I'm not sure how narrow builds will be. I'm not sure if you could build two styles of Tank (The Literal Tank class) or if everyone will be forced to build Tank in the same way until augments are gleaned.
I prefer variety and the ability to pick and choose. If every Tank (The Literal Tank Class) is built the same until augments, then the game will be very stale and limited. I understand you must build the class but I'm not clued on the options.
Rather than all classes doing all roles, it should depend on Weapon Types, Skill Sets and Augments. It would be nice to have variation of Tank Role, Healer Role and DPS Role, but, I do not think a specific class should be able to perform all three roles at the same time.
The veil of the game remains and we have titbits of information. I often find these questions difficult to answer simply because I do not know what progress we are up to, what direction we are going and what the current meta is. It will be easier when NDA lifts in my opinion.
In Ashes of Creation, I would hope that changing your secondary role (with some difficulty, so it cannot be done on the fly.) would be sufficient to meet the roles of your group. For Example, if you're a main mage and take secondary tank, your abilities focus around giving yourself mage armor / damage shields to tank with and mobility / damage, and that would be good enough to beat difficult content, although not optimal or as easy as people picking two "tank" classes. (It might even be faster for more experienced groups since you have the added DPS of your main / secondary class.)
I feel as though each class should have specific roles they're not only good at, but also CLEARLY the best at. For example, Mage might be the best at burst DPS, whereas summoner could the best at sustained DPS. and the mixing of two classes could be a very important choice. Also, as the "meta" shifts, this flexibility allows players to keep up without rolling new characters.
Allowing for this flexibility is almost required since you are not always going to be in a group, and if people are forced into taking two heal/tank roles they would have great difficulty in open world solo content.
From what I can tell, if you pick a main class A and secondary class B it will equal class C Similarly, if you pick main class B and secondary class A, it will still equal class C. I like that concept where both main and secondary class are equal to 50% of your class and you can only change the secondary class. if you get bored of playing damage, swap your second role and play a healer, or a tank.
I also have no problem with certain classes being hybrids, for example, maybe summoner can summon healing pets, but also damage pets, and if you pick summoner twice, you can be an off healer.
I don't mind whether we have 8 to tweak or 64 to tweak. The main concern I have is Cookie-Cutter Classes, where effectively all classes equate to the same thing until augments are applied. Some people say secondary class won't matter if you glean augments from Arena(Not confirmed), Node, Religion, Race etc. We can only have a limited amount of skills on the bar (At present). Some augments may overlap. What I was requesting were different skill trees within the classes, be them 8 classes or 64 classes, yet I suspect that because of the Hard Counter dynamic, it would mean there aren't subsets of options inside the classes, merely everyone having the same skills in a specific class, with some of those skills more advanced than others.
I still believe the classes, be them 8 tweaked classes, or 64 tweaked classes, should not be awesome at Tanking, Healing and DPSing at the same time. It would be nice to be able to choose what role one will assume within a class through tweaks, but, I think it will mess with the hard counters. I don't know enough about Augments to decide whether I would want 8 tweaked classes or 64 tweaked classes. Balance for 64 classes would be harder to achieve than 8 classes too. I was happy to see the 64 classes, until I learnt secondary class might make no difference at all. Though hearsay and facts are two different sides of a coin.
Edit: What I would sum up the issues as, is I would like Secondary Choices to matter, irrespective of the augments we can get from other areas of the game, thus, I think I lean towards 64 classes to tweak.
Double Edit: When I form a group and request a Tank (In other games this would cover several builds), I would rather get responses from a plethora of potential builds than have every group requiring a literal Tank/Tank (The Tank Class by name). If all groups require a Tank/Tank to fully progress then Tank/Tanks would be in short supply, much the same as Cleric/Cleric. Thankfully, IS have said that Tank Primary will enable one to tank, so in effect all 8 Subclasses from Tank should be a viable Tank. I think therefore that 64 Classes will matter more than some people suggest. Some of those Tank Variations can self heal, some can DPS Better, some can CC Better and some can take more damage. In terms of synergy, I think the scope will be there for varied groups. Yet, the specialisations will be present (In theory).
Third Edit: I mean if one has a Cleric/Cleric, one would hope you don't need a Tank/Tank, if one has a Tank/Tank you might not need more than one Cleric/Cleric. Effectively, what I'm requesting is that all roles will be viable, but not all classes will be viable for all roles. Its a complex matter with little basis in true feedback because I haven't tested the game.
If I understand the OP right they are really asking do we want 8 classes we can tweak or 64 classes.
Oh. In that case, 8 classes we can tweak sounds more interesting and easier to balance/design rather than 64 classes that can all do the same stuff as each other.
Rlly easy: Tank/Tank is survivability focused. Tank/Fighter is also a Tank but more DMG focussed, but you may need 2healer or 1 main heal 1 offheal. So far ez right? Now if you have 2 inherently opposite choices for archetype like Tank/Cleric it'll become problematic. In this case you could say the Tanks defensive CD is not a DMG reduction for 10sec but instead converts incoming DMG into Health for 3 sec. A tank archetype should not be an offheal. That'd destroy the Trinity system. I have alot ideas like the example. Of course if you want to balance a tank/heal hybrid who still somehow should do threat in a fight good luck (ngl that'll be rlly bad especially if u want to keep the class somewhat useful). In the end all I can say is don't listen to every idea and don't try to make it perfect for everyone. (Active on the discord as Dodoo if you have questions) P.S. written on the phone so no spacing
I personally believe that class identity is something that MMO's should put big emphasis on.
Having all class being able to perform all roles does not seem like a good idea to me, both from rpg stand-point, game-balancing and overall the enjoyment in playing a particular class.
Having meaningful decisions in game of any sort is something that should be available to players.
In order for this to be true, there must be an actual difference between class designs. However, if in their core let's say two spells are different, there will be always one being "better" then the other or exceeding it in the majority of situations. Having classes being able to perform multiple roles will just bring out metas, which will lead to unnecessary experience in the game. An example for that can be a particular class being always preferred for a certain role, since it is the best performing one. Having a class identity where each class excels at something specific that is necessary for let's say a group content will bring meaning in the decision behind the class each player picked.
Diversity is something that I would like to see in Ashes, but with a certain limit to it.
Be careful not to homogenize the class system. Specialization is a fundamental when it comes to player identity. I would think your primary class should largely dictate your identity and your secondary class should be utility or flavor.
If there is no way to make an exceptionally terrible build then there won't be a way to make an exceptionally good build either. We should be allowed to have consequence for poor decisions, a tank/?? who builds entirely for damage should still be doing sub par damage. Likewise a cleric/?? should have no way in hell to tank group content or excel at dps against anything that isn't undead/demon.
Every class should bring something unique to the table and it's better for the sense of community if we know the character we're playing has an important or even integral role in one scenario or another. Look at a game like P99 Everquest, there are certain things you literally can not do without a Rogue who can lockpick a door. Those instances are few and far between but it sure does feel good for a rogue.. who's basically a mindless DPS in nearly all circumstances... to very literally hold the key to the group's fate.
Our beloved holy trinity serves it's own purpose and it's function is definitely not to provide variety, but instead provide structure. Mechanical and utility specialization that has nothing to do with the holy trinity is, in my eyes, the key to a truly varied class system and gameplay experience.
This question seems confusing based on the current shared information on how classes and the ability/skill system is described by allocation of points.
The classes should have a defined persona and the choices of the player to spend attributes, skills and abilities should determine the demarcation of different categorizes available to that specific character/class/player.
Example: Fire Mage that chooses to use a Sword/shield rather than a staff/wand/book and builds their attributes into Con and Dex instead of INT/WiS. The persona of the character exists by specialized magic skills however the demarcation is different by their weapon choice and attributes so the player can create a playstyle that suits their need or group composition.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
0
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2020
Should every class be able to fill every role?
In the sense that there should be basic healing, damage, and defense components for the individual to use within their class.
Meaning If I run off in the world on my own with any class I shouldnt need someone else to heal me or anything for regular quests and open world stuff.
For group content I dont think its a bad idea that there are universal skills available that allow people to fill roles, but having the classes be different is important to prevent homogenization and skill degradation of unique classes.
Sometimes being different simply means that some classes will be better at tanking, group healing, and group damage. Thats fine as long as the difference isnt un-attainable by a skilled player who wants to say use a melee magic caster competing with a standard melee warrior, or competing against the mage/mage.
How you guys take that is up to you, but personally there's nothing more disapointing than picking a class, loving how it feels and plays thematically and functionally and realizing when you want to do content that its not that your setup isnt just non-optimal, but completely non functional if there is no way to access similar skills.
I'm one of those people that enjoys using what I like and what feels good rather than what the community and dps meters have determined as the be all end all for class and role selection. And I dont mind that what is optimal stays optimal, it would just be nice to be able to play content and still be functional and doable.
Certain role is good.
But flexibility and variety(it's different things) also important..
Players should have options to play role in their specific manner. But still class/class combination should not be just "name", there must be something more then just skill morphs, maybe some unique passives, mechanics, combos or even specific lore(some really small piece of lore - since we got 60+ classes).
I think every class should have their one thing they're the best in, but also the ability to help another class out in their specialty. Like a bard helping out a cleric in healing, or a fighter helping out a tank in keeping the backline safe. Maybe rogues helping out tanks by distracting secondary targets? Stuff like that.
I dislike the thought of NEEDING a Tank, or NEEDING a Cleric, and instead trying some different variations that may not be as specialized, but can bring some other tools to the table. If you only need a lil heal, you ask for a bard, but if you need serious heals, you ask a cleric. That kind of thought.
All classes should not be able to perform all roles. Tanks should be tanks, Healers should be healers and Damage Dealers should be the primary source of damage.
As they said in Kingdom of Heaven:
"A knight should be a knight, a monk... a monk, but not both"
When you let everyone do everything you end up with meaningless classes.
I still think Intrepid missed a golden opportunity when they locked Primary Classes. There is a reason why Archeage and FFXI/FFXIV are so popular in that you really connect with your character by not needing alts for combat classes, where you could change primary and master everything, but you had to do it independently.
What he said
0
Options
SussurroMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I personally think that the individual should have the choice of roles provided by their base archetype and/or their secondary archetype. Whether that means they are wholly committed to a role or they occupy a space in-between the pillars of the holy trinity should be up to them (if I were to have my way). I think their choice of role, or lack thereof, would be bolstered by the myriad of gearing options that AoC will offer its classes.
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.” - Terry Prachett, Reaper Man
Specialize, specialize, specialize!
To be an effective X, you should have to sacrifice a good deal of your ability to be an effective Y.
If you're a cleric built to be a DPS, you should have to respec if you want to be an effective Healer instead.
All classes should not be able to perform all roles. Tanks should be tanks, Healers should be healers and Damage Dealers should be the primary source of damage.
As they said in Kingdom of Heaven:
"A knight should be a knight, a monk... a monk, but not both"
When you let everyone do everything you end up with meaningless classes.
I still think Intrepid missed a golden opportunity when they locked Primary Classes. There is a reason why Archeage and FFXI/FFXIV are so popular in that you really connect with your character by not needing alts for combat classes, where you could change primary and master everything, but you had to do it independently.
For me .. Character identity is very important. I take my role and class seriously.
And if I want to fool around with a subclass, Like in Lineage 2, I can do that fun DPS stuff, but when Im called to battle. I put on my dirty White Robe and go heal.
But hey, that's me. You guys can sense where the community is going and what has more benefits for the game and the community.
Hybrids require care development both from the balance they bring and encounter design. If the ideal 8-man comp is meant to have one of each primary class then I would hope there's some expectation for off-tanking and off-healing from the hybrids or at least significant reliance on self-sustain. Guild Wars 2 does this particularly well, WoW does this terribly, at least in retail. Dark Age of Camelot was a mixed bag but hybrids were fairly celebrated for a while at least.
Many are not wrong, if the hybrids aren't strong enough then they just fall out of the meta.
That being said, I don't think specs should be too fluid, it erodes identity. WoW suffers from this a lot. Snap your fingers and you go from being a tank to a DPS to a healer. You have no real identity and you negate any need to recruit. At the end of the day, if everyone can do everything then there's no motivation to expand your community, or at least none driven by good game design. The same 5-players or small raid core does everything.
On the contrary, when you are relatively locked into your role, it becomes part of your identity. EverQuest personified this particularly well in that you become known for your prowess at a specific class-defining function if it feels a bit trivial by modern standards. Back in EQ, being an expert monk that could split pull raid content was critical. Again, trivial by today standards but a source of pride in that game design model.
It also necessitates recruiting and expanding your community. The professions reflect this design so I don't see why spec shouldn't as well. So long as the progression and mastery have longevity the spec can stay fresh and the raid & dungeon content certainly sounds like it will also afford new opportunities to master in a specific role.
I know losing the freedom to snap whenever you want might feel too restrictive for those that aren't used to it at first but there's a parallel to be found in free flying mount travel. Before you having flying it's absence doesn't really go noticed and you feel quite literally more grounded in the game. Once you have flying, losing it is unbearable and the game might as well be fast-travel from spot to spot without ever interacting with everything on the ground.
Considering the 'ideal' group would be made up of 1 of each primary class, I would say there needs to be a little blurring of the lines. The reason I say that is, trying to form the ideal group every time is nearly impossible on a regular basis (unless you have 8 buddies who have this worked out. Good for them but a chore for a PUG).
So I feel your secondary class should allow you to perform some of that primary's class, but to a lesser degree. So if you were a X / Tank, maybe you could off-tank or a X / Cleric could off heal. This could even extend to class special abilities, allowing the secondary to perform say one of that classes utility roles. Ex a Trickster (bard/rogue) could locate secret doors but not find and disarm traps while a Shadowblade (fighter / rogue) could find/disarm traps but not locate secret doors.
It sounds like what we are really talking about is limits on character customization. When we are debating if a class should be locked into a archetype or not. What we really discussing how much player choice will let you deviate from the expected play style. I will always be for as much player agency as possible. It should be possible to make bad choices and have a bad build that does not fit the archetype.
Good examples of character building being allowed to break archetypes:
Path of Exile, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Crowfall, Archeage, FFXI, Darkfall
Bad Examples:
FFXIV, WoW, ESO, Aion.
TLDR. IMO If you can't make a awful build. You are being too restrictive with archetypes.
Player agency is king.
My preference is for defined classes tank , healer and dps, though would be happy to see dedicated buff/support. I am however ok with off spec classes being able to take on roles in lesser content if they want the challenge or off tank roles. I do not mind encounters where the roles could be flipped due to some mechanics or such they can be fun.
Agree. For the most part make each type unique. Only thing I would do is allow for cleric and druid to have some shared abilities as healers are always hard to find if your guild healers are not on. With that said a druid would need to choose cleric or vice versa. Other than that, a tank shouldn't be just a tank...but within subclasses be unique...such as L2 DA or palidin.
Keep the classes unique. Each class should have something unique about it that makes us feel special for our character/class choices.
Tank/Tank should be focused primarily on physical damage tanking
Tank/Mage should lean towards magic damage reduction
Tank/Summoner Should be able to summon a minion that either helps offtank or provide tank buffs
Tank/Rogue should lean towards additional evasion
Tank/Ranger should have additional threat generation/potential dodge boost?
Tank/Cleric should have better self sustain abilities in some fashion
Tank/fighter should have increased damage from bleeds or additional CC effects
Tank/Bard should be able to share damage with the group/raid or potentially give party/raid defensive buffs
These are my suggestions from just 2 minutes thinking about it. This is how I imagine things will be without knowing anything else about the game haha.
I like the idea of the primary being what they do best with their section. There can a little bit of an overlap from other classes but it shouldn't be so much so that it deters from the primary class. For raids, having a handful of secondary healers can just a bit help with keeping everyone up, but the group leaders know that primary healers do their job and trust in those people specifically.
After reading all the comments i would like to comment some of the sentences which can be seen in this discussion multiple times, before i get to the different problems and some "mathematical" idea.
This will be a long text, because i am very interested in that topic.
Many people are writing: "Class Identity is lost if everyone can do everything."
Sure, i understand what you mean, but it still doesnt make sense for me. Here are my reasons:
1. Lets look on the classes in WoW, because many people know that game. If You have a Shaman class, than you can choose with talents (when there were real talent trees), specc and gear what you want to do. Its simply impossible for a elemental shaman (range-DD) to heal as good as an heal-shaman. No one would ever tell to an elemental to raid-heal the tank all the time, because that wouldnt make sense. Would the elemental loose his identity inside the class? No! Why should he? He is the range DD you chose him to be.
2. If you say that you loose the identity to other classes like to a mage, because the mage is a range DD too, then you would simply be told, that you dont know what a mage and a shaman are. With this logic you should ask why there is more than one DD-Class in AoC. But no one asks that. Why? Because they are different in how you play them, and how it feels to play them. So why should it not be possible to give different classes different ways to heal. You have a simple example for that in WoW: One Healer is stronger with AoE-heals, one is stronger with HoTs, one with direct heals and so on, but that doesnt mean that they are all the same,its just another healing-playstyle and healing-feeling. I dont see a difference in that to the different DDs. Same thing with tank-classes.
That means what you realy need is to bring a variety in the healing and tanking, like you already have between the DD classes in making damage in different variations. Then you still wouldnt have "all the same" without identity loss, because you still would have to choose what you want to do well and what would be some secondary skills you want to have for the task in front of you, and you still have to choose the skills and the gear. You cant choose everything at the same time, and thats the simple trick why not everyone has the same class.
The best way to describe what i feel about this topic is what one already wrote before me: Just give freedoms with tradeoffs!
That doesnt mean that all classes should have the same talents and skills! No! Again, diversity is the key, not giving everyone the same skills. And again like someone wrote before: Whats the point in having 8 archetypes without having variability?
Now i want to use an example that Steven Sharif used multiple times. He said that a warrior that chooses a mage as second class would not run or leap to the target but blink to it. In that example he tells us, that a warrior is using a spell of a mage as an augment to get fast to the enemy. If thats possible, why then should it not be possible for a warrior to get a heal skill if he has cleric as a second class? Where is the difference? Sure, he cant act as a real healer in a dungeon, but at pvp, leveling or just in the open world that heal should be strong enough to heal himself atleast to full health (i dont mean with one time using it, but multiple heals!). Is that warrior with such a heal skill lost in his identity because of that? No! Its just something that helps him to survive, like getting more CC from having a rogue as a second class.
I think that giving the 8 archetypes the possibility to do more with their second class than only the things they already can with their main class is very important, because like someone wrote before: We mostly never have some perfect world with a perfect guild of 8 different classes for a raid, who are online at the same time....
The normal picture would be having for example 12 people online in a guild. 1 Tank. 3 Clerics. 8 DDs. Maybe 4 of them a mage. So what can you do with that? The one tank has no problems, because he is the one everyone looks at, if you want to go in a dungeon. At least two of the DDs, cant go with the group, if its an 8-person-dungeon. Whats with the healers? Are they allowed only to go every third time with the group?
Or even worse: If there are 7 people online, and 3 of them are clerics. Cant you go with your guild, even when there is enough room for you? Imagine the discussions in that guild at this point. That means you need for your cleric the possibility to make damage. And they will be able to make damage. How do i know that? Because how else do you want to level your cleric??? Do you want to heal the enemys to death? Do you want to stand in the starting area unless you find some dd? No. Clerics must be able to make damage. So why should it not be the other way? Why then should a DD not be able to heal with weak heals? The cleric would be a weak dd and so it would be ok for a dd to be a weak healer, if you choose cleric as second class.
What do i have in mind?
I think the easiest way would be to make 2/3 Skills/Abilitys/Power from the main class and 1/3 from the second class. Mathematicaly this would then be easy:
Tank classes:
1. Tank/Tank is a 100% Tank.
2. Tank/Warrior is a 2/3 Tank but makes more Damage than Tank/Tank
3. Warrior/Tank is a 1/3 Tank but makes more Damage than Tank/Warrior
The same way you can handle the healers and the DDs.
1. Mage/Mage is 100% Range-DD with magic attacks.
2. Mage/Tank is 2/3 Range-DD but can withstand incomming damage better than mage/mage
3. Mage/Cleric is 2/3 Range-DD but can use minor heals on himself and maybe on others.
4. Cleric/Mage is 2/3 healer but can use some magic-range-attacks
Mathematicaly the difference is simple:
A full DD (mage/mage) is 50% stronger at attacks than a 2/3 DD (mage/cleric) but cant heal. Thats the simple tradeoff you can make. A 2/3 DD (mage/tank) is still much stronger than a 1/3 DD (cleric/mage)
The point is you have to think of all the different things ingame, which you have to handle, and not only of a raid or a dungeon, and thats where this system would make sense. Here is what i mean:
Some of the things you want to do may be:
1. PvP in very small groups like arena.
2. PvP in bigger groups like a battleground.
3. PvP in large groups like a siege or other very big battles
4. Leveling
5. Exploring the world/gather ressources
6. PvE against an elite npc
7. PvE in a 8-person-dungeon
8. PvE against a world-boss and large raids (40 persons).
So how would the 2/3 and 1/3 System apply to all of that?
To 1.: If you have something like a 2v2 arena, then you could choose for 2/3 DD and 1/3 heal for your class if your teammate does something similar. That would be necessary, if you dont have a cleric. Not having a cleric shouldnt decide if you are able to have some fun in an 2v2. But if you have an cleric, then you can go full dd or still choose 2/3 DD, if the cleric himself wants to be 1/3 DD. These would be interesting combinations.
To 2.: In a battleground you want to be able to go with your tank-archetype too, otherwise it would be unfair to exclude you. But it wouldnt make fun, if all ignore the tank, because he/she is not a threat to them, so they focus all the other enemies first, and then kill you all together. So the tank should at least be able to do 1/3 damage with his second class. If thats not enogh, then you could boost that with gear and what you choose in your talent tree to get to 50%/50%.
To 3.: This would be PvP where you are happy to see some "real" 100% tank to tank the big boss at the end, if there is one to destroy the castle or what ever...
In all these three PvP areas you are glad if you as a healer can do damage to other enemies and dont have always to run away, as soon as you are alone.
The same is with all the DDs. If they choose cleric as second class, then it would be nice if they could support their team at least with minor heals or HoTs.
To 4. and 5.: Here you have to give the Tank and Cleric something how they can make enough Damage to succeed at something as simple as that. So if you do that, why should these two have that right but not the DDs? If Tank and Heal can choose 1/3 DD, than DDs should be able to choose 1/3 heal or tank.
To 6.: If you find an Elite-NPC somewhere in the world, why only killing them with a group or only with a cleric. Sure, you could try it with kiting, but what about the melees? You could try it with CC but what if you havent enough CC? Thats where 1/3 tank or 1/3 cleric as second class would be enough to kill that elite. With 1/3 tank, you are not a tank who someone wants in a dungeon, but for an elite or for more sturdiness in pvp this would be good.
To 7.: Here you could make it mathematicaly again. Lets say the combo of tank and heal to survive the bosses has to be at least 5/3. That would mean you need full tank (3/3) and a 2/3 heal. Or 2/3 tank and 3/3 heal. Or maybe your guild has 2/3 tank (tank/warrior), 2/3 heal (cleric/mage) and an 1/3 heal (Summoner/Cleric). If you go to a more difficult dungeon, than this combo would be at least 6/3. That would mean you need at least some other class with 1/3 or more healing or you only succeed with a strong tank and a strong healer. Thats not very complicated and would give all the small guilds the oportunity to see more of the game than only the normal animals and monsters in the wilderness.
To 8.: That should be the area, where you really need full tanks and full clerics, and not only one of them. But especially here it would be very very helpfull to use such a 1/3 and 2/3 system, because most of us know the moments when you have some big AoEs incomming from the big dragon, and then you are happy if you can activate some helpfull damage mitigation from the 1/3 tank or some heals from the 1/3 cleric.
With all this different examples i think its very important to give the people at least the opportunity to switch to 1/3 heal or tank as DD or to 1/3 DD as Cleric or Tank if they want to. And if they dont want to, well, you dont have to, its your choice, but the most important thing to have fun is to have a choice.
But i see it as the most people here, it should never! be on the fly. It should be something like taking some time to get to the next city and go to that special big building to change it, and maybe it should cost you something, so that you think twice before you do that. With that the people will stick a little bit more to what they choose.
i think your first class choice should determent what you want and your 2nd will make it better or give your main role a extra flavour.
like a tank.
when i pick tank first and 2nd healer i shouldnt be able to tank and heal at the same time and take 7 DD with me.
and if i pick a rouge first slot im a damage dealer. if i choose priest 2nd i shouldnt be able to make damage and heal the tank without healer help from other classes.
the 2nd role should just give my first choice a more specefic role.
like damage dealer with support
rouge+bard
dd pure
rouge + mage/rouge etc.
dd with a offtank possibility or defensive stat buffing mechanic
rouge+ tank
but if you take 64 classes and every class can do everything i dont see a point in giving us this many classes. just make 1 class with 100 spells and let us choose 10 of them to play with would be the easier verson ^^
It's a tough question. You want them to perform at some level in their role in the trinity. Of course this is balanced for groups so it's a fine balance. You don't want them to be homogenized so that 64 turns into 5 (tank, healer, melee, ranged, caster) with different skill effects otherwise there is no reason to have the choice of 64. There can be some classes that are better at the core job than others in straight throughput but the rest are compensated with buffs/debuffs/mobility etc to offset their lack of potency.
This is all with the caveat of everything actually being balanced and things being understood that X may not be the best but they can also do Y which maybe isn't entirely in their base role but adds to the group and isn't seen as a deficiency. I've had some games have a very strong healer class (like a priest) and it was frowned upon to bring a different one because the others were more of a hybrid but could definitely clear the content. Just noobs thought that the strong healer was needed because they were bad and high end raids or dungeons were run with the hybrids because smarter play was rewarded with faster and easier clears because they did good damage and brought buffs.
That's how I was hoping this game would approach the class design. You do have your core archtypes to give a strong foundation but the subtype can give meaningful gameplay changes to not only make you feel special but do something not everyone does and feel appreciated. There is a certain pride to when you say "I'm a class main". It shows your personality through how you play to others and helps your bond with your character.
All classes should be different as possible, it is one of the worst things that happens when all classes start copying many abilities. I understand that to a degree there will be some overlay and it is probably a lot easier to balance when more are the same, but, keep them unique as possible if you want to give the game more depth and class meaning and fun.
Should all classes be able to perform all roles expected of their archetype, or should there be clear demarcation of different categories?
Keep an eye out for our next Dev Discussion topic regarding dungeon scaling!
Yes there should be a clear demarcation in specialties however all classes should be able to full fill their archetypes role to an extent. What most game designers miss is that monsters and gear need to help support game design.
First lets talk about roles the "tank", damage dealer, support, and healer. The ways tanks survive damage are high hp, armor, evasion, healing, and cc. The ways tanks create threat are threat generators, damage, reflect damage, and aoe damage. High HP is good against tanking high magical damaging affects, armor is good against moderate physical damage from multiple sources, evasion is best against high damage monsters with low accuracy, and healing tanks get a bonus from healing and excel at surviving and are good in fights where reflect damage from many mobs with low HP.
Tank/Fighter = Tank is best at armor/Fighter is best at HP
Rogue/Ranger = Evasion/CC
Mage/summon = Best at tanking magical fights/CC
Bard/cleric = cc/healing
When AoE are creating their encounters they need to have this design philosophy in place where 20% of the encounters favor X best, X good, X average, X Bad, X Deadly. Of course this touches every class and skill will off set it somewhat as will other players composition. A Tank/Rogue may be fine tanking mages with two clerics or a cleric and a bard.
I have 5 types of wolves in an area. One has low accuracy but high damage(Evasion tank is the best bet). One is a winter wolf and does ice damage(Tank/mage), one has a bunch of small weaker pups with it(Tank/Tank), one has a serious bleed affect on its first hit(Tank/heal), the other does moderate damage but attacks quickly.(tank/tank or tank/fighter)
Tank rangers might be able to generate more threat through damage or control the fight far better by monsters who consistently break threat or clear the threat table in a gp of 8.
In addition stop the one big boss to kill at the end of every dungeon. Sometimes it's fun if built correctly but usually that leads to a tank and spank. Have multiple enemies to fight. Multiple mechanics to make people move and reposition and the game will be amazing. Tank/Tank should have the most augments to make their as versatile as possible, but they should never be as good as the specialist tank. Just generally the best to have because you never know what you might face next or what rotation the mobs will have. When you asked about randomization of NPC abilities this ties hand in hand. Don't let things get predictable, make people react, have some of the black wolves switch out with the abilities of the big strong red wolves. Make a general animation to make the character react and prep their counter ability.
Comments
I prefer variety and the ability to pick and choose. If every Tank (The Literal Tank Class) is built the same until augments, then the game will be very stale and limited. I understand you must build the class but I'm not clued on the options.
Rather than all classes doing all roles, it should depend on Weapon Types, Skill Sets and Augments. It would be nice to have variation of Tank Role, Healer Role and DPS Role, but, I do not think a specific class should be able to perform all three roles at the same time.
The veil of the game remains and we have titbits of information. I often find these questions difficult to answer simply because I do not know what progress we are up to, what direction we are going and what the current meta is. It will be easier when NDA lifts in my opinion.
I feel as though each class should have specific roles they're not only good at, but also CLEARLY the best at. For example, Mage might be the best at burst DPS, whereas summoner could the best at sustained DPS. and the mixing of two classes could be a very important choice. Also, as the "meta" shifts, this flexibility allows players to keep up without rolling new characters.
Allowing for this flexibility is almost required since you are not always going to be in a group, and if people are forced into taking two heal/tank roles they would have great difficulty in open world solo content.
From what I can tell, if you pick a main class A and secondary class B it will equal class C Similarly, if you pick main class B and secondary class A, it will still equal class C. I like that concept where both main and secondary class are equal to 50% of your class and you can only change the secondary class. if you get bored of playing damage, swap your second role and play a healer, or a tank.
I also have no problem with certain classes being hybrids, for example, maybe summoner can summon healing pets, but also damage pets, and if you pick summoner twice, you can be an off healer.
Just my opinion.
I still believe the classes, be them 8 tweaked classes, or 64 tweaked classes, should not be awesome at Tanking, Healing and DPSing at the same time. It would be nice to be able to choose what role one will assume within a class through tweaks, but, I think it will mess with the hard counters. I don't know enough about Augments to decide whether I would want 8 tweaked classes or 64 tweaked classes. Balance for 64 classes would be harder to achieve than 8 classes too. I was happy to see the 64 classes, until I learnt secondary class might make no difference at all. Though hearsay and facts are two different sides of a coin.
Edit: What I would sum up the issues as, is I would like Secondary Choices to matter, irrespective of the augments we can get from other areas of the game, thus, I think I lean towards 64 classes to tweak.
Double Edit: When I form a group and request a Tank (In other games this would cover several builds), I would rather get responses from a plethora of potential builds than have every group requiring a literal Tank/Tank (The Tank Class by name). If all groups require a Tank/Tank to fully progress then Tank/Tanks would be in short supply, much the same as Cleric/Cleric. Thankfully, IS have said that Tank Primary will enable one to tank, so in effect all 8 Subclasses from Tank should be a viable Tank. I think therefore that 64 Classes will matter more than some people suggest. Some of those Tank Variations can self heal, some can DPS Better, some can CC Better and some can take more damage. In terms of synergy, I think the scope will be there for varied groups. Yet, the specialisations will be present (In theory).
Third Edit: I mean if one has a Cleric/Cleric, one would hope you don't need a Tank/Tank, if one has a Tank/Tank you might not need more than one Cleric/Cleric. Effectively, what I'm requesting is that all roles will be viable, but not all classes will be viable for all roles. Its a complex matter with little basis in true feedback because I haven't tested the game.
Oh. In that case, 8 classes we can tweak sounds more interesting and easier to balance/design rather than 64 classes that can all do the same stuff as each other.
Having all class being able to perform all roles does not seem like a good idea to me, both from rpg stand-point, game-balancing and overall the enjoyment in playing a particular class.
Having meaningful decisions in game of any sort is something that should be available to players.
In order for this to be true, there must be an actual difference between class designs. However, if in their core let's say two spells are different, there will be always one being "better" then the other or exceeding it in the majority of situations. Having classes being able to perform multiple roles will just bring out metas, which will lead to unnecessary experience in the game. An example for that can be a particular class being always preferred for a certain role, since it is the best performing one. Having a class identity where each class excels at something specific that is necessary for let's say a group content will bring meaning in the decision behind the class each player picked.
Diversity is something that I would like to see in Ashes, but with a certain limit to it.
If there is no way to make an exceptionally terrible build then there won't be a way to make an exceptionally good build either. We should be allowed to have consequence for poor decisions, a tank/?? who builds entirely for damage should still be doing sub par damage. Likewise a cleric/?? should have no way in hell to tank group content or excel at dps against anything that isn't undead/demon.
Every class should bring something unique to the table and it's better for the sense of community if we know the character we're playing has an important or even integral role in one scenario or another. Look at a game like P99 Everquest, there are certain things you literally can not do without a Rogue who can lockpick a door. Those instances are few and far between but it sure does feel good for a rogue.. who's basically a mindless DPS in nearly all circumstances... to very literally hold the key to the group's fate.
Our beloved holy trinity serves it's own purpose and it's function is definitely not to provide variety, but instead provide structure. Mechanical and utility specialization that has nothing to do with the holy trinity is, in my eyes, the key to a truly varied class system and gameplay experience.
The classes should have a defined persona and the choices of the player to spend attributes, skills and abilities should determine the demarcation of different categorizes available to that specific character/class/player.
Example: Fire Mage that chooses to use a Sword/shield rather than a staff/wand/book and builds their attributes into Con and Dex instead of INT/WiS. The persona of the character exists by specialized magic skills however the demarcation is different by their weapon choice and attributes so the player can create a playstyle that suits their need or group composition.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
In the sense that there should be basic healing, damage, and defense components for the individual to use within their class.
Meaning If I run off in the world on my own with any class I shouldnt need someone else to heal me or anything for regular quests and open world stuff.
For group content I dont think its a bad idea that there are universal skills available that allow people to fill roles, but having the classes be different is important to prevent homogenization and skill degradation of unique classes.
Sometimes being different simply means that some classes will be better at tanking, group healing, and group damage. Thats fine as long as the difference isnt un-attainable by a skilled player who wants to say use a melee magic caster competing with a standard melee warrior, or competing against the mage/mage.
How you guys take that is up to you, but personally there's nothing more disapointing than picking a class, loving how it feels and plays thematically and functionally and realizing when you want to do content that its not that your setup isnt just non-optimal, but completely non functional if there is no way to access similar skills.
I'm one of those people that enjoys using what I like and what feels good rather than what the community and dps meters have determined as the be all end all for class and role selection. And I dont mind that what is optimal stays optimal, it would just be nice to be able to play content and still be functional and doable.
But flexibility and variety(it's different things) also important..
Players should have options to play role in their specific manner. But still class/class combination should not be just "name", there must be something more then just skill morphs, maybe some unique passives, mechanics, combos or even specific lore(some really small piece of lore - since we got 60+ classes).
Heroes Fade but Legends last forever
I dislike the thought of NEEDING a Tank, or NEEDING a Cleric, and instead trying some different variations that may not be as specialized, but can bring some other tools to the table. If you only need a lil heal, you ask for a bard, but if you need serious heals, you ask a cleric. That kind of thought.
What he said
To be an effective X, you should have to sacrifice a good deal of your ability to be an effective Y.
If you're a cleric built to be a DPS, you should have to respec if you want to be an effective Healer instead.
What Jahlon said!
For me .. Character identity is very important. I take my role and class seriously.
And if I want to fool around with a subclass, Like in Lineage 2, I can do that fun DPS stuff, but when Im called to battle. I put on my dirty White Robe and go heal.
But hey, that's me. You guys can sense where the community is going and what has more benefits for the game and the community.
Have a great day !
Ulf
Many are not wrong, if the hybrids aren't strong enough then they just fall out of the meta.
That being said, I don't think specs should be too fluid, it erodes identity. WoW suffers from this a lot. Snap your fingers and you go from being a tank to a DPS to a healer. You have no real identity and you negate any need to recruit. At the end of the day, if everyone can do everything then there's no motivation to expand your community, or at least none driven by good game design. The same 5-players or small raid core does everything.
On the contrary, when you are relatively locked into your role, it becomes part of your identity. EverQuest personified this particularly well in that you become known for your prowess at a specific class-defining function if it feels a bit trivial by modern standards. Back in EQ, being an expert monk that could split pull raid content was critical. Again, trivial by today standards but a source of pride in that game design model.
It also necessitates recruiting and expanding your community. The professions reflect this design so I don't see why spec shouldn't as well. So long as the progression and mastery have longevity the spec can stay fresh and the raid & dungeon content certainly sounds like it will also afford new opportunities to master in a specific role.
I know losing the freedom to snap whenever you want might feel too restrictive for those that aren't used to it at first but there's a parallel to be found in free flying mount travel. Before you having flying it's absence doesn't really go noticed and you feel quite literally more grounded in the game. Once you have flying, losing it is unbearable and the game might as well be fast-travel from spot to spot without ever interacting with everything on the ground.
So I feel your secondary class should allow you to perform some of that primary's class, but to a lesser degree. So if you were a X / Tank, maybe you could off-tank or a X / Cleric could off heal. This could even extend to class special abilities, allowing the secondary to perform say one of that classes utility roles. Ex a Trickster (bard/rogue) could locate secret doors but not find and disarm traps while a Shadowblade (fighter / rogue) could find/disarm traps but not locate secret doors.
Good examples of character building being allowed to break archetypes:
Path of Exile, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Crowfall, Archeage, FFXI, Darkfall
Bad Examples:
FFXIV, WoW, ESO, Aion.
TLDR. IMO If you can't make a awful build. You are being too restrictive with archetypes.
Player agency is king.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Agree. For the most part make each type unique. Only thing I would do is allow for cleric and druid to have some shared abilities as healers are always hard to find if your guild healers are not on. With that said a druid would need to choose cleric or vice versa. Other than that, a tank shouldn't be just a tank...but within subclasses be unique...such as L2 DA or palidin.
Tank/Tank should be focused primarily on physical damage tanking
Tank/Mage should lean towards magic damage reduction
Tank/Summoner Should be able to summon a minion that either helps offtank or provide tank buffs
Tank/Rogue should lean towards additional evasion
Tank/Ranger should have additional threat generation/potential dodge boost?
Tank/Cleric should have better self sustain abilities in some fashion
Tank/fighter should have increased damage from bleeds or additional CC effects
Tank/Bard should be able to share damage with the group/raid or potentially give party/raid defensive buffs
These are my suggestions from just 2 minutes thinking about it. This is how I imagine things will be without knowing anything else about the game haha.
This will be a long text, because i am very interested in that topic.
Many people are writing: "Class Identity is lost if everyone can do everything."
Sure, i understand what you mean, but it still doesnt make sense for me. Here are my reasons:
1. Lets look on the classes in WoW, because many people know that game. If You have a Shaman class, than you can choose with talents (when there were real talent trees), specc and gear what you want to do. Its simply impossible for a elemental shaman (range-DD) to heal as good as an heal-shaman. No one would ever tell to an elemental to raid-heal the tank all the time, because that wouldnt make sense. Would the elemental loose his identity inside the class? No! Why should he? He is the range DD you chose him to be.
2. If you say that you loose the identity to other classes like to a mage, because the mage is a range DD too, then you would simply be told, that you dont know what a mage and a shaman are. With this logic you should ask why there is more than one DD-Class in AoC. But no one asks that. Why? Because they are different in how you play them, and how it feels to play them. So why should it not be possible to give different classes different ways to heal. You have a simple example for that in WoW: One Healer is stronger with AoE-heals, one is stronger with HoTs, one with direct heals and so on, but that doesnt mean that they are all the same,its just another healing-playstyle and healing-feeling. I dont see a difference in that to the different DDs. Same thing with tank-classes.
That means what you realy need is to bring a variety in the healing and tanking, like you already have between the DD classes in making damage in different variations. Then you still wouldnt have "all the same" without identity loss, because you still would have to choose what you want to do well and what would be some secondary skills you want to have for the task in front of you, and you still have to choose the skills and the gear. You cant choose everything at the same time, and thats the simple trick why not everyone has the same class.
The best way to describe what i feel about this topic is what one already wrote before me: Just give freedoms with tradeoffs!
That doesnt mean that all classes should have the same talents and skills! No! Again, diversity is the key, not giving everyone the same skills. And again like someone wrote before: Whats the point in having 8 archetypes without having variability?
Now i want to use an example that Steven Sharif used multiple times. He said that a warrior that chooses a mage as second class would not run or leap to the target but blink to it. In that example he tells us, that a warrior is using a spell of a mage as an augment to get fast to the enemy. If thats possible, why then should it not be possible for a warrior to get a heal skill if he has cleric as a second class? Where is the difference? Sure, he cant act as a real healer in a dungeon, but at pvp, leveling or just in the open world that heal should be strong enough to heal himself atleast to full health (i dont mean with one time using it, but multiple heals!). Is that warrior with such a heal skill lost in his identity because of that? No! Its just something that helps him to survive, like getting more CC from having a rogue as a second class.
I think that giving the 8 archetypes the possibility to do more with their second class than only the things they already can with their main class is very important, because like someone wrote before: We mostly never have some perfect world with a perfect guild of 8 different classes for a raid, who are online at the same time....
The normal picture would be having for example 12 people online in a guild. 1 Tank. 3 Clerics. 8 DDs. Maybe 4 of them a mage. So what can you do with that? The one tank has no problems, because he is the one everyone looks at, if you want to go in a dungeon. At least two of the DDs, cant go with the group, if its an 8-person-dungeon. Whats with the healers? Are they allowed only to go every third time with the group?
Or even worse: If there are 7 people online, and 3 of them are clerics. Cant you go with your guild, even when there is enough room for you? Imagine the discussions in that guild at this point. That means you need for your cleric the possibility to make damage. And they will be able to make damage. How do i know that? Because how else do you want to level your cleric??? Do you want to heal the enemys to death? Do you want to stand in the starting area unless you find some dd? No. Clerics must be able to make damage. So why should it not be the other way? Why then should a DD not be able to heal with weak heals? The cleric would be a weak dd and so it would be ok for a dd to be a weak healer, if you choose cleric as second class.
What do i have in mind?
I think the easiest way would be to make 2/3 Skills/Abilitys/Power from the main class and 1/3 from the second class. Mathematicaly this would then be easy:
Tank classes:
1. Tank/Tank is a 100% Tank.
2. Tank/Warrior is a 2/3 Tank but makes more Damage than Tank/Tank
3. Warrior/Tank is a 1/3 Tank but makes more Damage than Tank/Warrior
The same way you can handle the healers and the DDs.
1. Mage/Mage is 100% Range-DD with magic attacks.
2. Mage/Tank is 2/3 Range-DD but can withstand incomming damage better than mage/mage
3. Mage/Cleric is 2/3 Range-DD but can use minor heals on himself and maybe on others.
4. Cleric/Mage is 2/3 healer but can use some magic-range-attacks
Mathematicaly the difference is simple:
A full DD (mage/mage) is 50% stronger at attacks than a 2/3 DD (mage/cleric) but cant heal. Thats the simple tradeoff you can make. A 2/3 DD (mage/tank) is still much stronger than a 1/3 DD (cleric/mage)
The point is you have to think of all the different things ingame, which you have to handle, and not only of a raid or a dungeon, and thats where this system would make sense. Here is what i mean:
Some of the things you want to do may be:
1. PvP in very small groups like arena.
2. PvP in bigger groups like a battleground.
3. PvP in large groups like a siege or other very big battles
4. Leveling
5. Exploring the world/gather ressources
6. PvE against an elite npc
7. PvE in a 8-person-dungeon
8. PvE against a world-boss and large raids (40 persons).
So how would the 2/3 and 1/3 System apply to all of that?
To 1.: If you have something like a 2v2 arena, then you could choose for 2/3 DD and 1/3 heal for your class if your teammate does something similar. That would be necessary, if you dont have a cleric. Not having a cleric shouldnt decide if you are able to have some fun in an 2v2. But if you have an cleric, then you can go full dd or still choose 2/3 DD, if the cleric himself wants to be 1/3 DD. These would be interesting combinations.
To 2.: In a battleground you want to be able to go with your tank-archetype too, otherwise it would be unfair to exclude you. But it wouldnt make fun, if all ignore the tank, because he/she is not a threat to them, so they focus all the other enemies first, and then kill you all together. So the tank should at least be able to do 1/3 damage with his second class. If thats not enogh, then you could boost that with gear and what you choose in your talent tree to get to 50%/50%.
To 3.: This would be PvP where you are happy to see some "real" 100% tank to tank the big boss at the end, if there is one to destroy the castle or what ever...
In all these three PvP areas you are glad if you as a healer can do damage to other enemies and dont have always to run away, as soon as you are alone.
The same is with all the DDs. If they choose cleric as second class, then it would be nice if they could support their team at least with minor heals or HoTs.
To 4. and 5.: Here you have to give the Tank and Cleric something how they can make enough Damage to succeed at something as simple as that. So if you do that, why should these two have that right but not the DDs? If Tank and Heal can choose 1/3 DD, than DDs should be able to choose 1/3 heal or tank.
To 6.: If you find an Elite-NPC somewhere in the world, why only killing them with a group or only with a cleric. Sure, you could try it with kiting, but what about the melees? You could try it with CC but what if you havent enough CC? Thats where 1/3 tank or 1/3 cleric as second class would be enough to kill that elite. With 1/3 tank, you are not a tank who someone wants in a dungeon, but for an elite or for more sturdiness in pvp this would be good.
To 7.: Here you could make it mathematicaly again. Lets say the combo of tank and heal to survive the bosses has to be at least 5/3. That would mean you need full tank (3/3) and a 2/3 heal. Or 2/3 tank and 3/3 heal. Or maybe your guild has 2/3 tank (tank/warrior), 2/3 heal (cleric/mage) and an 1/3 heal (Summoner/Cleric). If you go to a more difficult dungeon, than this combo would be at least 6/3. That would mean you need at least some other class with 1/3 or more healing or you only succeed with a strong tank and a strong healer. Thats not very complicated and would give all the small guilds the oportunity to see more of the game than only the normal animals and monsters in the wilderness.
To 8.: That should be the area, where you really need full tanks and full clerics, and not only one of them. But especially here it would be very very helpfull to use such a 1/3 and 2/3 system, because most of us know the moments when you have some big AoEs incomming from the big dragon, and then you are happy if you can activate some helpfull damage mitigation from the 1/3 tank or some heals from the 1/3 cleric.
With all this different examples i think its very important to give the people at least the opportunity to switch to 1/3 heal or tank as DD or to 1/3 DD as Cleric or Tank if they want to. And if they dont want to, well, you dont have to, its your choice, but the most important thing to have fun is to have a choice.
But i see it as the most people here, it should never! be on the fly. It should be something like taking some time to get to the next city and go to that special big building to change it, and maybe it should cost you something, so that you think twice before you do that. With that the people will stick a little bit more to what they choose.
like a tank.
when i pick tank first and 2nd healer i shouldnt be able to tank and heal at the same time and take 7 DD with me.
and if i pick a rouge first slot im a damage dealer. if i choose priest 2nd i shouldnt be able to make damage and heal the tank without healer help from other classes.
the 2nd role should just give my first choice a more specefic role.
like damage dealer with support
rouge+bard
dd pure
rouge + mage/rouge etc.
dd with a offtank possibility or defensive stat buffing mechanic
rouge+ tank
but if you take 64 classes and every class can do everything i dont see a point in giving us this many classes. just make 1 class with 100 spells and let us choose 10 of them to play with would be the easier verson ^^
This is all with the caveat of everything actually being balanced and things being understood that X may not be the best but they can also do Y which maybe isn't entirely in their base role but adds to the group and isn't seen as a deficiency. I've had some games have a very strong healer class (like a priest) and it was frowned upon to bring a different one because the others were more of a hybrid but could definitely clear the content. Just noobs thought that the strong healer was needed because they were bad and high end raids or dungeons were run with the hybrids because smarter play was rewarded with faster and easier clears because they did good damage and brought buffs.
That's how I was hoping this game would approach the class design. You do have your core archtypes to give a strong foundation but the subtype can give meaningful gameplay changes to not only make you feel special but do something not everyone does and feel appreciated. There is a certain pride to when you say "I'm a class main". It shows your personality through how you play to others and helps your bond with your character.
Yes there should be a clear demarcation in specialties however all classes should be able to full fill their archetypes role to an extent. What most game designers miss is that monsters and gear need to help support game design.
First lets talk about roles the "tank", damage dealer, support, and healer. The ways tanks survive damage are high hp, armor, evasion, healing, and cc. The ways tanks create threat are threat generators, damage, reflect damage, and aoe damage. High HP is good against tanking high magical damaging affects, armor is good against moderate physical damage from multiple sources, evasion is best against high damage monsters with low accuracy, and healing tanks get a bonus from healing and excel at surviving and are good in fights where reflect damage from many mobs with low HP.
Tank/Fighter = Tank is best at armor/Fighter is best at HP
Rogue/Ranger = Evasion/CC
Mage/summon = Best at tanking magical fights/CC
Bard/cleric = cc/healing
When AoE are creating their encounters they need to have this design philosophy in place where 20% of the encounters favor X best, X good, X average, X Bad, X Deadly. Of course this touches every class and skill will off set it somewhat as will other players composition. A Tank/Rogue may be fine tanking mages with two clerics or a cleric and a bard.
I have 5 types of wolves in an area. One has low accuracy but high damage(Evasion tank is the best bet). One is a winter wolf and does ice damage(Tank/mage), one has a bunch of small weaker pups with it(Tank/Tank), one has a serious bleed affect on its first hit(Tank/heal), the other does moderate damage but attacks quickly.(tank/tank or tank/fighter)
Tank rangers might be able to generate more threat through damage or control the fight far better by monsters who consistently break threat or clear the threat table in a gp of 8.
In addition stop the one big boss to kill at the end of every dungeon. Sometimes it's fun if built correctly but usually that leads to a tank and spank. Have multiple enemies to fight. Multiple mechanics to make people move and reposition and the game will be amazing. Tank/Tank should have the most augments to make their as versatile as possible, but they should never be as good as the specialist tank. Just generally the best to have because you never know what you might face next or what rotation the mobs will have. When you asked about randomization of NPC abilities this ties hand in hand. Don't let things get predictable, make people react, have some of the black wolves switch out with the abilities of the big strong red wolves. Make a general animation to make the character react and prep their counter ability.