I am unable to provide an answer to your questions due to my lack of expertise on the subject.
Not what I said.
I want your feedback. I'm just saying you're limiting your perspective if you think that the existence of certain mechanics automatically entails a lowered level of difficulty or impact of a class. You have to put the class balance into the context of the type of game, and the dungeons & PVP gameplay it offers. And that only works for feedback, if you recognise counterarguments to the problems you're pointing out, and are willing to dig for solutions to the issues that remain. (Which doesn't mean that you have to find them, just that you have to accept that finding them is the point of the exercise.)
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
Healers in PvE content which is doable without them are useless
But again...what about content that isn't doable without them?
The best times I've had healing (or honestly playing any role) for PvE in any games were the times when the people I joined were farming equal-level mobs, and because I joined, we could start tearing apart significantly overlevelled big bois in dangerous areas. Why aren't you making suggestions about content & xp gain like that, instead of basing your class balance discussion on poisoned-well-assumptions about what you're convinced gameplay will be like?
Instead you're here with your bandaid solution again: "*Grumble.* Healers might not star in every party in the game. Might as well just play another class, unless they at least make the class so OP that everyone needs it." - as if that would make playing the class any more fun for you.
So we know that devs want many different group configurations to be able to exist and thrive. Does that mean other group configurations have to be able to beat content that's as difficult as parties with a healer can get past? Does it mean they have to be able to do it at optimal efficiency and speed?
I can understand the scenario you gave, however, avoiding combat until you can kill the healers is basic PvP strategy.
I believe you that you understood my scenario, but I do have to say, if you think "wait until you can kill the healers" is a counter-argument, you're forgetting the context you set up for this scenario, yourself.
You specifically made the claim that, if AoC's healer in a 2v2 wasn't stronger than any other class in its place, then that healer has no chance of ever being useful in a larger-scale scenario with more people.
That's the specific claim my hypothetical scenario was refuting.
And for that, it doesn't matter whether killing the healer is a viable strategy; that's why it was a pure numbers question about the effectiveness of DPS versus HPS across different group sizes - although it does hinge on the option of "retreating," but that's because my argument wasn't proving that the healer *is* stronger than a fighter, just that it *realistically can be* for any situation where you have the cover or distance you need to sufficiently control the fight.
And frankly, if the ease of killing the healer was your concern, that's probably what you should have been talking about, instead of the possibility of outhealing damage, no?
That aside, I will agree that balancing the strengths and weaknesses of the defensive tools healers (but really of all classes) have in PvP is a critical thing, and both should have prominent features. And if Intrepid messes that up, I'll be right there with you criticising what I see.
If they are so out of reach then five fighters not being able to focus down on one target to confirm a kill and instead let them retreat is a skill issue, not good Cleric design.
- No, it's a spacing issue. In gameplay designed around objectives, some classes are better at exploiting the strategic advantages than others. The healer tends to be one such class.
- It is also a movement and a group strategy issue. When you have 3 full-health fighters using their abiliities to manipulate the fight in their favour, protecting 1 fighter, it can be more difficult for their 5 melee opponents to keep up their pursuit, than it is for the low-health fighter to stay out of range until healthier again.
- Neither of these game-design strengths can just be overcome by trying to bruteforce your way through with "skill." The skill lies in making the most of them. For the group of 5 fighters that would mean doing something else than contesting that area, or finding a more versatile group.
The bipolarity between Damage and Healing integrated in the decision making of the archetype will become more grotesque as they develop it further.
Honestly? It might. But I think you've read what I had to say about that. I agree that I prefer straight-forward healer design that lets its strengths and reactive gameplay shine. But that doesn't mean that proactive offensive gameplay can't be part of the healer's kit.
And some players will use it too much and be bad healers because of it. Others will not use it at all, and be a little inefficient. The best will know exactly how far they should stretch it before it distracts them too much from the more exciting challenges of their main role.
The existence of one design element doesn't necessarily have to come at the cost of another, as long as it is bound by solid decisionmaking (with one of the resources that factor into it simply being skill points, time, and cast-time.)
I am not the target audience. *Insert...hm, what should I call it...perhaps a "pretense reeking of foul intent?" Definitely evidence that you interpret other people's statemtents and motivations in the worst light possible because that's the only way you could imagine yourself making them.*
It's kind of absurd that you've been presenting yourself as so superior for disliking DPS-shoehorning on healers, when you're the one with the Asian-MMO background. Asian MMOs are *notorious* for superfluously creating class identity discrepancies that neither really help to make the gameplay more challenging, nor give the class a solid new strength to exploit.
I have yet to see a Western MMO take this mistake to the breaking point. I've seen plenty of Asian MMO healers that functioned as pure DPS roles, with the least creative or impactful healing kit possible on the side.
The concern is just unfounded, and simply very evidently the result of a flawed empirical foundation.
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
I think you haven't played games where healers don't exist or healers are second fiddle with no holy trinity. If you've only played holy trinity games you are forgiven.
I think you haven't played games where healers don't exist or healers are second fiddle with no holy trinity. If you've only played holy trinity games you are forgiven.
Yup, I second this. I don't share the dread for the game we've seen, but I do agree that the possibility is definitely a thing.
There's just also a massive gap between "healers aren't a requirement" and "healers are useless."
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
Well, I referred to DND. You can replace a Healer with a Medical Kit and venture into the underworld to resurrect players. While some would take the easier route and bring a healer, some of us prefer to difficulty of no healer and the epic nature of the story arch when we venture into the underworld. Ashes has taken a lot of inspiration from such experiences and I see no reason to fault that. I doubt we'll get medical kits or to venture into the underworld in ashes though, we got resurrection scrolls instead.
Healers are useless because you're better off taking another character into the fray like a rogue or wizard. Though party comps can be anything. Even some Druids would rather take Wild Form than heal in most groups. Thus, the nature of the beast doesn't change, only the application of the beast.
The thing is, there will be 8 cleric classes after secondary archetypes are applied. So, you probably won't need a cleric but you will probably need a cleric class. Though, I still feel Stevens comment of 'Summoners can replace any class dependent on secondary' still applies and summoner might be able to replace cleric.
Mage has an absorb yeah. In some ways it's better than a heal but it's only short duration. Now, I think the coolest trick would be a summoner augment which turns Shell into a group Shell.
But again...what about content that isn't doable without them?
Ashes of Creation has Tank, DPS, and Support Trinity. A group that consists of those three roles is supposed to be able to complete content in the game. Nobody has ever promised that Cleric will be required to do content.
Are you about to dump some gotcha about how I haven't read the wikia front-to-back and don't remember the exact wording about all promised features yet on me? Cause I'd be impressed, that's almost taking this conversation into a productive direction.
Okay, so let's say Bards do everything better (at least in PvE.) Where would you start fixing that?
My initial answer would be a mix of making sure dungeons are tough without sufficient healing, making sure beating enemies who can take your HP very low (even if you play optimally) is very rewarding. And giving Clerics some tools to improve resource-management and trigger synergies for specific classes - that way you allow Clerics to improve party dps, without taking away too much of the Bard's buff/debuff identity.
Objections?
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
It all will come down to the balancing of pve damage. Say, a fighter has 1000 hp and the cleric augment gives him a heal of 300hp once every 10s. If a mob DPSes for ~100 damage, that's around -700hp per every heal, which means that the fighter dies before the second heal even triggers.
And cleric would probably have several heals that can be staggered in a way to provide 1000 HPS, if the mana allows it.
And that's just one mob, while we've already seen that the current direction of mob farming has been that of "multiple mobs per encounter". The tank showcase was probably the biggest example of the opposite, but they were allegedly fighting against "stronger" mobs, so as soon as they pulled more than 2 mobs they wiped pretty quickly. And even then, quite a lot of people immediately called those mobs out for being way too easy, so real encounters might require even more healing that what we already saw there.
In other words, as long as you want to participate in any valuable content - you'll probably need a healer, otherwise you'll just die. You'll obviously have solo content, but the whole point of solo content is to be way slower (in the context of resource gains) but way easier.
Also, the main counter argument for "augments will let you self-sustain permanently" would just be "if Intrepid want their clerics to be valuable - they'll just design the game that way".
So Cleric and Bard are going to be the same except for the fact that Cleric has more healing and Bard has less healing.
So Bard is a healer?
Yes, but a weaker one, while the content requires a stronger one. This was the case in L2, even with its super basic pve. Out of 9 members in a party, 3 were buffers/bards (with one having some weak healing), 1 would be a healer (2 if it was a mage party), others would be dps with maybe a spot taken up by a very specific debuffing class.
While both bards and healers were "supports", their support mechanics were different and the game required both.
I’ve read through some of the thread and think there’s a major misunderstanding here.
One of the design concepts I read said it would be optimal to bring 1 of every class to dungeons.
To me that means:
- group content will not be doable without a healer
- I’d expect bards to increase each group members dps by 20% at minimum (and 2 bards don’t stack well) and a bards dps to be lower then a dps class
That’s the logical conclusion. The idea that a healer wouldn’t be required… I have no idea why someone would think that.
It's not a case of a healer not being required in Ashes. Even pvp is balanced around group play. Some get all hyper about the discussion and others continue with the discussion.
It is valid to discuss situations which don't require a healer as much as it is valid to discuss why a healer is required.
So you reward people higher for beating dungeons and enemies that hurt them a lot. Cleric remains efficient to have in the party because lots of heals are required, Bard remains useful because he speeds up the party's effectiveness with DPS and resource management (multiplying each party member's userfulness). All win. Where problem?
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
Comments
Not what I said.
I want your feedback. I'm just saying you're limiting your perspective if you think that the existence of certain mechanics automatically entails a lowered level of difficulty or impact of a class. You have to put the class balance into the context of the type of game, and the dungeons & PVP gameplay it offers. And that only works for feedback, if you recognise counterarguments to the problems you're pointing out, and are willing to dig for solutions to the issues that remain. (Which doesn't mean that you have to find them, just that you have to accept that finding them is the point of the exercise.)
The best times I've had healing (or honestly playing any role) for PvE in any games were the times when the people I joined were farming equal-level mobs, and because I joined, we could start tearing apart significantly overlevelled big bois in dangerous areas. Why aren't you making suggestions about content & xp gain like that, instead of basing your class balance discussion on poisoned-well-assumptions about what you're convinced gameplay will be like?
Instead you're here with your bandaid solution again: "*Grumble.* Healers might not star in every party in the game. Might as well just play another class, unless they at least make the class so OP that everyone needs it." - as if that would make playing the class any more fun for you.
So we know that devs want many different group configurations to be able to exist and thrive. Does that mean other group configurations have to be able to beat content that's as difficult as parties with a healer can get past? Does it mean they have to be able to do it at optimal efficiency and speed?
I believe you that you understood my scenario, but I do have to say, if you think "wait until you can kill the healers" is a counter-argument, you're forgetting the context you set up for this scenario, yourself.
You specifically made the claim that, if AoC's healer in a 2v2 wasn't stronger than any other class in its place, then that healer has no chance of ever being useful in a larger-scale scenario with more people.
That's the specific claim my hypothetical scenario was refuting.
And for that, it doesn't matter whether killing the healer is a viable strategy; that's why it was a pure numbers question about the effectiveness of DPS versus HPS across different group sizes - although it does hinge on the option of "retreating," but that's because my argument wasn't proving that the healer *is* stronger than a fighter, just that it *realistically can be* for any situation where you have the cover or distance you need to sufficiently control the fight.
And frankly, if the ease of killing the healer was your concern, that's probably what you should have been talking about, instead of the possibility of outhealing damage, no?
That aside, I will agree that balancing the strengths and weaknesses of the defensive tools healers (but really of all classes) have in PvP is a critical thing, and both should have prominent features. And if Intrepid messes that up, I'll be right there with you criticising what I see.
- No, it's a spacing issue. In gameplay designed around objectives, some classes are better at exploiting the strategic advantages than others. The healer tends to be one such class.
- It is also a movement and a group strategy issue. When you have 3 full-health fighters using their abiliities to manipulate the fight in their favour, protecting 1 fighter, it can be more difficult for their 5 melee opponents to keep up their pursuit, than it is for the low-health fighter to stay out of range until healthier again.
- Neither of these game-design strengths can just be overcome by trying to bruteforce your way through with "skill." The skill lies in making the most of them. For the group of 5 fighters that would mean doing something else than contesting that area, or finding a more versatile group.
Honestly? It might. But I think you've read what I had to say about that. I agree that I prefer straight-forward healer design that lets its strengths and reactive gameplay shine. But that doesn't mean that proactive offensive gameplay can't be part of the healer's kit.
And some players will use it too much and be bad healers because of it. Others will not use it at all, and be a little inefficient. The best will know exactly how far they should stretch it before it distracts them too much from the more exciting challenges of their main role.
The existence of one design element doesn't necessarily have to come at the cost of another, as long as it is bound by solid decisionmaking (with one of the resources that factor into it simply being skill points, time, and cast-time.)
It's kind of absurd that you've been presenting yourself as so superior for disliking DPS-shoehorning on healers, when you're the one with the Asian-MMO background. Asian MMOs are *notorious* for superfluously creating class identity discrepancies that neither really help to make the gameplay more challenging, nor give the class a solid new strength to exploit.
I have yet to see a Western MMO take this mistake to the breaking point. I've seen plenty of Asian MMO healers that functioned as pure DPS roles, with the least creative or impactful healing kit possible on the side.
The concern is just unfounded, and simply very evidently the result of a flawed empirical foundation.
If you are running a group (or even just a duo) on solo content, that is probably your actual issue.
I've yet to see any group content in any game that hasn't required a healer.
Yup, I second this. I don't share the dread for the game we've seen, but I do agree that the possibility is definitely a thing.
There's just also a massive gap between "healers aren't a requirement" and "healers are useless."
Healers are useless because you're better off taking another character into the fray like a rogue or wizard. Though party comps can be anything. Even some Druids would rather take Wild Form than heal in most groups. Thus, the nature of the beast doesn't change, only the application of the beast.
Are you about to dump some gotcha about how I haven't read the wikia front-to-back and don't remember the exact wording about all promised features yet on me? Cause I'd be impressed, that's almost taking this conversation into a productive direction.
Okay, so let's say Bards do everything better (at least in PvE.) Where would you start fixing that?
My initial answer would be a mix of making sure dungeons are tough without sufficient healing, making sure beating enemies who can take your HP very low (even if you play optimally) is very rewarding. And giving Clerics some tools to improve resource-management and trigger synergies for specific classes - that way you allow Clerics to improve party dps, without taking away too much of the Bard's buff/debuff identity.
Objections?
In the same way that the bard's "proximity-based proc healing" is different from the Cleric. Potency.
And cleric would probably have several heals that can be staggered in a way to provide 1000 HPS, if the mana allows it.
And that's just one mob, while we've already seen that the current direction of mob farming has been that of "multiple mobs per encounter". The tank showcase was probably the biggest example of the opposite, but they were allegedly fighting against "stronger" mobs, so as soon as they pulled more than 2 mobs they wiped pretty quickly. And even then, quite a lot of people immediately called those mobs out for being way too easy, so real encounters might require even more healing that what we already saw there.
In other words, as long as you want to participate in any valuable content - you'll probably need a healer, otherwise you'll just die. You'll obviously have solo content, but the whole point of solo content is to be way slower (in the context of resource gains) but way easier.
Also, the main counter argument for "augments will let you self-sustain permanently" would just be "if Intrepid want their clerics to be valuable - they'll just design the game that way".
While both bards and healers were "supports", their support mechanics were different and the game required both.
One of the design concepts I read said it would be optimal to bring 1 of every class to dungeons.
To me that means:
- group content will not be doable without a healer
- I’d expect bards to increase each group members dps by 20% at minimum (and 2 bards don’t stack well) and a bards dps to be lower then a dps class
That’s the logical conclusion. The idea that a healer wouldn’t be required… I have no idea why someone would think that.
It is valid to discuss situations which don't require a healer as much as it is valid to discuss why a healer is required.