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.
Party utility vs raid necessity
ArchivedUser
Guest
I was skimming over a thread about buffs and was thinking about the utility that specific classes may have. I like the idea of a system where certain classes may have a very unique contribution to make in a group alongside fulfilling their role as dps/healer/tank w.e that is nice in some contexts and very necessary in others. By that I mean when doing some party quest or most dungeons it would just be the cool bonus the class brings (vs other bonuses other classes would have provided) but for harder dungeons or raids that class would simply be necessary for your group.
I'm thinking this while remembering "mana-batteries" (shadow priests) back in WoW BC. They were cool to have in dungeons but when we were first trying to do harder raid content that we had not over-geared or had on farm (so pushing what our raid group was capable of) it was super necessary to keep the healers from going oom. I like the idea of unique class combat utilities like this that may require people pushing content or certain specific encounters (like gruul's lair) to include in their composition.
The counter to this is that you want people to play with friends and having unique & necessary classes in a comp is restrictive. But I don't know, with larger party (8) and raid (40) sizes I just feel this should be ok. Also, you could just run content that your party of friends is suited for until you have better gear and are more capable of handling the content you otherwise would need a specific class for.
Thoughts? Comments? Nostalgic stories?
I'm thinking this while remembering "mana-batteries" (shadow priests) back in WoW BC. They were cool to have in dungeons but when we were first trying to do harder raid content that we had not over-geared or had on farm (so pushing what our raid group was capable of) it was super necessary to keep the healers from going oom. I like the idea of unique class combat utilities like this that may require people pushing content or certain specific encounters (like gruul's lair) to include in their composition.
The counter to this is that you want people to play with friends and having unique & necessary classes in a comp is restrictive. But I don't know, with larger party (8) and raid (40) sizes I just feel this should be ok. Also, you could just run content that your party of friends is suited for until you have better gear and are more capable of handling the content you otherwise would need a specific class for.
Thoughts? Comments? Nostalgic stories?
0
Comments
No need to be sorry (or very sorry for that matter haha). Hmm so I'm not sure I follow your concern. I am not advocating for class stacking, but the opposite: diversity (but in an encouraged manner). And as mentioned this should only apply for those pushing content. If you gear for longer you should not need class specific utilities for most content like if my raid group had better gear we would not have mana issues. We also know that there will be content in game that <10% of players will experience. My post is more concerning hard-core PvE philosophy than overall PvE philosophy.
Also remember that you can swap between 8 classes in this game (when you select a primary, you can choose between 8 secondary classes to ultimately select your "class"). Not needing your entire primary class given the party and raid sizes seems unlikely, there will definitely be some group or guild that will need some variation of your primary-secondary class combo.
The primary team composition is a healer, tank, and 3 dps.
Now if you have an experienced team and want to speedrun the hardest dungeon(s) at the time (updates every few months change the hardest dungeons usually) then you will take certain classes:
-Mystic as your healer since it is a Buff based healer for more crit power and rate. The Priest is the other healer and is more for first runs and carrying newbies through dungeons as they can crank out massive healing potential but lack the crit buffs that the mystic has
-Brawler for the tank so you basically have a fourth DPS in the party that also has similiar (but slightly weaker) buffs and debuffs than the Lancer or warrior. Easily makes up for it since it can crank out much higher DPS than the other two while tanking.
-Warrior as a DPS so they can get the damage increase for the party going and drop bosses faster.
-As the last two DPS you want to bring ANY other DPS other than reaper or ninja as those two are more setup for PVP and just get stomped in DPS by every other DPS class (brawlers do more DPS than both of them as long as they are both equally skilled).
FYI - all this info is PRE-Awakened for any other Tera players out there. I played on PC until awakened came out and got bored, then played for a few months on console when it released.
As for a second example:
If you want to run a dungeon and do not care about speed running it, then you can have either healer, any of the tanks, and any combination of DPS you want.
In short, it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish in that particular run usually, that determines what spots are available and what classes are welcome. I can safely say I would not run an endgame dungeon with 4 dps and 1 healer, but I would run (just for the LOLs) with 4 tanks and 1 healer, or 4 healers and a tank.
Edit: Now that i've read more of your reasoning i'm not sure I can support it so I have edited my post slightly.
I think Steven is striving to return to that model rather than repeat the typical MMO version of RPG design.
Class, social, and racial augments, in addition to weapon ability choices, will already create an ample amount of diversity - especially when any class can use any weapon. Requiring a specific utility isn't necessary for creating diverse raid compositions.
We already know classes won't be interchangeable in their holy trinity role e.g. you can't take a cleric secondary and operate as a main healer for a dungeon/raid. I would like it, as I think it would be good for the game, if classes had unique contributions to make to a party or raid with some utility e.g. mana regen for the group, armor reduction on targets, increased movement speed etc.
I do not want to have any class be substitutable for another in the utility they bring. This is another point I disagree with you on, I would claim that the "typical MMO version of RPG design" is that you could just substitute one class for another without consequence because they can all bring the ~same things to the table. This is a common complaint I hear from WoW players now.
Of course, again, I emphasize that this will only really apply for hardcore groups as, naturally, optimization is a function of content difficulty. If we take two extreme examples: in one case the content could be so easy that you could run it with a group of only clerics since they do enough damage, have enough HP and enough healing to clear the content. On the other extreme, you can only do content with an exact setup of primary+secondary class, specific augment set, and specific gear etc because it is so hard that only the optimal setup can clear it. The game will obviously operate somewhere in the middle.
Main point 1: I just think that people who push content should be able to do it with whatever composition but have a harder time than if they had the right composition making that content easier as you are better built to handle the specific challenges of that encounter. Those who are not pushing content and are casual would do just fine with any composition on the easier content (but would still have an easier time still with an optimized composition).
Main point 2: The issue I have with "any group composition should be able to do the content" (i.e. all classes are interchangeable utility-wise) is that thats exactly when you do see class stacking. Balance won't be perfect and some classes will pump out more dps than others. If there is no difference between a mage and a summoner utility-wise that could benefit a specific encounter, and mages in the current patch have 5% more dps then hardcore guilds will stack mage dps over diversity. I guess ultimately you pick your poison: will hardcore guilds plan a more rigid diversity oriented comp (where stacking is discouraged) or will they plan a class stack of the currently most optimal class (where diversity is discouraged). Either way, some people may be denied into a group/raid for their class. But in those two cases I pick the former as your invitation is contingent on the specific hardcore content while in the latter case your invitation is contingent on the current state of class balance.
-----------
Peripheral point: I kind of wish the non-combat utilities weren't completely interchangeable and for convenience either. I hope that there will indeed be content (nothing big necessarily, like extra loot or something) that may only be available if a ranger's tracking is used or if a mage's dispel magic is used. It makes classes feel more unique and valuable but it may make some feel like social interaction is forced down their throat a bit (i.e. you feel like you need to make a mage friend if you want access to that extra treasure chest).
I know that people will make friends they want to party with and they may sometimes be of the same class. If they wanted to run endgame dungeon with their setup, they should be able to but have a harder time?
Wouldnt the flipsode of that be the content not being challenging enough for optimal setups?
Balancing an MMO is like astrophysics but they need to get some fundamental answers to balance the classes.
I was first thinking of these class specific bonuses being secondary class bound, but then the class balance would need to be extremely accurate and the class to still feel like a class you like to play.
The only valid opinion I can come up with is through risk/reward scenario.
If you have only archers as dps for that 5% dmg, 2 clerics shouldnt be enough to heal you. Thus one more healer is required and the overall dps goes worse.
This should mean that archers shouldnt have many protective abilities, be a glass cannon and rely on other classes for defense.
This would force bosses to have a minimal time window in which you could kill them as the more dmg your team had the more dmg you would take.
Thus a team of skilled inviduals with diversing builds is needed for hardest bosses.
I think we really need to know more of the classes and builds before being able to see what can be applicable in practise.
Yeah having a secondary class determine the "unique" utility you bring to the table is what would make it not unique anymore as any primary class can substitute another for that utility.
So my understanding of this solution is roughly that to address a balance issue we would rely on balancing of a different kind so I'm hesitant to agree. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that in this example they identify what is slightly over balanced in terms of dps and offset that by balancing their survivability, which to me is still balancing. But in any case classes will already have such differences when you consider melee vs ranged and the choice of secondary class probably also impacts this heavily; you will still have small differences in tuning with any balance iteration. Unique utility skills and encounters that asymmetrically benefit from some over others would make sure there is room for all classes in some encounter or another regardless of the balance state of that class (given sufficient difficulty level relative to the party/group's abilities and gear).
I mean we could always use more information :P but I feel ok talking about this because in my eyes it's more of a discussion on the balance philosophy than the actual balance/classes.
We won't be able to guess what that should be until we encounter the dungeon.
There may be time when we choose to retreat and return with what we believe to be a more optimal composition of classes, sure.
We can't hot swap between secondaries, but I on't know why you mentioned secondaries since the topic is about utility abilities and I'm not aware of secondaries including utility abilities.
Mana regen, armor reduction on targets and increased movement speed sound more like primary abilities and augments than utility abilities - and we will have social and racial augments in addition to class augments, so again, class composition will still be diverse.
"Harder time" won't really be much of a thing since quests and raids aren't static.
We won't all be doing the exact same raids and quests, so no need to compare who has a "harder time".
Also, "harder time" and "optimal" doesn't really have much meaning. When I soloed endgame dungeons that people in my guild had grouped, I had a "harder time" and it was not an "optimal" run - but I still had tons of fun figuring out a path to success... I didn't care that I wiped a whole bunch of times.
I am casual challenge/hardcore time.
But, I guess casual challenge may be relative since having optimal abilities makes challengers easier and I don't necessarily care to have optimal abilities.
Roleplaying the classes we like is more important to me than adventuring with a group with optimal abilities.
In Ashes, it may be OK to take a group of only Clerics, if they have an adequate spread of secondary classes and a strategic use of social and racial augments - in addition to weapon abilities and gear.
"Any group composition should be able to do the content" is not the same thing as "all classes are interchangeable utility-wise".
For one thing, the utilities we have aren't really interchangeable: Cleanse is not interchangeable with Mage's Detection.
But, people should still be able to complete the primary objectives of a dungeon or raid even without someone who has Cleanse or Mage's Detection.
I don't really care about dps.
I'm not really concerned that a Mage won't be different than a Summoner because I am quite certain that a Battle Mage will be considerably different than a Necromancer.
But, I think a group that has a Necromancer and a Wild Blade should be able to complete the primary objectives of a dungeon or raid even without the Mage's Detection utility that a Battle Mage would be able to provide for the group.
I also don't really care what "hardcore" guilds choose to do.
When there is a threat, I want to be able to gather the folk who are in my city when I am and defeat the threat. Rather, than allow the city to fall to a monster attack because a Battle Mage isn't online or is off adventuring at a distant Node.
Your scenarios seem to be rooted in static themepark dungeons and raids that people will repeatedly complete by bringing the known optimal class configuration.
That's not really the Ashes game design.
When I adventure with people, I don't care about optimal class configuration - I care about adventuring with people I have fun adventuring with... and figuring out how to defeat the challenges with the abilities we have. Much like Log Horizon.
Non-combat utilities are not completely interchangeable.
There may be content that's only accessible with Mage's Detection.
It may be common for us to only complete 90% of dungeon/raid content.
It may be that we choose to only partially complete dungeons and raids and let others finish what we've left.
It may be that we choose to complete the primary objectives and then return later with others who have the utilities that might let us clean out every nook and cranny of the dungeon/raid.
Classes are going to feel unique and valuable in any case.
That's not the same thing as requiring a specific utility ability in order to defeat the primary objectives of a dungeon or a raid, such that people are excluded from the group because they don't have the desired utility.
A group of 8 archers could be comprised of a Hunter, Warden, Predator, Hawkeye, Spellhunter, Beast Master, Protector and Song Warden. All wielding bows with different weapon abilities.
The more challenging flipside would probably be a group of 8 archers comprised of a Strider, Sentinel, Scout, Hawkeye, Scion, Falconer, Soulbow and Bowsinger. Also wielding bows with different weapon abilities.
The first group would have a diverse set of utility skills, while the second group probably would not - if each primary class only gets one utility skill.
Second group might choose to mitigate damage via health potions. But, may also be skilled enough to synergize their crowd control abilities to ward off damage.
So...yes.
We really need to see how well class, social and racial augments help us configure viable party configurations that aren't necessarily cookie-cutter optimal.
The reason for me for hard content to exist, is the rewarding feeling of finally slaughtering the boss that gave u a hard time for so long.
Forcing your team to learn to co-operate with each other extremely well, resulting in a stronger bond within ur team.
IS, to my understanding is setting up the hard bosses to the highest level nodes. When finishing one hard dungeon your team would keep together chasing for new nodes and different dungeons to face new mechanics and challenges. There would be trust and loyalty within the team. Why I think I lack information in deciding if this theory is even viable in practise is how the class types will be.
Will a warrior, summoner or any of them be a based on very strong dd or more defensive type.
With tank and sub tanks being defensive, it would get boring and diminish build diversities within groups.
For an example of how I imagine it;
Rangers have mobility for pvp reasons but it wouldnt give enough protection against the bosses aoes and the healer couldnt keep up with the hp output versus bosses damage output.
To counter this you would need for example a fighter-summoner, who does 5% less damage but offers a skill that they have to use to block some of the bosses aoe skill damage.
Forcing ranger to stand behind them and be prepared to do so within a short notice.
For the hardest encounters lacking forgiveness, people would need to develope a good synergy in the team.
The more supportive another class is the more offensive others can be, but the more organized they would have to work.
There would need to be certain amount of supporting(healing or defensive) damage dealers in every group.
It could be forced by bosses dealing certain amount of damage and if there were not enough defensive forces they would take time to recover and risk dying if they fail again, or perhaps even wipe from first mistake.
The friends would have to work out for each dungeon or each boss(depending on how switching sub class will work) who is more supportive, protective or offensive.
Would ranged or close quarter pure dd be better for the encounter, direct or hot heals, single vs aoe, etc.
For hardest first times they would probably lower the damage and have more supporting roles.
This would rely on some classes being healish or tankish to begin with, and players would choose their sub class depending on what kind of role they prefer to play.
In more casual boss encounters the setup shouldnt be as important.
We cant expect players to put out their maximum potential from the start.
For teams with only tanks and healers the boss would need to have a mechanic that stacks damage over time or is executed after gathering enough energy at certain point, resulting in a wipe.
I dont know if this wall explains it in enough detail, but I value the discussion and the attempt see the pov.
Every class or subclass should bring something truly unique to the table. Every raid group should have some things easier and some more challenging because of their composition.
Maybe that means the guilds working on world first raid fights are swapping members between fights for what they believe is the statistically highest probability of success. Great. Why not?
Harder is better. Having to have the exact right combination of players to kill the first xyz raid boss? Sure why not. Yeah yeah, later on when people's average gear levels are higher then everyone can do the same or similar fights with other comps.
In a perfect world every class/subclass would have fights it would be awesome for. No one gets left out. And every specialty has a chance to shine somewhere. Can that be done with 64 subclasses? Maybe. But probably more likely there will be some redundancy. Which I guess is okay, but less ideal in my opinion. I'd love to see the classes play as differently from one another as possible, and not be homogenized.
Remember seasons. A dungeon that is easy in the Spring will be different, perhaps drastically more difficult, in the Fall. We may need different class combinations different times of the year, or in different weather. If the dominant class in a node changes, the dungeons will change, and group optimums may also change.
The group make-up that rocks a military node may not fare well in a divine node. The elves that succeed in summer and spring may get crushed in winter in that same cave.
We may have to relearn how to play games with Ashes.
I feel like this is just a semantic issue so I won't repeat my points and @Ravnodausseems to encapsulate my argument well in his/her comment if it helps clarify at all. Just in the off chance that the semantic issue runs deep, other than my peripheral point, I am referring to combat utility skills not the non-combat utility skills like detect magic, track footsteps etc.
So from my understanding, yes they are completely interchangeable and not even necessary to clear content. They are essentially different ways of bypassing traps that you can somehow bypass regardless. Just to be clear, this is freaking cool already, but it's just 1 step short of how far I'd like it to go.
"if we didn't have a mage in our party we would have had to find a different way across"
Also, I am not saying you should only be able to complete a dungeon or raid if you have a specific class, that would be very gimmicky and unappealing actually. But if what you describe would be true, like having a mage would give you access to a secret treasure chest in dungeon X and a ranger would allow access to some bonus mobs (that may be tamed) in dungeon Y where other classes could not, that would be exactly what I'd want.
I think this is the root of our disagreement. I am explicitly only talking about hardcore content and groups "pushing content". This would not apply uniformly to everyone (maybe re-read my posts or @Ravnodaus 's for clarification). And no I don't have my scenerios rooted in a static themepark dungeon, even in your own post you describe retreating and coming back with a more optimal composition.
With regards to your worry about the fine-tuned difficulty, that's the part where it's balance and we can't really comment on yet imo, but the philosophy you describe is what I would be happy with as well
Bless you sir. That's exactly what I mean
@TauTau
So that's a good point. I'm not sure to what extent that will be true but one part we do know for sure is the season will indeed impact the effectiveness of your spells. Like mentioned by @Blackhearted that may be an important consideration for what the group/raid composition may be in an outdoor environment or world boss, especially if it is very difficult for the group's current gear and ability or is some hardcore guild pushing a first kill as @Ravnodaus mentioned!
Lmao, super insightful as always budd.
summoner/bard ^^
Everyone will have their preference. Mine is simply to lean into it and really make every subclass combo truly shine in its own way.
And mana regen for Bard secondary would most likely be self-only rather than group.
Your understanding isn't accurate. Finding another way across doesn't mean you can use Mage's Detection or Tracking to get across a region where a Cleric would use Cleanse. Players might choose to use healing potions after wading through a poisonous area instead of using Cleanse. Or a Mage might be able to Teleport the group across or Fly/Float the group across.
Especially doesn't mean that a Cleric could use Cleanse interchangeably with Mage's Detection or Tracking.
That is the current game design.
(Though the mobs the Ranger tracks won't necessarily be tamed.)
"Hardcore content" is relative.
Again, I am casual challenge/hardcore time.
Which means I'm able to spend hardcore time working out a means to defeat challenges/dungeons with the abilities I bring, rather than relying on the most time-efficient, optimal class config.
Top-end content should allow players to use either method and a range in-between, rather than relying on specific utilities or abilities in order to defeat the primary challenges/objectives.
Mage's Detection will likely be required to detect secret doors or Track required to detect some extra mobs - but that's really icing on the cake - and totally fine.
Some dungeons and raids we will probably need to retreat from and return. But, it won't really be because we don't have required utility abilities. We might want to return with different weapons and gear.
We might want to return with a different array of combat abilities and/or augments.
We might want to return with greater numbers of players. It might really be cool if we needed to return with a specific sub-race or religion or social organization.
But, the utility skills aren't really intended to prevent players from completing the primary objectives, rather they open paths to tangential challenges.
And I'm pretty sure there is a quote about the mob tables changing along with the seasons.
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/our-immersive-world-environments/
"In Ashes of Creation the world will change on a regular basis. Zones will progress in a seasonal cycle, which will alter the very nature of the environment around you. Snow may block pathways that are accessible in warmer months, spring may encourage creatures otherwise unseen to come to the surface, and fall might be the only time that certain crops thrive. This cycle can then take in the state of the world’s Nodes and shift depending on their progression. What happens if there’s an unexpectedly long summer and a far too short autumn? We’re not entirely sure ourselves, but we do know there will be plenty of stories that begin with 'I remember when…' I want these cycles to affect a wide array of mechanics, including; NPC generation, boss content, dungeons, drop tables, Node progression, combat, skill use, gatherables, trade routes, NPC appearances, and weather. "
But if you are right, that would make me very happy! Could you give me a reference for this?
As for the rest of the discussion I think we both agree, but we are misunderstanding the magnitude of each other's ideas.
For instance I still feel like you may think I am saying you shouldn't be able to complete an encounter if you don't have the right composition for the right [combat] utility skills like (just as a hypothetical example) party-wide mana regen or armor penetration. Which btw, I don't fully follow how/why you say group mana regen won't be a thing in ashes, we simply don't know that. Again, I still feel like you might think when I say utility I mean non-combat utility. I am always referring to combat-utility spells unless specified otherwise. Combat-utility is like a raid-wide buff or a debuff on mobs that the whole party/raid may benefit from.
Group Mana Regen could be a buff, but would probably not be called a Utility.
If Bards had Group Mana Regen as a primary ability, most likely the Bard sub-classes would only be able to have self-mana regen as an augment. Similar to the way a Paladin can self-heal but not group heal.