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).
1) So? Why is it not ok for the bard but it's ok for the tank? If the bard was the essential class for every group, no matter the content, don't you think more people would start one? Who knows, maybe Verra is a very musical world (not being really serious with this, just funny rhetoric).
2)Tanking was MADE a serious mechanic. At some point in gaming history, encounters were designed around it and tools provided for the players to work with that gimmick/mechanic at its centre. It could have been something else, it could still be many things else. I picked a bard soothing with music and you all jumped to a specific iteration of that thing, but I could have picked immobilization (root) as a central mechanic. Knockdown. Stun. Positioning. Creating elemental weakness. Confusion. ... Any solution could have generated special tools to deal with encounters. Complicated mechanics, rich layers of party complementary skills to beat the monster. Instead it was decided that some brave tank, in his tough armour, would insult every monsters and they would be stupid enough to only attack him because of that (obvious over-simplification).
I'm not saying tanking shouldn't be an option. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be the default option. Only that we could have a much diverse game world if sometime (or often) it was not the best option.
Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
2
insaneloliMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I just hope healers get more to do. I play healer a lot in ff14 and half the time all i do is spam my one singular DPS attack because no one needs healing and it is all i have.
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 ?
Because tanking is a play style that people opt in to, and play the entire game as a tank.
Tanking is nuanced and it opens up more gameplay opportunities. If you dont want to tank, all you need to do is not roll a tank. You are still able to participate in all content ad a non-tank.
An enrage time is a mechanic is none of these things. It closes off gameplay mechanics. If my guild happens to have lower DPS but has the stamina (or mana) to last twice as long as other guilds in a fight, we shouldnt be constantly limited by a gimmick mechanic. While a true DPS check mobs should be a thing, they should be quite rare.
Further, enrage mechanics are something you can spend years not encountering, and then as soon as you hit raid content they are everywhere.
If you do not like enrage mechanics, you cant simply opt out by playing a different class. In most games, you can get away from them most of the time by doing encounters without them (which is why they should be limited - as every mechanic in raiding should be). If you want to avoid enrage mechanics in early WoW, you were literally not able to raid.
As a "moment of triumph", I consider that a bit weak.
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 ?
Because tanking is a play style that people opt in to, and play the entire game as a tank.
Tanking is nuanced and it opens up more gameplay opportunities. If you dont want to tank, all you need to do is not roll a tank. You are still able to participate in all content ad a non-tank.
An enrage time is a mechanic is none of these things. It closes off gameplay mechanics. If my guild happens to have lower DPS but has the stamina (or mana) to last twice as long as other guilds in a fight, we shouldnt be constantly limited by a gimmick mechanic. While a true DPS check mobs should be a thing, they should be quite rare.
Further, enrage mechanics are something you can spend years not encountering, and then as soon as you hit raid content they are everywhere.
If you do not like enrage mechanics, you cant simply opt out by playing a different class. In most games, you can get away from them most of the time by doing encounters without them (which is why they should be limited - as every mechanic in raiding should be). If you want to avoid enrage mechanics in early WoW, you were literally not able to raid.
As a "moment of triumph", I consider that a bit weak.
I think we might be talking about two different types of "enrages" in this thread:
1) At a certain point in time the boss enrages and everyone dies shortly thereafter. E.g. 10 mins into the fight. This is in place to be a DPS check. This is the type of enrage you are talking about.
2) The boss will occasionally enrage, and someone in the group (the Bard?) needs to cast a spell to remove the enrage from the boss. if the player doesn't act fast enough, the boss will start to wipe the raid. This is the type of enrage mechanic I was talking about.
2) The boss will occasionally enrage, and someone in the group (the Bard?) needs to cast a spell to remove the enrage from the boss. if the player doesn't act fast enough, the boss will start to wipe the raid. This is the type of enrage mechanic I was talking about.
What would be the point of this?
I can see two reasons a developer would add this to a game.
The first is that they have a class that isn't getting raid time, and they want it to. So, by adding a mechanic that needs to be dealt with and providing the class in question with an ability to real with said mechanic, they are forcing all raids to take that class along.
The second reason a developer would add this is that a class that is taken along on raids often are complaining that their class is boring to play during said raids. So, the developers add a mechanic that isn't fun to deal with, but is basically acting as an attention check for the players of that class.
The problem with this as a mechanic is that it is - by its definition - a single player thing. Tanking is done by one player, but every player present has to pay attention to how well the tank is doing their job, and every player needs to adjust what they are doing based on what the tank is doing. In essence, tanking is something that involves all players present.
This mechanic only involves one player at a time - the closest thing to involving other players is a potential need to coordinate cooldowns on this ability - which is such a basic, low level thing that it doesn't really count.
So, I see no reason at all for this mechanic to exist, as it doesn't add anything to the encounter.
If a game finds itself either wanting more of a given class bought along on raids, or wants to make raiding more interesting for a given class, the developers should fix their obviously broken class, rather than forcing players of that obviously broken class to invest in this ability, and in the process giving the player fewer choices in combat, and making the class less useful.
I really am curious though, what is it you think this would bring to an encounter?
I didn't say it was a good mechanic or one I was even advocating for. I was just pointing out the term "enrage" has two different meanings.
At a higher level, the concept is removing a buff from the target. This could be more than just an enrage (e.g. in PvP you might dispel the hots on your enemy so its easier to kill them).
I didn't say it was a good mechanic or one I was even advocating for. I was just pointing out the term "enrage" has two different meanings.
At a higher level, the concept is removing a buff from the target. This could be more than just an enrage (e.g. in PvP you might dispel the hots on your enemy so its easier to kill them).
Mobs having buffs that players can remove is fine, but not if it is a mechanic only one class has access to. It is better if there is an action players need to perform to remove the buff, rather than force players to spec in to it when they may not want to.
When it is a buff that is removed by player ability, such mechanical are very, very minor aspects of any given encounter, and barely worth discussing. When it is a buff that needs to be removed via player action, it can be an enjoyable and challenging aspect if an encounter.
I didn't say it was a good mechanic or one I was even advocating for. I was just pointing out the term "enrage" has two different meanings.
At a higher level, the concept is removing a buff from the target. This could be more than just an enrage (e.g. in PvP you might dispel the hots on your enemy so its easier to kill them).
Mobs having buffs that players can remove is fine, but not if it is a mechanic only one class has access to. It is better if there is an action players need to perform to remove the buff, rather than force players to spec in to it when they may not want to.
When it is a buff that is removed by player ability, such mechanical are very, very minor aspects of any given encounter, and barely worth discussing. When it is a buff that needs to be removed via player action, it can be an enjoyable and challenging aspect if an encounter.
Yea I agree with your assessment on this. I think @maouw first brought up this concept it was the idea of making it more core for the Bard class (like taunting is for tanks) as a way to make taking a bard more required. Thats why I was clarifying what he meant by enrage as you assumed it was a boss DPS check timer type of enrage.
I agree thought that dispells should be shared across multiple classes... but as you have noticed, I'm a proponent of multiple classes being able to fulfill multiple needs and not having a single class cover a single need so this fits with my other comments.
I've seen some fun mechanics around this. For example, Mages in WoW can steal some magic buffs from their enemies to use as their own.
The implications seem for dispeling/soothing/spellstealing feels like more fun in PvP just to the dynamic nature. In PvE its more about knowing what things need to get dispelled for a given fight and just becomes another scripted awareness/do the mechanics thing (or not dispelled, you can make it so dispelling something causes raid-wide damage too as a mechanic).
0
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.
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 ?
Because tanking is something that is done more than once or twice per fight.
@maouw As for why I don't like enrage mechanics, mostly it's because of how obtuse it is. In WoW the hunter had a soothing ability that was absolutely useless 90% of the time, except when a raid boss had an enrage mechanic, then it suddenly became the most important ability in the raid.
The problems I'm seeing (having been exposed to a very limited amount of preview content) is first and foremost the overwhelming comparisons to the way other games' roles and job/class systems function. While yes this is an MMORPG and certain elements are intrinsic to the genre, some things will be possible and others not...but the premise and concept of Ashes is to break molds of games past...
In a party size of eight, we can almost assuredly assume the majority of typical content will feature a more-or-less standard composition of two tanks (main tank/off-tank), two healers, and four DPS members additionally capable of unique support and utility functions, and some specifically sought after in certain conditions. Without "meta" compositions that overwhelmingly favor one class over another such as Bard, we must also avoid copy/paste jobs with different cosmetics (which is the current state of FFXIV). Innovation breaks molds rather than adhering to them simply because "that's how it's done". Many arguments fall into this rut assuming experimentation beyond the norm would inherently fail, when the appeal of Ashes is largely how it will differ...
The very first point I wholeheartedly agree with is hopes for Ashes to provide the ability to dual-spec and swap specs with obvious limitations in regards to ability access, being outside of combat, etc. However...
More than cosmetic changes or superficial 'flavors' to skills are needed if provided spec-swapping capability of any sort, otherwise cosmetic change themselves would feel bland and flavorless. As a "Nightspell" (Rogue-Mage) swapping to "Shadowcaster"(Mage-Rogue) -- I don't want the job to play identically where the only differences are its animations. I want to feel more "caster-assassin" somedays and more "sneaky-mage" on others. This could take the form of a melee-range caster for instant, point-blank, spike DPS elemental combos with Flash-Fire to the face being more effective than from the rear - compared to stacking DoTs and buffs/debuffs increasing potency based on Line of Sight -- trading target positionals for those of my meatshields. Let me conjure sneaky magicks behind my tank to reinforce their defense and whisper rage-inducing whispers to my heavy hitters so that their attacks start to inflict bleed! Give roles interesting dynamics besides "hit until ded". Also I think I've already seen this, but please allow slow walking during casts rather than requiring a complete stand-still or slide-casting, even if that only exist for certain combinations such as these...
On the subject of Tanks, enrage, and DPS check mechanics or "gimmicks"...
Can't we do better? Why not?! While Ashes may start with the "Holy Trinity" the mechanics of fights don't necessarily need to include THESE mechanics in particular. There might be encounters featuring enemies which are immune to taunt/provoke, perhaps drawn to healers this encounter becomes more puzzling as they reduce effectiveness or drain mana form the party's casters altogether. Yeah you'd think "hit until ded" like everything else, except the presence of this creature also weakens those around it, and the puzzle becomes more of a delicate balance. Why have we almost never seen truly innovative and dynamic encounters where turning attacks on party members themselves - like a corrupted healer whose magic begins to inflict DoT, or a mind-controlled caster whose spells are reflected as AoE as puzzle-mechanics? Mentioned in the post just before this one as that ultimately these mechanics would become just another form of scripted awareness, but they're things you don't see implemented, or at least not interestingly enough to present an exciting challenge.
On the topic playstyles...
The same reasons a player may choose to roll tank might be the same reasons a player chooses to roll summoner or healer. Players have way more reasons for choosing roles than potential damage output or even the assumed responsibilities of those roles.
Tanks may not like the responsibility of micromanaging a pet
Summoners may not like the idea of micromanaging a party
Healers & supports might not enjoy minmaxing damage output
Some choose based on what "looks cool" as is entirely subjective
Some choose what they perceive will be the "easiest" role to play
Some choose based on what archetypes are most sought after
Some choose for nothing more than mastering the challenge itself
Would you rather be limited to repeating what you've played in the past? If your ultimate goal is "DO MOST DPS" then go for it. Ultimately yes - everyone will eventually find themselves in situations where doing more damage becomes mandatory, but that is not to say that this should become the core gatekeeping mechanic of everything considered high-end / end-game content. A healer performing at their best WILL absolutely DPS as we know from other games and Ashes will most definitely include this for many encounters. However, Healer damage output being significantly lower than that of other other roles, why should a healer's direct damage or lack thereof be a hard progression barrier? And How can this be addressed?
By giving healers more versatility (or at least multipurpose abilities to mange bloat), forcing them to manage cooldowns more efficiently, prioritize party & raid-wide buffs & debuffs uniquely addressable by healers, taking priority over their damage output. Tank Swaps exist. Why not Heal swaps? The skill ceiling shouldn't be how much DPS is dished out, but proven mastery of their role and its identity. While such things as Tank's stun and DPS interrupt exist, giving healers a similar niche of their own expands their responsibility beyond "MOAR DPS" allowing them to more actively contribute in ways that allow those who truly wanted to roll healer feel even more healy! I see no harm in just testing this with a few combinations to get feedback from the healer-centric playerbase on what's fun and what's not...
For you healers who think you've already got too much on your plate, forego everything we presume to know from other games! Spamming extremely limited direct DPS spells and filling health bars is very two-dimensional and not very fun. Perhaps ONE single-target and ONE AoE DoT overwriting each other is perfectly acceptable and easier for Devs to balance when tweaking, however what would incentivize me to play more healer-based and supportive roles (which I love) is: "How engaging and unique is this to play?" The "healy" spectrum so far appears to be confined to Cleric / Mage / Summoner intersects with some bleed into multipurpose Bards; Oracle, Shaman, High Priest perhaps being the "purest" healers depending on design choices. But... what about an alt-specced Necromancer? Could I use my forbidden magics to aid the party as a NON-DPS role? Can I trade summoning undead minions for reinfusing life-force into my meat shields? Would my own abilities command said meat shields to use abilities the couldn't normally access?! Could the effectiveness of reanimating my comrades be improved by sacrificing reanimated minions?? Would this Necro alt-spec have any advantages against the undead which would make me more powerful at night? In crypts or graveyards? Just shower-thoughts for potential examples of an interesting take on what we presume to know. A Necromancer being a healer is not only fitting but interesting to flip assumptions on their heads. Perhaps less optimal in certain situations being harder spec to master, but no less capable for someone those who choose to spec in manipulating life essences for an 'alternative' occult feel to healing. After all, aren't ALL healers kind of already Necromancers when you think about it???
What I kind of DON'T want to see? "Soulbows" shooting "Health Arrows" into allies as restoratives... the sort of thing only good for the memes, if even that.
As a "moment of triumph", I consider that a bit weak.
I am sadden you do not acknowledge my greatness, but since you cannot realize that basing encounters with a punching bag at the centre is also a gimmick, even if an overdeveloped one, you are forgiven.
Do not worry, friend. More likely than not you'll have plenty of content to worship two members of the Trinity*
As for myself, I'll find the kind of encounters I like by the simple fact I'll be mostly soloing. Each class requiring a different approach to deal with situations, limited by the tools it has in its bag. Same goes when you partner with someone else. Or when in small groups with a role(s) unfilled. This flexibility of approach doesn't scale pass a certain size, at which, from the heaven descend among us the healer and his tank pet companion.
*If I remember right, the term trinity came out in the original EverQuest and referred to the warrior, cleric and enchanter (for his mana regen). If you had these 3 the rest of the group composition didn't matter.
Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
0
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
As a "moment of triumph", I consider that a bit weak.
I am sadden you do not acknowledge my greatness, but since you cannot realize that basing encounters with a punching bag at the centre is also a gimmick, even if an overdeveloped one, you are forgiven.
Do not worry, friend. More likely than not you'll have plenty of content to worship two members of the Trinity*
As for myself, I'll find the kind of encounters I like by the simple fact I'll be mostly soloing. Each class requiring a different approach to deal with situations, limited by the tools it has in its bag. Same goes when you partner with someone else. Or when in small groups with a role(s) unfilled. This flexibility of approach doesn't scale pass a certain size, at which, from the heaven descend among us the healer and his tank pet companion.
*If I remember right, the term trinity came out in the original EverQuest and referred to the warrior, cleric and enchanter (for his mana regen). If you had these 3 the rest of the group composition didn't matter.
I'm not really sure why you consider the tank role to be a gimmick. To me it's like saying the 4th wheel on a car is a gimmick just because there are 3-wheeled cars in existence.
Because it's building battle encounters assuming you'll have one players who's job is to concentrate the damage on himself so the others shouldn't really get hit. What's making it a gimmick is that the mobs go along with it.
If this was a pen and paper game of D&D, the DM would ignore the taunt and use his baddies on everyone, especially on targets revealing themselves fragile and/or dangerous. The group has to work together so that everyone is still alive at the end.
That's why the tank role often doesn't work well in PvP. People, unlike mobs, can ignore the gimmick.
Maybe at the origin it was the simplest way to script mob's AI. Players actions generate threats. Threat is put on the "who to target" list. Mob target top of the list. Give tools to the players to help move themselves up or down on that list.
Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
0
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Because it's building battle encounters assuming you'll have one players who's job is to concentrate the damage on himself so the others shouldn't really get hit. What's making it a gimmick is that the mobs go along with it.
If this was a pen and paper game of D&D, the DM would ignore the taunt and use his baddies on everyone, especially on targets revealing themselves fragile and/or dangerous. The group has to work together so that everyone is still alive at the end.
That's why the tank role often doesn't work well in PvP. People, unlike mobs, can ignore the gimmick.
Maybe at the origin it was the simplest way to script mob's AI. Players actions generate threats. Threat is put on the "who to target" list. Mob target top of the list. Give tools to the players to help move themselves up or down on that list.
Hmm I had a feeling you would say something like that. Whenever someone brings up the "mobs should just ignore the tank" argument in an mmorpg I'm always reminded of the talk done by Jeff Kaplan at the raiding panel at Blizzcon 2005. In it he addressed the issue of "smart" bosses and basically said that "killing players is easy".
That dragon that spends all its energy hitting the tank could very easily be programmed to ignore the tank, immediately fly over to the squishy healers and 1-shot them all before the players have a chance to react.
Would that make for a good gaming experience?
There are dozens of different ways the devs could kill the players and it would be easy, but that's not the aim of the fight.
There is only ONE game I know of that successfully managed to get rid of the tank role and that was the original GuildWars. In that game mobs chose targets based on a number of factors including health, armour and location, so if you had a high health/high armoured character next to a squishy caster, the mobs would target the caster first.
This only worked because the mobs had the same kind of stats and abilities that the players did, and most fights didn't have the mobs outnumbering your party. That is not the case in most mmorpgs, where you have bosses that are strong enough to literally 1-shot a caster.
Oh and as a side note there's not much point in bringing TTRPG gameplay into this discussion because:
a) TTRPG is turn-based so the monsters the players are facing don't have an advantage over humans in terms of reactions or speed or actions.
b) TTRPG gameplay a lot of the time is hugely based on RNG from the dice, more so than any mmorpg. This means that just because you get targeted by a mob doesn't mean you are automatically dead if the dice rolls in your favour (unlike in an mmorpg where getting hit by a mob usually results in death for a squishy).
The TT argument is only for the logical or realist aspect of encounters. Being able to slow time down and plan what the team does makes it possible to beat impossible odds, and usually the rules always favour the players anyway.
That being said, I don't think the role of the tank should disappear, it's a valid and very realist approach if given the tools to force targets to hit him rather than the others. Controlling a choke point and having movement restrictive CC can make the tank, if not the only target in hitting distance, a big enough nuisance to try to kill him. Tools to push enemies away from a friend or (as we've already seen for AoC) tools to pull enemies to him. Warhammer Online had those kind of tank, and the PvP aspect was important for that game.
My only concern is that in almost every group context, having a tank is the only option. I remember in DAoC, in one of Albion's zone, there was what we called the "goblins hill". Lots of the little buggers. One way to clear the camp was to have a AoE mez (or sleep?) cast over a group and pick them out one by one. The spell could be cast again to renew the effect and finish them off. No tank require, but it was always an option.
I just wish these kind of options existed.
"Our group doesn't have a tank, but we should be fine: we have 3 summoners!".
"We don't have a main cleric, but we should be fine: two of us have it as a subclass and beside, those Tulnars will never can't close enough to hit us!"
Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
0
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The TT argument is only for the logical or realist aspect of encounters. Being able to slow time down and plan what the team does makes it possible to beat impossible odds, and usually the rules always favour the players anyway.
That being said, I don't think the role of the tank should disappear, it's a valid and very realist approach if given the tools to force targets to hit him rather than the others. Controlling a choke point and having movement restrictive CC can make the tank, if not the only target in hitting distance, a big enough nuisance to try to kill him. Tools to push enemies away from a friend or (as we've already seen for AoC) tools to pull enemies to him. Warhammer Online had those kind of tank, and the PvP aspect was important for that game.
My only concern is that in almost every group context, having a tank is the only option. I remember in DAoC, in one of Albion's zone, there was what we called the "goblins hill". Lots of the little buggers. One way to clear the camp was to have a AoE mez (or sleep?) cast over a group and pick them out one by one. The spell could be cast again to renew the effect and finish them off. No tank require, but it was always an option.
I just wish these kind of options existed.
"Our group doesn't have a tank, but we should be fine: we have 3 summoners!".
"We don't have a main cleric, but we should be fine: two of us have it as a subclass and beside, those Tulnars will never can't close enough to hit us!"
Ah I see, that makes more sense. Being able to complete a dungeon without a dedicated tank does sound appealing but would also limit the devs severely when it comes to mechanics and layout of the dungeon. As you just said in order to have a tank be effective without threat generation you would need to have all fights be in a narrow corridor or a choke point.
The moment you put the group is a large open area, the effectiveness of that tactic goes out the window and instead you rely on CC to keep the mobs away from the squishy targets. That becomes a problem though because if you have enough CC to stun-lock the mobs to death (which you would need to if you were to survive the attack), the entire fight becomes as trivial as having all the mobs hit the tank the whole time.
My only concern is that in almost every group context, having a tank is the only option.
This statement is a subjective opinion based on the games you have played, it is not an objective fact.
If you play a game without a dedicated CC class, then obviously CC'ing your way around isn't going to be viable.
In games with dedicated CC classes though, it is.
Additionally, if you are playing a game where any class can simply respec in to a tank role, expect all the content to require a tank - or at least all the players to expect a tank.
In games where your role cant be changed, people learn to make what they have work. If that means a summoner tank, then that is what you have.
Now, none of this holds true for the bulk of end game content, but that is because this content is designed to challenge organized groups of players, and organized groups of players will have a tank and healer.
Even then though, both The Kraken and Leviathan from Archeage had no need for a tank. The encounters weren't enjoyable but there was no need for a tank.
Put simply, if you want to play a game that doesn't require a tank for all content, play a game that doesn't allow every character to be a tank.
Put simply, if you want to play a game that doesn't require a tank for all content, play a game that doesn't allow every character to be a tank.
"all" is a bit of a strong word here. lower end content comp doesn't matter and thats fine. What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
Allowing a single character to switch roles (and be fully competitive against other classes in the same role when in that spec) is the way to best manage this. It's something I'd expect to see in any MMO aspiring to be the "best" MMO.
What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
No we dont.
High end content is for people that are organized.
A part of being organized is having the classes needed.
Ashes is being designed around the notion that a group if 8 players will want one character of each primary class, and groups will miss out on aspects of the content if this is not met.
What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
No we dont.
High end content is for people that are organized.
A part of being organized is having the classes needed.
Ashes is being designed around the notion that a group if 8 players will want one character of each primary class, and groups will miss out on aspects of the content if this is not met.
You could be very well organized and still have multiple people who want to play the same class. A good game will have flexibility with this so people can play with their friends (within reason of course) even if some of them want to play the same class.
There are multiple playstyles for tanking. There are multiple playstyles for healing. Why restrict these to a single class when you could have multiple classes that can fulfill the role with proper (good) game design? Seems like a mistake to me.
Yes, we need a meat shield to clear high-end content which demands player coordination and organization.
Yes, we ALSO need multiple role options so that my primary glass cannon mage can swap from offense to support and provide firewalls as mitigation, or channel my fire into someone else's weapon to draw more attention/threat to that player with trade-off from personal selfish explosive DPS so that clearing content even absent a "traditional tank" remains viable.
Who said anything about my meat shield needing to be the highest-HP traditional archetype heavy armor holier-than-thou paladin? Besides paladin players who think they know better and don't want to be considered optional, of course...
Imagine if tanks were preferred but never needed nor relied upon because mages could channel their magick to significantly improve defense and HP total temporarily, or a spellblade could swap to mage-knight and carry and clear - completely mitigating the grief of "YOU NEED ME" tanks ditching their party out of some spiteful desire to waste other's time and experience.
Yes, we need a meat shield to clear high-end content which demands player coordination and organization.
Yes, we ALSO need multiple role options so that my primary glass cannon mage can swap from offense to support and provide firewalls as mitigation, or channel my fire into someone else's weapon to draw more attention/threat to that player with trade-off from personal selfish explosive DPS so that clearing content even absent a "traditional tank" remains viable.
Who said anything about my meat shield needing to be the highest-HP traditional archetype heavy armor holier-than-thou paladin? Besides paladin players who think they know better and don't want to be considered optional, of course...
Imagine if tanks were preferred but never needed nor relied upon because mages could channel their magick to significantly improve defense and HP total temporarily, or a spellblade could swap to mage-knight and carry and clear - completely mitigating the grief of "YOU NEED ME" tanks ditching their party out of some spiteful desire to waste other's time and experience.
Well said Juicy! In WoW, I've played every class that can tank, but I've most enjoyed the Monk Brewmaster and the Druid Guardian. Neither of these have a sword and board. Neither ware plate. The brewmaster is more about staggering damage to smooth out the healing + dodging attacks. The Guardian Druid is a big bear! These aren't just cosmetic changes, they are entire playstyle changes so there are multiple ways to fulfill the tank role.
If a Warrior was the only class that could tank in WoW, I probably would have just stayed to healing. I've tried it a few times, but I've never really liked the playstyle of that class (but I have friends who love it).
The archtype should define the playstyle, not the role. Each role should have multiple playstyles available to fill it. Switching between sub-classes could be a great way to switch the role. Then talents, etc could be additional layer of customization.
I'm not advocating for this or saying I want it but: In order for tanks and healers not to be necessary (and not hold so much responsibility) then part of the solution has to making tanks and healers less powerful.
In many games I've played, the tank is twice as durable as other classes or more. With 40% passive damage reduction and 50% more HP, plus extra mitigation abilities, for example. Combined with effortless AoE threat management, that means tanks could handle 2-3 packs of mobs, while a tankless group would struggle with one. That is hugely impactful for a single player in a party.
Similarly, in my experience, healing classes are capable of sustaining a whole party by themselves forever, where that party would fall over in 30 seconds without them. In addition they're able to fix other player's mistakes with rezzes and extra heals.
This isn't inherently problematic, though. It's fine if content is balanced around it, and the skill floor is approachable for those roles. But it results in the situation we're used to, where tanks/healers are super necessary in any kind of moderately challenging content. And when a tank/healer isn't quite up to the task, they can quickly wipe the whole party.
You might say that damage dealers also have equal responsibility in fights with serious DPS checks. Sometimes those can wipe the party just as easily. But usually tanks and healers are sharing in that burden as well.
Therefore, as I see it, this the choice:
Either tanks and healers can be as powerful as usual -- The holy trinity holds firms. Tanks and healers get played (primarily) by players willing and able to shoulder the extra burden that comes with the power. Content is designed for the trinity, parties are built around it, and deviant designs or party comps suffer in the wake. But we know this design works, and is enjoyable. And it allows tanks and healers to perform a unique function that other classes simply can't.
--or--
Tanks are only slightly tankier than a heavy-armored Fighter, and their threat management is not absolute. And healers are limited by time/mana, and unable to fix major mistakes. -- Enemies of course have to be tuned to do less damage. And death cannot loom behind every mistake (since the healer can't fix them all). But now the holy trinity is more of suggestion than a law. Tanks and healers feel weaker, and lose a little bit of identity, so they get played less, unfortunately. But a healer or tank can be replaced by good CC/kiting, personal sustain, and/or defensive buffs from a Bard. Party composition is more flexible. And content can be slightly more varied.
... Wait, shit... I think I just re-invented the GW2-shaped wheel. Honestly didn't realize where I was going with this.
The fact that a class is not very picked makes it more valuable, people who play healer or tank sometimes sacrifice themselves to a slow leveling experience just to be more valuable and special in lategame.
What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
No we dont.
High end content is for people that are organized.
A part of being organized is having the classes needed.
Ashes is being designed around the notion that a group if 8 players will want one character of each primary class, and groups will miss out on aspects of the content if this is not met.
You could be very well organized and still have multiple people who want to play the same class.
By definition, no you can't.
If the game asks players to have one of each class, a well organized group has one of each class. If you do not have one of each class in a game that asks that of you, then you are not well organized.
What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
No we dont.
High end content is for people that are organized.
A part of being organized is having the classes needed.
Ashes is being designed around the notion that a group if 8 players will want one character of each primary class, and groups will miss out on aspects of the content if this is not met.
You could be very well organized and still have multiple people who want to play the same class.
By definition, no you can't.
If the game asks players to have one of each class, a well organized group has one of each class. If you do not have one of each class in a game that asks that of you, then you are not well organized.
Does the game have to ask players to have one of each class? No it doesn't. There is better game design than that. It's a balance. You want each class to bring something interesting to the table, but you don't want to be locked into always having to have a class or not being able to bring 2-3 of the same class to a 8-man. Doing that just locks out people from being able to play with some of their friends (or like minded people who prefer a similar gameplay style).
What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
No we dont.
High end content is for people that are organized.
A part of being organized is having the classes needed.
Ashes is being designed around the notion that a group if 8 players will want one character of each primary class, and groups will miss out on aspects of the content if this is not met.
You could be very well organized and still have multiple people who want to play the same class.
By definition, no you can't.
If the game asks players to have one of each class, a well organized group has one of each class. If you do not have one of each class in a game that asks that of you, then you are not well organized.
Does the game have to ask players to have one of each class? No it doesn't. There is better game design than that. It's a balance. You want each class to bring something interesting to the table, but you don't want to be locked into always having to have a class or not being able to bring 2-3 of the same class to a 8-man. Doing that just locks out people from being able to play with some of their friends (or like minded people who prefer a similar gameplay style).
Who said you are locked in to it?
You need to learn the difference between a game asking a thing of players and a game demanding a thing of players.
What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
No we dont.
High end content is for people that are organized.
A part of being organized is having the classes needed.
Ashes is being designed around the notion that a group if 8 players will want one character of each primary class, and groups will miss out on aspects of the content if this is not met.
You could be very well organized and still have multiple people who want to play the same class.
By definition, no you can't.
If the game asks players to have one of each class, a well organized group has one of each class. If you do not have one of each class in a game that asks that of you, then you are not well organized.
Does the game have to ask players to have one of each class? No it doesn't. There is better game design than that. It's a balance. You want each class to bring something interesting to the table, but you don't want to be locked into always having to have a class or not being able to bring 2-3 of the same class to a 8-man. Doing that just locks out people from being able to play with some of their friends (or like minded people who prefer a similar gameplay style).
Who said you are locked in to it?
You need to learn the difference between a game asking a thing of players and a game demanding a thing of players.
If only the tank archetype can tank high end content then you are effectively locked into taking that archetype for high end content. Are you saying other archetypes can be viable end game tanks? If you do, you're agreeing with me (to an extent) that multipe archetypes should be viable/competitive end game tanks. If you don't, then you are saying the game has locked in this choice for us.
What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
No we dont.
High end content is for people that are organized.
A part of being organized is having the classes needed.
Ashes is being designed around the notion that a group if 8 players will want one character of each primary class, and groups will miss out on aspects of the content if this is not met.
You could be very well organized and still have multiple people who want to play the same class.
By definition, no you can't.
If the game asks players to have one of each class, a well organized group has one of each class. If you do not have one of each class in a game that asks that of you, then you are not well organized.
Does the game have to ask players to have one of each class? No it doesn't. There is better game design than that. It's a balance. You want each class to bring something interesting to the table, but you don't want to be locked into always having to have a class or not being able to bring 2-3 of the same class to a 8-man. Doing that just locks out people from being able to play with some of their friends (or like minded people who prefer a similar gameplay style).
Who said you are locked in to it?
You need to learn the difference between a game asking a thing of players and a game demanding a thing of players.
If only the tank archetype can tank high end content then you are effectively locked into taking that archetype for high end content. Are you saying other archetypes can be viable end game tanks? If you do, you're agreeing with me (to an extent) that multipe archetypes should be viable/competitive end game tanks. If you don't, then you are saying the game has locked in this choice for us.
For high end content, sure.
But you aren't locked in to just using a tank, you can go tankless on content that isn't high end content.
High end content is content for those people that are organized.
In the same way casual players deserve some content, and people with more time to spend also deserve some content, people that are organized deserve some content.
The trick is in working out where you fit, and running the appropriate content.
If you want to go tankless, have at it, there will be content you can take on, you are not locked in to having to have a tank.
What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
No we dont.
High end content is for people that are organized.
A part of being organized is having the classes needed.
Ashes is being designed around the notion that a group if 8 players will want one character of each primary class, and groups will miss out on aspects of the content if this is not met.
You could be very well organized and still have multiple people who want to play the same class.
By definition, no you can't.
If the game asks players to have one of each class, a well organized group has one of each class. If you do not have one of each class in a game that asks that of you, then you are not well organized.
Does the game have to ask players to have one of each class? No it doesn't. There is better game design than that. It's a balance. You want each class to bring something interesting to the table, but you don't want to be locked into always having to have a class or not being able to bring 2-3 of the same class to a 8-man. Doing that just locks out people from being able to play with some of their friends (or like minded people who prefer a similar gameplay style).
Who said you are locked in to it?
You need to learn the difference between a game asking a thing of players and a game demanding a thing of players.
If only the tank archetype can tank high end content then you are effectively locked into taking that archetype for high end content. Are you saying other archetypes can be viable end game tanks? If you do, you're agreeing with me (to an extent) that multipe archetypes should be viable/competitive end game tanks. If you don't, then you are saying the game has locked in this choice for us.
For high end content, sure.
But you aren't locked in to just using a tank, you can go tankless on content that isn't high end content.
High end content is content for those people that are organized.
In the same way casual players deserve some content, and people with more time to spend also deserve some content, people that are organized deserve some content.
The trick is in working out where you fit, and running the appropriate content.
If you want to go tankless, have at it, there will be content you can take on, you are not locked in to having to have a tank.
I run the high end content. I've done this both on the pvp and the pve side. I am not (currently) a casual player. Let's keep this discussion specific to viability for high end content and stop pulling in the easier content where class balance doesn't matter nearly as much.
High end content should still have flexibility between the classes as well. It's a bad design to have only one class that can be a tank and one class that can be a healer. It's bad design to have classes that are not viable (haven't you complained before about Blizzards inability to balance classes? I've had to LIVE the experience. It was not fun when recently I had to ask two of my really good players who I've known for years to reroll other classes so we could have a viable comp. But my option was to do that, break up the team, or just accept that we would not progress further as a group).
I don't want to do a group where we do not have the tank role. I do want to do a group where more than one archtype could fill that tank role. Same for healers. This is good variety to have in the game. It's good game design. I want to be able to play multiple roles (not at the same time) on my main character. I want the flexibility so that others in my guild/team can do the same. This does not take away any sort of "meaningful choice" when I make my character. It only means I have more choice. Right now I feel like I have one choice if I want to tank and one choice if I want to heal in high end content. That's not meaningful choice. That's limited gameplay (and therefore a sub-par game design).
Comments
2)Tanking was MADE a serious mechanic. At some point in gaming history, encounters were designed around it and tools provided for the players to work with that gimmick/mechanic at its centre. It could have been something else, it could still be many things else. I picked a bard soothing with music and you all jumped to a specific iteration of that thing, but I could have picked immobilization (root) as a central mechanic. Knockdown. Stun. Positioning. Creating elemental weakness. Confusion. ... Any solution could have generated special tools to deal with encounters. Complicated mechanics, rich layers of party complementary skills to beat the monster. Instead it was decided that some brave tank, in his tough armour, would insult every monsters and they would be stupid enough to only attack him because of that (obvious over-simplification).
I'm not saying tanking shouldn't be an option. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be the default option. Only that we could have a much diverse game world if sometime (or often) it was not the best option.
Because tanking is a play style that people opt in to, and play the entire game as a tank.
Tanking is nuanced and it opens up more gameplay opportunities. If you dont want to tank, all you need to do is not roll a tank. You are still able to participate in all content ad a non-tank.
An enrage time is a mechanic is none of these things. It closes off gameplay mechanics. If my guild happens to have lower DPS but has the stamina (or mana) to last twice as long as other guilds in a fight, we shouldnt be constantly limited by a gimmick mechanic. While a true DPS check mobs should be a thing, they should be quite rare.
Further, enrage mechanics are something you can spend years not encountering, and then as soon as you hit raid content they are everywhere.
If you do not like enrage mechanics, you cant simply opt out by playing a different class. In most games, you can get away from them most of the time by doing encounters without them (which is why they should be limited - as every mechanic in raiding should be). If you want to avoid enrage mechanics in early WoW, you were literally not able to raid.
As a "moment of triumph", I consider that a bit weak.
I think we might be talking about two different types of "enrages" in this thread:
1) At a certain point in time the boss enrages and everyone dies shortly thereafter. E.g. 10 mins into the fight. This is in place to be a DPS check. This is the type of enrage you are talking about.
2) The boss will occasionally enrage, and someone in the group (the Bard?) needs to cast a spell to remove the enrage from the boss. if the player doesn't act fast enough, the boss will start to wipe the raid. This is the type of enrage mechanic I was talking about.
What would be the point of this?
I can see two reasons a developer would add this to a game.
The first is that they have a class that isn't getting raid time, and they want it to. So, by adding a mechanic that needs to be dealt with and providing the class in question with an ability to real with said mechanic, they are forcing all raids to take that class along.
The second reason a developer would add this is that a class that is taken along on raids often are complaining that their class is boring to play during said raids. So, the developers add a mechanic that isn't fun to deal with, but is basically acting as an attention check for the players of that class.
The problem with this as a mechanic is that it is - by its definition - a single player thing. Tanking is done by one player, but every player present has to pay attention to how well the tank is doing their job, and every player needs to adjust what they are doing based on what the tank is doing. In essence, tanking is something that involves all players present.
This mechanic only involves one player at a time - the closest thing to involving other players is a potential need to coordinate cooldowns on this ability - which is such a basic, low level thing that it doesn't really count.
So, I see no reason at all for this mechanic to exist, as it doesn't add anything to the encounter.
If a game finds itself either wanting more of a given class bought along on raids, or wants to make raiding more interesting for a given class, the developers should fix their obviously broken class, rather than forcing players of that obviously broken class to invest in this ability, and in the process giving the player fewer choices in combat, and making the class less useful.
I really am curious though, what is it you think this would bring to an encounter?
At a higher level, the concept is removing a buff from the target. This could be more than just an enrage (e.g. in PvP you might dispel the hots on your enemy so its easier to kill them).
Mobs having buffs that players can remove is fine, but not if it is a mechanic only one class has access to. It is better if there is an action players need to perform to remove the buff, rather than force players to spec in to it when they may not want to.
When it is a buff that is removed by player ability, such mechanical are very, very minor aspects of any given encounter, and barely worth discussing. When it is a buff that needs to be removed via player action, it can be an enjoyable and challenging aspect if an encounter.
Yea I agree with your assessment on this. I think @maouw first brought up this concept it was the idea of making it more core for the Bard class (like taunting is for tanks) as a way to make taking a bard more required. Thats why I was clarifying what he meant by enrage as you assumed it was a boss DPS check timer type of enrage.
I agree thought that dispells should be shared across multiple classes... but as you have noticed, I'm a proponent of multiple classes being able to fulfill multiple needs and not having a single class cover a single need so this fits with my other comments.
I've seen some fun mechanics around this. For example, Mages in WoW can steal some magic buffs from their enemies to use as their own.
The implications seem for dispeling/soothing/spellstealing feels like more fun in PvP just to the dynamic nature. In PvE its more about knowing what things need to get dispelled for a given fight and just becomes another scripted awareness/do the mechanics thing (or not dispelled, you can make it so dispelling something causes raid-wide damage too as a mechanic).
Because tanking is something that is done more than once or twice per fight.
@maouw As for why I don't like enrage mechanics, mostly it's because of how obtuse it is. In WoW the hunter had a soothing ability that was absolutely useless 90% of the time, except when a raid boss had an enrage mechanic, then it suddenly became the most important ability in the raid.
In a party size of eight, we can almost assuredly assume the majority of typical content will feature a more-or-less standard composition of two tanks (main tank/off-tank), two healers, and four DPS members additionally capable of unique support and utility functions, and some specifically sought after in certain conditions. Without "meta" compositions that overwhelmingly favor one class over another such as Bard, we must also avoid copy/paste jobs with different cosmetics (which is the current state of FFXIV). Innovation breaks molds rather than adhering to them simply because "that's how it's done". Many arguments fall into this rut assuming experimentation beyond the norm would inherently fail, when the appeal of Ashes is largely how it will differ...
The very first point I wholeheartedly agree with is hopes for Ashes to provide the ability to dual-spec and swap specs with obvious limitations in regards to ability access, being outside of combat, etc. However...
More than cosmetic changes or superficial 'flavors' to skills are needed if provided spec-swapping capability of any sort, otherwise cosmetic change themselves would feel bland and flavorless. As a "Nightspell" (Rogue-Mage) swapping to "Shadowcaster"(Mage-Rogue) -- I don't want the job to play identically where the only differences are its animations. I want to feel more "caster-assassin" somedays and more "sneaky-mage" on others. This could take the form of a melee-range caster for instant, point-blank, spike DPS elemental combos with Flash-Fire to the face being more effective than from the rear - compared to stacking DoTs and buffs/debuffs increasing potency based on Line of Sight -- trading target positionals for those of my meatshields. Let me conjure sneaky magicks behind my tank to reinforce their defense and whisper rage-inducing whispers to my heavy hitters so that their attacks start to inflict bleed! Give roles interesting dynamics besides "hit until ded". Also I think I've already seen this, but please allow slow walking during casts rather than requiring a complete stand-still or slide-casting, even if that only exist for certain combinations such as these...
On the subject of Tanks, enrage, and DPS check mechanics or "gimmicks"...
Can't we do better? Why not?! While Ashes may start with the "Holy Trinity" the mechanics of fights don't necessarily need to include THESE mechanics in particular. There might be encounters featuring enemies which are immune to taunt/provoke, perhaps drawn to healers this encounter becomes more puzzling as they reduce effectiveness or drain mana form the party's casters altogether. Yeah you'd think "hit until ded" like everything else, except the presence of this creature also weakens those around it, and the puzzle becomes more of a delicate balance. Why have we almost never seen truly innovative and dynamic encounters where turning attacks on party members themselves - like a corrupted healer whose magic begins to inflict DoT, or a mind-controlled caster whose spells are reflected as AoE as puzzle-mechanics? Mentioned in the post just before this one as that ultimately these mechanics would become just another form of scripted awareness, but they're things you don't see implemented, or at least not interestingly enough to present an exciting challenge.
On the topic playstyles...
The same reasons a player may choose to roll tank might be the same reasons a player chooses to roll summoner or healer. Players have way more reasons for choosing roles than potential damage output or even the assumed responsibilities of those roles.
Would you rather be limited to repeating what you've played in the past? If your ultimate goal is "DO MOST DPS" then go for it. Ultimately yes - everyone will eventually find themselves in situations where doing more damage becomes mandatory, but that is not to say that this should become the core gatekeeping mechanic of everything considered high-end / end-game content. A healer performing at their best WILL absolutely DPS as we know from other games and Ashes will most definitely include this for many encounters. However, Healer damage output being significantly lower than that of other other roles, why should a healer's direct damage or lack thereof be a hard progression barrier? And How can this be addressed?
By giving healers more versatility (or at least multipurpose abilities to mange bloat), forcing them to manage cooldowns more efficiently, prioritize party & raid-wide buffs & debuffs uniquely addressable by healers, taking priority over their damage output. Tank Swaps exist. Why not Heal swaps? The skill ceiling shouldn't be how much DPS is dished out, but proven mastery of their role and its identity. While such things as Tank's stun and DPS interrupt exist, giving healers a similar niche of their own expands their responsibility beyond "MOAR DPS" allowing them to more actively contribute in ways that allow those who truly wanted to roll healer feel even more healy! I see no harm in just testing this with a few combinations to get feedback from the healer-centric playerbase on what's fun and what's not...
For you healers who think you've already got too much on your plate, forego everything we presume to know from other games! Spamming extremely limited direct DPS spells and filling health bars is very two-dimensional and not very fun. Perhaps ONE single-target and ONE AoE DoT overwriting each other is perfectly acceptable and easier for Devs to balance when tweaking, however what would incentivize me to play more healer-based and supportive roles (which I love) is: "How engaging and unique is this to play?" The "healy" spectrum so far appears to be confined to Cleric / Mage / Summoner intersects with some bleed into multipurpose Bards; Oracle, Shaman, High Priest perhaps being the "purest" healers depending on design choices. But... what about an alt-specced Necromancer? Could I use my forbidden magics to aid the party as a NON-DPS role? Can I trade summoning undead minions for reinfusing life-force into my meat shields? Would my own abilities command said meat shields to use abilities the couldn't normally access?! Could the effectiveness of reanimating my comrades be improved by sacrificing reanimated minions?? Would this Necro alt-spec have any advantages against the undead which would make me more powerful at night? In crypts or graveyards? Just shower-thoughts for potential examples of an interesting take on what we presume to know. A Necromancer being a healer is not only fitting but interesting to flip assumptions on their heads. Perhaps less optimal in certain situations being harder spec to master, but no less capable for someone those who choose to spec in manipulating life essences for an 'alternative' occult feel to healing. After all, aren't ALL healers kind of already Necromancers when you think about it???
What I kind of DON'T want to see? "Soulbows" shooting "Health Arrows" into allies as restoratives... the sort of thing only good for the memes, if even that.
Edited for typos.
I am sadden you do not acknowledge my greatness, but since you cannot realize that basing encounters with a punching bag at the centre is also a gimmick, even if an overdeveloped one, you are forgiven.
Do not worry, friend. More likely than not you'll have plenty of content to worship two members of the Trinity*
As for myself, I'll find the kind of encounters I like by the simple fact I'll be mostly soloing. Each class requiring a different approach to deal with situations, limited by the tools it has in its bag. Same goes when you partner with someone else. Or when in small groups with a role(s) unfilled. This flexibility of approach doesn't scale pass a certain size, at which, from the heaven descend among us the healer and his tank pet companion.
*If I remember right, the term trinity came out in the original EverQuest and referred to the warrior, cleric and enchanter (for his mana regen). If you had these 3 the rest of the group composition didn't matter.
I'm not really sure why you consider the tank role to be a gimmick. To me it's like saying the 4th wheel on a car is a gimmick just because there are 3-wheeled cars in existence.
If this was a pen and paper game of D&D, the DM would ignore the taunt and use his baddies on everyone, especially on targets revealing themselves fragile and/or dangerous. The group has to work together so that everyone is still alive at the end.
That's why the tank role often doesn't work well in PvP. People, unlike mobs, can ignore the gimmick.
Maybe at the origin it was the simplest way to script mob's AI. Players actions generate threats. Threat is put on the "who to target" list. Mob target top of the list. Give tools to the players to help move themselves up or down on that list.
Hmm I had a feeling you would say something like that. Whenever someone brings up the "mobs should just ignore the tank" argument in an mmorpg I'm always reminded of the talk done by Jeff Kaplan at the raiding panel at Blizzcon 2005. In it he addressed the issue of "smart" bosses and basically said that "killing players is easy".
That dragon that spends all its energy hitting the tank could very easily be programmed to ignore the tank, immediately fly over to the squishy healers and 1-shot them all before the players have a chance to react.
Would that make for a good gaming experience?
There are dozens of different ways the devs could kill the players and it would be easy, but that's not the aim of the fight.
There is only ONE game I know of that successfully managed to get rid of the tank role and that was the original GuildWars. In that game mobs chose targets based on a number of factors including health, armour and location, so if you had a high health/high armoured character next to a squishy caster, the mobs would target the caster first.
This only worked because the mobs had the same kind of stats and abilities that the players did, and most fights didn't have the mobs outnumbering your party. That is not the case in most mmorpgs, where you have bosses that are strong enough to literally 1-shot a caster.
Oh and as a side note there's not much point in bringing TTRPG gameplay into this discussion because:
a) TTRPG is turn-based so the monsters the players are facing don't have an advantage over humans in terms of reactions or speed or actions.
b) TTRPG gameplay a lot of the time is hugely based on RNG from the dice, more so than any mmorpg. This means that just because you get targeted by a mob doesn't mean you are automatically dead if the dice rolls in your favour (unlike in an mmorpg where getting hit by a mob usually results in death for a squishy).
That being said, I don't think the role of the tank should disappear, it's a valid and very realist approach if given the tools to force targets to hit him rather than the others. Controlling a choke point and having movement restrictive CC can make the tank, if not the only target in hitting distance, a big enough nuisance to try to kill him. Tools to push enemies away from a friend or (as we've already seen for AoC) tools to pull enemies to him. Warhammer Online had those kind of tank, and the PvP aspect was important for that game.
My only concern is that in almost every group context, having a tank is the only option. I remember in DAoC, in one of Albion's zone, there was what we called the "goblins hill". Lots of the little buggers. One way to clear the camp was to have a AoE mez (or sleep?) cast over a group and pick them out one by one. The spell could be cast again to renew the effect and finish them off. No tank require, but it was always an option.
I just wish these kind of options existed.
"Our group doesn't have a tank, but we should be fine: we have 3 summoners!".
"We don't have a main cleric, but we should be fine: two of us have it as a subclass and beside, those Tulnars will never can't close enough to hit us!"
Ah I see, that makes more sense. Being able to complete a dungeon without a dedicated tank does sound appealing but would also limit the devs severely when it comes to mechanics and layout of the dungeon. As you just said in order to have a tank be effective without threat generation you would need to have all fights be in a narrow corridor or a choke point.
The moment you put the group is a large open area, the effectiveness of that tactic goes out the window and instead you rely on CC to keep the mobs away from the squishy targets. That becomes a problem though because if you have enough CC to stun-lock the mobs to death (which you would need to if you were to survive the attack), the entire fight becomes as trivial as having all the mobs hit the tank the whole time.
This statement is a subjective opinion based on the games you have played, it is not an objective fact.
If you play a game without a dedicated CC class, then obviously CC'ing your way around isn't going to be viable.
In games with dedicated CC classes though, it is.
Additionally, if you are playing a game where any class can simply respec in to a tank role, expect all the content to require a tank - or at least all the players to expect a tank.
In games where your role cant be changed, people learn to make what they have work. If that means a summoner tank, then that is what you have.
Now, none of this holds true for the bulk of end game content, but that is because this content is designed to challenge organized groups of players, and organized groups of players will have a tank and healer.
Even then though, both The Kraken and Leviathan from Archeage had no need for a tank. The encounters weren't enjoyable but there was no need for a tank.
Put simply, if you want to play a game that doesn't require a tank for all content, play a game that doesn't allow every character to be a tank.
"all" is a bit of a strong word here. lower end content comp doesn't matter and thats fine. What we need are multiple options for each role for the high end content. Being locked to always requiring a single archtype no matter what (e.g. tank or cleric) is limiting to the overall game.
Allowing a single character to switch roles (and be fully competitive against other classes in the same role when in that spec) is the way to best manage this. It's something I'd expect to see in any MMO aspiring to be the "best" MMO.
High end content is for people that are organized.
A part of being organized is having the classes needed.
Ashes is being designed around the notion that a group if 8 players will want one character of each primary class, and groups will miss out on aspects of the content if this is not met.
You could be very well organized and still have multiple people who want to play the same class. A good game will have flexibility with this so people can play with their friends (within reason of course) even if some of them want to play the same class.
There are multiple playstyles for tanking. There are multiple playstyles for healing. Why restrict these to a single class when you could have multiple classes that can fulfill the role with proper (good) game design? Seems like a mistake to me.
Yes, we need a meat shield to clear high-end content which demands player coordination and organization.
Yes, we ALSO need multiple role options so that my primary glass cannon mage can swap from offense to support and provide firewalls as mitigation, or channel my fire into someone else's weapon to draw more attention/threat to that player with trade-off from personal selfish explosive DPS so that clearing content even absent a "traditional tank" remains viable.
Who said anything about my meat shield needing to be the highest-HP traditional archetype heavy armor holier-than-thou paladin? Besides paladin players who think they know better and don't want to be considered optional, of course...
Imagine if tanks were preferred but never needed nor relied upon because mages could channel their magick to significantly improve defense and HP total temporarily, or a spellblade could swap to mage-knight and carry and clear - completely mitigating the grief of "YOU NEED ME" tanks ditching their party out of some spiteful desire to waste other's time and experience.
Well said Juicy! In WoW, I've played every class that can tank, but I've most enjoyed the Monk Brewmaster and the Druid Guardian. Neither of these have a sword and board. Neither ware plate. The brewmaster is more about staggering damage to smooth out the healing + dodging attacks. The Guardian Druid is a big bear! These aren't just cosmetic changes, they are entire playstyle changes so there are multiple ways to fulfill the tank role.
If a Warrior was the only class that could tank in WoW, I probably would have just stayed to healing. I've tried it a few times, but I've never really liked the playstyle of that class (but I have friends who love it).
The archtype should define the playstyle, not the role. Each role should have multiple playstyles available to fill it. Switching between sub-classes could be a great way to switch the role. Then talents, etc could be additional layer of customization.
In many games I've played, the tank is twice as durable as other classes or more. With 40% passive damage reduction and 50% more HP, plus extra mitigation abilities, for example. Combined with effortless AoE threat management, that means tanks could handle 2-3 packs of mobs, while a tankless group would struggle with one. That is hugely impactful for a single player in a party.
Similarly, in my experience, healing classes are capable of sustaining a whole party by themselves forever, where that party would fall over in 30 seconds without them. In addition they're able to fix other player's mistakes with rezzes and extra heals.
This isn't inherently problematic, though. It's fine if content is balanced around it, and the skill floor is approachable for those roles. But it results in the situation we're used to, where tanks/healers are super necessary in any kind of moderately challenging content. And when a tank/healer isn't quite up to the task, they can quickly wipe the whole party.
You might say that damage dealers also have equal responsibility in fights with serious DPS checks. Sometimes those can wipe the party just as easily. But usually tanks and healers are sharing in that burden as well.
Therefore, as I see it, this the choice:
Either tanks and healers can be as powerful as usual -- The holy trinity holds firms. Tanks and healers get played (primarily) by players willing and able to shoulder the extra burden that comes with the power. Content is designed for the trinity, parties are built around it, and deviant designs or party comps suffer in the wake. But we know this design works, and is enjoyable. And it allows tanks and healers to perform a unique function that other classes simply can't.
--or--
Tanks are only slightly tankier than a heavy-armored Fighter, and their threat management is not absolute. And healers are limited by time/mana, and unable to fix major mistakes. -- Enemies of course have to be tuned to do less damage. And death cannot loom behind every mistake (since the healer can't fix them all). But now the holy trinity is more of suggestion than a law. Tanks and healers feel weaker, and lose a little bit of identity, so they get played less, unfortunately. But a healer or tank can be replaced by good CC/kiting, personal sustain, and/or defensive buffs from a Bard. Party composition is more flexible. And content can be slightly more varied.
... Wait, shit... I think I just re-invented the GW2-shaped wheel. Honestly didn't realize where I was going with this.
If the game asks players to have one of each class, a well organized group has one of each class. If you do not have one of each class in a game that asks that of you, then you are not well organized.
Does the game have to ask players to have one of each class? No it doesn't. There is better game design than that. It's a balance. You want each class to bring something interesting to the table, but you don't want to be locked into always having to have a class or not being able to bring 2-3 of the same class to a 8-man. Doing that just locks out people from being able to play with some of their friends (or like minded people who prefer a similar gameplay style).
You need to learn the difference between a game asking a thing of players and a game demanding a thing of players.
If only the tank archetype can tank high end content then you are effectively locked into taking that archetype for high end content. Are you saying other archetypes can be viable end game tanks? If you do, you're agreeing with me (to an extent) that multipe archetypes should be viable/competitive end game tanks. If you don't, then you are saying the game has locked in this choice for us.
For high end content, sure.
But you aren't locked in to just using a tank, you can go tankless on content that isn't high end content.
High end content is content for those people that are organized.
In the same way casual players deserve some content, and people with more time to spend also deserve some content, people that are organized deserve some content.
The trick is in working out where you fit, and running the appropriate content.
If you want to go tankless, have at it, there will be content you can take on, you are not locked in to having to have a tank.
I run the high end content. I've done this both on the pvp and the pve side. I am not (currently) a casual player. Let's keep this discussion specific to viability for high end content and stop pulling in the easier content where class balance doesn't matter nearly as much.
High end content should still have flexibility between the classes as well. It's a bad design to have only one class that can be a tank and one class that can be a healer. It's bad design to have classes that are not viable (haven't you complained before about Blizzards inability to balance classes? I've had to LIVE the experience. It was not fun when recently I had to ask two of my really good players who I've known for years to reroll other classes so we could have a viable comp. But my option was to do that, break up the team, or just accept that we would not progress further as a group).
I don't want to do a group where we do not have the tank role. I do want to do a group where more than one archtype could fill that tank role. Same for healers. This is good variety to have in the game. It's good game design. I want to be able to play multiple roles (not at the same time) on my main character. I want the flexibility so that others in my guild/team can do the same. This does not take away any sort of "meaningful choice" when I make my character. It only means I have more choice. Right now I feel like I have one choice if I want to tank and one choice if I want to heal in high end content. That's not meaningful choice. That's limited gameplay (and therefore a sub-par game design).