Join the Ashes of Creation MMORPG
(Register or log in to remove advertisements - why ads?)

The (Un)holy Trinity


Started by Deveron
Post #1275
Member

232
Faction & Race:
Daggerfall Covenant
Imperial
We know we will see classes in TESO, but will we see the holy trinity of tank, healer and dps as well? And if so, would this be a good or a bad thing?

And, wether there is a trinity or not, don't we all play just one role anyways? The role of the mass murdering sociopath, who believes in getting stronger with every single kill.

But how do we distinguish us from each other without (superficial) dedicated roles? And why do we limit ourselves to do so in combat only? Because there's no difference in classes outside of combat? But if there was, would roles matter that much in combat then anymore?

Question upon questions, do we know an answer? Let's try...


The Ghost of TESOF
Like Reply
Post #1277
Member

47
Faction & Race:
Daggerfall Covenant (Redguard)
Lol I'm scared of how this thread is going to turn out. The best source of information we have thus far in regards to the Holy Trinity and its influence is the Game Informer exclusive first look at ESO: http://www.evilsourcegaming.com/screensh...ine-scans/

Apologies if scans are not allowed.

Game Informer explains ZOS's approach to the Holy Trinity as a "moderate break."

ZOS doesn't want the inherent limitations and dependency of the holy trinity, but healing and tanking are still definitely a big part of ESO. This is of course Game Informer's interpretation from their own experience with the game.
This post was last modified: September 11th 2012 03:43 PM by Redguard King
Like Reply
Post #1278
Banned

867
Faction & Race:
Ebonheart Pact (Argonian)

I think ive made my point clear already.
Like Reply
Post #1280
Member

232
Faction & Race:
Daggerfall Covenant
Imperial
A moderate break doesn't really mean it's gone.

The way I think they do it, is that anyone can just use skills to tank, to heal or to dps, but has to concentrate on the role. And that it will be distincitive enough depending on which class does it and, most importantly, it is still needed. If there's no need for it and you could just dps through all of the content, you can save the time coding those tanking and healing abilities.

The presence of tanking and healing pretty much tells that the trinity is still there. It just moved from a particular class to a skill set that anyone can pick up (or automatically picks up). So anyone could fill that role anytime.

A problem I see with GW2 is it's way of getting away from the trinity and I fear it could happen to TESO as well. The combat system might be as in-depth as it possibly could get, but if you don't have to look deeper to succeed, you have no need for this in-depth system in the first place and it remains shallow. Even if you could do alot more with it. But why should you?

In GW2 it's the PvP that has the potential to get players using the underlying system fully to their advantage, but it needs tweaking so it is really worth the effort and probably will only be viable in the eSports arena, for all other aspects it just ain't worth it. Yes, it's a pvp centric game, but the PvE could have been better designed to actually prepare people for PvP. TESO has this noble goal, but we'll have to wait and see if they succeed.

So having content that forces groups to use tactics and dedicate players to certain tasks is a good thing to make people look deeper and use the combat system to it's full potential. In combat, dedicated roles will facilitate this. But I like the fact (or what I believe to be fact, given from what I've read) that any class could fill any role.

A thief could pester a opponent, distract him and dodge the attacks and thus be tanking. And since he knows his ways with poisons he can heal, because, you know, the dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy. The mage, who can cast magical barriers would be a formidable tank as well. But this, of course, needs to have the trinity in place for combat encounters.

If you do away with the trinity, and I think that's a good approach to combat as well, you'd have to do away with healing and tanking abilities in combat. To make this engaging and tactical you'd need to have a few things in place, however. Collision detection and encumbrance from armor and gear, for instance. You'd only want to wear that full plate, if your defending a position you must hold. So just chosing your gear, will define the role you can play on the battle field.

If all move and fight at the same speed and can just run through others and you cannot use your surroundings nor the disadvantages your enemies might suffer from their equipment or the terrain they are traveling through, you'd need abilities (CC, Taunts, Buffs, Debuffs) to artificially create this. Ultimately, this leads to dedicated tanks or CCers simulating such situations. Otherwise it would be boring, wouldn't it? But if all of this was in place and you could use surroundings, terrain and equipment to your advantage, there'd be no need for the abilities nor the dedicated classes, nor the trinity.

TESO claims to aim for real time action combat, but still has tanking and healing. So it's safe to assume they are taking a hybrid approach and I really wonder how that possibly plays out. I know, I can enjoy both systems, if done right. I'm not entirely sure about how much sense a hybrid makes, however.

Personally, I'd prefer a totally strategic and oldschool roundbased combat, where I could manipulate my surroundings (cut down trees, break through walls, set things on fire, levitate/throw objects, etc) and one fight would take minutes and not just seconds. No more need for kill ten rats with such a system. And no need for the trinity either, as positioning and the use of one's surroundings would be key.
This post was last modified: September 11th 2012 05:04 PM by Deveron


The Ghost of TESOF
Like Reply
Post #1282
Member

47
Faction & Race:
Daggerfall Covenant (Redguard)
(September 11th 2012 04:59 PM)Deveron Wrote:  A moderate break doesn't really mean it's gone.

The way I think they do it, is that anyone can just use skills to tank, to heal or to dps, but has to concentrate on the role. And that it will be distincitive enough depending on which class does it and, most importantly, it is still needed. If there's no need for it and you could just dps through all of the content, you can save the time coding those tanking and healing abilities.

The presence of tanking and healing pretty much tells that the trinity is still there. It just moved from a particular class to a skill set that anyone can pick up (or automatically picks up). So anyone could fill that role anytime.

A problem I see with GW2 is it's way of getting away from the trinity and I fear it could happen to TESO as well. The combat system might be as in-depth as it possibly could get, but if you don't have to look deeper to succeed, you have no need for this in-depth system in the first place and it remains shallow. Even if you could do alot more with it. But why should you?

In GW2 it's the PvP that has the potential to get players using the underlying system fully to their advantage, but it needs tweaking so it is really worth the effort and probably will only be viable in the eSports arena, for all other aspects it just ain't worth it. Yes, it's a pvp centric game, but the PvE could have been better designed to actually prepare people for PvP. TESO has this noble goal, but we'll have to wait and see if they succeed.

So having content that forces groups to use tactics and dedicate players to certain tasks is a good thing to make people look deeper and use the combat system to it's full potential. In combat, dedicated roles will facilitate this. But I like the fact (or what I believe to be fact, given from what I've read) that any class could fill any role.

A thief could pester a opponent, distract him and dodge the attacks and thus be tanking. And since he knows his ways with poisons he can heal, because, you know, the dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy. The mage, who can cast magical barriers would be a formidable tank as well. But this, of course, needs to have the trinity in place for combat encounters.

If you do away with the trinity, and I think that's a good approach to combat as well, you'd have to do away with healing and tanking abilities in combat. To make this engaging and tactical you'd need to have a few things in place, however. Collision detection and encumbrance from armor and gear, for instance. You'd only want to wear that full plate, if your defending a position you must hold. So just chosing your gear, will define the role you can play on the battle field.

If all move and fight at the same speed and can just run through others and you cannot use your surroundings nor the disadvantages your enemies might suffer from their equipment or the terrain they are traveling through, you'd need abilities (CC, Taunts, Buffs, Debuffs) to artificially create this. Ultimately, this leads to dedicated tanks or CCers simulating such situations. Otherwise it would be boring, wouldn't it? But if all of this was in place and you could use surroundings, terrain and equipment to your advantage, there'd be no need for the abilities nor the dedicated classes, nor the trinity.

TESO claims to aim for real time action combat, but still has tanking and healing. So it's safe to assume they are taking a hybrid approach and I really wonder how that possibly plays out. I know, I can enjoy both systems, if done right. I'm not entirely sure about how much sense a hybrid makes, however.

Personally, I'd prefer a totally strategic and oldschool roundbased combat, where I could manipulate my surroundings (cut down trees, break through walls, set things on fire, levitate/throw objects, etc) and one fight would take minutes and not just seconds. No more need for kill ten rats with such a system. And no need for the trinity either, as positioning and the use of one's surroundings would be key.
All a moderate break means is they have loosened the restrictions of the Holy Trinity, which I fully support.

As long as tanking and healing are still viable roles, unlike in GW2, that's all I'm personally asking for. The player should be able to choose if they want to be a tank or something else. They shouldn't be forced into a particular role by the game itself.

It certainly still is present as ZOS understands that the Holy Trinity is familiar to MMORPG fans, yet their tweaks and refining of the system are making it much more open and less restrictive, giving players more control over how they play.

This is exactly how I feel about GW2. In an attempt to rid itself of the holy trinity to add more depth to classes, the redundant and straightforward combat leaves the game shallow and unengaging for myself personally. The major difference between GW2 and ESO though is the fact that ESO's AI system is much more dynamic and they work as a group to defeat the player. GW2 has the standard MMORPG approach to AI, which I believe is part of the problem.

GW2 essentially is just a casual PvP MMORPG. Their approach as you said works somewhat better in the WvW (if you can actually get into it), but really doesn't work at all in the PvE content. The heroic dungeons themselves are nothing more than target and click scenarios that require no tactics. At least in holy trinity there would be mechanics built into fights using the different roles, but GW2 doesn't even offer that much with its approach.

Certainly I do believe ZOS has a better understanding and overall approach to refining the Holy Trinity. The fact that they are attempting to make the PvE and PvP experience seamless is a huge step for MMORPGs and is going to be impressive if they can pull it off.

Hopefully with the way the AI will react in ESO it will guide players towards that mentality of group-oriented tactics with players using different roles to create a more efficient fighting force.

If ESO was taking a much more sandbox approach then definitely features such as collision detection, encumbrance, twitch-based combat, etc. (which were in Darkfall) would make more sense and would need less reliance on a Holy Trinity. For a game that is clearly heavily defined as a themepark though, some form of holy trinity is necessary to keep the combat engaging and dynamic.

Due to just demands from MMORPG players wanting their games more action-oriented, less turn-based and the fact that TES has always been a real-time combat game, I believe ESO wants to retain as much of that feeling as they possibly can. I agree with you in being skeptical with a real time system as Star Wars Galaxies largely attempted to do this with the NGE and ultimately destroyed the entire combat system.

The main difference between ESO and SWG though is the fact that this combat system is being implemented right from the start, so it could work. I think a lot of this will depend on how well ZOS' unique stamina system has an impact on the experience.

I definitely would love to see a successful combat simulator MMORPG come to the stage at some point. But that kind of game just has not shown to be able to appeal to a large audience. Darkfall Online and Mortal Online are really the closest things on the market to emulating that type of experience and they are far from perfect.
This post was last modified: September 11th 2012 05:41 PM by Redguard King
Like Reply
Post #1289
Member
Default Avatar
25
Faction & Race:
Daggerfall Covenant (Breton)
(September 11th 2012 04:59 PM)Deveron Wrote:  If you do away with the trinity, and I think that's a good approach to combat as well, you'd have to do away with healing and tanking abilities in combat.

Eve has both healing and tanking abilities, but no real holy-trinity. Of course, it's an entirely different game setup.

(September 11th 2012 05:30 PM)Redguard King Wrote:  GW2 essentially is just a casual PvP MMORPG. Their approach as you said works somewhat better in the WvW (if you can actually get into it),

He claimed it works better in the eSports arena - which I believe was referring to the sPvP, not the WvW.

Not going to touch the rest of your claims, because I don't want to get into a conversation with you again. But I know you'll respond anyway, so have fun with the last word.
This post was last modified: September 11th 2012 11:03 PM by Venitas the Heretic
Like Reply
Post #1292
Banned

867
Faction & Race:
Ebonheart Pact (Argonian)

I will not explain it again.

Ill just leave this here: if you think the trinity is anything but cancer in the MMO scene youre a retard.
Like Reply
Post #1300
Member

47
Faction & Race:
Daggerfall Covenant (Redguard)
(September 12th 2012 12:09 AM)Sordak Wrote:  I will not explain it again.

Ill just leave this here: if you think the trinity is anything but cancer in the MMO scene youre a retard.

Heh you always have some of the most constructive posts I see. Regardless of what you and I think, the GI article says it all about ESO's approach to the Holy Trinity. Take it as you will as the system in place will not change.

(September 11th 2012 10:47 PM)Venitas the Heretic Wrote:  
(September 11th 2012 04:59 PM)Deveron Wrote:  If you do away with the trinity, and I think that's a good approach to combat as well, you'd have to do away with healing and tanking abilities in combat.

Eve has both healing and tanking abilities, but no real holy-trinity. Of course, it's an entirely different game setup.

(September 11th 2012 05:30 PM)Redguard King Wrote:  GW2 essentially is just a casual PvP MMORPG. Their approach as you said works somewhat better in the WvW (if you can actually get into it),

He claimed it works better in the eSports arena - which I believe was referring to the sPvP, not the WvW.

Not going to touch the rest of your claims, because I don't want to get into a conversation with you again. But I know you'll respond anyway, so have fun with the last word.

PvP is PvP. The point is GW2's system works better when going against other players.

Just read my original post and look at the GI article, if you haven't already.
This post was last modified: September 12th 2012 06:28 AM by Redguard King
Like Reply
The following 1 user likes Redguard King's post:
Sedrethi
Post #1303
Banned

867
Faction & Race:
Ebonheart Pact (Argonian)

and thats what its supposed to be like. PvE will always be less engaging than PvP.
So you should make PvE like PvP (like TESO is trying) and not the other way around, what WoW has been doing for the longest time.

Let the trinity die!

Thank you very much.
This post was last modified: September 12th 2012 08:52 AM by Deveron
Like Reply
Post #1308
Member

47
Faction & Race:
Daggerfall Covenant (Redguard)
(September 12th 2012 07:59 AM)Sordak Wrote:  and thats what its supposed to be like. PvE will always be less engaging than PvP.
So you should make PvE like PvP (like TESO is trying) and not the other way around, what WoW has been doing for the longest time.

Let the trinity die!

Thank you very much.

Do you realize that GW2 is just like WoW in regards to the fact that PvP and PvE have nothing in common? That is part of my issue with the game because the combat system doesn't work in both aspects. It's sloppy and clearly most of the effort went towards the PvP.

SWTOR was the complete opposite as the PvE was great in terms of class balance but PvP was atrocious. It's about time someone (ZOS) has enough sense to just combine the disciplines and only have to deal with balancing classes in one manner rather than two separate ones.

You still don't seem to recognize that the Holy Trinity still plays a part in ESO. "A moderate break from the Holy Trinity" as GI put it. I truly hope you do not end up making ESO into something that it is not. It's never fun to be disappointed with MMORPGs.
This post was last modified: September 12th 2012 10:56 AM by Redguard King
Like Reply
Post #1312
Banned

867
Faction & Race:
Ebonheart Pact (Argonian)

i do realize it. I just dont want it. And if the dungeon raids are static due to there beeing a trinity i wont play the game. Because thats boring.
I dont care if you like it. I dont get why you could like it but hey im not here to judge. Actually i am, and i condem you for it.

Generaly a game should always be structured about PvP. that way you get a fairer and more varied expirience. SWTOR just proved how bad static PvE is. Skyrim actually is a game that, dispite beeing single player, follows my principle quite niceley with throwing in a bunch of enemies with simmilar abilities to the player.
Of course i love fighting big monsters too. But im just saying a combat is always most engaging when youre fighting someone with the same capeabilities as you do.

So where does this fit into the trinity discussion. Well the trinity, beeing shit and made by and for knuckleheads, ruins every possible PvP expirience. Dispite what your little goon on the official Forums said, healers are actually not a smart Idea in PvP if they work like healers do in PvE. Why? Because they can spam heals. Thats bad in PvP, it is frustrating and takes away a huge skill factor.
The problem here is that, a trinity. Always bases around a PvE system that is NOT based on PvP combat, and therfore, it is impossible to have a proper PvP in a game like that, that is not extremeley broken.

Saying PvE and PvP have nothing in common in GW2 is laughable. I agree that its not as much as it should be, but GW2 is one of the first games where NPCs have a larger variety of skills. Trashmobs ususally have around 2-3 (0 in regular MMOs) stronger around 4 (1-2 in regular MMOs) and Bosses can have even more. Making it more important to actually dodge enemies attacks. Something that you cant do at all in a regular MMO.

The trinity plays an important factor here. The tank is not supposed to get out of the way. Thats why the tank is obviously not a realy well thought concept. It makes sense in a game that is limited by technology. In wich things like dodging and timed blocking does in fact not work due to netcode issues.
We dont live in 2006 anymore tho. Its been proven by quite a few games now that we can do that. Why arent they?

Because just like you, they are cowards.

They fear that the popularity drops if they dont include tried and true formulas. Just like you have pointed out in the previous thread. A rediculous and baseless claim considering so far, if you compare traditional MMOs and general RPGs to those that stray from the form, the ones that actually got the BALLS to invent something of their own are liked, while the other ones are crushed to a pulp.

Want a little comparison? What MMOs went well this year. SWTOR? nah. GW2 Yess! What RPGs went well in the last years Dragon Age2 ? no. The Witcher 2? Yess! What overall Games have flourished? MMOs? Cover based shooters? COD clones? No! What flourished were AoS games like DotA 2 and (even if its terrible) LoL and of course creative Sandbox Games like Minecraft and Terraria.

People want innovation. And those that are too afraid, not man enaugh or otherwiseley too incompetent to embrace it, are crushed to a pulp. And so was every last of those that made the same point you make.
Like Reply
Post #1316
Contributor

252
Faction & Race:
Aldmeri Dominion (Khajiit)
Here we go...Redguard King?


The Elsweyr Confederacy

My motto: "Don't look for the next opportunity. The one you have in hand, is the opportunity."
Like Reply
Post #1329
Member

47
Faction & Race:
Daggerfall Covenant (Redguard)
(September 12th 2012 12:49 PM)Sordak Wrote:  i do realize it. I just dont want it. And if the dungeon raids are static due to there beeing a trinity i wont play the game. Because thats boring.
I dont care if you like it. I dont get why you could like it but hey im not here to judge. Actually i am, and i condem you for it.

Generaly a game should always be structured about PvP. that way you get a fairer and more varied expirience. SWTOR just proved how bad static PvE is. Skyrim actually is a game that, dispite beeing single player, follows my principle quite niceley with throwing in a bunch of enemies with simmilar abilities to the player.
Of course i love fighting big monsters too. But im just saying a combat is always most engaging when youre fighting someone with the same capeabilities as you do.

So where does this fit into the trinity discussion. Well the trinity, beeing shit and made by and for knuckleheads, ruins every possible PvP expirience. Dispite what your little goon on the official Forums said, healers are actually not a smart Idea in PvP if they work like healers do in PvE. Why? Because they can spam heals. Thats bad in PvP, it is frustrating and takes away a huge skill factor.
The problem here is that, a trinity. Always bases around a PvE system that is NOT based on PvP combat, and therfore, it is impossible to have a proper PvP in a game like that, that is not extremeley broken.

Saying PvE and PvP have nothing in common in GW2 is laughable. I agree that its not as much as it should be, but GW2 is one of the first games where NPCs have a larger variety of skills. Trashmobs ususally have around 2-3 (0 in regular MMOs) stronger around 4 (1-2 in regular MMOs) and Bosses can have even more. Making it more important to actually dodge enemies attacks. Something that you cant do at all in a regular MMO.

The trinity plays an important factor here. The tank is not supposed to get out of the way. Thats why the tank is obviously not a realy well thought concept. It makes sense in a game that is limited by technology. In wich things like dodging and timed blocking does in fact not work due to netcode issues.
We dont live in 2006 anymore tho. Its been proven by quite a few games now that we can do that. Why arent they?

Because just like you, they are cowards.

They fear that the popularity drops if they dont include tried and true formulas. Just like you have pointed out in the previous thread. A rediculous and baseless claim considering so far, if you compare traditional MMOs and general RPGs to those that stray from the form, the ones that actually got the BALLS to invent something of their own are liked, while the other ones are crushed to a pulp.

Want a little comparison? What MMOs went well this year. SWTOR? nah. GW2 Yess! What RPGs went well in the last years Dragon Age2 ? no. The Witcher 2? Yess! What overall Games have flourished? MMOs? Cover based shooters? COD clones? No! What flourished were AoS games like DotA 2 and (even if its terrible) LoL and of course creative Sandbox Games like Minecraft and Terraria.

People want innovation. And those that are too afraid, not man enaugh or otherwiseley too incompetent to embrace it, are crushed to a pulp. And so was every last of those that made the same point you make.

*Samuel L Jackson impersonation* "Oh, well you were finished? Oh, well allow me to retort."

You can condemn me all you want but that will not change the fact that ESO will have the Holy Trinity in place. It is a system that most MMO players are familiar and comfortable with and have come to accept as one of the basic building blocks to creating an MMORPG. ZOS could care less about you as an individual. To them, you are merely one potential customer in a sea of potential options. They are going to reel in as many people as they can with the systems that will produce the best results. Unfortunately for you, that is the Holy Trinity.

Whether that is true or not, most players (believe it or not) actually prefer PvE over PvP. This has always been the case and why DAoC eventually succumbed to trying to add in a viable PvE option. Now I personally love PvP and I love the fact that ZOS is trying to make the two experiences seamless. This MMORPG has the best possibility of actually providing a quality PvP experience in an MMORPG (not instanced and divided like GW2), which doesn't happen often. Don't think for one second though that they will sacrifice the PvE. The Elder Scrolls franchise has been built off of player vs environment and while RvR will be important for endgame, it will be the player vs environment most will look towards to decide whether they stick around or not.

Skyrim is great for a single player experience, but it would be terrible as an MMORPG. No one in the past decade to the present has proven that a system like Skyrim is viable and could work in a beneficial way. These games typically are overtly-punishing, buggy, unbalanced, and impractical for growing a healthy community. They are a niche at best, and that is not the kind of audience ZeniMax will be limiting The Elder Scrolls franchise to. You can play Mortal Online, Darkfall, or the in-development Embers of Caerus for that experience. It won't be happening in the mainstream market anytime soon.

Well you figured one thing out. The Holy Trinity wasn't built for the purpose of PvP. It was built for PvE and that is what it has always been intended for. This is why many MMORPGs recently have been trying to change the mechanics of how different classes work in PvE and PvP. With some success, the result has really been more problems than solutions. GW2 tried to remove healing and tanking as an option and ended up with a experience that is diluted and one-dimensional. ESO will be trying to retain the roles, but building them around group-oriented tactics that in theory will be seamless in PvE and PvP. Obviously NPCs can never replace players, but this is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. If they come anywhere close to achieving what they want, this could potentially fix many of the problems players like yourself have with the Holy Trinity.

PvE and PvP have nothing in common in GW2. You are fooling yourself if you think they do. PvE in GW2 is almost identical to any other MMORPG, besides the fact that there aren't clearly defined roles and there are less mechanics in the boss fights. GW2 essentially degenerated the encounters into spacebar-spamming, "V" pressing, key-smashing events. If that's the sort of engagement you are looking for, then I'm happy that's what you want. For me personally, that is a rather simplistic approach to a combat system that could truly be much more. For a F2P MMO though, ArenaNet did the best they could so I'll cut them some slack. I expect a much more engaging and actually enjoyable experience from ESO. If I want a button masher I'll go load up Dynasty Warriors on my Xbox 360.

A tank as a theory is something that is slow and has a lot of protection, as the word suggests. The idea and concept of the tank are working absolutely as intended. You just don't like the idea behind it and how it works. ESO will have real-time combat where active blocking and dodging will be necessary for survival, evolving the role of tanking. Why are you complaining?

Game developers aren't going the route you want because such a game hasn't proven to be popular and reel in a large audience in MMORPGs. Skyrim is a great single player experience as I pointed out before. But it is an absolutely terrible RPG when you actually look at balance, class disparities, as well as many other faults within the game. It's acceptable for a one person experience. It's not acceptable for thousands of players in the same area.

Lets take Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2 as a comparison. DAO was much more in-line with traditional RPGs and is loved by all and critically acclaimed. DA2 tried to go the more "action-oriented" route taking out tactics, degenerating classes and progression, and was ultimately a disappointment and got a thumbs down by most critics. Your theory isn't really coming together well if people really want this "unorthodox" approach.

SWTOR did great when it launched and was well on its way the first couple of months. BioWare didn't keep maintenance of the product up so it dropped. GW2 just launched, sold half as many copies, and hasn't been out long enough to make a judgment. Give it another six months to a year then tell me if GW2 is as great and successful as you claim it to be.

Wrong. People don't want innovation. They want a game they can enjoy and feel they have gotten their money's worth. That is what people want. Innovation is only a positive if it actually enhances the experience, and plenty of developers have tried to innovate and have fallen on their faces. Do I have to bring up TSW again? It's a never-ending cycle that will continue to repeat itself over and over.
This post was last modified: September 12th 2012 08:11 PM by Redguard King
Like Reply
Post #1331
Member
Default Avatar
25
Faction & Race:
Daggerfall Covenant (Breton)
(September 12th 2012 02:13 PM)Xoo Wrote:  Here we go...Redguard King?

He doesn't need baiting. As long as his name isn't last on the list of responses, he'll come up with something to say.

Even if it has nothing to do with what anyone else said. He'll just pretend it did, somehow.
Like Reply
Post #1351
Banned

867
Faction & Race:
Ebonheart Pact (Argonian)

You are even more stubborn than fhynrood.

"Most MMO players" are we generalizing again? At least this time you dont call out ME on something YOU did.

Calling GW2 a one dimensional expirience proves nothin besides that you suck at it.

What you said about PvE is once again wrong, not that id expect anything better from you by now. It is indeed not exactly like other MMOs. And yess there are roles, just not the one you are used to. You can cry all day about there beeing no defenitive tank in the internet nobody sees your tears.
You have to split up the damage between the players, switching positions and roles on the fly. Distracting them (distracting =/= tanking, if you stand still you die, thats your own fault) so downed players can get up.
The controll element is still there, it is just not as static as a classic tank with a taunt mechanic. Of course understanding that requires a bit of critical thinking.

Why am i complaining about a tank. Ok. How about because it is a retardet idea? Saving your Teammates from certain death is good. HOWEVER this is not what a tank is. And if you think thats the case than chances are you also suck at regular MMOs, thats sad but not my problem. The tanks idea is not beeing someone who makes a diving save on a Teammate. Hes someone that draws the Agression of all the enemies on him. That idea is dumb and unrealistic.

It can work in two ways. Either you have a dedicated Skill that does that. In that case the Tank will become 1. way too easy to play (See everquest 2) and 2. useless in PvP because players dont give a fuck.
Or you have it done with Aggro based on damage, wich does nothing but limit the "DD" role, aka the role for people that are too dumb for all the other roles. Wich results in nothing else than a blame fest on who is responsible for the wipe.

So why are both these options terrible? Because 1. none of them works in PvP and 2. because both of them encourage anyone who is not the tank to be utterly careless with their positioning. Why do you think does WoW add these "circles of doom" in every single Dungeon? Because thats the only way they can make these lazy DD vegetables move their sorry ass. Thats not gameplay, thats about as engaging as filling in excel files.
Having intelligent Enemies that target weak spots allows for a whole new way of group interacting. No "Tanking" of them beating on one target. It means that a heavy plate warrior actually has to get out of his way and opelny stop someone. WHILE the weaksauce spellcaster hast o move his fat elven ass out of the way. That is not the same as tanking, if you think so you probably never played a tank. Yess there are spells on tank classes in Everquest that lets you take damage for an ally. but thats hardly engaging.

Yess in this system you watch yourself more. but that does NOT mean you have to watch your teammates less. In fact more so, because you can balance out potential mistakes they make.

If one person screws up in WoW, the raid is wiped. No arguing with that. In GW2 you can actually save someone from his own stupidity. Thats more social if you ask me. And better teamplay.

And you still havent understood it. Aperently you are not only thinking like a cowardly developer, but also like an ignorant Publisher. In other words your Argument incorporates the two worst kinds of people in the industry. Congratulations.
So to my point, or , why you should stop posting in this thread v.1.5: YOU CANNOT HAVE ALOT OF PEOPLE IN AN MMO. Why dont you understand it. Ok lets see. What mmos have been considered a success (that are not WoW) and wich havent. Ok lets start with the failures. WAR, SWTOR, AION, TERA, AoC, EQ2. notice a pattern? All of these, major MMOs had the trinity and a classic quest system, but thats not my point here. The point is that all of these MMOs were fixated on WoW. Fixated on getting ALOT of people to play them. And all of them failed.
Lets look at the ones that actually suceedet (i do count those that succeedet after their launch because they got saved by smart dev thinking): EVE, DDO, LOTRO, GW. Notice a pattern again? All of these games are "Niche" in some way. Some have the trinity, some not. But thers one thing they share. They all appeal to a "niche" market but you know what? All of them got pretty damn big as a result of that.
Another one i can quote, but didnt add here because its not out yet is Planetside 2. Planetside 1 was about as niche as you can get on the MMO space. And now look at the crazy ammount of positive feedback on Planetside 2. All this renders your point moot.

Once again as i must add.
Like Reply




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
(Register or log in to remove advertisements - why ads?)


This fan site is not affiliated with ZeniMax Media Inc. or any of its subsidiaries. Including, but not limited to, Bethesda Game Studios and ZeniMax Online Studios.
The Elder Scrolls® images © ZeniMax Media Inc. / Forum content © TESOF.com