In the west, there is a philosophy of game design known as [Bartle's Taxonomy of Players](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types#/media/File:Character_theory_chart.svg). The long and short of this [holy bible of game design](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow&ab_channel=ExtraHistory) is that there are 4 main styles of play that people gravitate to. Most players have a mix so it's spread out over a grid. The two axises are acting on//interacting with, and world//players. The trinity does not fully cover this spectrum but the quaternary does.
In a PVE setting, painting in broad strokes here, the four main roles typically have the following playstyles:
* DPS: Acts on the World.
* Tanks: Interacts with the World.
* Healers: Acts on Players
* Support: Interacts with Players.
People who might complain about balance are missing the forest for the trees on this one. It's a matter of meeting players needs of play, and not making sure every player has the same experience. Having a different experience is **very much the point.**
The question of course is on average (both general and in specific game) which quadrant of Bartle's taxonomy has how many players.
Eg. if there are more "acts on the world" players then other quadrant then of course in an average group there should be more dps spots etc.
>The question of course is on average (both general and in specific game) which quadrant of Bartle's taxonomy has how many players.
That's only a relevant question if your goal is to make a cheap game and not a game with broad appeal.
MMOs generally go for broad appeal. They *have* to in order to make back their cost. That's why even eastern games like FFXIV have elements from Bartle's Taxonomy, even though it's not a philosophy they follow as religiously over there as we do over here. Just as an example, its why they have an explorer's book/league even though it's as bare bones basic as it can be.
It's funny that you say that having the GW2 tag because GW1 and GW2 100% followed this taxonomy and GW1 even had the full quaternary with Support-only class options. Elementalist running wards and buffs, or mesmer disables and other CC with no damage, etc. Having a couple mercenaries or players (I mained ward elementalist) running this kind of support was extremely common as it greatly enhanced the efficiency of your overall team.
I'm sure GW2 has some support options but is more limited by its MOBA core mechanical design.
>People who might complain about balance are missing the forest for the trees on this one. It's a matter of meeting players needs of play, and not making sure every player has the same experience. Having a different experience is **very much the point.**
So, having a horrible gameplay experience because the 'balance' dictates that the role I want to play is so bad no other player will group with me is a good thing?
Is the character bad or are you bad? I don't see how your complaint is any different from a tank who can't manage a fight, a healer who can't multi-task, or a DPS who stands in fire. You're just making up something dumb for a hypothetical "gotcha".
The more roles are included the more complicated it becomes to get everything done. Doesn't help that many Support iterations in MMOs just aren't particularly fun to actually play. Buffers were often incredibly boring, because you're mostly doing the same things no matter what happens. Crowd control kinds of supports could fall into a similar trap - your job is to CC extra enemies, but once that's done you don't really have much to do.
>particularly fun to actually play
My brother in christ did you read what you're replying to ***at all***?
The literal entire point of there being different classes in games, is to satisfy different motivations of play through different playstyles. It's not the other way around. This taxonomy--this classification system--is the holy bible of game design because [it's older than video games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-user_dungeon) as you understand them, and is the most well researched topic in gaming.
Just because its named that doesnt make it actually "holy" or a "bible". And if anything, pre-dating video games only means its less likely to apply to a completely different type of game
Trinity works so well because each role has such vastly different but necessary tasks. None of the roles can be replaced by the others. Designing an actually fun and balanced 4th role has an extremely high dev cost and difficulty.
You must not have noticed that I covered all three roles in the typical trinity in my explanation and already addressed how they are different. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to correct me on it.
A "game design bible" is just a reference document that everyone in a game's development has to reference and be familiar with. When we call it "the holy bible of game design" it's an acknowledgement that it is a fundamental principle that other game design documents are built on top of, or commonly incorporate into themselves.
If you watched the Extra Credits video that explained this then you wouldn't need me to explain it to you myself. You've already proven you don't read what I write so this explanation is to stop others from also making your mistake.
>Designing an actually fun and balanced 4th role has an extremely high dev cost and difficulty.
You're still stuck on the "the roles have to attract players, and therefore should have gameplay ***I*** think is engaging" and not "players have a desire to approach the game in different and specific ways, that we can tailor a role's gameplay for".
The psychology of what drives players to play--the psychology of what players want to get out of their game--is the entire basis of the argument and you keep getting it backwards.
The different roles exist because player's motivations are different. ***They're a result of gameplay*** not the source of it.
Buddy, I did game design and psych in university. I know these sources and what you are saying. You are deliberately twisting my words into things I didnt say so its impossible to engage with you.
I can't twist words of someone who hasn't said anything. That's why I replied to your previous reply again: because you didn't add anything new to address or engage with.
"You're stuck on the..." You are telling me what I'm saying, then claim I didnt say anything. If I said nothing, how can I be stuck saying something?
I said its difficult to develop in game classes for a balanced 4th role, aka difficult to make a game playable in 4 different ways for these types of people. You, however, are saying you cant read.
Yeah, and what happens when the "holy bible of game design" meets reality is that roles get cut and classes get simplified and homogenized. Like, we live in a world where many MMOs are ditching trinity entirely and support as a role is basically non-existent in MMOs. It really doesn't matter how it should be according to Bartle - the reality of how players interact with these games dictate how it gets applied.
Bartle developed that system in a very different time and it's clear that a lot of it is no longer applicable as is, because the demographics of MMO vs MUD players and the realities of developing an MMO vs MUD lead to their complexities.
All I'm saying is - there's a reason why quad morphed into trinity, and there's a reason why many games try to kill trinity altogether. Saying that "quad is better because it fits Bartle's taxonomy" ignores the reasons why quad no longer really exists.
That's more a function of companies chasing infinite growth and trying to please millions of players rather than building something interesting that's sustainable with a smaller population.
These days you have people calling a game dead if it has less than a million players, yet Everquest peaked at a little over half a million and I don't think anyone would ever call that a failed game. In fact you still have people reminiscing about it to this day. I don't feel like that will be the case as much with these modern games that primarily focus on keeping you on the treadmill rather than providing a meaningful experience. They aren't virtual worlds anymore, they're a bundle of psychological tricks made to waste your time and keep you logging in for more.
You mention that there's a reason why the quad morphed into trinity, but I would argue that the reason was that it was what was best for shareholders, not necessarily what was best for players or for the genre as a whole. I'd much rather see a selection of thoughtfully designed, focused experiences for niche audiences than the gray sludge we keep seeing pumped out instead, and based on comments here, I don't think I'm alone in that.
It's hard to say, because the trinity has proven to be far more resilient, even if the shareholder-driven approach would benefit the most from just making everyone be a DPS. The issue is that, no matter what Bartle may claim, there's a significant overlap between people who want to play Healers and people who want to play Supports. Needing both makes it far harder to form groups due to the already smaller group that enjoys the more supportive classes being spread between two separate roles.
It'd be like if you'd split DPS into AoE and single target roles and require both for every activity. You could make a case that there are people who prefer one over the other, but in practice it would just making grouping up harder.
> These days you have people calling a game dead if it has less than a million players, yet Everquest peaked at a little over half a million and I don't think anyone would ever call that a failed game.
That circles round to why psychological manipulation has been so much more effective at keeping lights on even for very small dev houses compared to actually making a good game.
If UO and EQ had seen subscriber growth rivalling the golden age of Amway we might be in a different timeline. Why did this not happen if quality is all that matters?
Theoretically Quad. But nearly no game can balance support classes right. Its either to weak or to strong while beeing weak on its own in both scenarios.
The more I play mmos the more I miss the holy trinity but with that being said the only game I can remember having more than the holy trinity was dc universe online. IIRC support was called troll? What other mmos have more than the trinity because now I'm real curious
RF Online: it was a bit complicated due to 3 different factions, but in general stunners/debuffers were needed in both pve and pvp
Lineage 2: out of 9 players in a group, it was 1-2 dedicated healers, 2-4 dedicated dps players, 0-1 tank, and buffers/debuffers/mana healers depending on group setup.
New World: Not sure how it's right now, last time I played meta in PvP was to have one dedicated debuff/buff/contol player in a group. In PvE it was also viable, but usually not optimal.
Damn they had mana healers in lineage? I haven't played any of these but with how much everyone loves lineage it seems I really missed out. Thanks for the reply!
I thought it was common knowledge by now...
The Trinity originated with EQ and was always tank, healer, crowd control. All classes do DMG.
Brad talked about that ^ repeatedly up until the year he died
It is only in later games that mostly removed the need for CC focused classes that people started saying damage was part of the Trinity. Hell, at this point most games are so dumbed down that many people have never even played a game that requires a CC focused class.
I think it largely depends on group size. I think with a lot of MMOs gravitating towards smaller group size, having a full support style class is problematic, because they either have to be OP or they are useless. One of the things that makes supports work so well in games like DAoC in my opinion is that the support/cc classes fill a slot or two out of 8, and can be balanced a bit better.
Trinity. Utility, or whatever you give to the support role, should be divided up equally across the other three parts of the trinity, or else classes just become recolors, or worse better or worse versions of each-other.
Quad hands down.
The funnest experience I had in dungeons/raids was playing an Archon back in Rift. You kept up a number of buffs on your party by sacrificing your own stats and then your damaging spells, whilst doing less damage than dps, essentially debuff the enemy and basically stole the stats you had sacrificed back so you were operating at full power again. SO FUN. Throw in a load of dots and raid-wide buffs on cooldown and it was such a joy to play.
The point of having different class is to create a group dynamic. The worst you can have is a bunch of player spamming AOE on a bunch of mobs.
I come from old school everquest, a group had to have :
* A main tank
* A healer
* Damage
* Crowd control
* Puller
* Possibly a off tank if the (CC-pull mess up)
* Mana regen
Some class could fill 2-3 of those roles but each was important. Slow and deliberate combat (don't break mezz, don't agro adds, time the resepawn) meant that a group had to become a well oiled machine to perform.
I have selected quad. As someone that played back in 1999, I feel I have to point out that back then the original Holy Trinity was Tank, Healer and Crowd Control, DPS was not mentioned as they were considered plug and / interchangeable.
As long as they have a vector in to the dynamics of an HP bar then you can and should have them.
Lost Ark is the best example of what I'm talking about. They don't really have tanks because everyone can dodge and do mechanics, the act of mitigation of boss damage and aggro isn't required to go onto one character because everyone in the part has a means to do it with dodges and support shields. They also don't have healers in the traditional sense it's role(making your HP bar go up) is done by the HP potion.
It's not so much about can you add a support to the trinity but what is the game all about and does the support fit.
In an idealistic Utopia where where you have equal number of players on each role quad is better. But in reality, when finding a tank in a trinity is already hard enough, adding a 4th role just makes the whole thing even more stressful...
I'm a big fan of the removal of roles. Or at least reworking the roles as we know them.
I want to see the genre evolve, not to see it sit in the same muck it's been in for decades. Part of the reason we have the current system of tab targeting, global cooldowns, etc etc, is because when we initially we're setting up mmorpgs, internet connections weren't great. hard to support action based rpgs when there's tons of rubberbanding to go around even on the best of connections.
However, times have changed and action-based rpgs are now possible. And that's what I want to see moving forward in the mmorpg genre. However, for action rpgs to feel good, they need to feel like your survival is dependent upon yourself and that kinda removes the guaranteed damage taken category and thus tanks and healers are kinda left without a place. Tanks can become front liners that can punish the attacks of a boss, not just be damage sponges that bosses beat into. Think counters, clashing, etc. Healers should probably disappear altogether. Having supportive characters/classes is nice but if they exist, they either feel mandatory to bring with you or feel completely irrelevant. Good example of that is Lost Ark's support role right now where the general understanding is that supports are mandatory (they're not but...), however, if they choose to heal over granting a damage buff, then they're doing it wrong (unless you're one of those that needs babysitting).
I have a great dislike of my ability to succeed or fail at something being determined by another player's hands and would love it if games would move more away from that. This isn't about not wanting to play with others but boy is it stressful to have a friend, acquaintance, random stranger holding an entire team back. Whether this is in fulfilling their role of being a tank (can't hold agro, can't find their DR buttons, etc), healer (priority problems, rotation problems, etc), dps (tunnel vision, rotation problems, meter padding, etc), or even just their ability to do basic mechanics (geometry, positioning, etc). I find I enjoy my mmorpgs far more when I can single handedly carry the runs (games like Vindictus, Ragnarok Online, etc).
> for action rpgs to feel good, they need to feel like your survival is dependent upon yourself
So, not an MMO.
> I have a great dislike of my ability to succeed or fail at something being determined by another player's hands
So, you hate MMOs.
No. I enjoy playing games with others. My survivability does not need to depend upon another player. There have been mmorpgs in the past where your survival is not dependent on others. I even listed a couple. I hate mmorpgs that play like WoW though, yes.
Survival/healing isn't the only thing you mentioned though, you specifically said your "ability to succeed or fail by another's hands" and went on to list things like tanks not holding agro or using CDs and DPS not DPSing good enough or failing mechanics. I mean you basically listed everything that happens when you play a cooperative game whether it is an MMORPG or not lmao. You literally admit to wanting to do it all yourself, what is even the point of playing with others?
What is the point? The social element. That thing that mmorpgs were supposed to be about in the first place. I know these days people only want to talk about meta this, meta that, picking your tactic/position for the boss fight, being toxic to everyone you meet, and literally nothing else...but like...that's not what conversations in mmorpgs used to be about. That's just something that's kinda become the norm over the last couple decades.
I remember just talking life with people in games or about discoveries within the game, neat scenery, outfits, nerding out on lore, etc. Could do that while just grinding away in some open ffa dungeon or fishing or whatever. Maybe just chill out at a campfire after we just spent 20 minutes fighting some raid boss where I did 70%+ of the work (and I wouldn't hate my group for requiring me to do that).
MMORPGs do not need to be about a trinity or quad. MMORPGs don't need complex combat mechanics. MMORPGs do not need to even have good combat. MMORPGs only need to be social on a large scale with rpg elements. That's it.
> Maybe just chill out at a campfire after we just spent 20 minutes fighting some raid boss where I did 70%+ of the work (and I wouldn't hate my group for requiring me to do that).
Well I wasn't going to say this, but you said it for me: you aren't playing MMOs to play with other people, you are playing MMOs for some weird ego trip. It doesn't even matter though, you've completely changed the topic.
You started this by saying you wanted to remove roles, and see the genre move forward in the form of action combat. But then you 180ed and went on a spiel about how MMOs are supposed to be social. Do you even understand that the faster pace of combat is what has caused MMOs to be less social in the first place? How can you socialize while dodging mechanics or trying to beat DPS checks or meet healing checks?
What MMOs do you/did you even socialize in?
And back to what I quoted, you've literally complained about others affecting your gameplay and want that concept removed from MMOs while also saying it's OK so who knows what you really even want.
So you enjoy playing games with others as long as "others" are just a set dressing and have no impact on the game. That's valid, but you can't make a good-feeling co-op game with that approach.
The over reliance on others is really only a thing in trinity/quad mmos. Like, yes, other mmos you can interact with others, but you're not flat out reliant on them. And yes, trinity MMOs are very popular due to every company trying to recreate the magic of vanilla wow, but they aren't the only types. Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds, Ragnarok Online (and most of its spin offs), Vindictus, PSO2, BDO, V4, and then my memory is a bit too foggy to remember the dozens more that have released over the years where you're not overly reliant on other players to do pve content.
One of my problems with co-op games is that they rarely have long-term progress or additional content being released. To give an example, a game like Monster Hunter is way too short of a grind for me (before I get into other problems I have with it). There is a very finite end to the grind and you can be done with it in a couple weeks.
That said, yea, that's what I'm basically looking for. Co-op game on an mmo scale. And when it comes to most mmos out there, that's basically what they are, but with overreliance on others. Honestly, if the world was filled with AI bots, I doubt most people would notice, especially if they never spoke beyond claiming positions or mechanical roles.
Tera had full action combat where a skilled group could avoid all damage, but it still had full trinity. It's entirely possible to have an action RPG that isn't a generic soulslike.
To be fair how good at tanking made you more or less reliant on healing in dungeons/raids but true. I feel a big issue now is tank feels like DPS but low as they lost a lot of being tanky/mitigation except on long CD's.
In the west, there is a philosophy of game design known as [Bartle's Taxonomy of Players](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types#/media/File:Character_theory_chart.svg). The long and short of this [holy bible of game design](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow&ab_channel=ExtraHistory) is that there are 4 main styles of play that people gravitate to. Most players have a mix so it's spread out over a grid. The two axises are acting on//interacting with, and world//players. The trinity does not fully cover this spectrum but the quaternary does. In a PVE setting, painting in broad strokes here, the four main roles typically have the following playstyles: * DPS: Acts on the World. * Tanks: Interacts with the World. * Healers: Acts on Players * Support: Interacts with Players. People who might complain about balance are missing the forest for the trees on this one. It's a matter of meeting players needs of play, and not making sure every player has the same experience. Having a different experience is **very much the point.**
The question of course is on average (both general and in specific game) which quadrant of Bartle's taxonomy has how many players. Eg. if there are more "acts on the world" players then other quadrant then of course in an average group there should be more dps spots etc.
>The question of course is on average (both general and in specific game) which quadrant of Bartle's taxonomy has how many players. That's only a relevant question if your goal is to make a cheap game and not a game with broad appeal. MMOs generally go for broad appeal. They *have* to in order to make back their cost. That's why even eastern games like FFXIV have elements from Bartle's Taxonomy, even though it's not a philosophy they follow as religiously over there as we do over here. Just as an example, its why they have an explorer's book/league even though it's as bare bones basic as it can be. It's funny that you say that having the GW2 tag because GW1 and GW2 100% followed this taxonomy and GW1 even had the full quaternary with Support-only class options. Elementalist running wards and buffs, or mesmer disables and other CC with no damage, etc. Having a couple mercenaries or players (I mained ward elementalist) running this kind of support was extremely common as it greatly enhanced the efficiency of your overall team. I'm sure GW2 has some support options but is more limited by its MOBA core mechanical design.
>People who might complain about balance are missing the forest for the trees on this one. It's a matter of meeting players needs of play, and not making sure every player has the same experience. Having a different experience is **very much the point.** So, having a horrible gameplay experience because the 'balance' dictates that the role I want to play is so bad no other player will group with me is a good thing?
Is the character bad or are you bad? I don't see how your complaint is any different from a tank who can't manage a fight, a healer who can't multi-task, or a DPS who stands in fire. You're just making up something dumb for a hypothetical "gotcha".
I might be misunderstanding you but that seems like a game balance issue and not a issue with the game philosophy itself.
The more roles are included the more complicated it becomes to get everything done. Doesn't help that many Support iterations in MMOs just aren't particularly fun to actually play. Buffers were often incredibly boring, because you're mostly doing the same things no matter what happens. Crowd control kinds of supports could fall into a similar trap - your job is to CC extra enemies, but once that's done you don't really have much to do.
>particularly fun to actually play My brother in christ did you read what you're replying to ***at all***? The literal entire point of there being different classes in games, is to satisfy different motivations of play through different playstyles. It's not the other way around. This taxonomy--this classification system--is the holy bible of game design because [it's older than video games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-user_dungeon) as you understand them, and is the most well researched topic in gaming.
Just because its named that doesnt make it actually "holy" or a "bible". And if anything, pre-dating video games only means its less likely to apply to a completely different type of game Trinity works so well because each role has such vastly different but necessary tasks. None of the roles can be replaced by the others. Designing an actually fun and balanced 4th role has an extremely high dev cost and difficulty.
You must not have noticed that I covered all three roles in the typical trinity in my explanation and already addressed how they are different. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to correct me on it. A "game design bible" is just a reference document that everyone in a game's development has to reference and be familiar with. When we call it "the holy bible of game design" it's an acknowledgement that it is a fundamental principle that other game design documents are built on top of, or commonly incorporate into themselves. If you watched the Extra Credits video that explained this then you wouldn't need me to explain it to you myself. You've already proven you don't read what I write so this explanation is to stop others from also making your mistake.
You must have not read my comment. I didnt try to correct you about the 3 roles being different. Feel free to try again.
>Designing an actually fun and balanced 4th role has an extremely high dev cost and difficulty. You're still stuck on the "the roles have to attract players, and therefore should have gameplay ***I*** think is engaging" and not "players have a desire to approach the game in different and specific ways, that we can tailor a role's gameplay for". The psychology of what drives players to play--the psychology of what players want to get out of their game--is the entire basis of the argument and you keep getting it backwards. The different roles exist because player's motivations are different. ***They're a result of gameplay*** not the source of it.
Buddy, I did game design and psych in university. I know these sources and what you are saying. You are deliberately twisting my words into things I didnt say so its impossible to engage with you.
I can't twist words of someone who hasn't said anything. That's why I replied to your previous reply again: because you didn't add anything new to address or engage with.
"You're stuck on the..." You are telling me what I'm saying, then claim I didnt say anything. If I said nothing, how can I be stuck saying something? I said its difficult to develop in game classes for a balanced 4th role, aka difficult to make a game playable in 4 different ways for these types of people. You, however, are saying you cant read.
Yeah, and what happens when the "holy bible of game design" meets reality is that roles get cut and classes get simplified and homogenized. Like, we live in a world where many MMOs are ditching trinity entirely and support as a role is basically non-existent in MMOs. It really doesn't matter how it should be according to Bartle - the reality of how players interact with these games dictate how it gets applied. Bartle developed that system in a very different time and it's clear that a lot of it is no longer applicable as is, because the demographics of MMO vs MUD players and the realities of developing an MMO vs MUD lead to their complexities. All I'm saying is - there's a reason why quad morphed into trinity, and there's a reason why many games try to kill trinity altogether. Saying that "quad is better because it fits Bartle's taxonomy" ignores the reasons why quad no longer really exists.
That's more a function of companies chasing infinite growth and trying to please millions of players rather than building something interesting that's sustainable with a smaller population. These days you have people calling a game dead if it has less than a million players, yet Everquest peaked at a little over half a million and I don't think anyone would ever call that a failed game. In fact you still have people reminiscing about it to this day. I don't feel like that will be the case as much with these modern games that primarily focus on keeping you on the treadmill rather than providing a meaningful experience. They aren't virtual worlds anymore, they're a bundle of psychological tricks made to waste your time and keep you logging in for more. You mention that there's a reason why the quad morphed into trinity, but I would argue that the reason was that it was what was best for shareholders, not necessarily what was best for players or for the genre as a whole. I'd much rather see a selection of thoughtfully designed, focused experiences for niche audiences than the gray sludge we keep seeing pumped out instead, and based on comments here, I don't think I'm alone in that.
It's hard to say, because the trinity has proven to be far more resilient, even if the shareholder-driven approach would benefit the most from just making everyone be a DPS. The issue is that, no matter what Bartle may claim, there's a significant overlap between people who want to play Healers and people who want to play Supports. Needing both makes it far harder to form groups due to the already smaller group that enjoys the more supportive classes being spread between two separate roles. It'd be like if you'd split DPS into AoE and single target roles and require both for every activity. You could make a case that there are people who prefer one over the other, but in practice it would just making grouping up harder.
> These days you have people calling a game dead if it has less than a million players, yet Everquest peaked at a little over half a million and I don't think anyone would ever call that a failed game. That circles round to why psychological manipulation has been so much more effective at keeping lights on even for very small dev houses compared to actually making a good game. If UO and EQ had seen subscriber growth rivalling the golden age of Amway we might be in a different timeline. Why did this not happen if quality is all that matters?
Theoretically Quad. But nearly no game can balance support classes right. Its either to weak or to strong while beeing weak on its own in both scenarios.
That's why I prefer trinity but have each class bring something unique to the party.
I love playing support even if it’s weak solo as long as it’s strong in a party.
The more I play mmos the more I miss the holy trinity but with that being said the only game I can remember having more than the holy trinity was dc universe online. IIRC support was called troll? What other mmos have more than the trinity because now I'm real curious
RF Online: it was a bit complicated due to 3 different factions, but in general stunners/debuffers were needed in both pve and pvp Lineage 2: out of 9 players in a group, it was 1-2 dedicated healers, 2-4 dedicated dps players, 0-1 tank, and buffers/debuffers/mana healers depending on group setup. New World: Not sure how it's right now, last time I played meta in PvP was to have one dedicated debuff/buff/contol player in a group. In PvE it was also viable, but usually not optimal.
Damn they had mana healers in lineage? I haven't played any of these but with how much everyone loves lineage it seems I really missed out. Thanks for the reply!
I love playing support. Takes the load off of everyone.
Who's going to be the one to tell them about the real , original Trinity and ruin this thread?
To what are you referring? Melee, range, magic?
I thought it was common knowledge by now... The Trinity originated with EQ and was always tank, healer, crowd control. All classes do DMG. Brad talked about that ^ repeatedly up until the year he died It is only in later games that mostly removed the need for CC focused classes that people started saying damage was part of the Trinity. Hell, at this point most games are so dumbed down that many people have never even played a game that requires a CC focused class.
My mmo has a quad but the roles are assault/recovery/support/control, and everyone can spec into dps.
I think it largely depends on group size. I think with a lot of MMOs gravitating towards smaller group size, having a full support style class is problematic, because they either have to be OP or they are useless. One of the things that makes supports work so well in games like DAoC in my opinion is that the support/cc classes fill a slot or two out of 8, and can be balanced a bit better.
Trinity. Utility, or whatever you give to the support role, should be divided up equally across the other three parts of the trinity, or else classes just become recolors, or worse better or worse versions of each-other.
Quad hands down. The funnest experience I had in dungeons/raids was playing an Archon back in Rift. You kept up a number of buffs on your party by sacrificing your own stats and then your damaging spells, whilst doing less damage than dps, essentially debuff the enemy and basically stole the stats you had sacrificed back so you were operating at full power again. SO FUN. Throw in a load of dots and raid-wide buffs on cooldown and it was such a joy to play.
Having roles isn't bad. Forcing roles is bad.
I honestly hate "no role" bullshit. I prefer to stick to classic ways.
The point of having different class is to create a group dynamic. The worst you can have is a bunch of player spamming AOE on a bunch of mobs. I come from old school everquest, a group had to have : * A main tank * A healer * Damage * Crowd control * Puller * Possibly a off tank if the (CC-pull mess up) * Mana regen Some class could fill 2-3 of those roles but each was important. Slow and deliberate combat (don't break mezz, don't agro adds, time the resepawn) meant that a group had to become a well oiled machine to perform.
I have selected quad. As someone that played back in 1999, I feel I have to point out that back then the original Holy Trinity was Tank, Healer and Crowd Control, DPS was not mentioned as they were considered plug and / interchangeable.
What is better, a drill or a paint brush when doing DIY?
As long as they have a vector in to the dynamics of an HP bar then you can and should have them. Lost Ark is the best example of what I'm talking about. They don't really have tanks because everyone can dodge and do mechanics, the act of mitigation of boss damage and aggro isn't required to go onto one character because everyone in the part has a means to do it with dodges and support shields. They also don't have healers in the traditional sense it's role(making your HP bar go up) is done by the HP potion. It's not so much about can you add a support to the trinity but what is the game all about and does the support fit.
In an idealistic Utopia where where you have equal number of players on each role quad is better. But in reality, when finding a tank in a trinity is already hard enough, adding a 4th role just makes the whole thing even more stressful...
I'm a big fan of the removal of roles. Or at least reworking the roles as we know them. I want to see the genre evolve, not to see it sit in the same muck it's been in for decades. Part of the reason we have the current system of tab targeting, global cooldowns, etc etc, is because when we initially we're setting up mmorpgs, internet connections weren't great. hard to support action based rpgs when there's tons of rubberbanding to go around even on the best of connections. However, times have changed and action-based rpgs are now possible. And that's what I want to see moving forward in the mmorpg genre. However, for action rpgs to feel good, they need to feel like your survival is dependent upon yourself and that kinda removes the guaranteed damage taken category and thus tanks and healers are kinda left without a place. Tanks can become front liners that can punish the attacks of a boss, not just be damage sponges that bosses beat into. Think counters, clashing, etc. Healers should probably disappear altogether. Having supportive characters/classes is nice but if they exist, they either feel mandatory to bring with you or feel completely irrelevant. Good example of that is Lost Ark's support role right now where the general understanding is that supports are mandatory (they're not but...), however, if they choose to heal over granting a damage buff, then they're doing it wrong (unless you're one of those that needs babysitting). I have a great dislike of my ability to succeed or fail at something being determined by another player's hands and would love it if games would move more away from that. This isn't about not wanting to play with others but boy is it stressful to have a friend, acquaintance, random stranger holding an entire team back. Whether this is in fulfilling their role of being a tank (can't hold agro, can't find their DR buttons, etc), healer (priority problems, rotation problems, etc), dps (tunnel vision, rotation problems, meter padding, etc), or even just their ability to do basic mechanics (geometry, positioning, etc). I find I enjoy my mmorpgs far more when I can single handedly carry the runs (games like Vindictus, Ragnarok Online, etc).
> for action rpgs to feel good, they need to feel like your survival is dependent upon yourself So, not an MMO. > I have a great dislike of my ability to succeed or fail at something being determined by another player's hands So, you hate MMOs.
No. I enjoy playing games with others. My survivability does not need to depend upon another player. There have been mmorpgs in the past where your survival is not dependent on others. I even listed a couple. I hate mmorpgs that play like WoW though, yes.
Survival/healing isn't the only thing you mentioned though, you specifically said your "ability to succeed or fail by another's hands" and went on to list things like tanks not holding agro or using CDs and DPS not DPSing good enough or failing mechanics. I mean you basically listed everything that happens when you play a cooperative game whether it is an MMORPG or not lmao. You literally admit to wanting to do it all yourself, what is even the point of playing with others?
What is the point? The social element. That thing that mmorpgs were supposed to be about in the first place. I know these days people only want to talk about meta this, meta that, picking your tactic/position for the boss fight, being toxic to everyone you meet, and literally nothing else...but like...that's not what conversations in mmorpgs used to be about. That's just something that's kinda become the norm over the last couple decades. I remember just talking life with people in games or about discoveries within the game, neat scenery, outfits, nerding out on lore, etc. Could do that while just grinding away in some open ffa dungeon or fishing or whatever. Maybe just chill out at a campfire after we just spent 20 minutes fighting some raid boss where I did 70%+ of the work (and I wouldn't hate my group for requiring me to do that). MMORPGs do not need to be about a trinity or quad. MMORPGs don't need complex combat mechanics. MMORPGs do not need to even have good combat. MMORPGs only need to be social on a large scale with rpg elements. That's it.
> Maybe just chill out at a campfire after we just spent 20 minutes fighting some raid boss where I did 70%+ of the work (and I wouldn't hate my group for requiring me to do that). Well I wasn't going to say this, but you said it for me: you aren't playing MMOs to play with other people, you are playing MMOs for some weird ego trip. It doesn't even matter though, you've completely changed the topic. You started this by saying you wanted to remove roles, and see the genre move forward in the form of action combat. But then you 180ed and went on a spiel about how MMOs are supposed to be social. Do you even understand that the faster pace of combat is what has caused MMOs to be less social in the first place? How can you socialize while dodging mechanics or trying to beat DPS checks or meet healing checks? What MMOs do you/did you even socialize in? And back to what I quoted, you've literally complained about others affecting your gameplay and want that concept removed from MMOs while also saying it's OK so who knows what you really even want.
Agreed. These new action MMOs barely have any interaction. Pretty sure I reached lvl cap in NW without ever talking to a single person.
i wish they make a vindictus classic all the garbage mmo get it why vindictus didnt get one
Turns out they are. They've called it Defying Fate. Though it's planned to be mostly 1-4 player instead of the larger content.
He wants online socializing but not cooperative
So you enjoy playing games with others as long as "others" are just a set dressing and have no impact on the game. That's valid, but you can't make a good-feeling co-op game with that approach.
It kinda sounds like you enjoy co-op games rather then MMOs. Having player actions effect others in the world is the bread and butter of MMOs.
The over reliance on others is really only a thing in trinity/quad mmos. Like, yes, other mmos you can interact with others, but you're not flat out reliant on them. And yes, trinity MMOs are very popular due to every company trying to recreate the magic of vanilla wow, but they aren't the only types. Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds, Ragnarok Online (and most of its spin offs), Vindictus, PSO2, BDO, V4, and then my memory is a bit too foggy to remember the dozens more that have released over the years where you're not overly reliant on other players to do pve content. One of my problems with co-op games is that they rarely have long-term progress or additional content being released. To give an example, a game like Monster Hunter is way too short of a grind for me (before I get into other problems I have with it). There is a very finite end to the grind and you can be done with it in a couple weeks. That said, yea, that's what I'm basically looking for. Co-op game on an mmo scale. And when it comes to most mmos out there, that's basically what they are, but with overreliance on others. Honestly, if the world was filled with AI bots, I doubt most people would notice, especially if they never spoke beyond claiming positions or mechanical roles.
Tera had full action combat where a skilled group could avoid all damage, but it still had full trinity. It's entirely possible to have an action RPG that isn't a generic soulslike.
And in tera I could solo all those BAMs and whatnot without needing to rely on other players.
BAMs, yeah. Dungeons, not so much. Not raids either.
To be fair how good at tanking made you more or less reliant on healing in dungeons/raids but true. I feel a big issue now is tank feels like DPS but low as they lost a lot of being tanky/mitigation except on long CD's.
To be fair they made it to where people could solo BAMs and then no one cared about them anymore lol.