A Discussion of Classes and Expectations

There's something I've been wanting to talk about for a while now and with Alpha 2 being in production I think it's a good time to talk about classes as the dev team will be putting together their thoughts on the subject as well. So I'd like to take some time to talk about it, maybe get some clarification, and hear everyone's thoughts on the classes, based on what we've heard so far and your thoughts on what I talk about below.

Note: The game is still in development, we don't have the answers and the devs might not have them at the moment. That being said, what I discuss below is based on what I remember from previous livestreams and can be flawed. If that is the case please politely correct me if I got anything wrong. I'd like to start with the details we have so far for the Classes in Ashes, then what we think of when classes are brought up and if the classes will meet that definition, and then finally, my thoughts on some of the information brought up throughout this post and some overall questions.

From what we know so far, Classes will be the base archetype with the flavor of whatever secondary archetype added in. One of the more common examples of this being a Tanks charge turning to a teleport when picking a mage. We also know that picking a secondary archetype will not affect the base role of the character (one of the earlier live streams). So an A1 Mage will not be able to switch to a healing role upon picking Cleric as their A2 but might gain some minor healing. Finally, each secondary archetype will have (as of now) 4 augment types to pick from. Picking an A2 mage for example would give elemental and the teleportation augments.

Not sure about everyone but personally I don't know if these are going to actually feel like classes. Is changing a charge to a teleport enough, and will it provide enough synergy and different playstyles when view as a whole? As when you think of classes in regards to games most would agree that the core concept is to have a distinct playstyle, discernible from the other classes, giving the one you're playing something unique, a role to fill, or something if not unique, different enough from other options to warrant it. So my question to all of you is, do you think the classes are going to feel different enough?

Overall I'm not sure, I'm concerned they won't feel different enough while playing based on what we've been told so far. I can see classes that end up feeling like half steps in that direction due to an overall feeling of non-cohesion. Or classes that are too similar because the secondary augment is the same. What I'm really worried about however, is being locked into roles based on the first archetype we pick. Out of the 8 A1's there's only 1 tank and 1 healer. Steven has long since held the opinion of bring the player not the class, yet how can we do that when the classes themselves will be limited? While I have hope that all the classes will fell different when playing, more than that, I really hope to see different roles being carried out by classes not of the original archetype.

So what's everyone's thoughts on the classes? Do you think the classes will live up to the expectations and meaning of class or will we be seeing something else from them? Do you think that secondary archetypes should be able to change your role?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

fabula

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

Maybe off tanks and extra support is silly to have in a "standard" group for dungeons

Off tanks in any situation are silly.

If a raid has a need for a second tank (aggro play from mobs in any form, bosses that need to be kept apart, adds that require a tank etc), then you take a second tank - not an off tank. I have never once seen a situation in which a half tank is needed. If the mobs are so weak that you don't need a full tank, then you also don't need a half tank.

I have always viewed the term off-tank to be a role and not a type of class. In a raid scenario an off-tank would usually be another Tank primary and in a group scenario it would be the best class you had that could take the damage other than the Tank.

I personally like the idea of off-tanks or secondary tanks/healers for single group content since that would mean that the content is difficult and requires more dmg-absorption/healing than what a single Tank/Cleric can provide thus its up to the other 6 classes to serve as secondary tanks/healers or use crowd control to deal with it.

In other games a Tank/Cleric/DPS group composition has promoted the gather and AOE everything until you get to the boss type of group combat and I personally liked it a lot more when worrying about wiping to trash mobs was a thing. This is specially important in open world dungeons since I want to see new groups work their way in rather than having mob trains all over the place from people coming in or going out.

Noaani

fabula wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

Maybe off tanks and extra support is silly to have in a "standard" group for dungeons

Off tanks in any situation are silly.

If a raid has a need for a second tank (aggro play from mobs in any form, bosses that need to be kept apart, adds that require a tank etc), then you take a second tank - not an off tank. I have never once seen a situation in which a half tank is needed. If the mobs are so weak that you don't need a full tank, then you also don't need a half tank.

I have always viewed the term off-tank to be a role and not a type of class. In a raid scenario an off-tank would usually be another Tank primary and in a group scenario it would be the best class you had that could take the damage other than the Tank.

I personally like the idea of off-tanks or secondary tanks/healers for single group content since that would mean that the content is difficult and requires more dmg-absorption/healing than what a single Tank/Cleric can provide thus its up to the other 6 classes to serve as secondary tanks/healers or use crowd control to deal with it.

In other games a Tank/Cleric/DPS group composition has promoted the gather and AOE everything until you get to the boss type of group combat and I personally liked it a lot more when worrying about wiping to trash mobs was a thing. This is specially important in open world dungeons since I want to see new groups work their way in rather than having mob trains all over the place from people coming in or going out.

An off tank is someone that is sometimes a tank, sometimes DPS.

A second tank is someone that is always a tank, but is not always tanking - they are only called to tank when the content demands it.

Since an off tank is a half tank (half DPS), it is not as good of a tank as an actual tank.

The disconnect here is in some people thinking a half tank is needed for some content, where in my experience you either need a full tank or no tank. If a tank is actually needed, you want an actual tank.

If you take a full tank as a second tank with you on content that needs it, cool. If you then call them an off tank rather than a second rank, that is an issue of nomenclature, nothing more.

The notion that the need for a second tank or healer means the content is harder is just false. It just means the content has more mechanics that engage tanks and healers - which by definition means it would need less from DPS.

Okeydoke

In b4 "Off-tank" becomes the 9th archetype.

superhero6785

I'm planning to go Tank/Bard. So I'm guessing that most of my skills will apply a short Buff when cast. Something like: "+10% speed for 10 seconds after using Charge" & "bonus defense now applies to all allies within 20m after using Shield Wall"....Same skills, same feel, just with some added "bard buff effect".

superhero6785

Noaani wrote: »

An off tank is someone that is sometimes a tank, sometimes DPS.

I'm with the other guy on this one. An off-tank to me has always been a "real tank" who's role is to deal with the adds and not the main target. The discussion before the raid starts usually includes "You can tank and I'll OT." - "Sure, we can alternate if you want to practice tanking the boss."

A "sometimes tank, sometimes DPS" is a just a tanky fighter who likes to play solo or in small groups and needs to be able to absorb some damage but also wants to kill things on his own. He'll likely pretend to be a tank when doing dungeons with his friends because everyone else is a squishy DPS and it's him or nothing.

Dygz

I wonder what a "real tank" is when there is not a class/archetype named Tank.
I think of an off-tank exactly as described in the posted image. A player character who concentrates on taking pressure off the main-tank by drawing off extra (usually weaker) mobs.
That could be any class that can successfully deal with the extra mobs.

superhero6785

Dygz wrote: »

I wonder what a "real tank" is when there is not a class/archetype named Tank.
I think of an off-tank exactly as described in the posted image. A player character who concentrates on taking pressure off the main-tank by drawing off extra (usually weaker) mobs.
That could be any class that can successfully deal with the extra mobs.

A "real tank" is anyone who would be considered a Tank for purposes of completing content that requires a Tank. So, unlike your definition, this would not include people just looking to deal with adds if those same people could not also tank the boss and fill the remaining duties of a Tank.

Case-in-point: An off tank should be able to step in and tank the boss should the main tank go down. A Ranger who said "I can deal with the adds" is not going to be able to step in and tank the boss. I would not consider this Ranger the "off tank" simply because his main goal is to deal with adds.

Bonfield

Anyone else think they'll scrap the class/secondary archetype system, or at least pare it down? It really seems like the whole system has been put on the back burner. Think about how much detail has been given on it (or lack thereof) in the past few years.

superhero6785

Bonfield wrote: »

Anyone else think they'll scrap the class/secondary archetype system, or at least pare it down? It really seems like the whole system has been put on the back burner. Think about how much detail has been given on it (or lack thereof) in the past few years.

Nope. That's one of their main "selling points" that they've been advertising. We haven't seen much on it because the classes aren't done being designed. We'll see more when Alpha 2 comes out.

Dygz

Steven is waiting until we get closer to having the features available to test - so that we discover most stuff in-game rather than having it spoiled early.

We will begin to see more about the class system shortly before the Alpha 2 announcement - whenever that is.

Dygz

superhero6785 wrote: »

Case-in-point: An off tank should be able to step in and tank the boss should the main tank go down. A Ranger who said "I can deal with the adds" is not going to be able to step in and tank the boss. I would not consider this Ranger the "off tank" simply because his main goal is to deal with adds.

That's something that you are adding to the definition in the image you posted.

HumblePuffin

Dygz wrote: »

I wonder what a "real tank" is when there is not a class/archetype named Tank.
I think of an off-tank exactly as described in the posted image. A player character who concentrates on taking pressure off the main-tank by drawing off extra (usually weaker) mobs.
That could be any class that can successfully deal with the extra mobs.

This is how I always view what an actual off tank should be. I don’t feel like I’ve seen it ever done well and it always turns into either you’re a tank or not a tank as others have said.

My hope is that we see the x/tank classes in Ashes finally hit that mark. Managing adds, managing strays that peel off the tank, while also adding in a respectable amount of dps. Threat levels will definitely need to be tested and tweaked to make it so an x/tank will be able to peel off of dps, but still be able to eventually drop the mobs off with the tank/x which I assume could be baked into the augments the tank archetype provide.

CROW3

An off-tank only exists relative to a main tank, so let’s not make it more than it is. By itself an OT is either a tank, or a dps that can take a hit.

Noaani

superhero6785 wrote: »

I'm with the other guy on this one. An off-tank to me has always been a "real tank" who's role is to deal with the adds and not the main target.

The issue with what you have here is that you are talking about two things as if they are one.

Off-tanks are a thing, secondary tanks are a thing - the two are not the same thing.

if you want to conflate the two, I am not going to try and stop you. All I will do is point out to you that you are willfully conflating two different roles, and as a result of that I offer a polite suggestion that you avoid debate about either one of said roles.

Dygz

Hmmn. Well, in Ashes Secondary Tank very likely is a conflation with off-tank.

1sab3la

My view of a Templar and a high priest would look very different. Guess we will see

I guess my worry is how the tank and heal role will play out in groups. Without knowing more all I know is they'll be in crazy high demand

I also worry about people not taking preffered roles in group. Can't wait until we get more info

Virtek

Noaani wrote: »

The issue with what you have here is that you are talking about two things as if they are one.
Off-tanks are a thing, secondary tanks are a thing - the two are not the same thing.

I have been running the role of a tank across at least 17 MMOs and 20 years of playing. Never once have I heard "secondary tank" without it being corrected to the term "off-tank."
"Off-Tank" is simply someone that doesn't always tank, but brings the gear to do so for specific fights. Now they're a tank. Now they're not. You've turned off the tank role. They are tanking adds or a second boss off of the main tank. Or...."taunt off" the main boss to cover a tank buster skill or huge DOT. No matter which sentence you use, that has always been the source of the term "off-tank" for as long as I can remember.

I'm not trying to be mean or call you out. Just saying it's really weird to hear "secondary tank" used by someone that isn't just entering the MMO space. Maybe the guilds/groups you ran with do things differently, I dunno. But yeah...everywhere I have been, raid groups have main tanks and off tanks. Sometimes they call them primary and secondary, but only in raids that require two or more tanks for the entire run. Then any additional off-tanks put their tank gear away and do dps when not needed.

That said, Steven has, in a couple of videos now, said something to the effect of "someone with a Tank secondary can viably perform the Tank role. Just not as a main tank. Maybe an off-tank for mobs or something."
I remember this because I sent that question in at least 3 times and he finally answered it on stream. Secondary classes will be "viable" but not "ideal" in the role they chose as secondary. This means they can do a small role. Perhaps off-tank, if configured juuuuust right. Maybe an emergency tank while they res the main tank? Who knows how far. But they will be able to do it, if the design concept carries through to launch.

Noaani

Virtek wrote: »

I have been running the role of a tank across at least 17 MMOs and 20 years of playing. Never once have I heard "secondary tank" without it being corrected to the term "off-tank."

I've been playing about as long.

If someone attempted to correct me in calling an off tank an off tank, I would then correct them.

A second tank (or secondary tank) is the second tank you use on content that requires two tanks.

An off-tank is someone that is not the main tank, but is running a tank spec (or half tank spec) on content that does not specifically call for a second tank.

SirChancelot

superhero6785 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

I wonder what a "real tank" is when there is not a class/archetype named Tank.
I think of an off-tank exactly as described in the posted image. A player character who concentrates on taking pressure off the main-tank by drawing off extra (usually weaker) mobs.
That could be any class that can successfully deal with the extra mobs.

A "real tank" is anyone who would be considered a Tank for purposes of completing content that requires a Tank. So, unlike your definition, this would not include people just looking to deal with adds if those same people could not also tank the boss and fill the remaining duties of a Tank.

Case-in-point: An off tank should be able to step in and tank the boss should the main tank go down. A Ranger who said "I can deal with the adds" is not going to be able to step in and tank the boss. I would not consider this Ranger the "off tank" simply because his main goal is to deal with adds.

What about a ranger/tank who is completely built out to be a ranged kite'ing tank?

fabula

The earliest instance of "off-tank" that I remember was in EQ with some bosses having an ability where damage was focused on the top 2 in the aggro list, this damage was not enough to require a heal rotation but enough to require focused healing. This job was usually given to your worst geared tank or your best geared dps class.

The off-tank was not expected to step in and tank the boss because that's not how things worked and he would be dead a couple of seconds later. If anything you probably didn't want your best tanks to take those spots if someone else could do it, that way you might have enough time to start your heal rotation on a live tank while the boss is busy killing his way down the aggro list.

Therefore an off-tank does not need to be able to replace a main tank, he is meant to absorb damage so healers have it easier.

Child Item