Tanking: Should the "Tank" Primary Class Be the Be-All-End-All Tanking Class?

Interested in hearing all opinions on:

-Should Tank Primary classes be the only and/or most dominant tank choice?

-Should other, not necessarily all, Primary Class variants have secondary options that make them just as viable as tanks or even off-tanks?

-Should the Tank Primary class have some variant options to focus more on other roles than simply tanking all of the time?

-Should the Tank Primary class be renamed assuming it can fill other roles besides simply tanking?

Looking forward to what you all have to say!

Edit:
More questions resulting from this post I want to hear opinions on:

-Is role overlap so wrong? If it is should there really be 9 classes or even variants at all? If its so bad to have a role covered by more than one class, then shouldn't there be just 4 classes? Healer(support), Physical DPS, Magical DPS, and Tank?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

JustVine

George Black wrote: »

Give X/tank the ability to tank most content and nobody will want to invite a tank in a pve or pvp group. They bring nothing to the table besides tanking.
Might as well do away with the class concept in mmorpgs. Just "play as you want" crap.

How would you like it if all X/healers could heal the group, X/mages,rangers could dps for the group etc etc?

X/Summoners could summon any pet-like object you want and be summoners.

X/Rogues could be good assassins.

.......

Unpopular opinion /summoner should summon, /cleric should heal, /mage should have good dps or mobility /rogue should have good evasion and yes /tank should have the ability to reduce incoming damage or attract mob aggro.

If the only thing tank as a primary archetype is bringing to the table is mob aggro and damage mitigation then they botched the class. Tanking means sustain in the face of the enemy. Tanking means protecting vulnerable party members. Tanking means positioning the enemy. There are many ways to approach that and main tank should have access to all of them with the right secondary.

Dygz

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Yes it would play different than a primary archetype tank because it's a summoner not a tank. I am saying it would be a different play style for tanking as in trinity role. (Again this is why I feel it's silly to be called tank, it leads to confusion)
Yes a subclass by choosing broodwarden instead of shadowmancer my subclass works different. Now my line up of summonable minions kits me out for filling the Trinity role of tank INSTEAD of DPS. A broodwarden would deal less damage than all of the other summoner subclasses because it has better survivability ... And then if I pump all of my upgrade points for skills into tanky stuff instead of damage again, I'm building my summoner to be a tank instead of a damage dealer. Not a dual-class? Just a tank.

It shouldn't lead to confusion.

Broodwarden and Shadowmancer can both choose Summons that Tank, Support or DPS.
Whether or not a Broodwarden deals less damage depends on which Tank School the individual chooses to focus on. Could be that the Broodwarden chooses to use a DPS Summons with Tank damage augments.
Could be that the Shadowmancer chooses to use a Support Summons with Escape/Evasion augments.

You could build your Summoner to be very tanky. That doesn't mean you can build your Summoner to main tank for an 8-person group.
Dual-class means that your character can switch between being a Summoner and being a Tank. It implies using Tank Active Skills.
But, by design, a Summoner is always primarily Support.
If your Broodwarden chooses a more Tank type Summons and also focuses on Threat and Damage Mitigation augments, your Summoner will be very tanky. That doesn't mean it could be a viable main tank for an 8-person group encounter.

You will need a Tank more or less depending on what's happening in the environment. Certainly in dungeons you will need a Tank. I don't picture us creating any encounters that wouldn't need that sort of control. Now we're not just focused on aggro in terms of control and managing mobs... It's not just about mitigating damage, although that's a part of the sort of calculus there, but it's also about making sure that the mobs are doing what you want them to do.
--- Jeffrey Bard

daveywavey

Noaani wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Off tanking.. go nuts

In almost 20 years of playing MMO's, most of it at the top end, I have never once had a dedicated off tank for any PvE content.

I'm convinced this is only something people do when they don't trust their tank.

I remember one particular boss encounter where there were two bosses, and if they got too close to each other, then they'd do MASSIVE damage, so the tank took one to one side, and the off-tank took one to the other. Was no point bringing two tanks, cos you didn't need a second tank for the rest of the raid. Off-tanks have their uses!

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Off tanking.. go nuts

In almost 20 years of playing MMO's, most of it at the top end, I have never once had a dedicated off tank for any PvE content.

I'm convinced this is only something people do when they don't trust their tank.

I remember one particular boss encounter where there were two bosses, and if they got too close to each other, then they'd do MASSIVE damage, so the tank took one to one side, and the off-tank took one to the other. Was no point bringing two tanks, cos you didn't need a second tank for the rest of the raid. Off-tanks have their uses!

This isn't so much off-tanking as it is dual tanking. I've also seen similar dual tanking of individual mobs that have a memory wipe.

An off tank is generally a character you have as a backup for your tank, either to take over the main encounter, or to take on adds if you happen to pull any accidently.

The idea of taking two tanks along on content that only asks for one is just odd to me (or taking three tanks on content that asks for two).

SirChancelot

Dygz wrote: »

A Primary Archetype Tank always main tanks because that's is what their Active Skills do.
A Primary Archetype Tank will not be a glass canon because their Active Skills provide Damage Mitigation.
They will be able to gain some "canon" effects from Mage augments.

I don't know what you mean by "damage" skills since Secondary Archetypes do not provide skills.
The only skills a Primary Archetype Tank has are Tank skills - unless you want to include Weapon Skills.

Do you just willfully ignore or legitimately not understand what people say.
A tank/mage would be tougher than a fighter/mage. Making him more of a magic melee DPS bruiser than a magic melee DPS glass Cannon, because he can take some hits. Because as you point out his base skills add damage mitigation. But on the skill trees if I put more points into the mage secondary effect of augment of fire damage and big explosions on impact I'm going to deal more damage and be less tanky than if I put my skill points into my primary archetype activated abilities like the charge that adds the damage mitigation. Again I'm trading to deal more damage than have survivability.

The reason I would use the tank over the fighter for my primary art type is because he is tougher and I like the skill set that his primary archetype brings to use.

All I'm advocating for here is flexibility for the players to build their classes how they choose. And that includes the guy that wants to make a rogue/tank and go all in on Dodge, Parry, evasion tanking. If you don't like that don't play with him, just like any other system in the game that they're going to be building if you're not a fan of that, just ignore it.

I personally feel like it would be better for there to be different tank (role) playstyles than just the tank(archetype) playstyle.

This could go either way though and we have no idea because we have no idea what any tank secondary augments do for a primary activated ability. So again, I just feel this route would be healthier for the game.

@Dolyem this is why I warned you some people have very different stances here.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

IMO, tank/* and Summoner/tank should be the only viable options to tank any content.

Within that, tank/tank should be perfectly viable on all content, while each other tank has content/situations it is good in, and content/situations it is just not suited to.

Basically this. We don't have enough information for anything else to really be able to tank, and honestly I am ok with these being the tanks.

Percimes

My worries are that tanks/x and cleric/x will be essential to every grouping scenarios and who cares about the rest of the group members' classes. It means both these classes will always be in shortage, which means pick up groups are much harder to form, which means people have to resort to soloing. Yes yes, get friends, get into a guild, roll these classes, yada yada... All personal solutions, not global ones, and not as effective as you believe.

There will be archetypes that are judged by the players as less desirable/useful. Not useless, but whether you have one or not in your group won't impact the fights that much. A working formula/meta will develop and they simply won't be at the core of it. In raid or world boss, sure. In "normal" content, nah.

And then there will be these two blessed classes that no one can live without. Somehow, only them can perform their divine roles, none other can replace them at that, but that doesn't mean they can't do some dps on their own. Oh no! We can't let them cloistered into their roles, they are allowed to do damage. But no one else can tank. Or heal.

Noaani

Percimes wrote: »

My worries are that tanks/x and cleric/x will be essential to every grouping scenarios and who cares about the rest of the group members' classes. It means both these classes will always be in shortage, which means pick up groups are much harder to form, which means people have to resort to soloing. Yes yes, get friends, get into a guild, roll these classes, yada yada... All personal solutions, not global ones, and not as effective as you believe.

There will be archetypes that are judged by the players as less desirable/useful. Not useless, but whether you have one or not in your group won't impact the fights that much. A working formula/meta will develop and they simply won't be at the core of it. In raid or world boss, sure. In "normal" content, nah.

And then there will be these two blessed classes that no one can live without. Somehow, only them can perform their divine roles, none other can replace them at that, but that doesn't mean they can't do some dps on their own. Oh no! We can't let them cloistered into their roles, they are allowed to do damage. But no one else can tank. Or heal.

Compare Ashes to a game like WoW.

In WoW, you had groups of 5 players. In that five players, you had a tank, a healer and 3 DPS.

In Ashes, we have groups of 8. Still one tank and one healer, but that leaves 6 other spots in the group.

This means the game will get by just fine with a lower ratio or tanks and healers to other classes than other games can manage.

Honestly, if anything, I am concerned that the game will have more tanks and healers than is needed - not too few.

Dygz

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Do you just willfully ignore or legitimately not understand what people say.
A tank/mage would be tougher than a fighter/mage. Making him more of a magic melee DPS bruiser than a magic melee DPS glass Cannon, because he can take some hits. Because as you point out his base skills add damage mitigation. But on the skill trees if I put more points into the mage secondary effect of augment of fire damage and big explosions on impact I'm going to deal more damage and be less tanky than if I put my skill points into my primary archetype activated abilities like the charge that adds the damage mitigation. Again I'm trading to deal more damage than have survivability.

This is the first mention of the word "tough" on this page, so I dunno why you're trying to front that anything has been discussed about "tough" before.

I don't know what you mean by skill trees.
Tank/Mage only has Tank skills. You can put points into the Elemental School augments and add those onto your Tank skills, sure. But, that does not make your Tank "less tanky". It makes your Tank more Elemental.
The Tank skills that provide Damage Mitigation will also deal Elemental damage. You aren't trading anything.
You are augmenting the Tank skills that you have.

Glass canon is a Mage Primary Archetype.
Of course, a Tank Primary Archetype is not going to be a glass canon. Also, a Fighter Primary Archetype will not be a glass canon. A Mage/Tank who focuses on Damage Mitigation also will not be a glass canon and a Mage/Cleric who focuses on Life School augments also won't be a glass canon.

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

The reason I would use the tank over the fighter for my primary art type is because he is tougher and I like the skill set that his primary archetype brings to use.

A Tank/Mage will probably be tougher than a Fighter/Mage because a Tank will most likely have more damage mitigation than a Fighter. I don't know where you think I said that wouldn't be the case.
Again, I don't know why you mention this as something you would individually do.
Sure. You can choose Tank as your primary because that will very likely have the most damage mitigation.

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

All I'm advocating for here is flexibility for the players to build their classes how they choose. And that includes the guy that wants to make a rogue/tank and go all in on Dodge, Parry, evasion tanking. If you don't like that don't play with him, just like any other system in the game that they're going to be building if you're not a fan of that, just ignore it.

Well, a Rogue/Tank is already going to be going "all in" on Dodge, Parry, Evasion...because that's what their Active Skills do. They will be able to add some Threat and Damage Mitigation to their Rogue skills. They will be a tanky Rogue.
If what you want is a roguey Tank, you choose Tank/Rogue and add Rogue augments to your Tank skills.
Evasion Tank is a Tank/Rogue. Could also be a Tank/Mage.
Doesn't matter what I like - I'm just sharing the game design.

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I personally feel like it would be better for there to be different tank (role) playstyles than just the tank(archetype) playstyle.

I don't know what you mean by "just the tank (archetype) playstyle". There is not only one type of Tank (archetype) playstyle.
There are at least 8 different Primary Tank playstyles. More than that because each Secondary Archetype has 4 Schools of augments. So even 4 Spellshields could have 4 distinct playstyles. And there are also augments from Social Orgs, Religions, Races and Nodes.
There are also 7 more types of "light tanks" that will play differently than Primary Archetype Tanks. Plus all of those can be played significantly differently based on how skill points are allocated - including Weapon Skills.
And depending on the augments used from Social Orgs, Religions, Races and Nodes.

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

This could go either way though and we have no idea because we have no idea what any tank secondary augments do for a primary activated ability. So again, I just feel this route would be healthier for the game.

We do have an idea of what Tank augments will do for a primary skill. Most likely, there will be Tank augments from a Threat School and there will be augments from a Damage Mitigation School. Along with two other Schools associated with Tanks.
You can't know if something is healthier if you don't understand the design.

Percimes

Noaani wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

My worries are that tanks/x and cleric/x will be essential to every grouping scenarios and who cares about the rest of the group members' classes. It means both these classes will always be in shortage, which means pick up groups are much harder to form, which means people have to resort to soloing. Yes yes, get friends, get into a guild, roll these classes, yada yada... All personal solutions, not global ones, and not as effective as you believe.

There will be archetypes that are judged by the players as less desirable/useful. Not useless, but whether you have one or not in your group won't impact the fights that much. A working formula/meta will develop and they simply won't be at the core of it. In raid or world boss, sure. In "normal" content, nah.

And then there will be these two blessed classes that no one can live without. Somehow, only them can perform their divine roles, none other can replace them at that, but that doesn't mean they can't do some dps on their own. Oh no! We can't let them cloistered into their roles, they are allowed to do damage. But no one else can tank. Or heal.

Compare Ashes to a game like WoW.

In WoW, you had groups of 5 players. In that five players, you had a tank, a healer and 3 DPS.

In Ashes, we have groups of 8. Still one tank and one healer, but that leaves 6 other spots in the group.

This means the game will get by just fine with a lower ratio or tanks and healers to other classes than other games can manage.

Honestly, if anything, I am concerned that the game will have more tanks and healers than is needed - not too few.

If the x/tanks and x/cleric augments brings enough to be considered desirable, be it on a character basis or group basis, you may be right. They could be very popular secondary archetypes. Otherwise instead of 3 people looking for a tank and a healer we'll have 6 people looking for a tank and a healer. 6 people limited to solo content, even if they can blast through it due to their numbers.

Melofeign

I come from a perspective that I enjoy a variety of roles, and prefer to be able to fill a hole that the party has. If I go Tank (my favourite role) and don't have an offspec or a job or whatever can make me serviceable in another role, I don't enjoy it as much because if I have another Tank friend, we won't do some content together because you only need one per group. Alts can help with some of this, but with the slow travel that may not be viable either.

So if there are options to be viable, not necessarily top, at other jobs by swapping up your secondary, that will make me happy. If there isn't, then I'll have to make a decision on what role I prefer to play, and then base my social network around that role. If I go cleric and I want to do pve content, I will need tank friends. If I chose tank, the reverse. I would just feel bad not being able to do something because we didn't have the right toons available, even though we have the players.

JustVine

Melofeign wrote: »

I come from a perspective that I enjoy a variety of roles, and prefer to be able to fill a hole that the party has. If I go Tank (my favourite role) and don't have an offspec or a job or whatever can make me serviceable in another role, I don't enjoy it as much because if I have another Tank friend, we won't do some content together because you only need one per group. Alts can help with some of this, but with the slow travel that may not be viable either.

So if there are options to be viable, not necessarily top, at other jobs by swapping up your secondary, that will make me happy. If there isn't, then I'll have to make a decision on what role I prefer to play, and then base my social network around that role. If I go cleric and I want to do pve content, I will need tank friends. If I chose tank, the reverse. I would just feel bad not being able to do something because we didn't have the right toons available, even though we have the players.

This is the biggest reason for why I think /tank should grant people the ability to do most PvE tanking. I want people to be able to make up for the fact that they don't have a main tank AS A TEAM. Let people have the tools to have their teams unique style and approach depending on what everyone likes to play.

This doesn't mean you need to lessen tank in any way shape or form. If anything this means you should make main tank even more robust than is currently available. But similarly, the augment system should let a person who thinks about their build very carefully to pick complimentary main archtypes (cleric, summoner, rogue(evasion build only), fighter) and be able to work something out if their team mates are similarly aware and build in ways that can make up a little bit of the gap left by the person not playing tank but still looking to fulfill the role.

Any system that lacks the ability to have a team style like this is in my opinion tends to lead to cookie cutter meta builds and generally leads to unavoidable toxicity (as opposed to avoidable toxicity which is more likely if people are pushed less to have the absolute precise optimal build throughout an entire group.) The human tendency for 'forcing optimization' onto others is already high enough as is, it doesn't need assistance from uninspired game design.

wherediditrun

Noaani wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Off tanking.. go nuts

In almost 20 years of playing MMO's, most of it at the top end, I have never once had a dedicated off tank for any PvE content.

I'm convinced this is only something people do when they don't trust their tank.

Yeah. Encounter design could seriously use some improvements in MMOs.
Personally I would love to see that any role could be replaced or compensated by the party adjusting.
Since we won't be using dungeon finders, shouldn't be an issue in that regard.

McShave

CROW3 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

But, by design, Primary Archetype Tank is main tank. You can have a whole bunch of other off-tanks.

That’s how I would expect this to work as well. A lot of solid off tanks, but one core main tank.

I am hoping for this as well. The need for off-tanks comes down to encounter design and dungeon/ area layouts. Since there will be 8 players per party instead of the normal 4 or 5, I imagine content can be designed to be a bit more difficult, where multiple tanks would be needed, but a primary Tank must be there to absorb the damage of bosses because they have the best damage absorption.

Atama

Percimes wrote: »

My worries are that tanks/x and cleric/x will be essential to every grouping scenarios and who cares about the rest of the group members' classes. It means both these classes will always be in shortage, which means pick up groups are much harder to form, which means people have to resort to soloing. Yes yes, get friends, get into a guild, roll these classes, yada yada... All personal solutions, not global ones, and not as effective as you believe.

I haven't heard it discussed for some time but I do remember Stephen saying that each class (sorry, "archetype", meh) will have a unique ability that it will bring to a party. I think I recall a video showing a cleric using an ability to cleanse poison gas out of a cave. So if nothing else, there will be that system which could potentially make any role important.

Personally, my expectation is that there will be certain content, like dungeons, where having a certain archetype-specific ability will either make it a lot easier, or provide bonus content (maybe both). For example, if you need a Rogue to bypass traps to take a side corridor, then that lets you skip a really tedious slog through the main corridor filled with swarms of annoying mobs. Or a Bard's lore ability lets you read a magic tome that reveals a treasure that gives bonus materials to the party. (Those abilities and scenarios are total hypotheticals; I have no idea what they will actually do. That stuff hasn't been in Alpha.)

Ashes 101 has a pretty good compilation of what little we know about archetypes, and based on some of the comments in this thread I think a number of you will be disappointed.

https://www.ashes101.com/classes

Here's a breakdown for you...

You need Tank as your primary archetype to be a full-blown main tank. Sorry, no Summoner/Tank taking on the role. As stated by @Dygz multiple times, only the Tank archetype gives you the actual tanking abilities needed to succeed in that role.

Some classes will be able to off-tank, and I imagine that Summoner is one of them. I'd expect that Summoner/Tank will be the best equipped to be an off-tank (just my guess here) because Summoner is the "jack of all trades" archetype which can somewhat fill in to any role. But nobody but an actual Tank will function as a main tank.

For healing, Cleric is like the Tank in that it is the only archetype capable of being a primary healer. The Bard can function as an off-healer (and it also has a toolbox of other support abilities so I'm sure parties will appreciate having them) but they're not going to be keeping a party alive on their own. Since Summoner is again "jack of all trades" they will probably be able to do some healing as well. No other archetype will be able to do it though. Picking Cleric as your secondary class and getting Cleric augments will provide you self-heals but not give you the ability to heal other people if your archetype doesn't already do that.

So that covers half of the archetypes (Tank, Cleric, Summoner, Bard). The other 4 archetypes are primary damage dealers. Fighter and Rogue are physical melee DPS roles. Rogue of course has stealth and (I am guessing) mobility, while Fighter (again, a guess) will have more damage mitigation and might be able to off-tank somewhat. (Again, I am guessing on that.) Ranger is the ranged physical damage specialist. Mage will be the specialist in magical damage.

I don't know what the difference between physical damage and magical damage will be. I'm assuming it will matter. In Alpha it didn't seem to; a sword and a spell both did the same damage. You might cut someone to bleed as a DoT, or set them on fire as a DoT. The difference seemed cosmetic. I'm sure at release it will matter. My guess is that physical damage and magical damage resistances will vary from enemy to enemy. Maybe a stone golem shrugs off magic damage but can be worn down with physical attacks, while physical attacks mostly pass through a ghost who is vulnerable to magic. If that's the case then augments will matter all that much more. That Fighter whose sword can crackle with lightning thanks to a Mage augment will have a totally different experience than the Fighter who is healing himself with Cleric augments.

All that is to say that it looks like Intrepid wants there to be value with each archetype. I don't anticipate a situation where a Fighter will be turned down because the group already has a Ranger; I am sure the Fighter will have something to provide that the Ranger doesn't, and will be wanted. I do think there's a chance that a group with a Fighter won't want another one due to redundancy. Augments may make a difference though. We'll have to see.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

IMO, tank/* and Summoner/tank should be the only viable options to tank any content.

Within that, tank/tank should be perfectly viable on all content, while each other tank has content/situations it is good in, and content/situations it is just not suited to.

bloodprophet wrote: »

Good question. Let's change it a little to gain perspective.

Should the Summoner be the end all be all best Summoner or should any /Summoner be able to also have the ability to have access to all the best summons?

If the answer is yes then they need to get rid of the archetype system all together and allow everybody to be whatever they want at all times.

If the answer is no. That all archetypes should be good and strong in their own way. Then why should tank not follow this same logic?

One of the big draws for me was the idea they were getting back to the idea of community and working together by making each archetype special and different. Not the same rehashing of homogenization of everyone can do everything or everyone is DPS with a self heal and rez. Every archetype should be the best at what they do. The augments blurring the lines so players can customize their build as they choose I think is a good idea. But it should not go sooooo far that the primary archetype has become irrelevant.

But I stated not necessarily every class should be able to tank in the question.

Just to play devils advocate.

I could see a mage or a cleric having summoner capabilities for sure, maybe even a ranger with an animal companion. But a rogue. or a fighter, or a bard could be more easily argued to not have viability as a summoner.
In parallel with that you would not have ALL classes be able to tank, it could be just ones that generally make sense. A tank is able to tank, maybe a Fighter/tank allows for a more mobile Tank that has kiting potential. A summoner tank simply has minions that can do the tanking for them(an assumption seeing as nobody knows what this class has in its arsenal yet).

Is role overlap so wrong? If it is should there really be 9 classes or even variants at all? If its so bad to have a role covered by more than one class, then shouldn't there be just 4 classes? Healer(support), Physical DPS, Magical DPS, and Tank?

Theres another round of opinions I would like to hear! Get at it!

bloodprophet

Seems to many people are still thinking they will get skills from their secondary archetype. Not gonna happen.
Each archetype will also get a couple special abilities as Atama said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHCXFo4j1Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miNthlJqkOc

Older videos showing the base design and intent. The tanks wall skill for example will only be a tank ability. It will allow them to control the battle field better. We haven't seen the other archetype abilities yet and I think in one of the live stream/interviews with Steven around this time he hinted at a couple but gave no solid answer as they weren't sure what they were going to do.

Dolyem

bloodprophet wrote: »

Seems to many people are still thinking they will get skills from their secondary archetype. Not gonna happen.
Each archetype will also get a couple special abilities as Atama said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHCXFo4j1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miNthlJqkOc

Older videos showing the base design and intent. The tanks wall skill for example will only be a tank ability. It will allow them to control the battle field better. We haven't seen the other archetype abilities yet and I think in one of the live stream/interviews with Steven around this time he hinted at a couple but gave no solid answer as they weren't sure what they were going to do.

That wasnt assuming new abilities my friend. A Fighter is very mobile, so tank augments I would assume mean enhancements of the tanky sort to a fighters already mobile abilities. Same goes with whatever summoners are given. Tank augments would likely just mean more survivability enhancements through already existing primary class abilities more than likely? I would say that is a good guess.

bloodprophet

Percimes wrote: »

My worries are that tanks/x and cleric/x will be essential to every grouping scenarios and who cares about the rest of the group members' classes. It means both these classes will always be in shortage, which means pick up groups are much harder to form, which means people have to resort to soloing. Yes yes, get friends, get into a guild, roll these classes, yada yada... All personal solutions, not global ones, and not as effective as you believe.

There will be archetypes that are judged by the players as less desirable/useful. Not useless, but whether you have one or not in your group won't impact the fights that much. A working formula/meta will develop and they simply won't be at the core of it. In raid or world boss, sure. In "normal" content, nah.

And then there will be these two blessed classes that no one can live without. Somehow, only them can perform their divine roles, none other can replace them at that, but that doesn't mean they can't do some dps on their own. Oh no! We can't let them cloistered into their roles, they are allowed to do damage. But no one else can tank. Or heal.

As it should be and how I ended up playing healer. Going away from this leads to GW2 everyone is everything and nothing all at the same time. That is the opposite of the stated design right from the very start.

Azherae

This sort of thing always reminds me that there are (at least) two really specific camps relative to MMOs. The problem here is that we don't have two different Intrepid-equivalents each aiming to make a game for either 'camp'.

Let's hope that they appear someday to help revitalize the industry, and that this doesn't all end in negativity causing Ashes to falter and make people even less likely to go for it.

Child Item