Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
2. The angle I am coming from for many months, is that content should be tuned to player skill sets. Rather than players adapt to suit a dungeon:
a) In the latter you end up with cookie cutters as the content is invariably pidgeon holed to favour specific 'situational' classes such as the above prejudicial view on what tank-tank playstyle would be. And that content is repeated verbatim until the puzzlebox is completed perfectly, with the perfect builds, in the perfect combinations, that min-maxers have established are perfect for the content after endless trial and error. This is the proverbial scripted content that gets boring, mandatory and obsolete.
b) In the former, it doesnt matter which type of tank you bring as the content will adapt to suit the players preferred build style. Instead of builds being created to suit the content (as the content is always unique, adaptive and dynamic and has no time to be min/maxed). The team thus keeps the same builds/characters throughout their journey and perfects their teamwork through filling in weakness and strengths across the team. Instead of people changing their identity on the drop of a hat for each dungeon....the players can maintain both their character identity (that they have spent possibly years working on), but the team also gets ever closer after potentially years of harmonised mutual counter-play.
3. So yes I and a few on here are guilty of hypocrisy and trying to have their cake and eat it. But until we have fine details on class skills, dungeon mechanics and combat mechanics, people will always express a preference and fill in the many many blanks with prejudicial supposition. No point having a forum discussion on stuff that is known. Its the unknown that sports controversy and debate
TL;DR ....cookie cutters are created by min-maxers because the content allows them to prepare for that content. If the only given is intimate knowledge of you and your team mates skill, then you must prepare for the unknown with a diverse skill set to handle any potential challenge. One system demands diversity, one system kills it.
I agree with you on your first and third point, but not on your second.
If content adapted to the player, you would see groups forming with like, 6 healers, a bard and a summoner. People would be like "meh, the content will change to make this happen". If this were the case, people wouldn't need to think about their build, or their gear - and getting the right build and gear is half of the "skill" in an MMORPG.
There can, and by all accounts will, be variation to encounters, populations and dungeons, but this needs to be independent of the characters that are heading out to take on the content. It is mostly node progress that should determine populations and such.
To further drive my point home, content in AoC is not instanced - for the most part. If two vastly different groups come to the same area, which group does the content tune itself to?
It is far better for the game to present us players with a challenge (piece of content) that is as it is and that is that, and then it is up to us to figure out how to best tackle it.
I *am* saying a few things though - first, predictable content, preparing for content and min/maxing are not bad things. Why would any of that be considered bad?
It may not be a play style that you partake in, but saying it is bad is no different to someone that is in to that type of gameplay saying exploration is bad, and so there should be no exploration focused mechanics.
Second, I'm saying that AoC's content WILL have variation to it, just not driven directly by players that are present - though it is indirectly influenced by players.
Content will change based on the situation of the nearby nodes, and nodes will be changing often. This means content will be changing often. However, if you went to a zone last week, and the nodes have not changed since, you will get the same content this week.
To me, this seems like a best of both worlds type situation. Content will change, but will also be somewhat predictable.
Especially because in that scenario, players are focusing more on cookie-cutter class builds and cookie-cutter tactics rather than allowing for dynamic roleplaying opportunities and allowing for players to create unique builds which are on par with the cookie-cutter "optimal" build.
But, yes, I am hoping and expecting to group primarily with people I know from helping to grow a town into metropolis and defending that node from mob attacks and sieges.
Sieges should teach us about large group combat with our fellow citizens... whatever classes individual citizens prefer... and those experiences should then translate quite well into high end PvE raids as well.
Some of the mob attacks against a city or metropolis will be the equivalent of a high end raid.
If Guardian is the single best version of Tank, then something is being forced on us. Which is why people are stating that having Guardian be the single best version of Tank would be a failure on the part of the devs.
Winning should not be boiled down to requiring one specific class. That's not how RPGs are supposed to work.
Guardian, Spellshield and Nightshield should all be equally viable as main tank - in general. They should all simply be different flavors of Tank.
There may be times when one flavor is better than others - especially if there is a boss resistant to Ice magic or Poison, or if there is a boss that is especially vulnerable to Ice magic or Poison.
No. The devs will have failed if high end content is designed such that people primarily prefer Guardians to be the main tank rather than Spellshield and Nightshield being equally desirable.
People are not confused and thinking that main tank means only tank.
People are disagreeing with you that Guardian should be considered a "super-tank" that is the best version of Tank. People are disagreeing with you that Guardian should be so significantly different than Spellshield and Nightshield that anyone would laugh at the notion of a Spellshield or Nightshield being the main tank.
Even when all three of those classes are present, the decision should be based more on how well the individual players have augmented and geared their characters, rather than which secondary archetype was chosen.
Yeah, we know that you completely disagree.
What you want is for class hierarchy to be designed like standard MMORPGs.
And what we want is for class viability to be closer to traditional table-top RPGs.
And it seems that Steven wants Ashes to feel closer to traditional table-top RPGs than standard MMORPGs have previously achieved.
The differences of the primary archetypes should be quite significant, since those will define the primary roles. Insignificant difference would be if a Spellstone (Mage/Tank) could tank as well as a Guardian or Spellshield.
All Tanks might have sword as their primary weapon - the difference would be that Spellshield augments that damage with Fire, while a NightShield augments that damage with Poison. The Guardian would augment that damage with extra mundane damage.
Or -as I stated- a Spellshield's Bulwark also deals Ice damage, a Nightshield's Bulwark also deals Poison damage, while the Guardian's Bulwark lasts for an extended duration. None of those should be the best option. Rather they should be equally viable choices, in general. Even in high end raid content.
And it would be a failure on the part of the devs if that were not the case.
Min/maxers may be able to figure out a "best class". But it will be a monumental failure if the best class is inherently the double-down version of the class: Guardian, Archwizard, Assassin, etc.
As far as I can tell, you are the only one bringing up the concept of there not being any other tanks in the group or raid. That has nothing to do with this discussion.
People are telling you that Guardian should not be the best Tank by default.
And Archwizard should not be the best Mage by default.
And Assassin should not be the best Rogue by default.
Especially not to the degree that having the Spellshield in the group/raid as main tank instead of the Guardian in the group/raid as main tank is laughable.
I don't know that anyone really cares about whether elitist, min/maxer "top end raiders" take "the best" even if there is only a minor difference.
What people are saying is that, in general, Guardian, Archwizard and Assassin should not be "the best" by default.
For the most part, all of the sub-classes of Tank should be equally viable - even for high-end raid content.
If min/maxers find some minor difference that makes Knight or Paladin the best Tank - great. If min/maxers find some minor difference that makes Warlock or Sorcerer the best Mage - great.
That may be enough of a failure to warrant a balance tweak.
But, it would be a monumental if Guardian is by default a "super-tank".
As opposed to all Tank sub-classes being able to play their primary role equally well, though using significantly different tactics to achieve the same outcome.
Guardian should not be designed as a "super-tank".
Raiders really should not be thinking about whether or not they want damage or utility from their Tanks. All players should be wanting their Tanks to hold aggro and control the battlefield sufficiently that the group or raid completes their objectives.
How the Tank achieves that should be irrelevant as long as they are adept at their role.
That becomes especially true when you have Spellshield or Nightshield as main tank and the raid also includes some Dreadnoughts and Argents.
I think it will be unusual to see groups form comprised of just 6 Clerics, a Bard and a Summoner because groups will probably also want to take advantage of the utility skills of the Fighter, Tank, Ranger and Rogue. More likely to see groups with a fairly well-rounded complement of primary archetypes with most of them having Cleric as their secondary archetype - if they want a healer-centric group.
If two groups come to the same area, they will probably be able to deal with whatever content has been designed for one group quite easily - regardless of the classes in each group.
And, yeah, I agree that it is far better for us to be presented with cchallenges that we have to figure out to defeat, rather than having cookie-cutter solutions, like always making sure we have a "super-tank" or "super-mage" or "super-rogue".
High-end raiders should be able to figure out how to win even if there is no Guardian or Archwizard or Assassin in the raid.
If Guardians are optimal in every fight then Intrepid have designed the fights poorly. If you are going to have 64 classes and say that all of them will be valuable in a group, then the content and fights should be created with all of the classes in mind. Every class should be viable in most, if not all, fights and optimal in some fights, but no class should ever be optimal in all fights.
I'm not going to address each and every point made, as that would take house and end up as a post of around 5,000 words that no one would read.
Instead, I'm going to point a few things out.
First of all, we know that our choice of secondary class can have a drastic change on our primary class. As an example of how drastic that change can be, we have specifically been told that some summoner classes will not even summon an actual pet.
Each individual class within an archetype will be different, to the point where it may not even be initially obvious what archetype it is from (is a summoner that can't summon a pet really a summoner? This is a question for the philosophers out there).
Based on that, it is actually reasonable to assume that not every tank archetype will actually be able to tank - let alone tank as well as all of the others. I personally don't think an Argent or Spellshield will end up being able to tank *at all* in the same manner some summoners won't be able to summon pets *at all*, but am chosing not to base my posts on this just yet.
But lets make the assumption you are right, and Intrepid want to make all the tanks equal in terms of their ability to tank.
So, the Paladin can tank and heal. The Argent can tank and buff. The Knight and Nightshield can tank and melee DPS. The Spellsword can tank and caster DPS. The Warden can tank and ranged DPS. The Keeper can tank and summon pets. The Guardian can tank and... ?
Balance doesn't mean making it so every class can do every thing equally as well as each other (at least, outside of WoW it doesn't). Balance means some classes have some things they excel at and things they can't do, and some classes can do a few things to a good standard.
To further the point, lets talk about Mages. If a mage/mage isn't the magiest of the mages (by this I mean most glass cannon/DPS mage), then why? Why would a mage turn down the extra survivability that would no doubt come from going Spellstone, if that didn't result in them gaining more DPS (even though we likely won't actually have a measure of DPS per-se). If people that double down on their archetype do not become better at their specific role because of that fact, then no one would double down and those 8 classes would be worthless.
The debate shouldn't be about whether a tank+tank is a better tank than a tank+not-a-tank, the debate should be around how much better that tank will be.
Note, the following only applies to raids;
Guardians wouldn't, in my mind, be best in every situation. They would simply be good enough in most. Other tanks would have situations where they far excel over everyone else, and so will be needed then. However, these other tanks won't necessarily be good enough the rest of the time.
Top end guilds, in my mind, will need at least one of each type of tank on most raids. The Guardian will be the tank that they start out with (and thus, the main tank), and they will switch to other tanks as the content demands - and then promptly switch back. So basically, Guardians will be the tank that tanks every encounter other than those designed with a different tank in mind.
As long as there is enough content that will have different classes shine, I think that it is okay for a guild to have one class that they default to for average situations. I just want the need for different kinds of tanks to be prominent in content (the same goes for every other archetype). There needs to be a need for every class within the game otherwise the class is redundant.
So, not being able to Summon a pet, specifically, is not the same thing at all as a Tank not being able to tank.
A Summoner that Summons other things besides pets is still a Summoner. Yes.
It is not reasonable to assume that not every sub-class of Tank will be able to tank.
That is absurd.
The Guardian doubles down on Tank abilities. We should expect Taunts to last longer. We should expect Bulwarks to last longer and/or stun with extra damage. We should expect the radius of the Righteous Fury to be wider. Shield Bash should hit harder and deal extra mundane damage.
I don't know what you mean by "doing everything equally well".
All sub-classes of Tank should be able to tank equally well. How they tank should be significantly different.
A Nightshield shouldn't have to maintain Bulwark as long as a Guardian because the Nightshield has augmented Bulwark with Poison.
A Spellshield shouldn't have to maintain Bulwark as long as a Guardian because the Spellshield has augmented Bulwark with Ice Prison (which will snare the target after Bulwark ends.)
The secondary classes provide augments for the primary archetype abilities.
If you have a quote that states a secondary class blocks/removes primary archetype abilities like Lasso, Bulwark and/or Taunt, please share.
Does a Spellstone have to worry about being a glass cannon when they can augment Blink and Private Sanctum with Cover? Can't a Spellstone be just as much of a cannon by augmenting Fireball with Shieldbash?
Extra damage from augmenting Fireball with Fireball should not be inherently better in a battle than extra damage plus knockdown from augmenting Fireball with Shieldbash.
Everyone who takes a secondary class will become better. A Guardian becomes better than a basic Tank. An Archwizard becomes better than a basic Mage.
That does not mean that a Guardian should inherently be a more viable Tank than a Spellshield or Nightshield. That does not mean that a Archwizard should be a more viable Mage than a Spellstone or a Shadowcaster.
Guardian, Spellshield and Nightshield should be equally acceptable as a main Tank.
Archwizard, Spellstone and Shadowcaster should be equally acceptable as a main Mage.
There should be no debate.
All sub-classes of Tank should be equally proficient at Tanking. How each sub-class goes about tanking should be significantly different.
To me, this speaks about a whole lot more than just summoners. This speaks about the variation that can be had within one archetype, and it makes the game FAR more exciting that it would be if every summoner class was the same other than the appearance of their pet, or every mage was the same other than the color of the spells they cast.
The above quote means the game will have 64 classes, rather than 8 versions each of 8 classes, as some people seem to want it to have.
I'd also like to insist that you answer this basic question; Why would a mage turn down the extra survivability that would no doubt come from going Spellstone, if they could do that without taking a hit to their DPS ability?
That basic question applies to every archetype, not just mages.
Applied to tanks - I would think that if a tank chooses to go down the path of Spellshield they would be sacrificing the boost in survivability they would have gotten from becoming a Guardian or Paladin to gain some extra DPS. It wouldn't be fair for them to get the same survivability and the extra DPS.
It honestly baffles me that some people chose to not see this.
The quote says that some Summoners may Summon effects instead of pets.
Doesn't really matter whether the damage from a Summoner comes from a pet dealing damage or a Poison cloud dealing damage.
What you are suggesting is that a Conjurer's pet should inherently do more damage than a Shadowmancer's Poison Cloud. And I'm saying they should be able to do different types of damage equally well. Both should be equally good as main Summoner, they just Summon different types of stuff.
As Steven specifically states, Summoners will be able to summon.
That applies to all archetypes. All sub-classes of Tank will be able to tank.
No one has said anything like every Summoner subclass was the same other than the appearance of their minion. Except you.
The game will have 64 classes: 8 subclasses for each primary archetype.
Again, as Steven states: Summoners will be able to summon things. As described in the name. So, it would be absurd if some Tanks were unable to tank.
All Tanks will be able to tank. The different sub-classes will tank differently.
I don't see anywhere in that quote where Steven suggests that Guardian will be a "super-tank" such that a Spellshield or Nightshield acting as main tank would be undesirable or laughable for high end raid content.
I don't accept your assertion that a Spellstone inherently has more survivability than an Archwizard. An Archwizard should be able to burn down their opponent(s) much more quickly than a Spellstone, so it's really simply a matter of playstyle for the player.
Does the player wish to be a glass cannon who quickly and spectacularly rains destruction on their enemies or do they wish to do damage less quickly and spend more time providing cover for themselves and others?
Does the player want to double-down on the stasis of Ice Prison or does the player wish to knock their opponents on their butts by augmenting Ice Prison with Shield Bash?
Does the player wish to evade damage by prolonging the duration of Blink or do they wish to evade damage by augmenting Blink with Cover?
Adding Tank as a secondary class to Mage doesn't mean that a Spellstone can do exactly the same amount of damage with every primary ability as an Archwizard can, rather it means that they are both able to defeat the same challenge in different ways.
Rather than designing general (high end raid) content such that the only way to defeat the challenge is if an Archwizard is the main mage.
A player might choose to be an Archwizard because they plan to duo with an Apostle who will cover the survivability of the Archwizard.
Also, for some reason you apparently mistakenly presume that an Archwizard does not also gain significantly more survivability than a mere Mage.
What should not be the case is that, in general, people are waiting on Guardian to act as main tank to begin their raid because a Guardian is such a "super tank" that having a Spellshield or Nightshield as main tank is laughable. Same for waiting on an Archwizard.
If your vision of high end raid content is not made obsolete by the Ashes game design, the devs will have miserably failed at the primary objectives.
I think you continue to miss two key aspects of Ashes game design:
1: No static endgame raid content
2: Ashes is PvX, with no difference between PvP gear and PvE gear.
Raids -even high end raids- will primarily be formed for PvP combat:
Caravan escorts/raids; castle sieges; node sieges; monster coin attacks.
People are not going to be waiting around to make sure that there is one of every subclass or that a Guardian is available to act as main tank.
When the PvE dragon flies by with its minions to attack a city, players are not going to wait around to make sure that a Guardian is available to act as main tank in order to defend the city. Rather they will learn to make do with whoever is online and nearby - even if the Tanks available are Spellshields and Nightshields. And it cannot be the case that the Dragon automatically de-levels the node because no Guardian was available to act as main tank. It will have to be possible for the raid to win even with a Spellshield or Nightshield acting as main tank.
And it's from those experiences that most people will learn to raid according to the people they commonly fight with rather than simply waiting hours for cookie-cutter raid configurations to form.
PvE raid content will not be static. It will not be common to wait hours for the optimal raid config to form because the same content will always be waiting. Raid content will change based on season and narrative events and which nodes are leveled or de-leveled and which buildings are built in the towns, cities and metropolises.
It may very well be that in some areas (near Divine nodes) a Paladin is typically the best Tank while in other areas (near Military nodes or Economic nodes) a Knight or a Nightshield typically makes the best Tank.
It may be that in some cities or on some servers the best Tank is a Predator because that player is able to outplay all the other Tanks in the region or maybe even all the other Tanks on the server.
What you are saying is that there will be some raid guilds who choose to have a Guardian as the default main tank. Which is fine - if that's how they like to play.
What we are saying is that the high end raid content should not be designed such that, in general, the only way to win a high end raid is to have a Guardian as main tank. That high end raid content should not be designed such that it is laughable to have a Spellshield or a Nightshield acting as a main tank. Viable should mean that winning a high end raid is still possible with a Spellshield or a Nightshield as a main tank.
Because a high level Tank should still be able to succeed as a main tank even if they are using augments from some other primary class rather than using Tank/Guardian augments.
Because a Spellshield is still a Tank. And a Nightshield is still a Tank.
Just as a Shadowmancer is still a Summoner. And a Spellmancer is still a Summoner.
With respect, I think your argument is coming undone.
In relation to the quote about some summoners not summoning pets - in all the summoner conversations, no one talked about this. Also, I can't name a single other MMO that has a summoner class that doesn't summon a pet. Like it or not, it is a drastic shift in how we look at class combinations.
I mean, sure, these summoners may summon other things, but that differs little in practice to how some tanks will summon a wall, or how some mages will summon a fireball.
So, an Archwizard will do more damage than a Spellstone in your mind, as it does in mine. So then is there a reason to take a Spellstone on a raid or in a group over an Archwizard? I mean, if an Archwizard (or super-mage as I'd personally rather call them) can burn down enemies that much faster, surely they are the one you want?
Also, it makes no real sense that you think different mages will have differing ability levels when it comes to DPS (or, mage'ing), but different tanks won't have differing ability levels when it comes to tanking.
Now, in reference to the end of your post - I agree, it is entirely possible that the game will have enough ways to buff other tanks up to be as effective as a lesser buffed super-tank. I would actually be shocked if it didn't. It may even be possible that all content would be able to be cleared while still relevant with such a setup.
However, a top end raiding guild will ALWAYS take the most effective approach. If a Spellshield needs 4 healers and 4 buff classes to be able to tank an encounter, and a guardian needs 3 healers and 3 buff classes, guess which one every top end raid guild in the game will go for...
1. First I need to clarify my starting point for this argument.
a. Everybody wants to feel they have a place in the game, rather than just another number that can be replaced by anyone, anytime, anyplace...they need a niche. They need a unique identity to give their existence value.
b. This means the key is diversity. Diversity means group makeup must naturally demand that its constituent classes are diverse and unique. vis-a-vis....no clones or doubling up.
c. This means that the content must not encourage duplicating classes within a group and most certainly not make duplicated classes compulsory for specific content.
2. My argument was that scripted content, through its predicability, means content can be planned for and the most optimal group makeup constructed, to complete that content in the most efficient manner. ie Min Maxed. This is because the content is simply a puzzlebox with a sequence of events, that must be performed in a specific way, at specific times, to defeat the content. The content is static, so the player builds the character/group around the content. They have to constantly flip builds, possibly with many alts, to conquer a wide variety of content that prejudicially favours specific builds/groups.
If the content is not static, you can not plan ahead, as you do not know what you will face. So my argument was the only way to be prepared in that context was to cover all the bases as it were. Which means you need to use all available classes to face any conceivable threat or problem. So with that in mind, fitting the content to the group is the correct way to go.
3. Your argument was that tuning the dungeon to the players was bad, as it means you can go in as 3 healers or 8 damage dealers and work your way through the content (TBH if healers, tanks and DDs are properly balanced this should be feasible anyway. The fact its not feasible only goes to emphasise how badly balanced a games classes are. But thats a side issue). Which is a solid point but not really a direct argument. If you remove scripted content you end the "compulsory" group makeup, but you have correctly, cleverly and astutely pointed out that it does not remove "optional" group makeup. And there is a whole world of difference between the two; As player choice should always be front and center. However, you are correct in regard my first point on variety. The whole point is that we end up at a situation where diversity is king and duplication is buried for good.
4. This has however already been solved through the utility skills. Any major dungeon crawl will be just as much about exploration skills as direct combat:
a. If you have to hunt/track a boss thats on the move how will you do that without a ranger ?
b. If that boss goes through locked doors and locks them afterward, how can you follow without a rogue ?
c. If that boss goes through magical doors and wards them afterward, how can you follow without a mage ? Or light your way, when flame will suffocate in bad air.
d. If the boss traverses a wide cavern housing an enemy encampent, how can you safely navigate the islands of threat without a tank ? And in really tight encampments.. shadow and stealth skills may also be required to avoid detection by that threat and almost certain death.
e. And how would you best work your way through a dungeon, without the ability for someone to send a summoned scout, to go and get intel without putting the party at risk ? Or maybe track down the scent of the prey you are after and show you a route that they were at, at that specific moment in time.
f. If that boss travels through environmental biohazads that you must also pass through, how would you survive without the cleric on hand ?
g. And if the tank can locate the strongest threat, who better to interpret the nature of that threat to help you prepare, than a taciturn fighter weathered by years of combat experience ?
h. Which leaves the bard. To entertain us on those long journeys mainly
...but all of those tactical skills rely on our ability to not be confused and keep focused on our skill. Something difficult to do with mesmers and such sowing doubt and confusion. Where morale and confidence is paramount to the effectiveness of all our skills.
A Summoner who summons pets should not be inherently better than a Summoner who summons non-pets.
You cannot think of a single other MMORPG where Summoners don't Summon pets.
Which is precisely our point: Ashes is designed to not be a typical MMORPG.
Steven is purposefully designing Ashes to be more like table-top RPGs, where there are versions of Summoners that summon other things than just "pets".
And, yes, that is a drastic shift in how hybrids have been designed in previous MMORPGs.
What each Archetype or sub-class is able to "summon" will be significantly different. Precisely because the result of a Tank "summoning" a wall is significantly different than a Mage "summoning" a Fireball.
Just as a Mage "summoning" a Fireball is significantly different than a Shadowmancer summoning a Shroud of Darkness - especially if the Shroud of Darkness enhances the attributes or abilities of the Skeleton pets of a Necromancer.
Likewise, an Archwizard doubling down by augmenting Fireball with Fireball is going to be significantly different than a Spellstone augmenting Fireball with Shieldbash.
And a Guardian doubling down by augmenting Shieldbash with Shieldbash is going to be significantly different than a Spellshield augmenting Shieldbash with Ice Prison.
The final results should not be so significant that, in general, a high end raid cannot win because they have two Nightshields, a Knight, a Warden, a Spellshield, a Keeper, a Paladin and an Argent, but no Guradian available to act as main tank.
It's absurd to think that the 64-person raid must inherently fail because it's laughable to have one of the Nightshades act as main tank.
Or that the 40-person raid must fail because it's laughable to have one of the Nightshades act as main tank.
I don't necessarily think an Archwizard will do more damage than a Spellstone.
I expect an Archwizard will deal damage more quickly than a Spellstone.
If all I care about is Mages doing damage as quickly as possible, then I might prefer Archwizards over Spellstones. But, I don't care about doing damage as quickly as possible.
I care about defeating the challenges. I don't necessarily care how long it takes for the group or raid to win as long as the experience provides an entertaining story.
Take a Spellstone on a raid or group because the most experienced Mage in the node or region has always been the Spellstone rather than a Guardian - and because she (the Spellstone) is a highly effective Mage who has a very good track record as a main tank.
Take the Spellstone rather than an Archwizard because you enjoy the flair of the Spellstone's abilities and personality more than you enjoy the flair and personality of the Spellstone more than the flair and personality of the Archwizard. And the Spellstone is just as effective at helping to defeat challenges as the Archwizard.
I come from table-top RPGs, so I don't really care about DPS and I don't consider the role of a Mage to be DPS.
"Maging" is using Mage abilities, like Blink and Ice Prison and Fireball and Portal and Private Sanctum and Mage's Detection to effectively overcome challenges. I don't necessarily care how those primary abilities are augmented by a secondary class as long as the Mage is able to help us defeat the challenges we face.
The flair of the storytelling experience is way more important to me the efficiency of combat.
I prefer to stealth through dungeons.
And, yeah, I might love to be part of a raid only comprised of Rogue subclasses and players who have Rogue as a secondary class.
In general, our raid should be able to succeed in high end raids.
If a particular raid happens to be especially slanted against Rogues, maybe we fail that one. But, in general, we should still be able to devise strategies that allow us to win. Because, at the end of the day, we still have all of the primary archetypes covered. We should not inherently lose, or lose in general, simply because all of our Tanks are Nightshades and we don't have a Guardian.
I don't really care what an elitist, top-end raiding guild chooses to do.
I don't really care what min/maxers think is the most efficient or effective build. What I do care about is whether Guardian and Archwizards and Conjurers are so uber that it is objectively laughable for Spellshields and Nightshields to be the main tank. Because the only reason for them to be objectively laughable would be for a raid to have little chance of defeating a high end raid without a Guardian as main tank.
And that would be a catastrophic failure for the Ashes game design.
Again, you have this obsolete concept of "top end raid guild" - as if max level will be all about raiding static dungeons.
In Ashes, there will be much more to do at max level besides raiding static dungeons. We will need to be able to defend top end caravans and defend top end sieges and defend against top end monster coin attacks. We will need to be able to successfully defend against PvE Dragons attempting to raze our nodes.
And, it cannot be that we fail simply because we have a Nightshield acting as main tank rather than a Guardian. Or because we have a Spellstone acting as main mage rather than an Archwizard.
Why do I bring a Spellstone as main tank with me instead of an Archwizard?
Because I've bonded with the Spellstone who has always been online to help defend my node, while Archwizards in my region are rarely online when I am.
And because the Spellstone knows how to synch her abilities with the other player characters in the raid and we know how to use our abilities to best support her playstyle as main tank. Which is not true for Archwizards because, in our region, Archwizards are rarely around long enough for us to learn how to take best advantage of our playstyle tactics.
If I'm a citizen of a Divine Metropolis, we may much prefer supporting a Spellstone with a High Priest, a Templar, an Apostle, a Shadow Disciple and 4 different primary archetypes who have Cleric as a secondary archetype.
Simply because we enjoy roleplaying religious zealots.
And we should be just as effective, in general and likely moreso, as those who support a Guardian with 3 healers and 3 buff classes.
What makes no sense is the notion that people should go adventuring assuming that the Guardian group will be inherently better than the Spellstone group.
The Spellstone group should be better with a party of 9 than the Guardian group with a party of 7.
Also, I dunno why anyone would assume that the Spellstone would need more healing than the Guardian since a Spellstone should be able to avoid damage by augmenting the Tank abilities with Blink and Private Sanctum, rather than relying on being extra "buff" by augmenting Cover with Cover.
Augmenting Cover with Cover should not be significantly better than augmenting Cover with Private Sanctum.
The key idea behind the Holy Trilogy in MMO's is that the sum of the parts are significantly greater than the whole. Classes are not supposed to be balanced around being 1/5th, 1/6th or 1/8th of a group - depending on game. Classes are balanced around being 1/3rd of the trinity.
Three healers are not supposed to be as good at any content as one healer, one tank and one DPS. That is not a design or balance flaw, that is an actual design. That is how the trinity system works. Any combination of classes is at a huge disadvantage until all pieces are in place, when suddenly the whole thing jumps to life.
Now, in terms of group content it is obviously not necessarily best to have an equal number of each, but rather a general, approximate ratio depending on the content.
A game where a group full of tanks is able to take on the content is either a poorly balanced game, or a game with developers that do not understand the concept of the trilogy.
Again, I am not going to answer each and every point, just a select few.
Your argument is coming undone because, first, you are taking it away from the top end raiding that I have stated numerous times is what I am talking about.
Second, when you say things like the Spellstone group with 9 should be better than the Guardian group with 7, you are now taking the discussion away from the tanks we are talking about and are entering in to territory that is to do with player numbers (also, that Spellstone would technically be in a raid if there are 9 of them - just saying).
Third, when you say things like "I don't necessarily think an Archwizard will do more damage than a Spellstone. I expect an Archwizard will deal damage more quickly than a Spellstone." that says that either you have lost focus on what you are talking about, or you think the developers would put a class in the game that has spells up for 15 seconds, and then nothing to cast for the next 15. It makes no sense at all, because faster damage means more damage on a raid.
Now, this comment, "Again, you have this obsolete concept of "top end raid guild" - as if max level will be all about raiding static dungeons."
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Yes, there are many things to do at the level cap in AoC. One of those things is PvE raiding.Steven has confirmed that there will be both non-instanced and instanced PvE raids, and he would like there to be a competitive PvE raid scene.
I've even said many times in this thread that I am talking about top end PvE raiding, and not PvE or group dungeons when I say Guardians will be the tank of choice - hell, I've even argued that I don't think Guardians will be the tank of choice in other content.
Top end raid guild is not an obsolete concept in AoC. It is the term to denote a guild that is raiding PvE content, and is at the top end of that group rather than the guilds that are working on easier PvE raid content.
As for the following, "The final results should not be so significant that, in general, a high end raid cannot win because they have two Nightshields, a Knight, a Warden, a Spellshield, a Keeper, a Paladin and an Argent, but no Guradian available to act as main tank.", this raid will fail not because of a lack of a Guardian, but because of a lack of 32 other players.
And "It's absurd to think that the 64-person raid must inherently fail because it's laughable to have one of the Nightshades act as main tank." This will fail because the raid limit is 40.
This one though, "Or that the 40-person raid must fail because it's laughable to have one of the Nightshades act as main tank." This raid will fail because their tank is a plant rather than a class in Ashes of Creation.
Now, you are better than your last post. I know this, you know this. Maybe you're tired, maybe you're frustrated. Either way, maybe it's best to take a day or two from this thread, think about things, and then come back with an actual reason as to how you think the classes that double down will work vs the classes that don't - as that is really the foundation of our debate here.
I am stating that in Ashes, top end raiding is not raiding static content designed for a specific configuration classes.
What you seem to want to talk about is what "top end raid guilds" want to do.
You are really the only one here who cares about the subjective views of elitist guilds with regard to optimal raid configuration.
The point remains that it should not be objectively true that it's generally laughable to use a Spellshield or a Nightshield as a main tank for a top end raid rather than a Guardian. And if that is objectively true - the devs will have utterly failed in a major objective of their game design.
I'm not taking the discussion away from the Tanks we are talking about.
You are the one who provided the numbers, not me.
Suggesting that a Guardian should be such a "super-tank" that a Guardian group with 3 healers and 3 buffers should be more desirable than a Spellstone group of 4 healers and 4 buffers.
That is your scenario; not mine.
Faster damage does not inherently mean more damage in a raid.
Faster damage means faster damage.
DPS is about damage per second; not total damage overall.
I don't understand why you think that all spells have to be damage spells.
I especially don't understand why you think that all Mage spells must be augmented with damage spells.
Sometimes a Mage will be focused on casting Fireball and Spellbook Combo for DPS.
Sometimes a Mage will be focused on casting Blink and Private Sanctum to evade taking damage.
Sometimes a Mage will be focused on casting Ice Sheet and Ice Prison to impede opponents' movement.
Nothing to cast for 15 seconds is an absurd argument since Mages will have other types of spells to cast during combat than just DPS spells.
DPS is really just a matter of how fast one takes down the enemy before health regen vs preventing the enemy from dealing damage while taking a slower pace at reducing enemy health.
Instant immolation vs slow burn.
That is just a matter of taste. And flair.
Your concept of "top end raiding guild" is obsolete.
Because it will not be the general case that the people going on top end raids are belong to raiding guilds.
Top end raids will primarily form not to overcome static content.
Top end raids will form because people will want to protect caravans and castles and metropolises. And because people will want to clear away the negative effects on regions that top end mobs bring to the narrative.
And those same experienced raid groups will also go out to participate in the relatively few instanced raids.
In Ashes, a top end raid guild is any guild that frequently raids top end content.
Not just PvE content - because Ashes is a PvX game; not a PvE game.
And quite a large bit of forming raids will be to defend against caravans, sieges and monster coin attacks. PvP stuff. Those same raid groups and raid guilds will also do PvE stuff. Yes.
But, it won't simply be that top end raid guilds, in general, are obsessed with who can clear a raid the most efficiently.
Rather, we will have much more meaningful reasons for forming raids to deal with PvX content. And most often raids -even top end raids- will form without people waiting around to make sure they have a Guardian as main tank. Um. Why would you assume that this raid is lacking 32 other players??
The discussion is focused on which subclasses of Tank can reasonably act as main tank. The non-Tank classes in this raid are irrelevant to the topic. I expected you to be savvy enough to figure that out.
Ashes is primarily an open-world PvX game, so, people can raid with more than 40 people. It would be absurd for 64 people on a raid to inherently fail where 40 people on a raid succeed.
Which is still beside the point of the topic.
I would hope you are better than your last post.
But, yeah, I am often amused when my typo filter allows homonyms or near homonyms (like Nightshade and Nightshield) to slide through as long as the word is spelled correctly.
"Sharif stresses that the addition of secondary classes will act as horizontal progression rather than vertical, meaning that no choice is the correct one and all paths should be viable.Ashes of Creation won't necessarily forgo the holy trinity of Tank-Healer-DPS that has become a mainstay of every modern MMORPG, but the secondary class system allows each player to custom-build a role that best suits their play style."
33:08 - Can you be a good Tank without using shield? Like a Shadowknight in EQ2 or a Dreadknight in Vanguard?
Steven: Like an evasion Tank...?
Jeffrey: Totally. We're building around lots of different options for that.
Steven said evasion Tanks, control Tanks, shield Tanks... there's going to be a good mix of all that and then subclass will also determine a role in that, too.
Tanks will not be forced to have a shield, but it will definitely be a viable option.
(With regard to best tank in Vanguard:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/920083-vanguard-saga-of-heroes/44043156
At the present time in the game the three protective fighters all are useful and effective in a group. The DK is often said to be quite decent at soloing as well. They have different styles/themes but are fairly well balanced.
Which is the way Tank subclasses should be balanced.)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14luppZ3Ub8jmcw_aK65QWxYY4xa8qAo9zRfpYWBxOXE/edit
What are the advantages of choosing the same class for primary and secondary classes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This situation is specifically for people who want to play a very particular role (ex: someone wanting to play a typical “tank” would double down on tank/tank). Having the same class for primary and secondary will further solidify the player in that role. A tank/tank would be full on damage mitigation versus a tank/rogue that may be more evasion tank based.
Not a dev quote, but still relevant to the overall topic:
http://www.mmogames.com/gamearticles/ashes-of-creation-pax-east-nodes-life/
"In case you haven’t been reading up, there are eight classes in the game which will make up the primary experience of your character and their role in combat. Secondary classes, essentially, operate in a form of horizontal progression. For example, a tank can use a Shield Bash like normal, but with a mage subclass, that Shield Bash suddenly sets the enemy aflame, which changes the dynamic of tanking a bit more into the DPS side of things."
To me it makes sense to somewhat require a shield to tank bosses. I guess that is because it just makes more sense, but I can also see an evasion tank just much more limited in a sense. Maybe some bosses will be easier or require a tank tank than others.
- I try to think of each individual Archetype separately ( like individual classes ) , and then try to merge The 2 play styles
Primary-Tank : So with " Tank/ x " ... The " Sword & Shield " being the Primary-Archetype ... any Secondary-Archetype will exhibit ... " casual-flairs " ... thats reminiscent & reflects the chosen Secondary ArchetypeBut still remembering that the Tank/ Tank should have the most consistency because it's still a True-Tank ... but to compensate/ balance things out ... my approach to that balancing-issue is having less versatility
i.e. Consistency vs Versatility via ... " Tank/ Tank " might be too sturdy and not nimble enough, or something like that ( maybe others ? )
Secondary-Tank : So, with the " x/ Tank " ... the DPS *or Healing* will be their Primary purpose. Naturally, this means that they won't out-perform the Pure-DPS *or the *Pure-Healer* ... but they will be harder to kill via the more Versatility approach i suggested above.
but in regards to a Group or Raid related content ... i think that it should be possible to have a group full of Secondary-Tanks to perform similar to a Primary Tank ... but never outperforming a Primary Tank. In other words,
In the end, having so much diversity ( in playstyle ) of the 64 Archetype combinations should make it difficult for the term ... " Meta " to exists. And thus preventing 1 particular Archetype blend of being obsolete compared to another. Because I'm hoping to see Drastic-differences when a player selects an Archetype compared to another ... as opposed to minor changes