Theory Crafting MMO Roles

[Col. Kernel]

They're still doing mediocre damage. If you do 2 damage and I do 10, but your buff is a x5 damage bonus, you're doing 10 and I'm doing 50. If it's a +5, you're doing 7 and I'm doing 15. Your damage is still mediocre in comparison, and you only exist in my team because of the buff or debuff. Your damage is, overall, less important than mine is. What this ultimately means is that the damage-first class is more valuable in larger numbers than the debuff-first class (unless debuffs stack, and they probably shouldn't if it's primary output. It'll be impossible to balance encounters around those numbers if they're in any way significant). A team of 4 DPS-first and 1 Debuff-first will be overall much more valuable than the inverse, whereas if both are Damage-first and one of them groups mobs up as a secondary function and the other debuffs, it is both more viable to take more debuffers (because their damage isn't adversely affected) and easier to balance stacking debuffs (because it's not their primary output) should such a thing become necessary for class viability

That implies that other PVE-focused games don't have classes, but they do. Classes are not a PvP-based idea, and never have been. Trying to make character loadouts overly granular is an excellent idea if you want to create a lot of grind and noob-traps

First off, multiplicative trends are much more exaggerated if you start with small numbers and de/buffs are multiplicative. Both 2 damage or 10 damage are damage at level 1 in an MMORPG, if the damage even goes that low. I won't bother with examples simply because we have no idea what the actual numbers will be like, whether the mobs will be resistant to different damage types, if there will be different damage types, and a host of other info that isn't even on the drawing board yet. My numbers would be garbage, just like yours are.

Secondly, buffs and debuffs should stack, but not from the same caster, with a very few case by case exceptions. Debuffs are trickier to balance than buffs because the debuff target tends to die at an accelerated rate compared to other mobs, therefore the debuffs have less of a long term effect. Recharge becomes a real balancing factor here.

Thirdly, a 5x buff is hideously overpowered. CoH had damage caps that, IIRC, were 400% for damage secondary classes, and 500% (5x) for damage primary classes, with one outlier (over 700% for Brutes, good luck getting near that). Note that damage improving gear counted against that cap, and that there was a cap to how much your gear could benefit an individual power. Getting sufficient buffs to approach those caps was difficult. Damage buff abilities, IIRC (it's been a few years) were typically around 75% - 125% with exceptions (e.g. Fulcrum Shift would put a small AoE around each foe that did a 40% damage buff, plus one around the caster that did a 25%. You could easily be at the damage cap if you were in the middle of a spawn when Fulcrum Shift went off).

 

[Col. Kernel]

Also, the thing about encouraging teaming...everyone/every class need to be able to fill every role...just one at the time...kinda like good ol' FF.

I'm assuming you mean you change classes by changing frames, not every frame fulfilling every role at once. And I'm all for that, presuming that each frame is hybridized (not homogenized) and balanced.

 

[Hybelkaninen]

I'm assuming you mean you change classes by changing frames, not every frame fulfilling every role at once. And I'm all for that, presuming that each frame is hybridized (not homogenized) and balanced.

Yes, sorry...bad explanation on my part.
Every player need to have access to every role.
Going for role "A" would boost those aspects at the cost of limiting aspects from role "B" and/or "C"....to put it very simple.

Kinda tongue-tied, scratching my head here as I don't know what kind of "classes" there will be.

 

[Beemann]

First off, multiplicative trends are much more exaggerated if you start with small numbers and de/buffs are multiplicative. Both 2 damage or 10 damage are damage at level 1 in an MMORPG, if the damage even goes that low. I won't bother with examples simply because we have no idea what the actual numbers will be like, whether the mobs will be resistant to different damage types, if there will be different damage types, and a host of other info that isn't even on the drawing board yet. My numbers would be garbage, just like yours are.

Secondly, buffs and debuffs should stack, but not from the same caster, with a very few case by case exceptions. Debuffs are trickier to balance than buffs because the debuff target tends to die at an accelerated rate compared to other mobs, therefore the debuffs have less of a long term effect. Recharge becomes a real balancing factor here.

Thirdly, a 5x buff is hideously overpowered. CoH had damage caps that, IIRC, were 400% for damage secondary classes, and 500% (5x) for damage primary classes, with one outlier (over 700% for Brutes, good luck getting near that). Note that damage improving gear counted against that cap, and that there was a cap to how much your gear could benefit an individual power. Getting sufficient buffs to approach those caps was difficult. Damage buff abilities, IIRC (it's been a few years) were typically around 75% - 125% with exceptions (e.g. Fulcrum Shift would put a small AoE around each foe that did a 40% damage buff, plus one around the caster that did a 25%. You could easily be at the damage cap if you were in the middle of a spawn when Fulcrum Shift went off).

You're picking apart the thrown out example numbers instead of addressing the core issue. If I do significantly more damage to you, your debuff helps me just as much and your damage is still mediocre relative to mine. This is an awful setup in a scenario where you're actively participating in your damage within an FPS or TPS scenario. The way this is usually handled (to use healing as an example) is to dumb down and overtune the output, but the actual solution should be to make the character better at fighting and have healing be a thing they need to use intelligently, rather than being a W+M1 level output
Whats' more, if your primary input is debuffs, your debuffs need to be pretty considerable, which means that stacking them becomes more difficult when you're trying to balance out FPS/TPS enemies. In WoW you can give shit a billion health and then you get the granularity you need over a long boss fight. If you put that same boss fight in an FPS/TPS it becomes a boring slog. The needs of an FPS/TPS are vastly different than the needs of CoH, and you need to take that into consideration

 

[Col. Kernel]

You're picking apart the thrown out example numbers instead of addressing the core issue. If I do significantly more damage to you, your debuff helps me just as much and your damage is still mediocre relative to mine. This is an awful setup in a scenario where you're actively participating in your damage within an FPS or TPS scenario. The way this is usually handled (to use healing as an example) is to dumb down and overtune the output, but the actual solution should be to make the character better at fighting and have healing be a thing they need to use intelligently, rather than being a W+M1 level output
Whats' more, if your primary input is debuffs, your debuffs need to be pretty considerable, which means that stacking them becomes more difficult when you're trying to balance out FPS/TPS enemies. In WoW you can give shit a billion health and then you get the granularity you need over a long boss fight. If you put that same boss fight in an FPS/TPS it becomes a boring slog. The needs of an FPS/TPS are vastly different than the needs of CoH, and you need to take that into consideration

Whaling on a huge bag of HP for 30 minutes is a slog, I don't care what type of game you're in.

I am well aware that the needs differ between a traditional MMO (e.g. CoH) and an FPS/TPS. Furthermore, I don't want or expect every game to play like CoH. However, CoH did pioneer a new and, at the time, unique approach to the classic MMO, and I believe that at least some of that can be transferred to a shooter with good effect.

Given that one of my former CoH guildies plays ESO and has found some of the principles I cited in the OP there I feel confident that they could be applied here. Yes, I am aware that ESO is not, strictly speaking, a shooter, however it doesn't use tab targeting.

We're going to have classes (different frames with different abilities), which means there will be roles. The key point I want to make is that no class should be mandatory, and no class should be useless. Everyone will DPS to greater or lesser effect.

 

[Niryco]

Edit: This is a kind of rambling post, and it seems a few people have missed the core parts of it. I'm going to change up the formatting so people can see what's important and what they feel they can skip. The 4 Role Model is the centerpiece of this post, and generally speaking of this thread

============================Background============================
I've been playing RPGs since the D&D white box set. I played MUDs throughout the 90s, first on BBS, then later on newly blossoming Internet. I was busy with RL when MMORPGs first came out (UO, Ever Quest) but I had friends that played, so I still got an earful. When my son got interested in CoH prior to Issue 3 I took one look at it and went out and bought myself a copy the same day.

I was familiar with the concept of the trinity from my MUD days and from hearing my best bud talk about EQ. When I started playing CoH there was no need for the trinity in that game, and my first though was "Cool, gaming has evolved". Yet, sadly, many MMO designers still think that you need the MMO trinity to force players to team. This is just not so. Yet, to find the alternatives to the trinity you need to break down the roles of the trinity and compare them to what roles are actually available in the metagame.

==========================Defining the Trinity==========================
The trinity consists, obviously, of the Tank, the Healer, and the DPS. But are those the only meta roles available? My answer is "no". Given that it is possible to improve the stats of players, or disimprove the stats of the mobs we have another role that falls outside the classic trinity. We also have a role where a player can stop the mobs from moving (but not from attacking), prevent them from moving and attacking, or cause them to attack a target other than the one that they (the mob) have selected. My breakdown on the metagame roles then is as follows;

========================Summary of 4 Role Model=======================
The key advantage to the 4 Role Model is that no one role is required, yet teaming is beneficial to all. Every role, including DPS, is considered a support role simply because every member of the team is supporting the team.

We've hit on why the trinity is obsolete (it's not required to encourage teaming, and lacks flexibility), an alternate 4 role model, and some of the pitfalls and advantages of the 4 role model.

TL;DR
Come back and read the full thing when you have time. The short version is the trinity is still widely used despite being obsolete.

The trinity isn't as obsolete as it is made out to be because if an outdated concept is still being used, it must therefore have some form of merit over other types of systems. However there are other forms or group organizational models that do exist and that are successful, however the trinity has always been the most successful do it the ease of understanding it.

Your 4 man organization is without a doubt a means to promote player equity wherein they can contribute towards the team no matter their choice of play. On the other hand when compared to a 3 man trinity, people being forced into roles and the seeming lack of choice feels suffocating to many, that is to say if we ignore why a trinity like WOW is more successful over a 4 man squad in Warframe.

In warframe i did try to suggest coming up with new roles instead to accommodate 4 man teams, but the problem lies in the fact you can't really make up new roles unless you involve new mechanics and how these roles interact most importantly to each vital mechanic. This the reason why the trinity is always successful, because each role covers specifically one aspect of each vital in-game mechanic that has pre-existed from then to till now.

The definite identity and role distinction players provided is what makes the trinity comfortable and favoured, it isn't confusing to the newer more casual playerbase and absolutely familiar with the older fans who are all used to HP, Damage and focus. However in warframe, the game where roles are so diluted leads to 1 size fits all characters over a proper team organization, which in the end stifles the original benefit of your intended 4 man team organization, allowing player freedom outside of their choice.

People simply tend to the most optimized routes when it comes to power play, with a trinity, everyone with clear cons and pros thus are forced to group together for effective team play of difficulty content. Whereas for a non-trinity design, roleless choice or frames would lead to exclusion of select frames due to them not being as optimal as the mainstream ones hence reducing choice for players who want to go end-game further.

Bottom line, if you want a new form of team meta you have to start from the basics, which means how to overcome obstacles, how much leeway do you have to try and even team focus is dealt and how each of these roles can be separate to distinct categories before it becomes a one size fits all problem.

 

[avalon1k]

I'd like to see a more realistic approach to classes (in a light sort of way). A medic who keeps you alive when you are downed and heals you (fast with modern technology), a machine gunner that suppresses the enemy (or something that can lay down a lot of firepower but not necessarily at high damage per round), Everyone can have flak jackets ( or something similar/better). How about when you are downed there is a heal time before you can rejoin the battle? And then my favorite ....snipers with 50 caliber exploding bullets or rail guns (with less armour so they can move fast).

 

[Beemann]

Whaling on a huge bag of HP for 30 minutes is a slog, I don't care what type of game you're in.

I am well aware that the needs differ between a traditional MMO (e.g. CoH) and an FPS/TPS. Furthermore, I don't want or expect every game to play like CoH. However, CoH did pioneer a new and, at the time, unique approach to the classic MMO, and I believe that at least some of that can be transferred to a shooter with good effect.

Given that one of my former CoH guildies plays ESO and has found some of the principles I cited in the OP there I feel confident that they could be applied here. Yes, I am aware that ESO is not, strictly speaking, a shooter, however it doesn't use tab targeting.

It doesn't use tab targeting, but it does use soft-targeting. You're not going to be leading shots or trying to perform flickshots in ESO
My point is moreso that the acceptable TTK for an enemy is higher in an RPG than it is in a shooter. If I fight an enemy and it takes a minute or so to kill, then that's fine. If something in a shooter is causing the player to wait more than half a minute, it's already been alive too long as far as most people are concerned. With that in mind, trying to make debuff-first classes isn't nearly as viable as making debuff-second classes. I say this as someone who has played (and watched what basically amounts to the death of) Firefall, Hawken, Global Agenda etc. I think shooters should push the envelope when it comes to encounter times, but you cant move too far away from the norm or people will be discouraged. Similar stuff already happens in Quake et al, and all that boils down to is a couple of extra rockets at most

We're going to have classes (different frames with different abilities), which means there will be roles. The key point I want to make is that no class should be mandatory, and no class should be useless.

I take no issue with this. Where we differ is when it comes to where emphasis should be placed. It is the sentence that comes right after this portion that I take issue with (though I'd say damage instead of DPS. Burst v DPS being a constant ongoing "thing" in shooters)

 

[Col. Kernel]

The trinity isn't as obsolete as it is made out to be because if an outdated concept is still being used, it must therefore have some form of merit over other types of systems.

The reason the trinity is still being used is the same reason that idiot investors are insisting on people continuing to make WoW clones.

Investors don't like risk, so they eschew innovation. They are also greedy, so when they see something that was wildly successful, even if it was just an anomaly, they will try to reproduce it. To everyone's disgust, I might add. EA forcing SWTOR to use identical classes and mechanics to WoW is one example. And their game nearly failed because of it.

 

[Niryco]

The reason the trinity is still being used is the same reason that idiot investors are insisting on people continuing to make WoW clones.

Investors don't like risk, so they eschew innovation. They are also greedy, so when they see something that was wildly successful, even if it was just an anomaly, they will try to reproduce it. To everyone's disgust, I might add. EA forcing SWTOR to use identical classes and mechanics to WoW is one example. And their game nearly failed because of it.

How does risk correlate with innovation? Heck they always pay for said games that are WOW killers and did the potential of money lost stop them? If that is the case why do investors invest in all the games with new mechanics on xb1 and ps4 as well as new ips that all have potentially new mechanics?

Blaming investors is not a proper argument in this day and age, look at star citizen, warframe didn't have investors and even then their roleless system became a "pick this warframe or we don't run". Optimized play is what makes trinity current, if trinity didn't exist everyone would attempt to make their own optimized play with 4,3,2 or even 1 player, that is what happens in warframe. This optimization play also eventually ruins game choice as well as community integrity.

If you want your 4 man organization to work you have to start even before roles or giving people choices, your system has to tackle optimized problem solving. Even your system would fall prey to pseudo trinity once players get a hold of it, it is inevitable because of how game mechanics are handled and how the player can best optimize to tackle them.

That should be your main focus of your organizational innovation over giving everyone free choice, tackle that first problem and your idea will be able to succeed. Like ask yourself first what is the main purpose of a team is to give people choice or to tackle difficult problems efficiently? the answer is latter and that is why teams fall under pseudo trinity because it is usually the best way to handle all challenges.

 

[DARKB1KE]

I'd like to see combined abilities, synergy.
Have some timer mechanic maybe to both press ability near the same time "cross the streams" Linking abilities to other frames near you.

 

[Aphaz]

ok, let's get 1 thing straight here...it's not the classes that are to blame, it's most of the players that are a bunch of self centered-selfish-bastards...no offence ment, let me explain (i'll use kanaloa as an example as i believe most ppl are familiar with it):

when i started doing kana i'd most often use my Raptor, as most ppl whined about getting PF for themselves ("my rhino does x dam", "no, PF ME pls i do more dam"...blah, blah), and then those same players would go around and argue who did more dam to Kana and i'm like "wtf...u wouldn't have done half of that dam without me". then the CS+PF exploit was discovered and suddenly u'd get both rhinos and arsenals whining to be the 1s getting PFed....and so on.

then i discovered why, that is that the player who did more dam gets a better loot (not the rolled loot, the std loot), so i made a mammoth build for kana specifically and stopped using my rapt (which had, ofc, ppl whining about it "of pls aphaz why u don't take ur rapt"...etc.)

i think u get the picture. so if u want classes to have meaning then first fix the player's attitude (i know, nearly impossible...lol), or at least make it so every1 gets the same chance for good std loot regardless of what they do (heal/revive, shield from damage, or deal damage), which is something i suggested on FF forums, but ofc to no avail...

so the point isn't really in what each class can do as much as how ppl treat each other...

 

[Aphaz]

oh yeah, i forgot...when i was the 1 tellin those PF whiners "why don't u get ur rapt and pf me" they'd whine like they don't use rapt in kana or how my pf is better...hahahah what a bunch of bs that was...

 

[Demigan]

Edit: This is a kind of rambling post, and it seems a few people have missed the core parts of it. I'm going to change up the formatting so people can see what's important and what they feel they can skip. The 4 Role Model is the centerpiece of this post, and generally speaking of this thread

============================Background============================
I've been playing RPGs since the D&D white box set. I played MUDs throughout the 90s, first on BBS, then later on newly blossoming Internet. I was busy with RL when MMORPGs first came out (UO, Ever Quest) but I had friends that played, so I still got an earful. When my son got interested in CoH prior to Issue 3 I took one look at it and went out and bought myself a copy the same day.

I was familiar with the concept of the trinity from my MUD days and from hearing my best bud talk about EQ. When I started playing CoH there was no need for the trinity in that game, and my first though was "Cool, gaming has evolved". Yet, sadly, many MMO designers still think that you need the MMO trinity to force players to team. This is just not so. Yet, to find the alternatives to the trinity you need to break down the roles of the trinity and compare them to what roles are actually available in the metagame.

==========================Defining the Trinity==========================
The trinity consists, obviously, of the Tank, the Healer, and the DPS. But are those the only meta roles available? My answer is "no". Given that it is possible to improve the stats of players, or disimprove the stats of the mobs we have another role that falls outside the classic trinity. We also have a role where a player can stop the mobs from moving (but not from attacking), prevent them from moving and attacking, or cause them to attack a target other than the one that they (the mob) have selected. My breakdown on the metagame roles then is as follows;

===========================The 4 Role Model==========================
Damage (aka DPS)
Brings the pain to the mobs, reduces mob HP until the mob is dead.

Healer
Replaces HP on friendlies. Again, this is self explanatory.

Buff/Debuff (hereinafter De/Buff)
Improves or disimproves stats such as defense, damage resistance, accuracy, movement speed, recharge speed, etc, etc, etc for friendlys or mobs respectively.

Control
This role controls some aspect of the mob's behavior, who they attack, whether they can move, whether they can attack, and so forth. The trinity tank role falls within this role.

The trinity exists as the dominant model because the De/Buff and Control rolls are not balanced against it, relegating them to background support, usually hybridized with another role (typically the Healer).

The key to eliminating the trinity is balance, specifically balance with the De/Buff role. The De/Buff roll typically reduces incoming damage or increases outgoing damage, though if created innovatively by the devs can have additional functionality. This reduces the need for healing, and should therefore result in Healing being nerfed if De/Buff is buffed. This is, of course, speaking of using pure roles when designing character classes. We'll get back to this when we discuss hybridization.

The Control roll is tricky to balance. The Tank's aggro management needs to be powerful enough to be effective, but not so powerful that the rest of the team is not taking damage at all. Then there is the matter of preventing attacks (hereinafter referred to as "holds" or "holding"). This was so over powered in CoH that the players referred to the game as "City of Statues" until holds were nerffed. Part of the problem is that holds are binary, the mob is held, or they aren't. One possible solution for this to have this particular type of control work as a slow and needing to have it stack sufficiently to become a hold.

========================Summary of 4 Role Model=======================
The key advantage to the 4 Role Model is that no one role is required, yet teaming is beneficial to all. Every role, including DPS, is considered a support role simply because every member of the team is supporting the team.

We've hit on why the trinity is obsolete (it's not required to encourage teaming, and lacks flexibility), an alternate 4 role model, and some of the pitfalls and advantages of the 4 role model.

TL;DR
Come back and read the full thing when you have time. The short version is the trinity is still widely used despite being obsolete.

Still a pretty narrow vision right? There's much more room for creativity here right?

For one: Weaknesses and strengths to unit type. This doesn't have to be debilitating if you, but it could be an important part of the gameplay. For instance one class is particularily effective against enemies with outer-armor like crustaceans. When this class fires upon these armored units they can 'open them up' and allow themselves and friendlies to deal additional damage.
Then another enemy is incredibly fast and zippy, this could need a trapper to slow them down or hold them in place for himself and his allies.
Then another enemy can heal quickly and possibly even pass this ability off to other enemies nearby, which requires another class to break the healing ability etc etc. This way attacking any range of enemies becomes something closer to a boss-fight where you have to dismantle the enemy unit composition and remove advantages for them. Enemy AI could consist mostly out of sticking together and using their abilities to buff each other while retaliating on the enemy. Without teamwork you could overcome it with sheer firepower and skill, but it would be a lot tougher than teamworking your way through it, communicating who is breaking which enemy ability chain and attacking that unit together.

This system has already moved away from the trinity (and your liniar class-set). This instantly means that every single class has to swap roles during a battle. You fulfill the attack role when you concert your attacks to take down an enemy, you fulfill the tank role if the enemy your armor is strong against shows up (which doesn't have to be the unit you can debuff for added intricacy!), you fulfill the debuff role when you use your weapons and abilities against the units you are strong against etc etc.

Any system that offers this challenge and moves away from ridgid archtypes would be better than the trinity in each and every way, especially in an FPS MMO. It means that the tank doesn't just have to stand there and take a beating while using some skills to keep up his defenses and take aggro. It means the healer doesn't just have to click his healing abilities at the right times while adding a bit of DPS etc. You might have an overarching role as healer thrust on you, but it doesn't have to be the only task you'll perform during a battle.

Here's my off-the-top-of-my-head template as an example:
Class 1: Heavy unit. Slow unit with mostly weapons and fewer abilities. Has the most saturation weapons (large AOE) available. Bonus damage against armored enemies, can reduce enemy armor for friendlies. Can tank against high alpha-damage units.
Class 2: Light assault. High-speed unit with many movement-oriented abilities and strong weapons with low magazine sizes. Can track enemy units (handy against invisible/camouflaged units) and mark them for himself and friendlies, this also transfers additional info on the unit's status (buffs/debuffs, more detailed health, markers showing vulnerable spots etc). The Light assault is the best to 'tank' fast-attack units by dodging their attacks.
Class 3: Trapper. Medium-high speed unit with medium strength weapons and movement-debuff abilities. Good for making enemy high-speed units easy targets, high-speed units could receive damage reduction when not slowed down (they 'dodge' part of the shot). Trappers are the best to tank large groups of smaller units, possibly with weapons that slow down small units upon hit.
Class 4: Medic. Medium speed unit with medium strength weapons and aside from friendly healing and some debuff abilities. Good for preventing spawning-enemies from creating armies of small critters and locking up other special abilities of enemies. Best unit to tank DOT weapons like poison or acids.
Class 5: Engineer. slow unit with light weapons. Relies on deployable shields and weapons to protect himself and his allies. Great for creating a safe spot to get medical attention or repair up the T.H.M.P.R. Is best class to tank extremely large enemies by throwing up defenses that draw it's attacks.
Class 6... etc.

 

[Sik San]

S

Any system that offers this challenge and moves away from ridgid archtypes would be better than the trinity in each and every way, especially in an FPS MMO. It means that the tank doesn't just have to stand there and take a beating while using some skills to keep up his defenses and take aggro. It means the healer doesn't just have to click his healing abilities at the right times while adding a bit of DPS etc. You might have an overarching role as healer thrust on you, but it doesn't have to be the only task you'll perform during a battle.
Class 6... etc.

Very true for the red text. But your off-the-top-of-my-head template feels still pretty specialized that's pretty controversial to the red text.

Also, I would not assign movement abilities to a certain class. Everyone should have it more or less. Active dodging (not a random chance but your skill) should be the main thing in such shooter oriented game.

 

[Col. Kernel]

How does risk correlate with innovation? Heck they always pay for said games that are WOW killers and did the potential of money lost stop them?

Innovation is something new, an unknown. Therefore investors perceive it as a risk.

No, but the games were not profitable to sustain and the overwhelming majority of them shut down in 2 years or less. Pretty much as soon as the investors had made their money back.

If that is the case why do investors invest in all the games with new mechanics on xb1 and ps4 as well as new ips that all have potentially new mechanics?

Consoles are a different animal and one I'm not familiar enough with to speak on.

Blaming investors is not a proper argument in this day and age, look at star citizen, warframe didn't have investors and even then their roleless system became a "pick this warframe or we don't run". Optimized play is what makes trinity current, if trinity didn't exist everyone would attempt to make their own optimized play with 4,3,2 or even 1 player, that is what happens in warframe. This optimization play also eventually ruins game choice as well as community integrity.

Star Citizen is classless, and not funded by investors. Firefall was funded by investors who attempted to force it from Mark's original vision into a traditional MMO (vertical advancement rather than horizontal) with guns. They succeeded and the game failed.

You have completely missed the point of the 4 role model. The 4 roles are always there, it's the lack of balance that enables the trinity. The trinity is forced on the players by making controls (other than taunt) and de/buffs weak, and healing over powered. This is all applied metagame and theory, not direct design.

If you want your 4 man organization to work you have to start even before roles or giving people choices, your system has to tackle optimized problem solving. Even your system would fall prey to pseudo trinity once players get a hold of it, it is inevitable because of how game mechanics are handled and how the player can best optimize to tackle them.

That should be your main focus of your organizational innovation over giving everyone free choice, tackle that first problem and your idea will be able to succeed. Like ask yourself first what is the main purpose of a team is to give people choice or to tackle difficult problems efficiently? the answer is latter and that is why teams fall under pseudo trinity because it is usually the best way to handle all challenges.

It's not MY four "man" organization. It is four roles that exist in every RPG, and several other types of gaming as well. The trinity is forced on players by deliberate designing an imbalance between these roles into the character classes.

The trinity is far from optimized for one simple reason alone. It is more effective to prevent damage than to heal it back. One action is proactive, the other is reactive. If you have 1,000 HP and take 1001 damage no amount of healing can help you. If, however, you were buffed, or your opponent debuffed, to reduce the incoming damage you wouldn't take 1001 damage, you take 999 and then healing would do you some good.

Riiiiight. Because Tank & Spank is the answer to all the worlds gaming problems. NOT!!!

Edit: Grammar

Edit2: Formatting and clarification

 

[Col. Kernel]

Still a pretty narrow vision right? There's much more room for creativity here right?

For one: Weaknesses and strengths to unit type. This doesn't have to be debilitating if you, but it could be an important part of the gameplay. For instance one class is particularily effective against enemies with outer-armor like crustaceans. When this class fires upon these armored units they can 'open them up' and allow themselves and friendlies to deal additional damage.
Then another enemy is incredibly fast and zippy, this could need a trapper to slow them down or hold them in place for himself and his allies.
Then another enemy can heal quickly and possibly even pass this ability off to other enemies nearby, which requires another class to break the healing ability etc etc. This way attacking any range of enemies becomes something closer to a boss-fight where you have to dismantle the enemy unit composition and remove advantages for them. Enemy AI could consist mostly out of sticking together and using their abilities to buff each other while retaliating on the enemy. Without teamwork you could overcome it with sheer firepower and skill, but it would be a lot tougher than teamworking your way through it, communicating who is breaking which enemy ability chain and attacking that unit together.

This system has already moved away from the trinity (and your liniar class-set). This instantly means that every single class has to swap roles during a battle. You fulfill the attack role when you concert your attacks to take down an enemy, you fulfill the tank role if the enemy your armor is strong against shows up (which doesn't have to be the unit you can debuff for added intricacy!), you fulfill the debuff role when you use your weapons and abilities against the units you are strong against etc etc.

Any system that offers this challenge and moves away from ridgid archtypes would be better than the trinity in each and every way, especially in an FPS MMO. It means that the tank doesn't just have to stand there and take a beating while using some skills to keep up his defenses and take aggro. It means the healer doesn't just have to click his healing abilities at the right times while adding a bit of DPS etc. You might have an overarching role as healer thrust on you, but it doesn't have to be the only task you'll perform during a battle.

Here's my off-the-top-of-my-head template as an example:
Class 1: Heavy unit. Slow unit with mostly weapons and fewer abilities. Has the most saturation weapons (large AOE) available. Bonus damage against armored enemies, can reduce enemy armor for friendlies. Can tank against high alpha-damage units.
Class 2: Light assault. High-speed unit with many movement-oriented abilities and strong weapons with low magazine sizes. Can track enemy units (handy against invisible/camouflaged units) and mark them for himself and friendlies, this also transfers additional info on the unit's status (buffs/debuffs, more detailed health, markers showing vulnerable spots etc). The Light assault is the best to 'tank' fast-attack units by dodging their attacks.
Class 3: Trapper. Medium-high speed unit with medium strength weapons and movement-debuff abilities. Good for making enemy high-speed units easy targets, high-speed units could receive damage reduction when not slowed down (they 'dodge' part of the shot). Trappers are the best to tank large groups of smaller units, possibly with weapons that slow down small units upon hit.
Class 4: Medic. Medium speed unit with medium strength weapons and aside from friendly healing and some debuff abilities. Good for preventing spawning-enemies from creating armies of small critters and locking up other special abilities of enemies. Best unit to tank DOT weapons like poison or acids.
Class 5: Engineer. slow unit with light weapons. Relies on deployable shields and weapons to protect himself and his allies. Great for creating a safe spot to get medical attention or repair up the T.H.M.P.R. Is best class to tank extremely large enemies by throwing up defenses that draw it's attacks.
Class 6... etc.

If the Four Role Model is looking down on gaming from 20,000 foot, and hybridization is a 10,000 foot view, your suggestions are all around the 2,000 foot view.

I'm not saying they're bad suggestions, I'm just saying they're pretty much not in the scope of this conversation.

Well, except for your comments on moving away from rigid archetypes. That is what hybridization is about. But there should still be definite classes that are different from one another, just the classes should be hybridized so that

A) Everyone does good damage

B) Each class has different strengths and weaknesses

C) Each class can reasonably be expected to solo.

 

[Sik San]

It is more effective to prevent damage than to heal it back. One action is proactive, the other is reactive.

:3

 

[Sik San]

I'd rather abjure direct healing. Dmg prevent is much more fun and logical.

The same with aggro. Dmg prevent + manual dodging are your friends, not the biggest guy in your party, saying nasty things to the mobs. But if he's big enough - he might cover you with his body - that could be named tanking D

 

[Demigan]

Very true for the red text. But your off-the-top-of-my-head template feels still pretty specialized that's pretty controversial to the red text.

Also, I would not assign movement abilities to a certain class. Everyone should have it more or less. Active dodging (not a random chance but your skill) should be the main thing in such shooter oriented game.

Ah yes you are right. I might not have said so but movement abilities should be available for everyone. The light assault class would just have acces to the most.

As for the abilities of each class, I would assume that any attack will be done through multiple enemy types. You don't get attacked by almost 100% armored enemies (like in FireFall where you would get attacked by 95% Aranha's in one spot and those lizard-things in the next spot with little overlap), you'll get attacked by a mixture of enemy spawners, armored, high-speed, healers etc. The mixture determines which class is the most useful, but the other classes won't be useless. If the enemy type that your class is good against isn't there you are almost certain to find a unit type you can tank (which was why I made sure their weapon/ability proficiency was good against a different unit than they can tank), or if that unit isn't there either or is slaughtered that you can take the role of DPS and/or debuffer.

Then let's not forget that the enemies don't have to be stuck to a single arch-type as well. Enemies could easily combine multiple archtypes (spawner+armored) so that 2 classes are good against it, but to completely nullify the enemy you actually need both classes.

On that note, what was I thinking trying to introduce classes? It would be better to let players create their own loadout mixtures, but put restrictions on it to prevent min/maxing (which causes stale loadouts).
For instance, if you pick a weapon type that's good against armored units, you can't pick traits that make you good at tanking that same unit or abilities that help you fight that unit type. This way you have at least 3 things you are good against, one for your weapon, one for your abilities, one for your tanking ability. This prevents players from specializing into one unit type and then feeling left out when that unit type isn't available, but instead it encourages players to create loadouts that provide synergies and make sure all enemy units can be attacked efficiently. This in turn drives the economy as players not only try to get the best equipment but also try to get a loadout option for each unit type.