Primary-Tank : So with " Tank/ x " ... The " Sword & Shield " being the Primary-Archetype ... any Secondary-Archetype will exhibit ... " casual-flairs " ... that reminiscent & reflects the chosen Secondary Archetype
So if " Tank/ Mage " ... I'd imagine using the elements in a defensive-manner. For example, Fire Ward, Water Barricade, Wind Barrier, Earth Shell, etc ... then their other stuff that's been displayed in other types of fiction that'll hopefully be used as inspiration in constructing the many abilities - mechanic-wise & design-wise.
But 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 will be their Primary purpose. Naturally, this means that they won't out-perform the Pure-DPS ... but they will be harder to kill via the more Versatility approach i suggested above.
Re-reading. So...seems like you're saying any Primary Tank should be effective as a main tank. And Secondary Tanks should be be effective as side-tanks.
I would say that Tank/Mage is still a True-Tank. Which is why a Spellstone should be viable as a main tank even in top end raids.
Tank/ Tank = Most Consistency, Slight Versatility ( in regards to being a Tank )
Primary-Tank ( Tank/ x ) = More Consistency. Less Versatility .
In other words, Slightly less Consistency than a Tank/ Tank, but slightly more versatility than a Tank/ Tank
Secondary- Tank ( x/ Tank ) = Lesser Consistency, Most Versatility
Secondary-Tanks will either be Primarily a DPS or Healer
And no, i think Secondary-Tanks should able to Tank, just as not as ... " consistently " like a Primary-Tank or Pure Tank - the overall-aggro should favor the Pure Tanks & Primary Tanks
But I am saying that it should be possible to assemble ( a group for a Raid ) with Secondary-Tanks ... its' just that the Group would need more Secondary-Tanks as opposed to Primary-Tanks and/or Pure Tanks
For example ... if a Raid boss needs 2 Pure Tanks or 2 Primary-Tanks ( or which ever mixture of the two ... )
For Secondary-Tanks, that requirement would be bumped-up to 3 or 4
Because the rest of Group-role would be ultimately dependent on the Secondary-Tanks' Primary
And considering if it's more ideal to have Long-range or close-range Secondary-Tanks too. but hopefully, the increase in versatility would suffice in that
Thus making use of the Secondary-Archetype that would cover what the group lacks
But this is all a suggestion revolving around the idea of
Yeah.
I think I agree that even top end raids should still be doable with no "Primary Tanks" - especially if many of the other raid members are "Secondary Tanks".
I think a lot of us are forgetting our secondary class doesn't magically change the class... It simply augments the abilities. A mage/tank is still a mage.
@Argentdawn Ashes is still in development. With that kind experience at Intrepid ... they could make it happen. Don't see why you would want to settle for less when it could be so much more
So I was reading the quotes you put up, looking for any indication of where anyone from Intrepid (I'd even accept a Bacon quote) said that the intention was that all classes of the same primary archetype will be able to do that primary role to the same effectiveness.
Here is what I got from the quotes, in order.
1, all 64 classes are viable as classes in their own right. This doesn't mean they are all viable in any specific role, it just means that each class has something that they can bring to a group or raid that means others won't groan when they are included.
This is a good thing, and something I'm totally on board with.
2, there will be many different types of tanks, shield, control, evasion etc. This is all fairly obvious, and has been talked about in this thread.
3, is about Vanguard, and more specifically - grouping in Vanguard. We are supposed to be talking about raiding.
Further, a DK in Vanguard was a capable group tank, but not used as a raid main tank very often.
Skipping 3 for now.
4, is saying exactly what I said about a tank/mage. They add DPS at the expense of tanking ability, which may well make them better suited to groups, valuable in raids as DPS and/or situational tanks, but not wanted as raid main tanks.
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.
Top end raids will not want an evasion main tank. They will want a mitigation/shield tank with the ability to hold aggro as best as possible. This is because by their very nature, avoidance/evasion tanks introduce too many variables to the situation, while mitigation tanks remove variables.
This isn't an effect of the classes directly, it is an effect of the mechanics behind each.
Basically, the above quote completely reinforces my point that top end PvE raids (ie, not group content, not friend and family guilds running easy raids, and not PvP raids) will all want to use a Guardian as their main tank.
@Argentdawn Ashes is still in development. With that kind experience at Intrepid ... they could make it happen. Don't see why you would want to settle for less when it could be so much more
Maybe that just me
Its not so much that ashes is still in development as the stated and intended direction is to have 8 archtypes with augmentations to each class to create 64 "different" classes. Essentially just changing the "flavour" of said archtype.
Noaani said: Top end raids will not want an evasion main tank. They will want a mitigation/shield tank with the ability to hold aggro as best as possible. This is because by their very nature, avoidance/evasion tanks introduce too many variables to the situation, while mitigation tanks remove variables.
This isn't an effect of the classes directly, it is an effect of the mechanics behind each.
Basically, the above quote completely reinforces my point that top end PvE raids (ie, not group content, not friend and family guilds running easy raids, and not PvP raids) will all want to use a Guardian as their main tank.
What you apparently mean to say is that top end raid guilds will not want an evasion main tank. That is a subjective perspective with really very little consequence.
What's important is that top end raids are designed such that evasion tanks are able to succeed regardless of whether the a mitigation tank or an evasion tank is acting as main tank.
It must be objectively true that an evasion tank is viable as a main tank in top end raids or the devs will have failed in one of their primary objectives.
In general, people participating in top end raids will not be overly concerned about whether they have Guardian acting as main tank because the vast majority of top end raids will not be static raids where people can just wait around for optimal configurations.
Most top end raids will be comprised of the same configurations that people form for caravan raids, castle sieges, node sieges and monster coin events.
Because Ashes is a PvX game; not a PvE game.
And people are not going to suddenly tell the evasion tank who has been acting as main tank in the top end PvP raids that it's laughable for their subclass or build to work as main tank in the top end PvE raids.
There will likely be some elitist, raid guilds who strive to always use what they believe is the most efficient min/max config. There is still no guarantee that that will always be, or even generally be, the double-down sub-class because that is not the balance the devs are designing for.
Most people participating in top end raids are not going to be concerned about the most efficient configs because most top end raids will be dynamic rather than static. Most people will be more concerned with defeating the threat(s) however they are able to defeat the threat(s) in the moment, rather than waiting hours for the optimal config to form.
There will be some elitist raid guilds who think like you do. Of course.
But, that will not really reflect top end raids in general.
For the dev quotes to actually support your view, the devs would have to specifically mention how defeating top end PvE raids will be designed differently from top end PvP raids to significantly favor having the double-down sub-classes in the main roles. Which I highly doubt you will ever find because Ashes is being designed as a PvX game.
i didnt read all the comments so i hope im the the 1000's one who is saying that: i think there are many different Players out there and many different classes so i think we will see more than 1 type of tank in ashes bc some People want to mix a tannk with a mage or and cleric etc... so you have a different playstyle fordifferent classes and different peoples so there is just to say ... you will never see a tank playing like another and thats fine i think !
No, top end raids do not require a guild nor do all guilds focus on top end raids. They are not the same thing. Just because it might be more common does not make it an absolute.
No, top end raids do not require a guild nor do all guilds focus on top end raids. They are not the same thing. Just because it might be more common does not make it an absolute.
It isn't a system based requirement, true.
However,in a game with challenging content (read: not WoW), a raid needs cohesion, cooperation and coordination. These things only come from raiding with the same group of people frequently.
Further, whether guild or not, top end raids will require the same thing from those attempting them. As such, and in the context of the discussion in regards to tanks that top end raids will use, saying top end raids or top end raid guilds means the same thing.
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.
I like this, but Steven has said that there are multiple paths through a dungeon so even if you are missing a mage you will be able to complete it; you will just have to go the long way around instead of taking down the magical door. Having the 8 archetypes gives you the ability to answer any challenge put before you that requires utility, but they are not absolutely necessary to complete the dungeon/raid. Now, it is entirely possible that Intrepid will make a raid that requires the use of all the archetypes' utilities to complete and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, but Steven made it sound as if that won't be the norm.
But the thing about dynamic content is ...you dont know what classes will be necessary because you dont know what situation you will be in. You might not need a mage to open magic doors (after the fact).....but if you dont know if there will be magic doors (before the fact)....you have to bring the mage in case.
As such, and in the context of the discussion in regards to tanks that top end raids will use, saying top end raids or top end raid guilds means the same thing.
That is patently absurd.
Top end raid can either refer to the content or the players who form a raid to defeat top end raid content .
The players who form a raid in order to defeat top end raid content won't necessarily be in a guild... and if they are, won't necessarily be in the same guild.
Top end raid guild really only refers to a guild that focuses on participating in top end raids.
And you are the only one in this thread who really cares about how elitist, top end raid guilds choose to play. Because the devs are not designing top end PvE raid content specifically for top end raid guilds.
Ashes is a PvX game.
And, again, most people will be raiding with the same people frequently, not because they are in the same guild, but because they are citizens of the same town/city/metropolis and frequently band together to defend their own caravans and nodes or to attack rival caravans and nodes. Many guilds will also be frequently raiding in order to defend or attack castles. PvP stuff. These same players will also be participating in PvE raids in order to protect their region. It's not going to really be about forming raid guilds in order to be able to gain top end PvE raid gear.
@Noaani (I know we share much in common view wise. But we do disagree on this)
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.
Classes are balanced on being 1/3 if there are only tanks/DD/Healer. Throw in a CC and you could make that 1/4th. Clearly ashes design goal is to make that 1/8th. And according to this thread all 8 versions of each class have to be viable or they are obsolete before the game gets out of the starting blocks.
And no the sum of the parts should be equal to the whole if you want a balanced game. 3x Hybrid = DD + Tank + Healer ...from the trinity perspective of 1/3rd. Choosing to specialise in a field does not me the sum of the parts are superior.....just focused by segregation of duties, BECAUSE THATS THE PLAYERS PREFERRED PLAY STYLE Going back to identity.
Essentially segregation of classes enable preffered alternate play styles to achieve the same objective, rather than have everyone using identical builds.
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 you are on very dangerous ground. What you are saying is a DD should always kill a healer or a tank, or a tank should kill a healer everytime in PvP combat. Thats not the way PvP should work (and yes I am fully aware its how PvE operates on many occasions but this is a PvX game). Both parties should have alternate tool sets that make them perfectly viable in any 1v1 situation. The only thing that should dictate the outcome of those alternate playstyles, is if someone makes a mistake, or is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That essentially means anything 5 DDs can accomplish can be done by healers and tanks. Sure they will go about it in a different way because they have different tool sets.
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.
I disagree. A game that enables 5 tanks, 5 DDs or 5 healers to do the same content is perfectly balanced. But a game that kills diversity is epically flawed.
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 you are on very dangerous ground. What you are saying is a DD should always kill a healer or a tank, or a tank should kill a healer everytime in PvP combat. Thats not the way PvP should work (and yes I am fully aware its how PvE operates on many occasions but this is a PvX game). Both parties should have alternate tool sets that make them perfectly viable in any 1v1 situation. The only thing that should dictate the outcome of those alternate playstyles, is if someone makes a mistake, or is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That essentially means anything 5 DDs can accomplish can be done by healers and tanks. Sure they will go about it in a different way because they have different tool sets.
Right. In Ashes, we don't have access to dual-classing until Level 30. Which means "the trinity" that exists in Ashes is based on the primary archetypes. When we dual-class, we will have 8 flavors for each pillar of "the trinity". If the Ashes "trinity" is Tank/Mage/Rogue that should mean that any permutation of the Tank, Mage and Rogue sub-classes will fulfill their primary archetype role.
Can three healers be just as good at any content as one healer, one tank and one DPS? Probably depends on the specific objectives. For PvE content, I don't know that it matters. What matters is whether the group is able to succeed at the primary objectives.
Is the primary objective to kill every mob in a dungeon? Three High Priests might have a very challenging experience accomplishing that. Three Paladins might be able to accomplish that about as well as one High Priest, one Archwizard and one Assassin. Whether one Templar, one Paladin and one Shadow Disciple are as good at clearing the dungeon as one High Priest, one Archwizard and one Assassin is not really important... as long as the Templar, Paladin and Shadow Disciple succeed at clearing the dungeon.
Is the primary objective to steal or disable an artifact in a dungeon? Three Shadow Disciples would very likely be able to accomplish that as well as one High Priest, one Archwizard and one Assassin. Possibly the Shadow Disciples would have an easier time by stealthing past most of the combat. Three Shadow Disciples would very likely have an easier time than one Shaman, one Warlock and one Keeper.
For PvP... Again, I dunno. Seems like a Guardian is very likely to be on par with a Nightshield Shouldn't really matter much if a Guardian holds aggro by augmenting Hatred with Hatred and maintains forced target lock on herself or if the Nightshield holds aggro by augmenting Hatred with Shadow Puppet and switches the forced target lock to the puppet. It's a significant change in playstyle, but the end result should be about the same.
Should a DD always be able to kill a healer? If the healer is using Rogue or Mage evasion augments to supplement their healing abilities, the DD might have a very difficult time landing lasting damage.
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.
I like this, but Steven has said that there are multiple paths through a dungeon so even if you are missing a mage you will be able to complete it; you will just have to go the long way around instead of taking down the magical door. Having the 8 archetypes gives you the ability to answer any challenge put before you that requires utility, but they are not absolutely necessary to complete the dungeon/raid. Now, it is entirely possible that Intrepid will make a raid that requires the use of all the archetypes' utilities to complete and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, but Steven made it sound as if that won't be the norm.
But the thing about dynamic content is ...you dont know what classes will be necessary because you dont know what situation you will be in. You might not need a mage to open magic doors (after the fact).....but if you dont know if there will be magic doors (before the fact)....you have to bring the mage in case.
And yes there are multiple paths. :thumbsup:
Exactly. You may never know what the content demands so it is advantageous to have one of every archetype. But because there will be multiple solutions to each problem, you will not necessarily need one of every archetype. It's a great design in my opinion. Having one of each archetype is greatly encouraged, but not necessary for victory.
I expect clearing a raid -especially top end raid content- will require all eight archetypes. Depending on the objectives and motivations for entering a dungeon, all eight archetypes may not be required. Kind of like in the Art of War video, where the Predator as able to accomplish his objective solo.
If our objective is to cleanse the dungeon of a plague, we may not need a Summoner or a Fighter or a Bard.
Adventuring in a dungeon shouldn't always be about killing everything in it. And doesn't always have to be about looting or exploring every nook and cranny.
@Noaani So, me and my friends who are outside of a guild and occasionally meet up to do raids is not even considerable to you?
I stand by my point in the context of Ashes, top end raids do not equal top end raid guilds. Guild members that frequent this forum might disagree, whatever, that doesn't somehow equate two things.
I would argue my friends and I that hang in RL, have known each other long before WoW or Everquest, and prefer not to be responsible to a guild but work together when we can could easily do top end raids without the "guild" requirement.
@Noaani So, me and my friends who are outside of a guild and occasionally meet up to do raids is not even considerable to you?
Ok so, Steven has stated that raids will be keyed. There will be a series of encounters/zones and players will need to finish one before taking on the next.
This requires organisation. Unless you and your friends happen to make up 40 people, it means you will need extras to bring along.
Since finding that many people keyed to a top end raid zone that are not actually in a raid guild is likely going to be difficult, I would wager that you and your friends would be fighting the encounters nearer the start of this raid progression.
What that means is that while you and your friends may well join up outside of a guild to raid, you are almost certainly not going to be taking on top end raid content - and how many times in this thread have I specifically used the three words top end raid ?
If, however, you did manage to get to the top end of this PvE raid progression, you would then be faced with the same mechanics that the guilds there would be faced with, and likely need a super-tank as your main tank, which means really, you are arguing semantics rather than the actual point of the discussion.
It will not be difficult to find people to raid with when we have been forming raids for caravans and sieges and monster coin events throughout the entire life of the game. Again, you have an obsolete concept of raiding and raid guilds.
Your concept of top end raid is mostly meaningless for the Ashes game design. Most people will be prepped for top end PvE raids by all of their experience with caravans and sieges and monster coin events and boss attacks against the city. And it is highly unlikely that a Guardian will be required as main tank.
Your concept of "super-tank" also remains unconfirmed by the devs and is unlikely to really be a thing in Ashes. Ashes has 8 flavors of the Tank primary archetype. They will most likely all be viable main tanks even for "top end PvE raids".
No one is arguing semantics in this case. You are simply making empty, unsubstantiated assertions that are non-applicable to the Ashes game design.
You are simply making empty, unsubstantiated assertions that are non-applicable to the Ashes game design.
This isn't exactly true.
I am making an assertion, that much is true, but it is not unsubstantiated.
The only assertion I am making is that if Intrepid are allowing people to double down on the tank archetype rather than being a tank and then having to branch out with DPS, utility, healing or something else, there has to be content based around that. There has to be content to fit that choice, otherwise that choice is always going to be at a disadvantage.
Now, the content that most fits a few players super excelling at a singular role is obviously raiding - the more people you have, the more room and reason there is for a specific few people to focus on narrower roles. Now, to be clear, I am not saying that everyone in a raid needs to double down on their archetype to be effective. That has been mentioned in this thread, and it is not something I think would happen. I personally think raids would benefit greatly from not having a single class double-up at all, but that is obviously speculation.
So my assertion is that if tank/tank is to be a viable class, there needs to be a time when people want someone who can tank, but not do anything else. I don't believe this will be the case in group content at all - I think most groups would welcome some extra DPS from tank/mage, tank/rouge, tank/fighter or what ever. That's all good and stuff, and leaves the tank/X classes all having roles, but it leaves the tank/tank as the odd one out as it can tank just like the other tank/X classes, but brings nothing else with it.
The following is not an assertion, assumption or speculation; either there is content created for tank/tank, or there is no use for tank/tank. It is impossible to have both or neither - one or the other has to be true.
My assertion is simply which one of these two possibilities I think Intrepid will opt for.
I'm not arguing semantics, I am stating that two different things are not equal. You seem to be under the impression that all top end raid content will require a "super-tank" as a main tank. You are stating this as fact when the game hasn't been released and none (I think) of the Tank/(non-tank) classes have been shown.
You are stating your opinion as fact based on your experience in other games. This is a new game whose "top end raid" content hasn't been experienced or explored by anyone, at least those outside of the NDA.
Since you are an Alpha-O player you might have some inside knowledge. But until you can tell/show us for sure your opinion, in my opinion, is not fact.
My point is, top end raids do not equal top end raid guilds.
I'm stating my opinion as my opinion, and then defending that when people attack said opinion.
It may now come across more as being stated as fact, but only because the more I looked in to developer quotes and such, the more I became convinced that tank/tank will have to have content designed specifically for it in order for it to be a viable class - and the only logical place for that content to be is near the end of PvE raid progression.
In the course of this thread, my opinion on a few things has changed (I originally said that I thought all tanks would be able to tank 90% of group content, I now believe all tanks that are considered tanks will be able to tank 100% of group content), but my opinion on all top end raid guilds preferring a tank/tank as main tank over all other tank/X classes, and my opinion that some raid content will require a tank/tank have not changed at all.
While technically you are right in that top end raids do not equal raid guilds, I call that semantics for three reasons. The first is because you are arguing the meaning of something, which literally is the definition of semantics.
The second is because in 20 years or so I have never seen any top end raid content taken down by anything other than a guild. It is worth noting here that WoW has never had anything I consider top end raid content - it never had sufficient challenge to it.
The third reason is because even if a non-raid guild raid did manage to get to top end raid content, they would face the same mechanics and challenges, and that is what this debate is about.
Right...and the fact remains that Ashes game design is purposefully significantly different from the MMORPGs of the last 20 years. Class design is fundamentally different. How and why groups and raids form is fundamentally different. And the motivations and incentives for raiding are fundamentally different.
If Ashes raiding is like the raiding we've experienced in MMOs for the last 20 years, the game devs will have monumentally failed to meet their design goals.
been away for a good bit and omg did i miss stuff lol:D
only skimmed over all this new stuff, but i did want to touch on what i meant with offensive tanking. with that kinda tanking i mean tanks that have attacks with health gain on damage done or tanks that gain defensive buffs caused by a specific attack:) i didnt actually mean a tank switching into dps stance and going ham on stuff:D
saying that, it was viable on dark knight in ff14 before it got nerfed into the ground xd, nowadays im looking for a healthy amount of tanky and a slight bit of dps support or damage for in pvp:) (prefferably the former as thats great for bosses:D) in pve only as long as the encounter allows without burdening the healer ofcourse:3
So in a nut shell.... tank/tank vs tank/x ...may very well create a balance issue and/or cookie cutter build that determine if 'high end raid guilds' will let you enter, if a large closed door guild are short of tanks for some unknown reason. Before we even know if tank/tank is any more viable than tank/x.
All of which is dependant on if you even know what the content entails, to determine if tank/tank is a compulsory requirement and assuming it is OP. Steven has said content will change. Although the place will remain the same, its residents will change over time. How superficial or fundamental that is upon raid mechanics is unknown.
Steven has said raid content will be gated in a linear or vertical progression fashion. Although the challenge is welcome and self improvement encouraged, the danger is you have fewer and fewer people doing the hardest and most time consuming content to create. If the point of the game is to create more and more hardcore niche content for less and less players, I would venture that most of the players are going to be missing out on content. Time is a constant and not a variable. Time spent in one area is less time spent else where. All of which requires a slice of the funding cake too.
Comments
So...seems like you're saying any Primary Tank should be effective as a main tank.
And Secondary Tanks should be be effective as side-tanks.
I would say that Tank/Mage is still a True-Tank. Which is why a Spellstone should be viable as a main tank even in top end raids.
Simply put:
And no, i think Secondary-Tanks should able to Tank, just as not as ... " consistently " like a Primary-Tank or Pure Tank - the overall-aggro should favor the Pure Tanks & Primary Tanks
But I am saying that it should be possible to assemble ( a group for a Raid ) with Secondary-Tanks ... its' just that the Group would need more Secondary-Tanks as opposed to Primary-Tanks and/or Pure Tanks
- For example ... if a Raid boss needs 2 Pure Tanks or 2 Primary-Tanks ( or which ever mixture of the two ... )
- For Secondary-Tanks, that requirement would be bumped-up to 3 or 4
- Because the rest of Group-role would be ultimately dependent on the Secondary-Tanks' Primary
- And considering if it's more ideal to have Long-range or close-range Secondary-Tanks too. but hopefully, the increase in versatility would suffice in that
Thus making use of the Secondary-Archetype that would cover what the group lacksBut this is all a suggestion revolving around the idea of
Consistency vs Versatility
But then again, you would have to consider how a Tank/ Mage would differ from its counterpart Mage/ Tank
EDIT: including the other Counterparts for each Archetype-Blend
Tank/ Mage vs Mage/ Tank
sorry for the yugioh reference ... but can't think of anything else atm.
Ashes is still in development. With that kind experience at Intrepid ... they could make it happen. Don't see why you would want to settle for less when it could be so much more
Maybe that just me
So I was reading the quotes you put up, looking for any indication of where anyone from Intrepid (I'd even accept a Bacon quote) said that the intention was that all classes of the same primary archetype will be able to do that primary role to the same effectiveness.
Here is what I got from the quotes, in order.
1, all 64 classes are viable as classes in their own right. This doesn't mean they are all viable in any specific role, it just means that each class has something that they can bring to a group or raid that means others won't groan when they are included.
This is a good thing, and something I'm totally on board with.
2, there will be many different types of tanks, shield, control, evasion etc. This is all fairly obvious, and has been talked about in this thread.
3, is about Vanguard, and more specifically - grouping in Vanguard. We are supposed to be talking about raiding.
Further, a DK in Vanguard was a capable group tank, but not used as a raid main tank very often.
Skipping 3 for now.
4, is saying exactly what I said about a tank/mage. They add DPS at the expense of tanking ability, which may well make them better suited to groups, valuable in raids as DPS and/or situational tanks, but not wanted as raid main tanks.
Now on to this...
Top end raids will not want an evasion main tank. They will want a mitigation/shield tank with the ability to hold aggro as best as possible. This is because by their very nature, avoidance/evasion tanks introduce too many variables to the situation, while mitigation tanks remove variables.
This isn't an effect of the classes directly, it is an effect of the mechanics behind each.
Basically, the above quote completely reinforces my point that top end PvE raids (ie, not group content, not friend and family guilds running easy raids, and not PvP raids) will all want to use a Guardian as their main tank.
well lets hope the augmentations are noticeable enough. Maybe they could double-dip it ?
It must be objectively true that an evasion tank is viable as a main tank in top end raids or the devs will have failed in one of their primary objectives.
In general, people participating in top end raids will not be overly concerned about whether they have Guardian acting as main tank because the vast majority of top end raids will not be static raids where people can just wait around for optimal configurations.
Most top end raids will be comprised of the same configurations that people form for caravan raids, castle sieges, node sieges and monster coin events. Because Ashes is a PvX game; not a PvE game.
And people are not going to suddenly tell the evasion tank who has been acting as main tank in the top end PvP raids that it's laughable for their subclass or build to work as main tank in the top end PvE raids.
There will likely be some elitist, raid guilds who strive to always use what they believe is the most efficient min/max config. There is still no guarantee that that will always be, or even generally be, the double-down sub-class because that is not the balance the devs are designing for.
Most people participating in top end raids are not going to be concerned about the most efficient configs because most top end raids will be dynamic rather than static. Most people will be more concerned with defeating the threat(s) however they are able to defeat the threat(s) in the moment, rather than waiting hours for the optimal config to form.
There will be some elitist raid guilds who think like you do. Of course. But, that will not really reflect top end raids in general.
For the dev quotes to actually support your view, the devs would have to specifically mention how defeating top end PvE raids will be designed differently from top end PvP raids to significantly favor having the double-down sub-classes in the main roles.
Which I highly doubt you will ever find because Ashes is being designed as a PvX game.
However,in a game with challenging content (read: not WoW), a raid needs cohesion, cooperation and coordination. These things only come from raiding with the same group of people frequently.
Further, whether guild or not, top end raids will require the same thing from those attempting them. As such, and in the context of the discussion in regards to tanks that top end raids will use, saying top end raids or top end raid guilds means the same thing.
And yes there are multiple paths. :thumbsup:
Top end raid can either refer to the content or the players who form a raid to defeat top end raid content .
The players who form a raid in order to defeat top end raid content won't necessarily be in a guild... and if they are, won't necessarily be in the same guild.
Top end raid guild really only refers to a guild that focuses on participating in top end raids.
And you are the only one in this thread who really cares about how elitist, top end raid guilds choose to play. Because the devs are not designing top end PvE raid content specifically for top end raid guilds.
Ashes is a PvX game.
And, again, most people will be raiding with the same people frequently, not because they are in the same guild, but because they are citizens of the same town/city/metropolis and frequently band together to defend their own caravans and nodes or to attack rival caravans and nodes.
Many guilds will also be frequently raiding in order to defend or attack castles.
PvP stuff.
These same players will also be participating in PvE raids in order to protect their region. It's not going to really be about forming raid guilds in order to be able to gain top end PvE raid gear.
(I know we share much in common view wise. But we do disagree on this)
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.
Classes are balanced on being 1/3 if there are only tanks/DD/Healer. Throw in a CC and you could make that 1/4th. Clearly ashes design goal is to make that 1/8th. And according to this thread all 8 versions of each class have to be viable or they are obsolete before the game gets out of the starting blocks.
And no the sum of the parts should be equal to the whole if you want a balanced game.
3x Hybrid = DD + Tank + Healer ...from the trinity perspective of 1/3rd.
Choosing to specialise in a field does not me the sum of the parts are superior.....just focused by segregation of duties, BECAUSE THATS THE PLAYERS PREFERRED PLAY STYLE
Essentially segregation of classes enable preffered alternate play styles to achieve the same objective, rather than have everyone using identical builds.
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 you are on very dangerous ground. What you are saying is a DD should always kill a healer or a tank, or a tank should kill a healer everytime in PvP combat. Thats not the way PvP should work (and yes I am fully aware its how PvE operates on many occasions but this is a PvX game). Both parties should have alternate tool sets that make them perfectly viable in any 1v1 situation. The only thing that should dictate the outcome of those alternate playstyles, is if someone makes a mistake, or is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That essentially means anything 5 DDs can accomplish can be done by healers and tanks. Sure they will go about it in a different way because they have different tool sets.
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.
I disagree. A game that enables 5 tanks, 5 DDs or 5 healers to do the same content is perfectly balanced. But a game that kills diversity is epically flawed.
In Ashes, we don't have access to dual-classing until Level 30.
Which means "the trinity" that exists in Ashes is based on the primary archetypes.
When we dual-class, we will have 8 flavors for each pillar of "the trinity".
If the Ashes "trinity" is Tank/Mage/Rogue that should mean that any permutation of the Tank, Mage and Rogue sub-classes will fulfill their primary archetype role.
Can three healers be just as good at any content as one healer, one tank and one DPS? Probably depends on the specific objectives.
For PvE content, I don't know that it matters.
What matters is whether the group is able to succeed at the primary objectives.
Is the primary objective to kill every mob in a dungeon?
Three High Priests might have a very challenging experience accomplishing that.
Three Paladins might be able to accomplish that about as well as one High Priest, one Archwizard and one Assassin.
Whether one Templar, one Paladin and one Shadow Disciple are as good at clearing the dungeon as one High Priest, one Archwizard and one Assassin is not really important... as long as the Templar, Paladin and Shadow Disciple succeed at clearing the dungeon.
Is the primary objective to steal or disable an artifact in a dungeon?
Three Shadow Disciples would very likely be able to accomplish that as well as one High Priest, one Archwizard and one Assassin. Possibly the Shadow Disciples would have an easier time by stealthing past most of the combat.
Three Shadow Disciples would very likely have an easier time than one Shaman, one Warlock and one Keeper.
For PvP...
Again, I dunno.
Seems like a Guardian is very likely to be on par with a Nightshield
Shouldn't really matter much if a Guardian holds aggro by augmenting Hatred with Hatred and maintains forced target lock on herself or if the Nightshield holds aggro by augmenting Hatred with Shadow Puppet and switches the forced target lock to the puppet.
It's a significant change in playstyle, but the end result should be about the same.
Should a DD always be able to kill a healer?
If the healer is using Rogue or Mage evasion augments to supplement their healing abilities, the DD might have a very difficult time landing lasting damage.
Depending on the objectives and motivations for entering a dungeon, all eight archetypes may not be required. Kind of like in the Art of War video, where the Predator as able to accomplish his objective solo.
If our objective is to cleanse the dungeon of a plague, we may not need a Summoner or a Fighter or a Bard.
Adventuring in a dungeon shouldn't always be about killing everything in it.
And doesn't always have to be about looting or exploring every nook and cranny.
So, me and my friends who are outside of a guild and occasionally meet up to do raids is not even considerable to you?
I stand by my point in the context of Ashes, top end raids do not equal top end raid guilds. Guild members that frequent this forum might disagree, whatever, that doesn't somehow equate two things.
I would argue my friends and I that hang in RL, have known each other long before WoW or Everquest, and prefer not to be responsible to a guild but work together when we can could easily do top end raids without the "guild" requirement.
Ok so, Steven has stated that raids will be keyed. There will be a series of encounters/zones and players will need to finish one before taking on the next.
This requires organisation. Unless you and your friends happen to make up 40 people, it means you will need extras to bring along.
Since finding that many people keyed to a top end raid zone that are not actually in a raid guild is likely going to be difficult, I would wager that you and your friends would be fighting the encounters nearer the start of this raid progression.
What that means is that while you and your friends may well join up outside of a guild to raid, you are almost certainly not going to be taking on top end raid content - and how many times in this thread have I specifically used the three words top end raid ? If, however, you did manage to get to the top end of this PvE raid progression, you would then be faced with the same mechanics that the guilds there would be faced with, and likely need a super-tank as your main tank, which means really, you are arguing semantics rather than the actual point of the discussion.
It will not be difficult to find people to raid with when we have been forming raids for caravans and sieges and monster coin events throughout the entire life of the game.
Again, you have an obsolete concept of raiding and raid guilds.
Your concept of top end raid is mostly meaningless for the Ashes game design.
Most people will be prepped for top end PvE raids by all of their experience with caravans and sieges and monster coin events and boss attacks against the city.
And it is highly unlikely that a Guardian will be required as main tank.
Your concept of "super-tank" also remains unconfirmed by the devs and is unlikely to really be a thing in Ashes.
Ashes has 8 flavors of the Tank primary archetype. They will most likely all be viable main tanks even for "top end PvE raids".
No one is arguing semantics in this case.
You are simply making empty, unsubstantiated assertions that are non-applicable to the Ashes game design.
I am making an assertion, that much is true, but it is not unsubstantiated.
The only assertion I am making is that if Intrepid are allowing people to double down on the tank archetype rather than being a tank and then having to branch out with DPS, utility, healing or something else, there has to be content based around that. There has to be content to fit that choice, otherwise that choice is always going to be at a disadvantage.
Now, the content that most fits a few players super excelling at a singular role is obviously raiding - the more people you have, the more room and reason there is for a specific few people to focus on narrower roles. Now, to be clear, I am not saying that everyone in a raid needs to double down on their archetype to be effective. That has been mentioned in this thread, and it is not something I think would happen. I personally think raids would benefit greatly from not having a single class double-up at all, but that is obviously speculation.
So my assertion is that if tank/tank is to be a viable class, there needs to be a time when people want someone who can tank, but not do anything else. I don't believe this will be the case in group content at all - I think most groups would welcome some extra DPS from tank/mage, tank/rouge, tank/fighter or what ever. That's all good and stuff, and leaves the tank/X classes all having roles, but it leaves the tank/tank as the odd one out as it can tank just like the other tank/X classes, but brings nothing else with it.
The following is not an assertion, assumption or speculation; either there is content created for tank/tank, or there is no use for tank/tank. It is impossible to have both or neither - one or the other has to be true.
My assertion is simply which one of these two possibilities I think Intrepid will opt for.
You are stating your opinion as fact based on your experience in other games. This is a new game whose "top end raid" content hasn't been experienced or explored by anyone, at least those outside of the NDA.
Since you are an Alpha-O player you might have some inside knowledge. But until you can tell/show us for sure your opinion, in my opinion, is not fact.
My point is, top end raids do not equal top end raid guilds.
It may now come across more as being stated as fact, but only because the more I looked in to developer quotes and such, the more I became convinced that tank/tank will have to have content designed specifically for it in order for it to be a viable class - and the only logical place for that content to be is near the end of PvE raid progression.
In the course of this thread, my opinion on a few things has changed (I originally said that I thought all tanks would be able to tank 90% of group content, I now believe all tanks that are considered tanks will be able to tank 100% of group content), but my opinion on all top end raid guilds preferring a tank/tank as main tank over all other tank/X classes, and my opinion that some raid content will require a tank/tank have not changed at all.
While technically you are right in that top end raids do not equal raid guilds, I call that semantics for three reasons. The first is because you are arguing the meaning of something, which literally is the definition of semantics.
The second is because in 20 years or so I have never seen any top end raid content taken down by anything other than a guild. It is worth noting here that WoW has never had anything I consider top end raid content - it never had sufficient challenge to it.
The third reason is because even if a non-raid guild raid did manage to get to top end raid content, they would face the same mechanics and challenges, and that is what this debate is about.
Class design is fundamentally different.
How and why groups and raids form is fundamentally different.
And the motivations and incentives for raiding are fundamentally different.
If Ashes raiding is like the raiding we've experienced in MMOs for the last 20 years, the game devs will have monumentally failed to meet their design goals.
only skimmed over all this new stuff, but i did want to touch on what i meant with offensive tanking.
with that kinda tanking i mean tanks that have attacks with health gain on damage done or tanks that gain defensive buffs caused by a specific attack:) i didnt actually mean a tank switching into dps stance and going ham on stuff:D
saying that, it was viable on dark knight in ff14 before it got nerfed into the ground xd, nowadays im looking for a healthy amount of tanky and a slight bit of dps support or damage for in pvp:) (prefferably the former as thats great for bosses:D) in pve only as long as the encounter allows without burdening the healer ofcourse:3
tank/tank vs tank/x
...may very well create a balance issue and/or cookie cutter build that determine if 'high end raid guilds' will let you enter, if a large closed door guild are short of tanks for some unknown reason. Before we even know if tank/tank is any more viable than tank/x.
All of which is dependant on if you even know what the content entails, to determine if tank/tank is a compulsory requirement and assuming it is OP. Steven has said content will change. Although the place will remain the same, its residents will change over time. How superficial or fundamental that is upon raid mechanics is unknown.
Steven has said raid content will be gated in a linear or vertical progression fashion. Although the challenge is welcome and self improvement encouraged, the danger is you have fewer and fewer people doing the hardest and most time consuming content to create. If the point of the game is to create more and more hardcore niche content for less and less players, I would venture that most of the players are going to be missing out on content. Time is a constant and not a variable. Time spent in one area is less time spent else where. All of which requires a slice of the funding cake too.