Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
While I am not interested in getting in a debate as to whether WoW is indeed a trinity game (my opinions on that are clear), what is not up for debate is that the biggest issue in a hard trinity game in relation to PvP is not present in WoW.
That issue is that players that roll tanks and/or healers are at a distinct disadvantage in 1v1 PvP.
That was the essence of what I was saying in relation to Ashes as a trinity game, and trinity games not working all that well in PvP. This issue (both in PvP and PvE - to a lesser extent) is why most games allow tanks to spec out of a pure tanking role, often/usually giving them a DPS build they can use for solo play.
The fact that every tank in WoW has the option of a DPS build is why I do not consider it to be a trinity game in the context of a PvP setting - or perhaps better worded as why I don't consider WoW to be a valid game to bring up in a discussion about PvP trinity games.
It is worth pointing out at this point that while all classes have some build options, Steven has said that each of the 8 tank/* builds will be viable for tanking all content in the game, and all healer/* builds will be viable as a main healer.
1v1 in world pvp tank/healers can absolutly beat DPS (hello disc priest:)). It can vary from time to time and depends on the class and how bursty the damage currently is (higher burst meta favors the DPS). Ive been on both ends of this equation many times across all three roles in my time playing WoW. The issue is more with how tanks work in team play (1v1 the DPS has to target the tank, but in 2v2 and up they can target the other players instead and mostly ignore the tank).
I get what you say about WoW. Ill rephrase this as WoW being trinity in pve, but not in pvp (the ability to swap specs to change your role is a separate topic and does not add or diminish to the definition of a game being trinity based). Healer/dps always have a role to play in anything larger than 3v3, but tank doesnt (it's usually not viable, gimmicky/brokenly OP, or just for flag carrying, which only some of the tanks classes can actually do). You'll probably laugh at this, but som of blizzard's current solution to the issue is to have tanks take extra damage in pvp so they are not unkillable...
I think your comments here is one of the many justifications for a class to be able to switch specs (out of combat) between roles. This is just a major quality of life feature that only helps the game and penalizes nobody.
So if it's tank/* and healer/* then that's a big problem as there is only 1 in 8 of the core classes that can fill the roles that are traditionally harder to fill. The tank/healer are probably never going to be viable dps with their secomdary class either.. Isn't bard also going to be a viable healer, but with a bit more focus on the support aspects and less on direct heals? That would at least give 2 of 8 core classes that can heal (still not enough). If summoners cannot be viable healers/tanks through their specialized pets, then that means they are probably also sub-optimal DPS and fall into the "jack of app trades, master of none" trap (i.e. you don't bring them for competitive play unless there is some sort of gimmick/utility where you need one in the group)
I think a better approach to the game would be having the secondary class selected be swappable out of combat and more of a direct impact on the role. So most */healer could be viable healers and most */tank could tank end game content. Tank/* and healer/* could spec into some dps classes for a competitive dps role (that sacrifices their tanking/healing ability to compensate). Maybe some of the secondary make them more of a hybrid (useful for solo play or when you need 1.5 healers in a group)
I knew that reply would be about a class that could beat DPS in PvP, I knew it would be a healer, not a tank, and I knew it would be a class from WoW.
The original point about a trinity setup in a PvP based game was about tanks, not healers. Somewhere along the way, healers were bought in to it and I made the mistake of not excluding them.
Also, WoW is an abhorrent game to bring in to these discussions because the developers do not attempt to balance the classes at any given point in time - their idea if balance is that a given class is overpowered now, and underpowered in a future expansion. To them, this is balance (and technically it is).
Point is, in games that have pure tank builds, PvP for those tanks is tough. This is in part because many of a tanks key PvE abilities (taunts and such) have no inherent effect in PvE (there have been threads on this in the past). This leaves tanks in most such games as being a weak crowd control class that can take a hit, but is never in a position where the opposition really cares enough about them to actually hit them. Why would they hit a class that poses almost no threat to them?
Two main points in here.
First, yes, this game is likely to see a few fewer tanks and healers than a game like WoW.
This is fine though. In WoW, with a tank and a healer you can take three others out to run some content, as there are 5 man groups. In Ashes, if you have a tank and a healer, you can take 6 others out to run some content, as the group size is 8.
Based purely on that, the game actually kind of needs fewer tanks and healers than a game with 5 person group sizes, so that works nicely.
As to bards, there is no indication that they are going to be a viable healer.
They may have proc based heals, but so far that is all we know.
The thing here is most MMO players have not played a game with a dedicated support class, and so simply don't understand what it is they do. Many people think support simply means back up healer, and so the theory that they can be cleric replacements makes the rounds.
Bards, based on what little information we have on them, will make all other classes in the group better at what they do. They won't replace any of the three members of the trinity, they will just make them better at their role.
Replace disc priest with guardian druid, vengeance demon hunter, prot pally, or monk brewmaster. I've done them all in 1v1... id say it's more often that the tank wins the 1v1 unless it's a really bursty meta. Monk brewmasters have NEVER been viable anything more than a 1v1 in pvp. Not even for flag carry roles.
We are basically agreeing that tanks struggle for viability in GROUP BASED pvp. But we differ in opinion on tanks in 1v1 pvp where I know they can be viable. 1v1 doesn't really matter though as that is not where the game gets balanced. It's all about team play so we can look at 8 for this dialog since that is the default size.
Good news on the 8 man group for pve. In pve the battles can be scripted so you only need 1 tank and 1 healer (more spread damage, less big hits and heals that can compliment that).
However, if you are doing 8v8 pvp you are probably going to need to run with 2 healers and both need to be viable (maybe three or a partial healer like a bard). In 10v10 RBGs 3 heals has been the standard most seasons (blizz had to cap it cause 4 started to become the meta).
In pvp you can't script/control the damage. The team may focus a single target, split on two, or spread the damage and rot the team. Also, if there is just one healer then you simply chain CC that healer while you kill a few DPS, then kill the healer (maybe the tank can have special abilities that give extra protection to the healer, but why not just bring an extra healer instead of the tank?)
Yes I get groups will be larger in a lot of the world content, but the ratio scales with the groups. If a single healer is OP enough to keep a 8 man group up in pvp, you want 2 of them. If they are gimped enough (like in FPS games) then maybe it's best to just run zero and have super bursty (less fun) battles. Maybe the healer class + off heals from the bard class would work, but probably not.
Maybe you can get away with one healer in 8v8 pvp if everyone else specs healer for their secondary (rip class diversity), but then I think you will still just see the healer chain CCed and the self healing not enough to survive a 6-dps train.
I've seen pure support classes in DAoC so I get the concept. Having 1 in a group makes sense.
I think my core argument still stands: having multiple classes that can fulfill more than one role in the trinity, that is balanced through switching specs outside of combat is the system most beneficial for a MMO.
Other than that, though, seems good to me.
Agreed.
the Star Citizen of the fantasy MMORPGs
That is pantheon my friend.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Except every example you have bought up has been WoW, a game I have said several times is not appropriate in a discussion on balance, let alone PvP balance, because of the way Blizzard do balance (they don't).
Basically, your entire argument here boils down to "sure, tanks can be viable in PvP, all you need to do is not have any notion of class balance in your game, just like WoW".
This isn't a good argument, and is why I have said so many times that WoW is not appropriate to pull examples from in this discussion.
There are things that concern me, but at the same time are very satisfying to see. A LOT of aspects that spark a lot of interest, and fear. So, to answer the question, I do like everything I see, including the set backs. Putting quality over a rush to release is always a positive. So, Thank you to those of you in the testing helping with them.
That doesn't make sense. Are you saying other games couldn't balance a tank 1v1 against a DPS? Literally the problem is that in group pvp the tank is ignored, so its damage mitigation doesn't help any. That isn't a problem in 1v1.
A Brewmaster (total crap class in group pvp) could easily win 1v1 vs a DPS because its 1v1 and the DPS has no other targets except me. However make it a 2v2 and the Brewmaster will probably lose because they just kill off her teammate first and then 2v1 the Brewmaster... So in this case, the DPS (all viable in group pvp) are "balanced" to be better classes, but the Brewmaster is still going to win the 1v1 because of the tank mitigation.
Intrepid have no plans to balance PvP for 1v1, so discussing it in relation to Ashes is pointless.
My rational: If you play a healer, your job is to heal others. Not to be the mighty one on the field with more heals than others.
A Tank, to keep the agro, take big hits, the workhorse. Maybe has a buff that makes his class/position the only attackable force on the field for X time. Or a buff that brings X damage against his target to him. He casts this on his healer, even though everyone is hitting the healer, the damage is transferred to the tank for a certain time. Could also be used to give a squishy player who is being chased a chance to get away from a mob. Maybe a visible aura appears around the affected player that shows that player is protected by the tanks massive HP. Maybe even absorb the tanks stamina instead of health, thus adding possible tactics to damage the healer to force the stamina down on the tank, thus reducing his abilities.
DPS, the somewhat squishy, but hits like a powerhouse.
Rogue, sneaky, ranged, or burst dps and run and hide. I mean, you are a ROGUE.
SOooo, balance depletes the game by making EVERY class able to do everything.
So, in PvP, the tactics should be somewhat, a tank defends the healers, who keep the tank and dps alive, and the dps rush in when the opposing forces are concentrating on the tank or healer. Rogue may use his sneaky self to get close to the enemy tank and keep him rooted, or the opposing healer to get a burst in on him. Maybe some stealth hits that give a buff reducing his cast speed for X time, or a hit designed to reduce mana regen for X time. Or, maybe just outright assassinate him. PvP is a group effort. At level 12 you are not going to go hit that level 50, and at the same time, a healer should not go hit a same level opponent that has a buddy with him unless he is skilled and well equipped.
Sorry perhaps balance was the wrong term here. You were saying before that tanks couldn't beat dps 1v1. I was saying that's not the case as it's probably where the tank has the best chance to win because their mitigation comes into play rhe most to give them am advantage.
Of course they are not going to balance for 1v1s. That would make no sense to even try to do.
Since you seem to have no experience at all outside of WoW, I'll go over the issues games have with tanks in PvP, which is why a hard trinity scheme (where when you roll a tank, you are a tank) is not super well suited to a PvP game.
When you are in PvE content, a tanks job is to focus the enemy on to them so that others can go about their business unmolested. The main tool a tank has to do this is a taunt.
In PvP, tants do not force other players to focus on the tank. Since the tank has no healing or DPS to speak of, it means the enemy can basically ignore them, kill the healers and DPS, then finish off the tanks.
Some games have tried to give tanks other roles in PvP (CC being one), but this means a tank goes from being a tank in PvE to being nothing but a CC battery in PvP, where as every other class keeps their role in tact between the two.
Now, since WoW doesn't have a hard trinity system in place, nothing at all in that game is relevant to the discussion of tanks in games with a hard trinity and PvP. You may as well talk about Skyrim, as it is as applicable as WoW.
On top of this, most games with a hard trinity and PvP also have tanks as unviable in 1v1 PvP, as while they may have mitigation, most classes have a means to bypass that - and tanks have neither heals nor DPS to compensate. However, while this is an issue in most games, it is not an issue here as there is no attempt at 1v1 balance.
The reason I worry about that is that this game cannot function in the way that it is meant to without a thriving playerbase, and it's concerning to think that if the game launches and some people feel let down with the amount of features and quality of the game, it could lead to a dropoff in population rather quickly. I believe this studio will stay with this game, and put forward any and all effort necessary to bring it to its full potential and beyond over time, but I guess I'm just worried that if there just isn't enough to keep people interested at first, it could be too little too late, even with constant updates by the devs.
Thankfully this is not a big concern overall, as Intrepid is not held to the same time constraints as other devs due to their being self-funded, so they should be able to take as much time as they need to put out the game when it is ready. I guess this was just my way of saying that while I believe in the vision and abilities of the team, I worry that if anything ends up leading the game in a rough direction, it could be player retention. Hopefully the game is accessible, and most importantly, FUN enough to keep people playing as more and more updates roll out over time.
Anyway, I'm stoked. Can't wait to hop into that Empyrean elf bladecaller action.
Initially I wrote the game off due to the heavy reliance on the PvP mechanic. More recently, I have found myself keeping an eye on the game hoping they can somehow manage the massive juggling act with making Corruption enough of a hinderance to stop random griefing.
My fear is players that level a character to max and then camp out slaughtering crafters or harvesters and then camp a few days to let the corruption wear off while they play a main instead.
If they walk that fine line well enough the game has a great deal of potential.
That doesn't do anything you need to gain experience or die to work corruption off.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption#Removing_corruption
I have to agree about the cosmetics. I have faith in Intrepid's ability to listen to player feedback as far as the combat is concerned, and I can accept that it is still a work in progress. But while I'm not entirely opposed to a cosmetic shop, and understand it's important to continue funding for the game, it really doesn't feel good to know that we're going to log in day one to a brand new world where everyone is level one...and the dude next to you is already decked out in flaming volcano armor and looks like he's already cleared max level raids even though the game hasn't even been out for a full 24 hours...
It definitely conflicts with the "effort = reward" part of why I like MMO's, but I'm just hoping that it ends up being worth it in the end. Steven understands this point of view and he is sympathetic to it, but he is doing what he knows he has to do to keep a part of the MMO audience that, sadly, just cannot stay interested in a game unless they can buy their way out of wearing "boring armor" for the first 40 levels.
I also have to agree that the cosmetics so far tend to be really over the top design-wise and I'm not a huge fan of some of them, but I'm still optimistic that it won't end up being a big deal in the end. Eventually, people will be walking around with cool looking armor and weapons earned through actual achievements, and the store cosmetics, while flashy, will pale in comparison.
I think the developer fokusing to mutch on cosmatic at the moment too.
i like the game idea , the dream of this game but i have many worryies abaut the game balance, the combat ect.
so mutch special ideas .. i hope they will creat a fantastic game, and i try to chat around here and hope , that i can help.