My concerns with the summoner class

I really like the concept of a summoner class in an mmorpg game , it's a very nuanced class that can be implemented in a plethora of ways but a lot of times it ends up being lackluster.

In my opinion a summoner class that plays strictly through it's summons is a bad take on a summoner. A summoner that only uses it's summons as a low damage buff is also not the correct way to have a summon class (why not just drink a buff potion or have a cleric / bard buff your damage output ?)

A summoner should always be a 50/50 kind of deal. A summoner should be really weak without it's summon and a summon should be really weak without it's summoner. Never should it ever be that you summon an entity and stand back and let it do the fighting (with weaker mobs that should be an option in case of grinding but not in regular gameplay).

If we take a look at Azir from league of legends (I get it's a completely different style of gameplay but the principle still stands) he is just as important as the summons he creates and it makes for an engaging gameplay that relies just as much on the player as the summons , it's not just a 'summon , click target , win' strategy.

The summoner as a character should always be a integral part of the class and the power level should be balanced between the entity and the player.
Another example is the character Wendy from Don't starve. Without her summon she gets a 25% damage decrease debuff , while I don't think this is how AOC should go about making the summoner it still puts a sort of agency of the player to actually interact with the enemy , other than letting the summon do all the work.

In my opinion a summoner should fight beside their summon , not fight through them. It should be an active class with ways to influence the fight by themselves with the help of the summon. On their own their weak , but with the help of the summon(s) they are of equal level to other classes.

Of course this will make the summoner harder and more convoluted to manage but if someone really wants to play as a summoner that will not be a problem for the player. It's a hard game of balancing power levels between the player and summon but that's how it should be.

Thoughts ?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

SnowElf

Summoner has continued to struggle throughout MMOS for years it would seem, so the concerns are absolutely valid. FFXIV has reworked Summoner countless times and still the class never has been able to shine imo. I think that the only video game that I actually enjoyed Summoner was in Final Fantasy Tactics, being that it has strong support and offensive/defensive capability.

What I would truly love to see when it comes to the Summoner archetype is that the Summoner actually becomes the summon, rather than always summoning a 'pet' to act as a summon to aid them in battle. Not every Summoner ability would have to turn them into a different summon, either, but there is viability in roles such as tanking, healing or DPS where they could become a summon of their respective role that they are fulfilling while playing in AoC, which then boosts or alters some of their core abilities to fit their role better.

Some examples..

If I'm a DPS summoner, maybe transforming into an ice or fire summon role would suit better to dealing out the damage. If I'm more spec'd toward being a healer, maybe a wind or water summon would help in healing allies, or, if I'm looking to tank as a Summoner, the summoner could transform into an earth elemental, like the ones we've seen in the tank archetype showcase.

Being able to transform into different aspects also doesn't mean that the transformation is everlasting. It could be baked into a rotation which eventually allows for a burst of increased damage or healing, and eventually the summoner reverts back into their original form.

For those who may think this sounds more like a shapeshifter/druid, I hear you, but that's where the nuance comes in. We've seen countless variations of classes throughout video games for decades, each game with their own unique spin on how they assume a class should be. I think it would be neat to see a summoner class where the summoner becomes the summon in some way, shape or form.

Mico

Personally I think playing through your summoned pets is the fun of being a summoner.

Where I think most games go wrong with summoners is the limitations of the number of useful pets in your arsenal. If I had 20 different summons that I had to rotate between and summon depending on the situation, all with different abilities that would be very engaging.

I feel summoners should have a huge arsenal of different types of summons to do, where the draw back to the large variety is the time it takes to cast/summon your pets.

I think the pets of a summoners should be a true jack of all trades between, males dps, magic dps, healing and buffing and even short term tanking. They just can't do everything instantly, which is the trade off.

willsummon

I believe the summoner should have basic pets with some schools of direct magic, such as damage over time and channeling spells.

The whole concept of the summoner is to wear down and defeat the enemy though pets and spells. So damage over time and channeling spells would fit the motif.

As for a summoner's roles and direction for more advanced spells and pets, that would depend on which class the summon chooses to become.

Kilion

It seems that Summoners will have their own skills, but will gain additional abilities based on the Summons they have currently walking with them. The Summoner can channel their own abilities through the summoned creatures and of course as with all other classes it is safe to assume that basic weapon attacks will provide them with some sort of essential utility to increase their combat power.

Saabynator

They havent really given out any real information about the summoner, so their take on a summoner, could be vastly different from what you think it would be. It could be like a warlock from WoW. Different pets you can spec in, and some abilities besides the pet. Like a mage from EQ1, if you know that class/game.

daveywavey

willowisp wrote: »

Thoughts ?

My thoughts on this are that we should probably wait to see the skill-set before having such concerns.

GrilledCheeseMojito

My biggest concern is that given the short TTKs cited in the last AMA stream, it's going to be hard to balance the casting time for the summons versus that TTK, especially if you need to switch summons for some reason.
I hope they give us more details about precisely how this works, as right now it's hard to conceptualize where the Summoner fits in to their current combat definition.

RocketFarmer

I think where most games miss the point on a major aspect of summoning is the struggle to control the summoned entity. Maybe because it’s a let’s pretend thing where the player gets to smash stuff or have their pet do so.

Then there’s the aspect of not always being able to call, or avoid, said entity. The summoned have their own agendas, some showing up when they want to. I would hope the more powerful the summon is, the more complicated the interaction becomes.

There’s also the seen and unseen. But I suppose the unseen is no fun in a game with overwhelming magical effects. It would, however, be refreshing to see a summoner affect things more subtly via their summoning rather than the on the nose approach we’ve seen in games.

Beyond the malevolent, there should be a consequence to summoning. Summoning cannon fodder, especially intelligent beings, should have either social or darker consequences (corruption). Summoned animals need to feed or could become distracted. Summoned elementals should have environmental consequences.

We will just have to see what version of summoner they produce. Not sure we’ll see anything really new, as I think they are trying to capture from existing themes and concepts.

BTW, is AoC a vanity nostalgia project? Vanity in the sense of self published much like literature. And how long does nostalgia last? I think many hope a long time based on the latest generation of games. As we’ve seen with Classic WoW that interest in nostalgia can go from very high to very low in a short period of time, where we rediscover why the game was imperfect.

RocketFarmer

Will the Summoner archetype include the construct concept, such as a golem? Another variation on a similar theme.

Mag7spy

A summoner should be fighting through their summons with limited other utilities they can use on top of things (of course they will have basic attacks rng / melee but shouldnt be effective with it). If they can do more dmg than just using summons, summons need to be heavily nerfed which gets away fromth e whole point of the class.

IF you want to fight and not just use summons id say don't play a summoner.

willsummon

RocketFarmer wrote: »

I think where most games miss the point on a major aspect of summoning is the struggle to control the summoned entity. Maybe because it’s a let’s pretend thing where the player gets to smash stuff or have their pet do so.

This has been tried before in other MMOs, with mixed results that leaned to such summoned pets being rarely used.

Original, in WoW the Warlock could summon a few very powerful pets, but the pet could only be tamed temporarily and took time to do so. As such, those pets could not be used in snap emergencies and could only be effectively used in opening parts of a battle.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

A summoner should be fighting through their summons with limited other utilities they can use on top of things (of course they will have basic attacks rng / melee but shouldnt be effective with it). If they can do more dmg than just using summons, summons need to be heavily nerfed which gets away fromth e whole point of the class.

IF you want to fight and not just use summons id say don't play a summoner.

I'll disagree with this one, Intrepid.

A summoner should at least have the option of fighting alongside their summon, perhaps even being slightly stronger than that summon. The gameplay 'fun' of summoning is having techniques and tactics that rely on proper control and positioning of two or more characters rather than just one, and the skills related to that management.

Summoning something powerful to act as a proxy for you and then not fighting isn't worth pursuing as a primary concept of Summoner in a game where you also aren't allowing people to transform.

I think that's a form of Summoner you should be able to play, certainly, but it'd be a disservice to a lot of the Summoner players I know, if their main base concept was just 'choose which avatar to summon and step back'.

Depraved

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

A summoner should be fighting through their summons with limited other utilities they can use on top of things (of course they will have basic attacks rng / melee but shouldnt be effective with it). If they can do more dmg than just using summons, summons need to be heavily nerfed which gets away fromth e whole point of the class.

IF you want to fight and not just use summons id say don't play a summoner.

I'll disagree with this one, Intrepid.

A summoner should at least have the option of fighting alongside their summon, perhaps even being slightly stronger than that summon. The gameplay 'fun' of summoning is having techniques and tactics that rely on proper control and positioning of two or more characters rather than just one, and the skills related to that management.

Summoning something powerful to act as a proxy for you and then not fighting isn't worth pursuing as a primary concept of Summoner in a game where you also aren't allowing people to transform.

I think that's a form of Summoner you should be able to play, certainly, but it'd be a disservice to a lot of the Summoner players I know, if their main base concept was just 'choose which avatar to summon and step back'.

I disagree on how things should be or not. i agree with the fun / engagement of the summoner is controlling more than one character at a time, but there isn't any reason why you cant use the pet as the DD and the master as the support, for example, or the other way around.

look at old aion and l2. in aion, you mostly use the master, and the pet is a support for the master. in l2, you mostly use the pet and the master is a support for the pet. opposite styles of summoner, both games made by the same company, both characters are quite enjoyable and fun. I'm not sure what transforming has to do with anything.

look at diablo. some people like raising an army of the dead, and some others like playing daggermancer. but fun.

Azherae

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

A summoner should be fighting through their summons with limited other utilities they can use on top of things (of course they will have basic attacks rng / melee but shouldnt be effective with it). If they can do more dmg than just using summons, summons need to be heavily nerfed which gets away fromth e whole point of the class.

IF you want to fight and not just use summons id say don't play a summoner.

I'll disagree with this one, Intrepid.

A summoner should at least have the option of fighting alongside their summon, perhaps even being slightly stronger than that summon. The gameplay 'fun' of summoning is having techniques and tactics that rely on proper control and positioning of two or more characters rather than just one, and the skills related to that management.

Summoning something powerful to act as a proxy for you and then not fighting isn't worth pursuing as a primary concept of Summoner in a game where you also aren't allowing people to transform.

I think that's a form of Summoner you should be able to play, certainly, but it'd be a disservice to a lot of the Summoner players I know, if their main base concept was just 'choose which avatar to summon and step back'.

I disagree on how things should be or not. i agree with the fun / engagement of the summoner is controlling more than one character at a time, but there isn't any reason why you cant use the pet as the DD and the master as the support, for example, or the other way around.

look at old aion and l2. in aion, you mostly use the master, and the pet is a support for the master. in l2, you mostly use the pet and the master is a support for the pet. opposite styles of summoner, both games made by the same company, both characters are quite enjoyable and fun. I'm not sure what transforming has to do with anything.

look at diablo. some people like raising an army of the dead, and some others like playing daggermancer. but fun.

I didn't say that.

I said we shouldn't be limited.

Sorry if I spoke in a confusing way. Intrepid, if it helps at all, Depraved's simplification/correction of my stance is something I agree with. I hope that clarifies.

Depraved

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

A summoner should be fighting through their summons with limited other utilities they can use on top of things (of course they will have basic attacks rng / melee but shouldnt be effective with it). If they can do more dmg than just using summons, summons need to be heavily nerfed which gets away fromth e whole point of the class.

IF you want to fight and not just use summons id say don't play a summoner.

I'll disagree with this one, Intrepid.

A summoner should at least have the option of fighting alongside their summon, perhaps even being slightly stronger than that summon. The gameplay 'fun' of summoning is having techniques and tactics that rely on proper control and positioning of two or more characters rather than just one, and the skills related to that management.

Summoning something powerful to act as a proxy for you and then not fighting isn't worth pursuing as a primary concept of Summoner in a game where you also aren't allowing people to transform.

I think that's a form of Summoner you should be able to play, certainly, but it'd be a disservice to a lot of the Summoner players I know, if their main base concept was just 'choose which avatar to summon and step back'.

I disagree on how things should be or not. i agree with the fun / engagement of the summoner is controlling more than one character at a time, but there isn't any reason why you cant use the pet as the DD and the master as the support, for example, or the other way around.

look at old aion and l2. in aion, you mostly use the master, and the pet is a support for the master. in l2, you mostly use the pet and the master is a support for the pet. opposite styles of summoner, both games made by the same company, both characters are quite enjoyable and fun. I'm not sure what transforming has to do with anything.

look at diablo. some people like raising an army of the dead, and some others like playing daggermancer. but fun.

I didn't say that.

I said we shouldn't be limited.

Sorry if I spoke in a confusing way. Intrepid, if it helps at all, Depraved's simplification/correction of my stance is something I agree with. I hope that clarifies.

ok, thank you for the clarification ;3

unknown

This content has been removed.

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

A summoner should be fighting through their summons with limited other utilities they can use on top of things (of course they will have basic attacks rng / melee but shouldnt be effective with it). If they can do more dmg than just using summons, summons need to be heavily nerfed which gets away fromth e whole point of the class.

IF you want to fight and not just use summons id say don't play a summoner.

I'll disagree with this one, Intrepid.

A summoner should at least have the option of fighting alongside their summon, perhaps even being slightly stronger than that summon. The gameplay 'fun' of summoning is having techniques and tactics that rely on proper control and positioning of two or more characters rather than just one, and the skills related to that management.

Summoning something powerful to act as a proxy for you and then not fighting isn't worth pursuing as a primary concept of Summoner in a game where you also aren't allowing people to transform.

I think that's a form of Summoner you should be able to play, certainly, but it'd be a disservice to a lot of the Summoner players I know, if their main base concept was just 'choose which avatar to summon and step back'.

Sounds like one broken class to me imo, remember i didn't say sit back i said should have limited utilities skills (defensive, control / unit control, attack, etc), and have basic attacks. You are fully engaged in the fight having things you can do, but the whole point is trying to balance it out so a summoner units can be a threat. And you have gameplay around them with how they work and how you manage them.

The more dmg you do the less dmg summons will be able to do, as you reach the ttk even faster. Though in a game with augments there can be subsets of summoners that have their summons do less dmg and let them do more dmg themselves. Maybe summoner / fighter.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

A summoner should be fighting through their summons with limited other utilities they can use on top of things (of course they will have basic attacks rng / melee but shouldnt be effective with it). If they can do more dmg than just using summons, summons need to be heavily nerfed which gets away fromth e whole point of the class.

IF you want to fight and not just use summons id say don't play a summoner.

I'll disagree with this one, Intrepid.

A summoner should at least have the option of fighting alongside their summon, perhaps even being slightly stronger than that summon. The gameplay 'fun' of summoning is having techniques and tactics that rely on proper control and positioning of two or more characters rather than just one, and the skills related to that management.

Summoning something powerful to act as a proxy for you and then not fighting isn't worth pursuing as a primary concept of Summoner in a game where you also aren't allowing people to transform.

I think that's a form of Summoner you should be able to play, certainly, but it'd be a disservice to a lot of the Summoner players I know, if their main base concept was just 'choose which avatar to summon and step back'.

Sounds like one broken class to me imo, remember i didn't say sit back i said should have limited utilities skills (defensive, control / unit control, attack, etc), and have basic attacks. You are fully engaged in the fight having things you can do, but the whole point is trying to balance it out so a summoner units can be a threat. And you have gameplay around them with how they work and how you manage them.

The more dmg you do the less dmg summons will be able to do, as you reach the ttk even faster. Though in a game with augments there can be subsets of summoners that have their summons do less dmg and let them do more dmg themselves. Maybe summoner / fighter.

I'll leave this to Depraved.

Cause I can't be sure you're not just salty about Nova, and I don't wanna deal with that.

You're probably not, but I rather not take the risk for no reward.

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

A summoner should be fighting through their summons with limited other utilities they can use on top of things (of course they will have basic attacks rng / melee but shouldnt be effective with it). If they can do more dmg than just using summons, summons need to be heavily nerfed which gets away fromth e whole point of the class.

IF you want to fight and not just use summons id say don't play a summoner.

I'll disagree with this one, Intrepid.

A summoner should at least have the option of fighting alongside their summon, perhaps even being slightly stronger than that summon. The gameplay 'fun' of summoning is having techniques and tactics that rely on proper control and positioning of two or more characters rather than just one, and the skills related to that management.

Summoning something powerful to act as a proxy for you and then not fighting isn't worth pursuing as a primary concept of Summoner in a game where you also aren't allowing people to transform.

I think that's a form of Summoner you should be able to play, certainly, but it'd be a disservice to a lot of the Summoner players I know, if their main base concept was just 'choose which avatar to summon and step back'.

Sounds like one broken class to me imo, remember i didn't say sit back i said should have limited utilities skills (defensive, control / unit control, attack, etc), and have basic attacks. You are fully engaged in the fight having things you can do, but the whole point is trying to balance it out so a summoner units can be a threat. And you have gameplay around them with how they work and how you manage them.

The more dmg you do the less dmg summons will be able to do, as you reach the ttk even faster. Though in a game with augments there can be subsets of summoners that have their summons do less dmg and let them do more dmg themselves. Maybe summoner / fighter.

I'll leave this to Depraved.

Cause I can't be sure you're not just salty about Nova, and I don't wanna deal with that.

You're probably not, but I rather not take the risk for no reward.

I played nova as well lmao, but i feel we both would have to explain what our idea of summoner is because its most likely vastly different since we are going off assumptions.

Nova would be closer to summoner/ warrior with someone going much further from the normal summoner.

Depraved

whats nova?

Child Item