Swifty00 wrote: » 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? Off tanking, tanking adds, or being a less squishy dps.
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.
JustVine wrote: » 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" Right and my question is essentially 'if /clerics give healing, how many /clerics do you need before the cleric doesn't need to focus on healing' and how does that number apply to other secondary archtypes If the answer is 'never happens' we have to ask 'is the main archetypes role still shifted towards damage/support?' And 'how much more EFFECTIVE would it have been for them to 'stick to augments suited to their role'. If the answer is 'yes' but also 'it is more effective to stick to your role because the trade off doesn't make up a gap in your party to prevent a main 'being less necessary'' these 'hybrid' roles will likely draw universal shaming by the average player base because that is what always happens when you make an option 'obviously suboptimal comparitively.' It breeds toxicity and snowballs to rigid metas. Because you have now empowered that type of thinking and scrutiny. Any build that /looks/ like it isn't optimizing the assigned role will be similarly ostracized. If you doubt this will happen you lack a good understanding of human psychology. Fear of being seen as 'abnormal' and fear of rejection are incredibly powerful influencers. If the answer is no to 'is the main archetypes role still shifted towards damage/support?' We have to both ask why the devs put it in as an option and must also assume it is more optimal to stick to your single role (otherwise the role would have shifted significant enough to say yes to that first question.) If the answer is yes and 'they are a good enough trade off to fill a gap in your party's cleric/fighter to 'choose something enhancing the cleric's dps' we return to the original question ' 'if /clerics give healing, how many /clerics do you need before the cleric doesn't need to focus on building heal at all' and 'how does that number apply to other secondary archtypes.' And similarly, if my parties gear build is built around resisting and avoiding negative statuses 'how many /clerics do I need before I can get away with not having a cleric due to having enough indirect healing?'
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: » 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 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.
Noaani wrote: » Swifty00 wrote: » 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? Off tanking, tanking adds, or being a less squishy dps. Off tanking is something people do when they don't trust their tank. Adds tanking is something your tank should be able to take care of. Less squishy DPS is the only actual reason.
Ironhope wrote: » For this game to work, we will need stuff like class combinations, node and organization affiliations, tattoos, gear, talents, etc to be relevant. Should they be as relevant as the base class or not? Should they still be very relevant? Should their influence be 50% or 66% or 75%? Because depending on the answer, we will either see pretty viable hybrids or not. Personally I think the customization should be more important than the base class.
Dygz wrote: » Ironhope wrote: » For this game to work, we will need stuff like class combinations, node and organization affiliations, tattoos, gear, talents, etc to be relevant. Should they be as relevant as the base class or not? Should they still be very relevant? Should their influence be 50% or 66% or 75%? Because depending on the answer, we will either see pretty viable hybrids or not. Personally I think the customization should be more important than the base class. It makes no sense for the Secondary Archetype and secondary role to be more important than the Primary Archetype and primary pole. It's not "base class" or "dual-class" for a reason. Primary Archetype determines your primary role and Secondary Archetype allows you to have a lesser, secondary role. Also, it's way easier to balance 8 Primary Archetypes than it is to balance 64 classes. But... you can create lots of variations of a Primary Archetype with customization via Secondary Archetype augments, along with Racial, Social, Religious and Node augments and gear and Weapon Skills.
Vaknar wrote: » I mean... Every archetype can be a tank. They may just not be a good or efficient one lol c: Sure, my Archwizard may die in a couple hits, but I bet those hits would be glorious!
bloodprophet wrote: » 47:57 is important. 2:01:00 talking about hybrid classes. At one point Chris talks about going into a raid and he had changed all his enchantments to something that would offer no benefit to prove the point it was more about doing the mechanics then it was about chasing that extra .1% Over all a good conversation about game design.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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? I opened this can of worms once, so good luck to you for trying again. My opinion is that I hope more than just tank/X can be a viable tank. I would love to see most X/tank options if properly geared and spec'ed to tank to be able to. If not I feel like party composition is going to get really repetitive. But there are a lot of people here who don't feel the same. Honestly, it depends on how much secondary archetype augments can change the primary abilities, and we just don't know enough about them yet to have that talk...
Dolyem wrote: » 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?
pyreal wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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? I opened this can of worms once, so good luck to you for trying again. My opinion is that I hope more than just tank/X can be a viable tank. I would love to see most X/tank options if properly geared and spec'ed to tank to be able to. If not I feel like party composition is going to get really repetitive. But there are a lot of people here who don't feel the same. Honestly, it depends on how much secondary archetype augments can change the primary abilities, and we just don't know enough about them yet to have that talk... You want other classes to fill the role of 'tank', other than the Tank class so that you're saved from repetitive 'party composition'... And your solution is to have other classes fill the role of 'tank'... Tank being a tank: BOOOOORING Other being a tank: WOW THIS IS EXITING!!!1111 Waste. Of. Time. Maybe not the game for you. Hugs and kisses.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » . A death knight plays different than a bear plays different than a brewmaster. And they bring different things to the table.
Vaknar wrote: » I mean... Every archetype can be a tank. They may just not be a good or efficient one lol c: I know you are coming in from a different angle and trying to make light of the topic but this comment dumbs down the conversation. Not trying to be rude but no shit a mage tank should not be able to main tank the giant ogre boss swinging a club lol. Why not expand the options mages have and allow them to main tank an enemy spellcaster boss? Or possibly pick up mage adds that just sit back and blast our raid members (thus giving us more dynamic boss mechanics)? Why not give mages the option to spec mage/tank and provide magical mitigation or even deflection from timed cooldowns for their allies? The same can be said for a rogue evasion tanking On the flipside. Why does mage/tank only gain the opportunity to last.....a few more hits? Are we really going to be excited for a system that let's you spec into EIGHT different options but they are just slight adjustments of the primary/primary role? Do you think people are going to choose less dps (when they chose a DPS class) so they can survive against a rogue/ranger/fighter better? Yeah some will, but it would be a terrible choice and you "should" opt in for higher damage, more CC, escapes instead. I'm all for empowering players to make their own unique choices but when those choices end up clearly inferior, what then? This system should be what is glorious. They have literal years before launch. Plenty of time and opportunity to delve deep into an engaging and comprehensively robust class system that will set them apart from the competition. There is ZERO reason to settle on subtle adjustments to the holy trinity.
Noaani wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » . A death knight plays different than a bear plays different than a brewmaster. And they bring different things to the table. But Ashes will have this. A tank/tank will play differently to a tank/rogue, or a tank/mage.
Sathrago wrote: » The point of having all the customization tools is for the total mixture to be a different experience than the initial glass of water. The real argument is how different the mixture gets from other mixtures with the same starting ingredient.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » I hit lvl 25 and choose mage for secondary That rotation won't change. I'm going to onslaught, but now it's a teleport. Shockwave, but now there's some extra magey burn damage. Etc etc... I'm still going to use the same abilities, those mage augments aren't going to change the playstyle of the tank. Yes there are extra effects, and those can be very useful, but those changes won't change the way I'm playing the character.
