NiKr wrote: » If a plain buff is viewed as too op for this kind of effect - I'd be totally ok with a "formation"-type deal. So smth like "everyone who's behind the tank in a wide and long cone aoe has this effect on them". This would make tanks move in a certain way around their party, limit their movements in pvp (unless the party is secure in some other way) and would also add more pvp interaction for "forced movement" abilities like the tank's Grapple. In other words, a different kind of Aegis effect.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Again i feel you have really not played a mmo in the competitive scene in AWHILE. I have never been in that scene and have always said that I'm a shitty player who simply has enough time and dumb stubbornness to overcome challenges.
Mag7spy wrote: » Again i feel you have really not played a mmo in the competitive scene in AWHILE.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD. Longer ttk serves this exact purpose. Shorter ttk will simply mean that any average player dies to a better player in literal seconds, w/o even a chance to improve. At which point all the average players leave.
Mag7spy wrote: » Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD.
SunScript wrote: » NiKr wrote: » If a plain buff is viewed as too op for this kind of effect - I'd be totally ok with a "formation"-type deal. So smth like "everyone who's behind the tank in a wide and long cone aoe has this effect on them". This would make tanks move in a certain way around their party, limit their movements in pvp (unless the party is secure in some other way) and would also add more pvp interaction for "forced movement" abilities like the tank's Grapple. In other words, a different kind of Aegis effect. Do you perhaps mean something like this?https://ffxiclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Cover "Allows you to protect party members by placing yourself between them and the enemy." My Paladin teammate seems to enjoy it. Within the context of current Ashes design, I'm not sure it'd help much, though? Even with a more generous cone. With all the mobility we're seeing, what would it achieve? (I'm genuinely asking)
Mag7spy wrote: » Meaning everyone has a higher TTK for a duration and why i keep mentioning this. Its going to be like wave of higher ttk based on cds and such with your tanks, healers, supports, off supports/tanks, etc. Though there will be a chance to find gaps or catch people off guard.
SunScript wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Meaning everyone has a higher TTK for a duration and why i keep mentioning this. Its going to be like wave of higher ttk based on cds and such with your tanks, healers, supports, off supports/tanks, etc. Though there will be a chance to find gaps or catch people off guard. "Meaning everyone has a higher TTK" -- Higher than what? Steven gave several examples of TTK based on different scenarios. Doing that implies they have indeed THOUGHT of different scenarios. Meaning, they are already factored for, defensive skills and all that. So higher than what?
SunScript wrote: » Do you perhaps mean something like this?
Mag7spy wrote: » Ok having a moment more to think while these points are irritating me, pretty much people are trying to suggest Steven said TTK for a dps class is between 10-15 seconds and Steven is account for multiple things in that. 1. Classes supporting them with defese and peels 2. Cleric healing them 3. Classes defensive options 4. Universal defense skill tree (that is not even in a state to show yet) 5. Different team compositions 6. Kiting By those points you have to only be looking at TTK in group play, meaning TTK in solo is above 15 seconds. Which leads into why are you complaining if its above 15 seconds TTK, but then u make the arguement that if you get focused you die in under one second. These points you people bring up do not make sense and contradict yourselves. Pretty much saying anything you think will stick but not actually being honest about the whole situation.
Mag7spy wrote: » SunScript wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Meaning everyone has a higher TTK for a duration and why i keep mentioning this. Its going to be like wave of higher ttk based on cds and such with your tanks, healers, supports, off supports/tanks, etc. Though there will be a chance to find gaps or catch people off guard. "Meaning everyone has a higher TTK" -- Higher than what? Steven gave several examples of TTK based on different scenarios. Doing that implies they have indeed THOUGHT of different scenarios. Meaning, they are already factored for, defensive skills and all that. So higher than what? You are the epidemy of being disingenuous at this point. Please go give the quotes where he talks about all these different scenarios. You are talking out of your ass because of your bias against me and can't have a honest conversation. It is becoming more and more clear to me you didn't watch the AMA and are to busy complaining in your own headspace. There is 0 wording on synergy between classes in GROUP fights, he was talking about average of damn classes. Not how would a fighter or tank be effected by a cleric, tank or other classes working together. And how that effects their TTK.
NiKr wrote: » SunScript wrote: » Do you perhaps mean something like this? No, that link is pretty much Aegis already. And Aegis' aoe also seemed to be tiny. I'm talking about a huge aoe behind the tank, that's constantly on (i.e. an aura). Well, if, as I said, people think that the 5min buff is too OP. And I related my idea to Aegis simply due to the similarities in the mechanic. The effect is simply "this gives 50 def if the target received dmg from only a single source, within the last 5s. This gives 100 def, if it was 2 sources. Etc etc scaling up to a shitton of def if a lot of sources of dmg". In other words, I want to make the attackers spread their damage, instead of all hitting one target. This would still allow for a one-shot kill, but the coordination skill required for this would be insane (or, well, it could be balanced to be insane depending on the dmg check timing values).
SunScript wrote: » NiKr wrote: » SunScript wrote: » Do you perhaps mean something like this? No, that link is pretty much Aegis already. And Aegis' aoe also seemed to be tiny. I'm talking about a huge aoe behind the tank, that's constantly on (i.e. an aura). Well, if, as I said, people think that the 5min buff is too OP. And I related my idea to Aegis simply due to the similarities in the mechanic. The effect is simply "this gives 50 def if the target received dmg from only a single source, within the last 5s. This gives 100 def, if it was 2 sources. Etc etc scaling up to a shitton of def if a lot of sources of dmg". In other words, I want to make the attackers spread their damage, instead of all hitting one target. This would still allow for a one-shot kill, but the coordination skill required for this would be insane (or, well, it could be balanced to be insane depending on the dmg check timing values). Ah, I see. I'm just guessing here, but I think this makes party vs party scenarios with 2 tanks weird/jank. My thinking here is one brings 2 tanks to try and chain Grapple the one giving that buff away from the formation, to somewhere too far off to quickly reposition. 2 tanks are good for this, and they're also good for having a backup defender for when your first one gets grappled away. So really, what I think this does is make 2 tank the meta for pvp. Maybe even 3 tanks. What are your thoughts on this?
Depraved wrote: » SunScript wrote: » NiKr wrote: » SunScript wrote: » Do you perhaps mean something like this? No, that link is pretty much Aegis already. And Aegis' aoe also seemed to be tiny. I'm talking about a huge aoe behind the tank, that's constantly on (i.e. an aura). Well, if, as I said, people think that the 5min buff is too OP. And I related my idea to Aegis simply due to the similarities in the mechanic. The effect is simply "this gives 50 def if the target received dmg from only a single source, within the last 5s. This gives 100 def, if it was 2 sources. Etc etc scaling up to a shitton of def if a lot of sources of dmg". In other words, I want to make the attackers spread their damage, instead of all hitting one target. This would still allow for a one-shot kill, but the coordination skill required for this would be insane (or, well, it could be balanced to be insane depending on the dmg check timing values). Ah, I see. I'm just guessing here, but I think this makes party vs party scenarios with 2 tanks weird/jank. My thinking here is one brings 2 tanks to try and chain Grapple the one giving that buff away from the formation, to somewhere too far off to quickly reposition. 2 tanks are good for this, and they're also good for having a backup defender for when your first one gets grappled away. So really, what I think this does is make 2 tank the meta for pvp. Maybe even 3 tanks. What are your thoughts on this? who gonna kill? lol best pvp party will probs have 0 tanks
SunScript wrote: » So really, what I think this does is make 2 tank the meta for pvp. Maybe even 3 tanks. What are your thoughts on this?
NiKr wrote: » SunScript wrote: » So really, what I think this does is make 2 tank the meta for pvp. Maybe even 3 tanks. What are your thoughts on this? I'm of the opinion that tank shouldn't do anywhere near good dps, so having 2 tanks decreases your damage output significantly. And if parties think they can still win with lower dps - more power to them. I'd also expect more forced movement abilities, so it wouldn't just be "tank pulls tank, so you need 2 tanks". This also plays into the body collision design and general movement on the battlefield. A fighter might rush into a tank and push him out of a good positioning. Or mage's black hole might move people away from the tank. Or if backstabs are not just a rogue mechanic - the tank could be way weaker in the back, so attackers might start hitting him in the back, but he can't turn because the defensive aoe is behind him. All of that stuff would counterbalance (or at least bring more interactions to) this ability.
SunScript wrote: » It would be a really odd direction to take balance in from Intrepid imo, because I'd prefer if the position one sits in relative to their tank mattered more, which doesn't work well if people can just zoom across the battlefield, you know what I mean?
