Keep in mind tho.. That is a wheel some would rather not see reinvented. That's the thing with niche.. The game just needs to cater to a certain audience and that's it.. I see what you're saying but some people just prefer things the way they are. People are ok with the Trinity tradeoff. It sounds like your idea would be suited for a bigger budget MMO? I'd like to see it in game for sure. That doesn't change my want to just play a DPS Wizard heh
The third option of 5 paladins with different specs, ala WoW. The one thing it did do right. So when you and all your friends want to faceroll paladins that's a valid option while the trinity still exists.
I think there is another issue that gets overlooked. While it doesn't stop it from happening it is a huge hindrance. We have to remember that any group which could do for instance solb or lguk was a successful group. Mine did efreeti and had no tank. We were killing that, so pretty much I would have to suggest that it was a successful group in original eq. Now days we could probably do the same thing. Lets look at wow, in vanilla the warlock pet could tank. So no real tank was needed we could argue. The problem is the design is different and the rewards are different. In eq if you wanted a ykesha you had to camp lord. There were no instances and it was a specific timer. So as long as your group of all casters could clear the room and do other pulls we can say its a successful group makeup. The problem with the trinity is in later times it was simply more effective and efficient. We fast forward to instancing in all games past eq. This is why you generally don't see this makeup even though nothing really is preventing it. I would imagine that any warlock could go into a wow dungeon and have the pet tank more or less and be possible outside of boss fights which required some multi tanking or something odd. Lets remember that eq did not have any boss fights which needed anything more than pressing attack to tank. With instancing you COULD clear it with some pet tanking and some all caster group. But what would be the point when you have to run the same thing over and over. This rewards efficiency not fun or interesting group makeup. So until we find a game which does not having instancing which rewards speed and efficiency it will be unlikely that we'll see any group except the trinity. Most games don't even need cc anymore and thus the new trinity is just dps. I would associate this more with why we see no odd class combinations, beyond any type of game design preventing interesting mixes.
I know I'm jumping back to an old post - I believe the best mapping system is one in which there are maps, but without all of the landmarks. Allow the user to have a robust system of markers and notes, so they can place their own icons and labels on their own maps. I love it when games let you write notes on your own map, not sure why more do not implement this. Adding the ability to choose from different icons would allow a user to map out their own world, with just the shape of the zone or really major landmarks (mountains, rivers) on the map to begin with. When you find a merchant, put a money bag and description on your map - or don't, and don't complain when you can't find him later!
That already exists - it is called WoW Arena. It has tanks, it has healers, it has DPS, it has CC, but real players aren't dumb enough (usually) to stand there and beat on the tank getting continuously healed.
Uh huh, that's the gist of it. The only game right now promising something like that is EQN although we'll see how that plays out come winter (or whenever EQNL gets the combat AI in).
I guess? EQ is still running, as are lots of games that depend on the Trinity, I don't really see the point in literally remaking a game. We should improve games by learning lessons from them and incorporating those lessons into newer games. Developers certainly don't always do this, and because people are people they VERY often learn the wrong lesson. That is the way these things go.
I think quite a few people assumed (you know what they say about assumptions) that's exactly what EQ2 was supposed to be. A continuation of the Everquest story with similar gameplay, and mechanics. And when Vanguard was released, the initial hopes was a "throwback" game to the original Everquest genre. I'll tell ya, Vanguard wasclose, very close. Many people rip Vanguard every chance they get but to this day I will defend it. Buggy? Yes. Incomplete? Yes, but holy crap was the concepts, art, large sprawling world, and quests spot on. Vanguard for all its faults could have been damn near perfection with another year in the hands of a smaller studio made by people who were passionate about fantasy and MMO's. Both games had huge followings who eagerly awaited the release of the game. While not on the numbers of WOW, I am confident that if the games were released as promised, using Everquest as the model, both would have strong sub bases. A million subs was totally possible. And that's not a million at launch, and then a slow decline over a few months, I truly believe it would have stayed a consistent million subs. There IS a market for this game. But as someone else mentioned, the industry is now run by suits who only care about numbers, not a small, passionate team of developers who love gaming and MMO's.
Improving on the trinity sounds a lot like what they are hoping to do with EQN. I'm interested in trying their system and seeing how it plays out. Personally I just think we need old school games like EQ and the new ones with new ideas. What if Brad came up with a class/combat system that was a EQ/VG hybrid? That would be a perfect system for me at this point. The so called progress in regards to combat isn't exactly mind blowing. You might have an awesome idea to design a system and I'd like to try it but for the most part the new systems are no better than the trinity or as fun. I don't want to do away with something just b/c it's considered antiquated or not as accessible. I want the industry to make different types of games so we can play one that suits our style and not be forced into something else.
I was a cleric though, it was with 2-3 nerocs with the L49 quad 72dmg pets. This was all prenerf stuff. I generally quit eq before kunark even then returned several times until after velious which I declared it junk once and for all. The point was that we didn't need a tank, necros often healed with shamans thought. I saw plenty of groups get by with just a shaman or druid. It was all dependent on the group makeup as to how well they did. But it was possible, which was what I was saying. Now days you can't just camp a single boss, so it's all about speed and efficiency.
What was it that made Vanguard so close, in your opinion?
I know you weren't asking my opinion - but I'm going to give it anywhos!
Pushing small group content just to see what we could pull off was one thing that made EQ so great for me. I played an SK and ran with a Shaman and Warrior friend a lot. We would spend days doing out of the way spots just for the hell of it. I think we spent nearly a month just doing City of Mist, starting at the front and working our way as far as we could. It was never super efficient, but was a ton of fun pushing the limits for what was possible.
Good balance of Solo v. Group play, plus generally solid classes (the only class I played that was underpowered compared to the rest was the Psionicist). You could solo to cap but you would miss out on great dungeon experiences which meant that you would usually avoid soloing if you could help it, but if you logged in and there was nobody on and you didn't feel like forming a group you had stuff to do.