Originally posted by Phrame

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by HeroEvermore

Games had way more then a trinity.

Tank

Healer

Mana-feed/Buffer (remember enchanters, they were NOT dps)

Puller

Crowd control

Rezzer (not always the healer)

Damage dealer (the most unwanted role in many games, now it is the most common filler role)

Attack Buffer (atk spd or atk output not neccesarily from a dps role)

Now make me a game! go go go! :P

I wonder how much the Mana-feed/Buffer, Puller, Crowd control, Rezzer, and Attack Buffer could do outside of a group...

You could still have those roles in group play and give them other abilities to use while soloing

Which is what games like WoW did. And they gave peopel dual specs (or in the case of Rift like 4.)

**moved to more relevant thread.

As to OP's assertion that EQ didn't have the trinity... EQ invented the trinity as far as MMORPG's go. You had no group without a tank, a healer and dps. You could do fine without support classes if your trinity was good enough but theres no way support classes could ever replace one of the holy 3.

Originally posted by HeroEvermore

 Want to know why you do not see this as much anymore?

GAMING COMPANYS GOT LAZY!!!! They started combining this stuff into other roles so they could get away with less classes. You think Guild Wars 2 got rid of healers and tanks to be innovative? LOL! It was lazy. They gave everyone a rez. Gave everyone a heal. Gave everyone the ability to safely pull mobs. Something challenging will come along eventually that will once again REQUIRE such specified teamwork. Until then enjoy easy mode.

I believe the reason games got rid of specialized roles and teamwork is because the majority of players these days don't want it in their games.  Take a look at EverQuest today.  It's population is comprised of boxers and ai mercenaries to group with.  A big change from the game's roots.  It's the same reason games are way too easy and are completed in just weeks of being released.  The truth is that people just don't want to have to rely on other players for anything anymore.  It's too inconvenient.  Classes have merged to allow one player to do everything.  Creature toughness was cut down so that players could solo almost everything, excluding raids, but anything else to reach max level. 

Is it the gaming companies to blame for these things or is it the gamers today?  It's both.  The companies make games that will attract the largest player base to increase their profits and most players want their games easy enough to solo.

I look forward to the day when another company has the balls to release a game with specialized roles and toughness, accepting it may be a niche game without WoW numbers.  Sadly, I don't expect this from EQ3, I am expecting the same ol' shyt from SOE.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Phrame

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by HeroEvermore

Games had way more then a trinity.

Tank

Healer

Mana-feed/Buffer (remember enchanters, they were NOT dps)

Puller

Crowd control

Rezzer (not always the healer)

Damage dealer (the most unwanted role in many games, now it is the most common filler role)

Attack Buffer (atk spd or atk output not neccesarily from a dps role)

Now make me a game! go go go! :P

I wonder how much the Mana-feed/Buffer, Puller, Crowd control, Rezzer, and Attack Buffer could do outside of a group...

You could still have those roles in group play and give them other abilities to use while soloing

Which is what games like WoW did. And they gave peopel dual specs (or in the case of Rift like 4.)

So wow abandoned the  "dps should in general not run out of mana" paradigm? :)

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Phrame

Originally posted by BadSpock

I wonder how much the Mana-feed/Buffer, Puller, Crowd control, Rezzer, and Attack Buffer could do outside of a group...

You could still have those roles in group play and give them other abilities to use while soloing

Which is what games like WoW did. And they gave peopel dual specs (or in the case of Rift like 4.)

So wow abandoned the  "dps should in general not run out of mana" paradigm? :)

Flame on!

:)

As I said in another post, I'm not saying WoW is the pinnacle of good design - they made some poor choices down the road too IMO, but in general - it should be pretty easy to distinguish between "blow through all of my mana as fast as possible for huge burst" (PvP) and "manage my resources for the long, drawn out fight" (PvE) as I believe it is now.

But yes, DPS in general should not run out of mana... unless they are playing very poorly. Mana management should be the easy part of playing that role - the hard part should be maximizing output while avoiding avoidable damage AND while providing the utility and other role features (buffs, debuffs, control, etc.)

Knowing when to spend some more mana for higher output and when to back off and regen a bit or use your regen cooldowns etc. is part of the skill in playing a mana based DPS class or healer.

But having mana management > everything else is absolutely no fun at all.

""Why the hell do I want to play a solo game online?"" ----- For social interactions not dependency.

"RP" = to, play along side with your friends and assist if needed.

All these restrictions are aimed to force people to depend on each other, which is fun breaking.

The definition of word game is "intertainment" not life "to have fun in your spare time".

And Skyrim is also RP but not an MMO.

Originally posted by znaiika

""Why the hell do I want to play a solo game online?"" ----- For social interactions not dependency.

"RP" = to, play along side with your friends and assist if needed.

All these restrictions are aimed to force people to depend on each other, which is fun breaking.

The definition of word game is "intertainment" not life "to have fun in your spare time".

 

And Skyrim is also RP but not an MMO.

what social interaction?

example,

I just reactivated EQ2 last week to see what had changed since I last played. Interestingly enough it seems the game has gotten even more segregated than before. I run around on the most populated server zone to zone and see exactly nobody in each zone. Why do I see empty open world zones? Because they are all in their own solo instance playing the game by themselves. The only thing that hints the game is online is the useless, generally racist banter in general chat (another casualty of the COD / WoW era it would seem, but I won't get into that here).

Having the ability to progress while solo isn't a bad thing, it gives people something to do when they can't find a group. However, companies actively encouraging solo play and pandering almost exclusively to the solo gamer in an online game is killing the industry. To your point about games being "Entertainment," yes they are, though there is a right way of going about things and a wrong way. For a Massive (big/huge/large/vast) Multiplayer (more than just one person playing...) Online Role Playing (RP = Role Play / Role Playing, nothing to do with playing with your friends) Game to be aimed at the soloist is a slap in the face to those who want to actually do what the genre's name suggests and play with other people.

*grammar edit, wheeeeee!

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Phrame

Originally posted by BadSpock

I wonder how much the Mana-feed/Buffer, Puller, Crowd control, Rezzer, and Attack Buffer could do outside of a group...

You could still have those roles in group play and give them other abilities to use while soloing

Which is what games like WoW did. And they gave peopel dual specs (or in the case of Rift like 4.)

So wow abandoned the  "dps should in general not run out of mana" paradigm? :)

Flame on!

:)

As I said in another post, I'm not saying WoW is the pinnacle of good design - they made some poor choices down the road too IMO, but in general - it should be pretty easy to distinguish between "blow through all of my mana as fast as possible for huge burst" (PvP) and "manage my resources for the long, drawn out fight" (PvE) as I believe it is now.

But yes, DPS in general should not run out of mana... unless they are playing very poorly. Mana management should be the easy part of playing that role - the hard part should be maximizing output while avoiding avoidable damage AND while providing the utility and other role features (buffs, debuffs, control, etc.)

Knowing when to spend some more mana for higher output and when to back off and regen a bit or use your regen cooldowns etc. is part of the skill in playing a mana based DPS class or healer.

But having mana management > everything else is absolutely no fun at all.

Even if i could argue till tomorrow about the reality of managing your mana vs dps (or the non-existence of it), my point was more in the area of where mana batteries fit into that, because the current system is a bit a selfish system, you dont run out ouf mana because you were able to memorize your rotation and manage your cooldowns, not because you were able to socialize with a mana battery class that is willing to help you. :)

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by XAPGames

Originally posted by Painlezz

Remove PvP from the game and the problem is solved.  Remove PvP from the game and you'll get everything you're asking for.

PvP is the plague that has destroyed the MMORPG scene.

Simply put, class balance...

Touching on this, because it's something I'm working on atm.

I think the issue is that people roll support classes and expect to be able to hold their own in PVP.  That forces the developers to turn support classes into DPS classes.  I think the same thing happened to classes when public demanded that all classes become soloable.

In the end, you have all classes soloable, all classes PVP worthy, and what used to be specialist classes really don't exist any longer. (edit: at least not like they used to)

It was actually PvE that caused the change. In PVP, you roll a class you want to play, so support people roll support. There's never really been a problem with that. Advancement, however, is done through PvE. That means that specialized classes are often very weak in some aspect, resulting in slower levelling.  In DAoC, one of the complaints at release  from many was that rolling a healer meant you had to group because you simply could not survive trying to fight solo with your healer character. The healers were levelling slower than the other classes in many cases. I didn't follow that issue beyond the first few months so I am unsure what the changes were to either address or remedy that.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by HeroEvermore

Games had way more then a trinity.

Tank

Healer

Mana-feed/Buffer (remember enchanters, they were NOT dps)

Puller

Crowd control

Rezzer (not always the healer)

Damage dealer (the most unwanted role in many games, now it is the most common filler role)

Attack Buffer (atk spd or atk output not neccesarily from a dps role)

Now make me a game! go go go! :P

I wonder how much the Mana-feed/Buffer, Puller, Crowd control, Rezzer, and Attack Buffer could do outside of a group...

 Ironically, in EQ the bards, enchanters, necromancers and monks who filled those roles actually did better soloing than regular DPS or tanks, due to neat class tricks like kiting, feign death and mezzing.

There is a reason why people are hiding in istances, I am sure it's not because they can solo, but reather, a several spoiled apples that poisoned the system.

I am very sure, if game componies push their games to must group? most of online gamers would go back to single player rp mode.

Bad for MMO business.

When easier MMO's came out I was one of those that applauded the new systems like quest question marks. It did not take me long to realise the inherant problems though. And those problems were not real issues at first, WoW at launch was not the easyMMO that it would become.

That is why I say any changes you see today are just the start; be it cash shops, P2W, cross platforming with mobile phones, intergration with social media. It never looks too bad in the begining.

Good to see an old but rare poster like noluk speaking up. :)

Originally posted by Scot

When easier MMO's came out I was one of those that applauded the new systems like quest question marks. It did not take me long to realise the inherant problems though. And those problems were not real issues at first, WoW at launch was not the easyMMO that it would become.

That is why I say any changes you see today are just the start; be it cash shops, P2W, cross platforming with mobile phones, intergration with social media. It never looks too bad in the begining.

 

Good to see an old but rare poster like noluk speaking up. :)

You're saying you weren't always this bad. There is hope for you yet.

Originally posted by Shorun

===

 Guild Wars 2 got rid of the tanks and healers because very little people wanted to play them. The game isn't easier because everyone has the ability to heal and to rez, it's just different. GW2 is a game that did the classes right in my opinion.

Tanks and healers became over-specialized for group play and as a consequence became very dull for solo play. As games became mostly solo those classes became mostly dull.

However even if a game is group-based or includes a separate group-based path it's still better for channeling reasons if the group classes are soloable. A group-based game or a separate group-based path inside a mostly solo game needs to channel the group players to the group-based content. If parts of the group dungeons are soloable then players don't need to form a group in advance. They can just run to the nearest dungeon knowing they can solo until other players show up. If it was me i'd have the group content be big EQ-style open dungeons with the difficulty level set something like

- 1/2 challenging solo / easy duo

- 1/4 challenging duo

- 1/4 challenging larger group

The group classes could then have a solo and group mode e.g.

Fighters

- half their dps abilities requiring any weapon

- half requiring either dual wielding or two handed weapons

- half their tank abilities requiring any weapon

- half requiring a shield

so a fighter can switch between all dps and half tank or all tank and half dps depending on gear

Priests

- dps + self-heals/buffs with a weapon equipped

- group heals/buffs with a holy symbol equipped

Enchanter

- dps (via charmed pets) with dagger equipped

- CC with mystic orb equipped

etc

so the classes are still distinct but have a solo/group mode that fits the distinction

Obviously games don't have to do this. They can go the Rift / GW way as the players who like group fights that require teamwork may only be a minority and may play the solo games anyway. However i think the other aspect is replayability. Distinct classes with distinct paths through the game potentially increases replayability imo but distinct classes requires either a group-based path through the game with class-specific group roles or separate solo paths or a bit of both.

==

Although there are a lot of possible roles the only ones i can think of which seem to particularly appeal to particular niche of players are

- tank, dps, heal/buff, crowd control, pulling

Originally posted by noluk
  It is more than obvious that we as gamers created our games.  We have railed against grinds, we have railed out at forced grouping, we have expressed outrage and frustration at guilds that can accomplish things and get gear that our 3 buddies can't accomplish while half drunk.  And the most important thing to the game makers is how often we will pay for what we ask for.  There was a time when there were two games on the horizon.  EQ and AC.  Most players chose EQ and that developed the path of game development from that time forth.  Both in games trying to be like EQ and games trying not to be like EQ. 

"We" didn't do anything. Players who didn't like forced grouping and all the problems that went with it railed against forced grouping - which is fair enough - and the games changed to suit. Now the players who liked grouping rail against the solo games but there's fewer of them so it doesn't change things back. However, separately there are also people who are fine with the idea of the solo games but not with one or more of the logical consequences that have developed over time e.g. dumbing down, lack of distinct classes etc.

There are multiple sets of "we." The question is how you can satisfy the multiple sets of "we" in the same game.

I think it's possible but it first requires accepting that multiple play-styles require multiple paths. You see attempts to square the logical circle in some of the latest games with for example swtor's attempt at separate solo paths (which overlap too much) or GW2 with its mixture of personal story, solo hearting and non-grouped group fights but no one has nailed it yet.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Scot

When easier MMO's came out I was one of those that applauded the new systems like quest question marks. It did not take me long to realise the inherant problems though. And those problems were not real issues at first, WoW at launch was not the easyMMO that it would become.

That is why I say any changes you see today are just the start; be it cash shops, P2W, cross platforming with mobile phones, intergration with social media. It never looks too bad in the begining.

 

Good to see an old but rare poster like noluk speaking up. :)

You're saying you weren't always this bad. There is hope for you yet.

I think as you realise, I am saying I was blinded by the glitter and did not see its shallowness. But it is how MMO's developed since WoW that is the problem, we have gone from having a few more handy tools to being given everything on a plate if we pay at the cash shop.

It was ALWAYS a trinity, extra support classes doesn't change this. The trinity is engrained into everything D&D and for that matter wargames.

In simple game terms, it is the damage soaker, the damage dealer and the one who keeps both on their feet.

In simple military terms, it is the army, the special forces and the support troops. The regular army is good at sustained fighting but can't move fast. Special forces can move fast and hit hard but can't sustain a long fight and both need someone to cook their food and bandage their ouchies.

You can then start to sub divide those three groups like agile tanks and strong tanks and fighting support troops but that doesn't get rid of the basic trinity idea.

And GW2 did NOT get rid of the trinity, they just made it a mess. But Guardians still are the healing class, warriors the tanking class, rangers do single target DPS, Mages AoE DPS. Yes, rangers got a pretty good heal but not as sustainlable as Guardians. The only thing they really messed up is crowd control but that is okay, the group content is to simplistic to need it. 

Games like GW2 that try to blur the trinity end up with games were grouping is more of a pain, what is that guardian specced for? At least in classic game, you can ask for X and be sure that X is what that player would do, you could PLAN your battles.

GW2 would be like going to war with mysterie troops and only in the heat of battle would you find out that your marines can't actually swim and don't have any boats in their arsenal and oh, those bang stick? Well, that is so trinity nazi rules, they opted to spec for flowers instead.

It is like playing Team Fortress and finding yourself in a team with a heavy gunner dude trying to sneak. Lotro did this with its expansions, getting a lore-master in the raid who couldn't stun always led to much facepalming.

You got to wonder how these people would fare in the army, sign up for sniper school, insist on making all kills with a knife.

IF you want to change the trinity you need to change combat. Currently MMO combat is unrealistic in that damage is taken for granted. In medieval times, ANY damage was usually fatal. The OP even dares to mention natural healing... before anti-biotics a scratch could kill. Getting a blow from a heavy sword... that is NOT something you walk away from. If you want to get rid of damage soakers and in combat healers, you need to get rid of unavoidable damage. 

Combat would instead have to be like fencing where the entire fight is spend NOT hitting each other because the moment you DO score a hit, the battle is over. Gun combat is even worse, you do NOT take a bullet to the head and there is nothing to resurrect if your brains are splattered over the wall.

THAT is the reason for the trinity. If damage MUST be taken, you will ALWAYS develop classes that focus on either soaking it up, doing more damage then they receive (either by doing it faster or evading) or on healing damage faster then it is received. THAT is the trinity. 

And every game where you can choose your class or alter your stats one way or another has the trinity even if they try to blur it.

I don't know if this was mentioned already, but in Aion a usual party was tank (templar or sometimes even sin/glad), sorc for dps/cc, cleric for heals... those were main 3 then filler two would be one dps (glad/sin/ranger) and chanter as buffer/offheals/rezzer. People usually want chanter than a dpser. So party composition resembles one OP posted.

Some "anime-style" MMOs with multiple classes still have party compositions that closely resemble OP's. A bit "older" game for example would be Dream of Mirror Online where you had a tank, healer/buffer/rezzer (doc), buffer/mana-infuse (muse), (two I think) dps and a puller.

In Rift I remember always getting a raid party when I was playing a bard (buffer), but then again... raid party size is a lot bigger than a normal party.

I think it really depends on a game, how many different classes it has and what is the max party size.

Cheers.