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.
Khronus wrote: » More survival time as a rogue/tank will not equate to just killing the player by out dpsing their healer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
Dygz wrote: » 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 Whether or not your DPS is "lower" depends on who you are synergizing with and who is synergizing with you. If a Rogue/Tank is synergizing with an x/Rogue, the DPS can balance out.
Dygz wrote: » Players' input doesn't have much meaning until the players can actually play (test) the features and mechanics of the game design.
Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Players' input doesn't have much meaning until the players can actually play (test) the features and mechanics of the game design. Listen man, I am just going to have to wait until my ideas are tested before any further input you give, regarding my ideas, becomes valid. Otherwise everything you say doesn't have much meaning.
SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Players' input doesn't have much meaning until the players can actually play (test) the features and mechanics of the game design. Listen man, I am just going to have to wait until my ideas are tested before any further input you give, regarding my ideas, becomes valid. Otherwise everything you say doesn't have much meaning. Remember when I said the thing? About opening a can of worms... Lol
Dolyem wrote: » SirChancelot11 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Players' input doesn't have much meaning until the players can actually play (test) the features and mechanics of the game design. Listen man, I am just going to have to wait until my ideas are tested before any further input you give, regarding my ideas, becomes valid. Otherwise everything you say doesn't have much meaning. Remember when I said the thing? About opening a can of worms... Lol
Dolyem wrote: » Listen man, I am just going to have to wait until my ideas are tested before any further input you give, regarding my ideas, becomes valid. Otherwise everything you say doesn't have much meaning.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Listen man, I am just going to have to wait until my ideas are tested before any further input you give, regarding my ideas, becomes valid. Otherwise everything you say doesn't have much meaning. That has been true since before you first posted. Which is the primary point.
wherediditrun wrote: » 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.
