Best Of
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
I will take only death augments from the cleric, just so that my Paladin is the death palading rather than some holy schmuck.
Re: Fixing the Class system
Basically I would rather see 1 good solid augment that radically changes playstyle, then 4 bland flavor choices which don't change playstyle and tactics. One augment which changes your kit 40% is better then 4 choices with each change it only 10%
I agree. I still believe that they can pull off all 64 combinations that all feel unique and flavorful. I'm still advocating for each combination to get a unique passive that defines its gameplay loop and differentiates it from all the other classes. You can see examples in my other posts. However if for whatever reason Intrepid cannot pull it off. I would much rather have fewer classes that are clearly defined than 64 watered down bullshit classes that all feel samey.
To me the OBVIOUS compromise in that scenario is to focus on a few of the most flavorful and clearly defined archetype combinations for launch. Maybe 12-15 of the ones that have the strongest theme like all of the double-down combinations, Paladin, Duelist, Templar, Battlemage, Sorcerer, Beastmaster, Warlock, Bladedancer, Trickster etc.
That leaves the door open for new subtypes to come online over time which the more I think about it would probably be a boon to Intrepid in terms of generating hype for content patches.
So, just so it's clear what you're requesting/suggesting, would you accept if they told us they were going to focus on making 16-24 of them really thematic and 'leave the other 40-48 mostly up to us?
Because I think the last time this came up (I don't think it was me, I just agreed with someone else at that time, I think), no one had a problem with it except probably George.
The thing is, I think they will end up doing the same amount of work anyway, here is why.
A Cleric/Rogue probably sees the most impactful augment type from Rogue as one that improves survivability by helping evasion and concealment.
A Fighter/Rogue probably sees the most impactful augment type from Rogue as critical bonus or bleeds or poisons or something.
There is currently no other way to get 'more of those things' on Fighter from any other Augment (I guess they could be generous with Ranger, but I wouldn't believe that Fighter/Ranger nor Fighter/Rogue was 'high on the list' for Fighter/whatever' in the first place). Same for Clerics wanting Rogue augments (at the moment).
So if the Devs are 'generous' enough to make a set of Augments from Rogue for Clerics that they expect to roughly fit the goal of Clerics (keep team alive, don't die), and a separate and a set that they expect to fit the goal of offensive Fighters (get in close safely and kill people), we now have a "Stealth/Misdirection" set and a "Crippling/DoT" set.
This happens just because any Cleric wants concealment, because otherwise you're going to either give all Clerics some concealment, about half of them some concealment (if we make two relatively equal healer types), or none of them because the Cleric Archetype/whatever Class people think is the one that Clerics are supposed to be, just doesn't get to have concealment.
But why, in a fairly modular system with predictable design constraints (which you need for balancing anyway) would you make a Concealment option for Clerics and not just allow it to be applied in the same way to Fighters who want to do it?
It's not even a poor option for Fighters, they just need less of it to achieve most of their main goals than most Clerics probably do. "Deciding how Stealth/Misdirection applies to a Fighter skill" is not the hard part of this work, that's pushing a number into a spreadsheet and if the outcomes look suspicious having a conversation with someone about it, probably 2h max.
The hard part is 'making the Stealth/Misdirection idea and framework to begin with so you know how to set up the spreadsheet'. Once you've done that, it's easy enough.
The thing is, I think they will end up doing the same amount of work anyway, here is why.
A Cleric/Rogue probably sees the most impactful augment type from Rogue as one that improves survivability by helping evasion and concealment.
A Fighter/Rogue probably sees the most impactful augment type from Rogue as critical bonus or bleeds or poisons or something.
There is currently no other way to get 'more of those things' on Fighter from any other Augment (I guess they could be generous with Ranger, but I wouldn't believe that Fighter/Ranger nor Fighter/Rogue was 'high on the list' for Fighter/whatever' in the first place). Same for Clerics wanting Rogue augments (at the moment).
So if the Devs are 'generous' enough to make a set of Augments from Rogue for Clerics that they expect to roughly fit the goal of Clerics (keep team alive, don't die), and a separate and a set that they expect to fit the goal of offensive Fighters (get in close safely and kill people), we now have a "Stealth/Misdirection" set and a "Crippling/DoT" set.
This happens just because any Cleric wants concealment, because otherwise you're going to either give all Clerics some concealment, about half of them some concealment (if we make two relatively equal healer types), or none of them because the Cleric Archetype/whatever Class people think is the one that Clerics are supposed to be, just doesn't get to have concealment.
But why, in a fairly modular system with predictable design constraints (which you need for balancing anyway) would you make a Concealment option for Clerics and not just allow it to be applied in the same way to Fighters who want to do it?
It's not even a poor option for Fighters, they just need less of it to achieve most of their main goals than most Clerics probably do. "Deciding how Stealth/Misdirection applies to a Fighter skill" is not the hard part of this work, that's pushing a number into a spreadsheet and if the outcomes look suspicious having a conversation with someone about it, probably 2h max.
The hard part is 'making the Stealth/Misdirection idea and framework to begin with so you know how to set up the spreadsheet'. Once you've done that, it's easy enough.
They have to build the balance framework either way, though. I don't really know if that 'compromise' would actually help with the load.
Azherae
2
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
Language is important, there is a certain weight and meaning behind a word "class" or even "Paladin". People are going to have expectations regarding what those words mean.
You, any longer-ish follower of the AoC might know that AoC dev defined years ago what "class" means in the case of AoC playable classes.
My concern is whatever those mainly passive secondary archetype influences are going to be sufficient to give a class a distinct identity.
I can see how a random Joe might look up quickly some AoC marketing materials or even have a quick look at the AoC wiki, see the "64 classes" and come to an understandable conclusion.
Anyway, to not feed any more speculation, I suppose we will see how creative and interesting the "64 classes" turn out to be sooner or later.
You, any longer-ish follower of the AoC might know that AoC dev defined years ago what "class" means in the case of AoC playable classes.
My concern is whatever those mainly passive secondary archetype influences are going to be sufficient to give a class a distinct identity.
I can see how a random Joe might look up quickly some AoC marketing materials or even have a quick look at the AoC wiki, see the "64 classes" and come to an understandable conclusion.
Anyway, to not feed any more speculation, I suppose we will see how creative and interesting the "64 classes" turn out to be sooner or later.
Re: Fixing the Class system
Whether or not you played WoW is irrelevant.George_Black wrote: »Never played wow. Try again.
Of course, the vast majority of what you say is irrelevant, so no surprise there.
Dygz
2
Re: Fixing the Class system
George_Black wrote: »They dont work.
Look at eso and aa.
ESO's problems come from shit combat, and shit ability design, where you rebuff every 20 sec, spam abilities on cd, and weave in attacks in between.
ESO is amazing when it comes to how different pieces of gear influence your overall class. It's also great how you have more variety, with armor and weapons abilities and passives. It has a ton of customizability.
I haven't played that game for over 4 years now, so I'm not sure about balance issues.
Archeage...
Again, class system is good. Sure, you have a few dozen "classes", but ofc, you only get a handful of viable options.
The thing with AA is, that you have to pick Archery if you want to be ranged phys dps, you have to pick Battlerage if you want to be a melee dps, and you have to pick Sorcery if you want to be magic dps. (Which was the case before the added in more trees, however I haven't played this version of the game)
Other trees you select really depend on the meta, but usually you want Auramancy for PvP (because it offers mobility, anti cc, etc. etc.).
That's not class system issue, that's a balance issue though.
I'm not sure that Ashes will have a similar problem. Sure, let's say Fighter + Rogue will be the most optimal Fighter spec/class, for some reason, and the rest don't get picked that often. All it takes, is to adjust augments for other classes, to make other specs viable.
But then again, we cannot talk about this, before we actually see the system in action, and see how the meta develops.
So I'm really wondering what does "they don't work" mean in this case? Because from my experience, it absolutely does work.
iccer
2
Re: Fixing the Class system
In either case it's kind of moot, I think ONLY George_Black is making the radical proposal to scrap the whole primary/secondary archetecture and go to a system of traditional classes which are final and have no extensions or hybridization potential.
I think if your in favor of a downscoping the first and really only reasonable ask at this point is to cut down from 4 to 1 augmentation choice for each class. That gets the most bang while doing the least violence to the existing design concept.
I think an anouncement of such a change could come at any time if Intrepid sees the playerbase desire for more focused classes and the widespread doubt on their ability to deliver uniquness under the current design.
Obviously a showcase of augmentation theorycraft at a whole class level rather then just individual skils, and ideally real examples of augmented gameplay could be used to solicit feedback on prefered direction. At the least it would shut up thouse who say we can't express an opinion.
I think if your in favor of a downscoping the first and really only reasonable ask at this point is to cut down from 4 to 1 augmentation choice for each class. That gets the most bang while doing the least violence to the existing design concept.
I think an anouncement of such a change could come at any time if Intrepid sees the playerbase desire for more focused classes and the widespread doubt on their ability to deliver uniquness under the current design.
Obviously a showcase of augmentation theorycraft at a whole class level rather then just individual skils, and ideally real examples of augmented gameplay could be used to solicit feedback on prefered direction. At the least it would shut up thouse who say we can't express an opinion.
Lodrig
1
Re: Another Approach to Handling Subclasses' "Flavor" Problem
In Ashes, Class refers to the combination of Primary Archetype with Secondary Archetype: Ashes has 64 Classes.BackgroundDust wrote: »Question: do you think there will be enough difference between them so I can say they are different classes?
If we are going by D&D terminology, Ashes has 8 Classes and 64 Sub-Classes.
But, Ashes is not D&D.
Dygz
1
Re: Fixing the Class system
Agreed, with an emphasis for Cleric and Tank. Augments must significantly transform the base archetype or the core of the 8-man team is going to get boring.
I'd like to hear what ideas you have on them in the 'Class Fantay' thread. If your going Ranger do you have a particular secondary in mind and what it could/should do?
I find Cleric is easier to think of varients on because sustainment (a more expansive goal then just heal) is already normally done in so many ways in game (HoT, AoE Heal, single target heal etc) which can then be emphasized and synergized with other activities. Take an existing Cleric kit and just narrow it and your mostly done.
Tank on ther other hand is harder to figure out because they are more dependent on the tight interaction of Taunting, CC and Damage mitigation in order to achive their goal of enemy aggression control. Dodge tanks and Mesmerize tanks are obvious paths that even Intrepid described, but other types get weird. Likewise a Tank secondary can't just be "I have more HP" as, one skills don't give you base stats like that, two it would be super bland, three it would not be tanking as you would exert no control over enemy aggression.
Lodrig
1
Re: Rethinking Resource Systems: Enhancing Class Identity in AoC with Diverse Energy Mechanics
The only thing not present in Sanctus to my understanding is magic, basically the fuel for the mortal coil. Doesn't mean the mortal coil doesn't form as it did before, if the Gods sent the divine races in there, maintaining as much of the outside world as possible would make sense.
But as stated by the man himself: "Sanctus is a key story arc, that will likely have very little revealed about it prior to the Betas" So I might be completely wrong here, depending on what additional lore exists around the topic, but let's not dive too far into this and lose the main point:
Is it a good/feasable/innovative idea to change the resource system of the archetypes at this stage of development to have unique primary resources of for each Archetype? What's your take on that, @rollox ?
But as stated by the man himself: "Sanctus is a key story arc, that will likely have very little revealed about it prior to the Betas" So I might be completely wrong here, depending on what additional lore exists around the topic, but let's not dive too far into this and lose the main point:
Is it a good/feasable/innovative idea to change the resource system of the archetypes at this stage of development to have unique primary resources of for each Archetype? What's your take on that, @rollox ?
Kilion
2
Re: Fixing the Class system
Apparently you forgot that Blitz is not the only Active Skill on which a Teleport Augment can be placed and that we haven't seen all of the Active Skills that will be available at release and that we also haven't seen any of the Utility Skills.Someone forgot that Blitz only goes towards enemies, and it has a cooldown. See why I call this lazy thinking.
So... the suggestion that using a Teleport Augment on Blitz or Rush would leave the Fighter without an escape path is the epitome of absurd, paranoid, delusional, lazy thinking.
Especially since there will also be Racial, Social Org, Religion and Node Augments that might also provide alternative paths of escape.
Dygz
2