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

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

So, then, we should change the name Mage because Mage will be doing other things besides magic?
And we should change the name Summoner because they will be doing other things besides Summoning?

As far as I can tell, from what you just answered, this basically amounts to another thread asking to be able make the secondary role (Secondary Archetype) as viable as the Primary Archetype.
You want an x/Cleric to be just as viable as a Cleric/x.

Because all the other stuff is already in the game design for Tank as well as Mage or Summoner. Or Fighter.

Only reason Tank should be renamed is because "tank" is a role, not a class. Don't see a reason to change the other class names because they are in fact classes, not roles.

Secondary should have impact, not as profound as a primary but it should still have weight, not just flair. And that is my opinion.
So in overly simple terms I would say as far as primary/secondary influence goes it should be around 60/40 or 70/30 as far as the role impact goes, and then all of the other factors can tilt it one way or the other depending on the build. where maybe the highest a secondarys effectiveness would be around 70% or 75 % while the primary is capable of becoming 100% effective through build and choosing the identical secondary and only maybe 90% if choosing a different secondary.

This is simply theorycraft but now I am going to bed for realsies. Night

Ironhope

JamesSunderland wrote: »

The people who are in favor of off tanking, what exactly do you want the limits of off-tanking to be?
How better at tanking do you want a Tank/X to be in comparison to a X/Tank?

I can only answer from the perspective of a pvper.

Choosing tank as your second archetype is wroth it when:

a) You're a frontliner (melee) dps and the amount of survival (amount of extra time you're alive to deal damage) you get from choosing tank as your second archetype is worth more than the amount of damage you're losing by not choosing a dps second archetype.

b) You're a support and the amount of survival (among of extra time you're alive to heal) you get from choosing tank as your second archetype is worth more than the amount of healing you're losing by not choosing a second a support second archetype.

Of course, this must be read in context.
When I wrote this I had large scale battles such as sieges & arenas in mind.

Dygz

Ashes is not like other MMORPGs. Which other MMORPGs have a group size of 8, designed specifically for massive Node siege battles and also have Primary Archetypes and Secondary Archetypes which combine to create classes?

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."

You have to start there.
If it's an MMORPG with a group size of 8, designed for instanced dungeons, you can expect the classes and combat roles to be significantly different.
Steven's design choices are influenced by a variety of RPGs and MMORPGs. That does not mean that because there are other MMORPGs that are P2W Ashes will be P2W. It doesn't mean that because EQ and WoW had separate PvE-only servers Ashes will have separate PvE-Only servers.
It does not mean that because other EQ and WoW had a group size of 4 or 5, Ashes will have a group size of 4 or 5.
It does not mean that because EQ and WoW have tons of instanced dungeons Ashes will have tons of instanced dungeons.
It does not mean that because other MMORPGs had static, pre-built towns and cities, Ashes will have static, pre-built towns and cities.

In Ashes, we do not have roles that are directly influenced by other MMORPGs.
Which other MMORPGs have Tank/x as a Primary Archetype and x/Tank as a Secondary Archetype? And if there are other MMORPGs with Tank/x as a Primary Archetype, why should Ashes not have Tank/x as a Primary Archetype?

Ashes has somethings that are in common with other RPGs and MMORPGs - that have been altered to fit Steven's gameplay vision.

In the Ashes game design, Summoner/x has a tank-oriented Summons.
So, there is already at least one other Primary Archetype that can do tanky stuff and also become an x/Tank.
There may be other Primary Archetypes that also do tanky stuff and can also become an x/Tank.
But, Tank/x is the Primary Archetype that has the most Active Skills focused heavily on generating Threat and adding a significant amount of Damage Mitigation. As well as CC.
This is similar to Cleric/x with heals. There may be other Primary Archetypes that also provide healing, but the Cleric/x has the most Active Skills focused heavily on heals.
If Ashes only had 4 Primary Archetypes or even only 6 Primary Archetypes, we might not have a Tank Primary Archetype - but... Ashes has 8 Primary Archetypes and one of those is Tank/x.

So...just as Ashes is a PvX game, Ashes is a game that has Tank/x as a Primary Archetype... because that's how Steven wants to flesh out his 8 Primary Archetypes.

You can't meaningfully debate if the game design is flawed when you don't know the full scope of the game design and you haven't tested it. All you can say is that you like the way previous MMORPGs designed their classes and you wish Ashes would use those same designs.
You aren't truly debating a flaw. You're just stating that you think you won't like the game design. Which is fine.
Again, we have topics about how people would prefer to have a separate PvE-Only server. But, not having separate PvE-Only servers is a Feature; not a Flaw. It might be a feature you don't like. That's OK.
We have topics about how the Corruption mechanic is too harsh. We have topics about how the Corruption mechanic is not harsh enough. But, we can't meaningfully critique that until we test it.
And...it doesn't necessarily matter how Corruption worked in previous MMORPGs because it's not going to work exactly the same in Ashes. The Corruption mechanic is heavily influenced by Lineage 2 Karma, but Steven says the Corruption system is harsher than the Karma system, by design.
Just because Steven is influenced by other MMORPGs does not mean he is designing his game to be just like what's in those games. Harsher Corruption system than Karma is not a flaw; it's a feature. Once we test it, we can meaningfully weigh in on how well it works for its intended purpose.
Whether you like it is a bit of a different conversation.

We have many topics about not liking the name Tank. Sure.
Just as we have many topics about not liking that we have no separate PvE-Only servers.
That's fine, of course.

"Right or wrong" can really only have meaning in the context of the game dev philosophy and the intended game design goals.
I mean, you might as well start by asking, "Should Ashes have 8 Primary Archetypes?"

JustVine

Rescinded

Dygz

I am arguing that good game designs are relative to the design goals - which makes them not objective.
Which is why you can't just say, "This is the way Karma worked in Lineage 2 so Ashes should have the exact same design in Ashes."

It's like asking, "Should Ashes have Corruption?"
The answer to that is yes. Why? Because there is no separate PvE-Only server and the devs want some deterrents for ganking and PKing of non-combatants.
If we're talking about some other game, the answer might be different.

To meaningfully weigh in on whether the Ashes Corruption mechanic is flawed, we would need to test it.

Dygz

I'm reviewing this discussion from page 1:
Dolyem asked questions; several people dropped in to answer them.
I don't see anything in the OP that suggests we should not be answering the questions relative to the Ashes game design.
I don't see where I said anything close to, "Dolyem, your ideas are trash."

Discussion seems to going just fine until Dolyem focuses us on "Is role overlap so wrong?"
Ashes has role overlap. Especially with regard to Secondary Archetypes.

Where things go sideways is when Dolyem basically asks, "Why can't Fighter/Tank swap roles well-enough to replace Tank/Fighter?" Which is similar to "Why can't Fighter/Cleric swap roles well-enough to replace Cleric/Fighter".
And the answer to that is the Ashes devs don't want to balance the 64 classes to ensure that. That is more work than they want to deal with - especially once each class starts to complain that other classes are OP.
The Ashes devs are balancing the 8 Primary Archetypes such that one of each Primary Archetype is required for an 8-person group and so that any Primary Archetype/x is viable in a max level dungeon/raid.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with having a class system similar to Ashes that results in dual-classes that are designed to have an x/Tank be just as good at tanking as a Tank/x. If there is a dev team that can actually support constantly balancing and rebalancing the 64 classes to meet the demands of the players - that's great.
The Ashes dev team understands that that is too much for them to reasonably handle, so that's not the way they've designed their classes.
That answer does not say that the proposed concept is trash or objectively poor game design. It's just not the decision the Ashes devs made.

If we're not talking about Ashes, sure, dual-classing is great in D&D.
And, sure, the WoW class system might be fun enough to play, but I would not want to be a dev who has to deal with balancing and rebalancing those specs based on all the complaints from the players.

SirChancelot

Dygz wrote: »

To meaningfully weigh in on whether the Ashes Corruption mechanic is flawed, we would need to test it.

Too bad you don't feel the way about the primary/secondary archtype system or augments... I mean if you did you wouldn't constantly just tell people they're wrong.

Percimes

Noaani wrote: »

However, this doesn't mean hate has to be artificial, or has to be PvE only. All an MMO developer needs to do is make it so taunts force targets to target the tank for a second or two (basically turning taunts in to a soft CC), and most players in PvP would opt to target tanks first to get them out of the way. Since most taunts are very short range, this would result in PvP playing out somewhat similar to PvE for tanks, which is something no MMO has really achieved.

The obvious counter to this would be to send a tank to face the other tank. Taunting him so he's the target of the next taunt... And now you have two guys caught in a taunting loop. It wouldn't always devolve into this, but it would be funny every time it happened.

Dygz

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

To meaningfully weigh in on whether the Ashes Corruption mechanic is flawed, we would need to test it.

Too bad you don't feel the way about the primary/secondary archtype system or augments... I mean if you did you wouldn't constantly just tell people they're wrong.

LMAO.
What I tell people is that what they are asking for doesn't seem to fit the game design.
And, to figure out whether the game design is flawed and needs tweaking - we need to test it.
You will see posts, where I explicitly state - it is unlikely to work based on what the devs have said, but, try it and see if it works. If it works great! But you should try it thinking that it MIGHT work, not that it SHOULD work.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is not like other MMORPGs. Which other MMORPGs have a group size of 8, designed specifically for massive Node siege battles and also have Primary Archetypes and Secondary Archetypes which combine to create classes?

Youre right, this game is individual in having all of those things, but to say these things individually weren't influenced by other games is nonsense. Plenty of games have content with large groups in largescale PvP. Guild Wars 2 comes to mind in particular with World vs World. Many games have done multiclass systems as well. You're just arguing semantics with this one. Ashes is definitely unique in its design, but many features have been showcased in many different games in one way or another. Not a damn thing wrong with drawing inspiration from games you love and the features you have enjoyed. It is pretty clearn Lineage 2 and Archeage are games Steven thoroughly enjoyed and has drawn huge inspiration from them for system ideas. The studio is of course putting their own twists and fixes on the systems to make them better, and feedback as well as opinions help them with what direction they take in that process.

Dygz wrote: »

You have to start there.
If it's an MMORPG with a group size of 8, designed for instanced dungeons, you can expect the classes and combat roles to be significantly different.
Steven's design choices are influenced by a variety of RPGs and MMORPGs. That does not mean that because there are other MMORPGs that are P2W Ashes will be P2W. It doesn't mean that because EQ and WoW had separate PvE-only servers Ashes will have separate PvE-Only servers.
It does not mean that because other EQ and WoW had a group size of 4 or 5, Ashes will have a group size of 4 or 5.
It does not mean that because EQ and WoW have tons of instanced dungeons Ashes will have tons of instanced dungeons.
It does not mean that because other MMORPGs had static, pre-built towns and cities, Ashes will have static, pre-built towns and cities.

In Ashes, we do not have roles that are directly influenced by other MMORPGs.
Which other MMORPGs have Tank/x as a Primary Archetype and x/Tank as a Secondary Archetype? And if there are other MMORPGs with Tank/x as a Primary Archetype, why should Ashes not have Tank/x as a Primary Archetype?

Ashes has somethings that are in common with other RPGs and MMORPGs - that have been altered to fit Steven's gameplay vision.

I don't remember saying any of that was going to or should happen? My view(partly) was for Classes to have an option to build into another role through the secondary system/plethora of other build options so they aren't locked into that corner forever, allowing them to choose to change up their playstyle in the future if they get bored. As well as allowing for more depth in a system that has more potential than just some flair.

Dygz wrote: »

In the Ashes game design, Summoner/x has a tank-oriented Summons.
So, there is already at least one other Primary Archetype that can do tanky stuff and also become an x/Tank.
There may be other Primary Archetypes that also do tanky stuff and can also become an x/Tank.
But, Tank/x is the Primary Archetype that has the most Active Skills focused heavily on generating Threat and adding a significant amount of Damage Mitigation. As well as CC.
This is similar to Cleric/x with heals. There may be other Primary Archetypes that also provide healing, but the Cleric/x has the most Active Skills focused heavily on heals.
If Ashes only had 4 Primary Archetypes or even only 6 Primary Archetypes, we might not have a Tank Primary Archetype - but... Ashes has 8 Primary Archetypes and one of those is Tank/x.

So...just as Ashes is a PvX game, Ashes is a game that has Tank/x as a Primary Archetype... because that's how Steven wants to flesh out his 8 Primary Archetypes.

"In the Ashes game design, Summoner/x may have a tank-oriented Summons.
So, there may be at least one other Primary Archetype that could do tanky stuff and also become an x/Tank." Fixed a little wording here. If only to show your contradictions and bias. We have no confirmed official abilities for summoner, none of it is tested, we know nothing of its skills except a couple of ideas tossed around of what the general design wants it to be. If we go by your logic we can't even use this as an example other than that a summoner class will be available and it should have capabilities in each role type according to Steven. Its effectiveness is entirely unknown and for all we know completely unviable as a */tank spec as far as how prominent a secondary affects gameplay, and how effective any */tank specs are at tanking high level content.

I understand, a primary class has an intended role, thats where the secondary class paired with the massive amounts of other build variables should come into play when determining if that role can change and be still viable.

Number of Primary archetypes is 8 yes. Lets flesh them out in the most basic way.

Tank-tank
Cleric-Healer
Bard-Support
Summoner-Not exactly clear but a fill I guess?
Fighter-dps
rogue-dps
Mage-dps
Ranger-dps

So thats 1 Tank, 1 Healer, 1 Support, 4 dps, and a jack of all trades in which we don't know how well it will be able to perform its roles based on its builds.

With what you are proposing with how Primarys should be handled, there should be 1 dps role. 1 Tank role, and 1 healer(support) role. Why have more options for dps? That's just what other MMO's do and Ashes is unique and doesn't follow suit to those other games ideas of how classes should work right? The tank is tanky, the Healer is all healin, and the Dps is smackin that monster with a weapon. get that 1 tank, that 1 healer, and 6 dps in the dungeon, thats all that is needed as far as roles go, why name them anything else or give them secondarys in the first place. Why have any options for what types of each you would want to play? That's just confusing and hard to balance. The damage doesn't need to be different, the healing doesn't need to be different, the tanking doesn't need to be different, no point in having 8 classes let alone any secondarys. That's how I see your logic at this point. Why should there be other tanking options and even healer options? Same reason there are other dps options. Variety prevents boredom.

Dygz wrote: »

You can't meaningfully debate if the game design is flawed when you don't know the full scope of the game design and you haven't tested it. All you can say is that you like the way previous MMORPGs designed their classes and you wish Ashes would use those same designs.

But you can meaningfully defend untested game designs that you don't know the full scope of? Sounds like with your logic all you should be saying is "I just think the systems are neat and I hope they work."

You can absolutely debate any game design that is in development. Clearly you have never been in a think-tank, or do you think these designs just magically spring up on a whiteboard? Criticizing them allows for improvement.

Dygz wrote: »

You aren't truly debating a flaw. You're just stating that you think you won't like the game design. Which is fine.
Again, we have topics about how people would prefer to have a separate PvE-Only server. But, not having separate PvE-Only servers is a Feature; not a Flaw. It might be a feature you don't like. That's OK.
We have topics about how the Corruption mechanic is too harsh. We have topics about how the Corruption mechanic is not harsh enough. But, we can't meaningfully critique that until we test it.
And...it doesn't necessarily matter how Corruption worked in previous MMORPGs because it's not going to work exactly the same in Ashes. The Corruption mechanic is heavily influenced by Lineage 2 Karma, but Steven says the Corruption system is harsher than the Karma system, by design.
Just because Steven is influenced by other MMORPGs does not mean he is designing his game to be just like what's in those games. Harsher Corruption system than Karma is not a flaw; it's a feature. Once we test it, we can meaningfully weigh in on how well it works for its intended purpose.
Whether you like it is a bit of a different conversation.

Until my last couple of posts I wasn't really debating anything, I was asking for opinions of what people thought of the system and whether or not they thought it was flawed. And so far my argument has nothing to do about what I like, my argument revolves around keeping players interested in their primary class in the long term, and allowing for a few options when picking a primary based on role capability instead of...."well if I want to tank I have to be a tank, or if I want to heal I have to be a cleric." and several years down the road maybe thinking "I am tired of tanking, I wish I had the option to switch it up a little instead of starting all over again."

The PvE server debate is debunked by the core design of the game requiring progression through both pvp and pve. The corruption is a system that pairs with the PvX system to prevent overly toxic behavior and make the PvP aspect of the PvX system have more impact.
The class system however is more fluid simply because its based on the "holy Trifecta" of MMOs. The way this system is designed has the potential to create several paths to one of the corners of the holy trifecta. But for some reason some people dont want anything more than 1 tank primary class, and 1 healer primary class, when there could be a few options for each through secondary builds that are a feature in this system.

Dygz wrote: »

We have many topics about not liking the name Tank. Sure.
Just as we have many topics about not liking that we have no separate PvE-Only servers.
That's fine, of course.

It comes down to misinterpretation. Why name a class a role if you could allow that class to go outside of the role if the player built it correctly? Thats one of my arguments paired with allowing for the opportunity to make better use of the character build system to add 2 roles to a class instead of limiting them to one corner of the triangle.

Dygz wrote: »

"Right or wrong" can really only have meaning in the context of the game dev philosophy and the intended game design goals.
I mean, you might as well start by asking, "Should Ashes have 8 Primary Archetypes?"

I believe I have asked that based on arguments like yours. And with that logic, everything is right about games like World of Warcraft. And the players input means nothing.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

I'm reviewing this discussion from page 1:
Dolyem asked questions; several people dropped in to answer them.
I don't see anything in the OP that suggests we should not be answering the questions relative to the Ashes game design.
I don't see where I said anything close to, "Dolyem, your ideas are trash."

Discussion seems to going just fine until Dolyem focuses us on "Is role overlap so wrong?"
Ashes has role overlap. Especially with regard to Secondary Archetypes.

Where things go sideways is when Dolyem basically asks, "Why can't Fighter/Tank swap roles well-enough to replace Tank/Fighter?" Which is similar to "Why can't Fighter/Cleric swap roles well-enough to replace Cleric/Fighter".
And the answer to that is the Ashes devs don't want to balance the 64 classes to ensure that. That is more work than they want to deal with - especially once each class starts to complain that other classes are OP.
The Ashes devs are balancing the 8 Primary Archetypes such that one of each Primary Archetype is required for an 8-person group and so that any Primary Archetype/x is viable in a max level dungeon/raid.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with having a class system similar to Ashes that results in dual-classes that are designed to have an x/Tank be just as good at tanking as a Tank/x. If there is a dev team that can actually support constantly balancing and rebalancing the 64 classes to meet the demands of the players - that's great.
The Ashes dev team understands that that is too much for them to reasonably handle, so that's not the way they've designed their classes.
That answer does not say that the proposed concept is trash or objectively poor game design. It's just not the decision the Ashes devs made.

If we're not talking about Ashes, sure, dual-classing is great in D&D.
And, sure, the WoW class system might be fun enough to play, but I would not want to be a dev who has to deal with balancing and rebalancing those specs based on all the complaints from the players.

I have to run out the door but to put it simply. If The development team doesn't want to balance 64 classes as you say, then they shouldn't advertise 64 classes to play in the game. They should have 8 classes, and tell everyone there are class specific augments that allow you to play that class and role the way you want to based on the options given to you.

Dygz

How you feel about the devs "advertising" 64 classes is a different topic.
You are allowed to feel however you feel, of course.

What the devs said is that there are 8 Primary Archetypes that combine with Secondary Archetypes to create 64 classes. It's important to be sure you understand how a specific game defines their terms. There could be significant differences.
Influence does not inherently mean exactly the same.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

You're right, this game is individual in having all of those things, but to say these things individually weren't influenced by other games is nonsense.

Which is why I didn't say that.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

Until my last couple of posts I wasn't really debating anything, I was asking for opinions of what people thought of the system and whether or not they thought it was flawed. And so far my argument has nothing to do about what I like, my argument revolves around keeping players interested in their primary class in the long term, and allowing for a few options when picking a primary based on role capability instead of...."well if I want to tank I have to be a tank, or if I want to heal I have to be a cleric." and several years down the road maybe thinking "I am tired of tanking, I wish I had the option to switch it up a little instead of starting all over again.

But, that is already in the game design.
It's why, at Level 25, we get the option to choose a Secondary Archetype - which leads to the 64 classes.
It seems like a bit of research would have led you to this knowledge - especially since the devs talk about this when they discuss the how Archetypes and the 64 classes work.
I'm pretty sure several people explained how it works in the first several pages of this thread.
So, I guess I don't understand why debate around that arose in the last couple of posts.

Dolyem wrote: »

The class system however is more fluid simply because its based on the "holy Trifecta" of MMOs. The way this system is designed has the potential to create several paths to one of the corners of the holy trifecta. But for some reason some people dont want anything more than 1 tank primary class, and 1 healer primary class, when there could be a few options for each through secondary builds that are a feature in this system.

You are saying for some reason. That reason is, that is the game design.
But, it's like Cleric with healing. No one has said that no other Primary Archetype can do any healing at all.
Just as no one has said no ther Primary Archetype except Mage can do any magic.
No one has said that only one Primary Archetype can do any DPS.
As far as I know, everyone has agreed that other Primary Archetypes might be able to do some tanking.
What some people have said is don't expect that a different Primary Archetype will be able to main tank in an 8-person group. Just as we should not expect another Primary Archetype to replace the Primary Archetype Cleric as primary healer in an 8-person group.
Summoners have tank-oriented Summons. It seems like you've been active in threads where that has been discussed.

And, yes, Secondary Archetypes allow players to move closer to a secondary role. Such that Rogue/Cleric will be able to do some healing via the Life School, but won't be able to heal as well as a Primary Archetype Cleric.
It just not designed to allow the Rogue Cleric to heal as well as a Cleric/Rogue.
Primary remains primary and secondary remains secondary.

Dolyem wrote: »

It comes down to misinterpretation. Why name a class a role if you could allow that class to go outside of the role if the player built it correctly? Thats one of my arguments paired with allowing for the opportunity to make better use of the character build system to add 2 roles to a class instead of limiting them to one corner of the triangle.

Same reason why we name a Mage a a mage even when they can also also melee.
Same reason why we name a Summoner a summoner even though they can also melee.
Same reason why we name a Fighter a fighter, even though they can also use magic.

How would a Tank go outside of their role as tank when the vast majority of their Active Skills generate Threat, Mitigate Damage and/or CC??
Secondary Archetype already allows players to slide their characters closer to a different trinity role.
We've been telling you that for pages, this was all covered by Page 2, so I don't understand what it is you are hoping to debate now.

I believe I have asked that based on arguments like yours. And with that logic, everything is right about games like World of Warcraft. And the players input means nothing.

Players' input doesn't have much meaning until the players can actually play (test) the features and mechanics of the game design.

SirChancelot

Percimes wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

However, this doesn't mean hate has to be artificial, or has to be PvE only. All an MMO developer needs to do is make it so taunts force targets to target the tank for a second or two (basically turning taunts in to a soft CC), and most players in PvP would opt to target tanks first to get them out of the way. Since most taunts are very short range, this would result in PvP playing out somewhat similar to PvE for tanks, which is something no MMO has really achieved.

The obvious counter to this would be to send a tank to face the other tank. Taunting him so he's the target of the next taunt... And now you have two guys caught in a taunting loop. It wouldn't always devolve into this, but it would be funny every time it happened.

Bwahaha
That would be fun to watch

Noaani

Percimes wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

However, this doesn't mean hate has to be artificial, or has to be PvE only. All an MMO developer needs to do is make it so taunts force targets to target the tank for a second or two (basically turning taunts in to a soft CC), and most players in PvP would opt to target tanks first to get them out of the way. Since most taunts are very short range, this would result in PvP playing out somewhat similar to PvE for tanks, which is something no MMO has really achieved.

The obvious counter to this would be to send a tank to face the other tank. Taunting him so he's the target of the next taunt... And now you have two guys caught in a taunting loop. It wouldn't always devolve into this, but it would be funny every time it happened.

That would absolutely be a way things would sometimes happen.

In this situation, I would expect to see ranged DPS and healers keeping just in range of the two tanks going at it in order to maintain effectiveness, the melee DPS trying to get around the tanks to directly attack the enemy healer/ranged DPS, and at the same time trying to prevent the enemy melee DPS from doing the same, and the support being where they think they are most useful.

To me, this seems like a really good way for group PvP - especially in a dungeon - do work.

Khronus

@Dolyem I honestly have wanted to partake in this discussion more but I am to the point where I read 1-2 lines of Dygz comments and then just skip it entirely. It's honestly draining and feels like an argument with someone who doesn't want to see a different perspective instead of a discussion. Just wanted to tell you I completely understand what you're bringing to the table and agree.

I personally liked when he said "Ashes is not like other mmorpgs" and then in the same damn post states "Steven's design choices are influenced by a variety of RPGs and MMORPGs". (Like < influenced by) apparently. Is this petty of me to say? Absolutely.

@Ironhope The more I think about your secondary tanking comment and pvp, the more I come to the conclusion that going anything other than primary/primary (based on what we know about secondary options) is not good. More survival time as a rogue/tank will not equate to just killing the player by out dpsing their healer. If anything, I think the better options would be primary/primary or primary/CC as a close second option. I'll take additional CC than getting hit for less any day when trying to optimize my roaming raid parties.

Dygz

LMAO.
I was writing that at 5AM, so I could have been more precise with that phrasing, but the subsequent sentences provided the context of the ways that Ashes is not like other MMORPGs.
Like and influence are not the synonymous, by the way, but "exactly like" would have been more precise wording, true.

ptitoine

Khronus wrote: »

The more I think about your secondary tanking comment and pvp, the more I come to the conclusion that going anything other than primary/primary (based on what we know about secondary options) is not good. More survival time as a rogue/tank will not equate to just killing the player by out dpsing their healer. If anything, I think the better options would be primary/primary or primary/CC as a close second option. I'll take additional CC than getting hit for less any day when trying to optimize my roaming raid parties.

I know it wasnt directed at me. But I think going for a diff second archetype in many case will be better than 2 time the same. Like some class going for Cleric or Bard as second archetype will help them in term of survivality if their main is squishy Dps class (Mage/Roge/Ranger) Cause from what it seem Mage didnt have much of self healing abilities so im guessing other Dps class might be the same. So If u dont have good sustain or healer/backup u might die like fly even if u have Lots of CC but still get killed quick that CC will not be of much help.

But thats just how I see it. For PvE raid using same archetype twice might be more helpfull in term of Dps/heal/tanking. But I think weaker in term of PvP.

Dolyem

Khronus wrote: »

@Dolyem I honestly have wanted to partake in this discussion more but I am to the point where I read 1-2 lines of Dygz comments and then just skip it entirely. It's honestly draining and feels like an argument with someone who doesn't want to see a different perspective instead of a discussion. Just wanted to tell you I completely understand what you're bringing to the table and agree.

I personally liked when he said "Ashes is not like other mmorpgs" and then in the same damn post states "Steven's design choices are influenced by a variety of RPGs and MMORPGs". (Like < influenced by) apparently. Is this petty of me to say? Absolutely.

I was going to respond to his latest response to me until I read his opinion on player input meaning nothing until tests are done.... how the hell he thinks a game even gets to a testing stage without input on game design ideas baffles me. Just reminds me of someone who would blindly follow a politician that claims to be on their side. Not a damn thing wrong with pointing out a system you think is flawed so that they can take your input into account and keep it in the arsenal for if it becomes true and they end up scrapping the current idea. Nothing wrong with planning ahead.

Ironhope

Khronus wrote: »

@Ironhope The more I think about your secondary tanking comment and pvp, the more I come to the conclusion that going anything other than primary/primary (based on what we know about secondary options) is not good.

I wouldn't be surprised if this were the end result, but it would be a very bad result for a game advertising so much cutomization diversity.

If 99% of the customization you're offering isn't viable, then you're esentially mocking us, wasting our time and making us find stuff we would like to play but can't.

So yeah I really hope this won't be the case.

Khronus wrote: »

More survival time as a rogue/tank will not equate to just killing the player by out dpsing their healer.

Well, in my example it's either dying before you can do anything on the front line or surviving enough to do something although not that great.
Something tends to be better than nothing in general.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

I was going to respond to his latest response to me until I read his opinion on player input meaning nothing until tests are done.... how the hell he thinks a game even gets to a testing stage without input on game design ideas baffles me. Just reminds me of someone who would blindly follow a politician that claims to be on their side. Not a damn thing wrong with pointing out a system you think is flawed so that they can take your input into account and keep it in the arsenal for if it becomes true and they end up scrapping the current idea. Nothing wrong with planning ahead.

You have to have a meaningful understanding of what the system is in order to have a meaningful critique.
Again, people can complain about not having a separate PvE-Only server, but it won't have much meaning until we actually test Corruption and see how well it actually works.
And that's even when looking at a fairly detailed explanation of Corruption.
If your description of the Corruption design is flawed, if you have a poor understanding of the design, your concerns will be even less meaningful.

Doesn't mean can't have a discussion or voice the concerns you have.
But, you should expect a response of - you seem to have a poor understanding of the actual design.
That's the same for any other feature... like the class system.
It's great to plan ahead, but you should probably do so with an accurate understanding of the available info.

Khronus

ptitoine wrote: »

Khronus wrote: »

The more I think about your secondary tanking comment and pvp, the more I come to the conclusion that going anything other than primary/primary (based on what we know about secondary options) is not good. More survival time as a rogue/tank will not equate to just killing the player by out dpsing their healer. If anything, I think the better options would be primary/primary or primary/CC as a close second option. I'll take additional CC than getting hit for less any day when trying to optimize my roaming raid parties.

I know it wasnt directed at me. But I think going for a diff second archetype in many case will be better than 2 time the same. Like some class going for Cleric or Bard as second archetype will help them in term of survivality if their main is squishy Dps class (Mage/Roge/Ranger) Cause from what it seem Mage didnt have much of self healing abilities so im guessing other Dps class might be the same. So If u dont have good sustain or healer/backup u might die like fly even if u have Lots of CC but still get killed quick that CC will not be of much help.

But thats just how I see it. For PvE raid using same archetype twice might be more helpfull in term of Dps/heal/tanking. But I think weaker in term of PvP.

Yeah makes sense.

PVE will be best using primary/primary and PVP will be best using any other secondary to fit your style. Unfortunately, the game will be 90% PVP (arguable but definitely close) so primary/primary seems to be bland. I would rather have robust and in depth class design than turn an mmorpg into a "this is my identity" type of game. One is engaging and will last a long time, the other is brainless.

Khronus

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I was going to respond to his latest response to me until I read his opinion on player input meaning nothing until tests are done.... how the hell he thinks a game even gets to a testing stage without input on game design ideas baffles me. Just reminds me of someone who would blindly follow a politician that claims to be on their side. Not a damn thing wrong with pointing out a system you think is flawed so that they can take your input into account and keep it in the arsenal for if it becomes true and they end up scrapping the current idea. Nothing wrong with planning ahead.

You have to have a meaningful understanding of what the system is in order to have a meaningful critique.
Again, people can complain about not having a separate PvE-Only server, but it won't have much meaning until we actually test Corruption and see how well it actually works.
And that's even when looking at a fairly detailed explanation of Corruption.
If your description of the Corruption design is flawed, if you have a poor understanding of the design, your concerns will be even less meaningful.

Doesn't mean can't have a discussion or voice the concerns you have.
But, you should expect a response of - you seem to have a poor understanding of the actual design.
That's the same for any other feature... like the class system.
It's great to plan ahead, but you should probably do so with an accurate understanding of the available info.

yeah man. Again, after one line it's just a blur.

JustVine

Khronus wrote: »

ptitoine wrote: »

Khronus wrote: »

The more I think about your secondary tanking comment and pvp, the more I come to the conclusion that going anything other than primary/primary (based on what we know about secondary options) is not good. More survival time as a rogue/tank will not equate to just killing the player by out dpsing their healer. If anything, I think the better options would be primary/primary or primary/CC as a close second option. I'll take additional CC than getting hit for less any day when trying to optimize my roaming raid parties.

I know it wasnt directed at me. But I think going for a diff second archetype in many case will be better than 2 time the same. Like some class going for Cleric or Bard as second archetype will help them in term of survivality if their main is squishy Dps class (Mage/Roge/Ranger) Cause from what it seem Mage didnt have much of self healing abilities so im guessing other Dps class might be the same. So If u dont have good sustain or healer/backup u might die like fly even if u have Lots of CC but still get killed quick that CC will not be of much help.

But thats just how I see it. For PvE raid using same archetype twice might be more helpfull in term of Dps/heal/tanking. But I think weaker in term of PvP.

Yeah makes sense.

PVE will be best using primary/primary and PVP will be best using any other secondary to fit your style. Unfortunately, the game will be 90% PVP (arguable but definitely close) so primary/primary seems to be bland. I would rather have robust and in depth class design than turn an mmorpg into a "this is my identity" type of game. One is engaging and will last a long time, the other is brainless.

Well I hope for the sake of the game this isn't the case irt PvE. Sounds bland as fuck.

wherediditrun

Dygz wrote: »

"<...> 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."

If ashes comes even at half way to the point how different roles in MOBA's teams are tuned and working together I would call it a huge win for MMORPG as a genre. I don't feel that just pumping up scale with little regard to quality brings anything meaningful to the table. As @Dolyem pointed out, there are actually 3 roles. So what exactly 8 people change here, more meat to the same grinder. And please lets avoid passive party buffs as a reward for taking in a class as a party token.

MOBA's have from 6 to 10 distinctive roles. Which can have rather complex interplay between them. Given that teams are up to 5 you can form numerous different team compositions which when inform the meta strategy of the entire party. Which are meaningfully distinct in execution informing said parties main win conditions.

Now perhaps creating party diversity is too much of a challenge. I get it. It's difficult. But if we are not going to have different kind of parties as a unit when I would really welcome each of these 8 positions to be it's own distinct role. Not more of the same done in a slightly different execution pattern followed up with different particle effects on the screen. Given the task, I say I would be more optimistic about doing at least 4 right. Before making claims about 8.

And we can think about subclasses here. What is tank? How does it tank, how it should tank. Is it a tank which is like vanguard disrupting enemies taking into offensive allowing to burst down enemies which are dazzled by the charge. Or is it a tank which protects your party mitigating offense against them? This is different role. Now obviously overlapping will be wide here, but this differentiation alone allows flexing how you set up a party based on your other role needs. Perhaps you want both in the party? This also provides the player with a focus one needs to preform in to do well thus in addition creating certain identity to the playstyle as well as a mastery to excel at for the player.

Just an example. How role can differ for exact same "MMORPG" role which is known as a single thing. Encounter design obviously should accommodate options. Perhaps we could finally move away from tank n spank encounters with positional gimmicks thrown into the mix. I personally would much welcome that as I've done the former for years now, and it's boring af at this point played out and solved.

So I'm a bit baffled by the comment and what it tries to advertise here exactly. "It gonna be big" statements reminds of a certain politician, frankly.

Dygz

In Ashes, creating class diversity is done primarily via augments applied to Primary Archetype Active skills.
The Ashes design has tons of class diversity. But, the focus of the balance is on the Primary Archetype; not the Secondary Archetype. It's on the 8 Primary Archetypes via their Active Skills; not on the 64 classes.

There are 3 Holy Trinity roles and 8 primary archetype roles.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Tank

The actual quote, I believe, is. "We're going big." And they explain that "going big" means they are designing for 8 Primary Archetypes in a standard group, rather than 4. And they have chosen 8 because they are focused on 250 v 250 open world siege battles, rather than instanced 5-person dungeons and 40-person raids.

Songcaller

Dygz wrote: »

The actual quote, I believe, is. "We're going big." And they explain that "going big" means they are designing for 8 Primary Archetypes in a standard group, rather than 4. And they have chosen 8 because they are focused on 250 v 250 open world siege battles, rather than instanced 5-person dungeons and 40-person raids.

31.25 Groups required for 250 people. Much the same as 75%/25% split on 10 skills is 7.5. IS don't do good maths lol.

ptitoine

JustVine wrote: »

Khronus wrote: »

ptitoine wrote: »

Khronus wrote: »

The more I think about your secondary tanking comment and pvp, the more I come to the conclusion that going anything other than primary/primary (based on what we know about secondary options) is not good. More survival time as a rogue/tank will not equate to just killing the player by out dpsing their healer. If anything, I think the better options would be primary/primary or primary/CC as a close second option. I'll take additional CC than getting hit for less any day when trying to optimize my roaming raid parties.

I know it wasnt directed at me. But I think going for a diff second archetype in many case will be better than 2 time the same. Like some class going for Cleric or Bard as second archetype will help them in term of survivality if their main is squishy Dps class (Mage/Roge/Ranger) Cause from what it seem Mage didnt have much of self healing abilities so im guessing other Dps class might be the same. So If u dont have good sustain or healer/backup u might die like fly even if u have Lots of CC but still get killed quick that CC will not be of much help.

But thats just how I see it. For PvE raid using same archetype twice might be more helpfull in term of Dps/heal/tanking. But I think weaker in term of PvP.

Yeah makes sense.

PVE will be best using primary/primary and PVP will be best using any other secondary to fit your style. Unfortunately, the game will be 90% PVP (arguable but definitely close) so primary/primary seems to be bland. I would rather have robust and in depth class design than turn an mmorpg into a "this is my identity" type of game. One is engaging and will last a long time, the other is brainless.

Well I hope for the sake of the game this isn't the case irt PvE. Sounds bland as fuck.

Well might not affect dual Dps archetype in PvE. But if u pick a support/tank one your Dps might be a bit lower. But at the same time we dont really know how much self-sustain Dps (Mage/Rogue/Ranger) have. Fighter probably has more than these 3. Except if u build it with clothes XD

Songcaller

ptitoine wrote: »

Well might not affect dual Dps archetype in PvE. But if u pick a support/tank one your Dps might be a bit lower. But at the same time we dont really know how much self-sustain Dps (Mage/Rogue/Ranger) have. Fighter probably has more than these 3. Except if u build it with clothes XD

We know little about the rogue, ranger and fighter. We've seen the mage but the mage is not a conclusive ability wise right now. Combat has so many issues, I expect changes to the class functionalities.

Edit: Spelling mistakes.

Child Item