For this game to work, we will need stuff like class combinations, node and organization affiliations, tattoos, gear, talents, etc to be relevant.
Should they be as relevant as the base class or not?
Should they still be very relevant?
Should their influence be 50% or 66% or 75%?
Because depending on the answer, we will either see pretty viable hybrids or not.
Personally I think the customization should be more important than the base class.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mentioned this just now in another thread, but I thought it's worth mentioning here... Some of these combos might be sub-optimal when in a challenging PvE group, but might absolutely shine in PvP. In which case they merit inclusion in the game. We don't have a way to know at this stage how that will work.
In other words a Fighter/Cleric if they choose the right augments is closer to DPS/Support rather than 'just dps but done slightly differently'.
Augments from the Life School would move Fighter closer to Damage/Support, yes. It would not switch the primary role from Damage to Support.
DPS done slightly differently may just be a matter of semantics.
If it isn't very good, it's a very fair question to ask why the designers made that option available at all. To trick 'less skilled builders'? 'Flavor that makes you superficially help your allies with your band aids?' If it's low impact compared to things that let you do more damage, people have no reason to choose it. That's very bad design.
"Very good" is also a matter of perspective. Augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
You could use the word flavor to describe that. Augments allow you to dabble with some of the effects of a different archetype. It doesn't really allow you to compete with the effectiveness of the Primary Archetype.
I would say you're helping your allies with bandages - not band-aids. And those bandages will be significant, but not as powerful as a full Heal from a Primary Archetype Cleric.
If you wish your Mage-Killer to more easily survive the burst damage of enemy Mages, Fighter/Cleric is an excellent choice. You choose Life augments for your Fighter because ultimately that allows you to deal out burst damage while slaughtering enemy Mages without having to worry about whether the Cleric has your back instead of someone else's.
@JustVine what he is saying is that on the scale from "not worth taking" to "as much as a primary cleric" they are going to aim for between "good enough to not make it laughable negligible" but "not too good as to threaten the clerics job title"
Right and my question is essentially 'if /clerics give healing, how many /clerics do you need before the cleric doesn't need to focus on healing' and how does that number apply to other secondary archtypes
If the answer is 'never happens' we have to ask 'is the main archetypes role still shifted towards damage/support?' And 'how much more EFFECTIVE would it have been for them to 'stick to augments suited to their role'.
If the answer is 'yes' but also 'it is more effective to stick to your role because the trade off doesn't make up a gap in your party to prevent a main 'being less necessary'' these 'hybrid' roles will likely draw universal shaming by the average player base because that is what always happens when you make an option 'obviously suboptimal comparitively.' It breeds toxicity and snowballs to rigid metas. Because you have now empowered that type of thinking and scrutiny. Any build that /looks/ like it isn't optimizing the assigned role will be similarly ostracized. If you doubt this will happen you lack a good understanding of human psychology. Fear of being seen as 'abnormal' and fear of rejection are incredibly powerful influencers.
If the answer is no to 'is the main archetypes role still shifted towards damage/support?' We have to both ask why the devs put it in as an option and must also assume it is more optimal to stick to your single role (otherwise the role would have shifted significant enough to say yes to that first question.)
If the answer is yes and 'they are a good enough trade off to fill a gap in your party's cleric/fighter to 'choose something enhancing the cleric's dps' we return to the original question '
'if /clerics give healing, how many /clerics do you need before the cleric doesn't need to focus on building heal at all' and 'how does that number apply to other secondary archtypes.'
And similarly, if my parties gear build is built around resisting and avoiding negative statuses 'how many /clerics do I need before I can get away with not having a cleric due to having enough indirect healing?'
A friend of mine plays/played enhancement Shaman over in WoW. Playing melee he is right in there with all the other melee. He keeps healing rain or something that is an AOE HOT centered on him. It does enough healing to show on the meter but but enough to keep the group up. I think it will end up in this area. Having anything/cleric and going heals will heal 3-5% of a players health. Enough to make a difference but not enough to keep a group alive by themselves.
8/8. You will need 8/8 to keep a group alive in harder content. Random PvP and questing will just keep the fight going long enough to win. Even if you allow to have all these things you want there will still be a meta. Someone will sit down with their friends and a spread sheet and look to find a way to get .001% better build and the mindless masses will follow with out ever thinking about it.
Most people the answer is yes because they are afraid to do their own thing and think for themselves:
47:57 is important.
2:01:00 talking about hybrid classes.
At one point Chris talks about going into a raid and he had changed all his enchantments to something that would offer no benefit to prove the point it was more about doing the mechanics then it was about chasing that extra .1% Over all a good conversation about game design.
For this game to work, we will need stuff like class combinations, node and organization affiliations, tattoos, gear, talents, etc to be relevant.
Should they be as relevant as the base class or not?
Should they still be very relevant?
Should their influence be 50% or 66% or 75%?
Because depending on the answer, we will either see pretty viable hybrids or not.
Personally I think the customization should be more important than the base class.
It makes no sense for the Secondary Archetype and secondary role to be more important than the Primary Archetype and primary pole.
It's not "base class" or "dual-class" for a reason.
Primary Archetype determines your primary role and Secondary Archetype allows you to have a lesser, secondary role.
Also, it's way easier to balance 8 Primary Archetypes than it is to balance 64 classes.
But... you can create lots of variations of a Primary Archetype with customization via Secondary Archetype augments, along with Racial, Social, Religious and Node augments and gear and Weapon Skills.
For this game to work, we will need stuff like class combinations, node and organization affiliations, tattoos, gear, talents, etc to be relevant.
Should they be as relevant as the base class or not?
Should they still be very relevant?
Should their influence be 50% or 66% or 75%?
Because depending on the answer, we will either see pretty viable hybrids or not.
Personally I think the customization should be more important than the base class.
It makes no sense for the Secondary Archetype and secondary role to be more important than the Primary Archetype and primary pole.
It's not "base class" or "dual-class" for a reason.
Primary Archetype determines your primary role and Secondary Archetype allows you to have a lesser, secondary role.
Also, it's way easier to balance 8 Primary Archetypes than it is to balance 64 classes.
But... you can create lots of variations of a Primary Archetype with customization via Secondary Archetype augments, along with Racial, Social, Religious and Node augments and gear and Weapon Skills.
The point of having all the customization tools is for the total mixture to be a different experience than the initial glass of water.
The real argument is how different the mixture gets from other mixtures with the same starting ingredient.
47:57 is important.
2:01:00 talking about hybrid classes.
At one point Chris talks about going into a raid and he had changed all his enchantments to something that would offer no benefit to prove the point it was more about doing the mechanics then it was about chasing that extra .1% Over all a good conversation about game design.
47:57 is an excellent point, and I agree with it to a point... there are developers that have done this, and made a game they thought people would like and it collapsed in no time because there wasn't enough of a player base for it. I'm pretty sure there are more MMOs that have collapsed in a year or two, than MMOs that go to the distance...
WildStar for example I absolutely love that game despite it "being really difficult". It came out it was free to play in less than a year and closed down servers in three... (Still had one of my favorite tank classes ever I loved that engineer)
2:01:00
Also all good points. I hope you don't think that I've been advocating for a hybrid class or for classes to be able to multi-class at one time? More of what the druid became rather than what it was earlier on, where it can tank OR heal OR DPS... NOT do a little bit of all three at once.
-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?
I opened this can of worms once, so good luck to you for trying again.
My opinion is that I hope more than just tank/X can be a viable tank. I would love to see most X/tank options if properly geared and spec'ed to tank to be able to. If not I feel like party composition is going to get really repetitive.
But there are a lot of people here who don't feel the same.
Honestly, it depends on how much secondary archetype augments can change the primary abilities, and we just don't know enough about them yet to have that talk...
You want other classes to fill the role of 'tank', other than the Tank class so that you're saved from repetitive 'party composition'...
And your solution is to have other classes fill the role of 'tank'...
Tank being a tank: BOOOOORING
Other being a tank: WOW THIS IS EXITING!!!1111
I mean... Every archetype can be a tank. They may just not be a good or efficient one lol c:
Sure, my Archwizard may die in a couple hits, but I bet those hits would be glorious!
Spot on.
An archwizard should get wrecked if he tries to tank. But I support a spellstone being capable if they do the augments for it right, and you properly geared for it, and you put your skill points into tank stuff vice DPS stuff...
Will this be the case? No one knows really...
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Not you Ironhope keeps throwing it around.
As to the first point they devs have a vision let them fill it. To many people trying to paint the same painting that only have the vaguest idea why the final image should look like will make it a mess. Then listening to people that like art telling you to change your painting or they won't like it will also make it a giant mess.
I liked Wildstar a lot. Played at launch and was sad to see it go. One of the biggest detractors for me was how busy it was in the world. Move 10 meters "challenge accepted" eventually I just stopped paying attention to it.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
-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?
I opened this can of worms once, so good luck to you for trying again.
My opinion is that I hope more than just tank/X can be a viable tank. I would love to see most X/tank options if properly geared and spec'ed to tank to be able to. If not I feel like party composition is going to get really repetitive.
But there are a lot of people here who don't feel the same.
Honestly, it depends on how much secondary archetype augments can change the primary abilities, and we just don't know enough about them yet to have that talk...
You want other classes to fill the role of 'tank', other than the Tank class so that you're saved from repetitive 'party composition'...
And your solution is to have other classes fill the role of 'tank'...
Tank being a tank: BOOOOORING
Other being a tank: WOW THIS IS EXITING!!!1111
Waste. Of. Time.
Maybe not the game for you. Hugs and kisses.
Cool. Someone else who doesn't get it.
Read the whole thread before making snide comments. I have plenty of examples of what I mean.
Most MMOs that have some sort of longevity to them have more than one class capable of tanking this allows them to have more than one style of a tank.
Look at wow, FFXIV, SWTOR, etc.
A death knight plays different than a bear plays different than a brewmaster. And they bring different things to the table.
A gun blade is different than a warrior is different from the people that ninja tank in FFXIV.
Variety is good my dude. If you don't like any of those then just play a tank/tank. Some of us like playing weird shit, some of us like to play D&D just to come up with the weirdest approaches to a character and get them to work.
I enjoyed making them patch out my build in the GW 2 beta because I built a character that was literally unkillable... And I'm going to strive to do the same thing in aoc beta.
.
A death knight plays different than a bear plays different than a brewmaster. And they bring different things to the table.
But Ashes will have this.
A tank/tank will play differently to a tank/rogue, or a tank/mage.
The difference is, one player can be any of them on the one character.
In WoW, you can be most things on oone character, but only one flavor of each thing. People then generally roll other characters to be different flavors of the same basic role. Someone that likes tanking as a role has maybe 8 alts for tanking in different styles.
In Ashes, you have one role but with multiple flavors per character.
You only need to make an alt if you want to perform a different role, as different flavors of that same role can all be done on one character.
This means you only need to roll an alt of you want to fill a different role - you have no need to roll one to perform the same role with a different flavor.
I mean... Every archetype can be a tank. They may just not be a good or efficient one lol c:
I know you are coming in from a different angle and trying to make light of the topic but this comment dumbs down the conversation. Not trying to be rude but no shit a mage tank should not be able to main tank the giant ogre boss swinging a club lol. Why not expand the options mages have and allow them to main tank an enemy spellcaster boss? Or possibly pick up mage adds that just sit back and blast our raid members (thus giving us more dynamic boss mechanics)? Why not give mages the option to spec mage/tank and provide magical mitigation or even deflection from timed cooldowns for their allies? The same can be said for a rogue evasion tanking
On the flipside. Why does mage/tank only gain the opportunity to last.....a few more hits? Are we really going to be excited for a system that let's you spec into EIGHT different options but they are just slight adjustments of the primary/primary role? Do you think people are going to choose less dps (when they chose a DPS class) so they can survive against a rogue/ranger/fighter better? Yeah some will, but it would be a terrible choice and you "should" opt in for higher damage, more CC, escapes instead. I'm all for empowering players to make their own unique choices but when those choices end up clearly inferior, what then?
This system should be what is glorious. They have literal years before launch. Plenty of time and opportunity to delve deep into an engaging and comprehensively robust class system that will set them apart from the competition. There is ZERO reason to settle on subtle adjustments to the holy trinity.
.
A death knight plays different than a bear plays different than a brewmaster. And they bring different things to the table.
But Ashes will have this.
A tank/tank will play differently to a tank/rogue, or a tank/mage.
I've said this multiple times.
A tank level 24, no augment. Basic opener:
I'm going to onslaught to charge target
Shockwave for some aoe DMG and threat
Myrmidon strike to get the DMG reduction
Then lacerate a lot for the bleed n stuff...
I hit lvl 25 and choose mage for secondary
That rotation won't change.
I'm going to onslaught, but now it's a teleport.
Shockwave, but now there's some extra magey burn damage.
Etc etc...
I'm still going to use the same abilities, those mage augments aren't going to change the playstyle of the tank. Yes there are extra effects, and those can be very useful, but those changes won't change the way I'm playing the character.
Unless augments can do way more than any of their currently given examples. Which if that is the case, then x/tanks would probably be flexible enough to use as the tank role in a party.
Read what I said earlier on the difference between a rogue/tank and a tank/rogue. That's two different play style of tank. A tank/summoner and a summoner/tank, that's two different playstyles of tank.
The point of having all the customization tools is for the total mixture to be a different experience than the initial glass of water.
The real argument is how different the mixture gets from other mixtures with the same starting ingredient.
"All the customization tools" is meaningless.
We have tons of customization tools to have tons of variance in a Primary Archetype.
How different is not an argument - it's a question. We have several examples to examine in order to help answer that question.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I hit lvl 25 and choose mage for secondary
That rotation won't change.
I'm going to onslaught, but now it's a teleport.
Shockwave, but now there's some extra magey burn damage.
Etc etc...
I'm still going to use the same abilities, those mage augments aren't going to change the playstyle of the tank. Yes there are extra effects, and those can be very useful, but those changes won't change the way I'm playing the character.
A teleport on Onslaught does change how you play the Tank because you can now avoid obstacles thrown between you and your target. Your target basically cannot Evade you, even if they go Invisible. You would teleport past any wall placed between you and your target. Getting hit by a Snare would be irrelevant because you immediately teleport to your target.
Your Tank/Mage would be better vs Rogues and Rangers specifically than a Tank/Tank would be.
And you would likely choose to focus more on foes with Evasion than you would if you were a Tank/Tank.
Shockwave with an extra Magey burn means that you can partner with the Mage to stack Elemental damage instead of partnering with the Rogue to stack Bleeds if you're a Tank/Rogue.
Then, you say etc, etc as if there's just two options to make a difference in how played up through Level 24.
You have augments from 4 distinct Schools that you could choose to place on Onslaught.
A different player may choose to place different Mage augments on Onslaught - and they will play distinctly differently from you - even though they are using the same Active Skill.
Even if a different Tank/Mage stays with the Elemental School and adds a Frost augment to their Shockwave, that would add a Snare to the target...which could stack with a Rogue's or Ranger's Snare. So they might choose to partner and synergize with the Rogue and Ranger rather than synergizing with the Mage.
Or, they could choose to augment Shockwave with an augment from one of the other 3 Mage Schools - and that would, again, have a very different result.
Yes. You will still be using the same Active Skills.
How you augment your Active Skills will significantly change how you choose to deploy those Active Skills - especially in synergy with other people in your group.
.
A death knight plays different than a bear plays different than a brewmaster. And they bring different things to the table.
But Ashes will have this.
A tank/tank will play differently to a tank/rogue, or a tank/mage.
I've said this multiple times.
A tank level 24, no augment. Basic opener:
I'm going to onslaught to charge target
Shockwave for some aoe DMG and threat
Myrmidon strike to get the DMG reduction
Then lacerate a lot for the bleed n stuff...
I hit lvl 25 and choose mage for secondary
That rotation won't change.
No it wont.
Nor should it.
By level 50 though, it will be totally different.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I know you are coming in from a different angle and trying to make light of the topic but this comment dumbs down the conversation. Not trying to be rude but no shit a mage tank should not be able to main tank the giant ogre boss swinging a club lol. Why not expand the options mages have and allow them to main tank an enemy spellcaster boss? Or possibly pick up mage adds that just sit back and blast our raid members (thus giving us more dynamic boss mechanics)? Why not give mages the option to spec mage/tank and provide magical mitigation or even deflection from timed cooldowns for their allies? The same can be said for a rogue evasion tanking.
Because Tank is not the primary role of a Mage. And the primary role is defined by the Primary Archetype.
If the player wants to main tank, they should choose Primary Archetype Tank.
A key part of Risk v Reward is that choices matter and have consequences.
If the Mage wants to dabble with tanking, they can choose Tank as their Secondary Archetype and have a secondary role as tank - which inherently means they will not be primarily tanking.
The Tank/x would still main tank the boss, but a Mage/Tank might indeed be great at off-tanking adds.
The Mage won't be able to main tank because they won't have Tank Active Skills.
Mage/Tank will be able to provide magical Damage Mitigation. But augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
Active Skills are primary and augments are secondary - by comparison.
On the flipside. Why does mage/tank only gain the opportunity to last.....a few more hits? Are we really going to be excited for a system that let's you spec into EIGHT different options but they are just slight adjustments of the primary/primary role? Do you think people are going to choose less dps (when they chose a DPS class) so they can survive against a rogue/ranger/fighter better? Yeah some will, but it would be a terrible choice and you "should" opt in for higher damage, more CC, escapes instead. I'm all for empowering players to make their own unique choices but when those choices end up clearly inferior, what then?
Who is saying slight adjustments?
Steven says "radical" and "fundamental" adjustments.
What does choose less DPS mean? And how are you measuring less DPS?
I think what you're asking is why not choose Mage/Mage to maximize DPS by adding Elemental augments to your Elemental Active Skills. But, some Mage/Mages might not choose to maximize their DPS anyways.
Again, Mage has 4 augments Schools to choose from. A Mage/Mage could choose to add Teleport augments to their Active Skills instead of Elemental augments. Or augments from one of the other 2 Schools.
It all depends on how the player wants to play their Mage.
Most likely, a Mage/Tank is going to want to be in the thick of melee instead of staying on the outskirts hoping to avoid damage. Most likely they don't want to be a glass cannon, and instead want to be able to soak damage.
As a Mage/Tank, I might, indeed, in PvE choose to focus on the Mage adds by Snaring them with a Frostbolt that has a Threat augment. Those Mages would be focused on me, rather than the Rogue or Ranger moving into position to attack them from behind. Again, my Frost Snare might also synergize with the Snares of the Rogue and Ranger. And augments from the Damage Mitigation School would allow me to soak the burst damage from those Mages.
It's not just about how I play as an individual - I'm a Rogue so I have to strive for maximum personal DPS.
Rather it's about how I synergize with the other members of my group - while I customize my character in a way that is not cookie-cutter.
This system should be what is glorious. They have literal years before launch. Plenty of time and opportunity to delve deep into an engaging and comprehensively robust class system that will set them apart from the competition. There is ZERO reason to settle on subtle adjustments to the holy trinity.
Which is precisely why they aren't settling on subtle adjustments.
Here's a question....What harm would there be to have 1 or 2 different primary classes that */tank as an archetype, and be able to be a viable tank for content? And what harm would there be to allow a tank primary to alter its role by choosing 1 or 2 certain secondary's? Not all, just a few options. Looking forward to hearing everyone's reasoning.
Here's a question....What harm would there be to have 1 or 2 different primary classes that */tank as an archetype, and be able to be a viable tank for content? And what harm would there be to allow a tank primary to alter its role by choosing 1 or 2 certain secondary's? Not all, just a few options. Looking forward to hearing everyone's reasoning.
There is no harm, that is what a summoner is for. This works because summoners have no primary role - as far as we know.
With something like a cleric, ranger or mage though, it would mean they have two defined roles- and would be the only primary class that does.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
I don't know why you're using the word harm.
The game is being balanced for any Tank/x to be viable. Balancing for any Tank/x and any x/Tank to be viable would be way too much work. Especially as that gets expanded to all of the possible class combos.
Secondary Archetype already allows a Primary to alter their role by moving it closer to the role of the Secondary Archetype. But, secondary is secondary; not primary. Secondary Archetype creates a sub-class; not a dual-class. And that makes it way easier for the devs to maintain balance.
But, there are tons of augments: Archetype, Racial, Social, Religious and Node, that allow players to significantly affect how they play the Primary Archetype. 2 "secondaries" is unecessary.
I don't know why you're using the word harm.
The game is being balanced for any Tank/x to be viable. Balancing for any Tank/x and any x/Tank to be viable would be way too much work. Especially as that gets expanded to all of the possible class combos.
Secondary Archetype already allows a Primary to alter their role by moving it closer to the role of the Secondary Archetype. But, secondary is secondary; not primary. Secondary Archetype creates a sub-class; not a dual-class. And that makes it way easier for the devs to maintain balance.
But, there are tons of augments: Archetype, Racial, Social, Religious and Node, that allow players to significantly affect how they play the Primary Archetype. 2 "secondaries" is unecessary.
There are already tons of options.
Specifically didn't say any, I said 1 or 2 options.
Also I use the word harm because it sounds like people think it will hurt the game to have a viable tank role to be done by anything besides the class named tank. And also it sounds like people feel the game may be harmed by allowing the tank class to subclass out of the role of tank in any way.
There is a set of people in here who go 'you can change your tank by your subclass therefore play tank if you want to be that.'
So let me ask a different question. Why is it acceptable to have 4 clear distinct dps classes that play differently spec differently look different?
If I want to be an evasion tank. You all are telling me to play tank/rogue, but quite frankly, Rogue/Tank suits that role and mindset way better.
What kind of evasion tank wants to grind through a tanks early game vs a rogue one. Maybe there are some but I bet you their fun is lessened. You don't ask ranger to play the fighters early game, and they would at least actually be able to enjoy themselves because they still have access to a bow. The evasion tank has to wait 25 some odd levels maybe more just to get blind so they can dodge properly. Why is this acceptable?
There is a set of people in here who go 'you can change your tank by your subclass therefore play tank if you want to be that.'
So let me ask a different question. Why is it acceptable to have 4 clear distinct dps classes that play differently spec differently look different?
If I want to be an evasion tank. You all are telling me to play tank/rogue, but quite frankly, Rogue/Tank suits that role and mindset way better.
How? You will only get skills from your primary archetype. So with out the threat management tools and damage mitigation tools that ONLY the Tank class will have. Again how? How will Rogue/Tank control the battlefield?
Way is is so bad that the game have rules?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Comments
Should they be as relevant as the base class or not?
Should they still be very relevant?
Should their influence be 50% or 66% or 75%?
Because depending on the answer, we will either see pretty viable hybrids or not.
Personally I think the customization should be more important than the base class.
Off tanking is something people do when they don't trust their tank.
Adds tanking is something your tank should be able to take care of.
Less squishy DPS is the only actual reason.
A friend of mine plays/played enhancement Shaman over in WoW. Playing melee he is right in there with all the other melee. He keeps healing rain or something that is an AOE HOT centered on him. It does enough healing to show on the meter but but enough to keep the group up. I think it will end up in this area. Having anything/cleric and going heals will heal 3-5% of a players health. Enough to make a difference but not enough to keep a group alive by themselves.
8/8. You will need 8/8 to keep a group alive in harder content. Random PvP and questing will just keep the fight going long enough to win. Even if you allow to have all these things you want there will still be a meta. Someone will sit down with their friends and a spread sheet and look to find a way to get .001% better build and the mindless masses will follow with out ever thinking about it.
Most people the answer is yes because they are afraid to do their own thing and think for themselves:
47:57 is important.
2:01:00 talking about hybrid classes.
At one point Chris talks about going into a raid and he had changed all his enchantments to something that would offer no benefit to prove the point it was more about doing the mechanics then it was about chasing that extra .1% Over all a good conversation about game design.
And in 8 man party group play, if your tank is doing a good job you shouldn't need to be less squishy...
Sure, my Archwizard may die in a couple hits, but I bet those hits would be glorious!
It's not "base class" or "dual-class" for a reason.
Primary Archetype determines your primary role and Secondary Archetype allows you to have a lesser, secondary role.
Also, it's way easier to balance 8 Primary Archetypes than it is to balance 64 classes.
But... you can create lots of variations of a Primary Archetype with customization via Secondary Archetype augments, along with Racial, Social, Religious and Node augments and gear and Weapon Skills.
The point of having all the customization tools is for the total mixture to be a different experience than the initial glass of water.
The real argument is how different the mixture gets from other mixtures with the same starting ingredient.
I also mage tank. Good times.
RUN FOREST! RUN!!
WildStar for example I absolutely love that game despite it "being really difficult". It came out it was free to play in less than a year and closed down servers in three... (Still had one of my favorite tank classes ever I loved that engineer)
2:01:00
Also all good points. I hope you don't think that I've been advocating for a hybrid class or for classes to be able to multi-class at one time? More of what the druid became rather than what it was earlier on, where it can tank OR heal OR DPS... NOT do a little bit of all three at once.
You want other classes to fill the role of 'tank', other than the Tank class so that you're saved from repetitive 'party composition'...
And your solution is to have other classes fill the role of 'tank'...
Tank being a tank: BOOOOORING
Other being a tank: WOW THIS IS EXITING!!!1111
Waste. Of. Time.
Maybe not the game for you. Hugs and kisses.
Spot on.
An archwizard should get wrecked if he tries to tank. But I support a spellstone being capable if they do the augments for it right, and you properly geared for it, and you put your skill points into tank stuff vice DPS stuff...
Will this be the case? No one knows really...
As to the first point they devs have a vision let them fill it. To many people trying to paint the same painting that only have the vaguest idea why the final image should look like will make it a mess. Then listening to people that like art telling you to change your painting or they won't like it will also make it a giant mess.
I liked Wildstar a lot. Played at launch and was sad to see it go. One of the biggest detractors for me was how busy it was in the world. Move 10 meters "challenge accepted" eventually I just stopped paying attention to it.
Cool. Someone else who doesn't get it.
Read the whole thread before making snide comments. I have plenty of examples of what I mean.
Most MMOs that have some sort of longevity to them have more than one class capable of tanking this allows them to have more than one style of a tank.
Look at wow, FFXIV, SWTOR, etc.
A death knight plays different than a bear plays different than a brewmaster. And they bring different things to the table.
A gun blade is different than a warrior is different from the people that ninja tank in FFXIV.
Variety is good my dude. If you don't like any of those then just play a tank/tank. Some of us like playing weird shit, some of us like to play D&D just to come up with the weirdest approaches to a character and get them to work.
I enjoyed making them patch out my build in the GW 2 beta because I built a character that was literally unkillable... And I'm going to strive to do the same thing in aoc beta.
A tank/tank will play differently to a tank/rogue, or a tank/mage.
The difference is, one player can be any of them on the one character.
In WoW, you can be most things on oone character, but only one flavor of each thing. People then generally roll other characters to be different flavors of the same basic role. Someone that likes tanking as a role has maybe 8 alts for tanking in different styles.
In Ashes, you have one role but with multiple flavors per character.
You only need to make an alt if you want to perform a different role, as different flavors of that same role can all be done on one character.
This means you only need to roll an alt of you want to fill a different role - you have no need to roll one to perform the same role with a different flavor.
I've said this multiple times.
A tank level 24, no augment. Basic opener:
I'm going to onslaught to charge target
Shockwave for some aoe DMG and threat
Myrmidon strike to get the DMG reduction
Then lacerate a lot for the bleed n stuff...
I hit lvl 25 and choose mage for secondary
That rotation won't change.
I'm going to onslaught, but now it's a teleport.
Shockwave, but now there's some extra magey burn damage.
Etc etc...
I'm still going to use the same abilities, those mage augments aren't going to change the playstyle of the tank. Yes there are extra effects, and those can be very useful, but those changes won't change the way I'm playing the character.
Unless augments can do way more than any of their currently given examples. Which if that is the case, then x/tanks would probably be flexible enough to use as the tank role in a party.
Read what I said earlier on the difference between a rogue/tank and a tank/rogue. That's two different play style of tank. A tank/summoner and a summoner/tank, that's two different playstyles of tank.
We have tons of customization tools to have tons of variance in a Primary Archetype.
How different is not an argument - it's a question. We have several examples to examine in order to help answer that question.
Your Tank/Mage would be better vs Rogues and Rangers specifically than a Tank/Tank would be.
And you would likely choose to focus more on foes with Evasion than you would if you were a Tank/Tank.
Shockwave with an extra Magey burn means that you can partner with the Mage to stack Elemental damage instead of partnering with the Rogue to stack Bleeds if you're a Tank/Rogue.
Then, you say etc, etc as if there's just two options to make a difference in how played up through Level 24.
You have augments from 4 distinct Schools that you could choose to place on Onslaught.
A different player may choose to place different Mage augments on Onslaught - and they will play distinctly differently from you - even though they are using the same Active Skill.
Even if a different Tank/Mage stays with the Elemental School and adds a Frost augment to their Shockwave, that would add a Snare to the target...which could stack with a Rogue's or Ranger's Snare. So they might choose to partner and synergize with the Rogue and Ranger rather than synergizing with the Mage.
Or, they could choose to augment Shockwave with an augment from one of the other 3 Mage Schools - and that would, again, have a very different result.
Yes. You will still be using the same Active Skills.
How you augment your Active Skills will significantly change how you choose to deploy those Active Skills - especially in synergy with other people in your group.
No it wont.
Nor should it.
By level 50 though, it will be totally different.
If the player wants to main tank, they should choose Primary Archetype Tank.
A key part of Risk v Reward is that choices matter and have consequences.
If the Mage wants to dabble with tanking, they can choose Tank as their Secondary Archetype and have a secondary role as tank - which inherently means they will not be primarily tanking.
The Tank/x would still main tank the boss, but a Mage/Tank might indeed be great at off-tanking adds.
The Mage won't be able to main tank because they won't have Tank Active Skills.
Mage/Tank will be able to provide magical Damage Mitigation. But augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
Active Skills are primary and augments are secondary - by comparison.
Who is saying slight adjustments?
Steven says "radical" and "fundamental" adjustments.
What does choose less DPS mean? And how are you measuring less DPS?
I think what you're asking is why not choose Mage/Mage to maximize DPS by adding Elemental augments to your Elemental Active Skills. But, some Mage/Mages might not choose to maximize their DPS anyways.
Again, Mage has 4 augments Schools to choose from. A Mage/Mage could choose to add Teleport augments to their Active Skills instead of Elemental augments. Or augments from one of the other 2 Schools.
It all depends on how the player wants to play their Mage.
Most likely, a Mage/Tank is going to want to be in the thick of melee instead of staying on the outskirts hoping to avoid damage. Most likely they don't want to be a glass cannon, and instead want to be able to soak damage.
As a Mage/Tank, I might, indeed, in PvE choose to focus on the Mage adds by Snaring them with a Frostbolt that has a Threat augment. Those Mages would be focused on me, rather than the Rogue or Ranger moving into position to attack them from behind. Again, my Frost Snare might also synergize with the Snares of the Rogue and Ranger. And augments from the Damage Mitigation School would allow me to soak the burst damage from those Mages.
It's not just about how I play as an individual - I'm a Rogue so I have to strive for maximum personal DPS.
Rather it's about how I synergize with the other members of my group - while I customize my character in a way that is not cookie-cutter.
Which is precisely why they aren't settling on subtle adjustments.
There is no harm, that is what a summoner is for. This works because summoners have no primary role - as far as we know.
With something like a cleric, ranger or mage though, it would mean they have two defined roles- and would be the only primary class that does.
The game is being balanced for any Tank/x to be viable. Balancing for any Tank/x and any x/Tank to be viable would be way too much work. Especially as that gets expanded to all of the possible class combos.
Secondary Archetype already allows a Primary to alter their role by moving it closer to the role of the Secondary Archetype. But, secondary is secondary; not primary. Secondary Archetype creates a sub-class; not a dual-class. And that makes it way easier for the devs to maintain balance.
But, there are tons of augments: Archetype, Racial, Social, Religious and Node, that allow players to significantly affect how they play the Primary Archetype. 2 "secondaries" is unecessary.
There are already tons of options.
Specifically didn't say any, I said 1 or 2 options.
Yes
So let me ask a different question. Why is it acceptable to have 4 clear distinct dps classes that play differently spec differently look different?
If I want to be an evasion tank. You all are telling me to play tank/rogue, but quite frankly, Rogue/Tank suits that role and mindset way better.
What kind of evasion tank wants to grind through a tanks early game vs a rogue one. Maybe there are some but I bet you their fun is lessened. You don't ask ranger to play the fighters early game, and they would at least actually be able to enjoy themselves because they still have access to a bow. The evasion tank has to wait 25 some odd levels maybe more just to get blind so they can dodge properly. Why is this acceptable?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
How? You will only get skills from your primary archetype. So with out the threat management tools and damage mitigation tools that ONLY the Tank class will have. Again how? How will Rogue/Tank control the battlefield?
Way is is so bad that the game have rules?