Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
A concern about rogue's role in dungeons. Overall need for all classes to have desirability.
nidriks
Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter
I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.
First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.
I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.
Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.
My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?
I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.
I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?
Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?
Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.
Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.
First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.
I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.
Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.
My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?
I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.
I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?
Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?
Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.
Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.
4
Comments
All classes get out of combat abilities. We don't know the others yet though.
Also, Intrepid wants to encourage, that one of each primary archetype creates the optimal group composition. This usually isn't too hard to enforce.
2 easy ways would be (apart from out of combat skills):
that each primary archetype get a powerful group buff, that doesn't stack.
that debuffs and dots of the same primary archetype don't stack on group sized content/bosses.
Yeah, a desirable buff gies a long way to make classes desirable. I'd actually like to see a return to mass buffs in Ashes, similar to how EQ had clarity 3 and an enchanter would mass buff dozens of players for plat in the Plane of Knowledge.
I just can't help but feel that having each group be made up of all eight primary archetypes will get boring fast. Variation is nice.
To be frank, I think groups should be 6 members maximum anyway, but that's an aside.
I want lots of variation but for each class to be an equally desirable class.
One thing that occurs to me is if each primary archetype has a bonus that makes them valuable in dungeons, and a group size of eight promotes having one of each archetype in your group, then are we going to see groups having to wait around to get one of each class?
There is a well seen problem in MMOs of having to find a tank or a healer. You see it all the time. Groups spamming "lf tank" for 30+ minutes. I don't think we want to see groups spamming "lf ranger" because they have to get that final role, whilst meanwhile there are 12 rogues, 9 bards and a cleric wanting a group.
Variation. Need. Options. Tactics. Groups need all four.
Variation of group compliment;
Need for all classes to be viable in settings;
Options that make having two of a class be viable, for example a ranger can dally in finding passages, but to a lesser ability than a rogue;
Tactics should be a component of groups, and not all groups be 8 archetypes all complimenting each other. Have tactics vary on what players are vailable;
I wondered about that. I know I harp on about not letting one class be moe desirable, but I do like classes to have defined roles like that.
It's something that I can't wait to hear more about.
All classes will have unique utility skills. He also stated the Rangers will have the ability to track. We know that tanks can summon physical walls (more of PvP thing than PvE). We will have to wait to know the other ones but the intent is balance groups of 8s so that the group has atleast one of each.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Hmm, well, if the intent is balanced groups of the 8 primaries then I think I've found something I really don't like.
Imagine EQ if every group was Warrior, Rogue, Enchanter, Cleric, Wizard and Ranger. Imagine WoW if every group was Warrior, Priest, Mage, Warlock, Hunter and Rogue. MMOs are best when there is variety.
I loved the groups in EQ when we couldn't find a cleric, so we had a druid or shaman healing. No magic user? That's fine, the druid can dps.
I hope things are a work in progress (okay, I know they probably are), because until level 25, when there is a branching of classes, I can see things being staler than I had hoped.
I suspect the groups of 8 is pretty much set in stone by now. To be fair, I knew about it when I backed Ashes, but things do change. I never got that an intent was to try and balance around all 8 primaries.
I must remain patient though.
The only 2 that will for sure find a place in a group is a tank and a healer, is flexible and optional. I wouldn't be surprised if what utility skills desired for a raid changed depending on which raid it was.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
8 player groups opens things for a lot of diversity.
Just because groups might be balanced around 1 character of each archetype doesn't mean that other combinations won't work. If your group doesn't have any rangers or rogues, but has 3 mages, you still have the same number of DPS characters. Unless there is a huge disparity between DPS classes, picking one over another shouldn't matter a great deal.
The bigger issues will be for things like tanks, healers, and - especially - bards. Tanks and healers will nominally need to be able to have the ability to "swap" to be more DPS oriented. That could be something as easy as swapping weapons - a tank using a 2-handed weapon, instead of a sword/shield, or a cleric using a DPS-focused spellbook instead of a healing-focused staff, for example.
Bards will be harder. They would need to provide strong enough buffs to make it worthwhile to take one along instead of, say, a normal DPS class. But they can't be so overpowered that if you don't have a bard, your group is virtually worthless, and are thus absolutely required to be competitive. Leaning slightly one way or the other isn't a huge deal, but finding that middle ground can be tricky.
Yes, but that is where I came in. If having a rogue is so beneficial in a dungeon, i.e. it is know secret routes appear and only rogue will find them, then will finding a rogue be desired at the expense of other people looking for a group?
Is a group going to miss out on valuable secret bosses without a rogue, or will another class have a way to get there? I guess what needs to happen is, say, a mage needs to have an ability that will reveal a magically hidden passage that eads to another boss.
Maybe I just need to have some patience and let Intrepid reveal more, but I do like theorycrafting.
Yeah, I like that idea of the minion getting across a gap.
I don't think that'll be the case, becausefirst, you'd have to find someone who's LFG from every single class, and second they have to be interested in doing the same content as you. It will probably be better to spend less time looking for that *perfect* group when a *viable* group will be easier to gather up and get into the dungeon.
Also each archetype has 8 varieties so it should be pretty diverse anyway.
To fix the rogue problem i think is possible to give access at all classes the rogue utility advantage, but with a cost ... you can buy keys or items to do that, or maybe a separate skill.. or they have a lower chance to find the secret stuff or shortcuts. So maybe the thief can craft the needed keys and sell them, or you can just buy them to the black market. So if you pick the rogue you have some advantage and utility, but you are not the "key" of every dungeon ... or so essential, everyone with a little more of effort can access to that.
It's one of my ideas, at the end it's pretty hard to balance perfectly a complex mmorpg.
While it's possible this situation could happen, it would overall be really bad game design. Similar to my bit about Bards, you never want to make something so OP that it is absolutely required - there should always be other options.
For example, perhaps they'd be able to find traps and hidden doors. Rangers can track things and find traps. Bards could track things and do skill X. Mages could detect hidden doors and also skill Y.
Or they could do something like, only Rogues could find hidden areas, but the only things in those hidden areas are either extremely easy - that drop essentially nothing - or extremely hard monsters - that would on average kill 90% of the groups that tried to fight them. This would be balanced in the way that, while bringing a Rogue could give you access to hidden areas, those areas could just be a waste of time - either by getting you nothing, or an almost-guaranteed death. But if had a really good group, and specifically brought a Rogue, you could potentially get a nice reward. It wouldn't make them a "required" part of a group, but a nice bonus.
As long as every archetype had something similar, then overall it'd be balanced.
I like the idea of lesser rogue abilities with other class, but feel the only one for which it would fit is ranger. Maybe fighter. Of course, any class can get rogue abilities after 25. I just wonder how soon 25, and second class augments are going to come around. Will the stretch to 25 feel long, or will the most exciting dungeons - with all the extra paths - just come after 25 when more people can have rogue augments?
I don't know that I like the idea of being able to buy skills. I can see a place for buying something such as lockpicks from a crafter, but having the skill to use them should be very important, or failure is high.
I like the idea of these secret bosses being worthy of getting too, and I believe Steven said something along those lines. I guess the answer must be to let other classes have some abilities to find other hidden areas.
I know one thing. If there are lots of hidden areas in dungeons, then Ashes is going to have some of the most exciting dungeons in an MMO since Guk in EQ.
Can people imagine all the different areas to be able to explore with different group make ups if there were indeed lots of hidden paths?
I still worry about 8 man groups though. I guess I am so used to 6, or even 5.
That being said, while having one of everyone might be optimal, there is nothing stopping you from having a sub optimal group. So you don't have a tank? Well then you might just have to DPS things down. No Rogue to trap find? You might have to just trigger them and heal through it, etc.
There is also the possibility that secondaries will allow you to perform some of that classes utilities. So a X/Rogue might be able to disarm traps but still can't see hidden doors.
Also there might be come classes like the Bard that maybe don't have a "utility" ability because the whole class is one, making a group as a whole much better.
Your EQ/WoW example doesn't really fit, as neither of them has 8 subclasses with 4 flavors per subclass.
You have to balance around a comp, no way leads around that. One of each primary is the only one that makes sense.
Also, something being "optimal" doesn't mean its required. The same way 30 Mages/Warriors were optimal in a classic raid, that didnt mean you need to build it that way
I would definitely like to see how they plan to give each class a meaningful utility that fits with the themes(or if they even do), rogues thematic utility I think is something that tends to get emphasized in many games simply because it's a bit of a no brainer, lock picking, trap detection, etc - they're kind of a staple, it did sound like they intended to give each class its own utility and desirability, but until seeing what's planned, hard to weigh in meaningfully about it(which is fine by me), so long as the desired outcome is met eventually.
Edit: I really don't want to know every minute detail about the game, or painstakingly research exactly what augments I want, or any of that stuff before the game goes live, as long as they deliver - I'll be happy, when I can see the end of the path before I even start the journey, I lose interest fast, and some games do an utterly terrible job of having depth or immersion. The problem though with my line of thinking is that - there are only so many paths, and once we've traveled down them, we can't help but see the ending, which makes newer journeys harder to enjoy, I wouldn't even say this is nostalgia, just reality, like I'm never expecting any chemical highs from gaming again haha, but I'll settle for a well executed experience(which seems like a lot to ask these days).
Enchanters had breeze and then clarity. C3 was a staple mass buff in Plane Of Knowledge. Having a 'chanter around for mana regen and mezzing made xping so much easier.
I started with druid and made a lot of money porting people about. Just don't bind yourself in the entry way in Naggy's lair to port people home...well not if you forget to rebind. That is a painful memory. Died the next day and found myself face to face with a lot of fire giants.
I actually don't think it would hurt the game if one class was able to have some sort of port ability. As long as it doesn't take people to the most needed places for sieges. I see where Steven is coming from. There is no strict druid anyway, from what I see.
As for your last paragraph, well do I know how you feel. I haven't really watched the game for the last couple of years. I just tune in to the few things guildies have said in discord. Only back now because the Peon video had me. I followed Vanguard very closely after EQ. I couldn't live with another of those.
Ooof yeah, Vanguard sounded so good - but that's one where it wasn't so much tuning - but polish that killed me. Having to mouse over tooltips to even tell which buff or debuff was which, I have vague memories of that being a bad experience for a lot of reasons. I was playing a Dread Knight haha.
Yeah, I'm still having counselling...
Hopefully they keep this and keep it per class and don't allow any mixing between classes.