PoE-saga MMORPG? Please?

[Hassat Hunter]

If Obsidian considering an MMO.. they will dugging their own grave. Seriously no. I've played a fair share of online games but i look forward more towards quailty single player experience games.

 

Imagine my sadness now we know they work not on just one of the infernal things... BUT TWO.

It's a sad, sad day...

[Fatback]

 

Nix the trinity and encounter design goes into the floor you can have it be classless but you need to have healers/support, damage and tanks. It's the only way you can get good encounters otherwise it's a straight dps game and that's no fun. Just look at gw2 and there encounters. Straight zerker gear or gtfo when it comes to dungeons.

Or you could have actual tactics in place, instead of just competing DPS/de-DPS(healing) rates.

 

It's currently far more about which weapon you have and what level you are than it is about what choices you're actively making, in the moment.

What are you talking about. Are you referencing gw2 or tactics in general.

[Lephys]

Sorry, I should've cut the quote off before "just look at gw2...".

 

You said that the trinity roles are pretty much required or it's just a straight DPS game and that's no fun. That's true, if you just take the current MMO mold and strip out classes/roles. If the game were designed around tactical choices in combat, instead of just the flow of damage, healing, and buffs/mitigation, things would be different.

[Fatback]

Here's the thing tho no matter how complex your tactics it comes down to a couple things someone who supports wether threw buffs, debuffs, heals, cc's. Someone who deals a lot of damage, melee, magic, ranged. Someone who absorbs damage, summons heavy armor guy. Now you can shuffle it up and say I'm going to have a heavy debuff and cc support so were would want some more dps with maybe a summon tank to eat up some of the big initial wave while the debuffs and cc's get into place. You still have all the 3 rolls covered. And now since everybody can't be everything you have 5 fighters you can't all be pure damage soaking because once you run out of defensive abilities you will be run down eventually so you have one guy go heavier into cc's. One dude goes with some aoe cleave damage and focuses on bleeds procs. One guy goes balls deep and duel wields 2 h great axe and war hammer. And the last one and the last 1 goes with banner buffs. You now have your trinity covered would play incredibly different.

 

If you go and make an encounter saying no matter what build or classes you have your gonna be able to win your screwed in terms of design or build variety.

 

But if you go. Classless or have a wide range of class abilities to mold classes into a play style and say when you make a dungeon saying your going to need a support to cc the adds of this boss your going to need a way to eat this enrage enrage ability.

[Lephys]

No, unfortunately, it doesn't always come down to those things.

 

I get what you're saying (or the underlying truth of what you're saying), but nothing requires that roles be so narrow that each person only does one thing.

 

In a tactical system, a Wizard, for example, doesn't just spray out pure damage. They actually fire off functional spells that accomplish various things to varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on the circumstances. In a tactical system, that "DPS" dual-wielder can actually go attack someone he can't necessarily effectively harm a whole lot, and can "CC" them, and/or mitigate their ability to damage anyone else by buzzing around them like a bee. Why? Because someone designed him to be able to do a lot of things, which CAN contribute to maximizing DPS, and can also be useful in other ways. Rather than just designing him to dish out damage.

 

Again I say, when the system isn't designed specifically around restricted roles that are expected to be filled for the entire duration of combat, things can get pretty interesting. Several games have soaked their feet in that pool, a bit, but none have been brave enough to dive in. It's just assumed that that would be horrendously complicated (if you didn't just have to worry about one thing at a time -- healing, damage, mitigation), and that only like 5 people in the world would want to play that game. So, based on a bunch of numbers on pages that they read in reports, companies are pretty sure that just copying WoW and redecorating is the way to go, despite the fact that like 5+ major MMOs have failed with that formula, just recently. *shrug*

[Fatback]

All people can be all things just not at same time. Is what it boils down to and I think you agree with what I'm saying

Edited July 15, 2014 by Fatback

[Lephys]

Sort of. I don't like to assume, which is why I've elaborated on my thoughts on the matter.

 

See, I'd agree, with what you just said, only I don't know what you mean by "just not at the same time."

 

I'd think a system in which one could fill multiple roles in a single combat encounter would be pretty great. So, I don't know if you mean that they'd have to re-spec and change gear to outfit specifically for the different role for a duration, or not.

 

Put simply, nothing about virtual multiplayer RPG combat requires that one person only fill one role at any given point in time. I mean, sure, at that instant, while you're casting "Heal," you can't be dealing damage, because you're casting heal. But, I'm just talking about capability. At any given point, a single character should be able to choose from one of several objectives to complete with a given ability/choice in the midst of combat.

 

The way MMOs are designed now, everything is set up specifically for there to be a trinity, or what-have-you, working together. If your healer falls, you die. If your tank falls, you die. If your DPS guy falls, you die. Etc. So, yeah, if you just had a mishmash of people who could all do various things at once, instead of a clear-cut role for each character, it'd be ludicrously difficult to make sure you had adequate effectiveness going on with any individual role. However, if the system were designed differently, then the same role structure would no longer be mandatory.

[Fatback]

I'm saying you can't build a character to chain 30 seconds of straight cc and top the dps charts. But your top dps might have a polymorph. And your rogue may be able to dps really good and also off tank with a high dodge. Or even main tank with a good cc/ healer but would need a different build to get like a parry ability with his dodge. In turn affecting his dps.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Fatback

[Lephys]

It seems like the only possibilities you're thinking of are just juggling existing stuff around between typical classes/builds. What I'm talking about is a system that doesn't restrict you to all that in the first place.

 

You can do damaging stuff with a sword, or a bow, or some daggers, or spells, or martial arts, etc. You can control people with any of that stuff. Healing... well, it would be significantly lessened, most likely. But, there could still be stuff for everyone.

 

And DPS wouldn't really be something to measure with such scrutiny, as you often wouldn't really be worried about getting a ton of hits in. Think of chess. You can be blocking with a piece one minute, then taking advantage of an opening and attacking with the same piece the next. Yet, they all still move in their own ways. You don't have a piece with the highest armor, a piece that's constantly de-damaging (healing) other pieces so they don't die before you get the enemy piece's health down from 1,000, and another piece putting other pieces to sleep and/or fearing them and/or nuking them.

 

There are ways to build an MMO such that you don't just set up for a war of attrition every time you fight something worthy of a whole party. I don't know how else to explain it. It's fun, the way they're done now, in its own way. I'm not saying it's wrong or something. It's just wrong to think that's the only way to do it. There are other, equally interesting ways (more so, in my opinion, but I could be biased because I'm so burnt out on this current formula) of setting things up. Ways that allow for a much more actively tactical approach, than a "Okay, you're going to need to be doing at least 1,000 DPS for the next minute, and when this guy does his big AOE, I'm going to need to make sure the shield is up at that point, then we'll repeat, until he spawns a bunch of little guys. Then, you're going to need to root them all, and get some DOTS out there, or we won't do enough damage fast enough to kill this guy in 10 minutes. You'll have to jump in and support heal if people start getting hurt too much, and make sure to slap a bunch of regen on people or we'll take too much damage too quickly, instead of surviving a total of 70,000 damage with our individual 1,000HP health pools."

 

That's a very specific design, and not some required box within which an MMO designer must work.

[Killyox]

That's a bad idea if I saw one.

[Zwiebelchen]

The holy trinity (tank, heal, dps) concept basicly only fails if we just copy and paste the existing combat mechanics of established games over and over again.

 

I think of the holy trinity more in terms of "what I do" instead of "what my character is capable of", which basicly means action combat.

 

 

If I am able to actively block and evade enemy attacks, then basicly everyone can be a tank if he has the player skill to do so. If healing others requires a lot of forethought and a good oversight over the battlefield, then basicly every player can be a healer if he has the skill to do so.

 

That's why I love action combat in MMOs. And that's also why Wildstar had such a great headstart. It directly involves player skill into the power formula. If you are better at avoiding attacks and aiming your skills properly, you perform better than the guy that has the same character and the same gear, but isn't as skilled as you.

And that's what makes a game engaging, imho.

 

So I'm all in for breaking up the holy trinity in terms of class design - as long as it still exists in terms of roles to play in combat.

[Fatback]

Lephys what was last mmo you have played and how long ago. Also hours played and level reached.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Fatback

[Lephys]

Ehh, Guild Wars 2. Hours-played? I dunno... 60-100? I think I hit level 40 or so with one character. Mid 20's with some others.

 

For what it's worth, I actually liked GW2 a lot better than most others I've played (Rift, WoW, Warhammer, etc.).

[AGX-17]

Not to be rude or anything, but...

 

A MMORPG of recent years is to a SP CRPG of good old IE-standards like a cool dude that surprise everyone with a shave after all those years:

 

Re: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/4/20130958

 

Also, vidgy gaems.

Edited July 17, 2014 by AGX-17

[Suspiria]

It is good to see games likes Divinity : Original Sin and Pillars of Eternity going back to the "oldskool" rpg roots. Personally -at least for now- i agree with the "keep it SP" opinion (co-op might work). Do not get me wrong i adore MMO's and played almost nothing else for the last 14 years but lately they do not go the good way tbh. So i am very happy with the good indie and oldfashioned (yet modern) RPG's that see the light these days )