Apok wrote: » I feel like it's a pointless discussion in general, go play any group pvp that uses the holy trinity and you'll quickly notice the supports are the ones who carry the fights. NW is this way. if you go into group pvp and your side lacks heals you die almost instantly but with healers you sustain. too many healers and not enough dps on both sides everything turns into a good 3~5 minute brawl until people peal off and take down the healers.
NiKr wrote: » I used multiplication precisely to show that each party member multiplies the power of another member. If I wanted to say "8 people doing their single-player rotations" I would've used addition.
Depraved wrote: » I feel strawmanned here... i said 3 tanks because you said 3 tanks. [...] i highly doubt you will need more than 1 tank in a party. and we will probably need 0 tanks in a pure pvp party.
Depraved wrote: » regarding summoners, we already know that they will have at least 2 play styles. one is playing with the pet and the master is basically a support for the pet, and the other one is the pet is a support for the master. pets wont have the same issues as tank because they will most likely have different skills, you know, the summoner being a different class. for mass pvp, id say the summoner will probably be preferred over a fighter if it ends up being a ranged class. also potentially irreplaceable supporting abilities. it all depends what the class can offer. if its end up being in a party for its supporting abilities, then 3 tanks, 1 cleric 1 bard, 1 summoner leaves only 2 slots for dps...really, can 2 dps one shot someone after they get pulled and cc'ed? the other 6 classes combined might not have enough damage + they gonna be focused on supporting + the person pulled has a healer as well.
NiKr wrote: » Yeah, and WAY FASTER in group situations. It's gonna be a bloodbath. I personally highly dislike it.
Veeshan wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Yeah, and WAY FASTER in group situations. It's gonna be a bloodbath. I personally highly dislike it. It might be 10-15 seconds based on group combat because they said the game would be balanced around groups so the time to kill he gave might be in a 8v8 situation not a 1v1 situation. 10-15 second TTK sounds about right to me from a pvp perspective tbh also TTK times tend to be based on hitting somone who just standing there and not doing anything to defend themselfs acting like a dummy. So in actual fights it would probaly be quite a bit longer
NiKr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » In Ashes that should not be a valid concept because every Class in that Group with 2 Tanks could be an x/Rogue equipped with plenty of DPS Augments. Or the 2 Tanks could be adding DPS Augments from Social Orgs or Religions, etc. And none of those classes will have as big of a dps values as a pure dps class, just as classes with cleric secondary won't be able to heal a raid as well as a cleric will. That was my point. Depraved wrote: » so if this is all subjective, why are you more right than me? Where did I say I was more right than you? You're probably reading Mag's mind instead of mine here Diamaht wrote: » Those types of tools can be a way for a small party to mitigate against a zerg and give themselves more time. My main concern here has been the "*snap* it's dead" thing that Steven talked about. I don't want that speed. Having a cd on the effect I proposed would lead us back to the snapping. There should simply be a ton of other ways to disable tank's aura. Hell, it could be influenced by a silence effect or smth similar. I've just played enough L2 in an archer/dagger party where "the enemy healer dies before the fight begins" was the main rule. And considering where AoC's design seems to be heading - we'll have the same situation here as well. Mag7spy wrote: » Its really obvious to people, but your bias to complain won't allow you to see that. Ok, you know the game Steven is making better than him. You've obviously tested it behind the scenes and have told the designers how the game will work. So I obviously should trust your words on this matter, rather than the creative director's, who's words I simply repeated to you w/o changing anything about them.
Dygz wrote: » In Ashes that should not be a valid concept because every Class in that Group with 2 Tanks could be an x/Rogue equipped with plenty of DPS Augments. Or the 2 Tanks could be adding DPS Augments from Social Orgs or Religions, etc.
Depraved wrote: » so if this is all subjective, why are you more right than me?
Diamaht wrote: » Those types of tools can be a way for a small party to mitigate against a zerg and give themselves more time.
Mag7spy wrote: » Its really obvious to people, but your bias to complain won't allow you to see that.
know 10 to 15 seconds upwards of 30 seconds depending on the arch type right 39:09 um so you know obviously the more restorative uh Arch types like a cleric or whatever might be able to last longer 39:15 or a tank might be able to last longer if they're facing another tank or if they're facing another cleric right then it's going to be like a you know Whiffle bat Fest or something um uh and then if you're talking about you know two DPS 39:27 against each other um that's going to be real fast um so so I would say that's
organized in the way that you have um targeting and Target assists and 39:47 that you call you know raid calling like there is opportunities there to have 39:53 multiple DPSS take out a Target real quick right and and because of that type of precision
numbers over skilled there is now a better opportunity for the smaller group to 41:17 Prevail against the larger group if they are better organized and more skillful which tends to be the case in smaller 41:24 groups right so intrinsic those two philosophies are tied to one another 41:30 right the shorter ttk and the how do you solve the Zerg problem well by
NiKr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » In Ashes that should not be a valid concept because every Class in that Group with 2 Tanks could be an x/Rogue equipped with plenty of DPS Augments. Or the 2 Tanks could be adding DPS Augments from Social Orgs or Religions, etc. And none of those classes will have as big of a dps values as a pure dps class, just as classes with cleric secondary won't be able to heal a raid as well as a cleric will. That was my point. Depraved wrote: » so if this is all subjective, why are you more right than me? Where did I say I was more right than you? You're probably reading Mag's mind instead of mine here
SunScript wrote: » Depraved wrote: » I feel strawmanned here... i said 3 tanks because you said 3 tanks. [...] i highly doubt you will need more than 1 tank in a party. and we will probably need 0 tanks in a pure pvp party. Nah, I figured out what happened here, it was just a silly misunderstanding. I said two or MAYBE three tanks because I was theorycrafting the possible results of a buff Nikr was talking about (he made some good points tho). This isn't something I believe in or am attached to, it was just me basically trying to figure out how it might all look, because we still don't know how Intrepid plans to approach party buffs. So, it is now very clear to me you still expect parties to have 1 or 0 tanks, thank you. I don't immediately disagree OR agree with this. My position is very simply that I can't yet figure out how Intrepid is planning to make Tanks and Bards both useful and fun to play with the current setup (mobility and TTK wise). You could for example turn them into buffbots but is it also fun? Depraved wrote: » regarding summoners, we already know that they will have at least 2 play styles. one is playing with the pet and the master is basically a support for the pet, and the other one is the pet is a support for the master. pets wont have the same issues as tank because they will most likely have different skills, you know, the summoner being a different class. for mass pvp, id say the summoner will probably be preferred over a fighter if it ends up being a ranged class. also potentially irreplaceable supporting abilities. it all depends what the class can offer. if its end up being in a party for its supporting abilities, then 3 tanks, 1 cleric 1 bard, 1 summoner leaves only 2 slots for dps...really, can 2 dps one shot someone after they get pulled and cc'ed? the other 6 classes combined might not have enough damage + they gonna be focused on supporting + the person pulled has a healer as well. What I'm trying to say is that Summoner is going to inherit any and all issues of the classes whole role they overlap with (even a bit). If the Tank struggles to roadblock a highly mobile target, so will the Summoner/their pet. If a Bard's buffs don't get to make enough difference because the fight is already over, so will the Summoner's. And so on. If you disagree, that's fine, but I'd love an explanation why. Because depending on that, Summoner can either end up overshadowing other classes or being overshadowed by them. Edit: Fixed weird quote stuff.
GreatPhilisopher wrote: » According to steven the TTK will be 10-15 seconds , are you guys ready to have fun getting 1 shot all the time
Depraved wrote: » because you kept saying steven was referring to 8 men groups, not raid groups T_T
NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » because you kept saying steven was referring to 8 men groups, not raid groups T_T Yes, and I've already said that we both chose to believe what we think is a logical conclusion from what Steven said, based on our own previous experiences. I never said I was more right. You can look at Mag's posts and compare them to mine and then tell me, whose posts sound more like "I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE DEFINITELY WRONG AND HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT"
Mag7spy wrote: » I don't wany to hear any of yuo talking about these 10-15 sec ttk is based on group player nubm NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » because you kept saying steven was referring to 8 men groups, not raid groups T_T Yes, and I've already said that we both chose to believe what we think is a logical conclusion from what Steven said, based on our own previous experiences. I never said I was more right. You can look at Mag's posts and compare them to mine and then tell me, whose posts sound more like "I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE DEFINITELY WRONG AND HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT" You are free to respond, it is never to late to walk back on some of the points you have been saying. As I've clearly pointed out the exaggeration / falseness. Which means you should be more positive about it regardless, well unless its not about skill / knowledge to improving your situation with ttk and just about them making it a flat higher number.
Mag7spy wrote: » You are free to respond, it is never to late to walk back on some of the points you have been saying. As I've clearly pointed out the exaggeration / falseness.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I don't wany to hear any of yuo talking about these 10-15 sec ttk is based on group player nubm NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » because you kept saying steven was referring to 8 men groups, not raid groups T_T Yes, and I've already said that we both chose to believe what we think is a logical conclusion from what Steven said, based on our own previous experiences. I never said I was more right. You can look at Mag's posts and compare them to mine and then tell me, whose posts sound more like "I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE DEFINITELY WRONG AND HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT" You are free to respond, it is never to late to walk back on some of the points you have been saying. As I've clearly pointed out the exaggeration / falseness. Which means you should be more positive about it regardless, well unless its not about skill / knowledge to improving your situation with ttk and just about them making it a flat higher number. Hm, not quite. From the perspective of 'will it be good', that's not really as big a deal as one other pretty big thing here. If the line on the Wiki that said "Ashes of Creation will have a 30-60 second TTK" had instead, from the beginning, been 'Ashes of Creation will have a TTK that is a bit faster than most MMOs you're probably used to', a LOT of people who are here now would not be here. Would there be different people? Maybe. But it's up to Intrepid (and I guess you and I, to some extent) to convince people this can actually be good given everything. Problem is, I don't really have much evidence to give, and you're not one for giving it.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You are free to respond, it is never to late to walk back on some of the points you have been saying. As I've clearly pointed out the exaggeration / falseness. There is no point in responding because you're always doing to me what you claim I'm doing to you. I never said the things you claim I did in your big post This entire thread I've been saying "dps vs dps is 10-15s", "tanks/healers are ~30s" (and I even said that "it might not even be tank vs tank", cause Steven's wording there is more vague than in other parts), "group pvp will be killing people in 1s, as signified by Steven snapping his fingers", "when Steven is talking about group pvp he accounts for any of Intrepid's future plans for its balancing, which would include any potential defensive and offensive buffs/effects". That's it. Unless you point to where I said "1v1 pvp is about both people being supported by other players" - I don't know what else I can say to make you see that I'm literally repeating what Steven said and saying "I don't like/want this design".
Mag7spy wrote: » Again this is where the issue is and why i feel you should be walking that back. You can't make a statement all future designs will be like x and X.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Again this is where the issue is and why i feel you should be walking that back. You can't make a statement all future designs will be like x and X. And I didn't make that statement. I simply repeated what Steven said and said "I don't like this design". It was Steven who said that this is their current approach to ttk balancing. If he did jump from 1v1 pvp all the way up to "a full raid targeting a single player" - I'm somewhat fine that, but then we'd need to talk about aoe scaling, and that's a whole different discussion that has already happened in the past. But if he did mean party vs party when he said "group pvp" - then I'd prefer if ttk was longer. Mainly because there's 2 ways to take his ttk timings: the target stands around doing nothing the target uses everything in their toolkit to avoid dying If 10-15 ttk is in the context of the first option - it means that a dps class dies in around 5-10 damaging abilities, purely on hp values (this estimate is based on average cast times shown on streams). This then implies that a party of people can use all their best damaging abilities at once and wipe a target "in a snap". This was my reasoning behind believing that Steven was talking about party pvp when he said group, and not "a raid is attacking a single person". Now if we look at the second option - things are WAAAAY worse. Because now the target is moving and using defensive abilities - AND IT'S STILL A 10-15s TTK. This means that the hp values of that target are below the floor, which means that direct-damage's worth of ttk is probably like 4-5s. And if THAT is the case - a party can wipe 2 people in a snap, if they get the jump on them. Depraved and a few other people believe that Steven was talking about the first option (I don't remember which one you believe, cause this has been a long convo). And as I described above, Steven's "snap" still aligns with "a party targeting a single player in the enemy party" situation, and not just a "raid doing the same" one. As for big defensive buffs or strong healing, that can supposedly save that single player - these would, first of all, only work if the defending side saw the attackers coming, but would also depend on what other tools the attackers have. Due to us not knowing any of those tools, I've been talking about attackers getting a jump on their target (which is usually the healer) and killing it "in a snap". And I've already given my suggestion for how this perceived issue could be addressed and also gave my reasoning for seeing it as an issue (namely my L2 experience of healers "being snapped"). If you believe that Intrepid will go away from this "snapping" design and add defensive tools that prevent it - cool, you agree with me. But this belief goes directly against what Steven has stated, which is why it's funny that you seem to agree with Steven, while disagreeing with me. If you think he was only talking about a "raid attacking a single target" - we'll just have to disagree on that interpretation.
Depraved wrote: » I highly doubt that will see people of equal level and gear getting one shotted by a single coordinated F1 of 4 people in a party vs party. when you add a second, a third or even a fourth party, etc. that will happen for sure. but not in 8v8
Mag7spy wrote: » I feel the intent is for outplaying people, catching them off guard, etc. Its not 2 groups fighting each other and snapped instantly, you has to be a level of skill there from a side to do it. That is the most reasonable line of thinking if u are talking about that type of content.
Mag7spy wrote: » Ie instant buff team, instant cc them them, make distance if possible, etc. Again if you don't have situational awareness and 4 dps can jump your cleric at the same time i don't know what to say.
Mag7spy wrote: » Edit caravan showcase did not show the universal defense tree, that is going to be something people will not be sleeping on (except for glass cannons) Could see things liek reduce dmg first hit, reduced CC time, greatly reduced first hit cc time, buffs while dodging and blocking, hp barrier and low hp, etc. Also armour types and magic protects are going to be a big deal and setting up your kit.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I feel the intent is for outplaying people, catching them off guard, etc. Its not 2 groups fighting each other and snapped instantly, you has to be a level of skill there from a side to do it. That is the most reasonable line of thinking if u are talking about that type of content. Which is why I suggested that tank effect. It would make parties fight the party as a whole, rather than removing the healer first and then just cleaning everyone else up. Mag7spy wrote: » Ie instant buff team, instant cc them them, make distance if possible, etc. Again if you don't have situational awareness and 4 dps can jump your cleric at the same time i don't know what to say. It's the same "skill" you've been talking about. Executing a good ambush requires good knowledge of the surroundings and of the enemy's movement. And in the case of ambushes the attackers always have an advantage (cause that's the entire point), so even if the fighting skill might be higher on the defending side - the ambushers could still come out on top. Mag7spy wrote: » Edit caravan showcase did not show the universal defense tree, that is going to be something people will not be sleeping on (except for glass cannons) Could see things liek reduce dmg first hit, reduced CC time, greatly reduced first hit cc time, buffs while dodging and blocking, hp barrier and low hp, etc. Also armour types and magic protects are going to be a big deal and setting up your kit. And if those things exist - cool. But then Steven's words would be a lie, or, even worse, they'd mean that nothing is fucking planned and he's just winging it all. I try to believe that there's at least some form of plan for their design and that Steven is presenting their plans for balancing that design. And this belief requires me to think that Steven accounts for any potential builds when talking about averages. They've been designing, discussing and internally testing all the things they've talked about, so if they have no idea of what those plans can result in - we have a much bigger problem on our hands than "ttk is short".
