Tanking and Healing

ArchivedUser

I believe there was a mention of a 'soft' trinity for the architecture of this game.  The trinity has been a staple of many previous MMOs, while the self sufficient style has also seen some use.  The former structure is rigid, requiring specific group compositions, while the later reduces player interdependence.  

I guess I have two questions to spark discussion in the community.  Will the only true healing or tanking classes be cleric/x or tank/x or will x/cleric and x/tank be able to fill that role?  Is there a sweet spot between a rigid trinity and self sufficiency to give players flexibility in their builds and group comp? 

ArchivedUser

I usually play healer, so I am hoping for a more traditional approach. What I would not like to see is GW2 anarchy.

ArchivedUser

I think we should think of it as each role has its own way of getting the task done. Supports other then cleric may not have the stereotypical heal but they'll have another way of keeping people alive. 

ArchivedUser

Yeah I hated GW2 anarchy.  When everyone is dps  who is supposed to self heal it's just boring... Because every class feels the same.

ArchivedUser

I agree that the GW2 setup is not good for facilitating teamwork/coordination.  I just hope we don't see a system where you have to have one tank/x and one cleric/x for a group to be successful. 

ArchivedUser

The true healing and tank archetypes are cleric/x and tank/x anything that is x/cleric x/tank take on augments which help to flavour your primary archetype - the do not adopt the role

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/33023/information-class-and-skills#latest

ArchivedUser

Yes I understand the class paradigm.  A rigid trinity system will work for group content as long as we assume 1/8 characters choose tank/x and 1/8 characters choose cleric/x.  

Since augment roles are more flexible, it might be interesting if a group of, as an example, x/tank, x/cleric x2, and bard/x, +4 dps was also viable.

ArchivedUser

Sidiston said:

Yes I understand the class paradigm.  A rigid trinity system will work for group content as long as we assume 1/8 characters choose tank/x and 1/8 characters choose cleric/x.  

Since augment roles are more flexible, it might be interesting if a group of, as an example, x/tank, x/cleric x2, and bard/x, +4 dps was also viable.

I don't think they will be viable because they are keen to have the primary role as the main "roles" from the trinity system. X/tank x/cleric etc will just give a slight flavour of the archetype so that you can personalise your playstyle - your not adopting the role of the main archetype. We will see though down the line when we get more infos

ArchivedUser

^ That's the way I read it too. The secondary class augments the primary class. The main talent tree and abilities are tied to the primary class.

ArchivedUser

Cleric and tank are the main heals/tank classes as I see it, and as they said ^^ secondary classes only augment the primary archetype and not completely change it. I think some combinations might be second place though like fighter/tank or bard/cleric might be another weaker version of those

ArchivedUser

Diura said:

I don't think they will be viable because they are keen to have the primary role as the main "roles" from the trinity system. ... We will see though down the line when we get more infos

I agree based on what we've seen from intrepid.  

It will be interesting to see how their system is implemented and with skill/talent trees (I think I saw this somewhere...) maybe we'll see some viable edge cases.

Hopefully there will be enough diversity in the tank/x and cleric/x playstyles to keep people interested.

ArchivedUser

True tanks and True healers, will keep their interest as long as Intrepid keeps their primary goals of having the secondary class as an augment to the first.  
  
You will always have the mage that can heal but never as good as a cleric. Or a Rogue that can tank but not as good as a tank.   Though I've known some super rogues who could tank on certain occasions. lol 

Play style is an individual thing.  Two people may have the same builds but play differently.  What works for one doesn't always work for another person.  
Ya for those that love to tank or heal, they won't lose their interest too easy.

ArchivedUser

Archangelus said:

I usually play healer, so I am hoping for a more traditional approach. What I would not like to see is GW2 anarchy.

Totally agree with you. I have always played a healer and love the role we play in a group. 

GW2 was such a turnoff for me due to the fact that healers were shut out with any class being able to "HEAL".

I hope it's a system where for harder content Healers are a must need to accomplish. 

I'll be rolling a Cleric from the start if this is the case.

ArchivedUser

secondary roles aren't going to have that kind of influence on your characters. I already know i'll never be asking someone to tank for me because their secondary is tank.... Nothing will ever replace a healer/healer. I can't see a healer being more efficient than that

ArchivedUser

I really hope there is enough diversity between Tank/X. It might get really stale if not.

ArchivedUser

Overspecialization breeds in weakness as Major Kusanagi says.  It's my job to keep my character alive, if i can get a little help from a cleric/x or a tank/x i'll be thankful of it, but to me a cleric^2 or a tank^2 is a crutch some players have gotten used too.  I'm not going to turn away a cleric^2 just rather have a x/cleric who can tank, dps, or melee and keep themselves alive.

ArchivedUser

Heh, it depends on the type of content you're playing I suppose.

I'd be surprised if raid content can be cleared without specialised healers and tanks.

But I think all other content should be clearable with various combinations of characters and not the trinity. You might have to be creative about how it's done, using stuns, self heals, aggro trading but I doubt it'll be impossible.  

ArchivedUser

I think you're right @AutumnWillow, especially with the larger raids. I mean, they have to ensure all roles are needed for the 40 man stuff or the diversity within classes, to all intents and purposes, will be pointless. If you won't need a cleric/cleric or a tank/tank in those instances then when would you? 

ArchivedUser

Kratz said:

I think you're right @AutumnWillow, especially with the larger raids. I mean, they have to ensure all roles are needed for the 40 man stuff or the diversity within classes, to all intents and purposes, will be pointless. If you won't need a cleric/cleric or a tank/tank in those instances then when would you? 

Yeah, I think you and I agree also that the only class that really required for any kind of content will be bards. hahah. 

ArchivedUser

AutumnWillow said:

Kratz said:

I think you're right @AutumnWillow, especially with the larger raids. I mean, they have to ensure all roles are needed for the 40 man stuff or the diversity within classes, to all intents and purposes, will be pointless. If you won't need a cleric/cleric or a tank/tank in those instances then when would you? 

Yeah, I think you and I agree also that the only class that really required for any kind of content will be bards. hahah. 

Amen to that!