@Jayma, feral druid wasn't even viable n high end raiding until BC came out (it became my main then and I played it as such till MoP).
I will say that to my bear feral druid in Naxx. Yes it' s not THE main tank, but one of main tanks of the guild, and yes sometime when his tanking is not needed he heal or dps. Not viable is strong term
The only not viable raid tank that become viable during BC is Palatank (yes again not prefered maintank, but a flavor of tank you can want on some encounters).
I recall in original vanilla WoW blackwing lair had like 1 or 2 pieces of feral gear total. All of the druids in all the top raid guilds on my server were resto only. Maybe by Naxx they started having gear... Vanilla WoW didn't have the catch up mechanics like modern WoW so if you didn't have gear in the lower tiers you would have a tough time getting caught up (unless you were carried).
Personally i do hope i can freely choose my characters path without being obsolete.
I dont want to follow what everyone else does because its the best way.
The only thing I want and wish is that being a tank I can also go to level and do things alone, not just be a punching bag full life and resistance but also have some "damage" to be able to level and do activities alone .. without the need to always go with a group dps to kill mobs
Im wondering how are healers going to pass the leveling grind if the archetypes should rigorously follow trinity.
In WoW heals either have dps or they use dps spec for leveling.
What Im really worried about is healing with action, they meed to come up with innovative ideas to heal or well be left with cones and outrageous aoes
"You're seeking for perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
As a tank player myself.. I feel that ashes is going to be very interesting for a tanking role. The game will obviously be PvP driven. So the combat and skills need to be good enough to make an impact in battle, cc buffing and shielding teammates, but also not be so strong that it’s a tank just cc’ing everyone to the point it’s not fun. The pve I feel is kinda simple to do for healing and tanking. Yes tanking and healing is more complex than dpsing but not to much more. I do think it will be interesting to see how they balance it all out
Well I play a tank and found tanking in general really fun and engaging. Think Devs are going to do a decent job of making it a fun class so that being said. Think it is more a matter of giving people an incentive to try tanking and healing.
Before I started Tanking really did not know if I was going to be a good tank or not I just rolled one as it turns it it does take extra effort and there is more skilled involved but just like anything else if you are willing to put it in the work and exttra keybindings you should do fine.
Really any one could tank or heal would recommend to anyone tanking that is not a healer per say. So think Ashes of Creation ought to focus one getting people to try this roles instead just playing dps role all the time.
And also associated with this. Trying to get people out the I only play one class mentalitly would help.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Not a fan of the trinity, at least as hard set distinctive roles. In my mind, an over-specialized one trick pony should be more often than not a liability rather than a essential asset. For most content, the group composition shouldn't require to have one or two specific classes/archetypes to function and six accessory dps of unimportant variety. Raids, world bosses, and some dungeon bosses aside, most encounters should be possible with any group composition as long as the group adjust its strategies, which isn't an easy thing to do I guess. Do people want to think how to work with what they have or do they prefer to depend on the availability of a specific role and walk the beaten path? Probably the crux of the issue.
I hope there are many options for tanks and healers, not only tanks and clerics characters. I hope that picking them as a subclass will be enough to fill in part that role. If not, we're doomed to depend of the people playing them.
I wish classes were all dps with a different flavour: some having a more defensive aspect, some more support skills, others with healing either for themselves or others, but all having the primary function of doing damage.
Tried GW2?
It has everything you are looking for. They removed tank and healers and just made everyone DPS. This is the number one reason I hate that game with a passion. I prefer defined rolls and having people work together not just be a shaved monkey throwing flaming poo at a loot pinata.
Why do people hate working together in MMO's?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I like playing all the rolls. Most people only want to play DPS and not heal/tank because they are afraid of making a mistake and getting yelled at or booted from the group. Most "modern" MMO's that don't have hard set roles feed this non-sense. If there are only so many players in these roles and are needed people tend to have more grace because it is easier to help some one learn then it is to boot them and go look for another player.
This is where player interaction came from in the early years and now with everyone can do everything at all times there is no longer player interaction no new friends made so few new players trying other roles. Between group finders and cross server play the MMO has died.
I personally hope they stick to hard roles Tank's Tank , Clerics heal and everyone has a role to fill in the group dynamic. If I wanted to play a solo player game, There are plenty out there to play. I am looking forward to an MMO.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
I like playing all the rolls. Most people only want to play DPS and not heal/tank because they are afraid of making a mistake and getting yelled at or booted from the group. Most "modern" MMO's that don't have hard set roles feed this non-sense. If there are only so many players in these roles and are needed people tend to have more grace because it is easier to help some one learn then it is to boot them and go look for another player.
This is where player interaction came from in the early years and now with everyone can do everything at all times there is no longer player interaction no new friends made so few new players trying other roles. Between group finders and cross server play the MMO has died.
I personally hope they stick to hard roles Tank's Tank , Clerics heal and everyone has a role to fill in the group dynamic. If I wanted to play a solo player game, There are plenty out there to play. I am looking forward to an MMO.
So you like playing all roles, but you want a game where your character can only play one role.... why? If you could switch roles on a single character by changing skills/spec/augments/whatever, it does not make it a solo game. You still need the various roles for most of the content. It just gives you more playability on a single character (which is good for the game).
Are you worried about soloing quests/mobs while leveling? Any of the 3 roles could do that. Tanks/Healers just pull more mobs at once because they have higher survivability. If you are thinking a cleric should not be able to switch to a DPS spec to solo leveling content because "its a mmo", well what about all the DPS already doing that? Wouldn't that just not be fair to the cleric? Some people will grind up the levels solo, some will do it with groups, some will do both. So what? The tougher content is going to all be group based and thats where the "MMO" comes into play.
I just don't get why some people think a single character being able to do only one role (especially only tank or only healer) is a good idea/better for the game. It simply is not. People will get bored faster as the variety on the role they can do on their character is limited.
I just don't get why some people think a single character being able to do only one role (especially only tank or only healer) is a good idea/better for the game. It simply is not. People will get bored faster as the variety on the role they can do on their character is limited.
Because I want my choice of Archetype to actually mean something. If I pick tank I'm making that commitment. Maybe picking a more damage focused augment class could scratch a dps itch if I ever feel inclined.
Maybe it incentivises trying another archetype if you want a change. If you could do everything on a single character, why would you even bother trying something else?
I just don't get why some people think a single character being able to do only one role (especially only tank or only healer) is a good idea/better for the game. It simply is not. People will get bored faster as the variety on the role they can do on their character is limited.
Because I want my choice of Archetype to actually mean something. If I pick tank I'm making that commitment. Maybe picking a more damage focused augment class could scratch a dps itch if I ever feel inclined.
Maybe it incentivises trying another archetype if you want a change. If you could do everything on a single character, why would you even bother trying something else?
Your choice is still going to mean a lot. Bring able to have classes that can change between roles doesn't take away from that. There is still a ton about the archetype that would define the playstyle. There are lots of different ways to tank, dps, or heal. And the games better if you have some variety.
It's a problem if only the tank archetype can be a viable tank in high end content. That limits player choice. What if I want to be a top tank (role) but I don't like classes that use shields? Am I just out of luck? (Most my tanking in WoW has been with a brewmaster monk or a guardian druid. Neither use shields...)
Same idea for healers. There are some heal playstyles I enjoy and some that are boring. I want a game with multiple option.
Why would we want a game with 5 archetypes (styles) of DPS, but only one for tank, heals, and support? Seems like less meaningful choice to me...
It's a problem if only the tank archetype can be a viable tank in high end content. That limits player choice. What if I want to be a top tank (role) but I don't like classes that use shields? Am I just out of luck? (Most my tanking in WoW has been with a brewmaster monk or a guardian druid. Neither use shields...
Tanks will have different build options:
Evasion tanks
Control tanks
Shield tanks
If dps aren't too much self-suficient, they will find soon that have a party for pexing is good for them too. And after that tank and healer will have ton of people to play with.
I guess that xxx/tank or xxx/cleric will be the official offtanks/offheals of the game that can be used as spare tank/heal for low/medium requirement content.
Tried GW2?
It has everything you are looking for. They removed tank and healers and just made everyone DPS. This is the number one reason I hate that game with a passion. I prefer defined rolls and having people work together not just be a shaved monkey throwing flaming poo at a loot pinata.
Why do people hate working together in MMO's?
I did try GW2 when it launched, don't remember the specific reason I stopped that one, but I remember it clicking many of my boxes.
Working together? Sure! Depending on 1 or 2 classes? Hell no. Why is it ok for a group to require a tank and a cleric but not also require a warrior, a ranger, a rogue, a mage, a bard, and a summoner? Either you have:
1) more than one class that can fill completely the roles of tank and healer;
2) classes that only perform part of these jobs but can work in a group dynamic to fill the roles completely;
3) no role essential and it's for the group to figure out how to work together to be functional;
4) there are only 3 specialized classes (tank, heal, dps) that only perform one role and groups are limited to 3 members only, each essential, each performing its role.
It's not about not wanting to work with others, it's the opposite. It's about having every classes desirable in a group. It's about being able to work together no matter the people available. I can't count the number of time I was prevented from working with others because there were no tank or healer available at the time, and many of these times I was a healer, some of these times I was a tank.
The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If everyone is special no one is special.
Heard of a WoW vanilla private server that allowed everyone to pick what ever skill they wanted from what ever class they wanted. The vast majority all had the same build. Everyone could tank/heal and DPS. I think this is boring. Allowing people to pick from two roles as Rift did at launch was ok. I played healing mage for dungeons and PvP end went fire for exploring/solo stuff. When all of the sudden they could tank to and watered down the pool as now every class can fill any role at any time with no cost to switch making all choices meaningless.
Having to depend on others to get stuff done is life. We can't be good at everything and focusing on to much make people bad at everything.
Like you playing heals and not finding a tank can be a challenge. My answer was to build up my friends list focusing on tanks I liked playing with vs expecting everyone to be able to fill the role. I looked to the community and made more friends. I started healing when I couldn't find a healer way back in GW. That was the only reason I switched from mage(elementalist).
The biggest problem I see with hard set defined roles is the community. People need to relax more and offer more grace to players when mistakes are made.Help people become better. You'll probably make a new friend and maybe just maybe you will have a new player ready to fill the needed roles vs standing around huffing and puffing nobody wants to play these roles cause they are to hard and they are tired of getting yelled at.
I am not afraid that leveling as a Cleric will be harder or easier then Mage. I'll figure it out.
I am more concerned the game will end up a watered down mess where every class is basically the same with maybe at most different animations like so many other games out there.
Last thing I started WoW a week before BC came out. I switch servers a few times and ended up on Burning Blade a PvP server. I leveled a priest as Discipline and stayed healer all the way through raiding and PvP. I never respecced. During Wrath I decided to level my Priest first and got the 100 quest's completed achievement In the second zone because I never did quests after I could get into group content. I stayed heals and ran group stuff all the time.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
If everyone is special no one is special.
Heard of a WoW vanilla private server that allowed everyone to pick what ever skill they wanted from what ever class they wanted. The vast majority all had the same build..
Big true, I actually tried that private server for a day just to see it sometime last year. My problem with it was the same problem I have with Darkfall 1. The PvP meta becomes everyone using the same omni build end game. Which is just not something I like.
If everyone is special no one is special.
Heard of a WoW vanilla private server that allowed everyone to pick what ever skill they wanted from what ever class they wanted. The vast majority all had the same build..
Big true, I actually tried that private server for a day just to see it sometime last year. My problem with it was the same problem I have with Darkfall 1. The PvP meta becomes everyone using the same omni build end game. Which is just not something I like.
That sounds like it would be terrible gameplay. The game designers need to properly balance the pros/cons of a class/role. There is a huge difference between being able to do dps/heals/tank all at the same time vs having to switch specs, to do them on a single toon.
The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.
Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.
That sounds like it would be terrible gameplay. The game designers need to properly balance the pros/cons of a class/role. There is a huge difference between being able to do dps/heals/tank all at the same time vs having to switch specs, to do them on a single toon.
It was, and what made it worst was that old school vets of the game grew to love that style of PvP so any attempts to change it just ended up getting tons of backlash.
The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.
Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.
Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.
The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.
Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.
there is a problem with this argument... who cares about the easy "normal" content? All classes need to be viable for the hard content or the game isn't balanced. There should be multiple class options for each role in the high-end content.
I don't know about most others on these forums, but my time playing the game will be spent mostly against the tough content... who wants to just sit around doing only "normal" content?
The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.
Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.
Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.
This spawned an idea:
what if the "enrage" mechanic was the responsibility of the bard?
similar to how a "threat" mechanic was the responsibility of the tank?
I wish I were deep and tragic
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.
Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.
Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.
This spawned an idea:
what if the "enrage" mechanic was the responsibility of the bard?
similar to how a "threat" mechanic was the responsibility of the tank?
I'm personally not a fan of those kinds of enrage/soothing mechanics. You used to see them a lot in WoW raids back in the day and I'm glad they got rid of it.
The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.
Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.
Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.
This spawned an idea:
what if the "enrage" mechanic was the responsibility of the bard?
similar to how a "threat" mechanic was the responsibility of the tank?
I'm personally not a fan of those kinds of enrage/soothing mechanics. You used to see them a lot in WoW raids back in the day and I'm glad they got rid of it.
Oh, what made it a bad experience for you? Do you think it could be improved?
The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.
Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.
Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.
This spawned an idea:
what if the "enrage" mechanic was the responsibility of the bard?
similar to how a "threat" mechanic was the responsibility of the tank?
I'm personally not a fan of those kinds of enrage/soothing mechanics. You used to see them a lot in WoW raids back in the day and I'm glad they got rid of it.
Oh, what made it a bad experience for you? Do you think it could be improved?
For me, it was over used.
It is the sort of thing that should be on maybe one boss out of 20.
Any single mechanic that is used as much as enrage was in early WoW is something many people won't be a fan of.
there is a problem with this argument... who cares about the easy "normal" content? All classes need to be viable for the hard content or the game isn't balanced. There should be multiple class options for each role in the high-end content.
I think he was talking about group/raid size, not really hard or easy content. And i agree with him have required classes for a group of 40 or 8 , it's not the same problematic.
I don't know about most others on these forums, but my time playing the game will be spent mostly against the tough content... who wants to just sit around doing only "normal" content?
Honestly at this point of what we known, nobody can say this kind of stuff. You don't known how the hard content will be unlocked, in which type dungeon (open or instanced)?
The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.
Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.
there is a problem with this argument... who cares about the easy "normal" content? All classes need to be viable for the hard content or the game isn't balanced. There should be multiple class options for each role in the high-end content.
I don't know about most others on these forums, but my time playing the game will be spent mostly against the tough content... who wants to just sit around doing only "normal" content?
Well, obviously I care In fact, what I don't really care about is the raid content, so for me the only content is the "normal" content. For many people the game is the leveling and the more casual dungeoning. Some simply don't have the time to invest into the more demanding aspects, but they still love the time they can spend.
All classes need to be viable for all levels of content or the game isn't balanced.
I'm personally not a fan of those kinds of enrage/soothing mechanics. You used to see them a lot in WoW raids back in the day and I'm glad they got rid of it.
It is the sort of thing that should be on maybe one boss out of 20.
Any single mechanic that is used as much as enrage was in early WoW is something many people won't be a fan of.
Ok, now, for my moment of triumph... Why do you guys consider this a... gimmick...(?) and don't consider tanking an overused mechanic that we could get rid of ?
I think it really depends on how you define enrage. I am personally a fan of enrage-like mechanics of some sort. DPS checks are important in both burst phases and for consistent damage output through the whole fight. But hard enrage as specific arbitrary time limit when boss suddenly starts one shotting people seems dumb and outdated. But soft enrage (eg. stacking buff, that stacks over time and boss also gets extra stats when you fail fight mechanics or progressively increasing number of adds that spawn during the fight) is fine in my opinion. And it's one of ways to prevent stacking tanks/healers, which needs to be done for every fight in one way or another anyway. Having a class, which has unique ability to manipulate that in some of the figts seems like an interesting idea.
Yes: All classes should be viable for all levels of content. The reality is that if the most difficult content is viable, then by default that viability trickles down to the easier content (most of the time).
I have no problems with some encounters that have an enrage/soothe mechanic, but I agree you don't want it to be every encounter. There are two things to consider here:
1) balance may be tricky. If it's too strong, then you are now forced to bring the bard (which is probably going to have low representation anyways) so there is less flexibility in the group comp (or you give the soothe to 2 - 3 of the classes)
2) it's still a simple mechanic/gimmick. You can't really compare it to tanking. With this, if boss enrages you push a button to soothe... that's it. Tanking is much more complicated (threat management, taunts, active mitigation, boss damage timing, coordinating big CDs with healers, pull size and pace, healer management, etc).
Comments
I recall in original vanilla WoW blackwing lair had like 1 or 2 pieces of feral gear total. All of the druids in all the top raid guilds on my server were resto only. Maybe by Naxx they started having gear... Vanilla WoW didn't have the catch up mechanics like modern WoW so if you didn't have gear in the lower tiers you would have a tough time getting caught up (unless you were carried).
I dont want to follow what everyone else does because its the best way.
In WoW heals either have dps or they use dps spec for leveling.
What Im really worried about is healing with action, they meed to come up with innovative ideas to heal or well be left with cones and outrageous aoes
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
Before I started Tanking really did not know if I was going to be a good tank or not I just rolled one as it turns it it does take extra effort and there is more skilled involved but just like anything else if you are willing to put it in the work and exttra keybindings you should do fine.
Really any one could tank or heal would recommend to anyone tanking that is not a healer per say. So think Ashes of Creation ought to focus one getting people to try this roles instead just playing dps role all the time.
And also associated with this. Trying to get people out the I only play one class mentalitly would help.
Tried GW2?
It has everything you are looking for. They removed tank and healers and just made everyone DPS. This is the number one reason I hate that game with a passion. I prefer defined rolls and having people work together not just be a shaved monkey throwing flaming poo at a loot pinata.
Why do people hate working together in MMO's?
This is where player interaction came from in the early years and now with everyone can do everything at all times there is no longer player interaction no new friends made so few new players trying other roles. Between group finders and cross server play the MMO has died.
I personally hope they stick to hard roles Tank's Tank , Clerics heal and everyone has a role to fill in the group dynamic. If I wanted to play a solo player game, There are plenty out there to play. I am looking forward to an MMO.
So you like playing all roles, but you want a game where your character can only play one role.... why? If you could switch roles on a single character by changing skills/spec/augments/whatever, it does not make it a solo game. You still need the various roles for most of the content. It just gives you more playability on a single character (which is good for the game).
Are you worried about soloing quests/mobs while leveling? Any of the 3 roles could do that. Tanks/Healers just pull more mobs at once because they have higher survivability. If you are thinking a cleric should not be able to switch to a DPS spec to solo leveling content because "its a mmo", well what about all the DPS already doing that? Wouldn't that just not be fair to the cleric? Some people will grind up the levels solo, some will do it with groups, some will do both. So what? The tougher content is going to all be group based and thats where the "MMO" comes into play.
I just don't get why some people think a single character being able to do only one role (especially only tank or only healer) is a good idea/better for the game. It simply is not. People will get bored faster as the variety on the role they can do on their character is limited.
Because I want my choice of Archetype to actually mean something. If I pick tank I'm making that commitment. Maybe picking a more damage focused augment class could scratch a dps itch if I ever feel inclined.
Maybe it incentivises trying another archetype if you want a change. If you could do everything on a single character, why would you even bother trying something else?
Your choice is still going to mean a lot. Bring able to have classes that can change between roles doesn't take away from that. There is still a ton about the archetype that would define the playstyle. There are lots of different ways to tank, dps, or heal. And the games better if you have some variety.
It's a problem if only the tank archetype can be a viable tank in high end content. That limits player choice. What if I want to be a top tank (role) but I don't like classes that use shields? Am I just out of luck? (Most my tanking in WoW has been with a brewmaster monk or a guardian druid. Neither use shields...)
Same idea for healers. There are some heal playstyles I enjoy and some that are boring. I want a game with multiple option.
Why would we want a game with 5 archetypes (styles) of DPS, but only one for tank, heals, and support? Seems like less meaningful choice to me...
Tanks will have different build options:
Evasion tanks
Control tanks
Shield tanks
I guess that xxx/tank or xxx/cleric will be the official offtanks/offheals of the game that can be used as spare tank/heal for low/medium requirement content.
I did try GW2 when it launched, don't remember the specific reason I stopped that one, but I remember it clicking many of my boxes.
Working together? Sure! Depending on 1 or 2 classes? Hell no. Why is it ok for a group to require a tank and a cleric but not also require a warrior, a ranger, a rogue, a mage, a bard, and a summoner? Either you have:
1) more than one class that can fill completely the roles of tank and healer;
2) classes that only perform part of these jobs but can work in a group dynamic to fill the roles completely;
3) no role essential and it's for the group to figure out how to work together to be functional;
4) there are only 3 specialized classes (tank, heal, dps) that only perform one role and groups are limited to 3 members only, each essential, each performing its role.
It's not about not wanting to work with others, it's the opposite. It's about having every classes desirable in a group. It's about being able to work together no matter the people available. I can't count the number of time I was prevented from working with others because there were no tank or healer available at the time, and many of these times I was a healer, some of these times I was a tank.
Heard of a WoW vanilla private server that allowed everyone to pick what ever skill they wanted from what ever class they wanted. The vast majority all had the same build. Everyone could tank/heal and DPS. I think this is boring. Allowing people to pick from two roles as Rift did at launch was ok. I played healing mage for dungeons and PvP end went fire for exploring/solo stuff. When all of the sudden they could tank to and watered down the pool as now every class can fill any role at any time with no cost to switch making all choices meaningless.
Having to depend on others to get stuff done is life. We can't be good at everything and focusing on to much make people bad at everything.
Like you playing heals and not finding a tank can be a challenge. My answer was to build up my friends list focusing on tanks I liked playing with vs expecting everyone to be able to fill the role. I looked to the community and made more friends. I started healing when I couldn't find a healer way back in GW. That was the only reason I switched from mage(elementalist).
The biggest problem I see with hard set defined roles is the community. People need to relax more and offer more grace to players when mistakes are made.Help people become better. You'll probably make a new friend and maybe just maybe you will have a new player ready to fill the needed roles vs standing around huffing and puffing nobody wants to play these roles cause they are to hard and they are tired of getting yelled at.
I am not afraid that leveling as a Cleric will be harder or easier then Mage. I'll figure it out.
I am more concerned the game will end up a watered down mess where every class is basically the same with maybe at most different animations like so many other games out there.
Last thing I started WoW a week before BC came out. I switch servers a few times and ended up on Burning Blade a PvP server. I leveled a priest as Discipline and stayed healer all the way through raiding and PvP. I never respecced. During Wrath I decided to level my Priest first and got the 100 quest's completed achievement In the second zone because I never did quests after I could get into group content. I stayed heals and ran group stuff all the time.
Big true, I actually tried that private server for a day just to see it sometime last year. My problem with it was the same problem I have with Darkfall 1. The PvP meta becomes everyone using the same omni build end game. Which is just not something I like.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
That sounds like it would be terrible gameplay. The game designers need to properly balance the pros/cons of a class/role. There is a huge difference between being able to do dps/heals/tank all at the same time vs having to switch specs, to do them on a single toon.
Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.
It was, and what made it worst was that old school vets of the game grew to love that style of PvP so any attempts to change it just ended up getting tons of backlash.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.
there is a problem with this argument... who cares about the easy "normal" content? All classes need to be viable for the hard content or the game isn't balanced. There should be multiple class options for each role in the high-end content.
I don't know about most others on these forums, but my time playing the game will be spent mostly against the tough content... who wants to just sit around doing only "normal" content?
This spawned an idea:
what if the "enrage" mechanic was the responsibility of the bard?
similar to how a "threat" mechanic was the responsibility of the tank?
I'm personally not a fan of those kinds of enrage/soothing mechanics. You used to see them a lot in WoW raids back in the day and I'm glad they got rid of it.
Oh, what made it a bad experience for you? Do you think it could be improved?
For me, it was over used.
It is the sort of thing that should be on maybe one boss out of 20.
Any single mechanic that is used as much as enrage was in early WoW is something many people won't be a fan of.
Honestly at this point of what we known, nobody can say this kind of stuff. You don't known how the hard content will be unlocked, in which type dungeon (open or instanced)?
Well, obviously I care
All classes need to be viable for all levels of content or the game isn't balanced.
Ok, now, for my moment of triumph... Why do you guys consider this a... gimmick...(?) and don't consider tanking an overused mechanic that we could get rid of ?
I have no problems with some encounters that have an enrage/soothe mechanic, but I agree you don't want it to be every encounter. There are two things to consider here:
1) balance may be tricky. If it's too strong, then you are now forced to bring the bard (which is probably going to have low representation anyways) so there is less flexibility in the group comp (or you give the soothe to 2 - 3 of the classes)
2) it's still a simple mechanic/gimmick. You can't really compare it to tanking. With this, if boss enrages you push a button to soothe... that's it. Tanking is much more complicated (threat management, taunts, active mitigation, boss damage timing, coordinating big CDs with healers, pull size and pace, healer management, etc).