Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by grimfall

The solutions are simple to conceive.  The first solution, is what EQ did to fairly good success - remove the ability to solo.  This causes people to "force group" but allows them to play the playstile they like. 

*saddened*

comf loc

sca

l

comf lok

smi

pok lok

w

w

n

sit

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Taunt and aggro, as they exist in certain MUDs and many MMOs, are what brought about the tank class which, in turn, resulted in the ridiculous trinity and combat scenario we have in most mainstream MMOs.

Indeed. The tank is the backbone of this perverse form of combat.

I'll also add that poor (exploitable) AI will also result in tanking as experienced in the Baldur's Gate series among many others.

I think trinity was here since the dawn of RPG gaming. Your typical party was warrior (tank), thief (dps/agile tank), mage (ranged dps), cleric (healer).

I definitely remember trinity being in MUDs (precedesors of MMOs), where warrior was tanking boss, mage was blasting him from behind and cleric was trying to keep warrior alive (and when warrior died, whole group wiped in a matter of seconds :))

TBH I can see trinity even further than this. I remember quite old fantasy books and movies that also used tank/dps/healer setup for adventure parties.

I think MMOs were first that made it widely known though. Before it was more of a "geek" stuff, but with massive success of MMO, people who would never touch fantasy or RPG got involved.

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by grimfall

The solutions are simple to conceive.  The first solution, is what EQ did to fairly good success - remove the ability to solo.  This causes people to "force group" but allows them to play the playstile they like. 

*saddened*

comf loc

sca

l

comf lok

smi

pok lok

w

w

n

sit

Ah! That's what I did wrong! I always went west, west, south after I got the platinum bar.

Originally posted by Scot
The roles have always been there, from DnD onwards, the online versions have altered somewhat to suit online combat. You often had a guy like a tank, a Warrior or Paladin even if their was no aggro.

Its not a tank if there is no aggro.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Scot
The roles have always been there, from DnD onwards, the online versions have altered somewhat to suit online combat. You often had a guy like a tank, a Warrior or Paladin even if their was no aggro.

Its not a tank if there is no aggro.

Thats debatable, as you know, thats why we have 15 pages, for example in the last mud i played, which was based on circle, there was no aggro, but the tanking mechanic was facilitated by the tanks having skills and pasives that would make them "guard",  "rescue" and "protect" any or all group members, so when the mob wanted to hit a mage, the tank "jumped" between them and started fighting the mob, taking the hits, with some added flavor of area damage (some tanks could block that if it was physical, whirlwind) and hits of oppotunity (mob would nail you one or two if your spell failed, tanks had the ability to "rescue" you, but only if he "guarded" you as a single person, the "protected" rest of the group would take a hit or two until "protect" would kick in).

Fun times, and we still didnt talk about trinity, but it had "hybrid problems" :)

Flame on!

:)

If you have a guy in a plate armour who rushes in first smacking those gobos on the head, thats damn close to a tank in my eyes. As a GM you think about how the enemy will react:

'Ok that little gobo at the back is he going to shoot at the big guy in plate slicing his boss in two, or maybe the little human at the back drawing a bow?' Thats aggro for you. :)

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Scot
The roles have always been there, from DnD onwards, the online versions have altered somewhat to suit online combat. You often had a guy like a tank, a Warrior or Paladin even if their was no aggro.

Its not a tank if there is no aggro.

Thats debatable, as you know, thats why we have 15 pages, for example in the last mud i played, which was based on circle, there was no aggro, but the tanking mechanic was facilitated by the tanks having skills and pasives that would make them "guard",  "rescue" and "protect" any or all group members, so when the mob wanted to hit a mage, the tank "jumped" between them and started fighting the mob, taking the hits, with some added flavor of area damage (some tanks could block that if it was physical, whirlwind) and hits of oppotunity (mob would nail you one or two if your spell failed, tanks had the ability to "rescue" you, but only if he "guarded" you as a single person, the "protected" rest of the group would take a hit or two until "protect" would kick in).

Fun times, and we still didnt talk about trinity, but it had "hybrid problems" :)

Flame on!

:)

The problem is when the tank is nothing more than a meat bag and it can control who the mobs attack pretty much 100% of the time.

And as long as the healer doesn't fall asleep he is invincible and can do it 24/7.

Originally posted by Greyface

I was playing UO back then, where everyone was a heavilly-armored mage and we bandaged our own damn selves).

This, tank mage!! ful plate and an energy bolt...exposion 

I think this post bothers me in a couple ways:

1. PnP games and computer based are like comparing apples and oranges.

2. EQ had 4 roles not a trinity - tank, healer, dps, and support, yes support ie bards and chanters that provided essential buffs debuffs pulls and crowd control.

3. Roles in DnD PnP games were not heavily enforced but tactics were. While Fighters and Paladins were ideal tanks, Cleric were pretty boss with the protection spells and plate armor. Bards and Wizards had so many options that it feels like your pigeon holing them in just one role. I even seen great rogue tanks that did it through verbals taunt and great dodging. its true that not every class could play every single role it isnt a closed off as you try to make it sound. In a different light, computer based games can only do what it is program to do so by this very nature it is very limited.

I'd say back in Pen and Paper but its existed WAY before that. Back in medieval combat the concept existed in that lines would often have shield baring individuals meant to 'tank' the damage, providing cover and charging forward to take 'agro' of sorts while the 'dps' would be those archers or others at arms supporting from behind. Healers didn't really exist as much in RL, though they did come in play afterwards. 

Its quite odd I suppose to consider it that way, but its just a natural tendency for combat. In a way, we all undergo all three roles ourselves as we will tank (defensive means of protecting ourself, naturally we will defend ourself before attacking), dps (forgoing those defenses to strike out), and heal/support (essencially after fighting or even during, we will tend to do what we can for a wound, weather its holding it or adjusting in some way to compensate for it, often times when 'tanking' the damage isn't needed.

Now, if its to philosophical or whatever you might want to consider it, just take in consideration it existed during pen and paper. It exists because its in our nature and logically its something any form of combat should consider. Without the trinity things quickly become a mess (case in point Guild wars 2) and it starts to become quite chaotic. While you can do things to balance it out and make it plausible, it just shifts 'how' those roles are done in group in a different manor. GW2 which tries to preach out of the trinity tries to make up for this by essencially filling that gap with CC, which while ignoring the flaws the system has, basically fills in tanking by having the mob 'distracted' from them, much like a tank would. 

@PKJack: Going off your 2nd and last point, Heal/support typically is clumped together since they are one in the same. Yes, they do fill 'different' roles and both are needed, but essencially they are 'two peas in a pod' with healing just really being a glorified form of support. As for PnP with tactics, its very true but its essencially the same thing. The 'bruiser' melee types acted as tanks but without agro tables, instead relying on tactical placement in order to protect allies and provide that 'tanking' for the group. Its how 'agro' essencially works in those games which I can see being somehow done in an MMO at some point, but would still make them 'tanks'.

Originally posted by PKJackCrow

I think this post bothers me in a couple ways:

1. PnP games and computer based are like comparing apples and oranges.

2. EQ had 4 roles not a trinity - tank, healer, dps, and support, yes support ie bards and chanters that provided essential buffs debuffs pulls and crowd control.

3. Roles in DnD PnP games were not heavily enforced but tactics were. While Fighters and Paladins were ideal tanks, Cleric were pretty boss with the protection spells and plate armor. Bards and Wizards had so many options that it feels like your pigeon holing them in just one role. I even seen great rogue tanks that did it through verbals taunt and great dodging. its true that not every class could play every single role it isnt a closed off as you try to make it sound. In a different light, computer based games can only do what it is program to do so by this very nature it is very limited.

 

There is no doubt AI will always be defeated sooner or later since a) it doesn't evolve and b) it is there to be defeated in first place.

But one can avoid that the same battle always run the exactly the same steps by adding some randomness.

Having the ability to predict who the mobs are going to attack pretty much 100% of the time and making anyone but the person built to sustain the damage 100% of the time die with every sneeze isn't helping it.

I guess it is a question of how you split the resources (damage, healing, defense) between the players.

The traditional way (for play outside open world levelling and questing) is 100% for you, 0% (or trivial amount) for the rest.

It also pretty much removes the need for CC, unless specific mechanics require it - why are you going to bring something that slows down an enemy if that enemy is going to hit the tank that is designed to sustain damage anyway and if the mob is actually moving towards the healer or a dps you are dead anyway

I think your right in most games now a days that healing and support are clumped together but in eq they were not.

Chanters were about as pure support as you can get. Their damage was next to nothing but people felt they were necassary for groups. why crowd control buffs, de buffs charm stuns. chanters didnt tank, they certainly didnt heal and since they were so busy with cc during pulls they hardly dps ie they fit into the support role.

Bards in eq were different part of this group since alot of people depended on them for pulling mobs and crowd control, their songs also fit the buff debuff but they could swing a sword around pretty much earning the jack of all trades master of none title. you didnt ask bard to tank to main heal or for their dps.

So in most game i will say there are 3 roles but in eq there were 4,

Originally posted by Scot

If you have a guy in a plate armour who rushes in first smacking those gobos on the head, thats damn close to a tank in my eyes. As a GM you think about how the enemy will react:

'Ok that little gobo at the back is he going to shoot at the big guy in plate slicing his boss in two, or maybe the little human at the back drawing a bow?' Thats aggro for you. :)

The guy in front is just prone to take more damage, being a melee character that is. Armor doesn't make a tank. Its tanking that makes a tank and manipulating aggro is a very important part of that.

I'd also like to point out that there was no shooting into melee in the PnP games I played. The tanking in MMOs is perverse. It has very little to do with PnP combat. Very few MMOs have body blocking (very resource intesive this) and almost all of them allow shooting into melee without any penalties or chance friendly fire.

Manipulating aggro is a cop out to offer a simplified combat with as little resources as possible. Yes, its a game, and yes some people enjoy it; however it has no equivalent in any fiction or reality. It doesn't really emulate anything. You do not take or hold your enemies' attention by shouting insults - don't be daft. You do it by being a threat, forcing an engagement.

That's how it works in PvP, against opponents who can think.

Originally posted by Purutzil

I'd say back in Pen and Paper but its existed WAY before that. Back in medieval combat the concept existed in that lines would often have shield baring individuals meant to 'tank' the damage, providing cover and charging forward to take 'agro' of sorts while the 'dps' would be those archers or others at arms supporting from behind. Healers didn't really exist as much in RL, though they did come in play afterwards. 

 

Its quite odd I suppose to consider it that way, but its just a natural tendency for combat. In a way, we all undergo all three roles ourselves as we will tank (defensive means of protecting ourself, naturally we will defend ourself before attacking), dps (forgoing those defenses to strike out), and heal/support (essencially after fighting or even during, we will tend to do what we can for a wound, weather its holding it or adjusting in some way to compensate for it, often times when 'tanking' the damage isn't needed.

 

Now, if its to philosophical or whatever you might want to consider it, just take in consideration it existed during pen and paper. It exists because its in our nature and logically its something any form of combat should consider. Without the trinity things quickly become a mess (case in point Guild wars 2) and it starts to become quite chaotic. While you can do things to balance it out and make it plausible, it just shifts 'how' those roles are done in group in a different manor. GW2 which tries to preach out of the trinity tries to make up for this by essencially filling that gap with CC, which while ignoring the flaws the system has, basically fills in tanking by having the mob 'distracted' from them, much like a tank would. 

@PKJack: Going off your 2nd and last point, Heal/support typically is clumped together since they are one in the same. Yes, they do fill 'different' roles and both are needed, but essencially they are 'two peas in a pod' with healing just really being a glorified form of support. As for PnP with tactics, its very true but its essencially the same thing. The 'bruiser' melee types acted as tanks but without agro tables, instead relying on tactical placement in order to protect allies and provide that 'tanking' for the group. Its how 'agro' essencially works in those games which I can see being somehow done in an MMO at some point, but would still make them 'tanks'.

 

You are talking about organized armies.

But if morale went down the organization disapeared.

And once the combat started being hand to hand it was a chaotic mess.

Then there was artillery

Lastly, if tanking is so natural, why doesn't it happen in PvP?

Maybe because tanking is in fact a result of weak colision detection and abusing predictable AI.

The GW2 mess is only a mess to the eyes of those untrained and used to have the mobs happily wacking at a predictable target - once you know what is happening you can see that the mesmer casted a reflection bubble on the boss the moment is about to create a devastating projectile attack, or see the guardian sacrifice its virtue to grant aegis or even see the elementalist shif attunements to water to remove a condition from the party.

Hand again we are messing up the roles with the holy trinity.

The holy trinity is a way to execut the roles that leadto a certain playstyle.

Tank isn't defense.

Mage isn't damage.

Cleric isn't heal.

In fact heal is just a form of defense and taunting/threath is a form of crowd control.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Scot

If you have a guy in a plate armour who rushes in first smacking those gobos on the head, thats damn close to a tank in my eyes. As a GM you think about how the enemy will react:

'Ok that little gobo at the back is he going to shoot at the big guy in plate slicing his boss in two, or maybe the little human at the back drawing a bow?' Thats aggro for you. :)

The guy in front is just prone to take more damage, being a melee character that is. Armor doesn't make a tank. Its tanking that makes a tank and manipulating aggro is a very important part of that.

I'd also like to point out that there was no shooting into melee in the PnP games I played. The tanking in MMOs is perverse. It has very little to do with PnP combat. Very few MMOs have body blocking (very resource intesive this) and almost all of them allow shooting into melee without any penalties or chance friendly fire.

Manipulating aggro is a cop out to offer a simplified combat with as little resources as possible. Yes, its a game, and yes some people enjoy it; however it has no equivalent in any fiction or reality. It doesn't really emulate anything. You do not take or hold your enemies' attention by shouting insults - don't be daft. You do it by being a threat, forcing an engagement.

That's how it works in PvP, against opponents who can think.

That isn't completely true - you can provoke someone into fight and send them in a rage.

But that depends of the person and so isn't 100% guranteed.

And you have drums, shouts, songs, displays, symbols, etc, all meant to cause fear and break the enemy morale while boosting yours.

The Trinity is just a lazy solution for making an AI for mobs. Mobs have a secret aggro-list of whom they attack and the players just take advantage of it. It makes fights very static and forces players to use a stereotypical gamestyle without any flexibility.

I remember doing some dungeons in WoW-classic without a dedicated tank and it was a lot of fun, because we had to use all our abilities and to improvise a lot.

WoW in general is a good example for all the disadvantages of the trinity:

• stupid gameplay where players do not even have to look at the screen just blindly hitting the same 3 keys over and over again
• no opportunity to individualize your character, because in the end you have to play your "role" (how many times did they overhaul the talent-trees?)
• balancing-issues in PvP created by powerful healing and tank abilities
• problems to form a group (and please do not tell me, that the group-finder is a good solution)
• conflicts in guilds, because players are asked to play certain classes with certain roles, they normaly would not choose
• a very unrealistic and awful ability called "taunt" - think about it, it never existed before MMOs and it is just bullshit

Originally posted by Mahavishnu

The Trinity is just a lazy solution for making an AI for mobs. Mobs have a secret aggro-list of whom they attack and the players just take advantage of it. It makes fights very static and forces players to use a stereotypical gamestyle without any flexibility.

I remember doing some dungeons in WoW-classic without a dedicated tank and it was a lot of fun, because we had to use all our abilities and to improvise a lot.

WoW in general is a good example for all the disadvantages of the trinity:

• stupid gameplay where players do not even have to look at the screen just blindly hitting the same 3 keys over and over again
• no opportunity to individualize your character, because in the end you have to play your "role" (how many times did they overhaul the talent-trees?)
• balancing-issues in PvP created by powerful healing and tank abilities
• problems to form a group (and please do not tell me, that the group-finder is a good solution)
• conflicts in guilds, because players are asked to play certain classes with certain roles, they normaly would not choose
• a very unrealistic and awful ability called "taunt" - think about it, it never existed before MMOs and it is just bullshit

While I agree with most of what you said, taunting isn't unrealistic.

What is unrealistic is that taunt always work and there is no mobs that just hate dwarfs or humans and so will act as if they taunted him (regardless of role) or some mob that hate some type of magic or some mobs that hate a particular skill/spell.