I think a HUGE problem with gaming in general is devs have concentrated too much on graphics and not enough on improving A.I.. I mean how much has A.I really improved over the last 10 years??? Fuck all. Graphics on the other hand just continues to rage ahead.
EQ Never
- Thread starter Convo
- Start date
Excidium
Trakanon Raider
- 832
- 1,276
Do you not think EQ was a complete faceroll too? I 6 boxed on the progression with some simple software and it took less attention and effort than it took to heal 25 man Lich King controlling a single character. Really wish people would put down their rose coloured glass. I don't remember wiping often while raiding in EQ and my guild had 90% of the clerics as players bots. IF thats not facerolling, I don't know what is.
it feels like fluff. Until we see it in action its just what they want the AI to do rather than what the AI actually does. Its hard to imagine AI that learns what the player is doing when its 5 or more players launching attacks at the enemy.
Malakriss
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 12,364
- 11,761
Even skynet had to disable the upper learning functions on terminator AI before they figured out how horrible that shit was and rebelled. T-800s flipping tables and going to play PS9s instead of being the loyal soldier is not what they had in mind.
Grim1
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 4,865
- 6,822
Vanilla WoW was very good actually, it may not have had as much challenge in the early game as I would have liked but it was still fun. And there were plenty of dangerous spots in the open world if you looked for them. But even it has changed. Which is the point.
It really isn't that hard to recreate what I'm talking about. Just tuning the mobs to give them a chance to win would be a start. GW2 had a early version in beta that was fun. But they scrapped that and made everything face roll for release. Even their dungeons are easy.
Which ties into the lack of trinity btw. If everything is easy and no roles are defined then it doesn't matter if there is a trinity or not. The reason the trinity was necessary is because some content was too challenging to do with simple group rush tactics. Groups had to come up with ways to defeat the content and that required a bit more organization of skill sets in the group. Then the devs started to develop content around the trinity and that is when it was locked in.
Blowing up the trinity is a great idea, but if the content is too easy then the players will not have any reason to come up with new roles and it will turn into the boring mush that is GW2.
Progression isn't the same as classic. You know that.
Have you been following this thread? No one wants good AI, they want the same stupid aggro mechanic we've had for 15 years so they can tank, heal and dps their way to victory while cybering the hot wood elf. Here's what good AI would look like: rape the healer, kill the dps, laugh at the asshole in the tin can.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
A trinity will arise naturally if you have a class that takes less damage, and a class that takes more but can support the class that takes less. I was saying it earlier, but the trinity just didn't fall out of the sky one day--it's an abstraction of how humanity has fought for thousands of years whenever the opponent is somewhat difficult. You have front line troops, and support/logistics in the rear.
D2 was used as an example of a game without a trinity--UO is a similar example. But they aren't "difficulty" based games. They are both efficiency based. In D2, a single person can easily kill any mob, you group to form synergies to do that faster and better--it's the same with UO (Well to an extent, it changed after a few expansions). This kind of play shifts the whole dynamic of PvE though--in this style of game, PvE is more about resource collection, rather than notoriety for downing difficult bosses. Usually, part of this is PvP and controlling an area (Which is how it was in UO).
However, the moment they make it actually very difficult, to the point where mobs can't really be soloed? You're going to see people flock to as close to a trinity as possible, not because the game is designed for it, but because it's usually the most efficient way to fight. Even UO formed these tactics eventually--but against other players. Dedicated healers would stand back and kite, while dex monkeys would form a front line. You COULD go after the healers, but that just meant you were being kited with a guy shoving his sword into your ass AND you had to deal with constant blocking (Because there was collision) which could exhaust you and leave you vulnerable. The game began to evolve so that tactics dealt with the front line first, because the logistics/support was protected, in other words, a trinity naturally emerged (With no taunt, or anything like that)...It just developed because it makes sense. (And yeah, when a line was broken and healers became vulnerable it was catastrophic, just like in any war when your supply lines and command/control are vulnerable.)
Anyway, I wouldn't mind a PvE game built more around controlling spawns, and efficiency (So more like UO). But I don't think that's what they are going for...And if their only method of ensuring no trinity is to prevent a class from slotting heals? It's going to be awful, because you'll just end up with pseudo-trinities where debuffers or other types of support stand back while tanks play a Benny Hill PvE game that has them jumping into and out of combat. And if you make the AI go after support, you're just going to invite kiting, especially considering they showed we can block landscapes. (And again, maybe this is their plan, lots of ways to defeat mobs--so they want kiting to be a viable method for guilds without tanks or healers--and that's fine. But adamantly stating there will be no trinity, makes it seem like they are going to attempt artificial controls on it, which sounds dumb.)
Unfortunately you don't fully grasp the capabilities of better A.I. I'm not talking about combat A.I. I'm talking about mobs building towns raiding player towns looting, living, evolving, learning. Having more than A or B reaction to X action.
Example A group of Orcs have been dominating an area for a while they become rich their king builds a forte/town. They get richer. Their king starts investing in better armor better warriors. They get richer again. They start expanding. They begin to ally with different factions. etc etc. Think Rome: Total War A.I x10. To make sure players don't just conquer the WHOLE world simply have a system if players are starting to dominate an area somewhere across the realm different mobs start to become stronger etc etc.
EQ Next claims to have a watered down version of this. I'll believe it when I see it.
Whether it was due to mechanics/larger raid forces/phase of the moon or whatever, EQ had a much slower consumption of raid content overall then any MMO I have played since. Many casual guilds didn't even touch higher tier content until the next expansion. So regardless of individual's claims of faceroll etc the overal equation EQ used resulted in much less face rolling (yes some obviously tied to respawn rates but even when they started introducing instances content did not just fall over dead. Fuck Omm or whatever his name was didn't even get beat until an expansion later.
Thats why I liked EQ in some respect, you had to be geared, you needed AA's etc. It just felt better staged progression I guess. Hell even in raid zones, they actually used to have variance of loot quality where earlier bosses had less quality with some stud item or 2 sprinkled in with a unique effect you wanted etc. Now everyone has complete equal gear set drops on each mob with the last boss having 1 minor step up in loot. Its just so blah....fuck Ilvl's was one of the worst ideas ever implemented in games as far as I am concerned. Fuck equality, we want variance, we LIKE imbalance to an extent. We like RARITY...yes people will bitch and moan that someone has something they don't but at the end of the day, guess what, that is what drives people.
I know camping days are done etc but one such great early implementation was a tranquil staff in EQ: kunark. Fucker was amazing and rare as fuck. It turned a monk into a beastly mother fucker especially when combined with a fungi tunic. After seeing one in action I swore my alt WOULD HAVE ONE, I camped and I camped, I sold/bought in EC on an alt trying to make money so I could be ready in the rare case one came for sale etc. When I finally got one I was fucking so thrilled. I know we can't completely replicate the process tied to this in todays gaming world but fuck me I'd love to have a game recreate that feeling. Hell getting Ice Comet and later on GSS and being one of the few wizards to have on the server just made my day and they were huge improvements to ones performance. Not .5% increase omg thanks for killing my boner....
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
How would your mob rape the healer if I can take my sword and cut the kidneys of the mob out as he tries to walk past me? You can't say the AI is dumb by peeling back one level of abstraction. The only reason the AI could even think about going after a healer is because you have a level of abstraction called Hit Points--which prevent fights from being over in a minute or two, like theyshouldbe. So attempting to say the AI is not realistic, while simultaneously relying on unrealistic abstractions, is the epitome of myopic views on this whole debate.
Again, if there is actually collision, and if turning your back on someone allows for near instant death, how is the mob going to get past the tank? You don't. This is why fights in the "real" world have front lines, and different levels of support and control. Even a dragon has knees, if he goes after my healer, why can't I take my huge pike and shove it through his knees while my healer runs? Oh, that's right, because he's an abstracted HP target and I can't actually plunge my pike into him vulnerable points.
If it's something like an iron golem? Guess what, then it doesn't even make sense to be fighting them in the first place. You peeling back levels of abstraction is silly. They are there because they simulate real combat. You can't just say "The AI shouldn't do this" without saying "Well the mobs shouldn't be able to do X or Y, either". People who focus on JUST the AI not going after the healers are ignoring the fact that the players can't cut the AI's testicles off with an aimed attack, or the numerous other bullshit abstractions that lead to the need to abstract the trinity in the first place.
Did you watch or read the changes about the A.I.? It actually is one of the most compelling features of EQN. The game does not feature static respawns or the same behavior as previous MMOs.
Grim1
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 4,865
- 6,822
I think most people would welcome improved ai. It has been discussed before many times in this thread. And many are fine with getting rid of the trinity. But saying it and actually pulling it off are two different things. GW2 didn't do a very good job of eliminating the trinity. It was a good try though and there are lessons to be learned from them.
If the EQN devs do what GW2 did and build upon it then they have a chance to do it right. One of the main problems with GW2 is even though they have a pretty robust combat system there really isn't any need to understand it because the PvE content is so easy. Chain skills and combos are rarely used or needed by most players in PvE. I do know a lot of very skilled PvP players that use them effectively though.
If classes come to the table with a bunch of different abilities to chose from and if the early game content is challenging enough to players to understand those abilities, then the players themselves will come up with new roles and tactics to win with. GW2 got the classes right, they are very different and fun to play, it is the lack of challenging PvE content that they failed at.
I don't understand this avoidance or outright refusal of the trinity.
I understand and respect that they want to give players the choice to do different things, and it isn't always fun being the primary healer. Of all people on this forum, I'm probably the loudest advocate of player freedom (and how Blizzard absolutely failed at it). However, the solution is NOT to give everyone the ability to do everything just because you want to give them that choice to do different things - and then turn right around and restrict that ability with classes.
The only way I see something like this being fun as advertised is if all the artificial barriers are broken, and we have a skill system like UO. If you want to give players freedom and versatility, I don't understand why you have discrete classes to begin with. I don't want to 'switch classes'. If you don't want to let me tank, heal, and dps all at the same time, then design that within the context of the game - eg, I can't cast magic in heavy armor, but do not restrict it by my current class: having to switch from 'shaman' to 'warrior'.
Imagine instead they remove the entire concept of a class, replaced with all those classes' skills. You pick some, you discover some, you're awarded some. That's what they should be aiming for (which isn't in the vein of EverQuest in the SLIGHTEST. I have no idea why this game is called EQ Next).
I understand and respect that they want to give players the choice to do different things, and it isn't always fun being the primary healer. Of all people on this forum, I'm probably the loudest advocate of player freedom (and how Blizzard absolutely failed at it). However, the solution is NOT to give everyone the ability to do everything just because you want to give them that choice to do different things - and then turn right around and restrict that ability with classes.
The only way I see something like this being fun as advertised is if all the artificial barriers are broken, and we have a skill system like UO. If you want to give players freedom and versatility, I don't understand why you have discrete classes to begin with. I don't want to 'switch classes'. If you don't want to let me tank, heal, and dps all at the same time, then design that within the context of the game - eg, I can't cast magic in heavy armor, but do not restrict it by my current class: having to switch from 'shaman' to 'warrior'.
Imagine instead they remove the entire concept of a class, replaced with all those classes' skills. You pick some, you discover some, you're awarded some. That's what they should be aiming for (which isn't in the vein of EverQuest in the SLIGHTEST. I have no idea why this game is called EQ Next).
Depends if the skills are similar or not - e.g. weak slash, strong slash, uber slash type stuff - if they were all different though, e.g. pike with extra long range attacks, and armor piercing attacks, or broad spear with sweep attacks and pushbacks, you'd probably end up with everyone wanting all of the weapons for different situations. That has potential. It'd also be a good way to make weapons memorable and interesting, rather than the WoW problem where the 85th upgrade of your mainhand sword from 550 to 575 dps really doesn't offer much excitement.
Mughal
Bronze Knight of the Realm
- 279
- 39
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,356
- 5,898
Shoot mobs with arrow run past tank. Tank insta kills mob chasing the guy who shot it with a arrow loot and repeat.
That or a "best of" type class set to maximize group speed/efficiency.
Think of it like the system in Final Fantasy 12. Seemed good at first, to build different characters. But once you learned what was where, and what the different unlocks did, the path became similar for every single character, to the point where they nearly all had the same skills/hp pool/etc.
With time, all the different class combos will be unlocked and learned. There will be good, ok and useless skills. Useless being things that are slotted very rarely like true north.
Progression of a character, once that is learned, will be to aquire X skill for Y class to build towards ultimate combined Z class. This will be similar for everyone. Tanks, pure dps, etc, will be built. Or at least the most efficient group combo will be known, and the road there will be fairly similar for everyone. Get this, then this, then that, then this, to become "the best" of whatever class spec you wish to be. People might be getting the abilities at different locations due to the changes in the world that will supposedly happen, but they will chase after the same skills.
You might want to be a mage, and run around exploring solo to find new abilities associated with that, and that build will be your personal choice. But when you sign up at the LFG tool, you will swap your skills to best match what is known to be the universal combo for whatever role you wish to play in that group. Large problems will come if combat has little to no interdepdence, where everyone is out to take care of themselves, and one specific class combo is best for that. If a Warriorwizard with stealth and a heal = the currently most OP class that can stand on its own. Everyone will build towards that and be that in a group. If 1 is best, why not 6 at once. Either that will happen, or there will be a holy trinity. X class set to be the best DPS, X class set to be the best tank and X class set to be the best healer. Group efficiency will be what decides if it is there or not. If tanks had abilities to protect dps, and having dps increased speed of killing, and since they previous mentioned classes all slotted tank/dps skills for max efficiency, they would need someone with healing abilities to keep them alive. You would then get perhaps 3 different types of classes. Because there would be a best tank, best dps and best healer. There might not be any levels, but quickly things will become "X abilities needed to go to Y". The abilities you need would be stadardized based on the role you wish to play. Or if there is no interdependency, you would strive to become only one. Because why would you not strive to become the best possible class? Especially if not doing it would make you stand out as "not as good" in groups, because you are not doing the commonly known min/max for your role.
40+ different classes with different skills to weapons and so on, sound nice on paper. But reality will be a datamine of what is "best", and with time that becomes universal. At that point class progression becomes largely a personal thing for solo adventures and fluff for your charcter, while in order to progress with groups, you will actively search out for skills to get the build required for max efficiency.
With absolutely no trinity in the game and everyone being able to be everything, end game raids would consist mainly of people being exactly the same. Because if everyone "take care of themselves" as the devs put it in the class discussion, then therewillbe a best way to do that, and everyone will do it. Especially end game, high end guilds would outright require it. You might want to be a Shadow Knight, but if no skills from that build are in the "max efficiency" route, but 3 skills from the Paladin tree are, going Shadow Knight would be unwise as it makes being a paladin harder. So people then rush to become Paladins, so they can become an SK after they have gained the 3 Pally abilities. Run around alone as an SK, but when tanking duities come, you go back to the "best" class set.
I might be wrong, hope I am, but how can their system (which seems more open than Final Fantasy 11/14) turn out any other way?
Grim1
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 4,865
- 6,822