When SOE talks about the trinity and getting away from what it has become, they specifically point out elements that have become of the genre post-WoW. Roles and player interdependence will still be in EQN, just not watered down combat mini-games that take away the thrill and fun.
So we can have more of this instead as fun?
Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris
Naw, it' fun making DPS cry in their cups when arena matches lasted 45mins (bet some folks were throwing keyboards that they couldn't faceroll).
Since you outright admitted that kind of thing was fun, I'm not quite sure how to interpret your question.
It's fun when roles are evenly matched.
Define "evenly matched."
Because technically, the best example of "evenly matched" is no roles at all. Everyone the same = no room for imbalance. Which I doubt is what you want; but everything else is murky.
Not when nerfs are applied when DPS gets so lazy they only want 1 button to win. Arenas used to last 45mins. Then 30mins. Now huge healing debuffs kick in @ 10mins (on top of player healing debuffs). Maybe next expansion arenas will be reduced to 5mins max, and debuffs start at 2mins (since they already whine if a match lasts that long). -_-
No offense, but I never trust the word of the person speaking against one side on what was motivating the people they're speaking against. Perhaps they felt it was the healers refusing to let go of the "1 button to win" position they already had.
Or perhaps everyone was just too locked into their comfort zones to try a different approach. Which is kind of what this thread feels like.
That's what not having roles have brought to gaming, making choices fewer and fewer, let alone any skills.
Funny how your example comes from a game with clearly defined roles, and was really more about heads butting over what qualifies as "evenly matched" between the roles than about what would happen if there were no clearly defined roles.
And I put that one phrase in italics, because that - not "no roles at all" - is what most opponents of the Holy Trinity are really asking for.
Because re-posting sh*t will be a pain I'll go with my overall thoughts that while a trinity system is painful for some, when you're op[ting to replace it you really need to anticipate the outcome overall far more than ever. You can do a GW2 build but you also land into the dynamics of avoiding certain builds becoming the most common builds. Preference aside, I also accept the fact that players do have preferences for occupations: not everyone wants to be a healer or a tank.
My concern is that the idea of a trinity is typically to ensure specialization and coordination and ensure everyone has a delegated role; move away from that and you have to understand that it can work but there are risks to it like making one job or set of abilities more popular as a result. I don't really want a cookie cutter.
None of us really can say until we see how things progress and get closer to release but I also think that as mmo players we have to really be open to new things. When something isn't popular initially it can be a perception issue but once you try it out it might change your feelings on the matter. I know Demon Souls was a similar experience and I thoroughly enjoyed it. EQN and its direction and going forward is interesting and if it works it'll be awesome. If it fails, however, this is something that will be a burden that can't be readily addressed.
My concern is that the idea of a trinity is typically to ensure specialization and coordination and ensure everyone has a delegated role; move away from that and you have to understand that it can work but there are risks to it like making one job or set of abilities more popular as a result. I don't really want a cookie cutter.
I really do not understand that argument against more freeform class system and I see it often. Trinity based games are based on cookie cutter builds. Making sure a class distribute its points the exact same way in a specialization is how these game work and the reason why a lot of people hate it. These people want customization and diversity, not clones.
All MMOs will always have jerks requesting everyone to use a specific build so they can finish content faster. No class system is going to make them go away. Breaking their easy gold/time ratio content will though.
The real problem doesn't have anything to do with tank/healer/dps vs something else anyway, but with the dumping down of the gameplay systems. Dev have been listening to the QQing of the lazy players and PvPers and removed complexity from the gameplay in the name of equality and balance. That's how we ended up with only tank/healer/dps when previously there was way more roles and different ways to tackle the same content.
There was a time where an ice mage would be useless against Ice creatures, but overpowered against fire creatures. Now it doesn't matter if you are a ice or fire mage, the name just change the colors of your spells not your effectiveness* against something. What used to be strategic usage of spells based on the situation/encounter turned into spamming everything off cooldown. What used to be having harder encounters because you made a specific build choice is all gone. Classes have a single FOTM to deal with everything in the game. Bring that back. The limitations. The choices that matters because skill X is only good in situation Y. Bring back CC, debuff that matters. Bring back damage resistances and damage types. Bring back the concept that your build is only good for a few part of the game making everything else harder and forcing you to find others to help you. Players should react to what is happening while in a fight, not go into an encounter already knowing in what order to push the buttons on their hotbars.
Unfortunately, a large part of the MMOs players do not want to play with others even if they are not soloers. They do not want to have to learn their party members weakness and how to pad them. They do not want to plan strategy for situation A and B. They do not want to put some effort in playing the game. They prefer to follow orders/FOTM even if they have no idea what they are doing.
Sorry, turned a bit into a rant.
*It's a bit exaggerated, some MMOs still have this in a limited fashion.
Click the photo and check the big fat scoreboard and find out.
Notice the numbers? Notice the matchmaking score?
Notice the classes fighting each other? And their roles?
Because technically, the best example of "evenly matched" is no roles at all. Everyone the same = no room for imbalance. Which I doubt is what you want; but everything else is murky.
No, because no roles brings the zergs and the even more stupid nerfs to n-o-w SELF-healing.
Shortcut in gaming now is to nerf all healing as a means of "challenge", yet SELF-healing was boosted so "no role" builds could survive the "challenges".
The lesson not learned is there's a reason why Battlefield doesn't give Assault both the medic and ammo kits. It will answer the problem GW2 faces with it's no Trinity system is facing.
Not when nerfs are applied when DPS gets so lazy they only want 1 button to win. Arenas used to last 45mins. Then 30mins. Now huge healing debuffs kick in @ 10mins (on top of player healing debuffs). Maybe next expansion arenas will be reduced to 5mins max, and debuffs start at 2mins (since they already whine if a match lasts that long). -_-
No offense, but I never trust the word of the person speaking against one side on what was motivating the people they're speaking against. Perhaps they felt it was the healers refusing to let go of the "1 button to win" position they already had.
Huh? Healers are checked when DPS is actually DPSing.
Or perhaps everyone was just too locked into their comfort zones to try a different approach. Which is kind of what this thread feels like.
Spitting is a "comfort zone"?o.O
That's what not having roles have brought to gaming, making choices fewer and fewer, let alone any skills.
Funny how your example comes from a game with clearly defined roles,
How about playing WoW to understand the game instead of making assumptions (especially since you trust no one)? Since Cata and GW2 were released WoW turned into a major SELF-healing game to the point of tanks, especially in Cata, did HALF the healing of the dedicated healer.Yep, first raid I did in Cata in blue gear and was doing 14k HPS, the DK tank could SELF-heal for almost 5k HPS.In MoP I often say, "Why am I'm even here?" because the opportunities to heal are rare due to not only all the SELF-healing, all the AoE healing.
My concern is that the idea of a trinity is typically to ensure specialization and coordination and ensure everyone has a delegated role; move away from that and you have to understand that it can work but there are risks to it like making one job or set of abilities more popular as a result. I don't really want a cookie cutter.
I really do not understand that argument against more freeform class system and I see it often. Trinity based games are based on cookie cutter builds. Making sure a class distribute its points the exact same way in a specialization is how these game work and the reason why a lot of people hate it. These people want customization and diversity, not clones.
Specialization. Not a Jack of all Trades, master of none.
Some people like to pilot planes. Others prefer helming ships. Still others prefer to fix them. Each requires specialization to do their jobs well. Look at the "Miracle on the Hudson" pilot, who's career training (especially in safety) prepared him for that fateful day. Do you think a generic pilot could've ditched a modern aircraft into water without breaking it into pieces?
No.
Generic classes and skills is programming on the cheap, and creates the very situation EQII got itself into with 22 class builds. Players want to play everything without regard of the consequences (the devs will magically fix it).
Specialization isn't a dirty word. Logging into a game and everyone is now a pilot, helmsman and mechanic -- and that miracle safety pilot -- what's the point in even playing a "game"?
My concern is that the idea of a trinity is typically to ensure specialization and coordination and ensure everyone has a delegated role; move away from that and you have to understand that it can work but there are risks to it like making one job or set of abilities more popular as a result. I don't really want a cookie cutter.
I really do not understand that argument against more freeform class system and I see it often. Trinity based games are based on cookie cutter builds. Making sure a class distribute its points the exact same way in a specialization is how these game work and the reason why a lot of people hate it. These people want customization and diversity, not clones.
Specialization. Not a Jack of all Trades, master of none.
Some people like to pilot planes. Others prefer helming ships. Still others prefer to fix them. Each requires specialization to do their jobs well. Look at the "Miracle on the Hudson" pilot, who's career training (especially in safety) prepared him for that fateful day. Do you think a generic pilot could've ditched a modern aircraft into water without breaking it into pieces?
No.
Generic classes and skills is programming on the cheap, and creates the very situation EQII got itself into with 22 class builds. Players want to play everything without regard of the consequences (the devs will magically fix it).
Specialization isn't a dirty word. Logging into a game and everyone is now a pilot, helmsman and mechanic -- and that miracle safety pilot -- what's the point in even playing a "game"?
When I wrote specialization, I meant the trees dedicated to role like in SWTOR, WoW, LoTRO and cie. Those trees create cookie cutter builds: everyone with the same class and using the same tree will have the same build. That is how those game works. The classes system doesn't change anything to the existence of cookie cutter builds.
Anyhow, EQNext isn't going to have a open end class system nor a multi-tree based on. We even know that it is still going to have class specialization. They already presented the cleric (PCgamer) saying it was a buffing/healing class (with a fire thematic using a two-handed hammer or hammer&shield). They talked about building an anti-mage Warrior in SOE Live class panel by carefully choosing your gear and utilities as well.
A very simple answer to creating a better game design is to eliminate the need for players to need to be healed while in combat.
The design would have to be innoative. Something akin to eliminating health bars. Instead your abilities and endurance wear down as you proceed in a dungeon.
When you reach the boss, you get a health bar based on your remaining ability and endrance. There is no healing during combat except expensive and rare potions.
Mentally, this is how tabletop games are. DMs may scale back on the 2 or 3 encounters leading up to the boss, using them only to wear down and reduce the resources of the party. Thus, parties think more tactically and create new strategies while proceeding through. Sophisticated AIs aren't fooled by poorly created ambushes.
Game developers need to figure out ways to incorporate noncombat, noncrafting skills. What if there was a Perception skill that effected how well players saw tells. Disable Divice skills that determined if players saw traps or not. Gathering and hunting skills that determined success when getting crafting material. If the game creators thought outside of just combat and crafting, we'd get better role creations.
I think we are looking at this wrong. It isn't about trinities, specs, etc. What we are talking about is this:
Asymetric Class Diversity
What we talk about when we talk about roles and our complaints is we don't want roles to be dilluted to the point of being irreivant. What is a tank? A class that is focused on taking hits and keeping agro? Why should that role be limited to a specific class? Why not look at classes with this statement:
"Every 'class' should be able to fulfill any 'role'"
Looking at that statement it begs the question, why have classes at all? The question really should be
"How does a Wizard tank, versus a Cleric, or a Warrior"
This gives us in design the idea that every class should have a spec line for each 'role'.
How does a cleric tank spec work versus a warriors?
We could say that clerics get a lot of proc self-heals for example but lower health and armor where a warrior gets no heals but much higher health and armor. The cleric is more vulnerable to crits but the warrior can suffer crits more often and contribute more DPS then a cleric? How does a wizard tank? With pets and agro management or mana driven energy shields that need recasting? How does a thief tank, with high evasion, high damage with an auto teleport if they would be killed, leaving them with one HP left rather then die outright. How does a warrior do support, etc.
I go back to Final Fantasy 1 for the NES. I could beat that game with 1 Fighter, 1 Monk, 1 Black Mage, 1 White Mage. I could also beat it with 4 of the same class. MMOs, raids, shouldn't depend on a specific composition, this is true but because we need the ability to tune difficulty and the needs of a complex system like an MMO, the best compromise is to ensure that every 'class' can fulfill a particular role IN THEIR OWN UNIQUE WAY. Spec lines, and I give credit to Blizzard for having a good understanding of that, are the 'best' way to handle that.
Eve Online has a unique way of handling that, your ship is your spec line. Remote repper (healer) hop in. Tank, throw up the armor tank or shield tank and get to it.
That same mechanic does exist, just not clearly in Fantasy MMOs. GW2 is the closest as your weapon choice is in many ways, like the ship, part of your spec line. The same could exist for any fantasy MMO like EQNext. Broad classes with spec lines derived from gear or skill-trees. LoL for example has the masteries page that you could choose from. Handle spec lines the same way. Give the class X spec points and let them save various specs.
Playing a cleric? Here is my tank spec. Need me to heal? Load up my healing spec.
DAOC also had a novel way of handling that. You had a base line spell that was okay, but not efficent but you could then spec for your spec-line heal for example. So based on your 'masteries' page you load you would have access to your spec-line versions of spells and abilities rather then the base line versions.
e.g.
While in Tank Spec the Cleric gets:
"Holy Aura" a self-regen heal that heals for 50 a tick
"Blessing Voice" proc that heals when they block for 100.
"Healing Touch" a baseline heal that heals any target for 25.
While in Healer Spec the Cleric gets:
"Blessed Aura" the baseline version of Holy Aura that only heals for 10 a tick
"Blessing Whisper" the baseline version of Blessing Voice that heals when they block for 30
"Touch of Divinity" the spec-line version of Healing Touch that heals for 150.
And so on and so on for various classes. The main character progression can then tune that by buffing either their baseline or specline spells and having some opporunties to take masteriesskills that say "Touch of Divinity can be used in Tank Spec once per day" ( I assume pressing CTRL or something allow to toggle between base line and spec line versions of a spell for example.) You get the idea.
I think we are looking at this wrong. It isn't about trinities, specs, etc. What we are talking about is this:
Asymetric Class Diversity
What we talk about when we talk about roles and our complaints is we don't want roles to be dilluted to the point of being irreivant. What is a tank? A class that is focused on taking hits and keeping agro? Why should that role be limited to a specific class? Why not look at classes with this statement:
"Every 'class' should be able to fulfill any 'role'"
Looking at that statement it begs the question, why have classes at all? The question really should be
"How does a Wizard tank, versus a Cleric, or a Warrior"
This gives us in design the idea that every class should have a spec line for each 'role'.
How does a cleric tank spec work versus a warriors?
We could say that clerics get a lot of proc self-heals for example but lower health and armor where a warrior gets no heals but much higher health and armor. The cleric is more vulnerable to crits but the warrior can suffer crits more often and contribute more DPS then a cleric? How does a wizard tank? With pets and agro management or mana driven energy shields that need recasting? How does a thief tank, with high evasion, high damage with an auto teleport if they would be killed, leaving them with one HP left rather then die outright. How does a warrior do support, etc.
I go back to Final Fantasy 1 for the NES. I could beat that game with 1 Fighter, 1 Monk, 1 Black Mage, 1 White Mage. I could also beat it with 4 of the same class. MMOs, raids, shouldn't depend on a specific composition, this is true but because we need the ability to tune difficulty and the needs of a complex system like an MMO, the best compromise is to ensure that every 'class' can fulfill a particular role IN THEIR OWN UNIQUE WAY. Spec lines, and I give credit to Blizzard for having a good understanding of that, are the 'best' way to handle that.
Eve Online has a unique way of handling that, your ship is your spec line. Remote repper (healer) hop in. Tank, throw up the armor tank or shield tank and get to it.
That same mechanic does exist, just not clearly in Fantasy MMOs. GW2 is the closest as your weapon choice is in many ways, like the ship, part of your spec line. The same could exist for any fantasy MMO like EQNext. Broad classes with spec lines derived from gear or skill-trees. LoL for example has the masteries page that you could choose from. Handle spec lines the same way. Give the class X spec points and let them save various specs.
Playing a cleric? Here is my tank spec. Need me to heal? Load up my healing spec.
DAOC also had a novel way of handling that. You had a base line spell that was okay, but not efficent but you could then spec for your spec-line heal for example. So based on your 'masteries' page you load you would have access to your spec-line versions of spells and abilities rather then the base line versions.
e.g.
While in Tank Spec the Cleric gets:
"Holy Aura" a self-regen heal that heals for 50 a tick
"Blessing Voice" proc that heals when they block for 100.
"Healing Touch" a baseline heal that heals any target for 25.
While in Healer Spec the Cleric gets:
"Blessed Aura" the baseline version of Holy Aura that only heals for 10 a tick
"Blessing Whisper" the baseline version of Blessing Voice that heals when they block for 30
"Touch of Divinity" the spec-line version of Healing Touch that heals for 150.
And so on and so on for various classes. The main character progression can then tune that by buffing either their baseline or specline spells and having some opporunties to take masteriesskills that say "Touch of Divinity can be used in Tank Spec once per day" ( I assume pressing CTRL or something allow to toggle between base line and spec line versions of a spell for example.) You get the idea.
This is a good explanation. The way I see the class roles is as such.
You are a group of three having just finished a long fight against undead. Your cleric was specced for AOE heals since they equally heal the party while damaging the undead.
Now the party encounters a group of Orcs. The healer did not respec for direct heals but does his best to keep the group alive with AOE heals. The only problem is everytime he throws out a heal the Orcs get healed too making the battle much to difficult for the group. At the last minute the Ranger evacs the group to a safe location. The healer proceeds to heal the group then respecs for direct heals. They go after the Orcs again and this time defeat then easily.
Rangers will have the same type of problems. In close quarters or inside narrow hallways how would he use AOE skills? How much damage would he do to his own party? If he doesn't have a clear line of sight how can he be sure his arrow will reach the mark. So in these situations the Ranger specs for dual wielded short swords and joins the fray.
I think we are looking at this wrong. It isn't about trinities, specs, etc. What we are talking about is this:
Asymetric Class Diversity
What we talk about when we talk about roles and our complaints is we don't want roles to be dilluted to the point of being irreivant. What is a tank? A class that is focused on taking hits and keeping agro? Why should that role be limited to a specific class? Why not look at classes with this statement:
"Every 'class' should be able to fulfill any 'role'"
Looking at that statement it begs the question, why have classes at all? The question really should be
"How does a Wizard tank, versus a Cleric, or a Warrior"
This gives us in design the idea that every class should have a spec line for each 'role'.
How does a cleric tank spec work versus a warriors?
We could say that clerics get a lot of proc self-heals for example but lower health and armor where a warrior gets no heals but much higher health and armor. The cleric is more vulnerable to crits but the warrior can suffer crits more often and contribute more DPS then a cleric? How does a wizard tank? With pets and agro management or mana driven energy shields that need recasting? How does a thief tank, with high evasion, high damage with an auto teleport if they would be killed, leaving them with one HP left rather then die outright. How does a warrior do support, etc.
I go back to Final Fantasy 1 for the NES. I could beat that game with 1 Fighter, 1 Monk, 1 Black Mage, 1 White Mage. I could also beat it with 4 of the same class. MMOs, raids, shouldn't depend on a specific composition, this is true but because we need the ability to tune difficulty and the needs of a complex system like an MMO, the best compromise is to ensure that every 'class' can fulfill a particular role IN THEIR OWN UNIQUE WAY. Spec lines, and I give credit to Blizzard for having a good understanding of that, are the 'best' way to handle that.
Eve Online has a unique way of handling that, your ship is your spec line. Remote repper (healer) hop in. Tank, throw up the armor tank or shield tank and get to it.
That same mechanic does exist, just not clearly in Fantasy MMOs. GW2 is the closest as your weapon choice is in many ways, like the ship, part of your spec line. The same could exist for any fantasy MMO like EQNext. Broad classes with spec lines derived from gear or skill-trees. LoL for example has the masteries page that you could choose from. Handle spec lines the same way. Give the class X spec points and let them save various specs.
Playing a cleric? Here is my tank spec. Need me to heal? Load up my healing spec.
DAOC also had a novel way of handling that. You had a base line spell that was okay, but not efficent but you could then spec for your spec-line heal for example. So based on your 'masteries' page you load you would have access to your spec-line versions of spells and abilities rather then the base line versions.
e.g.
While in Tank Spec the Cleric gets:
"Holy Aura" a self-regen heal that heals for 50 a tick
"Blessing Voice" proc that heals when they block for 100.
"Healing Touch" a baseline heal that heals any target for 25.
While in Healer Spec the Cleric gets:
"Blessed Aura" the baseline version of Holy Aura that only heals for 10 a tick
"Blessing Whisper" the baseline version of Blessing Voice that heals when they block for 30
"Touch of Divinity" the spec-line version of Healing Touch that heals for 150.
And so on and so on for various classes. The main character progression can then tune that by buffing either their baseline or specline spells and having some opporunties to take masteriesskills that say "Touch of Divinity can be used in Tank Spec once per day" ( I assume pressing CTRL or something allow to toggle between base line and spec line versions of a spell for example.) You get the idea.
This is why I love playing a Holy paladin. It has a lot of variance in one sub-class:
1. Can tank.
2. Can melee.
3. Can range attack.
4. Can range heal.
5. Can melee heal.
BUT, a Holy paladin's primary role is to heal, and his specialization niche is single-target burst healing (not AoE healing):
A. He won't be able to tank a raid boss other than the last 20 seconds of a fight when a tank is insta-gibbed.
B. He won't be able to melee end-game bosses down itself, but can throw a hit in there to help or kite them around.
C. He won't be able to range cast damage as well as DPS casters can, but in a pinch can help.
D. He won't be able to out AoE heal ranged raid healers, but he can help on AoE healing.
E. He CAN get in situations like melee combat and survive without a need of an off-tank protecting him, as for what he loses in AoE healing potential, he makes up for the largest heals in the game (essentially a trauma surgeon). He's a paladin healer, not a cleric healer.
That's diversity without making tanks oblivious or DPS worthless, and yet allow a player to enjoy *1* specialized role in a game and become really good at that role and love it.
When SOE talks about the trinity and getting away from what it has become, they specifically point out elements that have become of the genre post-WoW. Roles and player interdependence will still be in EQN, just not watered down combat mini-games that take away the thrill and fun.
So we can have more of this instead as fun?
The Holy Trinity - Tank/Heals/DPS - isn't the problem, it's players who are too busy doing anything else BUT play their role AND class well. Then they rage for months to years claiming healing makes their role too hard. -_-
I'm not sure how your pic relates to what I was talking about? Healing in itself shouldn't be a role, it should be part of support. Just as DPS or tanking shouldn't be one dimensional. WoW from the start had one of if not the easiest form of the trinity ever (mass appeal) and only got worse over time. Roles/classes should have a bit more depth then just Tank-Heal-DPS which other games have been able to do, but WoW dumbed way down.
Edit: I see now that you play a Paladin and while I haven't played WoW in years, I remember them being fairly annoying and actually very similar to GW2 classes and why people dislike GW2 so much. Self-contained all in one beasts. Sure you can spec different ways, but a class that can tank-heal-dps even poorly will usually do better then someone that only excels at one. Jack of all trades can be too good it designed poorly. That's why usually a hybrid is only dps-support, or tank-cc or some other combo, not every single role in one (GW2).
There should pros/cons to everything, sacrifice and choice is needed.
You also seem to be referring to PVP in your comments. PVE and PVP are two completely different beasts. This thread was about the trinity where in games like WoW, it is all but meaningless in PVP.
Unlike you, I feel classes/roles should never be evenly matched in PVP. Sure everyone should have a chance, but if I speced to be mage killer (SOE example) and you aren't a mage, I'm probably going to have some trouble. Instead of one spec can handle every and all situations because it is "fair" or "balanced." There should be consequence and strategy.
That's why I hope EQN's 40+ classes allow a lot of freedom to make templates for me to try everything without having 1 to do it all. Since classes will have 8 skills class locked and 4 optional to mix from other classes, it seems they are going more of the duel role route instead of the all in one system. A Warrior will always be a warrior, just with some extra tools to work with. We'll see how they handle Paladins, Shadowknights, Druids, Shamans and other hybrids that have been done poorly and really well in the past. Just enough to give the feel of multiple roles, without over doing any of them.
From your SS it seems a Paladin gets everything without any weakness in comparison to the other classes, while obviously a lot more is happening then what the scoreboard shows.
I like the idea of being able to make my own play styles by dipping into several class templates.
The more templates, the more chances to have situational brilliance in knowing what certain combinations can do.
It's kind of similar to a RTS like Starcraft 2 where, the best players have special unit tactics they can deploy based on whatever the other player is doing or not doing.
There really is a huge amount of AI combat styles that have barely been touched on in the past and current gen of gaming.
Some fun AI things I have enjoyed so far in gaming...
WoW you needed a mage to be a tank in one of the battles.
Rift you needed a rogue to be a tank in a battle.
EQ there were areas in later expansions where your stats were drastically lowered and there was a dot on everyone the whole time.
Rift everyone got turned into deer at parts of the boss battle.
WoW everyone had to jump into the water during a specific boss battle to avoid a nasty attack
WoW....there was a jumping puzzle on the floor that everyone had to jump through.
Rift there was a healing spec that basically did aoe damage and the more targets you hit the more you healed for.
Basically I am a fan of the trinity, however I think there is room for larger classifications.
The crowd controller (snare, root, stun, sleep, fear, kite)
The buff master (all stat increases, shields, fast feet, fast attacks, regens, damage coats, see invis)
the debuff master (all stat decreases, dots, removal of helpful buffs)
the illusionist (mezz, charm, create fake creatures and copies of players)
the travel coordinator( fast travel, ports, get out of town fast spells, songs the quicken the feet)
These are only a few of the types of non-traditional trinity rolls that can mix and match with eachother or more
I like the idea of being able to make my own play styles by dipping into several class templates.
The more templates, the more chances to have situational brilliance in knowing what certain combinations can do.
There really is a huge amount of AI combat styles that have barely been touched on in the past and current gen of gaming.
Exactly all of this.
All of your examples are what I hope the norm is in EQN, instead of being 1 every so often. Players are free to bull rush in and try to dps or hold on to the trinity, but hopefully there are layers of other options to help reach a goal. Giving players a chance to experiment with their roles/classes and figure out the strategy needed instead of having the safety net of the trinity or pure dps.
When SOE talks about the trinity and getting away from what it has become, they specifically point out elements that have become of the genre post-WoW. Roles and player interdependence will still be in EQN, just not watered down combat mini-games that take away the thrill and fun.
So we can have more of this instead as fun?
The Holy Trinity - Tank/Heals/DPS - isn't the problem, it's players who are too busy doing anything else BUT play their role AND class well. Then they rage for months to years claiming healing makes their role too hard. -_-
From your SS it seems a Paladin gets everything without any weakness in comparison to the other classes, while obviously a lot more is happening then what the scoreboard shows.
The scoreboard shows an evenly matched team both in matchmaking score and healing+DPS output, and the other team losing because either DPS messed up or his Shaman healer wasn't on the ball, as the DK died (my partner and I didn't die at all, and that's how we won the match, we concentrated on winning...not spitting).
A HOLY paladin can specialize in one thing well -- single-target burst healing -- and that specialization is what he's good at. The other things he can do is related to the class itself...
Class: Paladin
-Sub-Class: Holy (Healer)
-Sub-Class: Protection (Tank)
-Sub-Class: Retribution (Damage Dealer)
The checks and balance is he can't specialize outside his sub-class design. Kevyne, for example, can't be an actual tank, that can rock 200k HPS heals and DPS (seriously OP in 3 roles)!
Games like GW2 removed the checks and balances -- everyone is everything -- and thus, suffers problems in why the Holy Trinity existed in the first place to correct.
Stop complaining. They already confirmed long ago it will be more like MOBA game roles then the classical ones. Instead of Tank/Heal/DPS you get Durables/Nuker/Supporter/Jungler/Disabler/Carry/Pusher/Escaper etc.
[mod edit]
Exactly.
There are so many people going "NO CHANGEEEE! I HATE IT!!!" and after they try the game "No innovation, bye".
Why be limited to having a tank, when you could have a debuffer reducing the dmg, so even a rogue could tank? A CC centered class that could make kite possible. A self-healing tank, like in TSW or a mobile tank, TERA style.
And it could be totally possible to proclaim yourself a tank and be a completely different tank than the next guy. So builds that need skill (TERA dodge-tank) and spank-me kinds of builds are both possible.
That way your build and skill choice has IMPACT on the game and it does not end up like wow, where a bunch of numbers determined your skill.
Picture this.. A good player being able to slowly solo a boss fight without good gear, when a group of unskilled, good geared ones cannot. Fun.
I'm not sure that I even understand the discussion, tell me where I stop making sense:
-One way or another, there are going to be abilities that modify threat generation beyond merely changing the amount of damage done.
-Abilities that increase threat are going to be, by necessity, coupled with skills that mitigate incoming damage or increase health.
-Abilities that decrease threat are more likely to be used in conjunction with either healing or increased damage output.
That IS the trinity; you can't get away from it. That shouldn't be the entire game, though, or even the entire boss fight. Where is the Orc King Kockgnobbler's healer? Why can't that dragon have lizardfolk followers hanging around waiting to sneak up behind you while you're trying to kill Ausirjacinxvortiglum (my attempt to name a dragon)?
I play DDO (EQN could replace it, if it is done well); it has the trinity, but it is flexible. You are fighting balanced enemy groups with random aggro mechanics and reinforcements, but there are also real traps that you need a rogue-type to deal with, social interactions where having a bard is really handy, one interesting fight on another plane of existence against a boss who can both banish you back to your home plane if you aren't wearing the right footwear and stun the entire raid party if you don't have a light monk to prevent it....
The only problem with the trinity is if that's all there is.
I'm not sure that I even understand the discussion, tell me where I stop making sense:
-One way or another, there are going to be abilities that modify threat generation beyond merely changing the amount of damage done.
-Abilities that increase threat are going to be, by necessity, coupled with skills that mitigate incoming damage or increase health.
-Abilities that decrease threat are more likely to be used in conjunction with either healing or increased damage output.
You are making the assumption that EQNext will have skills with those propriety.
I played the original EQ as a rogue; if they didn't learn about the perils inherent to a lack of threat management from that, then this game is dead before it begins.
There may be threat coded into abilities that aren't up front but SoE stated that with the AI in EQN the mobs wouldn't be dumb enough to fall for a tank taunting. They also explained that sentient mobs will be one of the player classes with a full compliment of that classes abilities. By looking at what type weapon the mob has and how they hold it can tell you what class they are.
I say this because a game like LoL is able to have really good AI without any additional threat mechanics. I think this is possible because classes are known and can code how each ability should be countered or reacted to. Dave Georgeson has hinted at EQN combat being MOBA like, which is great in my opinion. It could allow for roles outside the trinity which may be required and also have engaging combat.
There may be threat coded into abilities that aren't up front but SoE stated that with the AI in EQN the mobs wouldn't be dumb enough to fall for a tank taunting. They also explained that sentient mobs will be one of the player classes with a full compliment of that classes abilities. By looking at what type weapon the mob has and how they hold it can tell you what class they are.
Already had that in Cata, he who does the most can quickly grab the aggro regardless of role (click photo and see the red ">" markers [Vuhdo aggro indicators] on the healbox on right, and I sure wasn't tanking...just building up stupid HP -- "Spell is not ready yet" -- as I right-clicked ASAP to get it before another AoE missile hits the group)...
Players are going to hate managing the aggro, and will welcome the tank/heal/dps roles again. As the boss/mobs will aggro anything their designed to "think" as "helping" - including the very mechanics to do anything.
Besides, real combat is chaos and why in god's green earth would you attack a big armored buffoon that couldn't kill a swamp rat by himself over a leather wearing back stabber that could one shot you or a dress and pointy hat wearing caster that could nuke your ass before you turned your attention to the guy insulting your momma?
Real combat *is* chaotic, which is exactly why you're probably more likely to go after the big guy in full plate with a big ass shield and axe, while ignoring the guy in leather armor and a dagger in each hand. Seriously put yourself in that situation, without metagaming the concept, and tell me you would try and ignore the big guy.
Or think about a situation where you're suddenly up against a bear and a moose, both running for you. Given the chance to kill just one of them, most would go for the bear because it's big and scary and has claws, and they probably figure they could just get away from the moose. Unfortunately, the moose is the one more likely to actually kill them.
So... it has been mentioned a few times in this thread as well as countless others covering this same topic and conveniently passed over; the trinity system will be present in eq next, just not the trinity you are familiar with. The AI is the main thing that will be driving this game into next - gen territory and the more intelligent the AI becomes, the closer it's play style will come to an actual human. What does this mean? It means that pve tactics will start to mirror common pvp tactics more and more. Mobs will make intelligent decisions when in combat; they won't be standing there attacking the warrior because he was pulling threat, no, the mob will be going after the target of opportunity - it will then be the warrior's (or any other group member for that matter) job to keep the mob rooted, stunned, knocked down or otherwise occupied until it is defeated.
I apologize for the wall of text, my phone doesn't allow for line breaks in this forum.
I'm not sure that I even understand the discussion, tell me where I stop making sense:
-One way or another, there are going to be abilities that modify threat generation beyond merely changing the amount of damage done.
-Abilities that increase threat are going to be, by necessity, coupled with skills that mitigate incoming damage or increase health.
-Abilities that decrease threat are more likely to be used in conjunction with either healing or increased damage output.
You are making the assumption that EQNext will have skills with those propriety.
I played the original EQ as a rogue; if they didn't learn about the perils inherent to a lack of threat management from that, then this game is dead before it begins.
We already know that EQNext is not going to work like EQ or WoW, so why make the assumption that the end result is going to be those gameplay systems with no threat management ?
The dev already mentioned that we should look toward MOBAs in term of classes (and probably gameplay as a result). We also know that Storybricks is the AI in both combat and out-of-combat situation. The mobs AI will not be based on threat tables, it will be based on needs, desires, goals and memories (remembering past player actions). Here is what Storybrick said about the AI in relation to combat (from this interview):
Storybricks: We want the combat AI to be responsive to opportunities, exploit player mistakes, take advantage of newly created terrain, etc. Creatures are capable of gauging the “utility” of each of their activities in real time, how desirable each given action is.
SOE wish is for the game creatures to behave naturally without being unbeatable. This mean that playing against humanoids should feel quite close to doing PvP, it shouldn't feel like you are following a script.
Originally posted by evilized So... it has been mentioned a few times in this thread as well as countless others covering this same topic and conveniently passed over; the trinity system will be present in eq next, just not the trinity you are familiar with. The AI is the main thing that will be driving this game into next - gen territory and the more intelligent the AI becomes, the closer it's play style will come to an actual human. What does this mean? It means that pve tactics will start to mirror common pvp tactics more and more. Mobs will make intelligent decisions when in combat; they won't be standing there attacking the warrior because he was pulling threat, no, the mob will be going after the target of opportunity - it will then be the warrior's (or any other group member for that matter) job to keep the mob rooted, stunned, knocked down or otherwise occupied until it is defeated. I apologize for the wall of text, my phone doesn't allow for line breaks in this forum.
Along with all that, I would assume from what they've shown/said that PVE content in general will not be what we've known. Three Orcs won't just hang out in camp waiting to get pulled one by one to respawn 5 min later. DG talked about "thousands" of Orcs in Crushbone. I foresee a lot of large scale combat, even just the casual in the middle of the woods stuff.
The trinity is okay for 1 big boss or lone mob, but toss in 10, 20, 50 mobs and the trinity isn't very useful, unless 50 mobs really don't like their moms talked about. I'm hoping what has been written in the Novellas translates to what will be in game.
I think until we actually get more details or see the AI in action, this level of confusion and disbelief will continue. Even though I'm hopeful, I have no clue what is going to happen, just like those without any faith.
Comments
Define "evenly matched."
Because technically, the best example of "evenly matched" is no roles at all. Everyone the same = no room for imbalance. Which I doubt is what you want; but everything else is murky.
No offense, but I never trust the word of the person speaking against one side on what was motivating the people they're speaking against. Perhaps they felt it was the healers refusing to let go of the "1 button to win" position they already had.
Or perhaps everyone was just too locked into their comfort zones to try a different approach. Which is kind of what this thread feels like.
Funny how your example comes from a game with clearly defined roles, and was really more about heads butting over what qualifies as "evenly matched" between the roles than about what would happen if there were no clearly defined roles.
And I put that one phrase in italics, because that - not "no roles at all" - is what most opponents of the Holy Trinity are really asking for.
Because re-posting sh*t will be a pain I'll go with my overall thoughts that while a trinity system is painful for some, when you're op[ting to replace it you really need to anticipate the outcome overall far more than ever. You can do a GW2 build but you also land into the dynamics of avoiding certain builds becoming the most common builds. Preference aside, I also accept the fact that players do have preferences for occupations: not everyone wants to be a healer or a tank.
My concern is that the idea of a trinity is typically to ensure specialization and coordination and ensure everyone has a delegated role; move away from that and you have to understand that it can work but there are risks to it like making one job or set of abilities more popular as a result. I don't really want a cookie cutter.
None of us really can say until we see how things progress and get closer to release but I also think that as mmo players we have to really be open to new things. When something isn't popular initially it can be a perception issue but once you try it out it might change your feelings on the matter. I know Demon Souls was a similar experience and I thoroughly enjoyed it. EQN and its direction and going forward is interesting and if it works it'll be awesome. If it fails, however, this is something that will be a burden that can't be readily addressed.
I really do not understand that argument against more freeform class system and I see it often. Trinity based games are based on cookie cutter builds. Making sure a class distribute its points the exact same way in a specialization is how these game work and the reason why a lot of people hate it. These people want customization and diversity, not clones.
All MMOs will always have jerks requesting everyone to use a specific build so they can finish content faster. No class system is going to make them go away. Breaking their easy gold/time ratio content will though.
The real problem doesn't have anything to do with tank/healer/dps vs something else anyway, but with the dumping down of the gameplay systems. Dev have been listening to the QQing of the lazy players and PvPers and removed complexity from the gameplay in the name of equality and balance. That's how we ended up with only tank/healer/dps when previously there was way more roles and different ways to tackle the same content.
There was a time where an ice mage would be useless against Ice creatures, but overpowered against fire creatures. Now it doesn't matter if you are a ice or fire mage, the name just change the colors of your spells not your effectiveness* against something. What used to be strategic usage of spells based on the situation/encounter turned into spamming everything off cooldown. What used to be having harder encounters because you made a specific build choice is all gone. Classes have a single FOTM to deal with everything in the game. Bring that back. The limitations. The choices that matters because skill X is only good in situation Y. Bring back CC, debuff that matters. Bring back damage resistances and damage types. Bring back the concept that your build is only good for a few part of the game making everything else harder and forcing you to find others to help you. Players should react to what is happening while in a fight, not go into an encounter already knowing in what order to push the buttons on their hotbars.
Unfortunately, a large part of the MMOs players do not want to play with others even if they are not soloers. They do not want to have to learn their party members weakness and how to pad them. They do not want to plan strategy for situation A and B. They do not want to put some effort in playing the game. They prefer to follow orders/FOTM even if they have no idea what they are doing.
Sorry, turned a bit into a rant.
*It's a bit exaggerated, some MMOs still have this in a limited fashion.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Specialization. Not a Jack of all Trades, master of none.
Some people like to pilot planes. Others prefer helming ships. Still others prefer to fix them. Each requires specialization to do their jobs well. Look at the "Miracle on the Hudson" pilot, who's career training (especially in safety) prepared him for that fateful day. Do you think a generic pilot could've ditched a modern aircraft into water without breaking it into pieces?
No.
Generic classes and skills is programming on the cheap, and creates the very situation EQII got itself into with 22 class builds. Players want to play everything without regard of the consequences (the devs will magically fix it).
Specialization isn't a dirty word. Logging into a game and everyone is now a pilot, helmsman and mechanic -- and that miracle safety pilot -- what's the point in even playing a "game"?
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
When I wrote specialization, I meant the trees dedicated to role like in SWTOR, WoW, LoTRO and cie. Those trees create cookie cutter builds: everyone with the same class and using the same tree will have the same build. That is how those game works. The classes system doesn't change anything to the existence of cookie cutter builds.
Anyhow, EQNext isn't going to have a open end class system nor a multi-tree based on. We even know that it is still going to have class specialization. They already presented the cleric (PCgamer) saying it was a buffing/healing class (with a fire thematic using a two-handed hammer or hammer&shield). They talked about building an anti-mage Warrior in SOE Live class panel by carefully choosing your gear and utilities as well.
A very simple answer to creating a better game design is to eliminate the need for players to need to be healed while in combat.
The design would have to be innoative. Something akin to eliminating health bars. Instead your abilities and endurance wear down as you proceed in a dungeon.
When you reach the boss, you get a health bar based on your remaining ability and endrance. There is no healing during combat except expensive and rare potions.
Mentally, this is how tabletop games are. DMs may scale back on the 2 or 3 encounters leading up to the boss, using them only to wear down and reduce the resources of the party. Thus, parties think more tactically and create new strategies while proceeding through. Sophisticated AIs aren't fooled by poorly created ambushes.
Game developers need to figure out ways to incorporate noncombat, noncrafting skills. What if there was a Perception skill that effected how well players saw tells. Disable Divice skills that determined if players saw traps or not. Gathering and hunting skills that determined success when getting crafting material. If the game creators thought outside of just combat and crafting, we'd get better role creations.
I think we are looking at this wrong. It isn't about trinities, specs, etc. What we are talking about is this:
Asymetric Class Diversity
What we talk about when we talk about roles and our complaints is we don't want roles to be dilluted to the point of being irreivant. What is a tank? A class that is focused on taking hits and keeping agro? Why should that role be limited to a specific class? Why not look at classes with this statement:
"Every 'class' should be able to fulfill any 'role'"
Looking at that statement it begs the question, why have classes at all? The question really should be
"How does a Wizard tank, versus a Cleric, or a Warrior"
This gives us in design the idea that every class should have a spec line for each 'role'.
How does a cleric tank spec work versus a warriors?
We could say that clerics get a lot of proc self-heals for example but lower health and armor where a warrior gets no heals but much higher health and armor. The cleric is more vulnerable to crits but the warrior can suffer crits more often and contribute more DPS then a cleric? How does a wizard tank? With pets and agro management or mana driven energy shields that need recasting? How does a thief tank, with high evasion, high damage with an auto teleport if they would be killed, leaving them with one HP left rather then die outright. How does a warrior do support, etc.
I go back to Final Fantasy 1 for the NES. I could beat that game with 1 Fighter, 1 Monk, 1 Black Mage, 1 White Mage. I could also beat it with 4 of the same class. MMOs, raids, shouldn't depend on a specific composition, this is true but because we need the ability to tune difficulty and the needs of a complex system like an MMO, the best compromise is to ensure that every 'class' can fulfill a particular role IN THEIR OWN UNIQUE WAY. Spec lines, and I give credit to Blizzard for having a good understanding of that, are the 'best' way to handle that.
Eve Online has a unique way of handling that, your ship is your spec line. Remote repper (healer) hop in. Tank, throw up the armor tank or shield tank and get to it.
That same mechanic does exist, just not clearly in Fantasy MMOs. GW2 is the closest as your weapon choice is in many ways, like the ship, part of your spec line. The same could exist for any fantasy MMO like EQNext. Broad classes with spec lines derived from gear or skill-trees. LoL for example has the masteries page that you could choose from. Handle spec lines the same way. Give the class X spec points and let them save various specs.
Playing a cleric? Here is my tank spec. Need me to heal? Load up my healing spec.
DAOC also had a novel way of handling that. You had a base line spell that was okay, but not efficent but you could then spec for your spec-line heal for example. So based on your 'masteries' page you load you would have access to your spec-line versions of spells and abilities rather then the base line versions.
e.g.
While in Tank Spec the Cleric gets:
"Holy Aura" a self-regen heal that heals for 50 a tick
"Blessing Voice" proc that heals when they block for 100.
"Healing Touch" a baseline heal that heals any target for 25.
While in Healer Spec the Cleric gets:
"Blessed Aura" the baseline version of Holy Aura that only heals for 10 a tick
"Blessing Whisper" the baseline version of Blessing Voice that heals when they block for 30
"Touch of Divinity" the spec-line version of Healing Touch that heals for 150.
And so on and so on for various classes. The main character progression can then tune that by buffing either their baseline or specline spells and having some opporunties to take masteriesskills that say "Touch of Divinity can be used in Tank Spec once per day" ( I assume pressing CTRL or something allow to toggle between base line and spec line versions of a spell for example.) You get the idea.
This is a good explanation. The way I see the class roles is as such.
You are a group of three having just finished a long fight against undead. Your cleric was specced for AOE heals since they equally heal the party while damaging the undead.
Now the party encounters a group of Orcs. The healer did not respec for direct heals but does his best to keep the group alive with AOE heals. The only problem is everytime he throws out a heal the Orcs get healed too making the battle much to difficult for the group. At the last minute the Ranger evacs the group to a safe location. The healer proceeds to heal the group then respecs for direct heals. They go after the Orcs again and this time defeat then easily.
Rangers will have the same type of problems. In close quarters or inside narrow hallways how would he use AOE skills? How much damage would he do to his own party? If he doesn't have a clear line of sight how can he be sure his arrow will reach the mark. So in these situations the Ranger specs for dual wielded short swords and joins the fray.
This is why I love playing a Holy paladin. It has a lot of variance in one sub-class:
1. Can tank.
2. Can melee.
3. Can range attack.
4. Can range heal.
5. Can melee heal.
BUT, a Holy paladin's primary role is to heal, and his specialization niche is single-target burst healing (not AoE healing):
A. He won't be able to tank a raid boss other than the last 20 seconds of a fight when a tank is insta-gibbed.
B. He won't be able to melee end-game bosses down itself, but can throw a hit in there to help or kite them around.
C. He won't be able to range cast damage as well as DPS casters can, but in a pinch can help.
D. He won't be able to out AoE heal ranged raid healers, but he can help on AoE healing.
E. He CAN get in situations like melee combat and survive without a need of an off-tank protecting him, as for what he loses in AoE healing potential, he makes up for the largest heals in the game (essentially a trauma surgeon). He's a paladin healer, not a cleric healer.
That's diversity without making tanks oblivious or DPS worthless, and yet allow a player to enjoy *1* specialized role in a game and become really good at that role and love it.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I'm not sure how your pic relates to what I was talking about? Healing in itself shouldn't be a role, it should be part of support. Just as DPS or tanking shouldn't be one dimensional. WoW from the start had one of if not the easiest form of the trinity ever (mass appeal) and only got worse over time. Roles/classes should have a bit more depth then just Tank-Heal-DPS which other games have been able to do, but WoW dumbed way down.
Edit: I see now that you play a Paladin and while I haven't played WoW in years, I remember them being fairly annoying and actually very similar to GW2 classes and why people dislike GW2 so much. Self-contained all in one beasts. Sure you can spec different ways, but a class that can tank-heal-dps even poorly will usually do better then someone that only excels at one. Jack of all trades can be too good it designed poorly. That's why usually a hybrid is only dps-support, or tank-cc or some other combo, not every single role in one (GW2).
There should pros/cons to everything, sacrifice and choice is needed.
You also seem to be referring to PVP in your comments. PVE and PVP are two completely different beasts. This thread was about the trinity where in games like WoW, it is all but meaningless in PVP.
Unlike you, I feel classes/roles should never be evenly matched in PVP. Sure everyone should have a chance, but if I speced to be mage killer (SOE example) and you aren't a mage, I'm probably going to have some trouble. Instead of one spec can handle every and all situations because it is "fair" or "balanced." There should be consequence and strategy.
That's why I hope EQN's 40+ classes allow a lot of freedom to make templates for me to try everything without having 1 to do it all. Since classes will have 8 skills class locked and 4 optional to mix from other classes, it seems they are going more of the duel role route instead of the all in one system. A Warrior will always be a warrior, just with some extra tools to work with. We'll see how they handle Paladins, Shadowknights, Druids, Shamans and other hybrids that have been done poorly and really well in the past. Just enough to give the feel of multiple roles, without over doing any of them.
From your SS it seems a Paladin gets everything without any weakness in comparison to the other classes, while obviously a lot more is happening then what the scoreboard shows.
I like the idea of being able to make my own play styles by dipping into several class templates.
The more templates, the more chances to have situational brilliance in knowing what certain combinations can do.
It's kind of similar to a RTS like Starcraft 2 where, the best players have special unit tactics they can deploy based on whatever the other player is doing or not doing.
There really is a huge amount of AI combat styles that have barely been touched on in the past and current gen of gaming.
Some fun AI things I have enjoyed so far in gaming...
WoW you needed a mage to be a tank in one of the battles.
Rift you needed a rogue to be a tank in a battle.
EQ there were areas in later expansions where your stats were drastically lowered and there was a dot on everyone the whole time.
Rift everyone got turned into deer at parts of the boss battle.
WoW everyone had to jump into the water during a specific boss battle to avoid a nasty attack
WoW....there was a jumping puzzle on the floor that everyone had to jump through.
Rift there was a healing spec that basically did aoe damage and the more targets you hit the more you healed for.
Basically I am a fan of the trinity, however I think there is room for larger classifications.
The crowd controller (snare, root, stun, sleep, fear, kite)
The buff master (all stat increases, shields, fast feet, fast attacks, regens, damage coats, see invis)
the debuff master (all stat decreases, dots, removal of helpful buffs)
the illusionist (mezz, charm, create fake creatures and copies of players)
the travel coordinator( fast travel, ports, get out of town fast spells, songs the quicken the feet)
These are only a few of the types of non-traditional trinity rolls that can mix and match with eachother or more
traditional rolls to make fantastic hybrids.
Exactly all of this.
All of your examples are what I hope the norm is in EQN, instead of being 1 every so often. Players are free to bull rush in and try to dps or hold on to the trinity, but hopefully there are layers of other options to help reach a goal. Giving players a chance to experiment with their roles/classes and figure out the strategy needed instead of having the safety net of the trinity or pure dps.
The scoreboard shows an evenly matched team both in matchmaking score and healing+DPS output, and the other team losing because either DPS messed up or his Shaman healer wasn't on the ball, as the DK died (my partner and I didn't die at all, and that's how we won the match, we concentrated on winning...not spitting).
A HOLY paladin can specialize in one thing well -- single-target burst healing -- and that specialization is what he's good at. The other things he can do is related to the class itself...
Class: Paladin
-Sub-Class: Holy (Healer)
-Sub-Class: Protection (Tank)
-Sub-Class: Retribution (Damage Dealer)
The checks and balance is he can't specialize outside his sub-class design. Kevyne, for example, can't be an actual tank, that can rock 200k HPS heals and DPS (seriously OP in 3 roles)!
Games like GW2 removed the checks and balances -- everyone is everything -- and thus, suffers problems in why the Holy Trinity existed in the first place to correct.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Exactly.
There are so many people going "NO CHANGEEEE! I HATE IT!!!" and after they try the game "No innovation, bye".
Why be limited to having a tank, when you could have a debuffer reducing the dmg, so even a rogue could tank? A CC centered class that could make kite possible. A self-healing tank, like in TSW or a mobile tank, TERA style.
And it could be totally possible to proclaim yourself a tank and be a completely different tank than the next guy. So builds that need skill (TERA dodge-tank) and spank-me kinds of builds are both possible.
That way your build and skill choice has IMPACT on the game and it does not end up like wow, where a bunch of numbers determined your skill.
Picture this.. A good player being able to slowly solo a boss fight without good gear, when a group of unskilled, good geared ones cannot. Fun.
I'm not sure that I even understand the discussion, tell me where I stop making sense:
-One way or another, there are going to be abilities that modify threat generation beyond merely changing the amount of damage done.
-Abilities that increase threat are going to be, by necessity, coupled with skills that mitigate incoming damage or increase health.
-Abilities that decrease threat are more likely to be used in conjunction with either healing or increased damage output.
That IS the trinity; you can't get away from it. That shouldn't be the entire game, though, or even the entire boss fight. Where is the Orc King Kockgnobbler's healer? Why can't that dragon have lizardfolk followers hanging around waiting to sneak up behind you while you're trying to kill Ausirjacinxvortiglum (my attempt to name a dragon)?
I play DDO (EQN could replace it, if it is done well); it has the trinity, but it is flexible. You are fighting balanced enemy groups with random aggro mechanics and reinforcements, but there are also real traps that you need a rogue-type to deal with, social interactions where having a bard is really handy, one interesting fight on another plane of existence against a boss who can both banish you back to your home plane if you aren't wearing the right footwear and stun the entire raid party if you don't have a light monk to prevent it....
The only problem with the trinity is if that's all there is.
You are making the assumption that EQNext will have skills with those propriety.
I played the original EQ as a rogue; if they didn't learn about the perils inherent to a lack of threat management from that, then this game is dead before it begins.
the trinity is not that important if your group size is optimal.
three is the optimal number for basic content, and multiples of three for larger encounters.
There may be threat coded into abilities that aren't up front but SoE stated that with the AI in EQN the mobs wouldn't be dumb enough to fall for a tank taunting. They also explained that sentient mobs will be one of the player classes with a full compliment of that classes abilities. By looking at what type weapon the mob has and how they hold it can tell you what class they are.
I say this because a game like LoL is able to have really good AI without any additional threat mechanics. I think this is possible because classes are known and can code how each ability should be countered or reacted to. Dave Georgeson has hinted at EQN combat being MOBA like, which is great in my opinion. It could allow for roles outside the trinity which may be required and also have engaging combat.
Already had that in Cata, he who does the most can quickly grab the aggro regardless of role (click photo and see the red ">" markers [Vuhdo aggro indicators] on the healbox on right, and I sure wasn't tanking...just building up stupid HP -- "Spell is not ready yet" -- as I right-clicked ASAP to get it before another AoE missile hits the group)...
Players are going to hate managing the aggro, and will welcome the tank/heal/dps roles again. As the boss/mobs will aggro anything their designed to "think" as "helping" - including the very mechanics to do anything.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Real combat *is* chaotic, which is exactly why you're probably more likely to go after the big guy in full plate with a big ass shield and axe, while ignoring the guy in leather armor and a dagger in each hand. Seriously put yourself in that situation, without metagaming the concept, and tell me you would try and ignore the big guy.
Or think about a situation where you're suddenly up against a bear and a moose, both running for you. Given the chance to kill just one of them, most would go for the bear because it's big and scary and has claws, and they probably figure they could just get away from the moose. Unfortunately, the moose is the one more likely to actually kill them.
You make me like charity
I apologize for the wall of text, my phone doesn't allow for line breaks in this forum.
We already know that EQNext is not going to work like EQ or WoW, so why make the assumption that the end result is going to be those gameplay systems with no threat management ?
The dev already mentioned that we should look toward MOBAs in term of classes (and probably gameplay as a result). We also know that Storybricks is the AI in both combat and out-of-combat situation. The mobs AI will not be based on threat tables, it will be based on needs, desires, goals and memories (remembering past player actions). Here is what Storybrick said about the AI in relation to combat (from this interview):
Storybricks: We want the combat AI to be responsive to opportunities, exploit player mistakes, take advantage of newly created terrain, etc. Creatures are capable of gauging the “utility” of each of their activities in real time, how desirable each given action is.
SOE wish is for the game creatures to behave naturally without being unbeatable. This mean that playing against humanoids should feel quite close to doing PvP, it shouldn't feel like you are following a script.
Along with all that, I would assume from what they've shown/said that PVE content in general will not be what we've known. Three Orcs won't just hang out in camp waiting to get pulled one by one to respawn 5 min later. DG talked about "thousands" of Orcs in Crushbone. I foresee a lot of large scale combat, even just the casual in the middle of the woods stuff.
The trinity is okay for 1 big boss or lone mob, but toss in 10, 20, 50 mobs and the trinity isn't very useful, unless 50 mobs really don't like their moms talked about. I'm hoping what has been written in the Novellas translates to what will be in game.
I think until we actually get more details or see the AI in action, this level of confusion and disbelief will continue. Even though I'm hopeful, I have no clue what is going to happen, just like those without any faith.
Come on SOE!