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.
Then straight up, Ashes is not the game for you.
Picking your primary archetype is picking your role. That is why the class names are the basic roles.
This is something that has been a core aspect of this game since day 1, and isn't going to change.
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.
Then straight up, Ashes is not the game for you.
Picking your primary archetype is picking your role. That is why the class names are the basic roles.
This is something that has been a core aspect of this game since day 1, and isn't going to change.
Possibly. I may have to make a tough decision between the excitement of a node based world vs the limitations of the class system. The class system will probably take priority as your class is the "vehicle" in which you experience all of the content.
But, the product is still in development and now is a time I can share my voice.
Question for you: If IS did evolve their opinion on the class design for more flexibility... would it break the game for you or would you still want to play it? You can still dedicate yourself to a single role.
But, the product is still in development and now is a time I can share my voice.
Question for you: If IS did evolve their opinion on the class design for more flexibility... would it break the game for you or would you still want to play it? You can still dedicate yourself to a single role.
What that would do is make me lose faith I Intrepid.
Right at the start, just after the kickstarter, Steven said that he has a vision for this game, and he doesn't really care if some people dont like it.
The concept of choices actually mattering in Ashes is a key aspect of his vision for this game, and class selection is the first time players come in to contact with that key aspect.
I'd Intrepid change this aspect of the game, it would signal that they no longer have a vision for Ashes.
But, the product is still in development and now is a time I can share my voice.
Question for you: If IS did evolve their opinion on the class design for more flexibility... would it break the game for you or would you still want to play it? You can still dedicate yourself to a single role.
What that would do is make me lose faith I Intrepid.
Right at the start, just after the kickstarter, Steven said that he has a vision for this game, and he doesn't really care if some people dont like it.
The concept of choices actually mattering in Ashes is a key aspect of his vision for this game, and class selection is the first time players come in to contact with that key aspect.
I'd Intrepid change this aspect of the game, it would signal that they no longer have a vision for Ashes.
Visions can change over time. If they don't a product will become outdated. I'd rather have a product that can change over time to stay relevant. Yes it will have its ups and downs. Yes there will be good and bad decisions. That's okay so long as the majority of the decisions are good.
I get where you may be concerned though with something changing as you may not like all of those changes (can't please everyone and that's okay). We still do need to see where things go with the augments and to what degree they change a class. I think there is still some room for innovation/refinement here.
Would it truly destroy the game for you if players like me got to have the flexibility in doing more that one role on a single character? You could still dedicate yourself to a single role if that is your preference (and many players will do this, we see this in other MMOs today that support multi-role classes). What drives you to want to control my playstyle? Is it for a need for "fairness"? Emersion in the world? I'm legitimately asking this as it doesn't make sense to me why you (and others like you) push for the single role to a class rigidity as I don't see it as a good system myself. I'd like to understand.
Another hypothetical question: What if IS did analysis and found that the market demand for a MMO with fixed single role class system didn't have enough people to be financially sustainable. Would you want them to discontinue the game, or make it more market relevant by developing the system to support classes that can do multiple roles and having more than one option for healer/tank/support?
But, the product is still in development and now is a time I can share my voice.
Question for you: If IS did evolve their opinion on the class design for more flexibility... would it break the game for you or would you still want to play it? You can still dedicate yourself to a single role.
What that would do is make me lose faith I Intrepid.
Right at the start, just after the kickstarter, Steven said that he has a vision for this game, and he doesn't really care if some people dont like it.
The concept of choices actually mattering in Ashes is a key aspect of his vision for this game, and class selection is the first time players come in to contact with that key aspect.
I'd Intrepid change this aspect of the game, it would signal that they no longer have a vision for Ashes.
Visions can change over time. If they don't a product will become outdated.
If a core aspect of your product becomes outdated, you create a new product.
The notion that a key aspect of this game will change before the game launches is wishful thinking on your part.
But, the product is still in development and now is a time I can share my voice.
Question for you: If IS did evolve their opinion on the class design for more flexibility... would it break the game for you or would you still want to play it? You can still dedicate yourself to a single role.
What that would do is make me lose faith I Intrepid.
Right at the start, just after the kickstarter, Steven said that he has a vision for this game, and he doesn't really care if some people dont like it.
The concept of choices actually mattering in Ashes is a key aspect of his vision for this game, and class selection is the first time players come in to contact with that key aspect.
I'd Intrepid change this aspect of the game, it would signal that they no longer have a vision for Ashes.
Visions can change over time. If they don't a product will become outdated.
If a core aspect of your product becomes outdated, you create a new product.
The notion that a key aspect of this game will change before the game launches is wishful thinking on your part.
Or you adapt your product strategy, lengthen the life of your existing product, save your company millions of dollars and have happier customers because they have a living product...
I'm looking all over the wiki. I don't see anywhere that it says a single class will be role locked. If anything, Steven eludes to the augment system allowing for classes to flex into other roles. What we don't know yet is how far that flexing goes and if it means a */Tank could be "viable" or not in high end content. I'd love to see augments that improve one aspect of a skill, but also take away another aspect. for example, ability x now does 50% less damage, but buffs your armor by 50% for 10 seconds. Look, we are starting to make that DPS class a viable tank!!!! And its still within the vision of the game!!!!
Or you adapt your product strategy, lengthen the life of your existing product, save your company millions of dollars and have happier customers because they have a living product...
The only time that is viable is if you cant identify what it is that made your product so successful.
WoW is a perfect example of this. Blizzard will never make WoW2 because that have no idea at all why it was as popular as it was.
This is absolutely not a viable strategy for a product that has not yet released, as you are suggesting to be the case with Ashes.
Or you adapt your product strategy, lengthen the life of your existing product, save your company millions of dollars and have happier customers because they have a living product...
The only time that is viable is if you cant identify what it is that made your product so successful.
WoW is a perfect example of this. Blizzard will never make WoW2 because that have no idea at all why it was as popular as it was.
This is absolutely not a viable strategy for a product that has not yet released, as you are suggesting to be the case with Ashes.
How can you be certain of this?
What about Fortnite? The original vision for that game was not a battle royal. They shifted vision and have been one of the most popular/revenue generating games in the last 5 years.
Note: I'm not asking if you like Fortnite or not (or indicating my personal feelings on the game). Our option is irrelevant for this discussion. I'm just pointing out an example of a game that shifted vision significantly before going live and they were wildly successful.
Or you adapt your product strategy, lengthen the life of your existing product, save your company millions of dollars and have happier customers because they have a living product...
The only time that is viable is if you cant identify what it is that made your product so successful.
WoW is a perfect example of this. Blizzard will never make WoW2 because that have no idea at all why it was as popular as it was.
This is absolutely not a viable strategy for a product that has not yet released, as you are suggesting to be the case with Ashes.
How can you be certain of this?
What about Fortnite? The original vision for that game was not a battle royal. They shifted vision and have been one of the most popular/revenue generating games in the last 5 years.
Note: I'm not asking if you like Fortnite or not (or indicating my personal feelings on the game). Our option is irrelevant for this discussion. I'm just pointing out an example of a game that shifted vision significantly before going live and they were wildly successful.
Because Epic didnt have a vision for the game before it went live, let alone shared that vision with actual millions of people.
Or you adapt your product strategy, lengthen the life of your existing product, save your company millions of dollars and have happier customers because they have a living product...
The only time that is viable is if you cant identify what it is that made your product so successful.
WoW is a perfect example of this. Blizzard will never make WoW2 because that have no idea at all why it was as popular as it was.
This is absolutely not a viable strategy for a product that has not yet released, as you are suggesting to be the case with Ashes.
How can you be certain of this?
What about Fortnite? The original vision for that game was not a battle royal. They shifted vision and have been one of the most popular/revenue generating games in the last 5 years.
Note: I'm not asking if you like Fortnite or not (or indicating my personal feelings on the game). Our option is irrelevant for this discussion. I'm just pointing out an example of a game that shifted vision significantly before going live and they were wildly successful.
Because Epic didnt have a vision for the game before it went live, let alone shared that vision with actual millions of people.
Intrepid has done this.
They had a vision. I was invited to the alpha on the original game. It wasn't good though so they pivoted when they saw the battle royal opportunity. I remember cause I only played the alpha a little bit and then when I heard about the battle royal version later I was like "wait, this isn't the same game I was testing at all".
Or you adapt your product strategy, lengthen the life of your existing product, save your company millions of dollars and have happier customers because they have a living product...
The only time that is viable is if you cant identify what it is that made your product so successful.
WoW is a perfect example of this. Blizzard will never make WoW2 because that have no idea at all why it was as popular as it was.
This is absolutely not a viable strategy for a product that has not yet released, as you are suggesting to be the case with Ashes.
How can you be certain of this?
What about Fortnite? The original vision for that game was not a battle royal. They shifted vision and have been one of the most popular/revenue generating games in the last 5 years.
Note: I'm not asking if you like Fortnite or not (or indicating my personal feelings on the game). Our option is irrelevant for this discussion. I'm just pointing out an example of a game that shifted vision significantly before going live and they were wildly successful.
Because Epic didnt have a vision for the game before it went live, let alone shared that vision with actual millions of people.
Intrepid has done this.
They had a vision. I was invited to the alpha on the original game. It wasn't good though so they pivoted when they saw the battle royal opportunity. I remember cause I only played the alpha a little bit and then when I heard about the battle royal version later I was like "wait, this isn't the same game I was testing at all".
Everyone was invited to their testing.
To out an end to another asinine line you have been taking, Epic did indeed spot the potential to turn the game in to a BR. All the testing they did for that game was to give a simple yes/no answer to the question - is this game any good?
With that answer in hand, they took the best course of action for them to take, and it worked out quite well for them.
That said, their original idea for the game was just that - an idea. It wasnt a vision, it wasnt fleshed out enough to be one (even during testing).
Ashes has a design document that is in the four figures in terms of page count. It is a fully formed vision for a game, even if some aspects of it will need to change.
And yes,some aspects will need to change - but not the key aspects, of which player choice mattering is one.
I'm not sure how deep/detailed an idea needs to be in order to qualify it as a vision. I have not heard of that being a requirement of a vision. Some company vision statement can be as simple as a list of bullet points on a slide.
Of course more depth is better, but I'd call that depth the strategy, tactics, and design to achieve the vision. Not the vision itself.
I'd also say good product design is to test your ideas early and often with your customers to see what should stick and what should change. We haven't really gotten to the detailed class design testing yet in the alpha so no need to be close-minded at this point. It's better to discuss the pros/cons of what we know so far and what we may be interested in seeing.
Is this design document publically available? I'm sure things have changed since then, but that could be an interesting read.
Multi-role classes is not mutually exclusive with player choice mattering. Only one class being end game tank viable actually reduces player choice vs a system with multiple options.
Anyways, getting back to the original topic of this thread. @Noaani, I'd be curious to see what ideas you have for encouraging more tank and healer players. Ive seen you comment on other people's ideas (mostly shooting them down), but I don't think you have suggested any solutions. Do you have ideas if this becomes a problem?
It's a problem in most MMOs and if there is less player choice here due to role restrictions, then I expect it will be a problem here. How would you recommend IS address this? (For high end content, don't worry about the easy stuff that doesn't need optimized comps).
Anyways, getting back to the original topic of this thread. @Noaani, I'd be curious to see what ideas you have for encouraging more tank and healer players.
As I said earlier in the thread, there is no need.
Since Ashes has a group size of 8, it means the game needs half the ratio of tanks and healers as games with a group size of 5.
Since Ashes has a group size of 8, it means the game needs half the ratio of tanks and healers as games with a group size of 5.
Someone said [2 tanks, 2 healers, 4 DPS] like FFXIV. (FFXIV does this for "raid" mechanics.)
I actually think it will be [1 tank, 2 healers, DPS] or [1 tank, 1 heal, 6 DPS] for normal party's.
2 tanks and healers seems a bit much to farm elite mobs/ bosses in a open world dungeon outside of a raid. Which is what I think the majority of 8 man PvE groups will do outside of raids.
Since Ashes has a group size of 8, it means the game needs half the ratio of tanks and healers as games with a group size of 5.
Someone said [2 tanks, 2 healers, 4 DPS] like FFXIV. (FFXIV does this for "raid" mechanics.)
I actually think it will be [1 tank, 2 healers, DPS] or [1 tank, 1 heal, 6 DPS] for normal party's.
2 tanks and healers seems a bit much to farm elite mobs/ bosses in a open world dungeon outside of a raid. Which is what I think the majority of 8 man PvE groups will do outside of raids.
I'm fairly convinced the ideal group will be one tank, one cleric, one rogue, one fightrer, one summoner, one ranger, one bard and one mage.
Even without that ideal group, I doubt most groups will consider taking more than 1 tank and 1 healer. While this may have been a thing in FFXIV, keep in mind that in that game, everyone could be every class.
I'm fairly convinced the ideal group will be one tank, one cleric, one rogue, one fightrer, one summoner, one ranger, one bard and one mage.
Even without that ideal group, I doubt most groups will consider taking more than 1 tank and 1 healer. While this may have been a thing in FFXIV, keep in mind that in that game, everyone could be every class.
One of each archetype sounds good, and would also be [1 tank, 1 heal, 5 DPS].
Also I think you misunderstand FFXIV, Yes everyone "can" have every class at cap. In practice most people only have one role "Raid ready", and people most certainly do not break the standard party composition often. It is not as simple as everyone can be every class. During prog no one is focusing on more than one job unless that job shares gear with job they main (which is the same role).
I'm fairly convinced the ideal group will be one tank, one cleric, one rogue, one fightrer, one summoner, one ranger, one bard and one mage.
Even without that ideal group, I doubt most groups will consider taking more than 1 tank and 1 healer. While this may have been a thing in FFXIV, keep in mind that in that game, everyone could be every class.
One of each archetype sounds good, and would also be [1 tank, 1 heal, 5 DPS].
That is only 7.
You either forgot a DPS or a bard.
Or you just aren't counting summoners as being present, which I can't blame you for that.
Or you just aren't counting summoners as being present, which I can't blame you for that.
I meant to put [1 tank, 1 heal, 6 DPS]*
Still the point remains. OP is worried about not having enough tanks and healers out there. I don't think it will be a problem with 6 DPS. Which seems about right to me. One slot per archetype.
Still the point remains. OP is worried about not having enough tanks and healers out there. I don't think it will be a problem with 6 DPS. Which seems about right to me. One slot per archetype.
Indeed.
It's one of those things, many games out there try to find ways to make tanks and healers more appealing so that their smaller groups can find one easier.
It makes far more sense to me to instead figure out how many players actually *want* to play a tank and healer, and design the game with that in mind.
I personally enjoy playing as a tank and as a healer. The problem is that I don't always have a group of people to game with (conflict with work, family, etc.). So, I either have to run solo and struggle bus my way through content with my limited dps, or join a pug and do whatever content they want to run (unless they're feeling generous).
I generally choose to play as a dps for the improved quality of life while levelling.
As far as tank alternatives go: I believe they plan on implementing a mechanic during sieges that allow groups of the same class to perform some major, and impactful, ability that helps shape the battlefield. I don't see why a similar, if smaller scale, mechanic couldn't be applied to dungeons, raids, and general group content.
For example: you have 3 summoners in a group who collaborate to summon a large creature capable of acting as a tank. Maybe the summoners have to sacrifice some of their own potential in order to maintain such a powerful summon (balancing out the extra dps player and tank).
Ooh, this could be a fun one: 3 fighters get together in a dungeon and initiate something similar to a Musou link that grants them all damage reduction and temporary health (they collectively take on the role of tank) as long as they stay within a certain radius of one another.
This idea could allow for alternate pathways to end game content completion while still maintain the need for organized groups. (Pugs would struggle with stuff like this, especially if there were proximity or damage accrued restrictions)
Still the point remains. OP is worried about not having enough tanks and healers out there. I don't think it will be a problem with 6 DPS. Which seems about right to me. One slot per archetype.
Indeed.
It's one of those things, many games out there try to find ways to make tanks and healers more appealing so that their smaller groups can find one easier.
It makes far more sense to me to instead figure out how many players actually *want* to play a tank and healer, and design the game with that in mind.
sounds like a good idea to design the game around the expected group sizes. The 8-player team size idea fits well with this. I don't think expecting exactly one of each archtype is very realistic though. What if me and a friend play the same class and want to play together? (in original WoW, my wife and I both wanted to be mages at the start). theoretically, if all DPS are balanced, you should be able to bring in any of them. Perhaps there might be some synergies for different classes, but hopefully those are small enough that you don't feel its mandatory (for high end content) to have exactly one of each archtype.
But what about the players that *want* to play multiple roles (in high-end content)? I guess those players wants are not valid?
2
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
But, the product is still in development and now is a time I can share my voice.
Question for you: If IS did evolve their opinion on the class design for more flexibility... would it break the game for you or would you still want to play it? You can still dedicate yourself to a single role.
What that would do is make me lose faith I Intrepid.
Right at the start, just after the kickstarter, Steven said that he has a vision for this game, and he doesn't really care if some people dont like it.
The concept of choices actually mattering in Ashes is a key aspect of his vision for this game, and class selection is the first time players come in to contact with that key aspect.
I'd Intrepid change this aspect of the game, it would signal that they no longer have a vision for Ashes.
Visions can change over time. If they don't a product will become outdated. I'd rather have a product that can change over time to stay relevant. Yes it will have its ups and downs. Yes there will be good and bad decisions. That's okay so long as the majority of the decisions are good.
I get where you may be concerned though with something changing as you may not like all of those changes (can't please everyone and that's okay). We still do need to see where things go with the augments and to what degree they change a class. I think there is still some room for innovation/refinement here.
Would it truly destroy the game for you if players like me got to have the flexibility in doing more that one role on a single character? You could still dedicate yourself to a single role if that is your preference (and many players will do this, we see this in other MMOs today that support multi-role classes). What drives you to want to control my playstyle? Is it for a need for "fairness"? Emersion in the world? I'm legitimately asking this as it doesn't make sense to me why you (and others like you) push for the single role to a class rigidity as I don't see it as a good system myself. I'd like to understand.
Another hypothetical question: What if IS did analysis and found that the market demand for a MMO with fixed single role class system didn't have enough people to be financially sustainable. Would you want them to discontinue the game, or make it more market relevant by developing the system to support classes that can do multiple roles and having more than one option for healer/tank/support?
If They chose to Devolve their decision on class design and make it like every other failed clone in the last 10 years it would definitely be a major problem for me. So many other games already offer this where everyone can do everything all the time. Why are we here if there are so many games that already do this?
Players having hard choices and having those choices mean something vs just another meaningless choice of blandness I think is very important. If no choices matter then why bother?
Changing over time to stay relevant? Like how WoW changed over the last expansion and lost like 50% of their player base. This is perception. Are the changes really relevant or just fluff or even worse homogenization making everyone the same. Balancing group vs group allows them to make every archetype different and not just watered down versions of each other.
Giving people the ability to be flexible is great. However Tanks should Tank and Mages should mage. Not every class should be able to do everything. Every class should have strengths and weaknesses. The augments should blur the line to a point but not to the point a mage or bard should be tanking boss fights in raid content.
"What drives you to want to control my playstyle? Is it for a need for "fairness"? Emersion in the world? I'm legitimately asking this as it doesn't make sense to me why you (and others like you) push for the single role to a class rigidity as I don't see it as a good system myself. I'd like to understand."
I have no desire to control you or anyone else. Play how you want to play. However The system was laid out as such and that is a large part of why I am here. I don't like classless systems. I don't like everyone is DPS systems. These games are super weak and do not promote team work and community adhesion. They lead to the mess we see in several other large games where the community never says anything. Most chat channels are dead or gold sellers spamming.
"But what about the players that *want* to play multiple roles (in high-end content)? I guess those players wants are not valid? "
Absolutely not. Alts are a thing. I'll have a Cleric and Mage. I enjoy both play styles.
Why should people expect to be able to do everything on one Character?
Still the point remains. OP is worried about not having enough tanks and healers out there. I don't think it will be a problem with 6 DPS. Which seems about right to me. One slot per archetype.
Indeed.
It's one of those things, many games out there try to find ways to make tanks and healers more appealing so that their smaller groups can find one easier.
It makes far more sense to me to instead figure out how many players actually *want* to play a tank and healer, and design the game with that in mind.
So... if not many people wants to play them, you make sure they're not the linchpin of every group? Are you agreeing with me somehow? hehe
One thing that strike me about all this debate though, is how much people have filled the vagueness of the archetypes and subclasses system with their hopes and ideas. I fear many are expecting too much of this system and are bound to be disappointed when revealed in more details.
Another aspect I don't remember people mentioning is the fact armour type is not locked. In theory, the whole group could be in plate armour, from tank to the accordion playing bard. So calling one class a squishy is not as assured as we stereotypically think. Maybe in this context, the non-epic group content, the tank is not as essential for the survival of the group and different options are still realist.
Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
2
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Still the point remains. OP is worried about not having enough tanks and healers out there. I don't think it will be a problem with 6 DPS. Which seems about right to me. One slot per archetype.
Indeed.
It's one of those things, many games out there try to find ways to make tanks and healers more appealing so that their smaller groups can find one easier.
It makes far more sense to me to instead figure out how many players actually *want* to play a tank and healer, and design the game with that in mind.
So... if not many people wants to play them, you make sure they're not the linchpin of every group? Are you agreeing with me somehow? hehe
One thing that strike me about all this debate though, is how much people have filled the vagueness of the archetypes and subclasses system with their hopes and ideas. I fear many are expecting too much of this system and are bound to be disappointed when revealed in more details.
Another aspect I don't remember people mentioning is the fact armour type is not locked. In theory, the whole group could be in plate armour, from tank to the accordion playing bard. So calling one class a squishy is not as assured as we stereotypically think. Maybe in this context, the non-epic group content, the tank is not as essential for the survival of the group and different options are still realist.
You mean like ArenaNet did?
Only 10-15% of the players enjoy playing tank or heals. F'em we gonna make everyone play DPS!
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
That's one of doing it, but not a very interesting one. What is more interesting is when you mix dps with support. Some have more support but limited ways how doing damage.
In Warhammer online, every classes could do damage. Some better than others. The warrior priest's mechanic required him to do damage to heal efficiently.
From what I've seen of the tank and cleric introduction videos, it looks like they'll also be part dps. Remember how the tank dominated in the duels?
But if the numbers are really that low, it means something is done wrong. If the game combats are designed expecting these roles will always be present, even more troublesome. And I'm not talking about organized guilds, just the rest of the pleb.
I think a lot more people than that are interested in support roles, simply not as their main role. I've played many characters who were secondary healer or buffer. If the main healer was overwhelmed I would back him up until I could resume doing damage. Lots of people love doing that.
Dont make every class have the ability to do 2 or more roles. Make picking support meaningful. Also make them needed in teams. Games like ESO slowly making roles not needed has pushed people who play these roles away from their game. Everyone can tank, heal and DPS, so why use a tank or a healer? IS just needs to balance things, so that these roles are required. Make them fun enough and people will play them as well. Myself I want to play a Bard. I hope its meaningful in game play.
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Bard and Summoner are both being billed as support. I agree make support roles important and fun. I think they will. Playing Archon in Rift was fun. Now it's just another dps that has to keep buffs up.
The masses that are not part of an organized guild will be ok and need to adapt , grow and get better.
We are discussing an MMO after all.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
I'm trying a new comment structure, just to throw my support behind things other people have said.
Today, on this page (#4), I liked: @Saedu - For believing that change is a vital part of game design. I would add that our discussions here are inherently supportive of this. Why argue with strangers on the internet, if we don't think it could effect change (or impede it)? @Saedu - For advocating the ability to switch roles and learn new gameplay. Not everyone wants to the same thing forever.
(And no, y'all, alts are not a good solution. Invariably they require hours spent, repeating old garbage gameplay, to reach the content you actually want to do. And they tend to share almost nothing with other characters on the account; you may as well have a second account... and another life to live.)
@Noanni - For pointing out concisely, that a lower ratio of tanks/healers to DPS might be enough of solution to solve the tank/healer shortage in other games.
@Rhuell - For bringing some specific examples to the table. (Sometimes the discussion gets lost in vagaries.) And for re-introducing the issue that Tanks and Healers struggle with leveling in solo-focused content.
@Percimes - For reminding me about armor (and shields) being a universal choice. That, combined with Steven's vision for augments, suggests that a class could get very close to a tank with being a Tank-primary. (Assuming those armor choices are actually supported/viable.)
Not on this page, that I liked previously and remembered:
@Marzzo - For starting another good discussion thread. Please keep doing these, even though they inevitably get taken way off-topic.
@Vhaeyne - For being a general voice of reason, and for his previous comments about balancing the difficulty, responsibility, and power between the roles.
@Juicy Dubs For their long, well-written post full of ideas and inspiration on how class/role fantasies could be improved. (Even if many of them are unrealistic, it's good to have something to aspire to.)
Comments
Then straight up, Ashes is not the game for you.
Picking your primary archetype is picking your role. That is why the class names are the basic roles.
This is something that has been a core aspect of this game since day 1, and isn't going to change.
Possibly. I may have to make a tough decision between the excitement of a node based world vs the limitations of the class system. The class system will probably take priority as your class is the "vehicle" in which you experience all of the content.
But, the product is still in development and now is a time I can share my voice.
Question for you: If IS did evolve their opinion on the class design for more flexibility... would it break the game for you or would you still want to play it? You can still dedicate yourself to a single role.
Right at the start, just after the kickstarter, Steven said that he has a vision for this game, and he doesn't really care if some people dont like it.
The concept of choices actually mattering in Ashes is a key aspect of his vision for this game, and class selection is the first time players come in to contact with that key aspect.
I'd Intrepid change this aspect of the game, it would signal that they no longer have a vision for Ashes.
Visions can change over time. If they don't a product will become outdated. I'd rather have a product that can change over time to stay relevant. Yes it will have its ups and downs. Yes there will be good and bad decisions. That's okay so long as the majority of the decisions are good.
I get where you may be concerned though with something changing as you may not like all of those changes (can't please everyone and that's okay). We still do need to see where things go with the augments and to what degree they change a class. I think there is still some room for innovation/refinement here.
Would it truly destroy the game for you if players like me got to have the flexibility in doing more that one role on a single character? You could still dedicate yourself to a single role if that is your preference (and many players will do this, we see this in other MMOs today that support multi-role classes). What drives you to want to control my playstyle? Is it for a need for "fairness"? Emersion in the world? I'm legitimately asking this as it doesn't make sense to me why you (and others like you) push for the single role to a class rigidity as I don't see it as a good system myself. I'd like to understand.
Another hypothetical question: What if IS did analysis and found that the market demand for a MMO with fixed single role class system didn't have enough people to be financially sustainable. Would you want them to discontinue the game, or make it more market relevant by developing the system to support classes that can do multiple roles and having more than one option for healer/tank/support?
The notion that a key aspect of this game will change before the game launches is wishful thinking on your part.
Or you adapt your product strategy, lengthen the life of your existing product, save your company millions of dollars and have happier customers because they have a living product...
I'm looking all over the wiki. I don't see anywhere that it says a single class will be role locked. If anything, Steven eludes to the augment system allowing for classes to flex into other roles. What we don't know yet is how far that flexing goes and if it means a */Tank could be "viable" or not in high end content. I'd love to see augments that improve one aspect of a skill, but also take away another aspect. for example, ability x now does 50% less damage, but buffs your armor by 50% for 10 seconds. Look, we are starting to make that DPS class a viable tank!!!! And its still within the vision of the game!!!!
WoW is a perfect example of this. Blizzard will never make WoW2 because that have no idea at all why it was as popular as it was.
This is absolutely not a viable strategy for a product that has not yet released, as you are suggesting to be the case with Ashes.
How can you be certain of this?
What about Fortnite? The original vision for that game was not a battle royal. They shifted vision and have been one of the most popular/revenue generating games in the last 5 years.
Note: I'm not asking if you like Fortnite or not (or indicating my personal feelings on the game). Our option is irrelevant for this discussion. I'm just pointing out an example of a game that shifted vision significantly before going live and they were wildly successful.
Because Epic didnt have a vision for the game before it went live, let alone shared that vision with actual millions of people.
Intrepid has done this.
They had a vision. I was invited to the alpha on the original game. It wasn't good though so they pivoted when they saw the battle royal opportunity. I remember cause I only played the alpha a little bit and then when I heard about the battle royal version later I was like "wait, this isn't the same game I was testing at all".
Everyone was invited to their testing.
To out an end to another asinine line you have been taking, Epic did indeed spot the potential to turn the game in to a BR. All the testing they did for that game was to give a simple yes/no answer to the question - is this game any good?
With that answer in hand, they took the best course of action for them to take, and it worked out quite well for them.
That said, their original idea for the game was just that - an idea. It wasnt a vision, it wasnt fleshed out enough to be one (even during testing).
Ashes has a design document that is in the four figures in terms of page count. It is a fully formed vision for a game, even if some aspects of it will need to change.
And yes,some aspects will need to change - but not the key aspects, of which player choice mattering is one.
Of course more depth is better, but I'd call that depth the strategy, tactics, and design to achieve the vision. Not the vision itself.
I'd also say good product design is to test your ideas early and often with your customers to see what should stick and what should change. We haven't really gotten to the detailed class design testing yet in the alpha so no need to be close-minded at this point. It's better to discuss the pros/cons of what we know so far and what we may be interested in seeing.
Is this design document publically available? I'm sure things have changed since then, but that could be an interesting read.
Multi-role classes is not mutually exclusive with player choice mattering. Only one class being end game tank viable actually reduces player choice vs a system with multiple options.
Anyways, getting back to the original topic of this thread. @Noaani, I'd be curious to see what ideas you have for encouraging more tank and healer players. Ive seen you comment on other people's ideas (mostly shooting them down), but I don't think you have suggested any solutions. Do you have ideas if this becomes a problem?
It's a problem in most MMOs and if there is less player choice here due to role restrictions, then I expect it will be a problem here. How would you recommend IS address this? (For high end content, don't worry about the easy stuff that doesn't need optimized comps).
Since Ashes has a group size of 8, it means the game needs half the ratio of tanks and healers as games with a group size of 5.
Someone said [2 tanks, 2 healers, 4 DPS] like FFXIV. (FFXIV does this for "raid" mechanics.)
I actually think it will be [1 tank, 2 healers, DPS] or [1 tank, 1 heal, 6 DPS] for normal party's.
2 tanks and healers seems a bit much to farm elite mobs/ bosses in a open world dungeon outside of a raid. Which is what I think the majority of 8 man PvE groups will do outside of raids.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I'm fairly convinced the ideal group will be one tank, one cleric, one rogue, one fightrer, one summoner, one ranger, one bard and one mage.
Even without that ideal group, I doubt most groups will consider taking more than 1 tank and 1 healer. While this may have been a thing in FFXIV, keep in mind that in that game, everyone could be every class.
One of each archetype sounds good, and would also be [1 tank, 1 heal, 5 DPS].
Also I think you misunderstand FFXIV, Yes everyone "can" have every class at cap. In practice most people only have one role "Raid ready", and people most certainly do not break the standard party composition often. It is not as simple as everyone can be every class. During prog no one is focusing on more than one job unless that job shares gear with job they main (which is the same role).
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
You either forgot a DPS or a bard.
Or you just aren't counting summoners as being present, which I can't blame you for that.
I meant to put [1 tank, 1 heal, 6 DPS]*
Still the point remains. OP is worried about not having enough tanks and healers out there. I don't think it will be a problem with 6 DPS. Which seems about right to me. One slot per archetype.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
It's one of those things, many games out there try to find ways to make tanks and healers more appealing so that their smaller groups can find one easier.
It makes far more sense to me to instead figure out how many players actually *want* to play a tank and healer, and design the game with that in mind.
I generally choose to play as a dps for the improved quality of life while levelling.
As far as tank alternatives go: I believe they plan on implementing a mechanic during sieges that allow groups of the same class to perform some major, and impactful, ability that helps shape the battlefield. I don't see why a similar, if smaller scale, mechanic couldn't be applied to dungeons, raids, and general group content.
For example: you have 3 summoners in a group who collaborate to summon a large creature capable of acting as a tank. Maybe the summoners have to sacrifice some of their own potential in order to maintain such a powerful summon (balancing out the extra dps player and tank).
Ooh, this could be a fun one: 3 fighters get together in a dungeon and initiate something similar to a Musou link that grants them all damage reduction and temporary health (they collectively take on the role of tank) as long as they stay within a certain radius of one another.
This idea could allow for alternate pathways to end game content completion while still maintain the need for organized groups. (Pugs would struggle with stuff like this, especially if there were proximity or damage accrued restrictions)
sounds like a good idea to design the game around the expected group sizes. The 8-player team size idea fits well with this. I don't think expecting exactly one of each archtype is very realistic though. What if me and a friend play the same class and want to play together? (in original WoW, my wife and I both wanted to be mages at the start). theoretically, if all DPS are balanced, you should be able to bring in any of them. Perhaps there might be some synergies for different classes, but hopefully those are small enough that you don't feel its mandatory (for high end content) to have exactly one of each archtype.
But what about the players that *want* to play multiple roles (in high-end content)? I guess those players wants are not valid?
If They chose to Devolve their decision on class design and make it like every other failed clone in the last 10 years it would definitely be a major problem for me. So many other games already offer this where everyone can do everything all the time. Why are we here if there are so many games that already do this?
Players having hard choices and having those choices mean something vs just another meaningless choice of blandness I think is very important. If no choices matter then why bother?
Changing over time to stay relevant? Like how WoW changed over the last expansion and lost like 50% of their player base. This is perception. Are the changes really relevant or just fluff or even worse homogenization making everyone the same. Balancing group vs group allows them to make every archetype different and not just watered down versions of each other.
Giving people the ability to be flexible is great. However Tanks should Tank and Mages should mage. Not every class should be able to do everything. Every class should have strengths and weaknesses. The augments should blur the line to a point but not to the point a mage or bard should be tanking boss fights in raid content.
"What drives you to want to control my playstyle? Is it for a need for "fairness"? Emersion in the world? I'm legitimately asking this as it doesn't make sense to me why you (and others like you) push for the single role to a class rigidity as I don't see it as a good system myself. I'd like to understand."
I have no desire to control you or anyone else. Play how you want to play. However The system was laid out as such and that is a large part of why I am here. I don't like classless systems. I don't like everyone is DPS systems. These games are super weak and do not promote team work and community adhesion. They lead to the mess we see in several other large games where the community never says anything. Most chat channels are dead or gold sellers spamming.
"But what about the players that *want* to play multiple roles (in high-end content)? I guess those players wants are not valid? "
Absolutely not. Alts are a thing. I'll have a Cleric and Mage. I enjoy both play styles.
Why should people expect to be able to do everything on one Character?
Super long thread about this from a bit ago.(not to open old wounds)
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/46179/no-alts/p1
So... if not many people wants to play them, you make sure they're not the linchpin of every group? Are you agreeing with me somehow? hehe
One thing that strike me about all this debate though, is how much people have filled the vagueness of the archetypes and subclasses system with their hopes and ideas. I fear many are expecting too much of this system and are bound to be disappointed when revealed in more details.
Another aspect I don't remember people mentioning is the fact armour type is not locked. In theory, the whole group could be in plate armour, from tank to the accordion playing bard. So calling one class a squishy is not as assured as we stereotypically think. Maybe in this context, the non-epic group content, the tank is not as essential for the survival of the group and different options are still realist.
You mean like ArenaNet did?
Only 10-15% of the players enjoy playing tank or heals. F'em we gonna make everyone play DPS!
In Warhammer online, every classes could do damage. Some better than others. The warrior priest's mechanic required him to do damage to heal efficiently.
From what I've seen of the tank and cleric introduction videos, it looks like they'll also be part dps. Remember how the tank dominated in the duels?
But if the numbers are really that low, it means something is done wrong. If the game combats are designed expecting these roles will always be present, even more troublesome. And I'm not talking about organized guilds, just the rest of the pleb.
I think a lot more people than that are interested in support roles, simply not as their main role. I've played many characters who were secondary healer or buffer. If the main healer was overwhelmed I would back him up until I could resume doing damage. Lots of people love doing that.
The masses that are not part of an organized guild will be ok and need to adapt , grow and get better.
We are discussing an MMO after all.
Today, on this page (#4), I liked:
@Saedu - For believing that change is a vital part of game design. I would add that our discussions here are inherently supportive of this. Why argue with strangers on the internet, if we don't think it could effect change (or impede it)?
@Saedu - For advocating the ability to switch roles and learn new gameplay. Not everyone wants to the same thing forever.
(And no, y'all, alts are not a good solution. Invariably they require hours spent, repeating old garbage gameplay, to reach the content you actually want to do. And they tend to share almost nothing with other characters on the account; you may as well have a second account... and another life to live.)
@Noanni - For pointing out concisely, that a lower ratio of tanks/healers to DPS might be enough of solution to solve the tank/healer shortage in other games.
@Rhuell - For bringing some specific examples to the table. (Sometimes the discussion gets lost in vagaries.) And for re-introducing the issue that Tanks and Healers struggle with leveling in solo-focused content.
@Percimes - For reminding me about armor (and shields) being a universal choice. That, combined with Steven's vision for augments, suggests that a class could get very close to a tank with being a Tank-primary. (Assuming those armor choices are actually supported/viable.)
Not on this page, that I liked previously and remembered:
@Marzzo - For starting another good discussion thread. Please keep doing these, even though they inevitably get taken way off-topic.
@Vhaeyne - For being a general voice of reason, and for his previous comments about balancing the difficulty, responsibility, and power between the roles.
@Juicy Dubs For their long, well-written post full of ideas and inspiration on how class/role fantasies could be improved. (Even if many of them are unrealistic, it's good to have something to aspire to.)