Wait, why Tank, Healer, Damage Dealer?

There was no triad concept in D&D. "Aggro" was largely a function of how the gamemaster perceived that any given opponent would react to any given situation. Almost every class had ways to mitigate damage. Every class was capable of delivering similar amounts of damage, (or capability of defeating specific types of enemies in the cases of clerics versus undead, etc). Every class was capable of healing because the majority of healing was, at least in my groups, a function of items, not necessarily a function of class. The cleric usually had other things to do.

I suppose the cleric class was the closest nod that D&D had to today's triad model because of the inherency of their healing spells, but by and large, clerics had other, more important things to do in a given encounter than stand back and heal the rest of the party like a healer does in a modern MMO.

In fact, pnp D&D, at least the way we played it, was a lot closer to what Sam is describing than any MMO, including CoV.

Edit: All of that being said, since this game is evolving to the point where the specialized classes are becoming more and more 'niche' with each development, I would say that the empathy defender and the entire tank AT probably need some sort of look-over as to what they actually do... especially if, as many suspect, the tank will probably be replaced by the brute in desirability for teaming after GR drops.

Well, I don't really think you can find the Holy Trinity origins in AD&D. Yeah, in the beginning, when the mage dies to a giant rat and the cleric dies to 2-3 rats, the fighter classes were more or less tanks and served that role for a time. But later on, the game becomes ruled by mages who can not only become totally invulnerable, but can easily wipe out most fighters with Finger of Death or similar methods of mass destruction. Granted, 3rd and Pathfinder (I refuse to touch 4th) remedied some of this high and low level power balance but, generally, good DMs, in my opinion, never relied on combat XP to provide the majority of the player rewards. Combat can be central to DnD but it doesn't have to be to level/progress so you don't really need clearly defined class roles.

I happen to think the holy trinity roles have their origins in older CRPGs, particularly things like Wizardry where only the first 3 people out of 6 could generally be meleed (granted this changed in 4 and later with long reach/ranged type weapons) but your first 3 people generally were your 'tanks' and the last 3 people were your mage dps and cleric heals. Many CRPGs followed this, partially due to technological limitations, partially due to AI limitations and partially due to designer creativity. FF1, for example, the probability of taking dmg for each spot was 4:3:2:1 so naturally you put your meatshields in the front 2 and whm/blm in the back 2. Its easy to balance and program games around well defined roles.

The first MMO I can remember was NWN (the original that was basically gold box DnD online, not Bioware's) and it basically held true to the tank, healz, dps structure. Granted, it wasn't really massively multiplayer like the games of today are, but the progression from CRPG to MMORPG meant that a lot of the first MMOs were similar in structure to the general "holy trinity" CRPG model (EQ for example). Most MMOs today still incorporate these basic elements because its easy to balance for designers and familiar to players.

When you start implementing things that have tree systems or loose roles, balancing can start to become quite the headache. I loved the original SWG with all the options for trees but it also resulted in powergaming on a massive scale because of the fact the trees were definitely not equal and the players figured it out quickly and before you knew it, nearly everyone had 2-3 rancors, then they all became BHs, then they all became commandos as devs kept trying to balance (read:nerf) the classes. I remember being quite upset over the whole pistols >> rifles issue. Balancing open trees is very, very hard and nerfs generally anger players and risks your revenue stream.

That said, it does seem that games are trying to move away from the traditional 1970s-80s CRPG models. Bioware with Mass Effect and, even more so, Dragon Age are starting to open up to a more open tree/skill based system. Granted, both of those still have somewhat clearly defined ATs but the variety in the tree system is opening up more options to branch out of the traditional "tank, support, dps" roles. Of course, the balance issue with the tree system can become brutally apparent in Dragon Age with some builds that are able to waltz through the game on hard while others will get destroyed by 3 Mabari on easy. This also generally means, the new player gets destroyed a lot because they don't know the effective power combinations. This is less risky for single player games (because you already have their money), but can be deadly to MMOs when you're trying to secure a player base/revenue stream.

Unfortunately, this probably means that most MMOs for the near future will be still 'tank, heal, dps' because its proven,already out there and successful. I'm sure eventually someone, somewhere will figure out a balanced open tree system suitable for online play and easy to learn that will bring changes to the MMORPG genre. Until that day, most new MMOs will probably still try to be newer shinier versions of WoW because its familiar and successful.

It has to do with the way damage is dealt and mitigated. Thats it. If the specific game`s universe allows for controll and buffing type of damages next to ranged and mellee, then you have more than tank/mage/dmg dealer as classes.
While a certain way of dealing damage to a foe might be more efficient and more powerful than another thus allowing for high or low dps among archetypes/roles/classes , the armor is something that can never be restricted to a specific class. Usually the more armor the less skills in dealing damage.
Another game design matter is the way victory is achieved when dealing with a foe or another player. By team or by solo. When you have both in a game there is no more balance due to giving the same opportunity to a solo (or various team sizes) player to achieve what a team achieves.
I don`t think that a game enourages team play or solo play, but a game is designed for one or both therefor balance might occur or not.
The more you complicate things and add other elements to the games like resistance, buffs and debuffs, regeneration etc the more you have a need for classes as some have better numbers than others. By definition, if you resist more damage than me and if you can take more hits than I can , then you are a tank(er) so I would like you to go in first while I have some mitigation through your characters defense. But if I can control more aspects of a fight and control better than you the behaviour of an enemy than I am a controller and will put that to use while/if also dealing damage.
Knowing you are good with your fists and you have to go in mellee range in a battle you will make sure you are well protected and can take on a lot of hits as you will probably be surrounded by enemies. But if you know you will fight from a distance, there is no need to defend yourself that much as you already have a form of mitigation towards mellee damage. So you already have 2 classes. Tanker and Blaster.
If you deal damage through a pet or more than you will need to be able to aid them as much as possible since as a pet they are not very strong as a proper class, so you will have acess to support/aid/damage type of powers, which pretty much will make you a controller as you will probably help your pets fight immobilized or stunned foes. And another class is born.
Role Playing Games or Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. You are someone with special abilities and you will be defined as something, most likely one of the three standard classes.

P.S. written at 8 am , after a 12 hour shift, excuse any off topic nonsense.

As others have said, CoV gets closer to this balance. And I do find that it does mean people are less willing to team and when they do, often don't try to work as a team. I love Villains when a team works together in creative ways to steamroll missions, rather than just the tank, hold, blast, rinse and repeat pattern more prevalent in Heroes, but other teams can be sheer hell as members just do their own thing despite it resulting in the deaths of team mates.

One solution could be to make the teaming bonus greater for smaller teams. On a team of 8 I find that i tend to use my 'specialist' skills almost exclusively - my blasters for example rarely do more than cycle through their attack chain, with smaller teams I need to use their full range of mitigation skills as well just to keep me and others alive. For me small teams are much more fun because of this, but the xp rewards aren't as good, so most leaders are intent on getting and keeping a full team (with the resultant standing around outside missions waiting while they recruit) and people will leave a team if it drops below 8.

There are so many ways CoX could solve this problem by creating missions with different objectives. For example, a mission where you have to support a squad of Vanguard, by buffing, healing, and tagging them for rez when they fall in combat, or a mission where you get XP for avoiding contact with the enemy and gather information without getting caught? And before you say "well how can you do missions like that without the needed powers?" I say, temp powers like we already get like the costume stealths.

Having all character types equally combat capable in an MMO would be problematic:

- Even if they were, they would not be perceived as being equal. "That guy does 5% more damage than I do under specific circumstances! Nerf him!"

- If they can all solo equally well, then they must also contribute equally well to teams or the team-oriented ones have an unfair advantage.

- With no one 'needed' on a team there are no roles for people to learn, which makes teaming more problematic than it already is for some players.

- With all players eqully combat capable, there is less room for customization. "But I want to put all of my points into doing more damage!" and conversely, "I want to give up combat capability in return for support ability!"

None of this is impossible to overcome, but the question becomes "Why reinvent the wheel? How does overcoming all of these problems in order to do things differently help the game? Is it worth the extra money (playtesting, development) to even try?"

Here's what I'm thinking as far as the "all ATs should have base stats that allow them to do combat." Right now that's already possible, as Arc said, just not necessarily at the speed at which people want.

Now if Defenders are boosted to a level where people are satisfied with the damage they do and the speed at which they kill, most other ATs would be pointless. Why play less capable ATs like Blasters if the damage isn't worth it? So if a Defender's damage is boosted up significantly, the damage of all the other ATs would have to be increased proportionally as well. So Defenders would get a 50% increase (random number), and so would everyone else. At that point, nothing has changed (except enemies die faster all around), and Defenders are still considered slow by comparison, and low damage dealers.

So unless the suggestion is to reduce the stat difference between ATs and bring them all closer to one another, trying to boost the "weak" ATs to a point where they can deal significant damage just creates a mess and doesn't solve anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

I honestly haven't paid much attention to the rest of the thread... so some of the points I'm about to raise have already been brought up.

Two games that I have directly played have tried to break from the Tank / Healer / Damage Dealer formula, those being WarHammer Online and Planetside.

In Planetside pretty much all players start with a base soldier classification with a sub-machine gun, a pistol, and some inventory space. They can upgrade their armors with cert points, buy vehicle certifications, or go Engineer / Medic classifications. In the game you could also take various MAX armors, as well as light and medium tanks, and eventually BFR's. Since all players started out on relatively equal footing, battles often came down to skill. A couple of Lightnings, which were the light tanks, actually stood a fair shot against the Heavy Tanks Vanguard, Prowler, or MagRider in the hands of a skilled pilot. A player equipped with just a Suppressor could in fact take out somebody equipped with a JackHammer.

However, despite the versatility of each player, in the middle of combat, things still fell into the Tank, Healer, Damage Dealer formula. The MAX armors went in first, the Heavy Assault and Special Assault right behind, followed by the Engys and the Medics. If you had the advanced engy or advanced med certs, you probably spent more time on the backlines healing and repairing than you did firing your weapon. If you were a Heavy Assault, you probably spent more time with your ammo fully stocked and laying down suppressive fire.

So, in practical case, when a game did break the mold and allow players to have multiple aspects of a single archtype, players still automatically fell into playing to the strength of one archtype or another.

***

WarHammer Online did pretty much the same. Pretty much every class could be an offensive class, with the buffers and healers getting massive attacks.

However, once things actually got into battle, once you actually started a tower hold or a tower offensive, things broke back to the stock archtypes. Tank Types went in first, soaked up the first round of damage, followed by the damage dealers, followed by the healers. Even though Archmages could do more than simply heal, once the fight started, that's pretty much all they did with occasional bursts of damage. Even though IronBreakers could do more than play defense, as soon as a tower hold started you'd see waves of IronBreakers turn around and nail Shield Wall, covering everybody fighting on the ramps from behind, while setting up the grudge and defense buffs on Bright Wizards or Warrior Priests.

***

So? Why?

Well, part of it comes down to attention span and focus. It's very easy in a combat situation to focus on one aspect of your avatar. Be it damage, healing, defensive buffs or so on, most players only have the physical capability to react to a single event at a time. In the same manner, most players only have the physical capability to focus on performing one event at a time.

As it can be witnessed in games where players can break from the traditional molds with their avatars, most don't. Most players simply fulfill a combat role that they have the abilities to fulfull.

***

Another aspect of the formula is that these are just games, but, we can also draw data from real-life events. Ask a Military Recruiter about the different service opportunities available in a standing military. You will probably receive information about the medical corps, the engineering corps, the front line infantry, the back-lines intelligence, the missile command, and so on. If you enlist in the US Military for example, you have to a pick a Military Occupational Specialty, or M.O.S. You are then trained in this particular field, your chosen M.O.S.

Yes, there are some service units, such as the Navy Seals or Army Rangers, that fulfill multiple combat roles. A Navy Seal, for example, receive not just standard medical training, but underwater medical training : http://www.navy.com/about/navylife/o...eals/training/

However, very few enlisted, or commissioned, soldiers in the US Navy become Navy Seals. Very few enlisted or commissioned soldiers in the US Army become Rangers. Not everybody has the capacity, both mental and physical, to handle the multiple jobs such elite soldiers can handle.

In the same way, not every gamer has the mental or physical capacity to play and focus on something more than the Tank, Healer, Damage Dealer.

Yes, somebody could say the formula is a basic one, but it works to enable the most amount of players to have access to any particular game.

I think one of the key problems is mission design. Having more innovative missions where damage is of less importantance would shift things from just needing to kill enemies. Examples have been given on ways to improve stealth missions.

I sort of disagree with the thought process of Scrappers being self sufficient simply because some enemies actually can give certain power combos a hard time, we just don't have enough for it to be noteworthy.