You'd think a group of orcs would probably be smart enough to kill the guy who kept healing everyone else first as well, right?
<MORE STUFF>
I hope you are right but we are then talking about tanks being better dps than anything else or that the tank will have to go in by him self and engage the mob untill he has gotten agro so other players can dps the mob. If that is the case then why remove taunt from a tanks abilites? or has it been confirmed that taunt has been removed?
Anyway, It should be very interesting to see what SoE is going to do to keep large open world encounters with dozens of informal, uncoordinated groups from deteriorating into massive "Evrey Man For himself" AOE fests where the boss mob hides behind a massive wall of summoned ads.
Before I start, let me define what I mean by "Tank". It's the player currently responsible for managing the primary mob's attention.
I think what I am trying to get at, is, I would love to see a system that encourages smart play where players have to know what they are doing. Where anyone not paying attention to what the tank is doing and proceeds to do something stupid can pull agro. So everyone MUST be paying attention. everyone MUST know what the tank is doing and has to adjust accordingly.
This is where I am going to be honest. I just don't see that happening here. Not this game. The type of system I described above, sounds like it's in the opposite direction of where SoE wants to take EQN. I hope I am wrong.
Originally posted by Shadowguy64 As long as it isn't zergy, then I'll be very pleased. That's all I ask. No zerg.
Every game has that - get over it.
EQ has no zerg whatsoever, none, and the reason is the trinity system and the dependency and controlled and strategic combat it creates.
Lol strategic combat? where?
casters and rangers out in the back tanks aggroing and pulling. now lets add a Decent AI to the mix and the first thing the boss does is that it goes and kills those that are easiest to kill WHERE IS YOUR AGGRO NOW BITCH you just lost all your healers and casters now is the tanks turn to die since no one is left to heal him. target priority you know. the whole concept of "agro" is flawed in the first place.
Trinity = "DO THIS YOU DUMB MONKEY" and god forbid if you do something out of your role you better be prepared for a shit-storm
strategy means that there are different tactics that can be used in battle if there is only one tactic that repeats endlessly there is no such thing as strategy
especialy in WoW style combat what a snooze fest just stand still and "spam those keys you moron"
no i am not saying that trinity is completely bad, as an OPTION that can be chosen from other tactics its all good but if thats the only option all i can ask is, Where the hell is your strategy now?
Originally posted by Shadowguy64 As long as it isn't zergy, then I'll be very pleased. That's all I ask. No zerg.
Every game has that - get over it.
EQ has no zerg whatsoever, none, and the reason is the trinity system and the dependency and controlled and strategic combat it creates.
Lol strategic combat? where?
casters and rangers out in the back tanks aggroing and pulling. now lets add a Decent AI to the mix and the first thing the boss does is that it goes and kills those that are easiest to kill WHERE IS YOUR AGGRO NOW BITCH you just lost all your healers and casters now is the tanks turn to die since no one is left to heal him. target priority you know. the whole concept of "agro" is flawed in the first place.
Trinity = "DO THIS YOU DUMB MONKEY" and god forbid if you do something out of your role you better be prepared for a shit-storm
strategy means that there are different tactics that can be used in battle if there is only one tactic that repeats endlessly there is no such thing as strategy
especialy in WoW style combat what a snooze fest just stand still and "spam those keys you moron"
no i am not saying that trinity is completely bad, as an OPTION that can be chosen from other tactics its all good but if thats the only option all i can ask is, Where the hell is your strategy now?
And the "decent" AI you describe gets beaten very simply by having the person with aggro running in a big circle while everyone else burns the boss down. Real exciting, yeah? There is nothing smart about AI where a mob chases one guy all over the place (whether it's a tank or whatever person their script says should be attacked) while getting killed. Smart AI would try to take cover or find a defensible position. Maybe get reinforcements if there are any. Video game combat is contrived from the outset, and it's laughable to act like having the mob fight one guy over another is more realistic when it shouldn't be fighting that badly outnumbered in the first place.
___________________________ Have flask; will travel.
It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.
And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.
So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.
On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.
Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"
Agree with CalmOceans in this quote and every reply he made. When i was in WoW and Rift i thought action combat and the removal of trinity to be the future of mmo, until i tried Neverwinter and Dragon's Prophet. To summarize my experience in combat for both games : Dull , no skill zergfest. So yea, i agree with CalmOceans on this.
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it --Voltaire
Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam Video game combat is contrived from the outset, and it's laughable to act like having the mob fight one guy over another is more realistic when it shouldn't be fighting that badly outnumbered in the first place.
The whole point of strategy is to strike the enemy using advantages like outnumbering them.
The point you're making has been shot down a hundred times by now and this is getting old. "The mob will always attack someone so there's no difference!" Really? So the strategies the romans used is no different than that of a modern army today then? Logical fallacy alert!
Battle complexity has nothing to do with action combat. It has to do with the implementation of action combat. Action games can still have CC and everything else, even the aforementioned Dota-likes have plenty of CC.
Action combat has nothing to do with zerging. Many trinity games can be zerged just as much if they let that amount of people in.
Zerging indicates one of two things:
- the encounter is too easy;
- you suck at the game and are going to die. The reason most of you suck at such games is because you played with the Trinity too long, and the Trinity gives you rigid roles that never change. The real world doesn't work like that.
PvP is the representation of Trinity-less combat and PvP is not zergy unless, again, you suck.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
"The holy trinity came about because of primitive MMO AI. Vastly improved AI means a new dynamic is needed. Wait before you despair."
Before everyone touts GW2 references or cries about the end of the world, consider that the system SOE is building for EQN requires the removal of the holy trinity. Guild Wars 2 didn't have near the AI fidelity that EQN will have. Let's wait until we can actually see the system in context before making huge assumptions.
Yeah because the AI we saw in those little video clips sure did look REVOLUTIONARY. I mean the way that warrior keep smacking them down and the way they keep coming right back.. It was like they were making adjustments to his "smack" tactics, I saw one of them like pause for a second before he ran up on the warrior and get 'smacked" agian.. WOW!....
Or how about when that mage cast that ice wall down. The way that REVOLUTIONARY intelligent AI whacked at the ice wall, you could tell they were concentrating their efforts in one spot to soften up that WALL! Amazing!....
/sarcasm off
They showed nothing in that video that would lead a normal person, on the outside looking in, to believe that EQN AI is anything different then what we have seen in the past. But for the fanbois that believe everything Smedly and his crew tell them, then they saw that video through a whole different set of eyes...
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.
And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.
So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.
On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.
Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"
Agree with CalmOceans in this quote and every reply he made. When i was in WoW and Rift i thought action combat and the removal of trinity to be the future of mmo, until i tried Neverwinter and Dragon's Prophet. To summarize my experience in combat for both games : Dull , no skill zergfest. So yea, i agree with CalmOceans on this.
If we're only talking about mobs designed for combat against a taunt-based system, then you two would be correct. However, it would be absurd to have EQ/WOW style mobs in a non-trinity environment.
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
Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam Video game combat is contrived from the outset, and it's laughable to act like having the mob fight one guy over another is more realistic when it shouldn't be fighting that badly outnumbered in the first place.
The whole point of strategy is to strike the enemy using advantages like outnumbering them.
The point you're making has been shot down a hundred times by now and this is getting old. "The mob will always attack someone so there's no difference!" Really? So the strategies the romans used is no different than that of a modern army today then? Logical fallacy alert!
And no smart enemy is going to stand there and try to fight when he is greatly outnumbered making boss fights contrived from the outset. What the hell does Roman strategy have to do with one mob fighting 5, 6, 7, or more people at once? If you want to "shoot down" my point, then address my point and not some non sequitur you pulled out of your ass.
___________________________ Have flask; will travel.
People say GW2 is chaotic and the AI isn't good because they didn't play enough to understand who the AI will target.
But there are patterns - you have a shield, it is quite likely they will bash you, especially if you are at zero range.
The giant champion that attacks the town of nageling will go after anyone trying to ressurect.
One of the toymaker end bosses would ignore the melee dudes and go for the ranged ones.
And once again, if you want to see how trinity work without taunting and aggro modifiers look at Guild Wars 1, where tanking consisted of body blocking the enemy so he couldn't reach the healers.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam Video game combat is contrived from the outset, and it's laughable to act like having the mob fight one guy over another is more realistic when it shouldn't be fighting that badly outnumbered in the first place.
The whole point of strategy is to strike the enemy using advantages like outnumbering them.
The point you're making has been shot down a hundred times by now and this is getting old. "The mob will always attack someone so there's no difference!" Really? So the strategies the romans used is no different than that of a modern army today then? Logical fallacy alert!
And no smart enemy is going to stand there and try to fight when he is greatly outnumbered making boss fights contrived from the outset. So, irl, no-one ever fights when they are outnumbered? We can't have a discussion here if you don't know what the word strategy means. What the hell does Roman strategy have to do with one mob fighting 5, 6, 7, or more people at once? If you want to "shoot down" my point, then address my point and not some non sequitur you pulled out of your ass. Just because you have reading comprehension issues doesn't make an argument into a non-sequitur.
"There is nothing smart about AI where a mob chases one guy all over the place (whether it's a tank or whatever person their script says should be attacked) while getting killed." So are you saying that going for a tank that does no damage while being healed by 10 others guys is just as smart as possibly going for weaker or more threatening targets? Or that every single mob always going for the tank is incredibly predictable (wich is the opposite of requiring strategy?) Because it really isn't. You've create multiple dumb strawmen and you're constantly avoiding comparisons to PVP and games like MOBAs where people don't "run around in a circle" and cutting off people from the rest of their team in order to outnumber them is a viable strategy.
Yeah because the AI we saw in those little video clips sure did look REVOLUTIONARY. I mean the way that warrior keep smacking them down and the way they keep coming right back.. It was like they were making adjustments to his "smack" tactics, I saw one of them like pause for a second before he ran up on the warrior and get 'smacked" agian.. WOW!....
Or how about when that mage cast that ice wall down. The way that REVOLUTIONARY intelligent AI whacked at the ice wall, you could tell they were concentrating their efforts in one spot to soften up that WALL! Amazing!....
/sarcasm off
Again they showed nothing in that video that would lead a normal person on the outside looking, to believe that EQN AI is anything different then what we have seen in the past. But for the fanbois that believe everything Smedly and his crew tell them, then they saw that video through a whole different set of eyes...
I think it was Darrin who commented that those videos were tech demos, not combat demos. The enemies weren't pathing and not all of them were even attacking back. They haven't shown any "real" combat footage yet.
Yes older systems where you have to create community to work together and play your specific role to the best of its ability in a "ROLE" playing game sucks. I want everyone on the same playing field and to have no real specific reason or role so that I do not really need to be there.
I mean after all in a game, lets say baseball, where is the fun in having a specific role like being a batsman or a fielder.
Lets just make it so everyone can bat and catch and then make the ball whiz around and smack whoever it likes in the face.
/sarcasm
You can say "I will bat" or "I will catch" but in the end it means nothing. You have no real grander purpose in a game system like eqn, everyone does the same thing. Hurt stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy hurting stuff alot. But there needs to be more in an mmorpg that you could potentially be playing for years. More individuality please WITHIN a specific role. Roles also help to create community and you will be rewarded for your ability to play a specific role well.
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
People obviously played a different Everquest than I did. All raid bosses up till about mid Planes of Power essentially boiled down to the "pull" and once the boss was positioned correctly it was pretty much a gear check from that point assuming your clerics could handle a basic complete heal rotation. Most classes boiled down to two or three button rotations on raids and some were even worse like melee classes that essentially just autoattacked (or autoattacked and spammed taunt if tanking) the entire time. It's not like tanking and healing was difficult. Tanking boiled down to standing in one spot (usually a wall) and spamming taunt and attacking with +hate weapons. Healing was on a CH rotation for clerics, so as long as you can count you were good to go.
There were no real limitations on the number of people you could bring on a raid and guilds had no issue recruiting people as long as they could keep up with the hardcore time investment necessary to keep your gear at raiding level. The first dragon raids, Nagafen and Vox were generally pretty chaotic and absolutely boiled down to how well you could "zerg" the dragon. Classes were completely useless in raids compared to other classes (Rangers / Enchanters beyond casting their buffs and Tash which one Enchanter could easily do), but were brought along anyway because there was no real downside to bringing along more people in a raid. Worse yet, you could resurrect in combat and the Cleric epic made this mana free so you can have a Cleric sit back and resurrect people (something we did often) if they died. No enrage or soft enrage timers till Planes of Power either so there was no pressure to "bring the DEEPS" either.
Groups weren't any better. You pretty much did the same thing you did on raids, with Enchanters and Bards now being critical to the group makeup (making up the CC in the Holy Trinity). Sure, there was some added difficulty with having the CC and not breaking it (unless of course you were in an AoE group where you just spammed away), but it really didn't require any critical thought and it certainly wasn't more difficult - no it was EASIER than current generation MMOs. The only difficulty on the game came with the time investment, learning your way around the world or memorizing /loc locations, and the extremely harsh death penalty, and mandatory group participation everywhere (unless you happen to play one of the few classes great at soloing).
It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.
And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.
So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.
On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.
Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"
/this
What amuses me is that the Trinity is seen as developed by the developers. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Trinity was developed by role players back in paper rpgs. I remember back in the 80's having a great time in a D&D dungeon playing the healer part of the Trinity.
"The holy trinity came about because of primitive MMO AI. Vastly improved AI means a new dynamic is needed. Wait before you despair."
Before everyone touts GW2 references or cries about the end of the world, consider that the system SOE is building for EQN requires the removal of the holy trinity. Guild Wars 2 didn't have near the AI fidelity that EQN will have. Let's wait until we can actually see the system in context before making huge assumptions.
Its true.
The Trinity is as antiquated as subscription fees.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
What amuses me is that the Trinity is seen as developed by the developers. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Trinity was developed by role players back in paper rpgs. I remember back in the 80's having a great time in a D&D dungeon playing the healer part of the Trinity.
Yes, you played the healer role. You did not, however, have a fighter that went "NEENER NEENER NEENER" at spiders, which is the defining aspect of the Trinity. The trinity isn't just three roles, it's three specific roles.
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
casters and rangers out in the back tanks aggroing and pulling. now lets add a Decent AI to the mix and the first thing the boss does is that it goes and kills those that are easiest to kill WHERE IS YOUR AGGRO NOW BITCH you just lost all your healers and casters now is the tanks turn to die since no one is left to heal him. target priority you know. the whole concept of "agro" is flawed in the first place.
They tried it in EQ and it failed, if you spent less time cursing and more time playing the franchise you would know.
It was tried twice, and it failed twice. Look up what Mastery of Corruption Trial is. They're mobs that go for your healers and casters.
And the systems failed, because it created chaos and the raids themselves were terrible because of it.
Removing the trinity aggro system actually removed the strategy elements from the raid, because it resulted in chaos. It became a DPS faceroll.
It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.
And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.
So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.
On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.
Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"
/this
What amuses me is that the Trinity is seen as developed by the developers. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Trinity was developed by role players back in paper rpgs. I remember back in the 80's having a great time in a D&D dungeon playing the healer part of the Trinity.
Flat out bull.
There was nothing about any of the D&D or AD&D 1st edition sets that required the trinity. Just because the 3 types were present in the rule books, it doesn't mean it was a requirement of the game itself. I can recall so many sessions where we all played Theives and Fighters...others where everyone played Druids to fit the campaign.
A good DM did not have the limits that would be placed with forced trinity play...just like an MMO wont have the limited design that comes with forced trinity.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.
And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.
So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.
On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.
Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"
/this
/notthis
I don't know what type of critical thinking schools have taught over the years but apparently "not much".
I can easily imagine an "action combat" version of crowd control, several different versions of healing, one of which requires healing "after a battle and not during" and any number of ways that you can make players require the assistance of other classes.
But apparently, because some games adopted certain ways of doing things, no other way is even remotely possible.
Or maybe we just don't have any "outside the box" thinkers here.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam Video game combat is contrived from the outset, and it's laughable to act like having the mob fight one guy over another is more realistic when it shouldn't be fighting that badly outnumbered in the first place.
The whole point of strategy is to strike the enemy using advantages like outnumbering them.
The point you're making has been shot down a hundred times by now and this is getting old. "The mob will always attack someone so there's no difference!" Really? So the strategies the romans used is no different than that of a modern army today then? Logical fallacy alert!
And no smart enemy is going to stand there and try to fight when he is greatly outnumbered making boss fights contrived from the outset. So, irl, no-one ever fights when they are outnumbered? We can't have a discussion here if you don't know what the word strategy means. What the hell does Roman strategy have to do with one mob fighting 5, 6, 7, or more people at once? If you want to "shoot down" my point, then address my point and not some non sequitur you pulled out of your ass. Just because you have reading comprehension issues doesn't make an argument into a non-sequitur.
"There is nothing smart about AI where a mob chases one guy all over the place (whether it's a tank or whatever person their script says should be attacked) while getting killed." So are you saying that going for a tank that does no damage while being healed by 10 others guys is just as smart as possibly going for weaker or more threatening targets? Or that every single mob always going for the tank is incredibly predictable (wich is the opposite of requiring strategy?) Because it really isn't. You've create multiple dumb strawmen and you're constantly avoiding comparisons to PVP and games like MOBAs where people don't "run around in a circle" and cutting off people from the rest of their team in order to outnumber them is a viable strategy.
No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest. He either turtles, or he gets the hell out of there. He sure as hell won't chase one guy around while the other four beat on him. That kind of video game combat is contrived and to complain that the mob is focusing on person over another is idiotic. We're talking about scripted AI. It may be more or less complex, but it is still a script. Who cares whether he beats on a tank or chases a squishy? If the only response is attack it's still contrived, and that's just part of playing a video game. Smart AI would incorporate more than just a threat assessment. It would incorporate strategic retreats, calling in reinforcements, finding defensible positions, using cover. If all they're doing is tweaking who gets attacked, that's a waste of time.
___________________________ Have flask; will travel.
No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest.
If you're awaiting your opponent and you haven't started to build your strategy until after they are beating on you, you've already lost. So, yes, if a mob thinks the way you do, their only chance is to turtle up or flee.
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
It allows for no pulling, it has inferior CC, inferior tanking, inferior healing. The whole "action combat" is flawed from the get go. It also results in a lack of community and lack of interdependence.
And unless you have a brilliant solution that doesn't result in a zergfest, please for love of God stick to Holy Trinity which has stood the test of time.
So far, you've shown a combat video of a warrior zerging, more primitive gameplay and AI than I have ever seen in any MMO on the market.
On the one hand you claim you don't want to see guilds or groups fall apart because they lose an essential element in the trinity. That is the point....the interdepence is what makes trinity combat so strong. The depence on groups, on tanks, on healers, on CC, on pullers is the point of the trinity systems. They create the challenging content, they create the dependency, they create the community.
Action MMO have never managed to surpass Street Fighter on crack gameplay. So much for that "advanced AI"
/this
What amuses me is that the Trinity is seen as developed by the developers. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Trinity was developed by role players back in paper rpgs. I remember back in the 80's having a great time in a D&D dungeon playing the healer part of the Trinity.
Flat out bull.
There was nothing about any of the D&D or AD&D 1st edition sets that required the trinity. Just because the 3 types were present in the rule books, it doesn't mean it was a requirement of the game itself. I can recall so many sessions where we all played Theives and Fighters...others where everyone played Druids to fit the campaign.
A good DM did not have the limits that would be placed with forced trinity play...just like an MMO wont have the limited design that comes with forced trinity.
Yeh I need to throw the BS flag on the trinity thing in old D&D as well. There was no trinity. Fighters didn't even have "taunt" in 1st edition and when they did finally put that in the PnP it didn't function as it does in MMOs. Good DMs used their brains to figure out who the mobs attacked, not some brainless and cheap MMO mechanic.
Comments
Before I start, let me define what I mean by "Tank". It's the player currently responsible for managing the primary mob's attention.
I think what I am trying to get at, is, I would love to see a system that encourages smart play where players have to know what they are doing. Where anyone not paying attention to what the tank is doing and proceeds to do something stupid can pull agro. So everyone MUST be paying attention. everyone MUST know what the tank is doing and has to adjust accordingly.
This is where I am going to be honest. I just don't see that happening here. Not this game. The type of system I described above, sounds like it's in the opposite direction of where SoE wants to take EQN. I hope I am wrong.
Lol strategic combat? where?
casters and rangers out in the back tanks aggroing and pulling. now lets add a Decent AI to the mix and the first thing the boss does is that it goes and kills those that are easiest to kill WHERE IS YOUR AGGRO NOW BITCH you just lost all your healers and casters now is the tanks turn to die since no one is left to heal him. target priority you know. the whole concept of "agro" is flawed in the first place.
Trinity = "DO THIS YOU DUMB MONKEY" and god forbid if you do something out of your role you better be prepared for a shit-storm
strategy means that there are different tactics that can be used in battle if there is only one tactic that repeats endlessly there is no such thing as strategy
especialy in WoW style combat what a snooze fest just stand still and "spam those keys you moron"
no i am not saying that trinity is completely bad, as an OPTION that can be chosen from other tactics its all good but if thats the only option all i can ask is, Where the hell is your strategy now?
And the "decent" AI you describe gets beaten very simply by having the person with aggro running in a big circle while everyone else burns the boss down. Real exciting, yeah? There is nothing smart about AI where a mob chases one guy all over the place (whether it's a tank or whatever person their script says should be attacked) while getting killed. Smart AI would try to take cover or find a defensible position. Maybe get reinforcements if there are any. Video game combat is contrived from the outset, and it's laughable to act like having the mob fight one guy over another is more realistic when it shouldn't be fighting that badly outnumbered in the first place.
___________________________
Have flask; will travel.
Agree with CalmOceans in this quote and every reply he made. When i was in WoW and Rift i thought action combat and the removal of trinity to be the future of mmo, until i tried Neverwinter and Dragon's Prophet. To summarize my experience in combat for both games : Dull , no skill zergfest. So yea, i agree with CalmOceans on this.
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it
--Voltaire
The whole point of strategy is to strike the enemy using advantages like outnumbering them.
The point you're making has been shot down a hundred times by now and this is getting old. "The mob will always attack someone so there's no difference!" Really? So the strategies the romans used is no different than that of a modern army today then? Logical fallacy alert!
I will repeat again.
Battle complexity has nothing to do with action combat. It has to do with the implementation of action combat. Action games can still have CC and everything else, even the aforementioned Dota-likes have plenty of CC.
Action combat has nothing to do with zerging. Many trinity games can be zerged just as much if they let that amount of people in.
Zerging indicates one of two things:
- the encounter is too easy;
- you suck at the game and are going to die. The reason most of you suck at such games is because you played with the Trinity too long, and the Trinity gives you rigid roles that never change. The real world doesn't work like that.
PvP is the representation of Trinity-less combat and PvP is not zergy unless, again, you suck.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Yeah because the AI we saw in those little video clips sure did look REVOLUTIONARY. I mean the way that warrior keep smacking them down and the way they keep coming right back.. It was like they were making adjustments to his "smack" tactics, I saw one of them like pause for a second before he ran up on the warrior and get 'smacked" agian.. WOW!....
Or how about when that mage cast that ice wall down. The way that REVOLUTIONARY intelligent AI whacked at the ice wall, you could tell they were concentrating their efforts in one spot to soften up that WALL! Amazing!....
/sarcasm off
They showed nothing in that video that would lead a normal person, on the outside looking in, to believe that EQN AI is anything different then what we have seen in the past. But for the fanbois that believe everything Smedly and his crew tell them, then they saw that video through a whole different set of eyes...
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
If we're only talking about mobs designed for combat against a taunt-based system, then you two would be correct. However, it would be absurd to have EQ/WOW style mobs in a non-trinity environment.
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
And no smart enemy is going to stand there and try to fight when he is greatly outnumbered making boss fights contrived from the outset. What the hell does Roman strategy have to do with one mob fighting 5, 6, 7, or more people at once? If you want to "shoot down" my point, then address my point and not some non sequitur you pulled out of your ass.
___________________________
Have flask; will travel.
People say GW2 is chaotic and the AI isn't good because they didn't play enough to understand who the AI will target.
But there are patterns - you have a shield, it is quite likely they will bash you, especially if you are at zero range.
The giant champion that attacks the town of nageling will go after anyone trying to ressurect.
One of the toymaker end bosses would ignore the melee dudes and go for the ranged ones.
And once again, if you want to see how trinity work without taunting and aggro modifiers look at Guild Wars 1, where tanking consisted of body blocking the enemy so he couldn't reach the healers.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I think it was Darrin who commented that those videos were tech demos, not combat demos. The enemies weren't pathing and not all of them were even attacking back. They haven't shown any "real" combat footage yet.
Yes older systems where you have to create community to work together and play your specific role to the best of its ability in a "ROLE" playing game sucks. I want everyone on the same playing field and to have no real specific reason or role so that I do not really need to be there.
I mean after all in a game, lets say baseball, where is the fun in having a specific role like being a batsman or a fielder.
Lets just make it so everyone can bat and catch and then make the ball whiz around and smack whoever it likes in the face.
/sarcasm
You can say "I will bat" or "I will catch" but in the end it means nothing. You have no real grander purpose in a game system like eqn, everyone does the same thing. Hurt stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy hurting stuff alot. But there needs to be more in an mmorpg that you could potentially be playing for years. More individuality please WITHIN a specific role. Roles also help to create community and you will be rewarded for your ability to play a specific role well.
People obviously played a different Everquest than I did. All raid bosses up till about mid Planes of Power essentially boiled down to the "pull" and once the boss was positioned correctly it was pretty much a gear check from that point assuming your clerics could handle a basic complete heal rotation. Most classes boiled down to two or three button rotations on raids and some were even worse like melee classes that essentially just autoattacked (or autoattacked and spammed taunt if tanking) the entire time. It's not like tanking and healing was difficult. Tanking boiled down to standing in one spot (usually a wall) and spamming taunt and attacking with +hate weapons. Healing was on a CH rotation for clerics, so as long as you can count you were good to go.
There were no real limitations on the number of people you could bring on a raid and guilds had no issue recruiting people as long as they could keep up with the hardcore time investment necessary to keep your gear at raiding level. The first dragon raids, Nagafen and Vox were generally pretty chaotic and absolutely boiled down to how well you could "zerg" the dragon. Classes were completely useless in raids compared to other classes (Rangers / Enchanters beyond casting their buffs and Tash which one Enchanter could easily do), but were brought along anyway because there was no real downside to bringing along more people in a raid. Worse yet, you could resurrect in combat and the Cleric epic made this mana free so you can have a Cleric sit back and resurrect people (something we did often) if they died. No enrage or soft enrage timers till Planes of Power either so there was no pressure to "bring the DEEPS" either.
Groups weren't any better. You pretty much did the same thing you did on raids, with Enchanters and Bards now being critical to the group makeup (making up the CC in the Holy Trinity). Sure, there was some added difficulty with having the CC and not breaking it (unless of course you were in an AoE group where you just spammed away), but it really didn't require any critical thought and it certainly wasn't more difficult - no it was EASIER than current generation MMOs. The only difficulty on the game came with the time investment, learning your way around the world or memorizing /loc locations, and the extremely harsh death penalty, and mandatory group participation everywhere (unless you happen to play one of the few classes great at soloing).
/this
What amuses me is that the Trinity is seen as developed by the developers. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Trinity was developed by role players back in paper rpgs. I remember back in the 80's having a great time in a D&D dungeon playing the healer part of the Trinity.
Its true.
The Trinity is as antiquated as subscription fees.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Yes, you played the healer role. You did not, however, have a fighter that went "NEENER NEENER NEENER" at spiders, which is the defining aspect of the Trinity. The trinity isn't just three roles, it's three specific roles.
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
They tried it in EQ and it failed, if you spent less time cursing and more time playing the franchise you would know.
It was tried twice, and it failed twice. Look up what Mastery of Corruption Trial is. They're mobs that go for your healers and casters.
And the systems failed, because it created chaos and the raids themselves were terrible because of it.
Removing the trinity aggro system actually removed the strategy elements from the raid, because it resulted in chaos. It became a DPS faceroll.
Flat out bull.
There was nothing about any of the D&D or AD&D 1st edition sets that required the trinity. Just because the 3 types were present in the rule books, it doesn't mean it was a requirement of the game itself. I can recall so many sessions where we all played Theives and Fighters...others where everyone played Druids to fit the campaign.
A good DM did not have the limits that would be placed with forced trinity play...just like an MMO wont have the limited design that comes with forced trinity.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
/notthis
I don't know what type of critical thinking schools have taught over the years but apparently "not much".
I can easily imagine an "action combat" version of crowd control, several different versions of healing, one of which requires healing "after a battle and not during" and any number of ways that you can make players require the assistance of other classes.
But apparently, because some games adopted certain ways of doing things, no other way is even remotely possible.
Or maybe we just don't have any "outside the box" thinkers here.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Many people in favor of action combat seem to have no frame of reference of what a good trinity system is. WoW isn't one of them.
No, no one in real life with five guys beating on them looks around trying to figure out which one is weakest. He either turtles, or he gets the hell out of there. He sure as hell won't chase one guy around while the other four beat on him. That kind of video game combat is contrived and to complain that the mob is focusing on person over another is idiotic. We're talking about scripted AI. It may be more or less complex, but it is still a script. Who cares whether he beats on a tank or chases a squishy? If the only response is attack it's still contrived, and that's just part of playing a video game. Smart AI would incorporate more than just a threat assessment. It would incorporate strategic retreats, calling in reinforcements, finding defensible positions, using cover. If all they're doing is tweaking who gets attacked, that's a waste of time.
___________________________
Have flask; will travel.
I agree. If you're going to replace the Trinity, replace it with something better.
That's where GW2 failed. ANet acted as if nothing was worse than the Trinity, but the system they implemented was far, far worse.
I'm looking forward to see what EQN is able to do.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
If you're awaiting your opponent and you haven't started to build your strategy until after they are beating on you, you've already lost. So, yes, if a mob thinks the way you do, their only chance is to turtle up or flee.
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
Yeh I need to throw the BS flag on the trinity thing in old D&D as well. There was no trinity. Fighters didn't even have "taunt" in 1st edition and when they did finally put that in the PnP it didn't function as it does in MMOs. Good DMs used their brains to figure out who the mobs attacked, not some brainless and cheap MMO mechanic.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor