Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Archetype Roles... I swear I'm not crazy.

124

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Azherae wrote: »

    1. The Trinity system is still in play, it's just that a Cleric is currently in the 'Tank' role because of the enemy type.
    2. The Tank still has utility in this situation because they probably have abilities that physically limit the enemy, or can enhance the mitigation available to the Cleric and others without necessarily being the enemy's focus (Tanks can do an AoE defense buff to everyone, but this doesn't matter as much against the Poison Dragon, by design)
    3. The Tank's secondary Archetype would come into play at that time, either as a further mitigation boost given to the Cleric for the dragon's physical attacks, or as a different function probably related to either DPS or other boosts given to the Cleric. Maybe debuffs given to the dragon, causing the Tank to take on the 'Support' role in some cases.
    What you are effectively doing here is saying that Intrepid could create a game with a trinity system, saying that your primary class is your role, encourage people to pick a class, gear it, spec it and learn it as a specific role, and then add in content where that class is a different role.

    The only way a cleric would be better at tanking than a tank is because Intrepid specifically designed an encounter for this to be the case. It will not be a normal situation. A standard DoT based boss will still need an actual tank, with all of the tools a rank has at their disposal. Healing a DoT will not generate more hate than a tank can, it will not be more efficient for a cleric to try and tank this mob.

    It *may* be possible, but unless it is specifically Intrepids intent, it will not be optimal.

    This leads back to having to loom at Intrepids intent. The only comment we have in this regard is "your primary class is your role".

    They *could* deviate from this, and what you are talking about here is an purposeful deviation. However, we have no current reason to think they will deviate from it.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited January 2022
    That was the conclusion I came to my closing statement, it comes down to whether or not intrepid wants be that way, but Steven did say this in the 8 Aug 18 interview
    "We have the traditional holy Trinity that is present in class designs for MMOs, and it's often that those are either not deviated at all, or completely deviated from entirely. The augment is kind of to offer a balance in between that where you still maintain that semblance of the Trinity system while offering the opportunity to customize your play experience towards one of the other angles in the triangle."

    I do see why you could take this in the way you do (especially if that is what you are looking for). However, it isn't talking about shifting your role from one role to a totally different one. It is talking about play style, not role.

    A mage, as an example, has a very different play style to a rogue - yet both are just DPS.

    In Ashes, you can shift the style of your character in several different ways using augments - but that says nothing about being able to shift it to a different role.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    What you are effectively doing here is saying that Intrepid could create a game with a trinity system, saying that your primary class is your role, encourage people to pick a class, gear it, spec it and learn it as a specific role, and then add in content where that class is a different role.

    IIIFF, the player wants too. There is the choice of going cleric/cleric and doubling down on heals, or cleric/rouge and being mobile sneaky healer, or cleric/fighter and being a holy DMG melee DPS? IF they player WANTS to. If they like what they were doing 1-25, then by all means CHOOSE to continue doing that. Also, It really isn't that weird to choose an 'evolution' of sorts for your class later down the line. SWTOR I make a Sith warrior, it wasn't until later that I chose the juggernaut path and became a tank. You choose a warrior in wow you don't choose a spec until later.

    If the cleric wears plate armor with tank stats
    If he dumps his skill points into max HP instead of MP
    If he leans heavily into his tank secondary augments
    If he is a big beefy Ren'kai
    Then who cares if he can tank content, I'm not going to be mad about it. I'm not going to be upset that my primary archetype choice somehow means less now.
    To be clear, I'm not here to promote cleric/tank for tanking (personally I wouldn't do it, not my style)...
    I'm here to promote that idea of "choice's matter" includes this possibility, and if choosing a primary is the only decision that matters when choosing a role then every other choice is just a min/max decision which usually isn't a real choice... I understand the other side of this argument too. Saying a tank/rogue will play different from a tank/mage, and that one will be better for this dungeon than the other. To me that isn't player choice, that is the same a getting the right gear resistance's for a dungeon, you kind of need that to survive there.

    Do I hope that some combinations of x/tank can easily tank? Absolutely.
    Do I expect intrepid to make every combination of x/tank viable? No.
    Do I want every x/tank to be? Not really.
    But does it matter if not EVERY x/tank can? Nope.
    They've said they won't be balancing on a single character basis anyways, so if some can be pushed that far to another corner of the triangle but some can't, that's ok. Leave that up to the player to discover and decide. So if some combinations can change their role then that's awesome. If some don't work, oh well.
    And as @Azherae pointed out, it would also take work for IS if they wanted to intentionally avoid letting this happen.


  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited January 2022
    It's not really going to be if the players want to.
    It's going to be about how difficult it will be for the devs to balance the expectations of Secondary Archetypes being as effective as the Primary Archetypes.
    And, they don't want to balance for all the 64 possibilities derived from supporting an x/Cleric to effectively switch to Cleric/x, etc.
    They are going to balance for the 8 Primary Archetypes.

    Every Primary Archetype can choose a Secondary Archetype that changes their role to some degree - just not fully.

    I have no clue what you think Cleric wearing armor with Tank stats means in Ashes of Creation.
    You are just making that up in your own head.

    A Renkai Cleric/Tank wearing Physical armor with most points dumped into max HP who leans heavily on Tank augments will be able to tank well.
    Just don't expect that character to main tank better than the Tank/x in that 8-person group. And if that Tank/x is a Tank/Cleric, don't expect the Tank/Cleric to be able to fill what's expected from a Cleric/x.
    Because the encounter will be designed to require Rank 3+ Tank Active Skills and Rank 3+ Cleric Active Skills.
    And augments won't be as powerful as Rank 3+ Active Skills.

    The player choice is:
    When I'm in a Siege as a Primary Archetype Cleric, I find myself wishing I could sometimes cast Invis on myself. Cleric/Rogue allows me to do that.
    It might be that I want to be able to cast a Shield Wall. Cleric/Tank allows me to do that.
    It might be that I want to Summon minions to aid me in battle. Cleric/Summoner allows me to do that.

    I'm not aware of anyone stating that choosing a primary is the only decision that matters when choosing a role.
  • TrUSivrajTrUSivraj Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited January 2022
    Dygz wrote: »
    It's not really going to be if the players want to.
    It's going to be about how difficult it will be for the devs to balance the expectations of Secondary Archetypes being as effective as the Primary Archetypes.
    And, they don't want to balance for all the 64 possibilities derived from supporting an x/Cleric to effectively switch to Cleric/x, etc.
    They are going to balance for the 8 Primary Archetypes.

    Every Primary Archetype can choose a Secondary Archetype that changes their role to some degree - just not fully.

    I have no clue what you think Cleric wearing armor with Tank stats means in Ashes of Creation.
    You are just making that up in your own head.

    A Renkai Cleric/Tank wearing Physical armor with most points dumped into max HP who leans heavily on Tank augments will be able to tank well.
    Just don't expect that character to main tank better than the Tank/x in that 8-person group. And if that Tank/x is a Tank/Cleric, don't expect the Tank/Cleric to be able to fill what's expected from a Cleric/x.
    Because the encounter will be designed to require Rank 3+ Tank Active Skills and Rank 3+ Cleric Active Skills.
    And augments won't be as powerful as Rank 3+ Active Skills.

    The player choice is:
    When I'm in a Siege as a Primary Archetype Cleric, I find myself wishing I could sometimes cast Invis on myself. Cleric/Rogue allows me to do that.
    It might be that I want to be able to cast a Shield Wall. Cleric/Tank allows me to do that.
    It might be that I want to Summon minions to aid me in battle. Cleric/Summoner allows me to do that.

    I'm not aware of anyone stating that choosing a primary is the only decision that matters when choosing a role.

    It's a never ending circle with Sirchance.
    I'm simply applying the famous quote from our favorite universe overlord to him at this point.

    "I'm just going to ignore that.." - Frieza
    Future Falconer, Top 1% PvPer and owner of Big and Beautiful Homesteads
    lnx3t1v8o8r9.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Noaani wrote: »
    What you are effectively doing here is saying that Intrepid could create a game with a trinity system, saying that your primary class is your role, encourage people to pick a class, gear it, spec it and learn it as a specific role, and then add in content where that class is a different role.

    IIIFF, the player wants too. There is the choice of going cleric/cleric and doubling down on heals, or cleric/rouge and being mobile sneaky healer, or cleric/fighter and being a holy DMG melee DPS? IF they player WANTS to. If they like what they were doing 1-25, then by all means CHOOSE to continue doing that. Also, It really isn't that weird to choose an 'evolution' of sorts for your class later down the line. SWTOR I make a Sith warrior, it wasn't until later that I chose the juggernaut path and became a tank. You choose a warrior in wow you don't choose a spec until later.
    The thing you are missing here (both of you) is that, as described, it isn't a case of the player wanting to go that route, it is a case of a specific piece of content requiring the player to go that route.

    This means that the player can't go that route on any other content, and has no choice but to go that route on that content. It means your spec is 100% dictated by what content you want to take on, rather than how you want to play.

    The entire scenario Azherae gave is dependent on some very specific things.

    It is dependent on the tank primary not being fully formed at release, to start. If it is fully formed, the tank primary will have the tools needed to keep hate off of a healer in the scenario described, and as such a group would be foolish to not take a tank.

    It is reliant on the boss in question not dealing the kind of spike damage that a tank would have the tools to cope with and a healer would not. If the boss didn't have that level of spike damage, it would be a walk in the park for a healer to keep the tank alive anyway.

    It is reliant on healing being more of a hate generator than dealing damage. If this is not the case, the healer simply won't be able to tank the mob, the DPS will be - whether they want to or not.

    When all taken together, the only way the scenario put forward could ever happen is if the developers specifically decided to make an encounter where a healer has to tank. This means it isn't a player choice at all, it is something being forced on you for this piece of content.
    If the cleric wears plate armor with tank stats
    If he dumps his skill points into max HP instead of MP
    If he leans heavily into his tank secondary augments
    If he is a big beefy Ren'kai
    Then who cares if he can tank content, I'm not going to be mad about it. I'm not going to be upset that my primary archetype choice somehow means less now.
    Yeah, but that isn't the game Intrepid are designing.

    As I said earlier in this (or the other) thread, your arguments are more a case of what you want in *an MMO*, as opposed to what Ashes is going to be. I don't even disagree with you in terms of it potentially being good, it just isn't Ashes.
    To be clear, I'm not here to promote cleric/tank for tanking (personally I wouldn't do it, not my style)...
    I'm here to promote that idea of "choice's matter" includes this possibility, and if choosing a primary is the only decision that matters when choosing a role then every other choice is just a min/max decision which usually isn't a real choice... I understand the other side of this argument too. Saying a tank/rogue will play different from a tank/mage, and that one will be better for this dungeon than the other. To me that isn't player choice, that is the same a getting the right gear resistance's for a dungeon, you kind of need that to survive there.
    This is kind of untrue.

    If all you need to do to be a tank is to take the tank secondary, then your choice of primary class matters far less. All of a sudden, your primary class becomes just flavor, and it is your secondary class that matters. If Intrepid did this, in order to make anything to do with your class choice actually matter, they would have to make it so your secondary class choice was locked in.

    If they didn't do that, and left it so that your primary class dictated flavor and your secondary class dictated role, but you could alter your secondary class, then there is no consequence to which class you pick for primary or secondary. Your only actual choice is in regards to flavor, not function.

    Intrepid want decisions related to function. They want a game where when you make a decision, you gain a thing, but you also lose access to other things. This is essentially the definition of having a choice that matters. If you do not lose something when making a choice, your choice doesn't matter.

    You seem to be close to understanding the concept of choice, you are just applying it at the wrong point in time. You say that the difference in a tank/rogue and a tank/mage may just be that one is better for this dungeon or for that dungeon, and so it isn't really a choice. You may well be correct here, but what you are forgetting is that the player already made the choice that actually matters by being a tank in the first place.

    That is the decision Intrepid want to matter. Not the specific secondary class you take out for the day.
    Do I hope that some combinations of x/tank can easily tank? Absolutely.
    Do I expect intrepid to make every combination of x/tank viable? No.
    Do I want every x/tank to be? Not really.
    But does it matter if not EVERY x/tank can? Nope.
    They've said they won't be balancing on a single character basis anyways, so if some can be pushed that far to another corner of the triangle but some can't, that's ok. Leave that up to the player to discover and decide. So if some combinations can change their role then that's awesome. If some don't work, oh well.
    And as Azherae pointed out, it would also take work for IS if they wanted to intentionally avoid letting this happen.
    The comments made on balance in relation to single characters is in terms of PvP. Doesn't really apply here.
    You are correct in that at least one combination of */tank will be able to tank easily, in fact, it will probably be the best tank in the game.

    The rest of the */tank classes will likely be more resilient versions of the primary class, as opposed to actual tanks.

    This is something you seem to discount as being valuable. If I am a mage, and I am expecting to come across a ranger, or a rogue, or a fighter even, I will probably want to take tank ass my secondary. It won't make me a tank, but it will greatly increase my survivability against these physical damage dealing classes.

    And again, the scenario Azherae pointed out is decided inaccurate. Intrepid would need to go out of their way to create content where a */tank would be wanted for tanking.

    There are many tools that a tank needs to be a fully formed tank. Hate gain (at least 4 abilities), spike damage manipulation (at least 2 abilities), pull tools (at least 2 abilities), add control (at least 2 abilities). That is 10 abilities right there.

    A tank primary is getting each of these abilities for a single point, and then is able to improve them. A tank secondary may not even have access to all of these abilities at all, though if they do, will need to spend at least two points to get each ability, and improving them will also cost more.

    All Intrepid need to do to make it not viable for a */tank to be a viable tank is to not give them access to any one of the above ability types. If you have no spike damage control, then you are not a viable tank. This isn't hard for Intrepid to do at all, and in fact it would be harder for them to ensure that any given */tank class has access to all such abilities in a reasonable kind of manner.

    Once again, I want to point out that you are more talking bout what you would like to see in *an MMO*, as opposed to talking about the MMO that Intrepid are making.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    What you are effectively doing here is saying that Intrepid could create a game with a trinity system, saying that your primary class is your role, encourage people to pick a class, gear it, spec it and learn it as a specific role, and then add in content where that class is a different role.

    IIIFF, the player wants too. There is the choice of going cleric/cleric and doubling down on heals, or cleric/rouge and being mobile sneaky healer, or cleric/fighter and being a holy DMG melee DPS? IF they player WANTS to. If they like what they were doing 1-25, then by all means CHOOSE to continue doing that. Also, It really isn't that weird to choose an 'evolution' of sorts for your class later down the line. SWTOR I make a Sith warrior, it wasn't until later that I chose the juggernaut path and became a tank. You choose a warrior in wow you don't choose a spec until later.
    The thing you are missing here (both of you) is that, as described, it isn't a case of the player wanting to go that route, it is a case of a specific piece of content requiring the player to go that route.

    This means that the player can't go that route on any other content, and has no choice but to go that route on that content. It means your spec is 100% dictated by what content you want to take on, rather than how you want to play.

    The entire scenario Azherae gave is dependent on some very specific things.

    It is dependent on the tank primary not being fully formed at release, to start. If it is fully formed, the tank primary will have the tools needed to keep hate off of a healer in the scenario described, and as such a group would be foolish to not take a tank.

    It is reliant on the boss in question not dealing the kind of spike damage that a tank would have the tools to cope with and a healer would not. If the boss didn't have that level of spike damage, it would be a walk in the park for a healer to keep the tank alive anyway.

    It is reliant on healing being more of a hate generator than dealing damage. If this is not the case, the healer simply won't be able to tank the mob, the DPS will be - whether they want to or not.

    When all taken together, the only way the scenario put forward could ever happen is if the developers specifically decided to make an encounter where a healer has to tank. This means it isn't a player choice at all, it is something being forced on you for this piece of content.
    If the cleric wears plate armor with tank stats
    If he dumps his skill points into max HP instead of MP
    If he leans heavily into his tank secondary augments
    If he is a big beefy Ren'kai
    Then who cares if he can tank content, I'm not going to be mad about it. I'm not going to be upset that my primary archetype choice somehow means less now.
    Yeah, but that isn't the game Intrepid are designing.

    As I said earlier in this (or the other) thread, your arguments are more a case of what you want in *an MMO*, as opposed to what Ashes is going to be. I don't even disagree with you in terms of it potentially being good, it just isn't Ashes.
    To be clear, I'm not here to promote cleric/tank for tanking (personally I wouldn't do it, not my style)...
    I'm here to promote that idea of "choice's matter" includes this possibility, and if choosing a primary is the only decision that matters when choosing a role then every other choice is just a min/max decision which usually isn't a real choice... I understand the other side of this argument too. Saying a tank/rogue will play different from a tank/mage, and that one will be better for this dungeon than the other. To me that isn't player choice, that is the same a getting the right gear resistance's for a dungeon, you kind of need that to survive there.
    This is kind of untrue.

    If all you need to do to be a tank is to take the tank secondary, then your choice of primary class matters far less. All of a sudden, your primary class becomes just flavor, and it is your secondary class that matters. If Intrepid did this, in order to make anything to do with your class choice actually matter, they would have to make it so your secondary class choice was locked in.

    If they didn't do that, and left it so that your primary class dictated flavor and your secondary class dictated role, but you could alter your secondary class, then there is no consequence to which class you pick for primary or secondary. Your only actual choice is in regards to flavor, not function.

    Intrepid want decisions related to function. They want a game where when you make a decision, you gain a thing, but you also lose access to other things. This is essentially the definition of having a choice that matters. If you do not lose something when making a choice, your choice doesn't matter.

    You seem to be close to understanding the concept of choice, you are just applying it at the wrong point in time. You say that the difference in a tank/rogue and a tank/mage may just be that one is better for this dungeon or for that dungeon, and so it isn't really a choice. You may well be correct here, but what you are forgetting is that the player already made the choice that actually matters by being a tank in the first place.

    That is the decision Intrepid want to matter. Not the specific secondary class you take out for the day.
    Do I hope that some combinations of x/tank can easily tank? Absolutely.
    Do I expect intrepid to make every combination of x/tank viable? No.
    Do I want every x/tank to be? Not really.
    But does it matter if not EVERY x/tank can? Nope.
    They've said they won't be balancing on a single character basis anyways, so if some can be pushed that far to another corner of the triangle but some can't, that's ok. Leave that up to the player to discover and decide. So if some combinations can change their role then that's awesome. If some don't work, oh well.
    And as Azherae pointed out, it would also take work for IS if they wanted to intentionally avoid letting this happen.
    The comments made on balance in relation to single characters is in terms of PvP. Doesn't really apply here.
    You are correct in that at least one combination of */tank will be able to tank easily, in fact, it will probably be the best tank in the game.

    The rest of the */tank classes will likely be more resilient versions of the primary class, as opposed to actual tanks.

    This is something you seem to discount as being valuable. If I am a mage, and I am expecting to come across a ranger, or a rogue, or a fighter even, I will probably want to take tank ass my secondary. It won't make me a tank, but it will greatly increase my survivability against these physical damage dealing classes.

    And again, the scenario Azherae pointed out is decided inaccurate. Intrepid would need to go out of their way to create content where a */tank would be wanted for tanking.

    There are many tools that a tank needs to be a fully formed tank. Hate gain (at least 4 abilities), spike damage manipulation (at least 2 abilities), pull tools (at least 2 abilities), add control (at least 2 abilities). That is 10 abilities right there.

    A tank primary is getting each of these abilities for a single point, and then is able to improve them. A tank secondary may not even have access to all of these abilities at all, though if they do, will need to spend at least two points to get each ability, and improving them will also cost more.

    All Intrepid need to do to make it not viable for a */tank to be a viable tank is to not give them access to any one of the above ability types. If you have no spike damage control, then you are not a viable tank. This isn't hard for Intrepid to do at all, and in fact it would be harder for them to ensure that any given */tank class has access to all such abilities in a reasonable kind of manner.

    Once again, I want to point out that you are more talking bout what you would like to see in *an MMO*, as opposed to talking about the MMO that Intrepid are making.

    What I'm trying to say is that if both primary AND secondary choices dictate role, then BOTH choices matter.
    Where if only the primary choice dictated that then only that choice matters.
    Having it be both doesn't lessen the choice, it still chooses my base kit of tools to work with. But I don't want that to be the ONLY decision that matters. They have all the systems available to make it work that way.

    You said an x/tank is just a more resistant version of the primary... If I don't choose any secondary augments and put all my points into passives or just upgrading my skill, then my secondary is irrelevant.

    You're right I am probably projecting. But Don't you think having that level of control or flexibility would be better? I just wanted to point out the ambiguity, that the idea isn't that outlandish from everything they have said so far.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited January 2022
    @SirChancelot Note that you're responding to something that is a distractionary premise.

    Noaani started that post with:

    "If all you need to do to be a tank is to take the tank secondary, then your choice of primary class matters far less."

    That is the equivalent of strawman of your argument to reason against, reasons unknown.

    EDIT: Realized I was assuming intent or malice when 'poor logic' would suffice.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • SirChancelotSirChancelot Member
    edited January 2022
    Azherae wrote: »
    @SirChancelot Note that you're responding to something that is a distractionary premise.

    Noaani started that post with:

    "If all you need to do to be a tank is to take the tank secondary, then your choice of primary class matters far less."

    That is the equivalent of strawman of your argument to reason against, reasons unknown.

    EDIT: Realized I was assuming intent or malice when 'poor logic' would suffice.

    I addressed it just the same, because I think it's a good debate topic.
    The inverse is me saying if choosing a primary declares my role then the secondary is irrelevant.

    But I think he and I both know that isn't true. What I'm trying to say is you can use the understanding of 'that isn't true' in reverse as well. If I can take the tank secondary to use as a tank, my primary choice is still relevent because it still has a huge impact on my character.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Azherae wrote: »
    @SirChancelot Note that you're responding to something that is a distractionary premise.

    Noaani started that post with:

    "If all you need to do to be a tank is to take the tank secondary, then your choice of primary class matters far less."

    That is the equivalent of strawman of your argument to reason against, reasons unknown.

    EDIT: Realized I was assuming intent or malice when 'poor logic' would suffice.

    I addressed it just the same, because I think it's a good debate topic.
    The inverse is me saying if choosing a primary declares my role then the secondary is irrelevant.

    But I think he and I both know that isn't true. What I'm trying to say is you can use the understanding of 'that isn't true' in reverse as well. If I can take the tank secondary to use as a tank, my primary choice is still relevent because it still has a huge impact on my character.

    Understood. I'll leave it to you (sometimes it's hard to tell if people realize that they are engaging with disingenuous discussion).

    My concern is moreso that we end up having discussions based on those disingenuous things that then might confuse other forum lurkers or less-engaged people. I don't really like giving certain things more attention than necessary when they aren't even indicated as truth.

    In other words, you provided evidence of something, and the counterargument was not even an argument against your evidence NOR your perspective, it was just... attempting to torch a strawman. But getting people to watch strawmen burn is a tactic of 'debate' that leads to the edification of no one.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I just want a situation where a tank/cleric and a cleric/tank are completely different playstyles. There may be some overlap, there should be some overlap from the augments, but if we have a situation where you could get them to be extremely close to each other then we have even fewer options that it looks like we do. :(
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • Atama wrote: »
    I just want a situation where a tank/cleric and a cleric/tank are completely different playstyles. There may be some overlap, there should be some overlap from the augments, but if we have a situation where you could get them to be extremely close to each other then we have even fewer options that it looks like we do. :(

    100% agree. And since all your abilities come from your primary this should always be true. So even if a rogue/tank wanted to build into an evasion tank he should still end up very different from a tank/rogue trying to do the same thing.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited January 2022

    I addressed it just the same, because I think it's a good debate topic.
    The inverse is me saying if choosing a primary declares my role then the secondary is irrelevant.
    That is actually poor logic.
    It's like saying that because a girl is always female, the inverse that a female is always a girl is true.

    The problem here is that you keep trying to give Secondary Archetype equal weight to Primary Archetype.
    Primary Archetype, by design, trumps Secondary Archetype in the hierarchy.
    They aren't interchangeable.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited January 2022
    What I'm trying to say is that if both primary AND secondary choices dictate role, then BOTH choices matter.
    This doesn't work, because you are able to change your secondary class.

    The only way they could make it so your choice of secondary class matter - when we are talking about decisions you make actually mattering - is if that secondary class was unable to be changed. Any decision you make that you can reverse simply isn't a decision that matters.

    However, if we ignore that, I can't see a mathematical way that both choices matter in determining which role you are.

    If I pick healer as a primary, and tank ass secondary, the options here are that either I am a tank, in which case my primary class dictates nothing, or I am a healer, in which case my secondary class dictates nothing.

    I simply can't see any way in which both primary and secondary can work in combination to determine a given characters role.

    The only real way I see it working is for one to determine role, and the other to determine the style in which that role is achieved.
    You said an x/tank is just a more resistant version of the primary... If I don't choose any secondary augments and put all my points into passives or just upgrading my skill, then my secondary is irrelevant.
    Yeah, if you don't take any augments from your secondary class, it doesn't matter at all. By saying that */tank is just a more resilient version of *, I was inferring that the augments that the tank secondary provide are augments to make the */tank more resilient.
    But Don't you think having that level of control or flexibility would be better?
    No, I don't.

    I spent a decade playing a game where your role was 100% dictated by your class, and your class didn't change.

    I see literally no issue at all with this. Sure, some games allow you to change roles, more power to them. However, there is no actual need for this to be the case, a game can be fantastic without it.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    What I'm trying to say is that if both primary AND secondary choices dictate role, then BOTH choices matter.
    This doesn't work, because you are able to change your secondary class.

    The only way they could make it so your choice of secondary class matter - when we are talking about decisions you make actually mattering - is if that secondary class was unable to be changed. Any decision you make that you can reverse simply isn't a decision that matters.

    However, if we ignore that, I can't see a mathematical way that both choices matter in determining which role you are.

    If I pick healer as a primary, and tank ass secondary, the options here are that either I am a tank, in which case my primary class dictates nothing, or I am a healer, in which case my secondary class dictates nothing.

    I simply can't see any way in which both primary and secondary can work in combination to determine a given characters role.

    The only real way I see it working is for one to determine role, and the other to determine the style in which that role is achieved.

    First they said you can change secondary, but it would t be easy or "on the fly". So flexible when you want it to be. That's still a choice to me.

    I'll be honest, the intersection of cleric and tank are the ones I feel shouldn't blur over. I don't think cleric/tank should tank... Mostly because it would be too easy for those builds to run away in PvP.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited January 2022
    First they said you can change secondary, but it would t be easy or "on the fly". So flexible when you want it to be. That's still a choice to me.
    That isn't a meaningful choice though.

    It's a choice the same way what content you want to run today is a choice. It actually doesn't really matter, you can always change to something else if you like, or run something different tomorrow.

    Put another way, it is a choice that only matters today - or worst case, this weekend. Primary class is a choice that matters as long as you play that character. That is a choice that matters.

    I would think it to be fairly hard to argue that the scope of these two things are similar.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Any x/Tank can tank.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Dygz wrote: »
    Any x/Tank can tank.

    Steven did not say this, despite your insistence that he did.

    He said that tank/* isn't the only class that can tank, on easy content, if they have the gear for it. This is decidedly NOT the same thing as any */tank class can tank.

    If it turns out that summoner/tank can tank, as is expected, Steven's comment is 100% accurate even if none if the other 6 */tank classes can tank.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    No. That is main tank.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited January 2022
    Dygz wrote: »
    No. That is main tank.

    There is no tank other than main tank.

    If content needs two tanks, you have two main tanks. If content needs one tank, you have one main tank.

    There is no space for a tank that isn't a main tank.

    The only time you don't have a main tank is if the content doesn't need a tank. If you are tanking content that doesn't need a tank, are you really a tank?
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    No. That is main tank.

    There is no tank other than main tank.

    If content needs two tanks, you have two main tanks. If content needs one tank, you have one main tank.

    There is no space for a tank that isn't a main tank.

    The only time you don't have a main tank is if the content doesn't need a tank. If you are tanking content that doesn't need a tank, are you really a tank?

    Hypothetically speaking, what if there is an encounter where you have a huge boss and partway through the encounter adds appear. If you had a character with the ability to pull a group together so they can be burned down quickly with AoEs, and be tough enough to briefly survive the attention of those adds, then maybe you could be a useful off-tank.

    I could see augments making that possible. I don’t think you’d need to be a real Tank as an archetype. You wouldn’t be able to take the place of the real Tank on the boss though.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited January 2022
    In Ashes, x/Tanks are Tanks who will be doing tank stuff.
    Just as x/Clerics are Clerics who will be doing cleric stuff.
    Just as x/Bards are Bards who will be doing bard stuff.

    Don't expect x/Clerics to be main cleric in an 8-person group.
    Don't expect x/Bards to be main bard in an 8-person group.
    Don't expect x/Tanks to be main tank in an 8-person group.

    With Ashes, we have to tweak some concepts and terminology because they are significantly different in Ashes.
    Class does not mean exactly the same thing in Ashes as it does in other games. Battlegrounds does not mean exactly the same thing in Ashes as it does in other games.

    Even so, if you watch that clip you referenced, Noanni, the question the devs are answering asks specifically about main tanks.
    Also, as the concept of multiple types of tanks is broached, Maggie suggests main tanks and off-tanks as examples.
    If main tank is the only tank, there is no reason to add the qualifiers "main" and "off".

    In Ashes, main tank may not be the only one tanking in a group.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited January 2022
    Atama wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    No. That is main tank.

    There is no tank other than main tank.

    If content needs two tanks, you have two main tanks. If content needs one tank, you have one main tank.

    There is no space for a tank that isn't a main tank.

    The only time you don't have a main tank is if the content doesn't need a tank. If you are tanking content that doesn't need a tank, are you really a tank?

    Hypothetically speaking, what if there is an encounter where you have a huge boss and partway through the encounter adds appear. If you had a character with the ability to pull a group together so they can be burned down quickly with AoEs, and be tough enough to briefly survive the attention of those adds, then maybe you could be a useful off-tank.

    I could see augments making that possible. I don’t think you’d need to be a real Tank as an archetype. You wouldn’t be able to take the place of the real Tank on the boss though.

    As a hypothetical, this is about as realistic as it could get, so a perfectly valid and good question imo.

    If the adds don't hit hard enough that a main tank is needed, if you spread those same adds out over even just four or so DPS (as tends to happen when you put a number of AoE DPS on to a large group of adds), their damage is manageable by those few healers. If that damage can't be managed with three or four DPS taking it on, then you need an actual tank - as an off-spec tank wouldn't stand a chance if they tried to tank all of those adds, if that is the damage output they are producing.

    So, with adds like this, I do one of two things. I either assign my AoE DPS on to it, along with my AoE healers (5 DPS, 2 or 3 healers). If that is not sufficient, I assign an AoE spec'd main tank, two healers (one single target healer, one AoE healer), and three AoE DPS (unless there is a time component, then as many as is needed).

    There is no grey area in the middle where an off tank is needed, nor where one is desired.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited January 2022
    Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Dygz wrote: »
    Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.

    Not at all.

    However, the raid content in every MMO essentially comes down to the same basic things.

    As does balance.

    If an off-spec tank is able to take on the damage that four non tank classes can't while they have three AoE healers spamming them, and if there is a survivability gain to be made as a tank going on-spec rather than staying off-spec, then on-spec tanks are damn near invincible.

    With the exception of creating content specifically to force class choice, and making the assumption that we are smart enough to give those DPS some survivability gear as is appropriate, feel free to try and find a gap in there.

    I actually dare you, honestly.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.

    Not at all.

    However, the raid content in every MMO essentially comes down to the same basic things.

    As does balance.

    If an off-spec tank is able to take on the damage that four non tank classes can't while they have three AoE healers spamming them, and if there is a survivability gain to be made as a tank going on-spec rather than staying off-spec, then on-spec tanks are damn near invincible.

    With the exception of creating content specifically to force class choice, and making the assumption that we are smart enough to give those DPS some survivability gear as is appropriate, feel free to try and find a gap in there.

    I actually dare you, honestly.

    SparkNotes version?
    There's no such thing as an off tank?
    Content either needs a tank or it doesn't so I will either bring a tank or I won't.

    Am I following?
    Because so far I agree.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited January 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.

    Not at all.

    However, the raid content in every MMO essentially comes down to the same basic things.

    As does balance.

    If an off-spec tank is able to take on the damage that four non tank classes can't while they have three AoE healers spamming them, and if there is a survivability gain to be made as a tank going on-spec rather than staying off-spec, then on-spec tanks are damn near invincible.

    With the exception of creating content specifically to force class choice, and making the assumption that we are smart enough to give those DPS some survivability gear as is appropriate, feel free to try and find a gap in there.

    I actually dare you, honestly.

    SparkNotes version?
    There's no such thing as an off tank?
    Content either needs a tank or it doesn't so I will either bring a tank or I won't.

    Am I following?
    Because so far I agree.

    Content either needs a tank or multiple tanks. Or it is solo content.

    If it is not solo content and doesn't need a tank, I have trouble calling it content. It is filler. It is a time waster. It is not the object of a gaming session.

    If you want to point at such content and say "this class can tank these mobs over here that don't actually need a tank", that's fine with me.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.

    Not at all.

    However, the raid content in every MMO essentially comes down to the same basic things.

    As does balance.

    If an off-spec tank is able to take on the damage that four non tank classes can't while they have three AoE healers spamming them, and if there is a survivability gain to be made as a tank going on-spec rather than staying off-spec, then on-spec tanks are damn near invincible.

    With the exception of creating content specifically to force class choice, and making the assumption that we are smart enough to give those DPS some survivability gear as is appropriate, feel free to try and find a gap in there.

    I actually dare you, honestly.

    SparkNotes version?
    There's no such thing as an off tank?
    Content either needs a tank or it doesn't so I will either bring a tank or I won't.

    Am I following?
    Because so far I agree.

    Content either needs a tank or multiple tanks. Or it is solo content.

    If it is not solo content and doesn't need a tank, I have trouble calling it content. It is filler. It is a time waster. It is not the object of a gaming session.

    If you want to point at such content and say "this class can tank these mobs over here that don't actually need a tank", that's fine with me.

    I said I agree with your assessment.
    The concept of a tank is weird to me.
    " Let's build a character that can tank, but not as good as a tank" sounds like bad design to me. If you need a tank, grab a tank, not a sub par tank.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.

    Not at all.

    However, the raid content in every MMO essentially comes down to the same basic things.

    As does balance.

    If an off-spec tank is able to take on the damage that four non tank classes can't while they have three AoE healers spamming them, and if there is a survivability gain to be made as a tank going on-spec rather than staying off-spec, then on-spec tanks are damn near invincible.

    With the exception of creating content specifically to force class choice, and making the assumption that we are smart enough to give those DPS some survivability gear as is appropriate, feel free to try and find a gap in there.

    I actually dare you, honestly.

    SparkNotes version?
    There's no such thing as an off tank?
    Content either needs a tank or it doesn't so I will either bring a tank or I won't.

    Am I following?
    Because so far I agree.

    Content either needs a tank or multiple tanks. Or it is solo content.

    If it is not solo content and doesn't need a tank, I have trouble calling it content. It is filler. It is a time waster. It is not the object of a gaming session.

    If you want to point at such content and say "this class can tank these mobs over here that don't actually need a tank", that's fine with me.

    I said I agree with your assessment.
    The concept of a tank is weird to me.
    " Let's build a character that can tank, but not as good as a tank" sounds like bad design to me. If you need a tank, grab a tank, not a sub par tank.
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.

    Not at all.

    However, the raid content in every MMO essentially comes down to the same basic things.

    As does balance.

    If an off-spec tank is able to take on the damage that four non tank classes can't while they have three AoE healers spamming them, and if there is a survivability gain to be made as a tank going on-spec rather than staying off-spec, then on-spec tanks are damn near invincible.

    With the exception of creating content specifically to force class choice, and making the assumption that we are smart enough to give those DPS some survivability gear as is appropriate, feel free to try and find a gap in there.

    I actually dare you, honestly.

    SparkNotes version?
    There's no such thing as an off tank?
    Content either needs a tank or it doesn't so I will either bring a tank or I won't.

    Am I following?
    Because so far I agree.

    Content either needs a tank or multiple tanks. Or it is solo content.

    If it is not solo content and doesn't need a tank, I have trouble calling it content. It is filler. It is a time waster. It is not the object of a gaming session.

    If you want to point at such content and say "this class can tank these mobs over here that don't actually need a tank", that's fine with me.

    I said I agree with your assessment.
    The concept of a tank is weird to me.
    " Let's build a character that can tank, but not as good as a tank" sounds like bad design to me. If you need a tank, grab a tank, not a sub par tank.

    Yep, that is basically it.

    This then flows in to why secondary class can't determine role. A */tank isn't going to be as good at tanking as a tank/*, not while maintaining any kind of balance. So, rather than trying to make the secondary class have an impact on the role, it has an impact on the way you perform your role that your primary class dictates.

    This leaves a tank/rogue as being an avoidance tank, where as a rogue/tank is a more resilient rogue.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.

    Not at all.

    However, the raid content in every MMO essentially comes down to the same basic things.

    As does balance.

    If an off-spec tank is able to take on the damage that four non tank classes can't while they have three AoE healers spamming them, and if there is a survivability gain to be made as a tank going on-spec rather than staying off-spec, then on-spec tanks are damn near invincible.

    With the exception of creating content specifically to force class choice, and making the assumption that we are smart enough to give those DPS some survivability gear as is appropriate, feel free to try and find a gap in there.

    I actually dare you, honestly.

    SparkNotes version?
    There's no such thing as an off tank?
    Content either needs a tank or it doesn't so I will either bring a tank or I won't.

    Am I following?
    Because so far I agree.

    Content either needs a tank or multiple tanks. Or it is solo content.

    If it is not solo content and doesn't need a tank, I have trouble calling it content. It is filler. It is a time waster. It is not the object of a gaming session.

    If you want to point at such content and say "this class can tank these mobs over here that don't actually need a tank", that's fine with me.

    I said I agree with your assessment.
    The concept of a tank is weird to me.
    " Let's build a character that can tank, but not as good as a tank" sounds like bad design to me. If you need a tank, grab a tank, not a sub par tank.
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.

    Not at all.

    However, the raid content in every MMO essentially comes down to the same basic things.

    As does balance.

    If an off-spec tank is able to take on the damage that four non tank classes can't while they have three AoE healers spamming them, and if there is a survivability gain to be made as a tank going on-spec rather than staying off-spec, then on-spec tanks are damn near invincible.

    With the exception of creating content specifically to force class choice, and making the assumption that we are smart enough to give those DPS some survivability gear as is appropriate, feel free to try and find a gap in there.

    I actually dare you, honestly.

    SparkNotes version?
    There's no such thing as an off tank?
    Content either needs a tank or it doesn't so I will either bring a tank or I won't.

    Am I following?
    Because so far I agree.

    Content either needs a tank or multiple tanks. Or it is solo content.

    If it is not solo content and doesn't need a tank, I have trouble calling it content. It is filler. It is a time waster. It is not the object of a gaming session.

    If you want to point at such content and say "this class can tank these mobs over here that don't actually need a tank", that's fine with me.

    I said I agree with your assessment.
    The concept of a tank is weird to me.
    " Let's build a character that can tank, but not as good as a tank" sounds like bad design to me. If you need a tank, grab a tank, not a sub par tank.

    Yep, that is basically it.

    This then flows in to why secondary class can't determine role. A */tank isn't going to be as good at tanking as a tank/*, not while maintaining any kind of balance. So, rather than trying to make the secondary class have an impact on the role, it has an impact on the way you perform your role that your primary class dictates.

    And like that I disagree again.
    What I'm agreeing with is that building something with the intent of doing a job, but not do as good as someone else sounds silly.

    I have a mage/mage that obviously does mage things.
    And a mage/bard which is now a mage that has support effects.
    The mage's job is to deal damage, the bard's job is to support.
    Why would I want a mage/bard when I could just get a bard/x, the mage/bard isn't as good at support as a bard/x. I mean if the mage's job is to deal magic damage, why wouldn't I want him to take mage secondary? If he double downed on mage he would be a more potent mage therefore better at his job.
Sign In or Register to comment.