Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
Look at minute 19:00 of the video with the destructible world objects. We won't need rogues to pick locks because we can just bash the door with our axe. New revelation. Let the controversy begin.
If they make it so that a door that needs a rogue to unlock isn't destructible, then problem solved.
For me, off tanking is when there is something that needs to be tanked but the main tank cannot do it. Usually this additional target has less damage and health than a main boss, is supposed to be kited, or is a group of mobs that spawn around the encounter room.
This is really for dungeon fights, as if you are in a raid you will have enough room for as many main tanks as you need.
Off-tanking does not mean bring 2 main tanks, as the off-tank will provide more damage, or other things, that a main tank cannot provide.
In a 8 character party, there might be many ways to "off-tank". Maybe you can have a mage or cleric cc the target, or a hunter pet kite it, or the good old high defence or high evade character keep aggro (these are just examples).
For example: let's say the boss is 3 bosses. The main tank will take 2 of them, and the off-tank will grab the other one.
OR
There is a big raptor boss that the main tank is tanking, and throughout the fight groups of small raptors spawn that the off tank will grab so they can be aoe'd down.
Just as it won't really matter whether there is a need for an x/Cleric or x/Bard.
If x/Tanks are in the group, they will be tanking to some degree.
They just won't be main tank.
Just as a Tank/Mage might be able to create a Shield Wall that also deals Elemental damage, a Mage/Tank may be able to deal Elemental damage that also creates a Shield Wall.
Just don't expect the Elemental damage from the Tank/Mage to be as powerful as the Elemental damage from a Mage/x. And don't expect a Shield Wall from the Mage/Tank to have the durability or duration of a Shield Wall created by a Tank/x.
The tank is there to hold mobs steady for DPS to deal with efficiently (important for any positional DPS), and to focus as much damage on one player as possible to make things more manageable for the healer. Don't interrupt that, I don't care what you think your role is.
Interrupting that in any way is going to go badly for the group. If you can tank some adds that we accidently pull without the healer focusing on you, then the tank would have been able to tank them, position them, and allowed the DPS to better kill them.
Being able to throw up a shield wall doesn't make you a tank.
x/Tanks are tanks. They will be tanking to some degree. Just don't expect them to be main tank in an 8-person group.
You're missing the whole point of what Noaani is saying. The reason why you designate one person to be tank is to reduce the chaos and control where enemies are standing, facing, and the damage they deal. Off-Tanks are only needed for very specific types of fights designed with an off-tank in mind. All other encounters are best run with a singular tank, otherwise you are just making things harder for everyone in the party.
In Ashes, main tank will still be designated.
Regardless of whether off-tanks are "needed", x/Tanks will also be tanking.
Just as X/Clerics will also be healing and just as x/Bards will also be buffing.
A main tank (tank/*) will be needed for all content that is not solo.
If content requires two tanks, two tank/* will be present.
This leaves no content left for a */tank to tank.
So what will they be tanking? Like, give an example of where you think they will tank.
I disagree with this. What gives you the authority to say this, at least phrase it as a suggestion since we don't actually know how this will play out.
I explained my reasoning in another thread just recently.
And then was challenged there, and had this to say.
Now, I am not saying anything is 100% the case. I am very clearly talking about things from my own experiences and perspective.
However, if you are able to find that gap in my thinking here, feel free to chime in.
People using Tank augments will be tanking. They just won't be main tank.
I don't appreciate lazy and non experimental players, sometimes I want people in that are only from my guild and sometimes it's difficult to get a proper tank, then you adapt for other things and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what works. The only issue should be that the DPS can't watch netflix while spamming their skills (usually while the poor tank does all the work).
I'm not surprised that some...particulars in this thread are adamant about needing a proper tank at all times, so boring and lazy, no shame at all.
21:13 they start talking about how the tank will play for the PAX event and how to project how it will play at launch.
How the tanks Wall ability went from being a Tank primary skill to everybody get a wall is really confusing.
At 23:10 in the video above Jeff states"Our tank is about battlefield control"
If you have a mage/tank wearing plate that can kite for a short time while others kill stuff in a random offshoot way one could claim this is off tanking. But this will also depend on the mage/tank being able to hold aggro long enough for this to happen. With the absence of active ability taunts this seems to be a very large challenge.
Edit:
More importantly. IF they do will it be enough to hold aggro?
Tank/X will be designed with the intent to tank any and all content. Period. Be it as a main tank or an off-tank. There might be a -best- tank but they should all be able to do it.
X/Tank will be designed with the intent to tank up to a certain amount, be it as a main tank or an off-tank with some cases being able to off tank at the highest level of play, but never a main tank.
If there are deviations from the above then whatever build is deviant, is subject to balancing as it was not intended to preform at that level.
Why what?
Expect x/Tanks to have Threat generation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And damage Mitigation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And whatever allows the creation of Shield Wall as one of their 4 augment schools.
How long an x/Tank can hold aggro will probably depend on several factors, including Passive Skills and possibly racial attributes as well as how many skill points are used for the augment.
Expect it to not be as long a duration as a Tank/x Rank 3+ Active Skill.
What do you think the 4 augment schools for x/Tank will be?
Really???
Why what? In relation to your post
"Expect x/Tanks to have some form Threat generation as one of their 4 augment schools"
Why should we expect that?
Why do you think those will be the augments? What proof do you have?
I have no idea what they will offer as augment schools.. but then none of us do. Unless you have insider information?
Why is shield wall an augment and not a primary archetype skill? AND where did this information come from? Is this making stuff up or is there a source?
Making up stuff
I think you reading into things too much. A modifier is not the same as an ability. They are not going to give the mage/tank the ultimate defense ability or shield wall. They might give the mage/tank some kind of taunt ability, a stun, or maybe some kind of mana shield for mitigation, but the problem is going to be that a cloth wearer who has half the hit points of a tank and less defense will get one shot with certain raid bosses. If the mage/tank was as good as the tank, then everyone would play that for the ability to dps and tank. It would break the tank class which the developer doesn't want.
As Steven mentioned in a video the tank ability Onslaught which is a charge ability, if it was augmented with a mage augment like blink instead of the tank taking 3 seconds to close the gap of his target the tank would close the gap instantly and might also stun the enemy with a lightning shock. That is more how the augments are going to work. I think people are hyping up the X/Tank too much. I think people who tank with be Tank/X for the most part and it will be fun to see how the tank can be augmented for different roles whether it be absorption, dodging, self-heals, etc.
And the augment schools we know for Mage: Elemental, Teleport
Based on the Cleric Active Skills we know, we can expect one of the 4 Cleric augment schools will be devoted to Holy damage.
Based on what we know of the Mage Active Skills we know, we can expect one of the 4 Mage augment schools will be devoted to managing Mana.
Do we know for certain what they will be? No.
But, we can expect them to reflect the types of Active Skills we know.
Fireball is a Mage Active Skill hurls a ball of fire towards enemies which burns them. (Rank 3 burns them for additional damage over time)
Thundershock is a Mage Active Skill that shoots forward a beam of lightning that damages enemies.
Steven has given us the following example:
"Let's say you are a Fighter. As a Fighter, you have an Active Skill that let's you charge
a target over x distance. And upon reaching the target, you deal x damage and some condition modifier. If you were to choose Mage as your Secondary Archetype to create your class, you would have access to Mage augments. So, there's going to be 4 Schools of augmentation for each Archetype...If you were to apply the Elemental School to your [Primary Archetype Active Skill], you would then Charge x distance, upon reaching your target, you would set the target ablaze if it's Fire, you would electrocute them and deal damage over time..."
If x/Mages have augments that burn and electrocute enemies, even dealing damage over time, despite there being Active Skills that also burn and electrocute enemies, we can expect x/Tank to similarly have augments that reflect Tank Active Skills.
If we contemplate how the Mage augments are applied to Tank abilities, a reasonable example is:
Just as a Tank/Mage might be able to create a Shield Wall that also deals Elemental damage, a Mage/Tank may be able to deal Elemental damage that also creates a Shield Wall.
The key words there being might and may. These are speculative examples. The x/Tank augment might create some other form of barrier, sure.
Don't expect that barrier to be as durable or the duration to be as long as the Tank/x Active Skill.
Expect x/Tanks to be able to generate Threat and hold Aggro and Mitigate damage, just as x/Clerics can heal and x/Mages can Teleport and wield Elemental damage.
Just don't expect the augments to be as effective as the Active Skills.
Ffs
It’s literally the topic. If you’re talking about ‘off tanking’ you’re automatically contrasting it to main tanking. If you don’t have main tanking, you can’t have off tanking, you just have tanking.
Don’t make me get the spray bottle…
Ok. So…
Exactly how big of a shield can my Ranger wield? 😂
Watch from 1:12:02 - 1:13:58
If content doesn't need a proper tank, then that content is trivial with a proper tank.
if all of Ashes group content is trivial with a proper group setup, what is the point of group content?
Steven has already said they are working on the assumption that a group will strive to get one of each primary archetype. This is the aim, and this is what the content is being balanced for. They are specifically adding in non-combat penalties to groups that do not take one of each primary archetype, so groups will strive to take one of each with them.
As to your concerns from other games, a really important factor to keep in mind is the group size of Ashes in relation to other games.
In a game like WoW, if you have a tank and a healer, they can take 3 others along with them on group content. In Ashes, that same player on a tank and healer can take 6 others along with them on group content. This means your guild needs fewer tanks present in order to take the same number of players along on group content.
As to your comments on lazy and non experimental players - I don't play MMO's to experience with group make up. I play to be efficient as possible while playing with friends. You saying that people that don't want to experiment with group setups when they have one that works for them are lazy is the same thing as saying that anyone that doesn't play the game your way is playing the game wrong.
I respect people's preference for that kind of game. It's just not for me. A game that has multiple answers allows for more experimentation. It increases the playability time for another set of people. But it also means that there can be all kinds of different groups who have different archtype combinations and specs that are efficient for their groups play style, rather than forcing everyone to eventually conform to 'the meta/'correct' style, and that's my jam. You wanna play in a group where only the tank needs to tank? That's cool with me, I just hope there is room for a group where the one that has an off tank and they have good reasons to do it, like a higher damage output on the tank since they can focus a little less on absolute mitigation, or better burst capacity, or a better clear rate on adds (just randomish concepts, since we don't have any ideas of augmented abilities.)
If the game let's you, as Jeff said, 'build your party in the way you build your character' that SHOULD mean, in my mind, that there are multiple ways to approach building a party. I can think of fairly good conceptual reasons why an off tank is a good thing to have around. The main one is that it let's tank have time to generate more damage or activate an ability that has a longer animation instead of focusing purely on enmity. Perhaps to go for their weapon proc.
1. Temporarily protecting dps/support/heals from fight mechanics specifically designed to kill them, e.g.
- tanking side/trash mobs that're going after the backlines,
- tanking abilities/attacks that are aimed at the backlines. e.g. an action-targeting non-piercing fireball that can be eaten by a */tank character with a damage-reduction ability. This scenario probably applies in group pvp too.
2. ~80% capability at performing a dps/support/heal role when they're not doing 1.
3. Saving the day and hold the boss for a short period (10~20s?) if the main tank dies, while the group can battle-rez the MT or burn the boss down if it's on the last 1~2% health. It's probably reasonable if you need multiple off-tanks to achieve this and a couple of them die in the process.
I don't disagree with anything you have said.
The thing with creating a group the same way you create a build is that there is going to be a single best way to do both.
This is just a fact, and I think that anyone that thinks about it would realize that this is just how it is going to be.
However, the "best" way to do a thing will be dependent on a number of factors. If you are not expecting any PvP, and are planning on going after just a single specific raid mob, I would wager that the best build for the raid, and for each individual character within the raid, would be fairly obvious.
However, you and I both already see the issue with the above.
Specific builds that diverge from the optimal - both in terms of individual builds and in how a group or raid is built - will largely depend on what opposition is expected.
If the target you are going after is a world raid mob, you would likely want to ignore PvE all together and go for the best PvP build you can, as PvP is what determines the outcome of a world boss.
Other content will fall somewhere in the middle of just wanting the best PvP build and just wanting the best PvE build.
However, even within all of that, I still do not see a place for an off tank. I see a place for a second tank even if the PvE encounter only asks for one tank (the PvP may well ask for a second tank). I can also see a place for builds in this that are */tank, but that is as more resilient versions of the * part of the build, not to function as some form of psuedo tank.
Where I do see off tanks being capable of being used is if you have a group of players you want to run content with, and have no actual tank. You could assign a */tank as the tank, and a second */tank as an offtank.
Players are always going to be able to run content using random groups. I'm not against people doing this at all. What I am saying is that there is no situation where an offtank would be the desired situation.
It will always be - at best - a compromise.
If you are in a situation where that is a compromise you are happy to make, good for you. As I am sure you would agree (having had a few discussions in the past), I don't much care, and wish you the best.
However, that makeup isn't ever likely to be a specifically desired group setup.
I think the dev quotes in that vid pretty much say what I've been saying:
X/Tanks can tank to some degree, but don't expect them to replace the need for a Tank/x main tank in an 8-person group.
It's not necessarily impossible. But, the devs are not trying to ensure that it is possible.
If you want to try to create an x/Tank build that can main tank better than a Tank/x, go for it. If you succeed - great. Expect that if that build becomes so popular that it interferes greatly with the ease of Tank/x to find a group, it might get nerfed.