SirChancelot11 wrote: » Neurath wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » What's the tank/x doing then if the fighter/tank is doing all of that? One would hope the adds are substantial which means one tank can't tank boss and adds at the same time. If the main tank can tank the boss and the adds at the same time its bad raid design. Either the adds are ridiculous or the boss is ridiculous in such a circumstance. Edit: Spelling mistakes. Is this a boss scenario, it sounded like he was talking about packs of mobs
Neurath wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » What's the tank/x doing then if the fighter/tank is doing all of that? One would hope the adds are substantial which means one tank can't tank boss and adds at the same time. If the main tank can tank the boss and the adds at the same time its bad raid design. Either the adds are ridiculous or the boss is ridiculous in such a circumstance. Edit: Spelling mistakes.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » What's the tank/x doing then if the fighter/tank is doing all of that?
Dygz wrote: » I have a bunch. Several of which I've already shared.
Dygz wrote: » Nope. You never want to do your own research. And then when I do it for you, you say you missed it. That's on you.
Neurath wrote: » The sixty four (64) classes are partitioned into eight primary archetypes. Balancing of active skills only relates to these eight primary archetypes.[1][2] There are four primary groups of augments assigned to each base archetype. Balancing of augments relates to the four augment groups for each of the eight archetypes.[2] Not sure who the quote is from, but, the information is a quote.
beaushinkle wrote: » Did you paste a dev quote that directly says that they want to balance around 8-man parties having 1 of each primary somewhere in this thread? I'm totally willing to go through and paste every single one of your dev quotes here if you answer yes.
Dygz wrote: » You can find this info in multiple places, but here's one:https://ashesofcreation.com/news/group-dynamics"In Ashes of Creation, we’re going big. Our current party size is sitting at eight (8) players for a single group. While that number could change before launch, it’s serving a particular goal we have for gameplay. We like the idea of having a larger party because we want to put the massive back in Massively Multiplayer. If people just want to play with four others, they can always play their favorite MOBA. The idea behind an 8-person group is to allow us to really amplify party roles, and to create a need for each of the archetypes in every party. We can get pretty creative with encounters if we build for a representative from each of those roles."
beaushinkle wrote: » Say that my 5-man friend group have all agreed to play 5 different primary classes. Now we're always trying to pick up 3 specific classes from the random world, rather than 3 specific players.
beaushinkle wrote: » Thanks a ton for posting that! I really hope they reconsider that design. Here's some early flaws I see from a supply/demand perspective: The chances that each primary archetype has an even distribution of players is vanishingly low. Rather than each primary being 11-13% of the total population, there will probably be one that's closer to 10, and one that's closer to 14. Or worse, one that's closer to 9, and maybe one that's closer to 15%. Even if they somehow manage to convince players to evenly distribute themselves into primary classes, you run into friendship social dynamics. What happens when two people in the same 8-man friend group want to both play the same primary class? They just generally don't group together for 8 man content or one is forced to not play what they want? What happens when someone in the 8-man group quits the game, and the meet someone in real life who wants to play with them, but that person is the wrong class (7/8 chance this happens)? Say that my 5-man friend group have all agreed to play 5 different primary classes. Now we're always trying to pick up 3 specific classes from the random world, rather than 3 specific players. "Looking for 1 ranger 1 rogue 1 bard for dungeon". It makes logistics a huge pain. I've written about this concept at length in bring the player
ptitoine wrote: » I dont think there will be too much issue. Cause you really can build your character the way your want. So yeah some archetype will have more helpfull insight. But i wouldnt worry about it too much yet. Sinse I think the gameplay will be really about how people wanna play more than how it should be played
Azherae wrote: » beaushinkle wrote: » Thanks a ton for posting that! I really hope they reconsider that design. Here's some early flaws I see from a supply/demand perspective: The chances that each primary archetype has an even distribution of players is vanishingly low. Rather than each primary being 11-13% of the total population, there will probably be one that's closer to 10, and one that's closer to 14. Or worse, one that's closer to 9, and maybe one that's closer to 15%. Even if they somehow manage to convince players to evenly distribute themselves into primary classes, you run into friendship social dynamics. What happens when two people in the same 8-man friend group want to both play the same primary class? They just generally don't group together for 8 man content or one is forced to not play what they want? What happens when someone in the 8-man group quits the game, and the meet someone in real life who wants to play with them, but that person is the wrong class (7/8 chance this happens)? Say that my 5-man friend group have all agreed to play 5 different primary classes. Now we're always trying to pick up 3 specific classes from the random world, rather than 3 specific players. "Looking for 1 ranger 1 rogue 1 bard for dungeon". It makes logistics a huge pain. I've written about this concept at length in bring the player At that point they're at 'cost of fun' again though. Also it continues to clarify that the abilities in question are things like exploration based abilities, not necessarily related to party performance. So you would definitely 'have something that you miss out on by passing up the last 'correct' Archetype for the group in quite a few situations, and at that point they just need 'general other balance'. It's a good way to prevent the 'that class is 3% less optimal though, so why bother playing/inviting them', right? I don't personally perceive that quote or anything else said to have anything to do with actual party dynamics in itself, other than the standard 'hey we'll create synergies between these'. And synergies would, in 90% of cases, actually achieve the goal. There is 'no synergy' between the 4x Fighters in one party. They are probably not terribly lacking in effectiveness either, but it's probably enough to get other Archetypes invites even if Fighters do the most raw damage. So as long as it is an incentive instead of a requirement, it should be fine. Of course, if it is, then you'll find people that don't care about it, but Dygz already has given multiple answers about how to react to those types of people.
Neurath wrote: » What's worse is the fact that everything will be the same if all 8 primary's are required for all encounters. There won't be any variety in terms of group composition. On top of that, I'm grateful I won't be doing Pick Up Groups for waiting for the golden ratio for the 8 primaries to join would waste a lot of time in my opinion.
beaushinkle wrote: » It's a supply/demand problem. As in, say that your game is designed in such a way that all you need for an 8 man group to function properly is 1 tank 1 healer and 6 dps. If you just need any 3 dps, you're able to recruit from 75% of the playerbase. If you need 1 ranger, 1 rogue, 1 mage, you have to recruit from 12.5%, 12.5% and 12.5% of the playerbase individually, which is WAY harder. It'll take you much, much longer to put a group together than if you could just take any 3 dps.
