Upgrading AI with something like storybricks is a good decision all around, in theory.
The problem many people have is upgrading AI in such a way that it removes traditional role based combat, and the false notions that its 1) the only way to improve AI, 2) that its somehow the more logical alternative and/or 3) the logical evolution of game AI. These notions are an insult to the intelligence of players who have any understanding of game mechanics and artificial intelligence on even the most basic level. SOE's sudden hostility and outright mockery of the previous forms of video game AI (especially mmorpg AI), specifically threat management (ie. "the trinity"), has been nothing less than ridiculous and a shameless attempt to promote a new form of combat gameplay, not just advanced AI as they'd have you believe. The scary thing is, most of their staff are apparently drinking their own kool-aide, which became obvious during SOE live when no less than a dozen times I heard them refer to threat management and hate generating mechanics as something along the lines of "insulting a mobs mother." That is not a good sign, and I'm slightly embarrassed on their behalf.
It comes down to a matter of gameplay preference, not accepting the logical evolution of AI. Many MMORPG players, especially those who have enjoyed EQ, would prefer to see them build upon the foundation of threat management combat which promotes the established roles found in traditional rpgs. Some of which are more action based (tanks and some melee) and others which are more layed back or passive. This traditionally has allowed for all types of people to participate and enjoy mmorpgs, both those who enjoy being the leader with better situational awareness, aim and reflexes, as well as those looking for a role with less responsibility, less twitch capabilities, and frankly a role that isn't stressful (some people work for a living). SOE quite obviously intends to leave these combat mechanics behind altogether in favor of arcade action-adventure combat where all the "roles" (if you can call them that) are action based and, at one time or another, become the de factor "tank" by adapting to combat scenarios and utilizing movement abilities like jumps, dodges, rolls or teleports. This combat has proven fun in some games, but has always been zergy in massively MULTIPLAYER online rpgs, hence the resistance from the more experienced, less naive mmo player.
I, for one, am not fool by this, nor am I subverted by their juvenile attempts to mock the AI that has served games well for decades (and will continue to serve), regardless of how trivial it has become in modern MMOs. The triviality of modern MMOs should be attributed not to the code, but the philosophies industry leaders have employed to generate a larger playerbase and make their game more all-inclusive ($$$). Fortunately for SOE, the vast majority of their target audience hasn't the slightest concept of how mmos work, or should work, so they stand to attract quite a playerbase with their grand claims and hyperbolic remarks.
I, however, will not be among them.
Wow... a triple straw man...straw men rather. Nice to create your own false notions and then shoot them down...
1. "The only way to improve AI"... who, other than you is saying that there is only one way forward?
2. "it's somehow the more logical alternative" ... it's an alternative...it's different... more logical? Not sure that's the point. More like a player would behave in that situation? Yeah, that's a bit closer.
3. "The logical evolution of game AI" ... there you go with that "logical" thing again.
Except all 3 of those things have been said almost verbatim and continually eluded to in a number of ways, like I explained below.
Upgrading AI with something like storybricks is a good decision all around, in theory.
The problem many people have is upgrading AI in such a way that it removes traditional role based combat, and the false notions that its 1) the only way to improve AI, 2) that its somehow the more logical alternative and/or 3) the logical evolution of game AI. These notions are an insult to the intelligence of players who have any understanding of game mechanics and artificial intelligence on even the most basic level. SOE's sudden hostility and outright mockery of the previous forms of video game AI (especially mmorpg AI), specifically threat management (ie. "the trinity"), has been nothing less than ridiculous and a shameless attempt to promote a new form of combat gameplay, not just advanced AI as they'd have you believe. The scary thing is, most of their staff are apparently drinking their own kool-aide, which became obvious during SOE live when no less than a dozen times I heard them refer to threat management and hate generating mechanics as something along the lines of "insulting a mobs mother." That is not a good sign, and I'm slightly embarrassed on their behalf.
It comes down to a matter of gameplay preference, not accepting the logical evolution of AI. Many MMORPG players, especially those who have enjoyed EQ, would prefer to see them build upon the foundation of threat management combat which promotes the established roles found in traditional rpgs. Some of which are more action based (tanks and some melee) and others which are more layed back or passive. This traditionally has allowed for all types of people to participate and enjoy mmorpgs, both those who enjoy being the leader with better situational awareness, aim and reflexes, as well as those looking for a role with less responsibility, less twitch capabilities, and frankly a role that isn't stressful (some people work for a living). SOE quite obviously intends to leave these combat mechanics behind altogether in favor of arcade action-adventure combat where all the "roles" (if you can call them that) are action based and, at one time or another, become the de factor "tank" by adapting to combat scenarios and utilizing movement abilities like jumps, dodges, rolls or teleports. This combat has proven fun in some games, but has always been zergy in massively MULTIPLAYER online rpgs, hence the resistance from the more experienced, less naive mmo player.
I, for one, am not fool by this, nor am I subverted by their juvenile attempts to mock the AI that has served games well for decades (and will continue to serve), regardless of how trivial it has become in modern MMOs. The triviality of modern MMOs should be attributed not to the code, but the philosophies industry leaders have employed to generate a larger playerbase and make their game more all-inclusive ($$$). Fortunately for SOE, the vast majority of their target audience hasn't the slightest concept of how mmos work, or should work, so they stand to attract quite a playerbase with their grand claims and hyperbolic remarks.
I, however, will not be among them.
Wow... a triple straw man...straw men rather. Nice to create your own false notions and then shoot them down...
1. "The only way to improve AI"... who, other than you is saying that there is only one way forward?
2. "it's somehow the more logical alternative" ... it's an alternative...it's different... more logical? Not sure that's the point. More like a player would behave in that situation? Yeah, that's a bit closer.
3. "The logical evolution of game AI" ... there you go with that "logical" thing again.
Except all 3 of those things have been said almost verbatim and continually eluded to in a number of ways, like I explained below.
Thanks for playing.
Yeah? I've been watching this thread for a couple of weeks now and I haven't seen it...many, many stupid posts? Yes. But not those three points. Care to point out who and where someone alluded to them?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The OP doesn't have the faintest idea of what he is even talking about. Academic AI and game AI are not the same thing. Further, more advanced AI systems than "holy trinity" (which is not even AI by the way, it's a simplistic system that can't even considered to have real behavior) have existed for almost a decade.
F.E.A.R. (which came out in 2005, a mere YEAR after WoW) for instance uses action planning, which means the agent only knows the end goal, not any of the steps to accomplish it. That is EONS more advanced than "trinity AI" and wasn't built by MIT. And we've had almost 10 years of AI advancements since then.
MIT has jack to do with game AI advancements, and they can hardly solve a problem they have never bothered to attempt solving, making this guy's entire point both wrong and moot.
This post is laughable and the OP's severe ignorance of anything to actually do with the topic of game AI is readily apparent.
He has all the credibility of a crack junkie asking to hold on to your wallet.
You dolts realize that the whole MIT thing was just sarcasm right?
"Coming from the software development world I know for a FACT that SOE is not employing people from MIT's AI department for their game. This would be the only way to produce AI even close to challenging enough to make the "Trinity" system obsolete. However, even MIT hasn't created AI advanced enough to make this claim." - Bearknight
Well, we either have someone who has a very unique take on the OP's message, or bearknight just outed his alt.
He said even MIT couldn't do it!
After playing Rome 2 Total War, my expectations of this game is even less than before when it comes to the AI. That game had so much PR hype, and what they delivered was possibly the dumbest AI imaginable.
SOE's salespitch about an AI so advanced it negates the need for a Trinity is hogwash imho, for many reasons listed in this thread already.
The words "Advance" and "improvement" are VERY subjective and I read and see SOE just twisting words to build hype for EQN. The more the say the more I am convinced they don't know what they are doing anymore. They don't even sound like they play MMOs now.
After some of the comments made by SOE in live events lately it is my honest and humble opinion that most of the Staff of SOE aren't really MMO fans or Devs at all.... not sure what genre they hail from but it's not MMOs. Browser games perhaps? Console Gaming? These are great genres in their own right, but this isn't about those genres... SOE is referring to EQN as a MMO so it had better BE a MMO.
One thing I see in all this PR stuff for certain is THIS: SOE does not want MMO Players buying and playing EQN. They want everyone else to buy and play. That's an increase in potential Players of 1,000 times over at least. They just want... need... MMO Players to hype EQN and then buy it, but after that I think SOE would rather us just leave.
I see a disappointment for many of us ahead... a train wreck again... I do see many people liking EQN, but they aren't MMO Players.... and frankly the only group of Players I care about IS MMO Players. If that's wrong than paint me with an orange X, I don't care.
Every product from SOE I now see as a complete wash out for MMO Players, because I don't see SOE committed to MMO Gaming anymore. I think it's just a matter of time before the new Staff of SOE changes it's existing MMO products into something that not MMOs. Slowly of course... one patch at a time. SOE Staff will call it "Advancements" and "Improvements"... I call it ... well I can't say that here.
I have to agree with the points made on existing AI. I think the reason companies don't use full-fledged AI for monster opponents is that it would be too much for the players to contend with.
Try playing Dragon Age, the Bioware RPG, on hard mode WITHOUT using the space-bar to pause the action. In many encounters the human is simply overwhelmed - people cannot hit the keys on a keyboard fast enough to match the AI.
Imagine a smart monster with appropriate AI in EQN:
- Let's say an ancient Liche who has survived ages. A party of adventurers shows up to claim his treasure. Usually this means fighting through predictable encounters of steadily increasing difficulty with the Liche's followers until you reach the inner sanctum, where said Liche obligingly makes his final stand.
Now imagine...
- the adventurers show up at the Liche lair to find - no one. Unbeknownst to them, the Liche knew they were coming and decided to prepare a surprise. As the adventurers head out, disappointed, he springs his trap as he and his followers emerge en masse from a hidden passage and steamroll the adventurers.
This would be way, way out of most MMO players comfort zones. People want to relax and bash keys while the bodies of the enemy (and the treasure loot) piles up. Not have to out-think Skynet...
that part actually sounds awesome. I wish they would add AI like that.
I have to agree with the points made on existing AI. I think the reason companies don't use full-fledged AI for monster opponents is that it would be too much for the players to contend with.
Try playing Dragon Age, the Bioware RPG, on hard mode WITHOUT using the space-bar to pause the action. In many encounters the human is simply overwhelmed - people cannot hit the keys on a keyboard fast enough to match the AI.
Imagine a smart monster with appropriate AI in EQN:
- Let's say an ancient Liche who has survived ages. A party of adventurers shows up to claim his treasure. Usually this means fighting through predictable encounters of steadily increasing difficulty with the Liche's followers until you reach the inner sanctum, where said Liche obligingly makes his final stand.
Now imagine...
- the adventurers show up at the Liche lair to find - no one. Unbeknownst to them, the Liche knew they were coming and decided to prepare a surprise. As the adventurers head out, disappointed, he springs his trap as he and his followers emerge en masse from a hidden passage and steamroll the adventurers.
This would be way, way out of most MMO players comfort zones. People want to relax and bash keys while the bodies of the enemy (and the treasure loot) piles up. Not have to out-think Skynet...
that part actually sounds awesome. I wish they would add AI like that.
Originally posted by Rydeson Fool me once, shame on you.. Foll me twice, shame on me.. I will NOT bite that bait and run with it..
And yet here you are, repeatedly biting and unfortunately making everyone here suffer your constant complaints.
Does he have to ask your permission to write about his doubts? I too think that most of this super AI talk is pure BS. I can create the best MMO on paper but that doesn't mean that I can make it.
This post is just that - a rant. How come when I rant my post get removed, but when someone post a wall of text that is a rant it remains on theses forums?
Originally posted by st3v3b0 This post is just that - a rant. How come when I rant my post get removed, but when someone post a wall of text that is a rant it remains on theses forums?
Your posts are getting removed? Lucky you! Whenever I'm posting here while letting myself to be a little bit emotional, to show a little bit of my inner self, to not evaluate every word as if I were walking on very precious and fragile eggshells, I'm getting outright banned.
Name one SOE developed game where developers actually made you think they could come up with AI that could do this..
I'm playing one of their developed games right now (Planetside 2), and these boy wonders can't even fix stuff before it went live that was reported on their test server... This is just one of 100's of bugs they launch on us each patch...
But I'm suppose to believe that some more SOE hired Developers can bring us something as complex as advanced AI?...
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
your looking at it the wrong way. before they would of done it themselves and failed miserably.
now they've brought in a hired gun to do it for them. Same with storybricks and the voxels.
ill give them a better chance this time.
This is Storybricks first rodeo. If you're expecting them to be any more competent than SOE, or to be able to smoothly integrate their AI with EQN right off the bat... well.. then I've got an NGE to sell you for cheap!
Just by way of comparison and because it is somewhat timely, the Devs for Rome 2: total War also said the same things about their new AI, that it would be "revolutionary" and they spent a ton of cash making it smarter... blah blah blah. But no.
The AI ended up being the worst F'n thing about that game and was far, far worse than the AI in the previous series title. And after the devs were bragging about it and using it as a selling point.
Sound familiar?
Edit: Go see the Angry Joe review of Rome 2 if you want to see the horror and get a laugh.
AI is a tricky thing. To go up to a Boss mob with the same group and do the exact same thing to it 10x and for it to either learn or change it's tactics against you to improve it's performance? Not bloody likely and such would be required for adaptive AI to be real.
In chess the AI is just a barrage of mathematical possibilities fed into moves that the AI makes against the likely moves it knows are coming based upon the present layout of the board. To burn that into a learning code against players who could be closer, staggered, further, all tanks, all healers, all wizzies, all DPS, a combo of classes, rooted, snared, nuked, lots of ranged, lots of melee, dotted, slowed, a combo of these, the amount of necessary code it would take to make such a thing adaptive to the sheer number of possibilities comes down to eventual predictability. Meaning it's tactics will become known and then it's going to be downed. It might have scripted behavior for certain group makeups but that script won't be truly adaptive. It will have a hierarchy of rules to follow in a simulated AI format. These rules will become repetitive over time and thus learned by those who have experienced it.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
There is SO much variety that can be created in terms of combat-encounter design if you start with the most basic "trinity" tank/heal/dps norms.
Having "roles" and set expectations for what the AI allows NPCs/MOBs to do creates a system that players can learn.
This is good, it helps players develop skills and get better at playing the game.
Theory of fun stuff - if the puzzle is always changing and you can never learn it - you become frustrated and quit.
There has to be things you figure out and can master that don't change. Hurdles to conquer, targets to hit - it's the basis of progression.
What it also allows you to do as a developer is create variations and/or exceptions to the "rules" of your basic AI reactions in order to create new and interesting mechanics for encounters.
It also is a framework of knowledge and past experience you can call on when facing a new situation - you have expectations for what the NPC/MOB is going to do - and can react to it and the variances from your expectations accordingly.
It has been and is still something no one has done or is doing better than Blizzard.
It also allows you to use gear, numbers, to gate content and guide progression - which is and has been a staple of RPG gameplay for decades and many, many of us don't want to see that change. Becoming more powerful and conquering increasingly difficult challenges - the basic computer language interpretation of the "heroes journey" story telling tool - is so fundamentally ingrained in us, it's no wonder devs who try and remove or limit progression end up alienating a large chunk of potential players.
I dont understand since apprantly you dont play eve and dont know much about it, why do you insist to bring it up as a instance?
The pve content are almost all about solo farming, and ship roles are for pvp. Funny thing is even human oppenents are not "smart enough to make trinity obsolete" if the roles are well desinged, so yes, the sentense is an outright PR lie. Actually alot of games have trinity in pvp aspect, global agenda, warhammer. If the trinity is obsolete in one game, it doesnt mean the AI is too smart, it means the class designs are bad.
Originally posted by vzerov Actually alot of games have trinity in pvp aspect, global agenda, warhammer. If the trinity is obsolete in one game, it doesnt mean the AI is too smart, it means the class designs are bad.
If you feel a lot of games have the trinity in PVP then it's a safe bet you're thinking what the dev means is Defense, Offense, Support (or whatever three words you want to use) when in all actuality, they are referring to the tank/taunt stupidity.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am, once again, resurrecting a thread from more than 10 years ago: this time for a game that was cancelled eight years ago before release. I'm not sure if bumping this thread will even make it visible to anyone, since this forum is buried in the the list of game forums, not visible on the forum main page.
'Bad AI', simple threat models that lead to the 'Holy Trinity', is (or can be) bad for two main reasons: when it makes people view PvE content as predictable and uninteresting because they can't take seriously a big bad dragon who only attacks the heavily-armored tank; and when it leads to pathological results in player gearing and specialization.
These are both inherently somewhat subjective results. Even if one individual dislikes how a game is, other people might not mind. Examples:
1) Does it make a game less fun if a tank is doing literally 1/10 the damage of a typical DPS character?
2) Is a game less fun if healers are so specialized that they can't kill anything; or is it enough to (quoting a post I saw maybe 14 years ago) have spells with sparkles?
The real problem with the 'Holy Trinity' model is how it leads to runaway specialization: when given the option of 'specialize more for one's Holy Trinity role' or 'be a generalist', the optimal option for maximizing group progression is always to increase specialization: for tanks to be more tanky, rather than balancing tankiness and damage; for DPS to do more damage; for healers to heal better.
World of Warcraft, for example, only fixed this problem by basically removing the ability for characters to specialize with their gear. (At least this was the state several expansions ago; I honestly don't even know if gear specialization has returned to WoW.) That is, they stopped allowing gear to have the damage mitigation stats that would be favored by tanks, and gear no longer has a stat (+healing) that is only useful to healers.
Anyway, since this is a bump of a 11-year-old thread for a game that was never released, I won't go into detail of the necessary characteristics of a threat model that prevents 'more specialization' from always being optimal. (Taking 'advanced AI' as just a way of determining how NPCs act, which is it, unless you use the modern definition of 'AI' as 'something which its developers don't understand but somehow leads to good results'.)
Comments
It should scale in challenge by geography and lvl.
For example have in any themepark a easy area on the beaten path for questing and story, but one pff tge beaten path its all group content.
Similarily with ai. Have ai easy around questing areas, but become group content off the beaten path.
I would like to see that, And it feels like its a natural way to create a world where the deeper in a forest the bigger the creatures are.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Except all 3 of those things have been said almost verbatim and continually eluded to in a number of ways, like I explained below.
Thanks for playing.
Yeah? I've been watching this thread for a couple of weeks now and I haven't seen it...many, many stupid posts? Yes. But not those three points. Care to point out who and where someone alluded to them?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
He said even MIT couldn't do it!
After playing Rome 2 Total War, my expectations of this game is even less than before when it comes to the AI. That game had so much PR hype, and what they delivered was possibly the dumbest AI imaginable.
SOE's salespitch about an AI so advanced it negates the need for a Trinity is hogwash imho, for many reasons listed in this thread already.
The words "Advance" and "improvement" are VERY subjective and I read and see SOE just twisting words to build hype for EQN. The more the say the more I am convinced they don't know what they are doing anymore. They don't even sound like they play MMOs now.
After some of the comments made by SOE in live events lately it is my honest and humble opinion that most of the Staff of SOE aren't really MMO fans or Devs at all.... not sure what genre they hail from but it's not MMOs. Browser games perhaps? Console Gaming? These are great genres in their own right, but this isn't about those genres... SOE is referring to EQN as a MMO so it had better BE a MMO.
One thing I see in all this PR stuff for certain is THIS: SOE does not want MMO Players buying and playing EQN. They want everyone else to buy and play. That's an increase in potential Players of 1,000 times over at least. They just want... need... MMO Players to hype EQN and then buy it, but after that I think SOE would rather us just leave.
I see a disappointment for many of us ahead... a train wreck again... I do see many people liking EQN, but they aren't MMO Players.... and frankly the only group of Players I care about IS MMO Players. If that's wrong than paint me with an orange X, I don't care.
Every product from SOE I now see as a complete wash out for MMO Players, because I don't see SOE committed to MMO Gaming anymore. I think it's just a matter of time before the new Staff of SOE changes it's existing MMO products into something that not MMOs. Slowly of course... one patch at a time. SOE Staff will call it "Advancements" and "Improvements"... I call it ... well I can't say that here.
that part actually sounds awesome. I wish they would add AI like that.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
haha yeah this sounds fkn awesome!
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Does he have to ask your permission to write about his doubts? I too think that most of this super AI talk is pure BS. I can create the best MMO on paper but that doesn't mean that I can make it.
Your posts are getting removed? Lucky you! Whenever I'm posting here while letting myself to be a little bit emotional, to show a little bit of my inner self, to not evaluate every word as if I were walking on very precious and fragile eggshells, I'm getting outright banned.
Name one SOE developed game where developers actually made you think they could come up with AI that could do this..
I'm playing one of their developed games right now (Planetside 2), and these boy wonders can't even fix stuff before it went live that was reported on their test server... This is just one of 100's of bugs they launch on us each patch...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvCAl8pupm8
But I'm suppose to believe that some more SOE hired Developers can bring us something as complex as advanced AI?...
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
your looking at it the wrong way. before they would of done it themselves and failed miserably.
now they've brought in a hired gun to do it for them. Same with storybricks and the voxels.
ill give them a better chance this time.
This is Storybricks first rodeo. If you're expecting them to be any more competent than SOE, or to be able to smoothly integrate their AI with EQN right off the bat... well.. then I've got an NGE to sell you for cheap!
Just by way of comparison and because it is somewhat timely, the Devs for Rome 2: total War also said the same things about their new AI, that it would be "revolutionary" and they spent a ton of cash making it smarter... blah blah blah. But no.
The AI ended up being the worst F'n thing about that game and was far, far worse than the AI in the previous series title. And after the devs were bragging about it and using it as a selling point.
Sound familiar?
Edit: Go see the Angry Joe review of Rome 2 if you want to see the horror and get a laugh.
AI is a tricky thing. To go up to a Boss mob with the same group and do the exact same thing to it 10x and for it to either learn or change it's tactics against you to improve it's performance? Not bloody likely and such would be required for adaptive AI to be real.
In chess the AI is just a barrage of mathematical possibilities fed into moves that the AI makes against the likely moves it knows are coming based upon the present layout of the board. To burn that into a learning code against players who could be closer, staggered, further, all tanks, all healers, all wizzies, all DPS, a combo of classes, rooted, snared, nuked, lots of ranged, lots of melee, dotted, slowed, a combo of these, the amount of necessary code it would take to make such a thing adaptive to the sheer number of possibilities comes down to eventual predictability. Meaning it's tactics will become known and then it's going to be downed. It might have scripted behavior for certain group makeups but that script won't be truly adaptive. It will have a hierarchy of rules to follow in a simulated AI format. These rules will become repetitive over time and thus learned by those who have experienced it.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
There is SO much variety that can be created in terms of combat-encounter design if you start with the most basic "trinity" tank/heal/dps norms.
Having "roles" and set expectations for what the AI allows NPCs/MOBs to do creates a system that players can learn.
This is good, it helps players develop skills and get better at playing the game.
Theory of fun stuff - if the puzzle is always changing and you can never learn it - you become frustrated and quit.
There has to be things you figure out and can master that don't change. Hurdles to conquer, targets to hit - it's the basis of progression.
What it also allows you to do as a developer is create variations and/or exceptions to the "rules" of your basic AI reactions in order to create new and interesting mechanics for encounters.
It also is a framework of knowledge and past experience you can call on when facing a new situation - you have expectations for what the NPC/MOB is going to do - and can react to it and the variances from your expectations accordingly.
It has been and is still something no one has done or is doing better than Blizzard.
It also allows you to use gear, numbers, to gate content and guide progression - which is and has been a staple of RPG gameplay for decades and many, many of us don't want to see that change. Becoming more powerful and conquering increasingly difficult challenges - the basic computer language interpretation of the "heroes journey" story telling tool - is so fundamentally ingrained in us, it's no wonder devs who try and remove or limit progression end up alienating a large chunk of potential players.
I dont understand since apprantly you dont play eve and dont know much about it, why do you insist to bring it up as a instance?
The pve content are almost all about solo farming, and ship roles are for pvp. Funny thing is even human oppenents are not "smart enough to make trinity obsolete" if the roles are well desinged, so yes, the sentense is an outright PR lie. Actually alot of games have trinity in pvp aspect, global agenda, warhammer. If the trinity is obsolete in one game, it doesnt mean the AI is too smart, it means the class designs are bad.
If you feel a lot of games have the trinity in PVP then it's a safe bet you're thinking what the dev means is Defense, Offense, Support (or whatever three words you want to use) when in all actuality, they are referring to the tank/taunt stupidity.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre