10-15 SECONDS TTK

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

Mag, just please go watch the clip again. He literally talks about "dps vs dps", "healer/tank vs healer/tank" and then talks about group pvp and says "targets can be killed *snap* like that".

So when we draw a line between "a dps character can be killed in 10s" and "in a group vs group situation a target can die in a second" (snap signifies that second) - it's not difficult to come to a conclusion that several situations have been considered when explaining those encounters, because one directly relates to the other.

Depraved chose to believe that Steven was talking about an 8+++ size group vs a singular target. You are now choosing to think that Steven didn't even talk about group pvp.

Well, I want to say "realizing that people are confused is also a form of valuable feedback for Intrepid", but that would involve making assumptions, because I don't know which segment of the audience Mag represents. Maybe Intrepid is inclined to talk about this in the future, too.

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

Are you sure it will end up being 3 tanks given current design, though? Can you expand on why?

Regarding Summoner, I know they said they'd release one, but how would the class function in Ashes specifically? TTK on the quick side and abundance of mobility means pets will have similar issues as Tanks when it comes to being roadblocks.
We're still concerned about the role of Bards and what buffs they can even bring to be relevant, so the side of Summoner that relies on buffs would encounter the same concerns.
And if you take Summoner in a more damage oriented route, I would expect Rangers and Fighters to be more valuable given what we've seen.

So once again, how would Summoner work?

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

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.

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

Where did I say I was more right than you? You're probably reading Mag's mind instead of mine here

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

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.

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

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.

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

Unless I completely misunderstood Steven's goal for augments - no class will be as powerful as the main archetype that determined the class (obviously outside of doubles).

In other words, if tank's "tanking power" = 1, a class that has tank as a secondary might be 0.8 at max progression. And I don't see why Intrepid would design their math in such a way that 0.8x8 somehow = more than 1x8.

In other words, I expect synergy between dpses to produce more damage than synergy between non-dps archetypes that took a dps secondary. If you disagree with that expectation - great, hope you're right.

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

The last paragraph talks explicitly about synergies.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

I'm actually really encouraged by the number of people who have this 'reframing of what Steven said' as their response to this topic, since it implies a lot about what the response will be in Alpha-2.

I also see a benefit in the fact that it creates one of those situations where Intrepid can change something and then 'quietly pretend this is what Steven meant all along' if necessary, but on the other hand, this is also one of those situations where, if it did change due to feedback, it would be a good thing to talk about as proof of their willingness to listen to feedback.

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

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"

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

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.