Spinning off from the Star Trek Holy Trinity in Space Thread, Woodsmoke had a good point that MMO Tanking, complete with the taunting mechanic, is kind of stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsmoke
Of course, if this were being designed as any type of game besides an MMO I'd have absolutely no problem with that, because that's exactly what galaxy-class starships are. Flying fortresses. Galactic dreadnaughts. Interstellar tanks. Unfortunately, as we all know, in MMO lingo "tank" doesn't mean "giant, well-armored powerhouse that shrugs off most minor attacks and cleaves through the enemy lines like they're made of wet paper." No, in MMO lingo it means "giant pile of hit points and armor with all the offensive capability of a week-old anemic kitten upon whom the enemy, in defiance of all that even vaguely resembles logic, focuses the full brunt of his assault while your squishy companions tear literal chunks out of his flesh (or hull, in this case)."
I responded with an alternate theory of how the Tanking / Striker split could be done right in a Star Trek game
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stantz
The more I think about it, the wildcard here is the shields. From what we know, shields are directional, rechargeable, and very good at shrugging off torpedo fire. Those things combined might mean that the Tank / Striker split can be kept, but in a way that makes sense.
Imagine this: a fleet engages a single large ship. The tank opens fire from a distance. The mob responds by boosting shields against that arc, and returning fire, since that's the scary thing. Shields hold on both sides, so little damage is done. Escorts zip in from the side arcs, and target the non-boosted shields. They may get through enough to hit with a torpedo, causing some actual hull damage. The mob attempts to zap them away, but 1) they can run away the moment it looks like their shields may be in trouble and 2) the cruiser can dish out far more hurt if he doesn't keep the front shield up.
So, the tank has the big guns and armor, but didn't do any real damage. The strikers don't have those advantages, but did. Fiction is preserved, and everyone is happy.
(Except the guy that always plays a healer. )
... but that got me thinking. Pretty much every MMO uses the same idea of tanking, which is pretty absurd. There has to be other models for combat that doesn't require it in the first place, and someone here has to know them.
So, can anyone come up with a good small-unit combat mechanic that can be dropped into an MMO? Ideally, it could work in real time over a couple of minutes with well defined class roles, since those are the things that have been discovered to be non-negotiable in MMO design. Beyond that, go nuts.
__________________
"[Stantz is] like love injected directly into my brain." ~Kai Tave
Laugh points: dddawson, Living Dead Girl, bulletproof (Many + 2), Phantom Stranger, Brass Monkey (Twice!), JaccoNamori, Gizmit, Gully Foyle, Bloodcat, joenr76, comrade pointdexter, graeyWolf, Graywolf (no relation), Xeno, Random Goblin, Cthulhu's Advocate, Benny the Gnome Bard, Old Geezer, David Johansen (as many as I can carry), ForceflowX (enough to choke on), Jinx Murphy, Mr. Venom
A point of reference from Emprint
0.63 soul death points from Jolinar
A sympathy point from Phalanx, who wishes I had a chance to game with sane people.
And one hedgehog from Jilly Hoo. Ain't it cute?
I've never liked MMO tanking, but I pretty much cut my teeth on Asheron's Call... which doesn't have it, really. Oh, sure, you can go for the aggro and, thus, be the one taking the hits... but it's not because you are waving a flag around or belching in their face. You have to be ahead of the curve on the hurt... this can just mean getting a few shots in first so your hurt total is higher than the others, or just doing much more hurt than your peers... but it's not because you get in their face and say "heeeeeey, hit me."
I think Champs Online has a form of taunt mechanic... but no one uses it or the the "builds" (roles). It's really odd, anyway. The guy doing the most damage is going to be the target.
I think the easiest to implement would be not being able to shoot through other players. This way here you can actually be in the way of the bad guy and, thus, its only valid target. Anyone else getting up close enough to be in the way is also a valid target, revert to normal "who's hurting me more?" aggro rules among those in reach.
__________________ Some people are so sensitive they'd feel snubbed if an epidemic overlooked them.
Hmm, would harassing a foe be considered the same as taunting? What if the tank made them the focus of attack not because of taunting or heavy damage but since they are constantly debilitating the enemy in some manner.
You know the whole trickster rogue type concept could be a "tank". You draw attention through harassing, debuffing and such a foe but doesn't just stand there like a brick. You are constantly on the move, dodging, weaving, using cover (not that used in MMOs but SWTOR has it so others could too).
There's lots of alternatives. Champions Online can work with an emphasis on the Guard mechanic and long charge attacks as much as conventional trinity fighting for much of the game, especially in small group work. While Sony never tried it, and MxO had so many other problems that it would have been a lost cause anyway, it's not hard to think of ways to take the Matrix Online fighting mechanic and translate that to matrial artists or swordsmen parrying and beating back enemies. A game I've been trying to put together doesn't have a tank role at all -- everyone from the healers to the swordsmen to the magi to the gunslingers shares the same dodge mechanic, and class roles are more about how limiting the dodge mechanic is on what attacks you can use, and how much more difficult aggro makes building up special attacks. The Tabula Rasa mechanics, at least during late beta and early release, likewise shifted away from the conventional trinity.
That said, I'm not certain that this automatically results in a game actually being more fun, and that's a major obstacle toward implementation. There are a lot of games that at least allow exceptions from the conventional trinity, and they've never really become bywords for success.
__________________
"Shut one's eyes tight, or open one's arms wide... either way, one's a fool." -- Captain Katherine Janeway
I think the easiest to implement would be not being able to shoot through other players. This way here you can actually be in the way of the bad guy and, thus, its only valid target. Anyone else getting up close enough to be in the way is also a valid target, revert to normal "who's hurting me more?" aggro rules among those in reach.
Way Back in Brown Box OD&D that's how it worked. Three characters in full armor with shield were considered to plug up a 10' corridor so that nobody could get past.
At some point, fighters stopped being close order heavy infantry, apparently.
So, yeah, if you could actually form up the fighters into a formation the enemy couldn't interpenetrate, it would make things a lot different.
Could be wrong, but doesn't Guild Wars lack the traditional taunt mechanic? Anything that can be learned there?
Melee classes (Dervish, Warrior and Assassin) are all very dangerous. You don't want to be within range, and they all have access to abilities that slow opponents. There is also the fact that you can "tank" by being the only one the enemy can get to, while the other classes attack at range.
Basically the enemies don't target the ranged classes because the guy thats hitting them in the face with a sword is actually just as dangerous.
EDIT: Theres also the fact that all the classes had similar base HP, while armor did differ. The healing classes also have a much easier time healing the whole party in GW compared to other games, where if the healer divides their attention the group dies.
Melee classes (Dervish, Warrior and Assassin) are all very dangerous. You don't want to be within range, and they all have access to abilities that slow opponents. There is also the fact that you can "tank" by being the only one the enemy can get to, while the other classes attack at range.
Basically the enemies don't target the ranged classes because the guy thats hitting them in the face with a sword is actually just as dangerous.
Could be wrong, but doesn't Guild Wars lack the traditional taunt mechanic? Anything that can be learned there?
Yes. It does lack it.
It's been a while since I played GW heavily, so details are fuzzy, but IIRC:
If they aren't body blocked or otherwise hampered the baddies will tend to head right for the squishiest looking target. Squishies in GW aren't necessarily so squishiy as they might appear though, depending on their abilities chosen. For instance, a Minion Master built Necromancer may be soft himself but he can surround himself with a body blocking wall of minions, onto whom he shunt damage done to himself, or sacrifice to heal himself up.
Aggro chains. If you move your would-be tank out ahead and a creature spots him, it will also become aware of anything that is within aggro radius of him, and if it's squishier than he is the bad guys will tend to beeline for the squishier target. And if anything is in range of that target they become aware of it too. You can still "tank" if you manage to get your intended tank far enough out ahead that there's nothing in range of him for aggro to chain to, and then once he gets aggro locked on him you can move in with your AoEs of doom. But for the most part you have to use positional tactics and damage to keep the squishies from getting beaten down.
Linear Mode
