10-15 SECONDS TTK

We have not received permission from Saabynator to share the quoted post.

Not running out of mana before your opponent does is a skill in resource management. Using your CCs in a better way and countering escape methods is also a skill.

One L2 class had 2 blinks, a front-facing one and a back-facing one. You could use both of them to move forward, but you had to spin your character and use the back-facing blink asap but also in the best way possible. Those players who could do this in a near-perfect way would not only always outpace other players of the same class, but would also fly around the battlefield way more efficiently, which let them do more dmg while escaping others' dmg.

And again, seeing better uses of the tools that the weaker players has would provide a direct example of what to do (or at least try). Having a small ttk usually just means "use your longest CC and then use your biggest dps ability/atk until the target dies". Not much strategy or variety of encounter approaches. A longer ttk, supported by a good variety of gameplay tools, would lead to a more involved and intricate gameplay.

We have not received permission from Saabynator to share the quoted post.

It always comes down to either class balancing (which will RPS) or small differences in player skill. There's also always some form of rng somewhere, so there's that too.

My main point was that having good mana gameplay would be good for the game, because it would add depth to the combat.

We have not received permission from Diamaht to share the quoted post.

Dude, for real, like what? I've reread this interaction multiple times, I also had friends look it over to make sense of it for me, to no avail.

You quoted me about flipping something on it's head (it's unclear what), then proceeded to misrepresent my stance, then told me to... argue against the opinion you think I'm holding or something? And somehow this was me changing the topic? What even?

You're either trolling me, or you're attempting to reply to someone else and quoting my posts by mistake, or this is a very unclear attempt to convey something to me. If it's the last one, I urge you to take a step back, think about what you wanted to say and how you might convey it, and then we'll go from there, alright?

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)

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

"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?

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).

Yeah, he very clearly refers to each case in those terms, which is what led to the concern at the start of the thread. Once you introduce mismatches in gear levels or group sizes, you die, to quote Steven snapping his fingers, "like that". This is not conducive to exciting counterplay.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

You ok there Mag?

1) You been getting hung up on this disingenuous thing for a while now, it's becoming a little weird
2) Whatever bias you think I have against you isn't important enough to me. Nothing on this forum is, at the moment
3) You quoted me and I replied with logic. By all means, please feel free to dimantle it. I appreciate the rare instances that happens correctly.

I'm going to try to break this logic down as simply as possible. If there's any point you can't follow, please let me know.

When a game designer presents multiple TTK values, at ANY point in time, like for example 'DPS vs DPS' and 'Tank vs Tank', that means that game designer has thought of those scenarioos individually. It follows from there they considered at least a few different variations, different encounters, classes, compositions etc. If they are considering those things and then giving values, then the classes in those scenarios, with their defining defensive and offensive skills, would be already factored for in the values given.

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?

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

Have you played a group pvp game where 4-5 DPS out of 8 isn't enough to do the killing (I'm not yet sure if this will be 1 Cleric or 2 Cleric meta) ? Quite fast? Considering the fact Clerics and Tanks themselves are still perfectly capable of dealing damage, just less of it?

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.

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.

My main concern at the moment is I don't really get how current TTK values interact with the abundance of mobility in Ashes. It makes staying in formation less meaningful because of how the damage dealers can easily reposition to where the squishy targets are. Which in turn makes us consider tanks giving party wide buffs like the one you described.

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?

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?

Yeah, all these big jumps and dashes really imply to me that tanks will either just be defensive buff bots or cc machines, but nothing more.

And at that point Depraved might be correct in saying that pvp groups won't even have tanks, because why would you need them if your entire party is spread all over the battlefield instead of moving like a single unit.