Best Of
Re: DUELS 1vs1 2vs2 3vs3 - (Plz add them at the very beginning of PHASE 1 of A2)
No, I'm not. I think all of yall duel people are missing the point of first two phases of testing.I think you’re missing the point of duels entirely
I also repeated it 10 times already. Flagging will already be in Phase 1. Go flag and kill each other however many times you want.
There will supposedly even be GWs. Which would provide you with an endless "duel" state between two groups of people (because you can just agree to never end the war). This would not only test if this system works, but would also let you have much better tests of true interactions between players, instead of vacuumous 1v1s that will never matter outside of arena.
As I already said here, if adding duels was so easy - Intrepid would've had them in Phase 1. If 1v1 pvp testing was something they wanted in Phase 1 - they'd have that. But neither of those things are true, because we don't have them even just in the plans for the first two phases.
Also, if you're testing abilities - you can always stop hitting each other and you won't die, so it's not like death penalties would even matter.
Re: DUELS 1vs1 2vs2 3vs3 - (Plz add them at the very beginning of PHASE 1 of A2)
Hello Glorious Intrepid Studios (and AoC community),
I'm here to give a feedback on what I learned about the last AMA concerning DUELS, and create this discussion to check if others think the same.
I heard the they will available only in PHASE 3.
I REALLY REALLY HOPE you change direction.
DUELS are in my opinion (like the ARENAS) the faster way to test Archetypes to provide PVP feedback, and testing the whole character when we talk about scaling, stats or skills.
I think any of us will test large scale pvp and lawless zones, but to test our archetype, even in a group perspective, i think duels (and "group" duels like 2vs2) are the BEST choice.
Thank you very much,
Helloooooo!!!
What exactly are you wanting to test in particular with pvp. What set elements?
Mag7spy
1
Re: DUELS 1vs1 2vs2 3vs3 - (Plz add them at the very beginning of PHASE 1 of A2)
As I've been saying. I'm against it being added into Phases 1 and 2. And as I already said, if it was so damn easy to add it - it would've been in those phases. If they wanted people testing 1v1 pvp in those phases - it would've been in those phases.why are you so anti duals, it's such an easy system to implement it's probably already been built into the game
But it's obvious that at least one of those things is not true, which is why Steven said duels are not planned for first 2 phases. But yall people want your god damn 1v1 fun so much that you're willing to put even more work onto already crunched devs just to satify you.
And as I've been yelling this entire time - YOU ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM THAT LETS YOU TEST 1V1. Intrepid could've easily disabled flagging (let alone wars) in phase 1, or even 2 as well. But no, it's in. So use it for your 1v1 testing.
Re: What are your 'class fantasies' for the 64 classes
Your insights into the potential disconnect between class names and their in-game mechanics are spot-on and raise an important point in the design of complex class systems like the one in Ashes of Creation. The primary/secondary archetype model is indeed a fascinating system that promises a wide array of playstyles, but it also poses challenges in managing player expectations, especially when it comes to iconic class identities.
1. The Challenge of Balancing Class Identity with Flexibility:
As you’ve noted, many players bring preconceived notions about what certain classes, such as Paladins, Necromancers, or Summoners, should embody. These expectations are often shaped by years of exposure to various fantasy settings, games, and systems like DnD or other MMOs. When designing a system that allows for such broad class customization, it becomes crucial to strike a balance between maintaining the core identity of a class and allowing for meaningful, yet not overwhelming, variation through secondary archetypes.
For example, the idea of a Summoner is traditionally tied to a DPS-centric role, where the primary function is to call forth and control creatures that deal damage. The introduction of a secondary archetype like Tank creates an interesting design challenge: How do we incorporate tanking elements without fundamentally altering the Summoner’s identity?
2. Integrating Secondary Archetypes Without Overwriting the Primary Role:
Steven Sharif has mentioned that secondary archetypes won’t drastically change your primary class pick, which suggests that the core mechanics and fantasy of your base class will remain intact, even as you add new layers to it. This is a delicate balancing act. The goal is to allow the secondary archetype to add flavor, utility, and slight role-shifting capabilities without making the base class unrecognizable.
For instance, the Summoner/Tank combination, known as the Brood Warden, might draw inspiration from characters like Starcraft’s Zagara. The Brood Warden could focus on summoning resilient, defensive minions that absorb damage or disrupt enemy formations, rather than directly tanking in the traditional sense. These minions could act as extensions of the Summoner’s will, drawing enemy aggro and providing a buffer zone, thus fulfilling a tank-like role without stripping away the Summoner’s DPS-centric identity.
Similarly, a Mage/Tank combination could draw from examples like DnD’s Abjuration or War Magic, where the Mage uses powerful defensive spells, barriers, and magical wards to absorb or deflect damage. The Mage’s tanking role could revolve around controlling the battlefield, using magic to manipulate enemy movements and protect allies, rather than simply absorbing hits in the traditional sense.
3. Setting Clear Expectations:
One of the key responsibilities in game design, especially with such a versatile system, is to clearly communicate these nuances to the player base. The challenge lies in ensuring that players understand that while their class might gain new abilities and role-shifting options through secondary archetypes, the core essence of their primary class will remain the dominant aspect. This clarity will help prevent potential frustration or disappointment when players realize that, for example, a Summoner/Tank is not a traditional tank in the way a Fighter/Tank might be if it can tank at all.
1. The Challenge of Balancing Class Identity with Flexibility:
As you’ve noted, many players bring preconceived notions about what certain classes, such as Paladins, Necromancers, or Summoners, should embody. These expectations are often shaped by years of exposure to various fantasy settings, games, and systems like DnD or other MMOs. When designing a system that allows for such broad class customization, it becomes crucial to strike a balance between maintaining the core identity of a class and allowing for meaningful, yet not overwhelming, variation through secondary archetypes.
For example, the idea of a Summoner is traditionally tied to a DPS-centric role, where the primary function is to call forth and control creatures that deal damage. The introduction of a secondary archetype like Tank creates an interesting design challenge: How do we incorporate tanking elements without fundamentally altering the Summoner’s identity?
2. Integrating Secondary Archetypes Without Overwriting the Primary Role:
Steven Sharif has mentioned that secondary archetypes won’t drastically change your primary class pick, which suggests that the core mechanics and fantasy of your base class will remain intact, even as you add new layers to it. This is a delicate balancing act. The goal is to allow the secondary archetype to add flavor, utility, and slight role-shifting capabilities without making the base class unrecognizable.
For instance, the Summoner/Tank combination, known as the Brood Warden, might draw inspiration from characters like Starcraft’s Zagara. The Brood Warden could focus on summoning resilient, defensive minions that absorb damage or disrupt enemy formations, rather than directly tanking in the traditional sense. These minions could act as extensions of the Summoner’s will, drawing enemy aggro and providing a buffer zone, thus fulfilling a tank-like role without stripping away the Summoner’s DPS-centric identity.
Similarly, a Mage/Tank combination could draw from examples like DnD’s Abjuration or War Magic, where the Mage uses powerful defensive spells, barriers, and magical wards to absorb or deflect damage. The Mage’s tanking role could revolve around controlling the battlefield, using magic to manipulate enemy movements and protect allies, rather than simply absorbing hits in the traditional sense.
3. Setting Clear Expectations:
One of the key responsibilities in game design, especially with such a versatile system, is to clearly communicate these nuances to the player base. The challenge lies in ensuring that players understand that while their class might gain new abilities and role-shifting options through secondary archetypes, the core essence of their primary class will remain the dominant aspect. This clarity will help prevent potential frustration or disappointment when players realize that, for example, a Summoner/Tank is not a traditional tank in the way a Fighter/Tank might be if it can tank at all.
ariatras
4
Re: Fixing the Class system
AirborneBerserker wrote: »The goal is to change the class system while keeping as much of Steven's vision intact as possible and allowing enough flexibility for the devs to develop something that inspires them without pressuring them to develop something that doesn't while allowing for more design space later on to add new classes or sub classes.
I think your biggest problem with others in this thread is that your posts have suggested a lack of understanding of the Class System in general. Note, I say a lack of understanding, not a lack of knowledge. You've shown that you know where the info is and that you've read it, but you don't seem to have understood its meaning.
As others have suggested, maybe have another read through and see if it makes more sense to you.
Re: Fixing the Class system
Just because you say your own special Kool-Aid is wine does not make it true.AirborneBerserker wrote: »By design my statement of adding particles is closer to the truth then saying augments will create a different "class".
It's not misleading.AirborneBerserker wrote: »So you're okay with the devs at the very least using misleading language to sell a product, but if I make a rhetorical statement because I've run out of ways of saying augments aren't enough that needs to be nipped bud right away. Got it.
You believe your own paranoid delusions - we get it.
Better to test Augments to learn how they truly work first.
Dygz
4
Re: Fixing the Class system
Each archetype will have 4 schools. I expect one of Bard's schools to be concentrated on debuffs, so, yes, an L2 class that had a shitton of debuffs would be quite similar to what I imagine tank/bard to be in Ashes.George_Black wrote: »SK = tank and bard.
You just like to talk for the sake of talking.
Logic is not necessary for you. It's actually an obsticle.
Re: Fixing the Class system
1). I am here to discuss what we know about the development. And the coming alpha 2 without NDA where there will be quite a lot of revelations to what is built atm.
2). They have a design and plan for eight archetypes. How many MMO's release with eight finished archetypes. And a design plan for 64 classes to progress from those archetypes.
2a). Half the classes you talk about in this thread took those development teams years after initial release to add into their game.
3). You indicate that you are trying to stop someone from making a mistake. Damn dude, we are not at the bar talking about hitting on a girl or something. You are actually here intending to cause an entire studio to change their design? When nobody can even make any guess as to whether it's a mistake or not
4). Let them cook, get out of the kitchen!
2). They have a design and plan for eight archetypes. How many MMO's release with eight finished archetypes. And a design plan for 64 classes to progress from those archetypes.
2a). Half the classes you talk about in this thread took those development teams years after initial release to add into their game.
3). You indicate that you are trying to stop someone from making a mistake. Damn dude, we are not at the bar talking about hitting on a girl or something. You are actually here intending to cause an entire studio to change their design? When nobody can even make any guess as to whether it's a mistake or not
4). Let them cook, get out of the kitchen!
rollox
1
Re: Fixing the Class system
Which is why I asked how is Monk different from a Fighter. Lore can be written (and I expect different lore for Ashes classes). Visual difference on abilities are definitely something I expect from augments (i.e. the fucking TP on rush instead of direct rush). Gear specialization is simply not something Intrepid are going for, so changing the entire gearing system would be way more than just changing classes.George_Black wrote: »You cant even understand what people want from a class.
What is there left in a class outside of its lore, gameplay and visuals?
Also, how is AoC's system any different from L2's "you're a physical character > you're a knight archetype > you're a specific type of knight > you're the master of your type"? Our gear lets use choose the first point in that list. Our archetype is the second point. Our class is the third point (it just comes at lvl25 instead of 40). Top lvl with full augments and skills is our 3rd profession.
You said that L2 had separate classes with their own lore and shit, right? So why wouldn't Ashes has the same, when your character's progression is near-identical?