It's more of a 'Pyramid'. Four corners on the ground, the Summoner is 'above' at the top, and has to 'choose a direction to come down, or stay up there and only send a minion down when needed'. Everyone else has to go 'up' to get something technically a little closer to the others, but since balance is by Active Skills, it's seeming unlikely that /Summoner will give Bard much DPS from summons (in the form of a DPS minion) compared to others.
They have said that summoned creatures can give you abilities for your action bars, a summoner secondary might be a way to get new abilities outside your primary archtype, in the form of an activated ability from your summons...
As for your Tank/Cleric worries, assume that Healing usually only works when using an ability that hits the opponent. This isn't enough to do it, but Paladins, even if they are the absolute masters of the Mitigation part of the Janken, won't necessarily be able to kill opponents without risking their own lives.
Open world PvP, especially 1v1, is going to involve a lot of running away, based on the 'we are not balancing for 1v1' concept. Mitigation class sees most Attrition classes coming? Run. Attrition sees Cooldown based burst damage class coming? Run. Cooldown class sees Mitigation class coming? They'd probably at least test things out before they ran, but most likely, still run.
That's the thing on tank/cleric, it shouldn't fear burst either. It would have the mitigation to survive the burst and the healing to make it sustain. These classes are always hardest to balance imo...
Although you do bring up another point that makes me curious. How will summoner summons respond to this runaway philosophy you have? Will they stay and fight until I reach a certain distance and then rubber band to me or just disengage and run away with me?
Mitigation never actually fears Burst unless Burst has a CC that prevents them from using their full power mitigation so that's not surprising, that's what I was trying to say.
Rather, I'm saying that Tank/Cleric is probably going to be mitigation and not actually also Attrition, so they would simply not be able to win against Attrition classes (Bard, Ranger sometimes, DoT spec Cleric or Mage), and they probably wouldn't do enough damage to prevent the escape of a Cooldown class (Ranger, Mage and Rogue would all probably have escapes and Mitigation classes lack 'real' burst damage).
I'd find it really interesting if taking Summoner as a Secondary granted access to any Active Skills.
-Should Tank Primary classes be the only and/or most dominant tank choice? Yes.
-Should other, not necessarily all, Primary Class variants have secondary options that make them just as viable as tanks or even off-tanks? No
-Should the Tank Primary class have some variant options to focus more on other roles than simply tanking all of the time? No
I have always liked games that used the trinity system. Yes in some moments, depending on the skill level of the group, it's great to have an "off-tank" to help in those clutch situations... a hunter w/ pet (summoner)... a warrior... But having two tanks is better than one.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That kind of falls in line with my worries for a tank/cleric. Put enough self healing into a tank and he will be really hard to kill in the wild... 1v1 even with average DPS, he will eventually win the war of attrition...
I think the self-healing Cleric augments won't be much more powerful than the damage mitigation Tank augments. The Cleric augments might be more Magical than they are Physical.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
They have said that summoned creatures can give you abilities for your action bars, a summoner secondary might be a way to get new abilities outside your primary archetype, in the form of an activated ability from your summons...
I think that's a technicality. We can expect different Summons to have different skills. Sure.
I'm not sure that's quite the same thing as "outside" of Summoner skills.
I have always liked games that used the trinity system. Yes in some moments, depending on the skill level of the group, it's great to have an "off-tank" to help in those clutch situations... a hunter w/ pet (summoner)... a warrior... But having two tanks is better than one.
As I've talked about it a bit. "Trinity" is an illusion. There are two roles which dictate how fights go and which are necessary for encounter design to work. That's healer and tank. Both also do damage. DPS just adds more of the same to the crowd but does not change how the encounters are played.
This is rather obvious flaw in the design. Because encounters can be won through attrition alone. Hence why you generally end up with some sort of enrage mechanics or dps checks in encounter design to hide it away or make DPS necessary. Even though, the gameplay is exactly the same without them.
For this to change and players roles not being suffocated of design space to develop encounter design needs to be revisited. And to think what can we do with our mobs / bosses to accommodate for such things as an example - burst. This allows to differentiate sustained damage from burst damage. You could have a role of "Assassin" of sorts. And perhaps there would be encounters where you actually NEED that burst damage to do it effectively, so the players archetype actively plays out it's dedicated role to help their team win the encounter. Currently this only somewhat felt in pvp, although, I argue very poorly developer in MMORPG contexts.
Hence I'm very interesting what "roles" Steven was talking about, the Dygz quoted before. It inspires some hope, but I'm not optimistic.
-Should Tank Primary classes be the only and/or most dominant tank choice? Yes.
-Should other, not necessarily all, Primary Class variants have secondary options that make them just as viable as tanks or even off-tanks? No
-Should the Tank Primary class have some variant options to focus more on other roles than simply tanking all of the time? No
I have always liked games that used the trinity system. Yes in some moments, depending on the skill level of the group, it's great to have an "off-tank" to help in those clutch situations... a hunter w/ pet (summoner)... a warrior... But having two tanks is better than one.
I really hope the game isn't that ridged and locked for roles. I know I can't speak for others but that would make me not want to be a tank, and I've done the main tank thing for over a decade now. Some weeks I just want a break, or my friend wants to step in, it's nice to have a degree of flexibility in your characters role.
I will agree that the concept of offtank is weird to me too, just get a second tank of you need one.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
3 Trinity roles: Tank - Support - DPS
8 Primary Archetype roles: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Tank, Bard, Cleric, Mage, Summoner
Augments provide a great deal of flexibility - as does being able to use any weapon and wear any armor.
3 Trinity roles: Tank - Support - DPS
8 Primary Archetype roles: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Tank, Bard, Cleric, Mage, Summoner
Augments provide a great deal of flexibility - as does being able to use any weapon and wear any armor.
Wearing any weapon and any armor? You really expect all armor/weapon types to be balanced for all classes? You really think a mage is going to be wearing plate armor and still have a fun and engaging time? A tank wearing cloth? This has to be a joke. Augments in your head don't equate to any real flexibility, they are a way for players to "identify" who they are when they have a need to play the same exact thing differently. This is a trash way to approach a class system with 64 options using specific "titles" (blah blah blah. Same old 8 primary rhetoric).
tank, support, dps should absolutely be tank, support, dps, and heals. Why merge support and healing when it can provide more opportunities for players to explore and theory craft raid/party compositions? It's still mind blowing how players can be against giving classes the opportunity to explore MORE than just their expected roles. I'm not asking for classless AoC (which is great in wow ascension btw). I am suggesting 1-2 options for players to have to help fill in additional roles beyond their normal means (which would in turn open up more possibilities for theory crafting comps, more boss/fight mechanics, a more robust class system, and will keep players engaged for longer).
Each class should have the option to fill in or alter their play style to lean towards one of the 4 directions.
Tanks will tank but can support or dps depending on secondary. (Tanks will have FIVE ways to tank, two to dps and one to support).
Healer will heal but can support or dps depending on the secondary (this gives them FIVE healer choices, one support and 2 dps).
Rogue will dps but have the option to tank or support (this gives them FIVE dps choices, one tank, and two support options).
Obviously a very off the cuff idea but this is the type of class system deserving of 50 million dollars and YEARS of development. This whole 8 classes that add "flavor" for each secondary is something I can think up around the dinner table for a few weeks and it will pass as a fun/balanced system but not last as long as we need it to last. We need in-depth content, not an arcade style class system that changes because people want (secretly meaningless) differences.
3 Trinity roles: Tank - Support - DPS
8 Primary Archetype roles: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Tank, Bard, Cleric, Mage, Summoner
Augments provide a great deal of flexibility - as does being able to use any weapon and wear any armor.
Wearing any weapon and any armor? You really expect all armor/weapon types to be balanced for all classes? You really think a mage is going to be wearing plate armor and still have a fun and engaging time? A tank wearing cloth? This has to be a joke. Augments in your head don't equate to any real flexibility, they are a way for players to "identify" who they are when they have a need to play the same exact thing differently. This is a trash way to approach a class system with 64 options using specific "titles" (blah blah blah. Same old 8 primary rhetoric).
tank, support, dps should absolutely be tank, support, dps, and heals. Why merge support and healing when it can provide more opportunities for players to explore and theory craft raid/party compositions? It's still mind blowing how players can be against giving classes the opportunity to explore MORE than just their expected roles. I'm not asking for classless AoC (which is great in wow ascension btw). I am suggesting 1-2 options for players to have to help fill in additional roles beyond their normal means (which would in turn open up more possibilities for theory crafting comps, more boss/fight mechanics, a more robust class system, and will keep players engaged for longer).
Each class should have the option to fill in or alter their play style to lean towards one of the 4 directions.
Tanks will tank but can support or dps depending on secondary. (Tanks will have FIVE ways to tank, two to dps and one to support).
Healer will heal but can support or dps depending on the secondary (this gives them FIVE healer choices, one support and 2 dps).
Rogue will dps but have the option to tank or support (this gives them FIVE dps choices, one tank, and two support options).
Obviously a very off the cuff idea but this is the type of class system deserving of 50 million dollars and YEARS of development. This whole 8 classes that add "flavor" for each secondary is something I can think up around the dinner table for a few weeks and it will pass as a fun/balanced system but not last as long as we need it to last. We need in-depth content, not an arcade style class system that changes because people want (secretly meaningless) differences.
Exactly!
That is giving a charter flexibility and meaningful choices for growth. Honestly I can't think of an archtype that you couldn't give at least two roles to and make the fluff work out.
Spell Stone and Shadow guardian tanks
Soul bow and highsword healers
A knight and an argent being a DPS and support
And a Shadow disciple doesn't sound like a healer, reeks of DPS to me...
Just add some variation across those rows.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You really think a mage is going to be wearing plate armor and still have a fun and engaging time? A tank wearing cloth? This has to be a joke. Augments in your head don't equate to any real flexibility, they are a way for players to "identify" who they are when they have a need to play the same exact thing differently. This is a trash way to approach a class system with 64 options using specific "titles" (blah blah blah. Same old 8 primary rhetoric).
A Mage/Tank might choose to wear some plate armor and fun doing so.
A Tank/Mage might choose to wear some cloth.
It's mix and match. Depends on what that Mage/Tank and Tank/Mage choose to focus on hunting.
tank, support, dps should absolutely be tank, support, dps, and heals. Why merge support and healing when it can provide more opportunities for players to explore and theory craft raid/party compositions? It's still mind blowing how players can be against giving classes the opportunity to explore MORE than just their expected roles. I'm not asking for classless AoC (which is great in wow ascension btw). I am suggesting 1-2 options for players to have to help fill in additional roles beyond their normal means (which would in turn open up more possibilities for theory crafting comps, more boss/fight mechanics, a more robust class system, and will keep players engaged for longer).
Each class should have the option to fill in or alter their play style to lean towards one of the 4 directions.
Ashes' Secondary Archetype allows player to lean toward one of the other 2 trinity roles as well as towards any of the 7 other archetypes roles (or to double down). They won't swap roles, but they can shift towards other roles.
That's already a key aspect of the game design.
Tanks will tank but can support or dps depending on secondary. (Tanks will have FIVE ways to tank, two to dps and one to support).
There's also Racial, Social Org, Religious and Node augments, so there are more than 5 ways to Tank/x.
And also more than 2 ways that lean towards DPS and more than 1 way that leans towards Support.
Tank/Bard and Tank/Cleric both lean towards Support.
Obviously a very off the cuff idea but this is the type of class system deserving of 50 million dollars and YEARS of development. This whole 8 classes that add "flavor" for each secondary is something I can think up around the dinner table for a few weeks and it will pass as a fun/balanced system but not last as long as we need it to last. We need in-depth content, not an arcade style class system that changes because people want (secretly meaningless) differences.
Well...we will have to play to know how meaningless truly is.
Just as we will have to play to know whether Corruption works as intended.
Too much speculation that does not line up with the developers themselves said about the game. Mostly about summoners. Their goal with summoners isn't the same with any other class. Their goal with summoner is to make their second archetype as effective as if it was their primary archetype. It's meant to round out the limited roles in the game and give more options than just 1 archetype for every role.
I would definitely not be surprised if summoners can tank as well as tanks. The confusion comes from assuming that a summoner/tank is similar to something like a mage/tank. However, from the very foundation that they explained about the summoner class that is not true at all.
They explained that summoner archetypes unique trait is that they can take the archetype of their secondary archetype. Meaning they will likely have the most ridiculous augments out of any class in the game. They have flat out used tank as their example. Their goal with the summoner/tank is that it tanks as well as a tank.
Not just take a lot of damage. Not just off tank. Their goal right now is to make that a primary tank substitution. Probably the same with every other archetype that combines with them. Their summoner/summoner probably does multiple roles really well, but not well enough to primary in it. That one's speculation, but it's mostly going to depend on what kind of augments summoners give to begin with.
I just noticed the community getting kind of out of control over something that we more or less have confirmation on a direction for already. Until something is said otherwise I'm going to assume this is still the direction.
I'd look at their official channel's videos during the year 2020. They give a lot of information that year to give an idea of what they are going for. They say quite a bit about summoners because it's asked about a lot. I don't got the time to skim through all of those videos, but if so much misinformation is spreading you likely haven't seen the videos to begin with anyway. So I'd go look at those and get a pretty simple answer to the thread.
U.S. East
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
If you have a quote that says Summoners can main tank as well as Tank/x - great.
What the devs have said is that Summoners have a more tank-oriented Summon, a more support-oriented summon and a more dps-oriented summon and that they are balancing such that an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype is best and they can't think of a scenario where Tank/x won't be needed in a dungeon or raid.
If you can find a quote from 2020 that says the dev goal for Summoner/x is to be a substitution for Tank/x - post it.
From what you say... it should be pretty easy to find such a quote since the devs have said that so often - according to you.
If you go in without a Tank/x - yes - Summoner/x will be the next best Primary Archetype to main tank.
If you go in without a Cleric/x, Bard/x will probably be the next best Primary Archetype healer.
Don't want all classes to be able to do it all, I would like Tanks to Tank, Dps to pew pew . Healers to Heal. Support to well you know support .
May be allow some spill over into other specs but not to the extent they can do it all, otherwise whats the point of said classes ??
Not at the same time of course. Maybe I really like all of the tank activated abilities and flavor but I don't want to fulfill the role of tank in a party I just want to smash things as a plate wearing monster... Why can't the tank archtype have a secondary that slides him into a dps role instead of a tank role? Just give each Archtype the ability to do two or three of the four possible roles.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
I'm not sure how you're going to accomplish that when most of your Active Skills are generating Threat and Damage Mitigation and CCing.
It's like a Bard\x trying to DPS and not Support.
And... that's not a "just".
At that point...why don't you just play a different game... perhaps one that also has a separate PvE-Only server, is P2W and has no Nodes?
Don't want all classes to be able to do it all, I would like Tanks to Tank, Dps to pew pew . Healers to Heal. Support to well you know support .
May be allow some spill over into other specs but not to the extent they can do it all, otherwise whats the point of said classes ??
Not at the same time of course. Maybe I really like all of the tank activated abilities and flavor but I don't want to fulfill the role of tank in a party I just want to smash things as a plate wearing monster... Why can't the tank archtype have a secondary that slides him into a dps role instead of a tank role? Just give each Archtype the ability to do two or three of the four possible roles.
I mean at that point you are talking about an entirely different game. The structure is already set in place. They really couldn't even afford to switch over to that idea if they wanted to.
If you have a quote that says Summoners can main tank as well as Tank/x - great.
What the devs have said is that Summoners have a more tank-oriented Summon, a more support-oriented summon and a more dps-oriented summon and that they are balancing such that an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype is best and they can't think of a scenario where Tank/x won't be needed in a dungeon or raid.
If you can find a quote from 2020 that says the dev goal for Summoner/x is to be a substitution for Tank/x - post it.
From what you say... it should be pretty easy to find such a quote since the devs have said that so often - according to you.
If you go in without a Tank/x - yes - Summoner/x will be the next best Primary Archetype to main tank.
If you go in without a Cleric/x, Bard/x will probably be the next best Primary Archetype healer.
Naw that isn't the same as the information I got. Since I almost quoted it word for word in my post. Still no time to look for that crap so you guys can either live in your fantasy land or go find it. XD
I don't really care either way, but don't be surprised when it turns out I was the right the whole time. xD
The video was roughly 2 hours long. So that will at least make it easier to find. Since most videos aren't that long. Obviously wouldn't be making such a claim when the information is straight out in the open for anyone who saw that video. It's literally the main kind video their channel provide so I'm sure most of the people who did see it either forgot those details or don't go on the forums at all. xD
The choice to believe is up to you, but don't think I'm going to let you live it down ever if you choose not to believe. xD
Don't want all classes to be able to do it all, I would like Tanks to Tank, Dps to pew pew . Healers to Heal. Support to well you know support .
May be allow some spill over into other specs but not to the extent they can do it all, otherwise whats the point of said classes ??
Not at the same time of course. Maybe I really like all of the tank activated abilities and flavor but I don't want to fulfill the role of tank in a party I just want to smash things as a plate wearing monster... Why can't the tank archtype have a secondary that slides him into a dps role instead of a tank role? Just give each Archtype the ability to do two or three of the four possible roles.
I mean at that point you are talking about an entirely different game. The structure is already set in place. They really couldn't even afford to switch over to that idea if they wanted to.
What do you mean couldn't afford? The ground work is all there, the systems are all there, it all henges on how far augments can push that envelope... The rest would fall into place with gearing and character growth...
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Naw that isn't the same as the information I got. Since I almost quoted it word for word in my post. Still no time to look for that crap so you guys can either live in your fantasy land or go find it. XD
I'm not sure how you're going to accomplish that when most of your Active Skills are generating Threat and Damage Mitigation and CCing.
It's like a Bard\x trying to DPS and not Support.
And... that's not a "just".
At that point...why don't you just play a different game... perhaps one that also has a separate PvE-Only server, is P2W and has no Nodes?
Fine... Since you're so narrow-minded...
Because augments could "radically change an ability" and shift the extra mitigation into the argent planting a flag at a location giving all allies near the flag the defensive buff instead of just him. Welcome to support brought to you by tank/bard. He is literally a battlefield Commander to guide and support his troops but not actually fight.
Gimme a bard/fighter that can be a DPS (thinking a battle dancer motif for a tellsword), a bard/cleric that can heal (sounds like something a soul weaver could do anyways) and the other 6 bard/x are support. You don't like those options don't play them. You think a bard should only be support then play Bard/bard and be happy. Having these options won't hurt your image of this game at all, but they WOULD make it more enjoyable for others. I personally don't enjoy bards at all and don't plan on playing any version of Bard/X or X/bard doesn't mean I don't want them in the game, or want other people to be able to play that way...
Because I'm tired of all the games out there now, because I hate pay to win and what it does to games, because the node system sounds amazing if it works as advertised. If ashes has PvE servers I probably would choose that, if not then whatever I'll make it work. So much of the game looks and sounds fantastic which is why I'm so interested. But your understanding of somethings they have said kind of makes it sound less so... So basically I like their version of Ashes and the potential I see in this game. Your version, however, sounds like something I wouldn't waste time on... So please stay far away from this games design process.
But in other news:
That's a very interesting opinion you have...
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
A Tank/Bard will be doing Support secondarily while primarily Tanking.
I didn't say anything like a Bard/x should only be Support.
A Bard/Fighter can DPS secondarily while primarily Supporting.
Secondary Archetype shifts you towards a secondary role. It just doesn't swap roles.
You're still primarily doing your primary role, while secondarily doing a secondary role. (unless you double down)
Hence, the terminology.
"Augments essentially can create... I mean they are essentially creating brand new skills"
I see zero reason for anyone to say that augments couldn't be used to turn other archetypes into tanks if they wanted to.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited October 2021
LMFAO
1: Augments can affect a multitude of things. It can drastically change the ability itself. It can change the damage type. It can change the cooldown period. It can change the damage values. It can change the distance. It can dramatically change it from a ranged effect to a melee effect. Augments essentially can create... I mean they are essentially creating entirely new skills. But, they're going to keep, obviously, some identity with what that primary active ability was.
2: x/Tanks are Tanks. They are Secondary Tanks, so don't expect them to main tank better than a Tank/x in an 8-person group.
3: Best if you place one dev quote in the context of all other dev quotes. Especially best if you don't cherry-pick one sentence out of an entire paragraph, but...
4: You can believe whatever you want. We will see what happens once augments are actually implemented.
I see zero reason for anyone to say that augments couldn't be used to turn other archetypes into tanks if they wanted to.
I agree.
If Intrepid wanted to, they could do that.
Thing is, they don't want to. That is the thing that needs to change in order for */tank classes to be able to actually tank.
But that's the title of this thread SHOULD tank/X be the only tank.
I 100% feel that they shouldn't be, and if augments can be used to this scale then there is no reason to not make it that way.
Oh well, either way I guess we will find out eventually...
-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?
If they stick with the "64 classes" which I think is an impossible feet. Then yes I think so. If not, maybe not.
Hard choice, it's always the "solo" build vs the "tank dungeon" build. I don't know how to solve it.
Personally I dislike the name "Tank". I think it sounds cooler to make up something unique for the game whatever that might be or take a classic type of name like "Templar" or "Shieldmaster". I don't know. Something. If you have "Tank" right, you might as well have a class called "DPS" and "Healer".
Meh.
The naming of tank as tank was touched on in that video too. it's relatively early if you wanted to look for it. Steven said that apparently there's pushback about that in-house as well, but made the point that it doesn't matter what they call the tank archetype, people will still say in group chat looking for a tank. Plus after 25 and you actually get a class you're probably going to say paladin sentinel or guardian etc...
The naming of tank as tank was touched on in that video too. it's relatively early if you wanted to look for it. Steven said that apparently there's pushback about that in-house as well, but made the point that it doesn't matter what they call the tank archetype, people will still say in group chat looking for a tank. Plus after 25 and you actually get a class you're probably going to say paladin sentinel or guardian etc...
I don't want to get into a huge debate over a side subject here, but if they called Tanks a Tank because that's what they are, then why didn't they call Cleric a Healer, because that's what they are. When you say "looking for healer", you are looking for Cleric. It's a lousy excuse for being lazy. Don't @ me.
Comments
Mitigation never actually fears Burst unless Burst has a CC that prevents them from using their full power mitigation so that's not surprising, that's what I was trying to say.
Rather, I'm saying that Tank/Cleric is probably going to be mitigation and not actually also Attrition, so they would simply not be able to win against Attrition classes (Bard, Ranger sometimes, DoT spec Cleric or Mage), and they probably wouldn't do enough damage to prevent the escape of a Cooldown class (Ranger, Mage and Rogue would all probably have escapes and Mitigation classes lack 'real' burst damage).
I'd find it really interesting if taking Summoner as a Secondary granted access to any Active Skills.
Yes.
-Should other, not necessarily all, Primary Class variants have secondary options that make them just as viable as tanks or even off-tanks?
No
-Should the Tank Primary class have some variant options to focus more on other roles than simply tanking all of the time?
No
I have always liked games that used the trinity system. Yes in some moments, depending on the skill level of the group, it's great to have an "off-tank" to help in those clutch situations... a hunter w/ pet (summoner)... a warrior... But having two tanks is better than one.
I'm not sure that's quite the same thing as "outside" of Summoner skills.
As I've talked about it a bit. "Trinity" is an illusion. There are two roles which dictate how fights go and which are necessary for encounter design to work. That's healer and tank. Both also do damage. DPS just adds more of the same to the crowd but does not change how the encounters are played.
This is rather obvious flaw in the design. Because encounters can be won through attrition alone. Hence why you generally end up with some sort of enrage mechanics or dps checks in encounter design to hide it away or make DPS necessary. Even though, the gameplay is exactly the same without them.
For this to change and players roles not being suffocated of design space to develop encounter design needs to be revisited. And to think what can we do with our mobs / bosses to accommodate for such things as an example - burst. This allows to differentiate sustained damage from burst damage. You could have a role of "Assassin" of sorts. And perhaps there would be encounters where you actually NEED that burst damage to do it effectively, so the players archetype actively plays out it's dedicated role to help their team win the encounter. Currently this only somewhat felt in pvp, although, I argue very poorly developer in MMORPG contexts.
Hence I'm very interesting what "roles" Steven was talking about, the Dygz quoted before. It inspires some hope, but I'm not optimistic.
I really hope the game isn't that ridged and locked for roles. I know I can't speak for others but that would make me not want to be a tank, and I've done the main tank thing for over a decade now. Some weeks I just want a break, or my friend wants to step in, it's nice to have a degree of flexibility in your characters role.
I will agree that the concept of offtank is weird to me too, just get a second tank of you need one.
8 Primary Archetype roles: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Tank, Bard, Cleric, Mage, Summoner
Augments provide a great deal of flexibility - as does being able to use any weapon and wear any armor.
That is a very interesting opinion you have there.
Wearing any weapon and any armor? You really expect all armor/weapon types to be balanced for all classes? You really think a mage is going to be wearing plate armor and still have a fun and engaging time? A tank wearing cloth? This has to be a joke. Augments in your head don't equate to any real flexibility, they are a way for players to "identify" who they are when they have a need to play the same exact thing differently. This is a trash way to approach a class system with 64 options using specific "titles" (blah blah blah. Same old 8 primary rhetoric).
tank, support, dps should absolutely be tank, support, dps, and heals. Why merge support and healing when it can provide more opportunities for players to explore and theory craft raid/party compositions? It's still mind blowing how players can be against giving classes the opportunity to explore MORE than just their expected roles. I'm not asking for classless AoC (which is great in wow ascension btw). I am suggesting 1-2 options for players to have to help fill in additional roles beyond their normal means (which would in turn open up more possibilities for theory crafting comps, more boss/fight mechanics, a more robust class system, and will keep players engaged for longer).
Each class should have the option to fill in or alter their play style to lean towards one of the 4 directions.
Tanks will tank but can support or dps depending on secondary. (Tanks will have FIVE ways to tank, two to dps and one to support).
Healer will heal but can support or dps depending on the secondary (this gives them FIVE healer choices, one support and 2 dps).
Rogue will dps but have the option to tank or support (this gives them FIVE dps choices, one tank, and two support options).
Obviously a very off the cuff idea but this is the type of class system deserving of 50 million dollars and YEARS of development. This whole 8 classes that add "flavor" for each secondary is something I can think up around the dinner table for a few weeks and it will pass as a fun/balanced system but not last as long as we need it to last. We need in-depth content, not an arcade style class system that changes because people want (secretly meaningless) differences.
Exactly!
That is giving a charter flexibility and meaningful choices for growth. Honestly I can't think of an archtype that you couldn't give at least two roles to and make the fluff work out.
Spell Stone and Shadow guardian tanks
Soul bow and highsword healers
A knight and an argent being a DPS and support
And a Shadow disciple doesn't sound like a healer, reeks of DPS to me...
Just add some variation across those rows.
A Mage/Tank might choose to wear some plate armor and fun doing so.
A Tank/Mage might choose to wear some cloth.
It's mix and match. Depends on what that Mage/Tank and Tank/Mage choose to focus on hunting.
Ashes' Secondary Archetype allows player to lean toward one of the other 2 trinity roles as well as towards any of the 7 other archetypes roles (or to double down). They won't swap roles, but they can shift towards other roles.
That's already a key aspect of the game design.
There's also Racial, Social Org, Religious and Node augments, so there are more than 5 ways to Tank/x.
And also more than 2 ways that lean towards DPS and more than 1 way that leans towards Support.
Tank/Bard and Tank/Cleric both lean towards Support.
Well...we will have to play to know how meaningless truly is.
Just as we will have to play to know whether Corruption works as intended.
May be allow some spill over into other specs but not to the extent they can do it all, otherwise whats the point of said classes ??
When a group only needs one tank - by definition - what is the point of another person in the group "bleeding in to the tank role"?
The point of a tank is to allow the healer to focus healing on one character. You don't want two tanks. Two tanks is bad.
Unless, of course, if you need two tanks. In which case, you need two tanks, not one tank and one player that is "bleeding in to the tank role".
I would definitely not be surprised if summoners can tank as well as tanks. The confusion comes from assuming that a summoner/tank is similar to something like a mage/tank. However, from the very foundation that they explained about the summoner class that is not true at all.
They explained that summoner archetypes unique trait is that they can take the archetype of their secondary archetype. Meaning they will likely have the most ridiculous augments out of any class in the game. They have flat out used tank as their example. Their goal with the summoner/tank is that it tanks as well as a tank.
Not just take a lot of damage. Not just off tank. Their goal right now is to make that a primary tank substitution. Probably the same with every other archetype that combines with them. Their summoner/summoner probably does multiple roles really well, but not well enough to primary in it. That one's speculation, but it's mostly going to depend on what kind of augments summoners give to begin with.
I just noticed the community getting kind of out of control over something that we more or less have confirmation on a direction for already. Until something is said otherwise I'm going to assume this is still the direction.
I'd look at their official channel's videos during the year 2020. They give a lot of information that year to give an idea of what they are going for. They say quite a bit about summoners because it's asked about a lot. I don't got the time to skim through all of those videos, but if so much misinformation is spreading you likely haven't seen the videos to begin with anyway. So I'd go look at those and get a pretty simple answer to the thread.
U.S. East
What the devs have said is that Summoners have a more tank-oriented Summon, a more support-oriented summon and a more dps-oriented summon and that they are balancing such that an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype is best and they can't think of a scenario where Tank/x won't be needed in a dungeon or raid.
If you can find a quote from 2020 that says the dev goal for Summoner/x is to be a substitution for Tank/x - post it.
From what you say... it should be pretty easy to find such a quote since the devs have said that so often - according to you.
If you go in without a Tank/x - yes - Summoner/x will be the next best Primary Archetype to main tank.
If you go in without a Cleric/x, Bard/x will probably be the next best Primary Archetype healer.
Not at the same time of course. Maybe I really like all of the tank activated abilities and flavor but I don't want to fulfill the role of tank in a party I just want to smash things as a plate wearing monster... Why can't the tank archtype have a secondary that slides him into a dps role instead of a tank role? Just give each Archtype the ability to do two or three of the four possible roles.
It's like a Bard\x trying to DPS and not Support.
And... that's not a "just".
At that point...why don't you just play a different game... perhaps one that also has a separate PvE-Only server, is P2W and has no Nodes?
I mean at that point you are talking about an entirely different game. The structure is already set in place. They really couldn't even afford to switch over to that idea if they wanted to.
Naw that isn't the same as the information I got. Since I almost quoted it word for word in my post. Still no time to look for that crap so you guys can either live in your fantasy land or go find it. XD
I don't really care either way, but don't be surprised when it turns out I was the right the whole time. xD
The video was roughly 2 hours long. So that will at least make it easier to find. Since most videos aren't that long. Obviously wouldn't be making such a claim when the information is straight out in the open for anyone who saw that video. It's literally the main kind video their channel provide so I'm sure most of the people who did see it either forgot those details or don't go on the forums at all. xD
The choice to believe is up to you, but don't think I'm going to let you live it down ever if you choose not to believe. xD
U.S. East
What do you mean couldn't afford? The ground work is all there, the systems are all there, it all henges on how far augments can push that envelope... The rest would fall into place with gearing and character growth...
Ditto
Fine... Since you're so narrow-minded...
Because augments could "radically change an ability" and shift the extra mitigation into the argent planting a flag at a location giving all allies near the flag the defensive buff instead of just him. Welcome to support brought to you by tank/bard. He is literally a battlefield Commander to guide and support his troops but not actually fight.
Gimme a bard/fighter that can be a DPS (thinking a battle dancer motif for a tellsword), a bard/cleric that can heal (sounds like something a soul weaver could do anyways) and the other 6 bard/x are support. You don't like those options don't play them. You think a bard should only be support then play Bard/bard and be happy. Having these options won't hurt your image of this game at all, but they WOULD make it more enjoyable for others. I personally don't enjoy bards at all and don't plan on playing any version of Bard/X or X/bard doesn't mean I don't want them in the game, or want other people to be able to play that way...
Because I'm tired of all the games out there now, because I hate pay to win and what it does to games, because the node system sounds amazing if it works as advertised. If ashes has PvE servers I probably would choose that, if not then whatever I'll make it work. So much of the game looks and sounds fantastic which is why I'm so interested. But your understanding of somethings they have said kind of makes it sound less so... So basically I like their version of Ashes and the potential I see in this game. Your version, however, sounds like something I wouldn't waste time on... So please stay far away from this games design process.
But in other news:
That's a very interesting opinion you have...
I didn't say anything like a Bard/x should only be Support.
A Bard/Fighter can DPS secondarily while primarily Supporting.
Secondary Archetype shifts you towards a secondary role. It just doesn't swap roles.
You're still primarily doing your primary role, while secondarily doing a secondary role. (unless you double down)
Hence, the terminology.
Talking with you is a waste of time
46:40
"Augments essentially can create... I mean they are essentially creating brand new skills"
I see zero reason for anyone to say that augments couldn't be used to turn other archetypes into tanks if they wanted to.
1: Augments can affect a multitude of things. It can drastically change the ability itself. It can change the damage type. It can change the cooldown period. It can change the damage values. It can change the distance. It can dramatically change it from a ranged effect to a melee effect. Augments essentially can create... I mean they are essentially creating entirely new skills. But, they're going to keep, obviously, some identity with what that primary active ability was.
2: x/Tanks are Tanks. They are Secondary Tanks, so don't expect them to main tank better than a Tank/x in an 8-person group.
3: Best if you place one dev quote in the context of all other dev quotes. Especially best if you don't cherry-pick one sentence out of an entire paragraph, but...
4: You can believe whatever you want. We will see what happens once augments are actually implemented.
I agree.
If Intrepid wanted to, they could do that.
Thing is, they don't want to. That is the thing that needs to change in order for */tank classes to be able to actually tank.
But that's the title of this thread SHOULD tank/X be the only tank.
I 100% feel that they shouldn't be, and if augments can be used to this scale then there is no reason to not make it that way.
Oh well, either way I guess we will find out eventually...
The naming of tank as tank was touched on in that video too. it's relatively early if you wanted to look for it. Steven said that apparently there's pushback about that in-house as well, but made the point that it doesn't matter what they call the tank archetype, people will still say in group chat looking for a tank. Plus after 25 and you actually get a class you're probably going to say paladin sentinel or guardian etc...
I don't want to get into a huge debate over a side subject here, but if they called Tanks a Tank because that's what they are, then why didn't they call Cleric a Healer, because that's what they are. When you say "looking for healer", you are looking for Cleric. It's a lousy excuse for being lazy. Don't @ me.