Yup, and the only constant in trinity is tank/threat/taunt, rest is optional. Threat is produced exactly same way as it was 15 years ago, taunt is same skill as it was 15 years ago, nothing changed because it wouldnt work without that (you would have to redesign classes so they arent reliant on tank tanking, but then tank is redundant so you have to redesign tank, and so on and you then you dont have trinity any more)
So for now its pretty much binary, you either have games wih trinity that work same like 15 years ago, or games without. Until something new comes out that can replace threat/taunt as mechanic, trinity is straightforward and theres really no confuison what it is.
Taunt always were an optional part in threat-based mechanics for WoW since quite a lot of bosses were immune to taunt. Threat has been changed quite a lot of times, and it doesn't behave the same way in tera online like it does in WoW, even though both games have tanks, healers and damage dealers.
It wasnt optional, bosses that were immune to taunt had sepcific gals in mind, and explain to me how do you swap aggro dealing with bosses that requre aggro swap between tanks.
Threat generation hasnt changed and works the same for 15 years.
Now is a good time for you to demonstrate how threat generation is different between WoW and TERA.
And funny, but you yourself mention both games feature tank/threat/taunt rofl (not that it is unknown, both are trinity games working in same way) and taunt is even required in rotation in TERA.
During vanilla WoW devs loved to make bosses immune to taunt, particularly in BWL. For vaelastrasz tank swapping involved the first tank dying with the second highest on threat taking over tanking. Swapping on broodlord lashlayer was because of a knockdown that dropped threat by 50%. In other instances there were bosses that did teleports that nullified threat while also being immune to taunt.
In many WoW fight you keep building threat over the whole fight, meaning that for extremely stationary fights like Golemagg you can have your tank building threat for 3 minutes and keep up aggro even though they went linkdead during the rest of the fight.
Tera online has threat decay, meaning that after 3 minutes in a fight tanks can still lose aggro to a healer doing 3-5 quick heals in succession (the quick cheap heal generated huge amount of threat), or by focusing too much on blocking and not building enough threat for 10 seconds.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Yup, and the only constant in trinity is tank/threat/taunt, rest is optional. Threat is produced exactly same way as it was 15 years ago, taunt is same skill as it was 15 years ago, nothing changed because it wouldnt work without that (you would have to redesign classes so they arent reliant on tank tanking, but then tank is redundant so you have to redesign tank, and so on and you then you dont have trinity any more)
So for now its pretty much binary, you either have games wih trinity that work same like 15 years ago, or games without. Until something new comes out that can replace threat/taunt as mechanic, trinity is straightforward and theres really no confuison what it is.
Taunt always were an optional part in threat-based mechanics for WoW since quite a lot of bosses were immune to taunt. Threat has been changed quite a lot of times, and it doesn't behave the same way in tera online like it does in WoW, even though both games have tanks, healers and damage dealers.
It wasnt optional, bosses that were immune to taunt had sepcific gals in mind, and explain to me how do you swap aggro dealing with bosses that requre aggro swap between tanks.
Threat generation hasnt changed and works the same for 15 years.
Now is a good time for you to demonstrate how threat generation is different between WoW and TERA.
And funny, but you yourself mention both games feature tank/threat/taunt rofl (not that it is unknown, both are trinity games working in same way) and taunt is even required in rotation in TERA.
During vanilla WoW devs loved to make bosses immune to taunt, particularly in BWL. For vaelastrasz tank swapping involved the first tank dying with the second highest on threat taking over tanking. Swapping on broodlord lashlayer was because of a knockdown that dropped threat by 50%. In other instances there were bosses that did teleports that nullified threat while also being immune to taunt.
In many WoW fight you keep building threat over the whole fight, meaning that for extremely stationary fights like Golemagg you can have your tank building threat for 3 minutes and keep up aggro even though they went linkdead during the rest of the fight.
Tera online has threat decay, meaning that after 3 minutes in a fight tanks can still lose aggro to a healer doing 3-5 quick heals in succession (the quick cheap heal generated huge amount of threat), or by focusing too much on blocking and not building enough threat for 10 seconds.
And that was durin vanilla WoW and exactly as i said, if they made it immune to taunt it had specific goals (mechanic9 and dealing with adds was pretty much given taunt. In most games taunt was oh shit skill anyway (or convenience for start of fight)
And how DO you build that threat? Thats right.
Exactly, and thats why in TERA its pretty much required in rotation.
Nice that you agree on everything and you finally realized threat generatio havent changed in 15 years.
If you still cant grasp how threat is generated, google is your friend.
Tank / threat mechanic is imaginary only to you it seems.
in chess we use it in many ways,we act like we are threatening someone and actualyl we are not because its part of the plan,we do it because that way we make opponent play as the way we want or atleast we hope so.
in MMO holy trinity we do same kind of things,lets say healer is in danger,therefore we sacrifice soldier to take aggro and kite him,therefore our healer can play the way we want to but opponent does not want to.
millions of possibilites,but obsolete in your GW2 because everybody is soldier.
I'd love to play chess against you. Seems to me you confuse chess and poker...
Acutally the "we make (sic) opponent play as we want" is kind of true. Chess all boils down to checks, captures, blocks and threats. By using these mechanics, you force your opponent into making moves that assist with your overall goal. I am not saying that chess is like the trinity, only that the one statement holds some truth.
You cannot force you opponent to play like you want it in chess, THATS the main difference between trinity and not trinity. THATS why trinity doesnt work in PvP. Thats why everyone will run pass the tank and proceed to kill the healer no matter how much yo want then not to. Along with non one dimensional pieces that can JUST block, JUST capture or JUST support because any piece can do any of those things at any time.
You obviously don't play chess or are not very good at it. I could take the time to explain it to you, but it is obvious that you have an agenda or perhaps you really can't grasp the concept. It is like when you make broad, generalized statements about raiding. It is quite obvious you never advanced beyond the PUG / LFR level.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
Tank / threat mechanic is imaginary only to you it seems.
in chess we use it in many ways,we act like we are threatening someone and actualyl we are not because its part of the plan,we do it because that way we make opponent play as the way we want or atleast we hope so.
in MMO holy trinity we do same kind of things,lets say healer is in danger,therefore we sacrifice soldier to take aggro and kite him,therefore our healer can play the way we want to but opponent does not want to.
millions of possibilites,but obsolete in your GW2 because everybody is soldier.
I'd love to play chess against you. Seems to me you confuse chess and poker...
Acutally the "we make (sic) opponent play as we want" is kind of true. Chess all boils down to checks, captures, blocks and threats. By using these mechanics, you force your opponent into making moves that assist with your overall goal. I am not saying that chess is like the trinity, only that the one statement holds some truth.
You cannot force you opponent to play like you want it in chess, THATS the main difference between trinity and not trinity. THATS why trinity doesnt work in PvP. Thats why everyone will run pass the tank and proceed to kill the healer no matter how much yo want then not to. Along with non one dimensional pieces that can JUST block, JUST capture or JUST support because any piece can do any of those things at any time.
You obviously don't play chess or are not very good at it. I could take the time to explain it to you, but it is obvious that you have an agenda or perhaps you really can't grasp the concept. It is like when you make broad, generalized statements about raiding. It is quite obvious you never advanced beyond the PUG / LFR level.
You just proved his point. Maybe he's not very good at it, but he can make any move he wants anytime he wants. That's not forced taunting or even threat. You're confusing tactical back and forth with threat. In a trinity game the mob has no other choice but to attack the tank.
I would point out that it's never in the mobs best interest to attack the tank whereas in chess it is absolutely in the opponents best interest to try and tactically counter you.
Real simple: The chess opponent has choices, the taunted mob does not. That seems pretty clear to me.
When you place someone in check, they have no choice but to block the check. I am not saying that the chess is like the trinity, and I even stated that I wasn't in the first post. I just stated that in chess, you force the other player to make moves or they lose. As far as the trinity versus something else, I could honestly care less. One of the shortcomings of GW2 is not the combat, but the AI. The have a wonderfully complex system of combat mechanics that is completely wasted on the AI they use. The latest content has been a slight improvement, but far from engaging.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
Tank / threat mechanic is imaginary only to you it seems.
in chess we use it in many ways,we act like we are threatening someone and actualyl we are not because its part of the plan,we do it because that way we make opponent play as the way we want or atleast we hope so.
in MMO holy trinity we do same kind of things,lets say healer is in danger,therefore we sacrifice soldier to take aggro and kite him,therefore our healer can play the way we want to but opponent does not want to.
millions of possibilites,but obsolete in your GW2 because everybody is soldier.
I'd love to play chess against you. Seems to me you confuse chess and poker...
Acutally the "we make (sic) opponent play as we want" is kind of true. Chess all boils down to checks, captures, blocks and threats. By using these mechanics, you force your opponent into making moves that assist with your overall goal. I am not saying that chess is like the trinity, only that the one statement holds some truth.
You cannot force you opponent to play like you want it in chess, THATS the main difference between trinity and not trinity. THATS why trinity doesnt work in PvP. Thats why everyone will run pass the tank and proceed to kill the healer no matter how much yo want then not to. Along with non one dimensional pieces that can JUST block, JUST capture or JUST support because any piece can do any of those things at any time.
You obviously don't play chess or are not very good at it. I could take the time to explain it to you, but it is obvious that you have an agenda or perhaps you really can't grasp the concept. It is like when you make broad, generalized statements about raiding. It is quite obvious you never advanced beyond the PUG / LFR level.
You just proved his point. Maybe he's not very good at it, but he can make any move he wants anytime he wants. That's not forced taunting or even threat. You're confusing tactical back and forth with threat. In a trinity game the mob has no other choice but to attack the tank.
I would point out that it's never in the mobs best interest to attack the tank whereas in chess it is absolutely in the opponents best interest to try and tactically counter you.
Real simple: The chess opponent has choices, the taunted mob does not. That seems pretty clear to me.
When you place someone in check, they have no choice but to block the check. I am not saying that the chess is like the trinity, and I even stated that I wasn't in the first post. I just stated that in chess, you force the other player to make moves or they lose. As far as the trinity versus something else, I could honestly care less. One of the shortcomings of GW2 is not the combat, but the AI. The have a wonderfully complex system of combat mechanics that is completely wasted on the AI they use. The latest content has been a slight improvement, but far from engaging.
lol is this a chess for 5 year olds lesson? mastering chess is about understanding the shape of the pieces on the board as it develops, and understanding the probabilities involved in developing 1 position over another with the goal of gradually asserting a strong strategic middle game leading to a well known end game pattern where a win is guaranteed. Getting check on the king is merely a step in a process. If it was trinity the game would be about constantly checking the king to allow you to win the game (to use such a daft analogy) In other words if you had to compare chess to trinity or non trinity, it would be the latter.
as plenty have said (does it really need to be reiterated in 2015??) The trinity is about the Tank holding the bosses attention, aka threat.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Tank / threat mechanic is imaginary only to you it seems.
in chess we use it in many ways,we act like we are threatening someone and actualyl we are not because its part of the plan,we do it because that way we make opponent play as the way we want or atleast we hope so.
in MMO holy trinity we do same kind of things,lets say healer is in danger,therefore we sacrifice soldier to take aggro and kite him,therefore our healer can play the way we want to but opponent does not want to.
millions of possibilites,but obsolete in your GW2 because everybody is soldier.
I'd love to play chess against you. Seems to me you confuse chess and poker...
Acutally the "we make (sic) opponent play as we want" is kind of true. Chess all boils down to checks, captures, blocks and threats. By using these mechanics, you force your opponent into making moves that assist with your overall goal. I am not saying that chess is like the trinity, only that the one statement holds some truth.
You cannot force you opponent to play like you want it in chess, THATS the main difference between trinity and not trinity. THATS why trinity doesnt work in PvP. Thats why everyone will run pass the tank and proceed to kill the healer no matter how much yo want then not to. Along with non one dimensional pieces that can JUST block, JUST capture or JUST support because any piece can do any of those things at any time.
You obviously don't play chess or are not very good at it. I could take the time to explain it to you, but it is obvious that you have an agenda or perhaps you really can't grasp the concept. It is like when you make broad, generalized statements about raiding. It is quite obvious you never advanced beyond the PUG / LFR level.
You just proved his point. Maybe he's not very good at it, but he can make any move he wants anytime he wants. That's not forced taunting or even threat. You're confusing tactical back and forth with threat. In a trinity game the mob has no other choice but to attack the tank.
I would point out that it's never in the mobs best interest to attack the tank whereas in chess it is absolutely in the opponents best interest to try and tactically counter you.
Real simple: The chess opponent has choices, the taunted mob does not. That seems pretty clear to me.
When you place someone in check, they have no choice but to block the check. I am not saying that the chess is like the trinity, and I even stated that I wasn't in the first post. I just stated that in chess, you force the other player to make moves or they lose. As far as the trinity versus something else, I could honestly care less. One of the shortcomings of GW2 is not the combat, but the AI. The have a wonderfully complex system of combat mechanics that is completely wasted on the AI they use. The latest content has been a slight improvement, but far from engaging.
OR i can take the piece providing the check, something that never occured to you.
See, you STILL didint force me to play your way. And we are talking of 1 out of many moves possible.
And im glad you mentioned this, you see in trinty EVEN if you were checked youd still go after some random piece bcause it generated some imaginary threat instead dealing with king situation and lose the game. THATS what doeant make sense in trinty and why it doesnt work in PvP.
And yes, launch encounters in GW2 didnt take all advantages of combat system because they were still made with trinity mindset. But as you can see from this very forum, its hard for people to get out of it but it will happen sooner or later because of unsustainability of trinty and required dumb AI to support it which generates more throw away content than developers can afford (except WoW). Thats also reason why there will be combat systems that better support PvP.
I've always hated the 100% predictable threat combat, especially when you throw in over used "taunting".. Today's game is nothing more then spamming taunt and AOE threat buttons to astronomical levels, to where pulling agro from the tank is next to impossible.. This leads to a predictable outcome > boring.. But can we really blame the devs for this? Sure they make the code so easy that any carebear can solo, but where is the challenge and surprises..
I've always commented that I support an AI system that is 80% predictable code, and 20% of randomness.. Plus, that 80% code needs to have many variables that calculate "who" gets agro, and not just spamming over powerful "taunt".. DPS should be considered, Heals should be considered, Debuffing should be considered, and Proximity should be a factor as well.. YES, the tank that is in the mobs face is going to get more attention, however if that healer moves to close to the fight, don't be surprised if the mob takes some whacks at him as well..
As one gent mention, and I totally agree there needs to be a depleting threat system.. A tank should not be able to accumulate so much threat the whole fight that recent actions become meaningless.. So that epic shield bash that generated instant threat early on, eventually wears off during the fight.. and when that healer chain cast 3 heals back to back, the AI is going to take notice.. IN ALL THAT, then we toss in the 20% random acts of WTF did that come from.. YES, the group can be doing everything by the book, but the mob is still going to ignore "threat" system 10-20% of the time and take a whack at the some random player close enough.. Shit Happens!!!.. lol
Tank / threat mechanic is imaginary only to you it seems.
in chess we use it in many ways,we act like we are threatening someone and actualyl we are not because its part of the plan,we do it because that way we make opponent play as the way we want or atleast we hope so.
in MMO holy trinity we do same kind of things,lets say healer is in danger,therefore we sacrifice soldier to take aggro and kite him,therefore our healer can play the way we want to but opponent does not want to.
millions of possibilites,but obsolete in your GW2 because everybody is soldier.
I'd love to play chess against you. Seems to me you confuse chess and poker...
Acutally the "we make (sic) opponent play as we want" is kind of true. Chess all boils down to checks, captures, blocks and threats. By using these mechanics, you force your opponent into making moves that assist with your overall goal. I am not saying that chess is like the trinity, only that the one statement holds some truth.
You cannot force you opponent to play like you want it in chess, THATS the main difference between trinity and not trinity. THATS why trinity doesnt work in PvP. Thats why everyone will run pass the tank and proceed to kill the healer no matter how much yo want then not to. Along with non one dimensional pieces that can JUST block, JUST capture or JUST support because any piece can do any of those things at any time.
You obviously don't play chess or are not very good at it. I could take the time to explain it to you, but it is obvious that you have an agenda or perhaps you really can't grasp the concept. It is like when you make broad, generalized statements about raiding. It is quite obvious you never advanced beyond the PUG / LFR level.
You just proved his point. Maybe he's not very good at it, but he can make any move he wants anytime he wants. That's not forced taunting or even threat. You're confusing tactical back and forth with threat. In a trinity game the mob has no other choice but to attack the tank.
I would point out that it's never in the mobs best interest to attack the tank whereas in chess it is absolutely in the opponents best interest to try and tactically counter you.
Real simple: The chess opponent has choices, the taunted mob does not. That seems pretty clear to me.
It is really crazy how absolutely OPPOSITE chess is from the trinity. It's positively embarrassing to think otherwise. I am literally shocked by some of the people in this thread.
When you place someone in check, they have no choice but to block the check. I am not saying that the chess is like the trinity, and I even stated that I wasn't in the first post. I just stated that in chess, you force the other player to make moves or they lose. As far as the trinity versus something else, I could honestly care less. One of the shortcomings of GW2 is not the combat, but the AI. The have a wonderfully complex system of combat mechanics that is completely wasted on the AI they use. The latest content has been a slight improvement, but far from engaging.
OR i can take the piece providing the check, something that never occured to you.
See, you STILL didint force me to play your way. And we are talking of 1 out of many moves possible.
And im glad you mentioned this, you see in trinty EVEN if you were checked youd still go after some random piece bcause it generated some imaginary threat instead dealing with king situation and lose the game. THATS what doeant make sense in trinty and why it doesnt work in PvP.
And yes, launch encounters in GW2 didnt take all advantages of combat system because they were still made with trinity mindset. But as you can see from this very forum, its hard for people to get out of it but it will happen sooner or later because of unsustainability of trinty and required dumb AI to support it which generates more throw away content than developers can afford (except WoW). Thats also reason why there will be combat systems that better support PvP.
Taking the piece is just one of the way to block the check and so is moving the king. Either way you probably still did what he wanted you to do since you don't place a check on someone if it's easily countered and have no following moves. Unless you really just have no idea what you are doing.
You obviously don't play chess or are not very good at it. I could take the time to explain it to you, but it is obvious that you have an agenda or perhaps you really can't grasp the concept. It is like when you make broad, generalized statements about raiding. It is quite obvious you never advanced beyond the PUG / LFR level.
You just proved his point. Maybe he's not very good at it, but he can make any move he wants anytime he wants. That's not forced taunting or even threat. You're confusing tactical back and forth with threat. In a trinity game the mob has no other choice but to attack the tank.
I would point out that it's never in the mobs best interest to attack the tank whereas in chess it is absolutely in the opponents best interest to try and tactically counter you.
Real simple: The chess opponent has choices, the taunted mob does not. That seems pretty clear to me.
It made sense in EQ. The tank was the one doing the most damage.
In EQ the mob didn't just attack the tank. Raid mobs almost always have an enrage + rampage + AE + often a self memblur mechanic. Many mobs self cast memblur on themselves every couple of seconds, which clears their memory, and the hate list.
Rampage also comes in 2 forms, AE rampage and single rampage.
Engaging a raid mob in EQ usually involved "setting rampage", only a specific person, your rampage tank, could engage the mob, that person was someone else from the main tank. If that person died, rampage was conferred to someone else, who then became your rampage tank, which if you were unlucky, was a caster with very little defense. Knowing which person had rampage was crucial to winning many raids.
As you probably figured out by now, a raid mob in EQ had 2 lists, a hate list and a rampage list. While you could control the hate list quite well ususally, the rampage list was random, it is set during engagement (it is set by order of engagement, but it can't be controlled or changed), the only thing you could control was the top position at the start, which like I explained, was the person to first engage the mob. Once that person died, a random person in your raid got rampage (in reality, it wasn't random, it was the second, third, fourth, etc person to enage, but with 60+ players in a raid, no one knew beforehand who that was going to be), figuring out who was getting hit from rampage as fast as possible, was crucial. Rampage often hit as hard as the main damage of the mob. Losing control over who had rampage, usually resulted in people in your raid quickly dying at random, usually until a tank noticed he had rampage, or a smart class with defensive abilities, or a smart player who figured out fast enough he/she had rampage to call it out and get the healers responsible for rampage healing that person.
(rampage will also never be given to the one holding aggro, your rampage tank can never be your main tank, if you're on top of the hate list, you disappear from the rampage list, once you lose aggro, you reappear in the rampage list (these lists can't be seen while playing the game, but they exist in EQ's code). There is only 1 exception to this rule, if a single person is on the mob's hate list, he is by default, also the person on top of the rampage list, which is what happens during engage.)
Your best healers becoming rampage tanks, was quite common, since like I explained, the rampage list is a list set by order of engagement. Since your main healers usually start casting heals on your main tank early on, they are usually high on the rampage list. Keeping your rampage tank alive, was just as important, if not more so, than keeping your main tank alive, which is why we had dedicated rampage tank healers. Rampage tanking was usually done by an experienced person who knew how the rampage list worked, I was often not chosen as MT, but was picked as a rampage tank so I quickly learned how the list worked. I had my own dedicated healer, who quickly became my friend, and on most raids we were solely responsible for making sure the rest of the raid didn't have to deal with rampage, which was one of the main reasons raids used to wipe, losing control of rampage.
The idea that a tank engaged the main mob and held aggro the whole time, is misguided. While that was possible on some raids, it usually was far more complex than that.
It is really crazy how absolutely OPPOSITE chess is from the trinity. It's positively embarrassing to think otherwise. I am literally shocked by some of the people in this thread.
Chess is trinity (ROLE) gaming.. Trinity is all about roles being performed by players or in chess by pieces.. Each chess piece can only perform certain acts at given times.. Now don't confuse roles being performed as threat management.. Role combat is not synonymous with threat, as many wish and want to do in their thread.. If chess was designed with one king and 15 pawns, then I would agree with you, but in this case I don't.. I wish more combat AI's were closer to chess, but unfortunately the devs always seem to be focusing on pleasing the lowest common denominator.. /shrug..
When you place someone in check, they have no choice but to block the check. I am not saying that the chess is like the trinity, and I even stated that I wasn't in the first post. I just stated that in chess, you force the other player to make moves or they lose. As far as the trinity versus something else, I could honestly care less. One of the shortcomings of GW2 is not the combat, but the AI. The have a wonderfully complex system of combat mechanics that is completely wasted on the AI they use. The latest content has been a slight improvement, but far from engaging.
OR i can take the piece providing the check, something that never occured to you.
See, you STILL didint force me to play your way. And we are talking of 1 out of many moves possible.
And im glad you mentioned this, you see in trinty EVEN if you were checked youd still go after some random piece bcause it generated some imaginary threat instead dealing with king situation and lose the game. THATS what doeant make sense in trinty and why it doesnt work in PvP.
And yes, launch encounters in GW2 didnt take all advantages of combat system because they were still made with trinity mindset. But as you can see from this very forum, its hard for people to get out of it but it will happen sooner or later because of unsustainability of trinty and required dumb AI to support it which generates more throw away content than developers can afford (except WoW). Thats also reason why there will be combat systems that better support PvP.
Taking the piece is just one of the way to block the check and so is moving the king. Either way you probably still did what he wanted you to do since you don't place a check on someone if it's easily countered and have no following moves. Unless you really just have no idea what you are doing.
Or he did exactly what I wanted him to do, or or or.....its mind boggling (not really) to state "i place someone in check so now he must to exactly what i want him to do"....well, doesnt really deserve a comment.
It is really crazy how absolutely OPPOSITE chess is from the trinity. It's positively embarrassing to think otherwise. I am literally shocked by some of the people in this thread.
Chess is trinity (ROLE) gaming.. Trinity is all about roles being performed by players or in chess by pieces.. Each chess piece can only perform certain acts at given times.. Now don't confuse roles being performed as threat management.. Role combat is not synonymous with threat, as many wish and want to do in their thread.. If chess was designed with one king and 15 pawns, then I would agree with you, but in this case I don't.. I wish more combat AI's were closer to chess, but unfortunately the devs always seem to be focusing on pleasing the lowest common denominator.. /shrug..
And you confuse role with acts as any piece can perform ANY role despite limited acts it can perform, and theres no arbitrary threat mechanic outside of your control.
Its really such a flawed analogy, its time to put it to bed. If in chess, every piece had a similar level of strength and usefulness, while maintaining a unique role, then you could compare the two. Though each piece does have a unique purpose, they do NOT possess the same overall strength.
It is really crazy how absolutely OPPOSITE chess is from the trinity. It's positively embarrassing to think otherwise. I am literally shocked by some of the people in this thread.
Chess is trinity (ROLE) gaming.. Trinity is all about roles being performed by players or in chess by pieces.. Each chess piece can only perform certain acts at given times.. Now don't confuse roles being performed as threat management.. Role combat is not synonymous with threat, as many wish and want to do in their thread.. If chess was designed with one king and 15 pawns, then I would agree with you, but in this case I don't.. I wish more combat AI's were closer to chess, but unfortunately the devs always seem to be focusing on pleasing the lowest common denominator.. /shrug..
And you confuse role with acts as any piece can perform ANY role despite limited acts it can perform, and theres no arbitrary threat mechanic outside of your control.
I don't know when the last time was when you played chess.. but a Queen plays the role of a Queen and can only perform certain acts.. NO different then a Warrior is limited to their roles/skills.. Now when Bishops can start to move laterally across the board like Rooks, then I'll agree with you.. And TRINITY has NOTHING to do with arbitrary threat mechanics.. Again.. YOU confuse and seem to put ROLES and THREAT into the same box..
It is really crazy how absolutely OPPOSITE chess is from the trinity. It's positively embarrassing to think otherwise. I am literally shocked by some of the people in this thread.
Chess is trinity (ROLE) gaming.. Trinity is all about roles being performed by players or in chess by pieces.. Each chess piece can only perform certain acts at given times.. Now don't confuse roles being performed as threat management.. Role combat is not synonymous with threat, as many wish and want to do in their thread.. If chess was designed with one king and 15 pawns, then I would agree with you, but in this case I don't.. I wish more combat AI's were closer to chess, but unfortunately the devs always seem to be focusing on pleasing the lowest common denominator.. /shrug..
And you confuse role with acts as any piece can perform ANY role despite limited acts it can perform, and theres no arbitrary threat mechanic outside of your control.
I don't know when the last time was when you played chess.. but a Queen plays the role of a Queen and can only perform certain acts.. NO different then a Warrior is limited to their roles/skills.. Now when Bishops can start to move laterally across the board like Rooks, then I'll agree with you.. And TRINITY has NOTHING to do with arbitrary threat mechanics.. Again.. YOU confuse and seem to put ROLES and THREAT into the same box..
queen in chess is not a ROLE, its a equivivalent of CLASS. Class that can take any role as ANY other CLASS at ANY time. I dont know if you played chess at all.
ANY piece can perform ANY act (move, take other pieces, support other pieces, or block other pieces). Limited acts are because you cannot move over other pieces.
So when you learn basics of chess you may continue the discussion.
And thread is about what trinity actually IS not what it can be in some imaginary game, and trinity relies on tank/threat/taunt mechanic, it was and still IS based on that for 15 years.
GW2 is chess like gameplay and trinity is opposite of chess like gameplay.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
Yeah, everyone gets mad at that pawn and mindlessly attack ti while it gets healed by bishop while rook and queen range opposing pieces from bacline and nothing can get passed by that pawn in any way because it has all the aggro.
Just like chess rofl.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by PAL-18
Trinity is like playing chess.
Chess without trinity is like playing with soldiers only.
I don't remember any threat/aggro mecanic in chess. The opponent is usually smart enough not to attack the most well protected piece instead of the weakest one.
Just take it like this,King = tank and then you have support roles and attackers
Like holy trinity,we have suppopt roles,tank and attackers and cc and kiting etc.
Thats what makes holy trinity interesting like chess,some people can play as healer but cant handle for example tanking or vice verca etc..
You are confusing roles with the trinity. You can do roles and interdependence without the holy trinity just fine. Chess doesn't have trinity.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
As someone said, CC used to be a part of the equation. In EQ it was always tank, healer, and enchanter, then whatever DPS. Today it seems most games have incorporated some type of CC in to every class.
"God, please help us sinful children of Ivalice.."
queen in chess is not a ROLE, its a equivivalent of CLASS. Class that can take any role as ANY other CLASS at ANY time. I dont know if you played chess at all.
ANY piece can perform ANY act (move, take other pieces, support other pieces, or block other pieces). Limited acts are because you cannot move over other pieces.
So when you learn basics of chess you may continue the discussion.
And thread is about what trinity actually IS not what it can be in some imaginary game, and trinity relies on tank/threat/taunt mechanic, it was and still IS based on that for 15 years.
GW2 is chess like gameplay and trinity is opposite of chess like gameplay.
Seriously? Really? I don't know if I should cry or laugh.. I can't believe you put a queen in the same box as a pawn simply because they , (move, take other pieces, support other pieces, or block other pieces).. I guess you'll also try to convince me that a catcher in baseball is the same as a pitcher because they both throw the ball, catch the ball and run with the ball.. /shrug.. And ROLE (trinity) is NOT about tank/threat/taunt mechanics.. Maybe in your mind and poor game designs, but they are NOT synonymous with each other.. I played AD&D with classes that performed certain roles and NEVER had some arbitrary mechanic that you like to think ALL games have.. SHIT, I played my druid in EQ1 just fine and often NEVER utilized threat/taunting mechanics as you described..
It appears you view all trinity games like World of Warcraft (no exceptions).. Which is a shame, because you are missing out on some great gameplay.. GW2 like chess? Really? I play GW2, and it's nothing more then a ZERGFEST, both in PvE and PvP.. I would not call GW2 combat "chess" like.. lmao
queen in chess is not a ROLE, its a equivivalent of CLASS. Class that can take any role as ANY other CLASS at ANY time. I dont know if you played chess at all.
ANY piece can perform ANY act (move, take other pieces, support other pieces, or block other pieces). Limited acts are because you cannot move over other pieces.
So when you learn basics of chess you may continue the discussion.
And thread is about what trinity actually IS not what it can be in some imaginary game, and trinity relies on tank/threat/taunt mechanic, it was and still IS based on that for 15 years.
GW2 is chess like gameplay and trinity is opposite of chess like gameplay.
Seriously? Really? I don't know if I should cry or laugh.. I can't believe you put a queen in the same box as a pawn simply because they , (move, take other pieces, support other pieces, or block other pieces).. I guess you'll also try to convince me that a catcher in baseball is the same as a pitcher because they both throw the ball, catch the ball and run with the ball.. /shrug.. And ROLE (trinity) is NOT about tank/threat/taunt mechanics.. Maybe in your mind and poor game designs, but they are NOT synonymous with each other.. I played AD&D with classes that performed certain roles and NEVER had some arbitrary mechanic that you like to think ALL games have.. SHIT, I played my druid in EQ1 just fine and often NEVER utilized threat/taunting mechanics as you described..
It appears you view all trinity games like World of Warcraft (no exceptions).. Which is a shame, because you are missing out on some great gameplay.. GW2 like chess? Really? I play GW2, and it's nothing more then a ZERGFEST, both in PvE and PvP.. I would not call GW2 combat "chess" like.. lmao
lol, ill laugh and you cry, the level of incomprehension on your side is worth crying.
Seriously? Really? I don't know if I should cry or laugh.. I can't believe you put a queen in the same box as a pawn simply because they , (move, take other pieces, support other pieces, or block other pieces).. I guess you'll also try to convince me that a catcher in baseball is the same as a pitcher because they both throw the ball, catch the ball and run with the ball.. /shrug.. And ROLE (trinity) is NOT about tank/threat/taunt mechanics.. Maybe in your mind and poor game designs, but they are NOT synonymous with each other.. I played AD&D with classes that performed certain roles and NEVER had some arbitrary mechanic that you like to think ALL games have.. SHIT, I played my druid in EQ1 just fine and often NEVER utilized threat/taunting mechanics as you described..
It appears you view all trinity games like World of Warcraft (no exceptions).. Which is a shame, because you are missing out on some great gameplay.. GW2 like chess? Really? I play GW2, and it's nothing more then a ZERGFEST, both in PvE and PvP.. I would not call GW2 combat "chess" like.. lmao
Neither analogy (class or role) actually relates to how players play the game, so neither will provide much insight into how trinity is or isn't fun.
Your pieces in chess determine your capabilities. They determine your set of decisions on any given turn.
Your abilities in MMORPGs determine your capabilities. They determine your set of decisions at any given moment.
Chess is symmetrical PVP, so there isn't really any meaningful concept of class or role.
There is a vague similarity in that unique rules govern the movement of pieces in a similar way to how the rules of class or role govern a player's capabilities, but since the pieces themselves aren't playing chess (players are, not the pieces) it won't provide any useful insights.
But in a discussion about what the trinity is, clearly none of that matters anyway and clearly tank/healer/DPS is the trinity.
The fact that the concept of a tank implies a threat system doesn't mean the trinity is a threat system. Cars usually have brakes and drive shafts, but these details aren't part of the definition of "car" and also aren't required for something to be considered a car.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But in a discussion about what the trinity is, clearly none of that matters anyway and clearly tank/healer/DPS is the trinity.
The fact that the concept of a tank implies a threat system doesn't mean the trinity is a threat system. Cars usually have brakes and drive shafts, but these details aren't part of the definition of "car" and also aren't required for something to be considered a car.
Everyone expects a car to have brakes and so too, in trinity systems, everyone expects threat manipulation. And 99% of the time they would be right. Every trinity game plays very much like the other. If you have played a few, you've played them all basically. The system which they use is the trinity: Tank 'n' spank.
"Oh, its just these three roles," is not enough.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Everyone expects a car to have brakes and so too, in trinity systems, everyone expects threat manipulation. And 99% of the time they would be right. Every trinity game plays very much like the other. If you have played a few, you've played them all basically. The system which they use is the trinity: Tank 'n' spank.
"Oh, its just these three roles," is not enough.
For that to be true, you'd have to be able to name a game with tank/healer/DPS as the three main roles which wasn't considered trinity combat. I'm not sure you can find an example of that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
During vanilla WoW devs loved to make bosses immune to taunt, particularly in BWL. For vaelastrasz tank swapping involved the first tank dying with the second highest on threat taking over tanking. Swapping on broodlord lashlayer was because of a knockdown that dropped threat by 50%. In other instances there were bosses that did teleports that nullified threat while also being immune to taunt.
In many WoW fight you keep building threat over the whole fight, meaning that for extremely stationary fights like Golemagg you can have your tank building threat for 3 minutes and keep up aggro even though they went linkdead during the rest of the fight.
Tera online has threat decay, meaning that after 3 minutes in a fight tanks can still lose aggro to a healer doing 3-5 quick heals in succession (the quick cheap heal generated huge amount of threat), or by focusing too much on blocking and not building enough threat for 10 seconds.
And that was durin vanilla WoW and exactly as i said, if they made it immune to taunt it had specific goals (mechanic9 and dealing with adds was pretty much given taunt. In most games taunt was oh shit skill anyway (or convenience for start of fight)
And how DO you build that threat? Thats right.
Exactly, and thats why in TERA its pretty much required in rotation.
Nice that you agree on everything and you finally realized threat generatio havent changed in 15 years.
If you still cant grasp how threat is generated, google is your friend.
You obviously don't play chess or are not very good at it. I could take the time to explain it to you, but it is obvious that you have an agenda or perhaps you really can't grasp the concept. It is like when you make broad, generalized statements about raiding. It is quite obvious you never advanced beyond the PUG / LFR level.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
When you place someone in check, they have no choice but to block the check. I am not saying that the chess is like the trinity, and I even stated that I wasn't in the first post. I just stated that in chess, you force the other player to make moves or they lose. As far as the trinity versus something else, I could honestly care less. One of the shortcomings of GW2 is not the combat, but the AI. The have a wonderfully complex system of combat mechanics that is completely wasted on the AI they use. The latest content has been a slight improvement, but far from engaging.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
lol is this a chess for 5 year olds lesson? mastering chess is about understanding the shape of the pieces on the board as it develops, and understanding the probabilities involved in developing 1 position over another with the goal of gradually asserting a strong strategic middle game leading to a well known end game pattern where a win is guaranteed. Getting check on the king is merely a step in a process. If it was trinity the game would be about constantly checking the king to allow you to win the game (to use such a daft analogy) In other words if you had to compare chess to trinity or non trinity, it would be the latter.
as plenty have said (does it really need to be reiterated in 2015??) The trinity is about the Tank holding the bosses attention, aka threat.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
OR i can take the piece providing the check, something that never occured to you.
See, you STILL didint force me to play your way. And we are talking of 1 out of many moves possible.
And im glad you mentioned this, you see in trinty EVEN if you were checked youd still go after some random piece bcause it generated some imaginary threat instead dealing with king situation and lose the game. THATS what doeant make sense in trinty and why it doesnt work in PvP.
And yes, launch encounters in GW2 didnt take all advantages of combat system because they were still made with trinity mindset. But as you can see from this very forum, its hard for people to get out of it but it will happen sooner or later because of unsustainability of trinty and required dumb AI to support it which generates more throw away content than developers can afford (except WoW). Thats also reason why there will be combat systems that better support PvP.
I've always hated the 100% predictable threat combat, especially when you throw in over used "taunting".. Today's game is nothing more then spamming taunt and AOE threat buttons to astronomical levels, to where pulling agro from the tank is next to impossible.. This leads to a predictable outcome > boring.. But can we really blame the devs for this? Sure they make the code so easy that any carebear can solo, but where is the challenge and surprises..
I've always commented that I support an AI system that is 80% predictable code, and 20% of randomness.. Plus, that 80% code needs to have many variables that calculate "who" gets agro, and not just spamming over powerful "taunt".. DPS should be considered, Heals should be considered, Debuffing should be considered, and Proximity should be a factor as well.. YES, the tank that is in the mobs face is going to get more attention, however if that healer moves to close to the fight, don't be surprised if the mob takes some whacks at him as well..
As one gent mention, and I totally agree there needs to be a depleting threat system.. A tank should not be able to accumulate so much threat the whole fight that recent actions become meaningless.. So that epic shield bash that generated instant threat early on, eventually wears off during the fight.. and when that healer chain cast 3 heals back to back, the AI is going to take notice.. IN ALL THAT, then we toss in the 20% random acts of WTF did that come from.. YES, the group can be doing everything by the book, but the mob is still going to ignore "threat" system 10-20% of the time and take a whack at the some random player close enough.. Shit Happens!!!.. lol
It is really crazy how absolutely OPPOSITE chess is from the trinity. It's positively embarrassing to think otherwise. I am literally shocked by some of the people in this thread.
Taking the piece is just one of the way to block the check and so is moving the king. Either way you probably still did what he wanted you to do since you don't place a check on someone if it's easily countered and have no following moves. Unless you really just have no idea what you are doing.
It made sense in EQ. The tank was the one doing the most damage.
In EQ the mob didn't just attack the tank. Raid mobs almost always have an enrage + rampage + AE + often a self memblur mechanic. Many mobs self cast memblur on themselves every couple of seconds, which clears their memory, and the hate list.
Rampage also comes in 2 forms, AE rampage and single rampage.
Engaging a raid mob in EQ usually involved "setting rampage", only a specific person, your rampage tank, could engage the mob, that person was someone else from the main tank. If that person died, rampage was conferred to someone else, who then became your rampage tank, which if you were unlucky, was a caster with very little defense. Knowing which person had rampage was crucial to winning many raids.
As you probably figured out by now, a raid mob in EQ had 2 lists, a hate list and a rampage list. While you could control the hate list quite well ususally, the rampage list was random, it is set during engagement (it is set by order of engagement, but it can't be controlled or changed), the only thing you could control was the top position at the start, which like I explained, was the person to first engage the mob. Once that person died, a random person in your raid got rampage (in reality, it wasn't random, it was the second, third, fourth, etc person to enage, but with 60+ players in a raid, no one knew beforehand who that was going to be), figuring out who was getting hit from rampage as fast as possible, was crucial. Rampage often hit as hard as the main damage of the mob. Losing control over who had rampage, usually resulted in people in your raid quickly dying at random, usually until a tank noticed he had rampage, or a smart class with defensive abilities, or a smart player who figured out fast enough he/she had rampage to call it out and get the healers responsible for rampage healing that person.
(rampage will also never be given to the one holding aggro, your rampage tank can never be your main tank, if you're on top of the hate list, you disappear from the rampage list, once you lose aggro, you reappear in the rampage list (these lists can't be seen while playing the game, but they exist in EQ's code). There is only 1 exception to this rule, if a single person is on the mob's hate list, he is by default, also the person on top of the rampage list, which is what happens during engage.)
Your best healers becoming rampage tanks, was quite common, since like I explained, the rampage list is a list set by order of engagement. Since your main healers usually start casting heals on your main tank early on, they are usually high on the rampage list. Keeping your rampage tank alive, was just as important, if not more so, than keeping your main tank alive, which is why we had dedicated rampage tank healers. Rampage tanking was usually done by an experienced person who knew how the rampage list worked, I was often not chosen as MT, but was picked as a rampage tank so I quickly learned how the list worked. I had my own dedicated healer, who quickly became my friend, and on most raids we were solely responsible for making sure the rest of the raid didn't have to deal with rampage, which was one of the main reasons raids used to wipe, losing control of rampage.
The idea that a tank engaged the main mob and held aggro the whole time, is misguided. While that was possible on some raids, it usually was far more complex than that.
Chess is trinity (ROLE) gaming.. Trinity is all about roles being performed by players or in chess by pieces.. Each chess piece can only perform certain acts at given times.. Now don't confuse roles being performed as threat management.. Role combat is not synonymous with threat, as many wish and want to do in their thread.. If chess was designed with one king and 15 pawns, then I would agree with you, but in this case I don't.. I wish more combat AI's were closer to chess, but unfortunately the devs always seem to be focusing on pleasing the lowest common denominator.. /shrug..
Or he did exactly what I wanted him to do, or or or.....its mind boggling (not really) to state "i place someone in check so now he must to exactly what i want him to do"....well, doesnt really deserve a comment.
And you confuse role with acts as any piece can perform ANY role despite limited acts it can perform, and theres no arbitrary threat mechanic outside of your control.
I don't know when the last time was when you played chess.. but a Queen plays the role of a Queen and can only perform certain acts.. NO different then a Warrior is limited to their roles/skills.. Now when Bishops can start to move laterally across the board like Rooks, then I'll agree with you.. And TRINITY has NOTHING to do with arbitrary threat mechanics.. Again.. YOU confuse and seem to put ROLES and THREAT into the same box..
queen in chess is not a ROLE, its a equivivalent of CLASS. Class that can take any role as ANY other CLASS at ANY time. I dont know if you played chess at all.
ANY piece can perform ANY act (move, take other pieces, support other pieces, or block other pieces). Limited acts are because you cannot move over other pieces.
So when you learn basics of chess you may continue the discussion.
And thread is about what trinity actually IS not what it can be in some imaginary game, and trinity relies on tank/threat/taunt mechanic, it was and still IS based on that for 15 years.
GW2 is chess like gameplay and trinity is opposite of chess like gameplay.
You are confusing roles with the trinity. You can do roles and interdependence without the holy trinity just fine. Chess doesn't have trinity.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
"God, please help us sinful children of Ivalice.."
And in holy trinity just fine if you want to or did not know.
just like playing chess with only soldiers and ignoring everything else so back to square 1.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Seriously? Really? I don't know if I should cry or laugh.. I can't believe you put a queen in the same box as a pawn simply because they , (move, take other pieces, support other pieces, or block other pieces).. I guess you'll also try to convince me that a catcher in baseball is the same as a pitcher because they both throw the ball, catch the ball and run with the ball.. /shrug.. And ROLE (trinity) is NOT about tank/threat/taunt mechanics.. Maybe in your mind and poor game designs, but they are NOT synonymous with each other.. I played AD&D with classes that performed certain roles and NEVER had some arbitrary mechanic that you like to think ALL games have.. SHIT, I played my druid in EQ1 just fine and often NEVER utilized threat/taunting mechanics as you described..
It appears you view all trinity games like World of Warcraft (no exceptions).. Which is a shame, because you are missing out on some great gameplay.. GW2 like chess? Really? I play GW2, and it's nothing more then a ZERGFEST, both in PvE and PvP.. I would not call GW2 combat "chess" like.. lmao
lol, ill laugh and you cry, the level of incomprehension on your side is worth crying.
/shrug
Neither analogy (class or role) actually relates to how players play the game, so neither will provide much insight into how trinity is or isn't fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Everyone expects a car to have brakes and so too, in trinity systems, everyone expects threat manipulation. And 99% of the time they would be right. Every trinity game plays very much like the other. If you have played a few, you've played them all basically. The system which they use is the trinity: Tank 'n' spank.
"Oh, its just these three roles," is not enough.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
For that to be true, you'd have to be able to name a game with tank/healer/DPS as the three main roles which wasn't considered trinity combat. I'm not sure you can find an example of that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver