Pan'Theon: Rise' of th'e Fal'Len - #1 Thread in MMO

Merlin_sl said:

And we go full circle back to my original statement. The "holy trinity" is still, to this day, the best option we have. The alternative is, GW2. Which would you prefer?

Click to expand...

Orthe alternative is a system where positioning matters and tanks still exist even though they don't get a button to just draw every creature in the surrounding area to them. It's possible to get rid of the holy trinity without turning it into GW2. Quit thinking in black and white.

Edit: To clarify, that means tanks stand in front and block shit, DPS does its shit while trying to keep alive, and healers stand in the back trying not to look like a piece of tasty meat. Fill in other kinds of roles as you please(CC, etc.).

Merlin_sl said:

And we go full circle back to my original statement. The "holy trinity" is still, to this day, the best option we have. The alternative is, GW2. Which would you prefer?

Click to expand...

Those are not the only two options out there.

Merlin_sl said:

And we go full circle back to my original statement. The "holy trinity" is still, to this day, the best option we have. The alternative is, GW2. Which would you prefer?

Click to expand...

i agree. there is nothing wrong with the trinity. now, i also have no problem with people finding ways to circumvent the holy trinity by coming up with ingenious ideas on their own (hello, AOE groups anyone?) the point is, the holy trinity existed in EQ, but a group of really talented players could easily get around this "requirement" with their ingenuity and skills. this is what made EQ great: (and the fact that no one since EQ can duplicate what they did almost 15 years ago still befuddles me) the players found ways to beat the system, and for the most part, the devs working on EQ just went along with it. nowadays, if there is one fucking thing that players discover they can do that isn't as intended, it's nerfed within a week. just because the trinity could still be the BEST way to group, doesn't mean it has to be the ONLY way (a little bit of ingenuity goes a long way).

Merlin_sl said:

The problem with this statement is, and thinking of devs in general is, requiring "x" will make poor johnny actually send a tell to group, and we can't have that! Why is communicating with other members of the MMO community considered a "burden on the player" now?
To be fair, I'm drinking but its thinking like this that annoys me to death. Is it really that tough to ask around for help in an MMO? We actually have a dev telling us that if a player is required to group up with certain race/class combinations, itdecreases the enjoyment of the game. Seriously?

Click to expand...

Other people answered this effectively, but I'll pile on because you guys chat quite a lot while I am asleep.

I think MMORPGs have 2 major strengths; their ability to create worlds, and their social interdependence.

Limiting social interdependence to a holy trinity, or any hard class requirements, is the extremely lazy solution. Like many lazy solutions it is also terrible and misses out on a world of possibilities. SWG had massive social interdependence, and most of that wascompletely outside of combat. Eve (I think) does something very similar, there are people that never see a lick of combat yet they are highly dependent on others and others dependent on them.

The point is that you don't have to think so narrowly about it, and you can achieve similar effects with better mechanics.

It can also be done in combat, anyone who has ever played Global Agenda can tell you that the PvE was wide open for classes and you could run a dungeon equally well with a mixed group as you could with 4 of the same class provided they had complementing loadouts.

Mellent_sl said:

Orthe alternative is a system where positioning matters and tanks still exist even though they don't get a button to just draw every creature in the surrounding area to them. It's possible to get rid of the holy trinity without turning it into GW2. Quit thinking in black and white.

Edit: To clarify, that means tanks stand in front and block shit, DPS does its shit while trying to keep alive, and healers stand in the back trying not to look like a piece of tasty meat. Fill in other kinds of roles as you please(CC, etc.).

Click to expand...

Try Global Agenda, that game is amazing and in my opinion one of the most underrated games out there. I've never had more fun "tanking" in a game.

Merlin_sl said:

And we go full circle back to my original statement. The "holy trinity" is still, to this day, the best option we have. The alternative is, GW2. Which would you prefer?

Click to expand...

I'm like the third post on this but to how do you get from trinity to GW2 without any steps in between?

Anyway, trinity means different things to different people at this point, too. To clarify we are talking about Tank/Heal/CC right? because for the WoW generation it's more like Tank/Heal/DPS.

Some good reply's here however I have to point out, if there is a better option, a better way, why haven't we seen it yet? How many MMO's have been released since EQ's heyday. Got to be around a dozen(I'm referring to AAA titles, not the hundreds of smaller games no one has heard of) and aside from WOW, all have flopped. I haven't seen a consensus or even a statistical edge when we talk about a viable alternative to the "holy trinity". So while you can argue that the "holy trinity" can be replaced with a better solution that would be accepted by gamers, I haven't seen it done yet. So its totally speculative. I know 1. the "holy trinity" works, and 2. No one, not ONE company has found a better alternative.

You're surprised that big companies all just copy/paste the same thing for the most part? That's your evidence that it's all that "works"? Honestly, horrible things like only counting AAA titles is hardly fair for a discussion talking about possible ways to fix a solution. As is assuming that all smaller titles "flopped" - the measure for success is different for every game. SWTOR, LOTRO, GW2, FFXIV - all those games are huge successes, or they wouldn't still be online. Even 'smaller' titles like Darkfall and Mortal Online are successful in their realm.

What's your definition of "better"? At least we're seeing, even from the big AAA studios, some attempts to work either around or with the trinity - GW2 with "no trinity" although it had other issues, EQN is supposedly doing something different although they haven't said what yet, and FFXIV's approach is "well you can do everything and switch jobs".

We haven't seen it in a AAA title yet, just because, well, shit's hard to design. I still really like how EQ did it, as even though it's though of as the "founder" of the real trinity (heal / tank / cc), you could have very fun successful groups with a mishmash of characters. Future games have just diluted it to what was most "optimal" in EQ (and what you needed for raids), and unfortunately "threw the baby out with the bathwater". But I still find EQ pretty successful in requiring it for tough fights, but being able to experience the vast majority of the game with whatever, just at lesser efficiency. It's why EQ is sometimes considered more on the sandbox side of the spectrum, because for most of the content, you did *not* have to follow that strict role placement to still be pretty efficient (for leveling and exploring, and questing - back when quests were actual quests).

Fuck it, I'm gonna play Vanguard yet again, and get pissed off at all the lags, bugs, and crashing anyways, but it follows a lot of those rules. I'm "done" with FFXIV I guess, but it'll have to be after I'm done with Skyward Sword which I finally got around to .

Also "quotes".

Utnayan_sl said:

What exactly did he say that was so wrong?

Click to expand...

i was referring to his (or her) disdain for the trinity...or more generally the preference for games where either: one player can play any role at a given time (which is what i believe he is getting at) or a game that either doesn't have specific roles, or does but specific roles are not needed to consume content.

I've played games that required the trinity and games that have not and w/out fail the games that have required the trinity have been much more enjoyable. The games that have not have almost universally bombed (both with me and in general), even though in theory you would think they would be more fun. That's part of the problem imo...too much of game design now revolves around game theory and accessibility and "fun all the time with no hurt feelings"...vs just plain making a game that draws you into it's world. That to me more than anything else is what is causing the overwhelming glut of crap we have seen over the last 5-10 years.

Why is the trinity more fun to me? Hard to put easy/specific reasons down but i think it comes down a combination of the following:

1) PCs having defined roles makes for a more interesting world. W/out defined roles, everyone ends up virtually the same and the only thing that differentiates you is skill level. That makes for a really boring game world for me (realize a lot of this is personal pref). EQ was a wonderful "world" in large part to me because you had many different classes and so many people became identifiable in part because of the class they chose. You had great tanks and great clerics and great rogues and great monks and great rangers etc. etc., but you didn't have any single person that was a great tank/cleric/rogue/monk/ranger...because if you had that then eventually everyone would be a great tank/cleric/rogue/monk/ranger at which point everybody would be the same.

Or to summarize: W/out defined roles everyone basically end up the same. And everyone being the same = bad, bland, boring as hell game world.

2) Given 1 above where different roles are required and everyone to a certain extent is locked into a certain role, you then need to require certain roles to be a necessary part of a good group to play the game. Otherwise you end up with roles that nobody needs which makes those players essentially worthless...and this i think everyone can universally agree would not be a good thing. So- from this requirement that all roles have a necessary place in the game comes the holy trinity. Every class should have a place somewhere within the holy trinity so that they are needed (with an exeption) and the "necessity of interdependency" becomes an important aspect of the game.

The exception to #2 might be classes that are more solo-oriented (like necros, or maybe even bards to an extent in EQ). I think giving people this option is very important because some people are just more solo-oriented, but then realize you won't be able to do some high-level dungeon or take down some big boss alone. But even this adds more depth to the game world.

So, at the end of the day i think you have 3 main choices around character design:
1) holy trinity with people locked into certain classes
2) holy trinity but everyone can play any role in the trinity at any given time
3) no holy trinity required (and generally no specific classes...think something similar to Skyrim)

I see 2 and 3 as being not a legitimate way to go for the reasons i stated above, leaving option 1. Options 2 and 3 generally lead to everyone being the same at some level which imo is a very bad thing for MMORPGs.

Denaut_sl said:

Try Global Agenda, that game is amazing and in my opinion one of the most underrated games out there. I've never had more fun "tanking" in a game.

Click to expand...

How does that look like in a fantasy setting tho? I haven't played the game. Would every class be able to tank? If not, what's the difference between that and a trinity?

JordanJax_sl said:

i was referring to his (or her) disdain for the trinity...or more generally the preference for games where either: one player can play any role at a given time (which is what i believe he is getting at) or a game that either doesn't have specific roles, or does but specific roles are not needed to consume content.

Click to expand...

I said, in multiple posts, that social interdependence and combat roles are very important even to the point where they are strengths of genre. This was a completely explicit statement, as well as implicit in the rest of my posts. How you take my dislike of the "Holy Trinity" and spin that out to what you claim I think I don't know... all I can think of is that you should read my posts more carefully and stop thinking so narrowly about MMORPGs.

Convo_sl said:

How does that look like in a fantasy setting tho? I haven't played the game. Would every class be able to tank? If not, what's the difference between that and a trinity?

Click to expand...

You can come up with fictional conceits for gameplay mechanisms in nearly any setting. That isn't to say your setting shouldn't inform your design and your design shouldn't inform your setting, but at a high level setting doesn't matter a whole lot because high level game concepts are fairly transferable.

I'll do a more detailed write up on GA specifically in a bit (about to leave for home).

Global Agenda was really fun, but I stopped play a long time ago before they really put much PVE in. There were only dungeons at that time.

However I think the conversation would be better served to first define what kind of combat system or interactive system you want to play with before you can determine how you change the "holy trinity" around. For example, the holy trinity works really well in the hotbar/tab target combat system that focuses on a lot of button pressing.

EVE doesn't need this system, or it's more fluid, because of the way combat works (playing a spreadsheet).

You can do other things in an action oriented game where position matters, attacks can miss due to aiming, and mobs can't run through things and you can physically block assets.

I think you have to first define the rules of how the world interacts with players before you can begin to define how to create class interdependence.

Denaut_sl said:

I said, in multiple posts, that social interdependence and combat roles are very important even to the point where they are strengths of genre. This was a completely explicit statement, as well as implicit in the rest of my posts. How you take my dislike of the "Holy Trinity" and spin that out to what you claim I think I don't know... all I can think of is that you should read my posts more carefully and stop thinking so narrowly about MMORPGs.

Click to expand...

ok, so how do you bridge from "combat roles are very important" to "you need to be able to always play with your friends and not have the holy trinity interfere with this necessity of making a great game" (to paraphrase).

You've brought up a couple of ideas:

1) have social interdependence revolve around something other than combat, and you brought up SWG as an example. The problem that i see: for the majority of people that play these games, combat is far and away the meat of the game. Everything eventually is geared towards or gets down to fighting the bad guys. there are exceptions, like people that just love to craft, but these are exceptions to the rule. Social interdependence driven by something other than combat is not enough to make social interdependence part of the true fabric of the game imo. Your opinion may differ from mine, and that's fine. But i think history is on my side here given what i've seen over the last decade.

2) As far as trying to solve this issue within the realm of combat you use GA as an example where (apparently because i freely admit i haven't played it) you do have classes, but no class is required to run content. My response to that would be: why even have classes then if none of them are needed for a successful group? How does this foster social interdependence? Maybe in the sense that you need more than 1 person to experience content if the baddies are more powerful than the PCs but to me that is not true social interdependency.

I'm more than willing to listen to any great ideas on how to handle this. But again so many have tried and so many have utterly failed. If it's so easy (or even if it's not easy but at least "doable)...why hasn't it been done in a MMORPG?

That's a good point.. If we are speculating on what Brad will be making I would assume his combat would be less twitch.. Maybe he'll see his original combat for VG through? I would expect more of an auto attack approach where you can still have that social interaction within groups and raids.

Convo_sl said:

That's a good point.. If we are speculating on what Brad will be making I would assume his combat would be less twitch.. Maybe he'll see his original combat for VG through? I would expect more of an auto attack approach where you can still have that social interaction within groups and raids.

Click to expand...

I was in VG beta but didn't play a tank. Does anyone remember the opinions on combat? I want to say it was a homerun until they started watering it down, but again, I wasn't a tank.

JordanJax_sl said:

ok, so how do you bridge from "combat roles are very important" to "you need to be able to always play with your friends and not have the holy trinity interfere with this necessity of making a great game" (to paraphrase).

You've brought up a couple of ideas:

1) have social interdependence revolve around something other than combat, and you brought up SWG as an example. The problem that i see: for the majority of people that play these games, combat is far and away the meat of the game. Everything eventually is geared towards or gets down to fighting the bad guys. there are exceptions, like people that just love to craft, but these are exceptions to the rule. Social interdependence driven by something other than combat is not enough to make social interdependence part of the true fabric of the game imo. Your opinion may differ from mine, and that's fine. But i think history is on my side here given what i've seen over the last decade.

2) As far as trying to solve this issue within the realm of combat you use GA as an example where (apparently because i freely admit i haven't played it) you do have classes, but no class is required to run content. My response to that would be: why even have classes then if none of them are needed for a successful group? How does this foster social interdependence? Maybe in the sense that you need more than 1 person to experience content if the baddies are more powerful than the PCs but to me that is not true social interdependency.

I'm more than willing to listen to any great ideas on how to handle this. But again so many have tried and so many have utterly failed. If it's so easy (or even if it's not easy but at least "doable)...why hasn't it been done in a MMORPG?

Click to expand...

There are a ton of questions here, and I'll answer them but Denaut will have a better insight I'm guessing.

1) If it's so easy, why hasn't it been done before? It's not easy at all, but there have been attempts and some of them are quite good if you take the system out and look at it in a vacuum.

2) His point is that the more fluid a system is the better it is for players. Just look at League of Legends. Their "trinity" is the current "meta" which consists of a Top Lane, Mid Lane and Bot Lane. The "perfect" set up is always a bruiser/tank/sustain type of champion top lane. An assassin or mage type champ mid lane. A ranged ADC and support champ bottom lane. If you are playing with friends and follow this meta mostly, you have a step up on your competition most of the time.

However, the game can be played, enjoyed and won if you don't follow that. You can pick different champs, do different things and still win. Skill, communication and talent trump the meta in almost all instances.

Games like LOL and DOTA2 are the online games that are really pushing player interaction and combat systems and class systems further. The next MMORPG that is really interesting will probably take a lot from the MOBA genre, at least on class balance and interdependence.

Anyway, that's really just one huge example how you can have a fluid class system that is still reliant on other players, but isn't hard coded in where you have to have X Y Z or you can't do anything in game.

3) To your second point, you have classes because people like playing certain themes and fantasies. Riot gets this. They create champs based on player fantasy and theme. People like playing within certain boundaries and classes do this. That's why you have classes. You give players a box to play in. As a developer you have to come up with a good content design methodology that interacts with how classes are build and how those classes interact with each other.

JordanJax_sl said:

2) As far as trying to solve this issue within the realm of combat you use GA as an example where (apparently because i freely admit i haven't played it) you do have classes, but no class is required to run content. My response to that would be: why even have classes then if none of them are needed for a successful group? How does this foster social interdependence? Maybe in the sense that you need more than 1 person to experience content if the baddies are more powerful than the PCs but to me that is not true social interdependency.

I'm more than willing to listen to any great ideas on how to handle this. But again so many have tried and so many have utterly failed. If it's so easy (or even if it's not easy but at least "doable)...why hasn't it been done in a MMORPG?

Click to expand...

We'll focus on combat since that seems to be the meat of the discussion and I think we can all agree that social interdependence outside of combat is a good thing (at least I get the impression that you agree with me there).

GA did in fact have classes, and I am also a supporter of a class system for a couple of different reasons, but the interesting thing to note about GA is that it did have the Trinity as well, it just didn't require it to complete content. What classes did in GA was change the way the player interacted with the content and also with each other. The classes all had different play styles (and actually had different play styles within classes) that made you approach the content in different ways. Those different approaches also changed the way classes interacted.

It made for a rather fun and robust system. In fact, there was so much that was interesting and well designed about the combat system that I hesitate to get into details in order to spare my poor wrists.

Draegan_sl said:

There are a ton of questions here, and I'll answer them but Denaut will have a better insight I'm guessing.

1) If it's so easy, why hasn't it been done before? It's not easy at all, but there have been attempts and some of them are quite good if you take the system out and look at it in a vacuum.

2) His point is that the more fluid a system is the better it is for players. Just look at League of Legends. Their "trinity" is the current "meta" which consists of a Top Lane, Mid Lane and Bot Lane. The "perfect" set up is always a bruiser/tank/sustain type of champion top lane. An assassin or mage type champ mid lane. A ranged ADC and support champ bottom lane. If you are playing with friends and follow this meta mostly, you have a step up on your competition most of the time.

However, the game can be played, enjoyed and won if you don't follow that. You can pick different champs, do different things and still win. Skill, communication and talent trump the meta in almost all instances.

Games like LOL and DOTA2 are the online games that are really pushing player interaction and combat systems and class systems further. The next MMORPG that is really interesting will probably take a lot from the MOBA genre, at least on class balance and interdependence.

Anyway, that's really just one huge example how you can have a fluid class system that is still reliant on other players, but isn't hard coded in where you have to have X Y Z or you can't do anything in game.

3) To your second point, you have classes because people like playing certain themes and fantasies. Riot gets this. They create champs based on player fantasy and theme. People like playing within certain boundaries and classes do this. That's why you have classes. You give players a box to play in. As a developer you have to come up with a good content design methodology that interacts with how classes are build and how those classes interact with each other.

Click to expand...

All excellent points. The thing about this topic is that it is extremely broad, and we could talk forever about different ways to have fun and interesting combat/class systems. There are lots of good solutions, and some of them even have the trinity in them. What I don't like is boring and rigid class/combat systems which are nothing BUT the trinity.