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

Azherae

Khronus wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Broodwardens can tank. Just don't expect them to out-tank a Tank/x in an 8-person group.

This is a terrible way to argue for what we think the class system will be. Can tank....but won't be optimal.....so hopefully someone will invite a broodwarden to the group? Nah, I would instead take a tank. Is there room for the broodwarden though? Nope. I need someone with better dps. How about this mage/fighter? Nope. He is useless when I can bring this mage/mage. The system is set up to have a SHITLOAD of mediocre classes with zero real creativity.

Cool, I can now blink to my enemy as a fighter instead of the same speed charge. What changed? The cosmetics?

Tank - so I can choose to mitigate damage with my meta tank/tank build or I can lose mitigation to heal some of the lost damage by going tank/cleric. Would the healing be enough to make up for the % damage reductions my tank will have by going tank/tank? Will the summon from tank/summon make up for the lost mitigation?

Dygz, you think it's too difficult for the devs to balance a dual class system...but in reality the current system seems like a clusterfuck to design. Try it. Honestly, take some time and try to balance the game with the current system while still maintaining that "most" of the secondary choices will be fun and viable to play. Obviously we won't have 64 viable options but even with half, the system is a failure.

The only positive I see here is the fact that PvP will be the largest chunk of the game. The only reason to take a shitty spec'd player is if you are expecting to meet the enemy on the field in which a tank/tank may not be the best option. It may benefit to have a tank/rogue for the pvp aspect but when nobody shows up and we wipe because that tank is not in the best spec it will be an issue. This is not a fun risk vs reward scenario. This is a bad design scenario. On top of that, it won't be just 1 "off spec". It will be a ton of people. A lot of minor negatives becomes a big problem in the overall raid makeup.

Basically.

Even as someone who has literally done this (the taking some time thing), and believe it's possible, there's a massive difference between 'I can get this to work and people can enjoy it' and 'I can get this to work and people will consider things viable'.

So if the point is 'hey, play what you want, there's some content for you, just not razor edge content, have fun', then fine. "Shadowmancer Has Entered The Battle!"

But if it is 'hey, play what you want, there will be a place where you are viable, maybe even optimal, consistently', then it's relying on something I don't like to see MMOs rely on.

"Players who already have friends who will let them experiment or who understand and really trust/synergize with their off-meta specs."

SirChancelot

Wait hold up you think that asking for rogue/tank to be able to be a tank isn't possible because it would be too difficult to balance

And then you say this

Dygz wrote: »

Tank/Mage can also be an Evasion Tank. Py'Rai Tank/x might also be Evasion Tanks. Thieves Guild Tank/x might also be Evasion Tanks.
I suppose you could call a Rogue/Tank an evasion tank if you want to but, it does not fit the mindset way better because Rogue/Tank is primarily a Rogue. So what you actually have is a tanky Rogue.
.

If that's the case I could mix and match all that stuff and have every style of tank on one character. Please tell me how this is easy to balance whereas mixing and matching primary secondary archetypes would just be too complicated...

If anything what you're suggesting here would mean if I wanted to make a competitive evasion tank build I would have to have a pyri, thief guild, tank/rogue so I can collect all of the evasion augments to properly be an evade tank. You just removed so much player choice.
Or else if I don't need all of them because they do the same thing, then certain augments won't matter because they're redundant?

Also by this logic that would mean there's also probably a guild, race, religion, whatever that offers tank-oriented augments I could still use a primary rogue and load them up with all the Tanky stuff and make him a tank. Congrats, you just made a rogue/tank work.

SirChancelot

Azherae wrote: »

Khronus wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Broodwardens can tank. Just don't expect them to out-tank a Tank/x in an 8-person group.

This is a terrible way to argue for what we think the class system will be. Can tank....but won't be optimal.....so hopefully someone will invite a broodwarden to the group? Nah, I would instead take a tank. Is there room for the broodwarden though? Nope. I need someone with better dps. How about this mage/fighter? Nope. He is useless when I can bring this mage/mage. The system is set up to have a SHITLOAD of mediocre classes with zero real creativity.

Cool, I can now blink to my enemy as a fighter instead of the same speed charge. What changed? The cosmetics?

Tank - so I can choose to mitigate damage with my meta tank/tank build or I can lose mitigation to heal some of the lost damage by going tank/cleric. Would the healing be enough to make up for the % damage reductions my tank will have by going tank/tank? Will the summon from tank/summon make up for the lost mitigation?

Dygz, you think it's too difficult for the devs to balance a dual class system...but in reality the current system seems like a clusterfuck to design. Try it. Honestly, take some time and try to balance the game with the current system while still maintaining that "most" of the secondary choices will be fun and viable to play. Obviously we won't have 64 viable options but even with half, the system is a failure.

The only positive I see here is the fact that PvP will be the largest chunk of the game. The only reason to take a shitty spec'd player is if you are expecting to meet the enemy on the field in which a tank/tank may not be the best option. It may benefit to have a tank/rogue for the pvp aspect but when nobody shows up and we wipe because that tank is not in the best spec it will be an issue. This is not a fun risk vs reward scenario. This is a bad design scenario. On top of that, it won't be just 1 "off spec". It will be a ton of people. A lot of minor negatives becomes a big problem in the overall raid makeup.

Basically.

Even as someone who has literally done this (the taking some time thing), and believe it's possible, there's a massive difference between 'I can get this to work and people can enjoy it' and 'I can get this to work and people will consider things viable'.

So if the point is 'hey, play what you want, there's some content for you, just not razor edge content, have fun', then fine. "Shadowmancer Has Entered The Battle!"

But if it is 'hey, play what you want, there will be a place where you are viable, maybe even optimal, consistently', then it's relying on something I don't like to see MMOs rely on.

"Players who already have friends who will let them experiment or who understand and really trust/synergize with their off-meta specs."

What I WANT is for that gap to be closed by skill. This build is 'off meta' so isn't as EASY skill cap wise to to the higher content. But if I live and breathe broodwarden, I want to use skill the gap of fun to viability...

Azherae

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Khronus wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Broodwardens can tank. Just don't expect them to out-tank a Tank/x in an 8-person group.

This is a terrible way to argue for what we think the class system will be. Can tank....but won't be optimal.....so hopefully someone will invite a broodwarden to the group? Nah, I would instead take a tank. Is there room for the broodwarden though? Nope. I need someone with better dps. How about this mage/fighter? Nope. He is useless when I can bring this mage/mage. The system is set up to have a SHITLOAD of mediocre classes with zero real creativity.

Cool, I can now blink to my enemy as a fighter instead of the same speed charge. What changed? The cosmetics?

Tank - so I can choose to mitigate damage with my meta tank/tank build or I can lose mitigation to heal some of the lost damage by going tank/cleric. Would the healing be enough to make up for the % damage reductions my tank will have by going tank/tank? Will the summon from tank/summon make up for the lost mitigation?

Dygz, you think it's too difficult for the devs to balance a dual class system...but in reality the current system seems like a clusterfuck to design. Try it. Honestly, take some time and try to balance the game with the current system while still maintaining that "most" of the secondary choices will be fun and viable to play. Obviously we won't have 64 viable options but even with half, the system is a failure.

The only positive I see here is the fact that PvP will be the largest chunk of the game. The only reason to take a shitty spec'd player is if you are expecting to meet the enemy on the field in which a tank/tank may not be the best option. It may benefit to have a tank/rogue for the pvp aspect but when nobody shows up and we wipe because that tank is not in the best spec it will be an issue. This is not a fun risk vs reward scenario. This is a bad design scenario. On top of that, it won't be just 1 "off spec". It will be a ton of people. A lot of minor negatives becomes a big problem in the overall raid makeup.

Basically.

Even as someone who has literally done this (the taking some time thing), and believe it's possible, there's a massive difference between 'I can get this to work and people can enjoy it' and 'I can get this to work and people will consider things viable'.

So if the point is 'hey, play what you want, there's some content for you, just not razor edge content, have fun', then fine. "Shadowmancer Has Entered The Battle!"

But if it is 'hey, play what you want, there will be a place where you are viable, maybe even optimal, consistently', then it's relying on something I don't like to see MMOs rely on.

"Players who already have friends who will let them experiment or who understand and really trust/synergize with their off-meta specs."

What I WANT is for that gap to be closed by skill. This build is 'off meta' so isn't as EASY skill cap wise to to the higher content. But if I live and breathe broodwarden, I want to use skill the gap of fun to viability...

I'm not a fan of this design style personally.

1. Players who can do it treat players who can't do it for whatever reason, fairly dismissively.
2. It does nothing to convince most people that it's viable at all, so players who can do it still have issues with perception.
3. It limits players who want to play as a thing which is only enabled by very high skill, if they don't have it, in ways that are very negative to their experience.

Most of the time, if not always, the argument is 'yes I see you can play X at a high level but that just means you would play Y, the meta build, at an even higher level, so by choosing not to do that, you're limiting us'.

That said, I do want the gap to be closed by 'group synergy' and 'instinct'. The closer they can get to 'synergy with some subset of groups is a known thing' the better for everyone.

SirChancelot

@maouw @Azherae
I would love for some summoners like Necro and broodwarden to do something swarmy (having various zerg/Tyranid monsters would be sweet)
But for some, like summoner/mage I could see just one big summon, like a fire/ice/storm/void elemental depending on the school chosen.

Summoner/summoner is a good point too. Maybe that will be the weakest summoner secondary because it it's just too neutral. Or turns the summoner character into even more of a support for his pets? Super solo'er?

Azherae

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

@maouw @Azherae
I would love for some summoners like Necro and broodwarden to do something swarmy (having various zerg/Tyranid monsters would be sweet)
But for some, like summoner/mage I could see just one big summon, like a fire/ice/storm/void elemental depending on the school chosen.

Summoner/summoner is a good point too. Maybe that will be the weakest summoner secondary because it it's just too neutral. Or turns the summoner character into even more of a support for his pets? Super solo'er?

I think you're already in my dataset, and any discussion on this path will turn this Tanking thread into a Summoner thread quite quickly. My 'opinions' on that are known, though I still would rather call them my expectations, I know better than to try to convince most people of that.

If you don't remember posting in any of the threads I took the data from, then let me know, you might not be in any of them. Cursory grep of my files doesn't return your name, but I didn't store the summoner dataset properly so I'd have to run the script again.

SirChancelot

Azherae wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Khronus wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Broodwardens can tank. Just don't expect them to out-tank a Tank/x in an 8-person group.

This is a terrible way to argue for what we think the class system will be. Can tank....but won't be optimal.....so hopefully someone will invite a broodwarden to the group? Nah, I would instead take a tank. Is there room for the broodwarden though? Nope. I need someone with better dps. How about this mage/fighter? Nope. He is useless when I can bring this mage/mage. The system is set up to have a SHITLOAD of mediocre classes with zero real creativity.

Cool, I can now blink to my enemy as a fighter instead of the same speed charge. What changed? The cosmetics?

Tank - so I can choose to mitigate damage with my meta tank/tank build or I can lose mitigation to heal some of the lost damage by going tank/cleric. Would the healing be enough to make up for the % damage reductions my tank will have by going tank/tank? Will the summon from tank/summon make up for the lost mitigation?

Dygz, you think it's too difficult for the devs to balance a dual class system...but in reality the current system seems like a clusterfuck to design. Try it. Honestly, take some time and try to balance the game with the current system while still maintaining that "most" of the secondary choices will be fun and viable to play. Obviously we won't have 64 viable options but even with half, the system is a failure.

The only positive I see here is the fact that PvP will be the largest chunk of the game. The only reason to take a shitty spec'd player is if you are expecting to meet the enemy on the field in which a tank/tank may not be the best option. It may benefit to have a tank/rogue for the pvp aspect but when nobody shows up and we wipe because that tank is not in the best spec it will be an issue. This is not a fun risk vs reward scenario. This is a bad design scenario. On top of that, it won't be just 1 "off spec". It will be a ton of people. A lot of minor negatives becomes a big problem in the overall raid makeup.

Basically.

Even as someone who has literally done this (the taking some time thing), and believe it's possible, there's a massive difference between 'I can get this to work and people can enjoy it' and 'I can get this to work and people will consider things viable'.

So if the point is 'hey, play what you want, there's some content for you, just not razor edge content, have fun', then fine. "Shadowmancer Has Entered The Battle!"

But if it is 'hey, play what you want, there will be a place where you are viable, maybe even optimal, consistently', then it's relying on something I don't like to see MMOs rely on.

"Players who already have friends who will let them experiment or who understand and really trust/synergize with their off-meta specs."

What I WANT is for that gap to be closed by skill. This build is 'off meta' so isn't as EASY skill cap wise to to the higher content. But if I live and breathe broodwarden, I want to use skill the gap of fun to viability...

I'm not a fan of this design style personally.

1. Players who can do it treat players who can't do it for whatever reason, fairly dismissively.
2. It does nothing to convince most people that it's viable at all, so players who can do it still have issues with perception.
3. It limits players who want to play as a thing which is only enabled by very high skill, if they don't have it, in ways that are very negative to their experience.

Most of the time, if not always, the argument is 'yes I see you can play X at a high level but that just means you would play Y, the meta build, at an even higher level, so by choosing not to do that, you're limiting us'.

That said, I do want the gap to be closed by 'group synergy' and 'instinct'. The closer they can get to 'synergy with some subset of groups is a known thing' the better for everyone.

You have some really good points there.

I guess, though, the opposite end of that spectrum is that all the classes are 'easily playable and no one really wants that. I mean, shifting from fully tab Target to action combat makes it more skill-based than build based.

Also some classes are just going to have a higher skill cap than others. Harder to play but more rewarding when you get it right.
So we are probably going to end up with that anyways... For example a rogue is harder to use than a fighter, but if you get all the hits in right for the bonus backstab and crit multipliers you can end up doing more damage through that skill difference.

Azherae

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Khronus wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Broodwardens can tank. Just don't expect them to out-tank a Tank/x in an 8-person group.

This is a terrible way to argue for what we think the class system will be. Can tank....but won't be optimal.....so hopefully someone will invite a broodwarden to the group? Nah, I would instead take a tank. Is there room for the broodwarden though? Nope. I need someone with better dps. How about this mage/fighter? Nope. He is useless when I can bring this mage/mage. The system is set up to have a SHITLOAD of mediocre classes with zero real creativity.

Cool, I can now blink to my enemy as a fighter instead of the same speed charge. What changed? The cosmetics?

Tank - so I can choose to mitigate damage with my meta tank/tank build or I can lose mitigation to heal some of the lost damage by going tank/cleric. Would the healing be enough to make up for the % damage reductions my tank will have by going tank/tank? Will the summon from tank/summon make up for the lost mitigation?

Dygz, you think it's too difficult for the devs to balance a dual class system...but in reality the current system seems like a clusterfuck to design. Try it. Honestly, take some time and try to balance the game with the current system while still maintaining that "most" of the secondary choices will be fun and viable to play. Obviously we won't have 64 viable options but even with half, the system is a failure.

The only positive I see here is the fact that PvP will be the largest chunk of the game. The only reason to take a shitty spec'd player is if you are expecting to meet the enemy on the field in which a tank/tank may not be the best option. It may benefit to have a tank/rogue for the pvp aspect but when nobody shows up and we wipe because that tank is not in the best spec it will be an issue. This is not a fun risk vs reward scenario. This is a bad design scenario. On top of that, it won't be just 1 "off spec". It will be a ton of people. A lot of minor negatives becomes a big problem in the overall raid makeup.

Basically.

Even as someone who has literally done this (the taking some time thing), and believe it's possible, there's a massive difference between 'I can get this to work and people can enjoy it' and 'I can get this to work and people will consider things viable'.

So if the point is 'hey, play what you want, there's some content for you, just not razor edge content, have fun', then fine. "Shadowmancer Has Entered The Battle!"

But if it is 'hey, play what you want, there will be a place where you are viable, maybe even optimal, consistently', then it's relying on something I don't like to see MMOs rely on.

"Players who already have friends who will let them experiment or who understand and really trust/synergize with their off-meta specs."

What I WANT is for that gap to be closed by skill. This build is 'off meta' so isn't as EASY skill cap wise to to the higher content. But if I live and breathe broodwarden, I want to use skill the gap of fun to viability...

I'm not a fan of this design style personally.

1. Players who can do it treat players who can't do it for whatever reason, fairly dismissively.
2. It does nothing to convince most people that it's viable at all, so players who can do it still have issues with perception.
3. It limits players who want to play as a thing which is only enabled by very high skill, if they don't have it, in ways that are very negative to their experience.

Most of the time, if not always, the argument is 'yes I see you can play X at a high level but that just means you would play Y, the meta build, at an even higher level, so by choosing not to do that, you're limiting us'.

That said, I do want the gap to be closed by 'group synergy' and 'instinct'. The closer they can get to 'synergy with some subset of groups is a known thing' the better for everyone.

You have some really good points there.

I guess, though, the opposite end of that spectrum is that all the classes are 'easily playable and no one really wants that. I mean, shifting from fully tab Target to action combat makes it more skill-based than build based.

Also some classes are just going to have a higher skill cap than others. Harder to play but more rewarding when you get it right.
So we are probably going to end up with that anyways... For example a rogue is harder to use than a fighter, but if you get all the hits in right for the bonus backstab and crit multipliers you can end up doing more damage through that skill difference.

I don't have a problem with that aspect of it. I just feel that the thing we're discussing should be 'within the class'. Let's go back to Tanks, for example.

A Tank that chooses to go without a Shield, using Greatsword or something instead, perfectly handling their mitigation cooldown timers and for example, knockbacks or Greatsword skills, to prevent some damage, actively doing that instead of 'Sword and Shield, passive increases to block chance' is harder, but could be equally or slightly more effective.

That part isn't a question of secondary Archetype though. That's a player 'looking at how complex Greatsword Tanking is and deciding they can handle that', or 'choosing which abilities within their build to take.

If that's what you meant, and that's all people need, I'm sure YouTube will provide lots of guides, but as Dygz would often tell you, that's a different kind of skill. Character skill over player skill.

But a Brood Warden might need to do considerably more than that, and have many less skills available as 'backups' when something goes wrong.

That's fine if they decided 'I want to Tank, I'll work hard for it', but less fine if they went 'Brood Warden sounds cool, I want to play it' and then could only get invited as a Tank because the community 'expects Brood Wardens to tank because of that one really good Brood Warden on Twitch' and 'the spec isn't good for anything otherwise'.

Basically I'm saying there should be a 'simple' effective Brood Warden as well as a 'difficult' effective Brood Warden, and if anything the first should just be less versatile than the second. That's what I'd hope for in all cases.

Which isn't much of a concern, with the Augment system, and I consider that to be the main benefit of it. Things can be designed such that a certain amount of base effectiveness is equal between two players using the exact same choices in abilities. After that if you want to 'gear for Evasion' on your Nightshield, no one has to worry that you won't generate enough hate through abilities, they only have to 'worry' about if you figured out a way to mitigate sufficient damage with your Augments+Gear.

Noaani

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Here's a question....What harm would there be to have 1 or 2 different primary classes that */tank as an archetype, and be able to be a viable tank for content? And what harm would there be to allow a tank primary to alter its role by choosing 1 or 2 certain secondary's? Not all, just a few options. Looking forward to hearing everyone's reasoning.

There is no harm, that is what a summoner is for. This works because summoners have no primary role - as far as we know.

With something like a cleric, ranger or mage though, it would mean they have two defined roles- and would be the only primary class that does.

I by no means think that a tank/cleric or cleric/tank should be able to tank AND heal. OR, I've been very clearly saying OR.

Yes, I know you have been saying OR.

The thing is, a cleric/tank isn't a cleric/tank. They area cleric that has currently selected tank. That player can - basically at will - change to be a cleric/cleric.

If a cleric/tank can tank content, then that character has access to two roles.

Atama

Sathrago wrote: »

If the idea is that summoners can fill in where they are needed they will be required to actually be able to fulfill the role. until they change this way of describing summoners this is how I will interpret it.

I'm of the same mind as you. That is why I'm assuming that Summoners will have a summoned "thing" of some kind that can provide direct heals, otherwise I don't see how they could fill the role of a healer.

Again, this is my assumption just based on trying to apply logic.

Khronus

Noaani wrote: »

If a cleric/tank can tank content, then that character has access to two roles.

I posted a thread about having every class be allowed to spec into at least 2 of the 4 primary roles and it didn't get very far unfortunately. Being able to fill 2 primary roles will give every single player the chance to breath every once in a while when not wanting to fulfill their "primary" role. It also opens the opportunity for more unique group compsitions.

I don't see how this could possibly hurt the game in any way and balancing it would be the same effort as balancing any version of 64 classes. There are a lot of NO BRAINER classes that just simply cannot fill specific roles. On top of all this, specific classes will also have class specific world abilities that alter the way the game is played as well (finding hidden rooms, making platforms, detecting traps, etc).

bard - primary support but 1-2 of the specs could lead them to being more of a healer (or dps depending on what the bard community is feeling)

cleric - primary is healing but they could have 1-2 dps specs (much like shadow priest in wow) - to me, cleric and tank are the dumbest classes to have in this system because you don't make a cleric to dps in this system. You make a cleric to heal. If they can't match top dps by being a cleric/dps, they are useless players with bad specs.

summoner - primary should be support (sum/sum) but they should be able to spec into their secondary role and drastically alter the skills. sum/rog should be a dps summoner. sum/cleric should be a healer (player on single target and summon on raid aoe's or set to tank), sum/ranger for dps etc. There is a ton of opportunity with this class.

fighter - primary dps with a couple options to support the raid or focus more on CC

ranger - primary dps with options to support/cc and "maybe" tank. Similar to how a sum/tank would be

rogue - primary dps with options to tank as a rog/tank (evasion)

mage - primary dps with the options to mage/tank (magic mitigation bosses or diving enemy back line to beat other casters) or mage/cleric to heal.

tank - primary tank but give the option to dps or support.

Obviously a very rough idea of what could be done but what this does for the game is more beneficial than not having it.

When organizing a raid group, if we go to take "proper" comps we will have 5 of each class. 5 tanks, 5 clerics, 5 bards etc. In a 40 player group, this would give us every opportunity for best comp but also for loot distribution. So picture this if the game only allows for primary roles in the current setting (1 tank, 1 cleric, 1-2 supports and 4 dps). There is no possible way a guild would tank 5 tanks, so loot is already going to be less favorable for some. Would only 5 healers be enough? One healer for 8 people? We don't know yet. If summoner indeed leans support, are we going to need 10 supports?

On the flip side, if players were able to fill other roles, we could be taking 2-3 tanks for off tanking and taking 2-3 tanks to fill in support roles. Protecting healers and doing objectives. Instead of bringing more than 5 clerics to get more healing (or having some whack ass lower dps self healing rogue), we could have a bard and a summoner both cleric secondary to fill in additional healing needed.

The roles being filled needs to make sense obviously but it can be done and I feel will make this game much stronger than the current expectations.

Noaani

Khronus wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If a cleric/tank can tank content, then that character has access to two roles.

I posted a thread about having every class be allowed to spec into at least 2 of the 4 primary roles and it didn't get very far unfortunately. Being able to fill 2 primary roles will give every single player the chance to breath every once in a while when not wanting to fulfill their "primary" role. It also opens the opportunity for more unique group compsitions.

I don't see how this could possibly hurt the game in any way and balancing it would be the same effort as balancing any version of 64 classes.

The way I see it, Intrepid currently only have 8 classes to balance, not 64. Each class has 8 main builds within it to balance, but balancing a DPS build of a class against another DPS build of that same class is quite easy.

Giving each class a second role would then mean balancing 16 classes. 8 of those classes would each have 7 builds that need to be balanced against each other, and the other 8 builds would need to be balanced against a totally different class.

This is a much harder prospect. Not impossible, but much harder than what Intrepid have on their hands without it.

Your point about raid composition - I disagree with the loot aspect of it in regards to Ashes. Most loot is going to take the form of materials. If we kill a dragon, it may drop a scale or some such. While this may be able to be turned in to a tanks shield, it may also be able to be turned in to a mages ring, or a rogues dagger. Essentially, us players will determine the distribution of loot among classes, not the drop table of mobs.

Assuming I do play this game, I have no intention of taking more than 1 tank along on any content that doesn't specifically ask for more than one tank - much as has been the case in every game I have led raids in.

Where I don't see any particular need to give each primary class a second role is in the fact that people wouldn't want to take them, generally speaking.

Since all classes have a non-combat ability that all groups are likely to want, all groups are going to want to take one of each class. If you take a second mage instead of a rogue, you do so knowing that you will miss out on opening up the hidden door that you all know is there, but that can only be opened up by a rogue.

While some groups may find that they occasionally can't find one of each class, that is where the summoner seems to me to fit in. Groups will try their best to get one of each class in to the group, but if it fails, a summoner can fill in that missing role if it is a tank or healer, or can just be DPS if both are present.

If all classes can be two roles, the point (as I see it) of summoners is essentially lost. They seem to be trading having a primary role for being the one class that can perform multiple roles when the specific situation calls for it. In order for that trade off to be worth it, that situation needs to come up - as in, there needs to be times when the summoner tanking or healing the group is the only option available to said group.

Dygz

Khronus wrote: »

This is a terrible way to argue for what we think the class system will be. Can tank....but won't be optimal.....so hopefully someone will invite a broodwarden to the group? Nah, I would instead take a tank. Is there room for the broodwarden though? Nope. I need someone with better dps. How about this mage/fighter? Nope. He is useless when I can bring this mage/mage. The system is set up to have a SHITLOAD of mediocre classes with zero real creativity.

It's not a terrible way. A Bard can use magic - don't expect a Bard/Mage to out-Mage a Mage/x.
Also, don't expect a Summoner/Mage with a DPS oriented Summon to out DPS a Mage/x.

You invite a Brood Warden because you want a Summoner/x. Just as you invite a Magician because you want a Bard/x. If you want a main Tank, you invite a Tank/x.
Any Mage/x is a viable Primary Archetype Mage. Any Summoner/x is a viable Primary Archetype Summoner.
If you want a main tank, you should invite a Tank/x; not an x/Tank.

Khronus wrote: »

Cool, I can now blink to my enemy as a fighter instead of the same speed charge. What changed? The cosmetics?

I've already explained this.
A Teleport on a charge makes it so the target basically cannot Evade you, even if they go Invisible. You would teleport past any wall placed between you and your target. Getting hit by a Snare would be irrelevant because you instantly Teleport to your target.
That's not just cosmetic.

Khronus wrote: »

Tank - so I can choose to mitigate damage with my meta tank/tank build or I can lose mitigation to heal some of the lost damage by going tank/cleric. Would the healing be enough to make up for the % damage reductions my tank will have by going tank/tank? Will the summon from tank/summon make up for the lost mitigation?

You don't lose Damage Mitigation to heal. Augment heals add on to the Damage Mitigation from your Active Skills. And, yes, the augments from the Life School would effectively be the equivalent of the augments from the Damage Mitigation School.

Khronus wrote: »

Dygz, you think it's too difficult for the devs to balance a dual class system...but in reality the current system seems like a clusterfuck to design. Try it. Honestly, take some time and try to balance the game with the current system while still maintaining that "most" of the secondary choices will be fun and viable to play. Obviously we won't have 64 viable options but even with half, the system is a failure.

It's not clusterfuck to balance because the balance is with the 8 Primary Archetypes, rather than 64 sub-classes.

Khronus wrote: »

The only positive I see here is the fact that PvP will be the largest chunk of the game. The only reason to take a shitty spec'd player is if you are expecting to meet the enemy on the field in which a tank/tank may not be the best option. It may benefit to have a tank/rogue for the pvp aspect but when nobody shows up and we wipe because that tank is not in the best spec it will be an issue. This is not a fun risk vs reward scenario. This is a bad design scenario. On top of that, it won't be just 1 "off spec". It will be a ton of people. A lot of minor negatives becomes a big problem in the overall raid makeup.

You don't really have shitty-specced players because any Primary Archetype is viable - especially in PvE.
Risk v Reward means that your choices matter when you choose your primary role via the choice of Primary Archetype.
Also, again, Tank/Rogue is just as viable as Tank/Tank - they just play differently. Just don't expect a Rogue/Tank to tank as well as a Tank/Rogue.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

.

While some groups may find that they occasionally can't find one of each class, that is where the summoner seems to me to fit in. Groups will try their best to get one of each class in to the group, but if it fails, a summoner can fill in that missing role if it is a tank or healer, or can just be DPS if both are present.

If all classes can be two roles, the point (as I see it) of summoners is essentially lost. They seem to be trading having a primary role for being the one class that can perform multiple roles when the specific situation calls for it. In order for that trade off to be worth it, that situation needs to come up - as in, there needs to be times when the summoner tanking or healing the group is the only option available to said group.

Can we both agree that creating a class for the sole purpose of 'being the last resort' is a bad design for any class?

It's not that a summoner 'can't be that' but summoner has a clear and obvious role to me and the thing you just wrote down is a side benefit of that.

A summoner's role in my mind is to help the group adapt to a dynamic situation created by either a complex enemy set or chain of different enemies. They usually achieve this by giving a certain set of utility buffs and through switching which summons are up depending on the phase of combat/enemy type.

To put another way, a bard buffs your teams base strategy/capabilities. A summoner can alter that strategy beyond what would be otherwise possible. Summoners with fewer summons limit their flexibility in exchange for amplified effect. Presumably because they are in a team or like a set of activities that doesn't require that dynamism.

Also sorry for derailing the thread for tank with summoner yet agaim, but in this case I felt like it was worth possibly extending Noaani's perception since they may not have actually played with a summoner main or had the FFXI summoner experience.

Atama

JustVine wrote: »

Can we both agree that creating a class for the sole purpose of 'being the last resort' is a bad design for any class?

Personally I like the idea that as a Summoner I would always have a role to play. I can't say how many times I've been in a group (not a LFG group but a group where people are manually filling roles by asking who is available), and you just need a tank or a healer or another DPS or something along those lines then you can go. Let's say you need a minimum of 4 for content (total hypothetical) and need at minimum a tank, a healer, and a couple of DPS, if I could heal or tank or do DPS (enough for that content at least) I am the most important person in that group. Because at that point you can probably get that team ready ten times faster than you would if you needed just one more role that you can't find.

They aren't going to care if you aren't the best healer ever, or the best tank ever, or if you can do the most damage. They're not going to be picky. They want to get it done. That's how PUGs usually are.

That doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to play a Summoner. I haven't seen it in-game and I might hate it. But I really like the idea of it. And I'd worry that maybe being "second- or third-best at everything" seems like it might keep you from participating in end-game content where you really need to have everyone at their peak to succeed, I just remember that one of the core design goals is for every archetype to bring something unique, so while I have no idea what that will be for Summoners I'm sure they will in some way be attractive to bring along if not absolutely necessary.

JustVine

Atama wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

Can we both agree that creating a class for the sole purpose of 'being the last resort' is a bad design for any class?

Personally I like the idea that as a Summoner I would always have a role to play. I can't say how many times I've been in a group (not a LFG group but a group where people are manually filling roles by asking who is available), and you just need a tank or a healer or another DPS or something along those lines then you can go. Let's say you need a minimum of 4 for content (total hypothetical) and need at minimum a tank, a healer, and a couple of DPS, if I could heal or tank or do DPS (enough for that content at least) I am the most important person in that group. Because at that point you can probably get that team ready ten times faster than you would if you needed just one more role that you can't find.

They aren't going to care if you aren't the best healer ever, or the best tank ever, or if you can do the most damage. They're not going to be picky. They want to get it done. That's how PUGs usually are.

That doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to play a Summoner. I haven't seen it in-game and I might hate it. But I really like the idea of it. And I'd worry that maybe being "second- or third-best at everything" seems like it might keep you from participating in end-game content where you really need to have everyone at their peak to succeed, I just remember that one of the core design goals is for every archetype to bring something unique, so while I have no idea what that will be for Summoners I'm sure they will in some way be attractive to bring along if not absolutely necessary.

Right and what I am saying is that 'attractive feature' shouldn't be 'pick up group champion' it should be what I described above. 'The one in charge of adapting the groups strategy to the new situation for optimized advantage' for lack of a better short description.

Elo

In a way, it might be more interesting if class x/x (tank/tank, mage/mage, etc) was not an option, forcing you to diversify. Not gonna happen, but just pondering...

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

.

While some groups may find that they occasionally can't find one of each class, that is where the summoner seems to me to fit in. Groups will try their best to get one of each class in to the group, but if it fails, a summoner can fill in that missing role if it is a tank or healer, or can just be DPS if both are present.

If all classes can be two roles, the point (as I see it) of summoners is essentially lost. They seem to be trading having a primary role for being the one class that can perform multiple roles when the specific situation calls for it. In order for that trade off to be worth it, that situation needs to come up - as in, there needs to be times when the summoner tanking or healing the group is the only option available to said group.

Can we both agree that creating a class for the sole purpose of 'being the last resort' is a bad design for any class?

I would have to see how it plays out, honestly.

In order to really work, I would think summoners need to have a way to change their build mid-continent. Even if they only have two builds that they can switch between, I can see it working. Though three would be ideal.

What this then means is that every group would want a summoner, as it would mean the group could carry on if the tank or healer had to run off for what ever reason. This is an added use for them on top of outright filling in for a tank or healer if the need arose.

I honestly can see it being a fine class if this is how it worked.

If it turns out that summoners have to take their spec in with them and are stuck with it, meaning groups had to pick from an actual tank or a summoner tank and they were basically stuck with it (which I would assume is what you are thinking) then I agree it is probably a bad idea.

Dygz

Elo wrote: »

In a way, it might be more interesting if class x/x (tank/tank, mage/mage, etc) was not an option, forcing you to diversify. Not gonna happen, but just pondering...

There's still at least 4 different ways to play a Tank/Tank and at least 4 different ways to play a Mage/Mage, etc.
Many ways to diversify even when you double-down on Archetype.

Dolyem

Khronus wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Broodwardens can tank. Just don't expect them to out-tank a Tank/x in an 8-person group.

This is a terrible way to argue for what we think the class system will be. Can tank....but won't be optimal.....so hopefully someone will invite a broodwarden to the group? Nah, I would instead take a tank. Is there room for the broodwarden though? Nope. I need someone with better dps. How about this mage/fighter? Nope. He is useless when I can bring this mage/mage. The system is set up to have a SHITLOAD of mediocre classes with zero real creativity.

Cool, I can now blink to my enemy as a fighter instead of the same speed charge. What changed? The cosmetics?

Tank - so I can choose to mitigate damage with my meta tank/tank build or I can lose mitigation to heal some of the lost damage by going tank/cleric. Would the healing be enough to make up for the % damage reductions my tank will have by going tank/tank? Will the summon from tank/summon make up for the lost mitigation?

Dygz, you think it's too difficult for the devs to balance a dual class system...but in reality the current system seems like a clusterfuck to design. Try it. Honestly, take some time and try to balance the game with the current system while still maintaining that "most" of the secondary choices will be fun and viable to play. Obviously we won't have 64 viable options but even with half, the system is a failure.

The only positive I see here is the fact that PvP will be the largest chunk of the game. The only reason to take a shitty spec'd player is if you are expecting to meet the enemy on the field in which a tank/tank may not be the best option. It may benefit to have a tank/rogue for the pvp aspect but when nobody shows up and we wipe because that tank is not in the best spec it will be an issue. This is not a fun risk vs reward scenario. This is a bad design scenario. On top of that, it won't be just 1 "off spec". It will be a ton of people. A lot of minor negatives becomes a big problem in the overall raid makeup.

Child Item