food, climbing upto a cave enterance or TRACKING down an enemy).
The core problem isn't a lack of ways to differentiate players....it's a lack of variety in the challenges presented to players. Build those....and the ability to create meaningful roles outside of the Trinity flows naturaly.
I think a large part of the reason that the HT became so prevelant in MMO's was due to the lack of VARIETY in the types of challenges and threats presented to players of those games. Heck the whole concept of "aggro" is partly due to older game engines having issues supporting collision detection. If you look at pen & paper games, the way "tanks" operated was NOT by "drawing the ire" of the bad guys, it was by physicaly blocking access to the more vulnerable party members. A party that found itself flanked or attacked from an unexpected direction was in trouble.
Again, if we look at traditional pen & paper fantasy games... the types and variety of challenges presented for players to deal with were MUCH larger then in most MMO's. If you look at the heavly armored melee fighters in most pen & paper games....they tended to be pretty good at dealing out physical damage as well as defending against it (especialy against single opponents) but there were certain types of threats that cold steel just wasn't very effective against (either offensively or defensively). Mages weren't just "glass cannons" and clerics weren't just "healers" & "buffers"....they were neccesary to deal with things that raw physical force wasn't very effective against. Alot of thier utility came being able to tackle objectives that you just couldn't otherwise. Things like "Feather Fall" or "Jump" or "Wall of Stone" often had far more value then "Fireball". Look at Thieves, backstab was just a nice extra...not the core of thier being. Their real utility came in as scouts, finding safe routes through dungeons.... spotting the enemies and traps and threats before they could do harm and getting the party into and out of places that they couldn't otherwise handle.
Heck and that's all just fantasy themed MMO's.... you get away from the fantasy theme and start dealing with things like guns and lasers...and the HT dynamics become even more absurd.
(IMO) The real reason why the HT is so popular in MMO's is because the variety of challenges and threats presented to players tends to be about 5 percent of that which you'd encounter in the typical Pen & Paper game....
Everything is pretty much vulnerable to both physical and magical damage....every type of attack is pretty much defended against in the same way with the same effectiveness. Traps are almost non-existant. Recon & scouting the enemy/dungeon is pretty much uneccesary.... no special skills are needed to access different areas or get past difficult challenges in other ways. Other then a few gimmecky special boss fights....everything is the same encounter and the same sort of fight repeated over and over again..... let alone any sort of non-combat challenge (like finding you way through the wilderness, sheltering from a blizzard, foraging for food, climbing upto a cave enterance or TRACKING down an enemy).
The core problem isn't a lack of ways to differentiate players....it's a lack of variety in the challenges presented to players. Build those....and the ability to create meaningful roles outside of the Trinity flows naturaly.
Very interesting.^
I think different combat systems from turn-based to real-time projectile physics can work in different games in mmos but more variety of combat and diversity of challenges... than just HT.
I said something to Isaiah Cartwright the other day that has stuck in my mind since then. I think it explains how no trinity is possible more than anything else, so I’ll relay it here: “Our professions aren’t dedicated healers, DPS, or tanks because frankly, we built a combat system that just doesn’t allow it.”
...
So what features of the combat system encourage this profession design? The answer to that is, “lot of things,” so let’s talk about them one at a time.
...
We’ve said this a few times in a few places but I can’t reiterate it enough: We built this game so that they professions act as play styles, not as roles. Each profession can support, control, and do damage. We believe that this creates more dynamic combat and more distinct professions because there are more play styles than roles.
One of the best ways to explain this is with an analogy. In a first person shooter there can be a variety of weapons, from sniper rifles to rocket launchers to machine guns and shotguns. No one looks at these weapons and says, “They’re all the same, they all just do DPS.” Why should an MMO be any different?
I think a large part of the reason that the HT became so prevelant in MMO's was due to the lack of VARIETY in the types of challenges and threats presented to players of those games. Heck the whole concept of "aggro" is partly due to older game engines having issues supporting collision detection. If you look at pen & paper games, the way "tanks" operated was NOT by "drawing the ire" of the bad guys, it was by physicaly blocking access to the more vulnerable party members. A party that found itself flanked or attacked from an unexpected direction was in trouble.
Again, if we look at traditional pen & paper fantasy games... the types and variety of challenges presented for players to deal with were MUCH larger then in most MMO's. If you look at the heavly armored melee fighters in most pen & paper games....they tended to be pretty good at dealing out physical damage as well as defending against it (especialy against single opponents) but there were certain types of threats that cold steel just wasn't very effective against (either offensively or defensively). Mages weren't just "glass cannons" and clerics weren't just "healers" & "buffers"....they were neccesary to deal with things that raw physical force wasn't very effective against. Alot of thier utility came being able to tackle objectives that you just couldn't otherwise. Things like "Feather Fall" or "Jump" or "Wall of Stone" often had far more value then "Fireball". Look at Thieves, backstab was just a nice extra...not the core of thier being. Their real utility came in as scouts, finding safe routes through dungeons.... spotting the enemies and traps and threats before they could do harm and getting the party into and out of places that they couldn't otherwise handle.
Heck and that's all just fantasy themed MMO's.... you get away from the fantasy theme and start dealing with things like guns and lasers...and the HT dynamics become even more absurd.
(IMO) The real reason why the HT is so popular in MMO's is because the variety of challenges and threats presented to players tends to be about 5 percent of that which you'd encounter in the typical Pen & Paper game....
Everything is pretty much vulnerable to both physical and magical damage....every type of attack is pretty much defended against in the same way with the same effectiveness. Traps are almost non-existant. Recon & scouting the enemy/dungeon is pretty much uneccesary.... no special skills are needed to access different areas or get past difficult challenges in other ways. Other then a few gimmecky special boss fights....everything is the same encounter and the same sort of fight repeated over and over again..... let alone any sort of non-combat challenge (like finding you way through the wilderness, sheltering from a blizzard, foraging for food, climbing upto a cave enterance or TRACKING down an enemy).
The core problem isn't a lack of ways to differentiate players....it's a lack of variety in the challenges presented to players. Build those....and the ability to create meaningful roles outside of the Trinity flows naturaly.
Well said, DDO came very close to revitalizing these lost roles, I should've stuck with that game :P I still think "holy trinity" is present even in the most open of games due to the players picking those roles (perhaps from playing too many holy trinity games themselves), but the whole reason why these roles are still viable is because the challenges that GrumpyMel2 is talking about no longer exist and the "challenges" that RPGs have been dumbed down to consist of walk here, kill this, walk there, kill that. Maybe we all just need to stop QQing on the mmorpg boards and go back to playing DnD :P
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
Originally posted by Requiamer Those roles are new to the mmo, this is totally false, the trinity never existed before EQ.
Actually when the term "holy trinity" first cropped up on usenet Everquest message boards (wasn't it that mad Scots guy who first started using it?) it referred to Tank, Cleric and Enchanter in Everquest. You could sub in who you liked for DPS, but the premis was that you couldnt (at the time) do anything high level in Everquest without a Warrior/Shadowknight, Cleric and 'Chanter.
Here's the major flaw and big difference between a "trinity-based" game and what GW2 will be like... imagine you're in, common example, WarCraft doing a 5 man whatever. You're tank goes down. "WIPE!" Lrn2heal noob! Tank sucks! etc. Healer does down. "WIPE!" Tank sucks! Why's the healer getting attacked? Who drew aggro?!
In a Trinity style of game, if one corner of that triangle breaks, the whole thing falls apart. Period. Lose the tank, call wipe. Lose the healer, call wipe. Lose the dps, laugh at him, if you now don't have enough for the particular scripted boss fight, call wipe. If the tank dies, it's the healers fault, If the healer dies, it's the tanks fault. If the dps dies, it's their own damned fault.
In GW2, everyone is supporting everyone. Everyone is delivering damage, avoiding damage, preventing damage. Everyone is healing themselves and splash healing each other. Everyone is contributing in controlling the enemies to minimize the damage they do. You're responsible for your own positioning to avoid damage and maximise your own. If someone goes down, anyone can help revive them back to a fighting state. No one person is responsible for keeping any other one person up and alive, or for keeping the enemies off anyone else, or for delivering all the damage.
The Trinity, in the sense of individuals with hard roles, is dead. Period. Everyone is their own trinity now, and as good as the individual parts are, the greater they are as a collective working together. This is what GW2 brings, and why this article fails heavily by leaving out this critical fact.
No game will ever kill the trinity, even Gw2 and TSW which claim to not "have" the trinity... will have it.
Its pretty simple really ... Someone will always be taking damage, something will always be healing that damage, and someone will always be dealing damage.
You can't get away from it ... you can only disguise it, hence the reason that this new emphasis on getting away from "The Holy Trinity" is a complete waste of developers time.
What if you can dodge the attacks or move out of the way of the attacks or avoid them in many other ways?
What if all classes can heal themselves?
What if all classes are mainly made to do damage?
Your thinking in the ''Click target, press buttons, watch UI'' kind of gameplay. But MMORPG's can be more action and movement based games also as many different genre games out there.
Comments
People are just amazing, they think because every game or combat simulation must rely on taking damage, regenerating damage, and avoiding damage, they think they all have the trinity. Trinity is about tank/healer/dps, thats quiet a huge difference here. Once more the so called trinity is a design mechanism, it is not about the pure trio that revolve around damage simulation. It could be but it is not. Fps don't have healer, neither tank, and it is a combat mechanism that still revolve about damage mechanism, so once more, if you talk about something be aware of its definition. Just don't throw words like this as if they meant everything and nothing.
In d&d neither the warrior could pull agro, neither the healer was a healing machine, it had at best 3/5 heal spell maybe less, it wasn't weak at all in fact it was a melee build with chain mail and blunt weapon and did go at contact. Dps and mage/rogue never rely on crowd control for their survival either when alone in front of monster, just like healer never survive with self healing chain. The tank/heal/dps in mmo is just a game mechanism that exist only in some mmo. FPS certainly don't use the trinity, i think this one is obvious for everyone is it? lol. Honestly i'm kind of scred someone will come here and claim the trinity exist even in fps games...
Aye, it's like saying combat has to involve doing damage at a distance, doing it close, and movement. So naturally you need to split those roles up into Movers (guys that move themselves and others), melee, and ranged. You can play this silly game with any 3 things combat might involve as long as you ignore all the others, then pretend all group combat has to be divied up the same way.
I assure you I have not missed your point, I'm just having trouble finding the words to simplify population dynamics to a quick couple of paragraphs that make sense in a forum post.
You are getting stuck in imagining 1-vs-1 PVP - that's not what I'm trying to compare it to. But given that you cannot see the abstract population dynamic I'm trying to describe, I'll have to accept that it's not a useful analogy to use in forum discussions.
As others have mentioned, you clearly have not played enough MMOs if you think DAoC also doesn't have the concept of the Holy Trinity. There are most definitely classes which "tank" better than others. For example, a Furbolg Hero skilled in shields (at least when I last played). You have your healing classes and your damage. The only reason your group survived is because you had pet classes in the group. Pets often fill the role of tank when one isn't available.
Hm. The fact is, like any other genre of gaming PERIOD, the mmo genre has a foundation for
its gameplay
and it must stick with that. That being said, the Holy Trinity may be altered, or made slightly
more diverse, but it can never truly go away (just look at genre's like FPS's).
You can change the formula a tad, but at the end of the day that's still the Holy Trinity.Just beacause the tank won't aggro doesnt mean he's not a TANK and therefore meant to take damage. Just beacause the healer can fight doens't mean its not a HEALER, and meant to heal. Just beacause a rouge can survive a while without the tank, by no means says that that char. isn't a DPS char, therefore meant to do the most damge...per...second...so don't call someone's view foolish and then regurgitate there info with a "twist" on it.
No, I'm NOT imagining 1v1 PvP. I in fact gave an example of RPS that worked more or less in a historical setting (and in many RTS games) that primarily was about group on group combat. Again, just because you have 3 different specializations does not mean their relationship to each other is at all like rock-paper-scissors. Also, like I said, just because you have 3 different specializations doesn't mean there aren't other factors that are really important in combat (or should be).
Probably the reason you are having trouble describing your point is because it isn't true at all.
If tough people can't make other things attack them, ignoring the real threats, then they aren't HT tanks because they can't do the job an HT tank can do. There are a lot of elements even in MMO combat, and HT is only one out of many ways to offer specialization for them. It happens to be one that doesn't make a whole lot of sense and requires enemies to behave like idiots.
Acting like everyone MMORPG has to use this is ridiculous in the extreme. Heck, most RPGs where you have a group of guys on your side don't use anything like HT..it's an oddity of the MMORPG world (and isn't even the only one in MMORPGs). You can pretend all you want it is the only possible game in town, but this simply isn't the case. Like I said a few posts ago, might as well propose all combat has to have Movers (people who move themselves and others), Melee, and Ranged specilizations. Pretending HT must be is just as crazy as pretending MoMeRa must be as well. You can play this game with any three combat elements.
I have actually always been a fan of games with no class.free form class (UO, Fallen Earth etc) or Hybrid classes in the MMO's I have played.
That said normally my first alt in an MMO will be rolled as a specialist class. I like the idea of being a jack of all trades character and master of none for the flexibility but in some situations you do need a specific tank/dps/healer. The gap between what a hybrid class and a specialist class can achieve is diminishing especially as MMO's become more skill based than Uber build based but I think the option of specialist classes will always remain.
Even with Fallen Earth's system you are basically better off concentrating on specific skills for combat rathern then trying spread between all mutations, rilfes, pistols and melee.
Once again, just because you have a system with specialities doesn't mean it even needs to allow tank/healer/dps specialities. There are many, many, many ways to have specialized roles and thinking that the Holy Trinity is the only way to do that is absurd.
I am still waiting for an explaination of why anything needs to change. Again, all I read is people wanting to change a genre into what they want it to be. The fact of the matter is that the core issue is that most people today want a mmofps. And while that is fine and good, why does that have to come about via destroying the classic mmorpg framework? There is no reason to be stuck in the "one game to rule them all" mindset. If you want a mmofps, great. There should be several games to address that market. But people should not be talking about changing a whole genre to fit that vision. And again, it is amazing how many people are talking about GW2 like its already out and they know 100% how its going to be in live form. The fact of the matter is the AI will be the same it always has and no amount of phasing is going to change that. Until a true AI is implimented or a Dungeon Master is brought into games. AI will be roughly the same and respond the same way whether we are talking free role or holy trinity mechanics.
Have I said I wanted an MMOFPS? Seems like this is something you are projecting on people you disagree with and hence lumping them into one big category. I and many others have simply said that the vast, vast, vast majority of RPGs both in pen and in computer do not use the Holy Trinity. We've said it is bad because the specializations it has ARE silly. You simply don't see any other games of any stripe where someone is designed to only take damage and not deal it, only do damage and not take it, and only heal and not do anything else. Having the specialization be in these three areas rather than another three is quite silly and requires very, very artificial mechanics to support..including having enemies act like morons.
The Holy Trinity is bad because it is not immersive, which is what an RPG should ideally be striving for.
And no, you are wrong about AI. AI in games can vary quite a lot, and it CAN act far more intelligently than you see in HT games. Simply having it programmed to target the healer first would be a far more effective strategy in an HT game. Other equations to figure out the biggest threat or most easily killed person would also work (and in fact GW1 does this). Acting like AI is the same everyone shows that you really don't have much experience with non-HT games or you simply don't pay attention to them. HT games have the AI programmed to act Artificially Stupid, and that's easy enough to avoid by just adjusting how it assembles a threat table. Will it be human-level? No, but it isn't hard to make it better than it is in HT games.
Really, what is most amazing to me about some advocates of HT is how they seem to refuse to believe that anything else can possibly exist, even when it does exist and existed before HT was ever conceived.
Wow, so you come here, first you ignore the fact sandbox does exist, you simply deny it entirely, claiming around only trinity exist blbal, tank are everywhere blbla. Which is plain false, Uo was lauched in 97. We have told you many time they are o tank, no healer, no dps in this mmo. But you keep on pretending themepark is the only possible design. Then because its the only design, we people that like sandbox are trying to pervert the genre with our new ideas? The first mmo is a sandbox mmo, the first themepark with trinity build is lanched few years later. Do you even know that? it doesn't seam.
And once more, haven't you ever had this discussion in your themepark:
LF tank
Hi, i'm a warrior can i join
Are you paladin or warrior?
Im' warrior but i have more hp than the paladin, i can tank
Man you only have 1 agro skill you are not a tank
yes im
no thanks, next time maybe
LF tank
Even in themeparks the people that think they can tank with all the class aren't very smart you know.
So please stop claiming every class that have a bunch of hp and a plate armor is a tank, you know perfectly well its not true even in your world; so, stop pretend and claim false facts all around to build your twisted logic.
Small point, I don't think themeparks vs. sandboxes has anything to do with Holy Trinity per se. You could certainly have a themepark without HT (GW2 looks like it will do this), and I think you could potentially have a PvE Sandbox with HT.
We talk like we know how GW2 will be like, because we know how GW1 was like, and it didn't revolve around the holy trinity. Oh, some of the elements were there, but not all of them, and the best, most efficient groups did not stick to tank-dps-heal, they stuck to frontline-midline-backline, in which each role is supporting the others. You seem to think that "no trinity = MASS CHAOS!!!" where no teamwork is necessary, and that's just proving that you've never even tried to play a non-trinity game, at least not at a competitive level.
Let me walk you through a pretty standard 8 man dungeon group. I'm going with something that's meta, but not so specialized or complicated that you won't be able to put together a PUG for it. Your frontline would consist of 1-2 melee classes (warrior, dervish, or assassin). These classes focus on, believe it or not, huge damage, with shutdown abilities coming secondary. There are no taunts; if you want to keep the monster's attention, you need to get in there first, smack them in the face, and hopefully bodyblock them into a corner to prevent them from getting to your squishies. Frontliners have ample access to control abilities like cripples and knockdowns that further keep mobs focused on them, and let their squishies run away from harm.
Backing up the frontliners are the midliners. These characters are your offensive casters and ranged physicals. Rangers pump out conditions, interrupts, and damage. Paragons have the best party-wide damage mitigation in the game, plus good single-target damage and a ton of great physical damage buffs for the party. Eles do aoe damage (though not very much, when you play in Hard Mode), plus control abilities like snares, blinds, knockdowns, etc. They can also run a truly overpowered healing build. Mesmers do excellent armor-ignoring abilities, shatter hexes on allies and enchantments on foes, have crazy interrupts, not to mention their other great control effects. Rits lay down damaging spirits and damage-boosting weapon spells, can do some damage of their own, and/or run some very effective party-wide healing. Necros can do basically anything, including supplementing the frontline with a minion army, and throwing hexes on foes that make the frontline absolutely blow crap up. In short: the midline does some damage, pumps out control, and buffs damage for the party, particularly the frontline.
The backline consists of monks, rits, and sometimes eles or necros using their secondaries to heal. Note that these aren't just healbots, though; monks have protection spells, which basically turn any character in the game into a tank briefly. Rits can heal while also using support or damage abilities, same with necros. Their most important job, after making sure people don't die, is to clean up the frontline to let them do their damage.
This interplay between front, mid, and backlines is much more pronounced in organized PvP. In that mode (in a healthy meta), the entire game revolves around each line supporting the others. Frontline deals damage, and linebacks against the other team's frontliners attacking their own backline (meaning: they come back and start attacking enemy warriors to prevent them from using Frenzy, which greatly increases their damage but makes them take double damage). Midliners shut down enemy frontliners to save their own backline, and enemy backliners to help out their frontline kill stuff. Backliners clean up damage and catch damage spikes, while also cleaning their frontline of debilitating conditions and hexes to let them deal their damage unopposed. There is absolutely no holy trinity gameplay here, but it is IMMENSELY teamwork oriented. The times when the PvP playerbase are at their unhappiest is when some balance update breaks something and disrupts this paradigm.
So, does that explain to you a little better why we're NOT asking for an MMOFPS, and neither are we asking for a system where everyone can function independently of everyone else all the time and teamwork doesn't matter, but simply for something where the AI does not have to be intentionally crippled in order for the stupid system to function?
First off, using GW as an example for what GW2 will be is silly. Not to mention that GW was basically a glorified single player rpg with online capability. Advanced grouping and specialization were simply not needed.
As for the setup you set forth in your post, how is that not a modified holy trinity? You have "tanks" controlling agro through dps (nothing new about this) and using positioning (nothing new here either). Then you have your main dps on the second line and support in the rear. How is this just not a semantics argument? The only difference I can see is that you dont have a classic tank that soaks up damage and perhaps not a full-time heal dispenser.
As for organized PvP, any group based pvp game worth a damn uses the holy trinity (to some extent). Sure, there will always be ways to get around it if certain classes are given cc abilities, but in essence, its the same thing. You are always going to have melee classes with heavy armor to fight in the front, you will always have dps classes that cannot perform at peak (or survive) if placed on the front line, and others fulfilling the support role, however it may be. And it doesnt matter if you are a necro, blood mage, etc. If you are providing support . . . you are a support class.
And finally, I still see all of this as a request for a mmofps (and for the guy accusing me of being anti-sandbox: lol). What I see in the majority of these posts are people wanting a toon that can function independently of others (many have stated this quite clearly, they dont want to have to put groups together, rely on others, etc.). That can take damage, dish it out, and still have some healing abilities (stimpaks anyone?).. When I read these posts I just think of the 1000 archer-class people with some variation of the name legolas fighting an epic/raid boss. To me, this actually requires a dumbed down AI because it will require the mobs to ping pong off agro. How will you keep a epic/raid mob off your caster classes? There has to be some sort of agro management or it will be chaos. And at the end of the day, agro management = tank.
So how does a system that is based on distracting a mob away from softer targets have a dumber AI than one with free roles? Where if the tank does not hold agro the group/raid wipe? How does free role improve AI? What options does it open up? Won't it really devolve AI to either the mob kills whoever is closer or whoever pisses it off the most? AI will have to be alot simpler and dumbed down to prevent mobs from hacking down the easy targets. So again, how is this "better" and how does it provide a higher functioning AI?
... why?
The AI should hack down the easy targets. That sounds ideal to me. What kind of a person wants to only play games where the AI only attacks the character it's least likely to kill? That's some horrible priorities right there.
Actually you missed the point and got overly defensive. He is trying to say that its possible to construct classes in such a way that nobody is _meant_ to do anything. You _can_ do anything, but you have to choose what it is you are doing. Thats the strategy and the group dynamic is more involved.
This has nothing to do with whether GW1 was a Co-op RPG or an MMORPG, what matters is the combat mechanics within the game and the combat mechanics DID not have a tank pulling aggro which made the people actually watch their backs BECAUSE enemies looked for the softer targets.
You haven't played the game so you won't understand what we're saying, you're assuming that they'll make the game easier because there are no aggro pulling mechanics for tanks and you couldn't be more wrong. Having no aggro mechanics doesn't make the game harder or easier, just more tactical.
Everyone being self-sufficient takes the pressure of one person to try to support everyone and keep everyone up. If you're in trouble, you can get yourself out of the trouble you don't have to wait for heals from the person standing behind you because you can save yourself. And because everyone can do almost everything, EVERYONE can save EVERYONE; a warrior can heal the guardian, the elementalist can protect the necro, the assassin can save the warrior from certain death, so on and so forth. It works, it helps and it makes sense if done right.
This is not a game.
I think a large part of the reason that the HT became so prevelant in MMO's was due to the lack of VARIETY in the types of challenges and threats presented to players of those games. Heck the whole concept of "aggro" is partly due to older game engines having issues supporting collision detection. If you look at pen & paper games, the way "tanks" operated was NOT by "drawing the ire" of the bad guys, it was by physicaly blocking access to the more vulnerable party members. A party that found itself flanked or attacked from an unexpected direction was in trouble.
Again, if we look at traditional pen & paper fantasy games... the types and variety of challenges presented for players to deal with were MUCH larger then in most MMO's. If you look at the heavly armored melee fighters in most pen & paper games....they tended to be pretty good at dealing out physical damage as well as defending against it (especialy against single opponents) but there were certain types of threats that cold steel just wasn't very effective against (either offensively or defensively). Mages weren't just "glass cannons" and clerics weren't just "healers" & "buffers"....they were neccesary to deal with things that raw physical force wasn't very effective against. Alot of thier utility came being able to tackle objectives that you just couldn't otherwise. Things like "Feather Fall" or "Jump" or "Wall of Stone" often had far more value then "Fireball". Look at Thieves, backstab was just a nice extra...not the core of thier being. Their real utility came in as scouts, finding safe routes through dungeons.... spotting the enemies and traps and threats before they could do harm and getting the party into and out of places that they couldn't otherwise handle.
Heck and that's all just fantasy themed MMO's.... you get away from the fantasy theme and start dealing with things like guns and lasers...and the HT dynamics become even more absurd.
(IMO) The real reason why the HT is so popular in MMO's is because the variety of challenges and threats presented to players tends to be about 5 percent of that which you'd encounter in the typical Pen & Paper game....
Everything is pretty much vulnerable to both physical and magical damage....every type of attack is pretty much defended against in the same way with the same effectiveness. Traps are almost non-existant. Recon & scouting the enemy/dungeon is pretty much uneccesary.... no special skills are needed to access different areas or get past difficult challenges in other ways. Other then a few gimmecky special boss fights....everything is the same encounter and the same sort of fight repeated over and over again..... let alone any sort of non-combat challenge (like finding you way through the wilderness, sheltering from a blizzard, foraging for food, climbing upto a cave enterance or TRACKING down an enemy).
The core problem isn't a lack of ways to differentiate players....it's a lack of variety in the challenges presented to players. Build those....and the ability to create meaningful roles outside of the Trinity flows naturaly.
Very interesting.^
I think different combat systems from turn-based to real-time projectile physics can work in different games in mmos but more variety of combat and diversity of challenges... than just HT.
What’s Your Style? Jon Peters Talks About Combat
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Well said, DDO came very close to revitalizing these lost roles, I should've stuck with that game :P I still think "holy trinity" is present even in the most open of games due to the players picking those roles (perhaps from playing too many holy trinity games themselves), but the whole reason why these roles are still viable is because the challenges that GrumpyMel2 is talking about no longer exist and the "challenges" that RPGs have been dumbed down to consist of walk here, kill this, walk there, kill that. Maybe we all just need to stop QQing on the mmorpg boards and go back to playing DnD :P
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
Actually when the term "holy trinity" first cropped up on usenet Everquest message boards (wasn't it that mad Scots guy who first started using it?) it referred to Tank, Cleric and Enchanter in Everquest. You could sub in who you liked for DPS, but the premis was that you couldnt (at the time) do anything high level in Everquest without a Warrior/Shadowknight, Cleric and 'Chanter.
Here's the major flaw and big difference between a "trinity-based" game and what GW2 will be like... imagine you're in, common example, WarCraft doing a 5 man whatever. You're tank goes down. "WIPE!" Lrn2heal noob! Tank sucks! etc. Healer does down. "WIPE!" Tank sucks! Why's the healer getting attacked? Who drew aggro?!
Now, consider GW2.. someone goes down. Someone else rezzes him. Fight continues.
In a Trinity style of game, if one corner of that triangle breaks, the whole thing falls apart. Period. Lose the tank, call wipe. Lose the healer, call wipe. Lose the dps, laugh at him, if you now don't have enough for the particular scripted boss fight, call wipe. If the tank dies, it's the healers fault, If the healer dies, it's the tanks fault. If the dps dies, it's their own damned fault.
In GW2, everyone is supporting everyone. Everyone is delivering damage, avoiding damage, preventing damage. Everyone is healing themselves and splash healing each other. Everyone is contributing in controlling the enemies to minimize the damage they do. You're responsible for your own positioning to avoid damage and maximise your own. If someone goes down, anyone can help revive them back to a fighting state. No one person is responsible for keeping any other one person up and alive, or for keeping the enemies off anyone else, or for delivering all the damage.
The Trinity, in the sense of individuals with hard roles, is dead. Period. Everyone is their own trinity now, and as good as the individual parts are, the greater they are as a collective working together. This is what GW2 brings, and why this article fails heavily by leaving out this critical fact.
Oderint, dum metuant.
What if you can dodge the attacks or move out of the way of the attacks or avoid them in many other ways?
What if all classes can heal themselves?
What if all classes are mainly made to do damage?
Your thinking in the ''Click target, press buttons, watch UI'' kind of gameplay. But MMORPG's can be more action and movement based games also as many different genre games out there.