Warning from my previous experiences facing healers balanced around PvE.

LuKe_NuKeS_Em wrote: »

P0GG0 wrote: »

simply put; they end up mandatory. a grp with a healer cannot lose in pvp againt a grp with out one.
i'm active on new world and the current meta is anti heal proc on everything.
it was true in dark age of camelot 20 years ago and it's still an issue today.

love you, cant wait for the alpha.

P0GG0 wrote: »

simply put; they end up mandatory. a grp with a healer cannot lose in pvp againt a grp with out one.
i'm active on new world and the current meta is anti heal proc on everything.
it was true in dark age of camelot 20 years ago and it's still an issue today.

love you, cant wait for the alpha.

Agree in the sense that players should be viable in any combat with any classes given appropriate tactics. 8 rogues in a raid or 8 tanks in pvp should be options because that points to true balance and allows players to play what they want.

The problem is, the only way to achieve this from a game development perspective is for the classes to all be both simple and bland.

If you look at any game with this kind of hyer balance, simple, bland classes is how they do it.

Look at how many abilities a given character in any game with this kind of balance has, and compare that to the fact that the current game design will see each of the 8 primary classes in Ashes have access to at least 2,520 ability variants - and this is before factoring in additional augments from the likes of religion and social organizations.

That is over 20k ability variants in the game.

These abilities that you can get from those available to your class aren't set in stone either, players are free to pick and chose which they want and which they don't want, within a framework.

This game isn't intended to be about the kind of hyper balance you are talking about above. It straigth up isn't possible in a game like Ashes. That is the realm of lobby based esports titles where simple and bland is desired.

In a game like Ashes, if you run with 8 rogues or 8 tanks, you should expect to get steamrolled by a balanced group of 4 players.

Thread cooked.

LuKe_NuKeS_Em

Noaani wrote: »

LuKe_NuKeS_Em wrote: »

P0GG0 wrote: »

simply put; they end up mandatory. a grp with a healer cannot lose in pvp againt a grp with out one.
i'm active on new world and the current meta is anti heal proc on everything.
it was true in dark age of camelot 20 years ago and it's still an issue today.

love you, cant wait for the alpha.

P0GG0 wrote: »

simply put; they end up mandatory. a grp with a healer cannot lose in pvp againt a grp with out one.
i'm active on new world and the current meta is anti heal proc on everything.
it was true in dark age of camelot 20 years ago and it's still an issue today.

love you, cant wait for the alpha.

Agree in the sense that players should be viable in any combat with any classes given appropriate tactics. 8 rogues in a raid or 8 tanks in pvp should be options because that points to true balance and allows players to play what they want.

The problem is, the only way to achieve this from a game development perspective is for the classes to all be both simple and bland.

If you look at any game with this kind of hyer balance, simple, bland classes is how they do it.

Look at how many abilities a given character in any game with this kind of balance has, and compare that to the fact that the current game design will see each of the 8 primary classes in Ashes have access to at least 2,520 ability variants - and this is before factoring in additional augments from the likes of religion and social organizations.

That is over 20k ability variants in the game.

These abilities that you can get from those available to your class aren't set in stone either, players are free to pick and chose which they want and which they don't want, within a framework.

This game isn't intended to be about the kind of hyper balance you are talking about above. It straigth up isn't possible in a game like Ashes. That is the realm of lobby based esports titles where simple and bland is desired.

In a game like Ashes, if you run with 8 rogues or 8 tanks, you should expect to get steamrolled by a balanced group of 4 players.

Wrong. That is just lazy thinking. You have obviously never run a game for a group of bards before. If you lack the creativity to create lock and key solutions for single classed raid groups, then you have no place to be talking about game design.

Why would give your player 8 options when only 3 of them are correct? You don't want a trinity system; you want an octagon system.

You know what is not fun? Having to wait to fill roles or fill the role yourself when you want to play a different character, that is not fun.

LuKe_NuKeS_Em wrote: »

You know what is not fun? Having to wait to fill roles or fill the role yourself when you want to play a different character, that is not fun.

That’s what Summoner is for.

Depraved

Liniker wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

P0GG0 wrote: »

i dont mind the trinity to easily balance a ton of PvE activities , i just dont want my open world PvP to become a PvE raid?

so don't play ashes of creation, this is a game that follows a classic trinity system, I am a PvP player, ever since DaoC, through WoW, Warhammer online, Revelation, Archeage, Tera, and now AoC, what I love the most about PvP in MMOs is comp formation and tactics with tanks doing the engage front line and CCing, healers and buffers on the back being protected and DPS melting down enemies with AoE and flank groups going for the enemy healers,

this is what MMORPG PvP should be and I'm glad that ashes is following that same path, if you don't like it, and want a 1v1 fighting game like BDO where everyone is just a different flavor of assassin, this is not the game

linking my comment from the tank thread here,

did u play revelations online? :O

Spif

To address the OPs concern, there will likely be a heal debuff that several DPS classes have access to, and this will differentiate PvP healing from PvE (unless mobs have access to it...heh). It's almost certain that a healer or two will be still be mandatory for full group PvP meta. Likely a tank too. And at least one or two of the heal-debuff classes. Bard's are likely to have some PvP specific abilites/augments. An anti-CC song/buff maybe, so count them in as necessary also.

But there are a whole lot of unknowns too. We've seen some GTAE/ PBAE damage, heal and CC abilities to go along with the usual single target stuff (and pulls, etc). That suggests that bomb groups may work. AE stun->bomb

It's just way to early to tell. It may be that the holy trinity gets a bit watered down, along with 8-man boss damage, and tank's tankiness. It's not unreasonable for a tank to take half the damage that fighter would take...rather than being able to laugh off blows that 100->0 the fighter.

LuKe_NuKeS_Em wrote: »

Wrong. That is just lazy thinking. You have obviously never run a game for a group of bards before. If you lack the creativity to create lock and key solutions for single classed raid groups, then you have no place to be talking about game design.

What are you even talking about here?

It reads to me like you are talking about designing an encounter for a group of bards in a tabletop gaming setting, and having it be a viable challenge.

If this is indeed what you are suggesting, then the suggestion that this is even remotely comparible to building an encounter that is expected to be taken on by quite literally any number of players between 8 and 1000, of any class combination with any combination of abilities from that potential 20k that the game will have, and having it be a viable challenge for any given set of variables above is even remotely comparible to creating an encounter for a tabletop setting where you know the party, their class, their power level, their gear, their exact abilities and the personalities of the players involved is even remotely the same thing, then you are in no position to talk.

Not talk about game design - talk in general. If you equate these two things as being the same, then you have nothing of value to say.

LuKe_NuKeS_Em

Noaani wrote: »

LuKe_NuKeS_Em wrote: »

Wrong. That is just lazy thinking. You have obviously never run a game for a group of bards before. If you lack the creativity to create lock and key solutions for single classed raid groups, then you have no place to be talking about game design.

What are you even talking about here?

It reads to me like you are talking about designing an encounter for a group of bards in a tabletop gaming setting, and having it be a viable challenge.

If this is indeed what you are suggesting, then the suggestion that this is even remotely comparible to building an encounter that is expected to be taken on by quite literally any number of players between 8 and 1000, of any class combination with any combination of abilities from that potential 20k that the game will have, and having it be a viable challenge for any given set of variables above is even remotely comparible to creating an encounter for a tabletop setting where you know the party, their class, their power level, their gear, their exact abilities and the personalities of the players involved is even remotely the same thing, then you are in no position to talk.

Not talk about game design - talk in general. If you equate these two things as being the same, then you have nothing of value to say.

Small brain says can not balance must not work give up. Very good reasoning.

LuKe_NuKeS_Em wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

LuKe_NuKeS_Em wrote: »

Wrong. That is just lazy thinking. You have obviously never run a game for a group of bards before. If you lack the creativity to create lock and key solutions for single classed raid groups, then you have no place to be talking about game design.

What are you even talking about here?

It reads to me like you are talking about designing an encounter for a group of bards in a tabletop gaming setting, and having it be a viable challenge.

If this is indeed what you are suggesting, then the suggestion that this is even remotely comparible to building an encounter that is expected to be taken on by quite literally any number of players between 8 and 1000, of any class combination with any combination of abilities from that potential 20k that the game will have, and having it be a viable challenge for any given set of variables above is even remotely comparible to creating an encounter for a tabletop setting where you know the party, their class, their power level, their gear, their exact abilities and the personalities of the players involved is even remotely the same thing, then you are in no position to talk.

Not talk about game design - talk in general. If you equate these two things as being the same, then you have nothing of value to say.

Small brain says can not balance must not work give up. Very good reasoning.

I mean, sort of, yeah.

It isn't a case of "Intrepid have all of these things in place, and so now they must give up any notion of hyper-balance like you seem to want".

Rather, it's more a case of "Intrepid aren't after the type of hyper-blance that you seem to want, and as a result are able to put in place the class system they have".

Ashes isn't a game to spoon feed you correct "decisions". There absolutely are ways you can screw up, and that is literally by both intention and design. This is good, as it isn't a meaningful decision if there isn't an option that is objectively wrong.

What you are asking for is literally what Ashes is being designed to specifically not offer.

Its not that bad of an idea to balance pvp one the individual's abilities and not the grp size / diversity. why is that so controversial ?

Depraved

P0GG0 wrote: »

Its not that bad of an idea to balance pvp one the individual's abilities and not the grp size / diversity. why is that so controversial ?

you are right. thats not bad. but remember, dont copy the result, copy the strategy. just because that worked in one game, it doesnt mean it will work in another game.

different games go into different directions.

i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.

P0GG0 wrote: »

Its not that bad of an idea to balance pvp one the individual's abilities and not the grp size / diversity. why is that so controversial ?

Making correct choices is an aspect of a persons abilities.

In a persistent world, any decision you make affects everything that happens in the future. That is kind of the point. Your decisions at launch still impact you years later. The notion that an individual players abilities only come in to play when they meet someone out in the open and start githing is just outright wrong - it is a horrendously bad take.

Your path to fighting that individual began the moment you created your first character. Fighting that character is a part of your path towards fighting the next character you fight.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

If you and I meet in the game and we are each in situations that make it impossible for you to beat me, I have already displayed my abilities to you, and I won this fight long before it even began. That is every much a display of a players abilities in a persistent world game as someone going in to a normalized arena and beating someone else is a display of a players abilities.

Kilion

P0GG0 wrote: »

i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.

Intrepid does not try to put PvP first though. They try to create a game in which PvE and PvP occur naturally because of the way the game is designed.

Kilion wrote: »

P0GG0 wrote: »

i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.

Intrepid does not try to put PvP first though. They try to create a game in which PvE and PvP occur naturally because of the way the game is designed.

i feel its a huge mistake knowing how boss fights work. i dont see any way of balancing both at the same time. makes 0 sense to me.

P0GG0 wrote: »

i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.

You gotta learn some coding and watch a few YouTube’s on game development.

I agree that combat is the keystone to a game, but keystones are installed last as they hold the rest of the stones together.

It’s fine to be concerned about combat not being good, but first you need to understand the difference between combat and class design. It seems like you may be confusing the two.

the art of talking with out ever addressing the issue.

again, find me a link between boss fights with one shot mechanics / huge AOEs / limited space / limited time and open world pvp fun ?

Kilion

P0GG0 wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

P0GG0 wrote: »

i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.

Intrepid does not try to put PvP first though. They try to create a game in which PvE and PvP occur naturally because of the way the game is designed.

i feel its a huge mistake knowing how boss fights work. i dont see any way of balancing both at the same time. makes 0 sense to me.

That's perfectly fine for you feel that, but that doesn't change the fact that Intrepids goal is not to create a PvP-prioritizing MMORPG according to what they say.

Regarding your point on the boss battles: PvX doesn't mean everything has to be 50-50 it means that both are inevitable parts of the game. Some things will see more PvP conflicts, other will see more PvE conflicts.

Depraved

P0GG0 wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

P0GG0 wrote: »

i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.

Intrepid does not try to put PvP first though. They try to create a game in which PvE and PvP occur naturally because of the way the game is designed.

i feel its a huge mistake knowing how boss fights work. i dont see any way of balancing both at the same time. makes 0 sense to me.

imagine if only there were people in the world who studied game design and built games...

just because you cant see how it would work, doesnt mean others cant