JustVine wrote: » JustVine wrote: » 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. This is why I say it'd be bland. Your pigeonholing people into singular role when roles are not so black and white innately. It inadvertently focuses builds down to one or two styles because those roles only have so many approaches when augments are as weak as you seem to want. I am not arguing for 'ever class every role.' I am arguing for flexibility to tilt obviously synegistic concepts towards one another. Without it the game will be bland and have an extremely harsh and stale meta. A game supposedly about teamwork taking away choices for teams to have their own unique mesh because of presuppositions of how the roles in question work. Whether you like it or not you are basically imposing a meta by 'deciding how a role is 'supposed' to function when done 'optimally''.
JustVine wrote: » 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.
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.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » [ I'd be ok with fighter/cleric coming up with a build to heal. They have said the cleric augments will be able to heal themselves AND those around them. But again just choosing your primary and secondary archetype isn't the only aspect of building your character if you make this character and don't dump enough points into mana pool and mana regen as a passive. If you weren't getting gear that gives bonuses for healing, then no you shouldn't be able to heal. They would also have to expect that they are going to lose all of their DPS aspect. That dev quote also says that Cleric augments will not negate the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an 8-person group. People using augments from the Cleric's Life School will be able to heal. They just won't be able to heal as well as a Primary Archetype Cleric using Active Skill heals. This could just be due to the fact that clerics have activated abilities for remove curses or clear poison, if I have cleric secondary I'm not going to have that primary skill. I accept this, and if my party has a cleric/fighter who wants to be more melee DPS oriented than a healer he will still have access to those remove curse spells and our party will run just fine. It can still work. Look at my party over here breaking Metas while diggs is over there in a party of double Downs cuz THATS THEIR ROLE!!¡! 😁
Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » [ I'd be ok with fighter/cleric coming up with a build to heal. They have said the cleric augments will be able to heal themselves AND those around them. But again just choosing your primary and secondary archetype isn't the only aspect of building your character if you make this character and don't dump enough points into mana pool and mana regen as a passive. If you weren't getting gear that gives bonuses for healing, then no you shouldn't be able to heal. They would also have to expect that they are going to lose all of their DPS aspect. That dev quote also says that Cleric augments will not negate the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an 8-person group. People using augments from the Cleric's Life School will be able to heal. They just won't be able to heal as well as a Primary Archetype Cleric using Active Skill heals.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » [ I'd be ok with fighter/cleric coming up with a build to heal. They have said the cleric augments will be able to heal themselves AND those around them. But again just choosing your primary and secondary archetype isn't the only aspect of building your character if you make this character and don't dump enough points into mana pool and mana regen as a passive. If you weren't getting gear that gives bonuses for healing, then no you shouldn't be able to heal. They would also have to expect that they are going to lose all of their DPS aspect.
bloodprophet wrote: » If we look at roles as being important tank , heal , DPS and support these things should work a set way else the base game will devolve into a free for all dps race mess. Roles are important in team play. Not everyone can do the same thing at the same time. Interdependence needs to be front and center of their design. Each of the roles needs to bring something important to the table. As each of the archetypes need to with their base skills. Metas will always form. This came up in another thread a while ago. There was a private WoW server that allowed everyone to take what ever skills from what ever class and the vast majority of people had the exact same builds. Why if you can do and take whatever skills you want? The augments are meant to blur the lines not move them. As Noaani said earlier: "If you pick tank as your primary, you are a tank, that is your role. You can argue that, but those are Stevens words. What I dont get is why you think this means the role of tank is the pigeonholed in terms of how it is supposed to function. As a tank, you can opt to take tank as your secondary and double down on it. You are likely to be a better over all tank than any other class, but this is something that is likely not needed in group content, and not desired in PvP. You can maybe take rogue as your secondary, and perhaps you are now an avoidance tank rather than a mitigation tank. This is a seriously different kind of tank - so different that very few games actually even have a build for this. Perhaps you take summoner as your secondary, and now you are able to tank one mob yourself, and have a pet tank adds. Maybe you take ranger, and you are able to tank mobs from distance - who knows." This is how they talked about it from the very beginning. The roles are fixed leading back to community and interdependence. They are Making an MMORPG not another solo player game pretending to be an MMO like current WoW and many other pretenders.
Dygz wrote: » That dev quote also says that Cleric augments will not negate the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an 8-person group. People using augments from the Cleric's Life School will be able to heal. They just won't be able to heal as well as a Primary Archetype Clerics using Active Skill heals.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » @dolyem see what I mean when I said you're brave Lol
SirChancelot11 wrote: » I know augments aren't skills themselves, so saying they aren't as powerful doesn't make sense... So they change skills a a significant amount? Enough for it to shift what role that ability can be used for... Like DPS ability can now be used to heal?
Percimes wrote: » Noaani wrote: » My expectation with almost all */tank classes is that they will be the high survivability build for your class. If this is how it works out, it would mean a fighter/tank is a fighter that has a bit more in the way of survivability than a regular fighter/fighter, but is still a fighter, not a tank. Since there is more to tanking than just survivability, this says to me that it is unlikely that a fighter/tank would be able to be an actual tank. Same this with a mage/tank - it is a mage with higher survivability than the other mages. No one is going to expect it to be able to tank The only exception to this that I see is the summoner - this is because summoners dont really have a "role" as such, so their role is the class they take as a secondary. To push this a little farther. What if all group members had the same secondary archetype but no one had it as a primary? Let say, everyone is x/tank, but no one is tank/x. What level of functionality could we expect from such a party. Nothing in the realm of raid capacity most likely, but in the non-boss part of dungeons? In PvP battlefield? How about if everyone was x/cleric, but not proper cleric? It's something my friends and I talked about a long time ago for a D&D party concept: everyone multi-classing/dual-classing fighter or thief. The idea has been, more or less, adapted by many over the years in other games. There are videos of full parties of mages or paladins in WoW for example. The reverse concept, which seems less viable, would be for every group members to share the same primary archetype, but with a different secondary. A full group of tank/x could be a nightmare to finish off, but a full ranger/x group could make a frightening entrance. Bam! Healer down!
Noaani wrote: » My expectation with almost all */tank classes is that they will be the high survivability build for your class. If this is how it works out, it would mean a fighter/tank is a fighter that has a bit more in the way of survivability than a regular fighter/fighter, but is still a fighter, not a tank. Since there is more to tanking than just survivability, this says to me that it is unlikely that a fighter/tank would be able to be an actual tank. Same this with a mage/tank - it is a mage with higher survivability than the other mages. No one is going to expect it to be able to tank The only exception to this that I see is the summoner - this is because summoners dont really have a "role" as such, so their role is the class they take as a secondary.
JustVine wrote: » In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'.
JustVine wrote: » Alternatively let's ask how good is this healing? If it isn't very good, it's a very fair question to ask why the designers made that option available at all. To trick 'less skilled builders'? 'Flavor that makes you superficially help your allies with your band aids?' If it's low impact compared to things that let you do more damage, people have no reason to choose it. That's very bad design.
Dygz wrote: » JustVine wrote: » In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'. Augments from the Life School would move Fighter closer to Damage/Support, yes. It would not switch the primary role from Damage to Support. DPS done slightly differently may just be a matter of semantics.
Dygz wrote: » "Very good" is also a matter of perspective. Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills. You could use the word flavor to describe that. Augments allow you to dabble with some of the effects of a different archetype. It doesn't really allow you to compete with the effectiveness of the Primary Archetype.
JustVine wrote: » I am arguing that it should switch your role from DPS to DPS/Support if you choose the right augments. It is very different from just DPS, not 'just semantics'.
JustVine wrote: » The design behind augments is to not just change the flavor so that it reflects the secondary archetype, but it also fundamentally changes the core components of a skill. – Steven Sharif
Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » I know augments aren't skills themselves, so saying they aren't as powerful doesn't make sense... So they change skills a a significant amount? Enough for it to shift what role that ability can be used for... Like DPS ability can now be used to heal? Not quite. It adds to what the ability is being used for. The DPS ability will be able to also heal somewhat. It augments what the ability already does. But, that Life augment will not be as powerful as a Cleric Active Skill.
Dygz wrote: » JustVine wrote: » In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'. Augments from the Life School would move Fighter closer to Damage/Support, yes. It would not switch the primary role from Damage to Support. DPS done slightly differently may just be a matter of semantics. JustVine wrote: » Alternatively let's ask how good is this healing? If it isn't very good, it's a very fair question to ask why the designers made that option available at all. To trick 'less skilled builders'? 'Flavor that makes you superficially help your allies with your band aids?' If it's low impact compared to things that let you do more damage, people have no reason to choose it. That's very bad design. "Very good" is also a matter of perspective. Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills. You could use the word flavor to describe that. Augments allow you to dabble with some of the effects of a different archetype. It doesn't really allow you to compete with the effectiveness of the Primary Archetype. I would say you're helping your allies with bandages - not band-aids. And those bandages will be significant, but not as powerful as a full Heal from a Primary Archetype Cleric. If you wish your Mage-Killer to more easily survive the burst damage of enemy Mages, Fighter/Cleric is an excellent choice. You choose Life augments for your Fighter because ultimately that allows you to deal out burst damage while slaughtering enemy Mages without having to worry about whether the Cleric has your back instead of someone else's.
CROW3 wrote: » I sat down earlier today and sketched out my thoughts on this topic. Interested in whether this meets / counters your thinking or expectations. The idea is that 'secondary tanks' (those classes that do not start with the tank archetype) have 1) a greater ability to survive as solo players, and 2) have the potential to become solid off-tanks That said - all things being equal - a fighter/tank, will never be as capable a tank as a tank/fighter. Likewise, a tank/fighter will never be able to dps as well as a fighter/tank. Same combination constraint on the tank / healing side of the trinity.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Sure your primary and secondary archetype but there is also Augments Passive skill tree Active skill tree Weapons skill tree Your gear Any abilities or effects that come from your gear Tattoos Etc. There are other sliders to play with and edit a characters focus. I could roll a mage/mage but if I wear all fighter gear and all my skill points into melee weapons passives on the weapon skill tree.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » my primary archetype activated abilities are going to do trash damage. But maybe I just want the spell effects from the mage activated abilities?
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Maybe I want to create a black hole to hold you in place and then beat the s*** out of you with a great axe when I can't miss. And going mage/mage allows me to augment black hole making it last longer. So I can just sit there and the wail on you uninterrupted for several seconds while you're stuck in a black hole
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Just because you have an archetype chosen doesn't mean you your character going to be built for that, options are still going to exist.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » So it won't really change the skill that much, or how the skill gets used. Just a little bonus effect?
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » JustVine wrote: » In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'. Augments from the Life School would move Fighter closer to Damage/Support, yes. It would not switch the primary role from Damage to Support. DPS done slightly differently may just be a matter of semantics. JustVine wrote: » Alternatively let's ask how good is this healing? If it isn't very good, it's a very fair question to ask why the designers made that option available at all. To trick 'less skilled builders'? 'Flavor that makes you superficially help your allies with your band aids?' If it's low impact compared to things that let you do more damage, people have no reason to choose it. That's very bad design. "Very good" is also a matter of perspective. Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills. You could use the word flavor to describe that. Augments allow you to dabble with some of the effects of a different archetype. It doesn't really allow you to compete with the effectiveness of the Primary Archetype. I would say you're helping your allies with bandages - not band-aids. And those bandages will be significant, but not as powerful as a full Heal from a Primary Archetype Cleric. If you wish your Mage-Killer to more easily survive the burst damage of enemy Mages, Fighter/Cleric is an excellent choice. You choose Life augments for your Fighter because ultimately that allows you to deal out burst damage while slaughtering enemy Mages without having to worry about whether the Cleric has your back instead of someone else's. @JustVine what he is saying is that on the scale from "not worth taking" to "as much as a primary cleric" they are going to aim for between "good enough to not make it laughable negligible" but "not too good as to threaten the clerics job title"
Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » So it won't really change the skill that much, or how the skill gets used. Just a little bonus effect? You keep saying that, but that is not what Steven's descriptions state. Which is why it's pointless to have the discussion with you. You won't change your mind until the launch provides incontrovertible proof - and maybe not even then.
Noaani wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank. A Fighter/Tank can off-tank but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group. So why take a fighter/tank at all?
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank. A Fighter/Tank can off-tank but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group.
Dolyem wrote: » Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.
