You can't make the argument they are including team play while saying Steven is talking about 1v1. Your arguments make 0 sense. Its full of bs.
Mag, just please go watch the clip again. He literally talks about "dps vs dps", "healer/tank vs healer/tank" and then talks about group pvp and says "targets can be killed *snap* like that".
So when we draw a line between "a dps character can be killed in 10s" and "in a group vs group situation a target can die in a second" (snap signifies that second) - it's not difficult to come to a conclusion that several situations have been considered when explaining those encounters, because one directly relates to the other.
Depraved chose to believe that Steven was talking about an 8+++ size group vs a singular target. You are now choosing to think that Steven didn't even talk about group pvp.
Well, I want to say "realizing that people are confused is also a form of valuable feedback for Intrepid", but that would involve making assumptions, because I don't know which segment of the audience Mag represents. Maybe Intrepid is inclined to talk about this in the future, too.
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
No, that link is pretty much Aegis already. And Aegis' aoe also seemed to be tiny.
I'm talking about a huge aoe behind the tank, that's constantly on (i.e. an aura). Well, if, as I said, people think that the 5min buff is too OP.
And I related my idea to Aegis simply due to the similarities in the mechanic. The effect is simply "this gives 50 def if the target received dmg from only a single source, within the last 5s. This gives 100 def, if it was 2 sources. Etc etc scaling up to a shitton of def if a lot of sources of dmg".
In other words, I want to make the attackers spread their damage, instead of all hitting one target. This would still allow for a one-shot kill, but the coordination skill required for this would be insane (or, well, it could be balanced to be insane depending on the dmg check timing values).
Ah, I see. I'm just guessing here, but I think this makes party vs party scenarios with 2 tanks weird/jank. My thinking here is one brings 2 tanks to try and chain Grapple the one giving that buff away from the formation, to somewhere too far off to quickly reposition. 2 tanks are good for this, and they're also good for having a backup defender for when your first one gets grappled away.
So really, what I think this does is make 2 tank the meta for pvp. Maybe even 3 tanks. What are your thoughts on this?
who gonna kill? lol
best pvp party will probs have 0 tanks
Have you played a group pvp game where 4-5 DPS out of 8 isn't enough to do the killing (I'm not yet sure if this will be 1 Cleric or 2 Cleric meta) ? Quite fast? Considering the fact Clerics and Tanks themselves are still perfectly capable of dealing damage, just less of it?
3 tanks. you definetely want at least 1 cleric for the heals 1 bard for the buffs. that leaves 3 dps. will probably need summoner to support too or debuff, depending what it does, and chances are you will need 2 clerics in this game for PVP (that's more likely than needing 3 tanks). we don't know for sure. lets say 3 dps. maybe if you pull a squishy, you can kill him fast, who knows.
if you start adding more tanks, who will you remove from the party?
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm of the opinion that tank shouldn't do anywhere near good dps, so having 2 tanks decreases your damage output significantly. And if parties think they can still win with lower dps - more power to them.
In Ashes that should not be a valid concept because every Class in that Group with 2 Tanks could be an x/Rogue equipped with plenty of DPS Augments.
Or the 2 Tanks could be adding DPS Augments from Social Orgs or Religions, etc.
You can't make the argument they are including team play while saying Steven is talking about 1v1. Your arguments make 0 sense. Its full of bs.
Mag, just please go watch the clip again. He literally talks about "dps vs dps", "healer/tank vs healer/tank" and then talks about group pvp and says "targets can be killed *snap* like that".
So when we draw a line between "a dps character can be killed in 10s" and "in a group vs group situation a target can die in a second" (snap signifies that second) - it's not difficult to come to a conclusion that several situations have been considered when explaining those encounters, because one directly relates to the other.
Depraved chose to believe that Steven was talking about an 8+++ size group vs a singular target. You are now choosing to think that Steven didn't even talk about group pvp.
he literally said make a raid call and target the same person. qell he said raid call, implying a large group of people, not a party of 8 or an incomplete party. you choose to believe he was only talking about 8 men groups.
there isn't any reason to believe he talked about only a group of 8. a group is more than 1 person. so we all think different thing based on our subjective understanding of what steven said. so if this is all subjective, why are you more right than me?
No, that link is pretty much Aegis already. And Aegis' aoe also seemed to be tiny.
I'm talking about a huge aoe behind the tank, that's constantly on (i.e. an aura). Well, if, as I said, people think that the 5min buff is too OP.
And I related my idea to Aegis simply due to the similarities in the mechanic. The effect is simply "this gives 50 def if the target received dmg from only a single source, within the last 5s. This gives 100 def, if it was 2 sources. Etc etc scaling up to a shitton of def if a lot of sources of dmg".
In other words, I want to make the attackers spread their damage, instead of all hitting one target. This would still allow for a one-shot kill, but the coordination skill required for this would be insane (or, well, it could be balanced to be insane depending on the dmg check timing values).
Ah, I see. I'm just guessing here, but I think this makes party vs party scenarios with 2 tanks weird/jank. My thinking here is one brings 2 tanks to try and chain Grapple the one giving that buff away from the formation, to somewhere too far off to quickly reposition. 2 tanks are good for this, and they're also good for having a backup defender for when your first one gets grappled away.
So really, what I think this does is make 2 tank the meta for pvp. Maybe even 3 tanks. What are your thoughts on this?
who gonna kill? lol
best pvp party will probs have 0 tanks
Have you played a group pvp game where 4-5 DPS out of 8 isn't enough to do the killing (I'm not yet sure if this will be 1 Cleric or 2 Cleric meta) ? Quite fast? Considering the fact Clerics and Tanks themselves are still perfectly capable of dealing damage, just less of it?
3 tanks. you definetely want at least 1 cleric for the heals 1 bard for the buffs. that leaves 3 dps. will probably need summoner to support too or debuff, depending what it does, and chances are you will need 2 clerics in this game for PVP (that's more likely than needing 3 tanks). we don't know for sure. lets say 3 dps. maybe if you pull a squishy, you can kill him fast, who knows.
if you start adding more tanks, who will you remove from the party?
Are you sure it will end up being 3 tanks given current design, though? Can you expand on why?
Regarding Summoner, I know they said they'd release one, but how would the class function in Ashes specifically? TTK on the quick side and abundance of mobility means pets will have similar issues as Tanks when it comes to being roadblocks.
We're still concerned about the role of Bards and what buffs they can even bring to be relevant, so the side of Summoner that relies on buffs would encounter the same concerns.
And if you take Summoner in a more damage oriented route, I would expect Rangers and Fighters to be more valuable given what we've seen.
So once again, how would Summoner work?
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
No, that link is pretty much Aegis already. And Aegis' aoe also seemed to be tiny.
I'm talking about a huge aoe behind the tank, that's constantly on (i.e. an aura). Well, if, as I said, people think that the 5min buff is too OP.
And I related my idea to Aegis simply due to the similarities in the mechanic. The effect is simply "this gives 50 def if the target received dmg from only a single source, within the last 5s. This gives 100 def, if it was 2 sources. Etc etc scaling up to a shitton of def if a lot of sources of dmg".
In other words, I want to make the attackers spread their damage, instead of all hitting one target. This would still allow for a one-shot kill, but the coordination skill required for this would be insane (or, well, it could be balanced to be insane depending on the dmg check timing values).
Def not a strait buff. There shouldn't be a "no aoe" button in the game.
I do like the idea of a cone behind the tank, that's a great idea. It would have to be something the tank uses though, like something on the hotbar with a cooldown. Perhaps specing into it can give more frequent uses. It has to for sure be something the tank does, instead of something he has. In that way it totally fits into the idea of the party making tactical decisions in combat and the tank making choices about where to spend points.
Those types of tools can be a way for a small party to mitigate against a zerg and give themselves more time.
You can't make the argument they are including team play while saying Steven is talking about 1v1. Your arguments make 0 sense. Its full of bs.
Mag, just please go watch the clip again. He literally talks about "dps vs dps", "healer/tank vs healer/tank" and then talks about group pvp and says "targets can be killed *snap* like that".
So when we draw a line between "a dps character can be killed in 10s" and "in a group vs group situation a target can die in a second" (snap signifies that second) - it's not difficult to come to a conclusion that several situations have been considered when explaining those encounters, because one directly relates to the other.
Depraved chose to believe that Steven was talking about an 8+++ size group vs a singular target. You are now choosing to think that Steven didn't even talk about group pvp.
Again group comps will increase the life of people like every other game. On top of the skill ceiling that was also talked about.
You can not believe it if you want, what steven said is if everyone targets someone yes you can kill them. You are skewing words to fit your narrative to try to complain what he is talking about.
Saying you can be targeted doesn't you you won't have ways to extend your life higher than normal its literarily common sense. As well as he said average which has a lot of meaning in itself. Your points make almost 0 sense because the fact again you can focus on more defensive type options. Those stack stronger with group comps meaning you can survive longer.
This is why you were given for tank cleric 20-30 ttk, this means there is plenty of room and things aren't' set in strong this is a mmo. Which again further geos to the conclusion you are complaining without any actual backing to your argument. You are basing your argument off assumptions.
THere is 0 quote of him saying in a team comp, with skill and defensive skill tree you can die within the 10 second ttk. And giving a clear break down of why that is, or how you can use skill to get to that point.
Its really obvious to people, but your bias to complain won't allow you to see that.
No, that link is pretty much Aegis already. And Aegis' aoe also seemed to be tiny.
I'm talking about a huge aoe behind the tank, that's constantly on (i.e. an aura). Well, if, as I said, people think that the 5min buff is too OP.
And I related my idea to Aegis simply due to the similarities in the mechanic. The effect is simply "this gives 50 def if the target received dmg from only a single source, within the last 5s. This gives 100 def, if it was 2 sources. Etc etc scaling up to a shitton of def if a lot of sources of dmg".
In other words, I want to make the attackers spread their damage, instead of all hitting one target. This would still allow for a one-shot kill, but the coordination skill required for this would be insane (or, well, it could be balanced to be insane depending on the dmg check timing values).
Ah, I see. I'm just guessing here, but I think this makes party vs party scenarios with 2 tanks weird/jank. My thinking here is one brings 2 tanks to try and chain Grapple the one giving that buff away from the formation, to somewhere too far off to quickly reposition. 2 tanks are good for this, and they're also good for having a backup defender for when your first one gets grappled away.
So really, what I think this does is make 2 tank the meta for pvp. Maybe even 3 tanks. What are your thoughts on this?
who gonna kill? lol
best pvp party will probs have 0 tanks
Have you played a group pvp game where 4-5 DPS out of 8 isn't enough to do the killing (I'm not yet sure if this will be 1 Cleric or 2 Cleric meta) ? Quite fast? Considering the fact Clerics and Tanks themselves are still perfectly capable of dealing damage, just less of it?
3 tanks. you definetely want at least 1 cleric for the heals 1 bard for the buffs. that leaves 3 dps. will probably need summoner to support too or debuff, depending what it does, and chances are you will need 2 clerics in this game for PVP (that's more likely than needing 3 tanks). we don't know for sure. lets say 3 dps. maybe if you pull a squishy, you can kill him fast, who knows.
if you start adding more tanks, who will you remove from the party?
Are you sure it will end up being 3 tanks given current design, though? Can you expand on why?
Regarding Summoner, I know they said they'd release one, but how would the class function in Ashes specifically? TTK on the quick side and abundance of mobility means pets will have similar issues as Tanks when it comes to being roadblocks.
We're still concerned about the role of Bards and what buffs they can even bring to be relevant, so the side of Summoner that relies on buffs would encounter the same concerns.
And if you take Summoner in a more damage oriented route, I would expect Rangers and Fighters to be more valuable given what we've seen.
So once again, how would Summoner work?
I feel strawmanned here...
i said 3 tanks because you said 3 tanks.
regarding summoners, we already know that they will have at least 2 play styles. one is playing with the pet and the master is basically a support for the pet, and the other one is the pet is a support for the master. pets wont have the same issues as tank because they will most likely have different skills, you know, the summoner being a different class.
for mass pvp, id say the summoner will probably be preferred over a fighter if it ends up being a ranged class. also potentially irreplaceable supporting abilities. it all depends what the class can offer. if its end up being in a party for its supporting abilities, then 3 tanks, 1 cleric 1 bard, 1 summoner leaves only 2 slots for dps...really, can 2 dps one shot someone after they get pulled and cc'ed? the other 6 classes combined might not have enough damage + they gonna be focused on supporting + the person pulled has a healer as well.
i highly doubt you will need more than 1 tank in a party. and we will probably need 0 tanks in a pure pvp party.
In Ashes that should not be a valid concept because every Class in that Group with 2 Tanks could be an x/Rogue equipped with plenty of DPS Augments.
Or the 2 Tanks could be adding DPS Augments from Social Orgs or Religions, etc.
And none of those classes will have as big of a dps values as a pure dps class, just as classes with cleric secondary won't be able to heal a raid as well as a cleric will. That was my point.
Those types of tools can be a way for a small party to mitigate against a zerg and give themselves more time.
My main concern here has been the "*snap* it's dead" thing that Steven talked about. I don't want that speed. Having a cd on the effect I proposed would lead us back to the snapping.
There should simply be a ton of other ways to disable tank's aura. Hell, it could be influenced by a silence effect or smth similar.
I've just played enough L2 in an archer/dagger party where "the enemy healer dies before the fight begins" was the main rule. And considering where AoC's design seems to be heading - we'll have the same situation here as well.
Its really obvious to people, but your bias to complain won't allow you to see that.
Ok, you know the game Steven is making better than him. You've obviously tested it behind the scenes and have told the designers how the game will work. So I obviously should trust your words on this matter, rather than the creative director's, who's words I simply repeated to you w/o changing anything about them.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
And none of those classes will have as big of a dps values as a pure dps class, just as classes with cleric secondary won't be able to heal a raid as well as a cleric will. That was my point.
They can cumulatively. Depends on how they synergize and stack their attacks.
Rather than depending on individual rotations.
They can cumulatively. Depends on how they synergize and stack their attacks.
Rather than depending on individual rotations.
Unless I completely misunderstood Steven's goal for augments - no class will be as powerful as the main archetype that determined the class (obviously outside of doubles).
In other words, if tank's "tanking power" = 1, a class that has tank as a secondary might be 0.8 at max progression. And I don't see why Intrepid would design their math in such a way that 0.8x8 somehow = more than 1x8.
In other words, I expect synergy between dpses to produce more damage than synergy between non-dps archetypes that took a dps secondary. If you disagree with that expectation - great, hope you're right.
According to steven the TTK will be 10-15 seconds , are you guys ready to have fun getting 1 shot all the time , gonna be fun for a lot of the people who loved the game having a 30 sec-1m TTK
The whole TTK discussion is pointless before Alpha 2. What do you even want the developers to do? They can design abilities right now, and then let people test out how long it takes to kill each other with these abilities in different situations. Based on that feedback, they can then nerf or buff the abilities to where it feels good.
We are not yet at the "let people test it out" part, so there is no point in debating whether TTK should be longer or shorter. It's not about how long or short it is in the first place; it's about it feeling good. For that, it needs to be balanced between not getting one-shotted and not being boring because you can just tank for minutes without doing anything just because you have high HP.
Exactly how long a good TTK will be depends on different factors, like how many abilities we will have on the bar, etc. These are factors we don't even know yet.
For the empyre !!!
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Unless I completely misunderstood Steven's goal for augments - no class will be as powerful as the main archetype that determined the class (obviously outside of doubles).
In other words, if tank's "tanking power" = 1, a class that has tank as a secondary might be 0.8 at max progression. And I don't see why Intrepid would design their math in such a way that 0.8x8 somehow = more than 1x8.
In other words, I expect synergy between dpses to produce more damage than synergy between non-dps archetypes that took a dps secondary. If you disagree with that expectation - great, hope you're right.
Again, you are focusing on individual rotation rather than on synergizing abilities with the other players in the Group.
I did not suggest that one x/Rogue in a group will be as effective as a Rogue/x.
The math should not be as simple as 0.8x8.
If the x/Rogues in the group synergize their abilities, rather than just focusing on their individual rotations, they should be able to compensate for the lack of Rogue/x dps. Although, they still might be missing non-dps Rogue Utilities.
Again, you are focusing on individual rotation rather than on synergizing abilities with the other players in the Group.
I did not suggest that one x/Rogue in a group will be as effective as a Rogue/x.
The last paragraph talks explicitly about synergies.
0
ApokMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
According to steven the TTK will be 10-15 seconds , are you guys ready to have fun getting 1 shot all the time , gonna be fun for a lot of the people who loved the game having a 30 sec-1m TTK
The whole TTK discussion is pointless before Alpha 2. What do you even want the developers to do? They can design abilities right now, and then let people test out how long it takes to kill each other with these abilities in different situations. Based on that feedback, they can then nerf or buff the abilities to where it feels good.
We are not yet at the "let people test it out" part, so there is no point in debating whether TTK should be longer or shorter. It's not about how long or short it is in the first place; it's about it feeling good. For that, it needs to be balanced between not getting one-shotted and not being boring because you can just tank for minutes without doing anything just because you have high HP.
Exactly how long a good TTK will be depends on different factors, like how many abilities we will have on the bar, etc. These are factors we don't even know yet.
I feel like it's a pointless discussion in general, go play any group pvp that uses the holy trinity and you'll quickly notice the supports are the ones who carry the fights. NW is this way. if you go into group pvp and your side lacks heals you die almost instantly but with healers you sustain. too many healers and not enough dps on both sides everything turns into a good 3~5 minute brawl until people peal off and take down the healers.
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It doesn't. Your math suggests each x/Rogue is doing their individual rotations; rather than stacking their DPS attacks.
It doesn't. Your math suggests each x/Rogue is doing their individual rotations; rather than stacking their DPS attacks.
I used multiplication precisely to show that each party member multiplies the power of another member. If I wanted to say "8 people doing their single-player rotations" I would've used addition.
I feel like it's a pointless discussion in general, go play any group pvp that uses the holy trinity and you'll quickly notice the supports are the ones who carry the fights. NW is this way. if you go into group pvp and your side lacks heals you die almost instantly but with healers you sustain. too many healers and not enough dps on both sides everything turns into a good 3~5 minute brawl until people peal off and take down the healers.
So far it seems like There are no Cleanse skills. So some sleep skills used on a healer could make the difference. Also Fighter's bleed will reduce healing done + reduce dmg mitigation. So i doubt stacking healers will be as effective. Especially since fighter class will be really popular (or at least i expect it to be).
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I used multiplication precisely to show that each party member multiplies the power of another member. If I wanted to say "8 people doing their single-player rotations" I would've used addition.
LMAO
0.8x8 is the same thing as 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8
Again, you did not indicate stacking abilities. Which is more than that sum.
Also it would be 0.8x8 is greater than 1.
But, you still have to factor in stacking bonuses, rather than just adding x/Rogue 8 times.
(or x/Tank 8 times)
i highly doubt you will need more than 1 tank in a party. and we will probably need 0 tanks in a pure pvp party.
Nah, I figured out what happened here, it was just a silly misunderstanding. I said two or MAYBE three tanks because I was theorycrafting the possible results of a buff Nikr was talking about (he made some good points tho). This isn't something I believe in or am attached to, it was just me basically trying to figure out how it might all look, because we still don't know how Intrepid plans to approach party buffs.
So, it is now very clear to me you still expect parties to have 1 or 0 tanks, thank you. I don't immediately disagree OR agree with this. My position is very simply that I can't yet figure out how Intrepid is planning to make Tanks and Bards both useful and fun to play with the current setup (mobility and TTK wise). You could for example turn them into buffbots but is it also fun?
regarding summoners, we already know that they will have at least 2 play styles. one is playing with the pet and the master is basically a support for the pet, and the other one is the pet is a support for the master. pets wont have the same issues as tank because they will most likely have different skills, you know, the summoner being a different class.
for mass pvp, id say the summoner will probably be preferred over a fighter if it ends up being a ranged class. also potentially irreplaceable supporting abilities. it all depends what the class can offer. if its end up being in a party for its supporting abilities, then 3 tanks, 1 cleric 1 bard, 1 summoner leaves only 2 slots for dps...really, can 2 dps one shot someone after they get pulled and cc'ed? the other 6 classes combined might not have enough damage + they gonna be focused on supporting + the person pulled has a healer as well.
What I'm trying to say is that Summoner is going to inherit any and all issues of the classes whole role they overlap with (even a bit). If the Tank struggles to roadblock a highly mobile target, so will the Summoner/their pet. If a Bard's buffs don't get to make enough difference because the fight is already over, so will the Summoner's. And so on.
If you disagree, that's fine, but I'd love an explanation why. Because depending on that, Summoner can either end up overshadowing other classes or being overshadowed by them.
Edit: Fixed weird quote stuff.
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
Yeah, and WAY FASTER in group situations. It's gonna be a bloodbath. I personally highly dislike it.
It might be 10-15 seconds based on group combat because they said the game would be balanced around groups so the time to kill he gave might be in a 8v8 situation not a 1v1 situation.
10-15 second TTK sounds about right to me from a pvp perspective tbh
also TTK times tend to be based on hitting somone who just standing there and not doing anything to defend themselfs acting like a dummy. So in actual fights it would probaly be quite a bit longer
Yeah, and WAY FASTER in group situations. It's gonna be a bloodbath. I personally highly dislike it.
It might be 10-15 seconds based on group combat because they said the game would be balanced around groups so the time to kill he gave might be in a 8v8 situation not a 1v1 situation.
10-15 second TTK sounds about right to me from a pvp perspective tbh
also TTK times tend to be based on hitting somone who just standing there and not doing anything to defend themselfs acting like a dummy. So in actual fights it would probaly be quite a bit longer
I'm actually really encouraged by the number of people who have this 'reframing of what Steven said' as their response to this topic, since it implies a lot about what the response will be in Alpha-2.
I also see a benefit in the fact that it creates one of those situations where Intrepid can change something and then 'quietly pretend this is what Steven meant all along' if necessary, but on the other hand, this is also one of those situations where, if it did change due to feedback, it would be a good thing to talk about as proof of their willingness to listen to feedback.
In Ashes that should not be a valid concept because every Class in that Group with 2 Tanks could be an x/Rogue equipped with plenty of DPS Augments.
Or the 2 Tanks could be adding DPS Augments from Social Orgs or Religions, etc.
And none of those classes will have as big of a dps values as a pure dps class, just as classes with cleric secondary won't be able to heal a raid as well as a cleric will. That was my point.
Those types of tools can be a way for a small party to mitigate against a zerg and give themselves more time.
My main concern here has been the "*snap* it's dead" thing that Steven talked about. I don't want that speed. Having a cd on the effect I proposed would lead us back to the snapping.
There should simply be a ton of other ways to disable tank's aura. Hell, it could be influenced by a silence effect or smth similar.
I've just played enough L2 in an archer/dagger party where "the enemy healer dies before the fight begins" was the main rule. And considering where AoC's design seems to be heading - we'll have the same situation here as well.
Its really obvious to people, but your bias to complain won't allow you to see that.
Ok, you know the game Steven is making better than him. You've obviously tested it behind the scenes and have told the designers how the game will work. So I obviously should trust your words on this matter, rather than the creative director's, who's words I simply repeated to you w/o changing anything about them.
So now u are at the point about saying i know the game better than him, what I'm saying is you guys have no clue what you are talking about. When are you going to realize your bias is stretching what he is saying and you literally are not MAKING any point and every thing you are saying holds 0 weight.
I can't believe i need to go over every detail in the video because you don't have a point so you are trying to make things up in your head so complain about ttk. This could be a long post because honestly the BS you guys are bringing up needs to stop.
know 10 to 15 seconds upwards of 30 seconds depending on the arch type right
39:09
um so you know obviously the more restorative uh Arch types like a cleric or whatever might be able to last longer
39:15
or a tank might be able to last longer if they're facing another tank or if they're facing another cleric right then it's going to be like a you know Whiffle
bat Fest or something um uh and then if you're talking about you know two DPS
39:27
against each other um that's going to be real fast um so so I would say that's
Instantly you can see the ttk he is talking about is between various classes and longer kill times directed at tank vrs tank and cleric vrs cleric. It is EXTREMELY CLEAR he is talking about 1v1 situations and certain ones with his comment as well.
He does on to say the faster times would be dps against DPS, which you can look at the 10-15 ttk he was talking about.
Your point here that he is talking about different team comps, defensive skill trees, heavy kiting, generals support, etc. Is made up fantasy, you are doing this because you do not have a point and are trying to make up a issue to support your non existent argument
organized in the way that you have um targeting and Target assists and
39:47
that you call you know raid calling like there is opportunities there to have
39:53
multiple DPSS take out a Target real quick right and and because of that type of precision
Now you are using this quote and mixing it up with his previous take about group play and that they planned for it with TTK (10-15 15-30) that is incorrect. His comment here only relates to that if you are doing group or RAID calling (which means a lot of people) multiple DPS can focus someone and kill them quickly. You have 0 context or knowledge of the actually game (as you have not played the GAME) on how that is going to work and amount of DPS you need to do that.
On top of that you do not have context for different situation in the game, this is what i talk about when im mentioning waves. There can be gaps or changes to take a opportunity for your advantage to kill people. This exist pretty much ALL games in relation to pvp to varying extents. A tank might not be guarding someone, or not using a skill and its easier to kill them. Where if the tank had the skill on it wouldn't be as easy to do that.
Steven is not giving a detailed breakdown here on fights nor should he, when you have been given a little information and you are trying to be like mr fantastic and stretch it.
numbers over skilled there is now a better opportunity for the smaller group to
41:17
Prevail against the larger group if they are better organized and more skillful which tends to be the case in smaller
41:24
groups right so intrinsic those two philosophies are tied to one another
41:30
right the shorter ttk and the how do you solve the Zerg problem well by
Just going to say where when he is talking about skill is is in relation to both team play and individual skill. Which means there is a skill ceiling for players to use and be more effective or be less effective. IE like i keep saying that some people will know how to survive longer but also prevent people from doing that.
Honestly stop the cap on this "You know the game better than steven" I'm not even going to say i know the game better than you guys are making these bad takes as it isn't about having a legitime conversation. But just a outlet for you to complain because its not your style. You want to feel in your heart you are right to give you fuel as you use a mix of truth and falsities to give you the fuel to keep going.
In Ashes that should not be a valid concept because every Class in that Group with 2 Tanks could be an x/Rogue equipped with plenty of DPS Augments.
Or the 2 Tanks could be adding DPS Augments from Social Orgs or Religions, etc.
And none of those classes will have as big of a dps values as a pure dps class, just as classes with cleric secondary won't be able to heal a raid as well as a cleric will. That was my point.
i highly doubt you will need more than 1 tank in a party. and we will probably need 0 tanks in a pure pvp party.
Nah, I figured out what happened here, it was just a silly misunderstanding. I said two or MAYBE three tanks because I was theorycrafting the possible results of a buff Nikr was talking about (he made some good points tho). This isn't something I believe in or am attached to, it was just me basically trying to figure out how it might all look, because we still don't know how Intrepid plans to approach party buffs.
So, it is now very clear to me you still expect parties to have 1 or 0 tanks, thank you. I don't immediately disagree OR agree with this. My position is very simply that I can't yet figure out how Intrepid is planning to make Tanks and Bards both useful and fun to play with the current setup (mobility and TTK wise). You could for example turn them into buffbots but is it also fun?
regarding summoners, we already know that they will have at least 2 play styles. one is playing with the pet and the master is basically a support for the pet, and the other one is the pet is a support for the master. pets wont have the same issues as tank because they will most likely have different skills, you know, the summoner being a different class.
for mass pvp, id say the summoner will probably be preferred over a fighter if it ends up being a ranged class. also potentially irreplaceable supporting abilities. it all depends what the class can offer. if its end up being in a party for its supporting abilities, then 3 tanks, 1 cleric 1 bard, 1 summoner leaves only 2 slots for dps...really, can 2 dps one shot someone after they get pulled and cc'ed? the other 6 classes combined might not have enough damage + they gonna be focused on supporting + the person pulled has a healer as well.
What I'm trying to say is that Summoner is going to inherit any and all issues of the classes whole role they overlap with (even a bit). If the Tank struggles to roadblock a highly mobile target, so will the Summoner/their pet. If a Bard's buffs don't get to make enough difference because the fight is already over, so will the Summoner's. And so on.
If you disagree, that's fine, but I'd love an explanation why. Because depending on that, Summoner can either end up overshadowing other classes or being overshadowed by them.
Edit: Fixed weird quote stuff.
ah ok got it ;3
summoner could or could not have those problems though. for example, if the summoner places a bunch of dots on you, then even if you dash away and the summoner cant catch you, you would still die. we have to wait and see its kit xD
According to steven the TTK will be 10-15 seconds , are you guys ready to have fun getting 1 shot all the time
I gotta say, have you never played an mmo before? I mean if we look at the examples of the "greatest mmorpgs of all time" like idk, vanilla wow which everyone loves so much, you can literally die in 2-5 seconds in any phase of the game. ESO, Archeage, whatever you name it are all the same and the games with long TTK make it IMPOSSIBLE to kill anyone with a healer. I think you're overreacting and we should test out alpha 2 first.
because you kept saying steven was referring to 8 men groups, not raid groups T_T
Yes, and I've already said that we both chose to believe what we think is a logical conclusion from what Steven said, based on our own previous experiences.
I never said I was more right. You can look at Mag's posts and compare them to mine and then tell me, whose posts sound more like "I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE DEFINITELY WRONG AND HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT"
because you kept saying steven was referring to 8 men groups, not raid groups T_T
Yes, and I've already said that we both chose to believe what we think is a logical conclusion from what Steven said, based on our own previous experiences.
I never said I was more right. You can look at Mag's posts and compare them to mine and then tell me, whose posts sound more like "I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE DEFINITELY WRONG AND HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT"
You are free to respond, it is never to late to walk back on some of the points you have been saying. As I've clearly pointed out the exaggeration / falseness.
Which means you should be more positive about it regardless, well unless its not about skill / knowledge to improving your situation with ttk and just about them making it a flat higher number.
because you kept saying steven was referring to 8 men groups, not raid groups T_T
Yes, and I've already said that we both chose to believe what we think is a logical conclusion from what Steven said, based on our own previous experiences.
I never said I was more right. You can look at Mag's posts and compare them to mine and then tell me, whose posts sound more like "I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE DEFINITELY WRONG AND HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT"
You are free to respond, it is never to late to walk back on some of the points you have been saying. As I've clearly pointed out the exaggeration / falseness.
Which means you should be more positive about it regardless, well unless its not about skill / knowledge to improving your situation with ttk and just about them making it a flat higher number.
Hm, not quite. From the perspective of 'will it be good', that's not really as big a deal as one other pretty big thing here.
If the line on the Wiki that said "Ashes of Creation will have a 30-60 second TTK" had instead, from the beginning, been 'Ashes of Creation will have a TTK that is a bit faster than most MMOs you're probably used to', a LOT of people who are here now would not be here.
Would there be different people? Maybe.
But it's up to Intrepid (and I guess you and I, to some extent) to convince people this can actually be good given everything.
Problem is, I don't really have much evidence to give, and you're not one for giving it.
You are free to respond, it is never to late to walk back on some of the points you have been saying. As I've clearly pointed out the exaggeration / falseness.
There is no point in responding because you're always doing to me what you claim I'm doing to you. I never said the things you claim I did in your big post
This entire thread I've been saying "dps vs dps is 10-15s", "tanks/healers are ~30s" (and I even said that "it might not even be tank vs tank", cause Steven's wording there is more vague than in other parts), "group pvp will be killing people in 1s, as signified by Steven snapping his fingers", "when Steven is talking about group pvp he accounts for any of Intrepid's future plans for its balancing, which would include any potential defensive and offensive buffs/effects".
That's it. Unless you point to where I said "1v1 pvp is about both people being supported by other players" - I don't know what else I can say to make you see that I'm literally repeating what Steven said and saying "I don't like/want this design".
Comments
So when we draw a line between "a dps character can be killed in 10s" and "in a group vs group situation a target can die in a second" (snap signifies that second) - it's not difficult to come to a conclusion that several situations have been considered when explaining those encounters, because one directly relates to the other.
Depraved chose to believe that Steven was talking about an 8+++ size group vs a singular target. You are now choosing to think that Steven didn't even talk about group pvp.
3 tanks. you definetely want at least 1 cleric for the heals 1 bard for the buffs. that leaves 3 dps. will probably need summoner to support too or debuff, depending what it does, and chances are you will need 2 clerics in this game for PVP (that's more likely than needing 3 tanks). we don't know for sure. lets say 3 dps. maybe if you pull a squishy, you can kill him fast, who knows.
if you start adding more tanks, who will you remove from the party?
Or the 2 Tanks could be adding DPS Augments from Social Orgs or Religions, etc.
he literally said make a raid call and target the same person. qell he said raid call, implying a large group of people, not a party of 8 or an incomplete party. you choose to believe he was only talking about 8 men groups.
there isn't any reason to believe he talked about only a group of 8. a group is more than 1 person. so we all think different thing based on our subjective understanding of what steven said. so if this is all subjective, why are you more right than me?
Are you sure it will end up being 3 tanks given current design, though? Can you expand on why?
Regarding Summoner, I know they said they'd release one, but how would the class function in Ashes specifically? TTK on the quick side and abundance of mobility means pets will have similar issues as Tanks when it comes to being roadblocks.
We're still concerned about the role of Bards and what buffs they can even bring to be relevant, so the side of Summoner that relies on buffs would encounter the same concerns.
And if you take Summoner in a more damage oriented route, I would expect Rangers and Fighters to be more valuable given what we've seen.
So once again, how would Summoner work?
Def not a strait buff. There shouldn't be a "no aoe" button in the game.
I do like the idea of a cone behind the tank, that's a great idea. It would have to be something the tank uses though, like something on the hotbar with a cooldown. Perhaps specing into it can give more frequent uses. It has to for sure be something the tank does, instead of something he has. In that way it totally fits into the idea of the party making tactical decisions in combat and the tank making choices about where to spend points.
Those types of tools can be a way for a small party to mitigate against a zerg and give themselves more time.
Again group comps will increase the life of people like every other game. On top of the skill ceiling that was also talked about.
You can not believe it if you want, what steven said is if everyone targets someone yes you can kill them. You are skewing words to fit your narrative to try to complain what he is talking about.
Saying you can be targeted doesn't you you won't have ways to extend your life higher than normal its literarily common sense. As well as he said average which has a lot of meaning in itself. Your points make almost 0 sense because the fact again you can focus on more defensive type options. Those stack stronger with group comps meaning you can survive longer.
This is why you were given for tank cleric 20-30 ttk, this means there is plenty of room and things aren't' set in strong this is a mmo. Which again further geos to the conclusion you are complaining without any actual backing to your argument. You are basing your argument off assumptions.
THere is 0 quote of him saying in a team comp, with skill and defensive skill tree you can die within the 10 second ttk. And giving a clear break down of why that is, or how you can use skill to get to that point.
Its really obvious to people, but your bias to complain won't allow you to see that.
I feel strawmanned here...
i said 3 tanks because you said 3 tanks.
regarding summoners, we already know that they will have at least 2 play styles. one is playing with the pet and the master is basically a support for the pet, and the other one is the pet is a support for the master. pets wont have the same issues as tank because they will most likely have different skills, you know, the summoner being a different class.
for mass pvp, id say the summoner will probably be preferred over a fighter if it ends up being a ranged class. also potentially irreplaceable supporting abilities. it all depends what the class can offer. if its end up being in a party for its supporting abilities, then 3 tanks, 1 cleric 1 bard, 1 summoner leaves only 2 slots for dps...really, can 2 dps one shot someone after they get pulled and cc'ed? the other 6 classes combined might not have enough damage + they gonna be focused on supporting + the person pulled has a healer as well.
i highly doubt you will need more than 1 tank in a party. and we will probably need 0 tanks in a pure pvp party.
Where did I say I was more right than you? You're probably reading Mag's mind instead of mine here
My main concern here has been the "*snap* it's dead" thing that Steven talked about. I don't want that speed. Having a cd on the effect I proposed would lead us back to the snapping.
There should simply be a ton of other ways to disable tank's aura. Hell, it could be influenced by a silence effect or smth similar.
I've just played enough L2 in an archer/dagger party where "the enemy healer dies before the fight begins" was the main rule. And considering where AoC's design seems to be heading - we'll have the same situation here as well.
Ok, you know the game Steven is making better than him. You've obviously tested it behind the scenes and have told the designers how the game will work. So I obviously should trust your words on this matter, rather than the creative director's, who's words I simply repeated to you w/o changing anything about them.
Rather than depending on individual rotations.
In other words, if tank's "tanking power" = 1, a class that has tank as a secondary might be 0.8 at max progression. And I don't see why Intrepid would design their math in such a way that 0.8x8 somehow = more than 1x8.
In other words, I expect synergy between dpses to produce more damage than synergy between non-dps archetypes that took a dps secondary. If you disagree with that expectation - great, hope you're right.
The whole TTK discussion is pointless before Alpha 2. What do you even want the developers to do? They can design abilities right now, and then let people test out how long it takes to kill each other with these abilities in different situations. Based on that feedback, they can then nerf or buff the abilities to where it feels good.
We are not yet at the "let people test it out" part, so there is no point in debating whether TTK should be longer or shorter. It's not about how long or short it is in the first place; it's about it feeling good. For that, it needs to be balanced between not getting one-shotted and not being boring because you can just tank for minutes without doing anything just because you have high HP.
Exactly how long a good TTK will be depends on different factors, like how many abilities we will have on the bar, etc. These are factors we don't even know yet.
I did not suggest that one x/Rogue in a group will be as effective as a Rogue/x.
The math should not be as simple as 0.8x8.
If the x/Rogues in the group synergize their abilities, rather than just focusing on their individual rotations, they should be able to compensate for the lack of Rogue/x dps. Although, they still might be missing non-dps Rogue Utilities.
I feel like it's a pointless discussion in general, go play any group pvp that uses the holy trinity and you'll quickly notice the supports are the ones who carry the fights. NW is this way. if you go into group pvp and your side lacks heals you die almost instantly but with healers you sustain. too many healers and not enough dps on both sides everything turns into a good 3~5 minute brawl until people peal off and take down the healers.
So far it seems like There are no Cleanse skills. So some sleep skills used on a healer could make the difference. Also Fighter's bleed will reduce healing done + reduce dmg mitigation. So i doubt stacking healers will be as effective. Especially since fighter class will be really popular (or at least i expect it to be).
0.8x8 is the same thing as 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8
Again, you did not indicate stacking abilities. Which is more than that sum.
Also it would be 0.8x8 is greater than 1.
But, you still have to factor in stacking bonuses, rather than just adding x/Rogue 8 times.
(or x/Tank 8 times)
Nah, I figured out what happened here, it was just a silly misunderstanding. I said two or MAYBE three tanks because I was theorycrafting the possible results of a buff Nikr was talking about (he made some good points tho). This isn't something I believe in or am attached to, it was just me basically trying to figure out how it might all look, because we still don't know how Intrepid plans to approach party buffs.
So, it is now very clear to me you still expect parties to have 1 or 0 tanks, thank you. I don't immediately disagree OR agree with this. My position is very simply that I can't yet figure out how Intrepid is planning to make Tanks and Bards both useful and fun to play with the current setup (mobility and TTK wise). You could for example turn them into buffbots but is it also fun?
What I'm trying to say is that Summoner is going to inherit any and all issues of the classes whole role they overlap with (even a bit). If the Tank struggles to roadblock a highly mobile target, so will the Summoner/their pet. If a Bard's buffs don't get to make enough difference because the fight is already over, so will the Summoner's. And so on.
If you disagree, that's fine, but I'd love an explanation why. Because depending on that, Summoner can either end up overshadowing other classes or being overshadowed by them.
Edit: Fixed weird quote stuff.
It might be 10-15 seconds based on group combat because they said the game would be balanced around groups so the time to kill he gave might be in a 8v8 situation not a 1v1 situation.
10-15 second TTK sounds about right to me from a pvp perspective tbh
also TTK times tend to be based on hitting somone who just standing there and not doing anything to defend themselfs acting like a dummy. So in actual fights it would probaly be quite a bit longer
I'm actually really encouraged by the number of people who have this 'reframing of what Steven said' as their response to this topic, since it implies a lot about what the response will be in Alpha-2.
I also see a benefit in the fact that it creates one of those situations where Intrepid can change something and then 'quietly pretend this is what Steven meant all along' if necessary, but on the other hand, this is also one of those situations where, if it did change due to feedback, it would be a good thing to talk about as proof of their willingness to listen to feedback.
So now u are at the point about saying i know the game better than him, what I'm saying is you guys have no clue what you are talking about. When are you going to realize your bias is stretching what he is saying and you literally are not MAKING any point and every thing you are saying holds 0 weight.
I can't believe i need to go over every detail in the video because you don't have a point so you are trying to make things up in your head so complain about ttk. This could be a long post because honestly the BS you guys are bringing up needs to stop.
Instantly you can see the ttk he is talking about is between various classes and longer kill times directed at tank vrs tank and cleric vrs cleric. It is EXTREMELY CLEAR he is talking about 1v1 situations and certain ones with his comment as well.
He does on to say the faster times would be dps against DPS, which you can look at the 10-15 ttk he was talking about.
Your point here that he is talking about different team comps, defensive skill trees, heavy kiting, generals support, etc. Is made up fantasy, you are doing this because you do not have a point and are trying to make up a issue to support your non existent argument
Now you are using this quote and mixing it up with his previous take about group play and that they planned for it with TTK (10-15 15-30) that is incorrect. His comment here only relates to that if you are doing group or RAID calling (which means a lot of people) multiple DPS can focus someone and kill them quickly. You have 0 context or knowledge of the actually game (as you have not played the GAME) on how that is going to work and amount of DPS you need to do that.
On top of that you do not have context for different situation in the game, this is what i talk about when im mentioning waves. There can be gaps or changes to take a opportunity for your advantage to kill people. This exist pretty much ALL games in relation to pvp to varying extents. A tank might not be guarding someone, or not using a skill and its easier to kill them. Where if the tank had the skill on it wouldn't be as easy to do that.
Steven is not giving a detailed breakdown here on fights nor should he, when you have been given a little information and you are trying to be like mr fantastic and stretch it.
Just going to say where when he is talking about skill is is in relation to both team play and individual skill. Which means there is a skill ceiling for players to use and be more effective or be less effective. IE like i keep saying that some people will know how to survive longer but also prevent people from doing that.
Honestly stop the cap on this "You know the game better than steven" I'm not even going to say i know the game better than you guys are making these bad takes as it isn't about having a legitime conversation. But just a outlet for you to complain because its not your style. You want to feel in your heart you are right to give you fuel as you use a mix of truth and falsities to give you the fuel to keep going.
because you kept saying steven was referring to 8 men groups, not raid groups T_T
ah ok got it ;3
summoner could or could not have those problems though. for example, if the summoner places a bunch of dots on you, then even if you dash away and the summoner cant catch you, you would still die. we have to wait and see its kit xD
I never said I was more right. You can look at Mag's posts and compare them to mine and then tell me, whose posts sound more like "I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE DEFINITELY WRONG AND HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT"
You are free to respond, it is never to late to walk back on some of the points you have been saying. As I've clearly pointed out the exaggeration / falseness.
Which means you should be more positive about it regardless, well unless its not about skill / knowledge to improving your situation with ttk and just about them making it a flat higher number.
Hm, not quite. From the perspective of 'will it be good', that's not really as big a deal as one other pretty big thing here.
If the line on the Wiki that said "Ashes of Creation will have a 30-60 second TTK" had instead, from the beginning, been 'Ashes of Creation will have a TTK that is a bit faster than most MMOs you're probably used to', a LOT of people who are here now would not be here.
Would there be different people? Maybe.
But it's up to Intrepid (and I guess you and I, to some extent) to convince people this can actually be good given everything.
Problem is, I don't really have much evidence to give, and you're not one for giving it.
This entire thread I've been saying "dps vs dps is 10-15s", "tanks/healers are ~30s" (and I even said that "it might not even be tank vs tank", cause Steven's wording there is more vague than in other parts), "group pvp will be killing people in 1s, as signified by Steven snapping his fingers", "when Steven is talking about group pvp he accounts for any of Intrepid's future plans for its balancing, which would include any potential defensive and offensive buffs/effects".
That's it. Unless you point to where I said "1v1 pvp is about both people being supported by other players" - I don't know what else I can say to make you see that I'm literally repeating what Steven said and saying "I don't like/want this design".