Best Of
Re: Fixing the Class system
I am really sick of this white knighting, "Let them make the game" nonsense.
First off we are posting in a forum Intrepid created FOR FEEDBACK on both their design AND execution. No one invade the studio and started slapping people hands off of keyboards. The communications departments monitor the chatter on this and many other channels to see where their is discontent and they can then act to clarify misunderstanding, reveal changes, or put their foot down that a design feature is set in stone as they see fit.
We have a large body of Augment design statements that everyone on both sides is able to site, the idea that their is nothing to discuss because we have not seen any implementation is nothing but gaslighting.
Are their limits to what conclusions we can reach, obviously the design so far leaves huge ambiguity, and optimists can imagine their wildest hearts content within the design primarily because the game engine looks like it will support almost anything you can imagine. Conversely the pessimist can imagine the worst outcomes. Based on example given in the design I side with the pessimists, that the level of design freedom that Intrepid is committed to in augments will result in only flavor changes which will not alter gameplay/tactics and thus be underwhelming to players.
Lastly the element of TIME is critical, we are FAR FAR closer to the end of development then the beginning, we have seen appropriate levels of progress on many OTHER systems of the game. Augments stand out as a CLEAR DEFFICINCY IN PROGRESS and all evidence is that they have not even been started yet. If Node progression or Dungeons were in the same state people would be rightly concerned and would draw the logical conclusion that said feature would end up truncated or broken upon release due to lack of testing. This should give even the optimists pause because good intent gets sawed-off by time constraints.
You can completely disagree with WHAT people think should be the feedback and recommendation to Intrepid. I for one completely reject the OP's idea to add new base archetypes or to introduce weapon/armor limitations. I feel those would be both outside the range of reasonable changes this late, counterproductive to gameplay and do very little to actually solve the perceived augment problem. But I agree with raising the issue broadly and his critique of the current design.
People are posting feedback either without understanding the design ideas of the following system, and its possibilities and implications, or because they want something completely different.
Yes, anyone can interpret things however they want to, because we may lack more information. Which is why we need to wait, until we have more information or until they can showcase something, so we can give them feedback on that, and tell them that it's good, or that it's shit.
I'm also leaning into pessimistic territory, because I feel like they will underdeliver on the actual potential of the augment system.
However, some people are denying the potential completely, saying how it's a bad system, how they won't have unique classes, or whatever other argument, and that's the main problem - because it's just not true. The potential is there, the system can be amazing, and give you lots of customizability, it just depends on Intrepid's implementation, which we cannot give feedback on, as we simply know nothing about it.
iccer
1
Re: Fixing the Class system
You should see a doctor about thatI am really sick
That ambiguity is exactly why some of us keep saying "let them show what they can do, before saying that they're doing it wrong".Are their limits to what conclusions we can reach, obviously the design so far leaves huge ambiguity, and optimists can imagine their wildest hearts content within the design primarily because the game engine looks like it will support almost anything you can imagine. Conversly the pessemist can imagine the worst outcomes. Based on example given in the design I side with the pessimists, that the level of design freedom that Intrepid is committed to in augments will result in only flavor changes which will not alter gameplay/tactis and thus be underwhelming to players.
It's fine to say "I dislike freedom of gear choice" or "I dislike the direction the archetypes are taking", because those are at least things that we know so far (except for the remaining 2 archetypes). But saying "your system is broken, here's how to fix it", while we haven't even HEARD fully how that system will work - that's just useless.
Re: Fixing the Class system
Depends on the game and/or specific edition of a game.Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »How is monk different from a fighter? How is shaman different from a mage?
Sometimes Monk and Shaman are sub-classes of Cleric.
Dygz
1
Re: Next Livestream + Q&A Submission - Friday, August 30, 2024 at 11am Pacific
I understand it take 5 people to make a guild. However, AFTER you make the guild can you DROP DOWN to below 5 members? This is in the interest of making a RP guild mainly. Secondary question to follow up: Has there been any discussion on RP Guild Tags?
Re: Next Livestream + Q&A Submission - Friday, August 30, 2024 at 11am Pacific
Is the plan still to have different physical damage types, such as slashing, piercing, and blunt?
Re: Fixing the Class system
AirborneBerserker wrote: »"When you reach the class phase, which is around level 25 and you introduce that secondary archetype selection to create your one of 64 classes, then you'll have a number of augments that you'll be able to apply on a per-ability basis; and your core ability kit comes from your primary archetype selection; and those augments will change the look and feel of those abilities; and some will have the affect to create more darker thematic aspects to it. Or just generally different aesthetics to the abilities that represent the secondary [archetype] selection." – Steven Sharif
"The intent behind the augment system is not to provide new active abilities. They're intended to augment existing active abilities that are provided through your primary archetype; and so your secondary archetype selection completes your class selection, of which there's 64 types and you get augment skills that can apply certain attributes and mechanics to your existing active skills. So, if you have certain abilities, like a backstab as a Rogue primary archetype, and you take that healer secondary archetype selection, now the properties of your backstab will still remain the same as an active ability, however it might include things like life steal, or it might include things like susceptible weakness to the target, and reduces their healing because the definition of what those augments are intended to provide based on the archetype selected for the augments is within the schools of magic that live for that archetype: so a Cleric is about balancing life and death and the control of those types of hit points." – Steven Sharif
Yes, now we are getting there! This is exactly what I suggested with my Mend example.
That changes like Steven said the look and the feel of the ability, maintains the CORE mechanic (small heal) and "applies a certain attribute and mechanic to your existing active skill".
Kilion
1
Re: Fixing the Class system
I'm all for better animations. But I'd rather wait for them to nail down that than changing the entire gearing and class system at this point in the development.George_Black wrote: »But there are restrictions for skill usage based on weapons, and that resulted in good animations at the time. Not giant magic yellow hammers and weapons dissapearing in the air for a blazing spear cast like we saw here and in previous games like ESO.
Re: Fixing the Class system
And why couldn't a fighter/rogue and fighter/fighter be the same way?AirborneBerserker wrote: »Monks attack more quickly, they are more evasion based, they tend to make good off tanks, great DPS, lighter armor, usually have some mobility skills(more for class fantasy then anything).
Fighter attacks feel much heaver, they chunk HP rather then nip at it, they can be either a tank or DPS, heavy armor uses actual weapons not fists.
Obviously lore-wise AoC's classes won't match the naming scheme one to one, because Ashes is going for something different, but gameplay wise it'd be real similar.
And if you care about the name - join the anti-Tank people and start campainging for fighter/rogue's name to get changed to Monk.
Re: Fixing the Class system
So it was just weapons? Because I'd imagine that a fighter/tank would have more CCs and might even need a shield for some effects (though I personally highly doubt this), while a fighter/bard (or maybe fighter/summoner) would specialize in buffs/spirits.George_Black wrote: »Monk and gladiator? Hand to hand martial artist and a a weapons specialist?
A tank that has debuff augments from a bard (something similar to SK) would be treated differently to a tank who took healing augments from a cleric (TK).
This would be even more supported by the fact that we won't be able to have all of our abilities at the same time, cause there's not enough points for all of them, which lets Intrepid to design some abilities to be closer to some class augments.
And all of this talk about how classes feel and stuff comes down to visuals and lore. And both of those things can be easily made for Ashes classes, in order to differentiate them more from each other.
Wanting limited gear usability is wanting a different game. I keep talking about class gameplay exactly because it's the only thing that could be used as an argument against AoC's system, except so far I haven't seen a response that would prove that Intrepid's design can't provide a set of distinct classes.
It'll sure as hell provide more choice and variance to the player than games like L2 did. And it'll decrease the amount of people that stop being able to play the game once the meta shifts away from their preferred class.
Re: Alpha 2 Access
Will those of us that are kickstarter backers receive invites to Alpha 2 without having to purchase these new advertised keys?
I’m all for using the hype to generate more funds, but want to make sure those of us that have been supporting since 2017 are still being thought of.
no need to purchase the new keys.
Sinder
1