Best Of
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
The term "Class" for most people is really what is being called "Archetype" in AoC. The Class portion of character building can be thought of as augmenting or specializing a specific set of utilities. If they dropped either term Archtype or Class and used something else for the specialization of characters then most people would not have the initial "WTF... 64 Classes!" thought.
I think most players are really drawn to the idea of unique and flavorful multi-class options. Obviously my suggestion is an extreme deviation from the path we are on right now, but I guess my ultimate point is that I think it would be a MISTAKE not to give the multi-class archetypes unique and flavorful abilities. I think it would be disappointing if "Nightblade" is functionally identical to Fighter. Nightblade should combine the aspects of Fighter and Rogue into something unique. If it DOESNT do that, then dont bother with the multi-class archetypes at all.
If the compromise is to make FEWER archetype combinations but to fully flesh out the ones we DO have, I think I would be happier doing that.
Nightblade will combine aspects of Fighter and Rogue, just not in the way you are thinking.
It won't create a whole new ability kit that you can now use. It will use Fighter abilities, modified to be more like a Rogue, maybe added status effects, poisons, maybe quicker dash, rather than charge, etc. etc.
But it's all up to you, because you decide what augments you will take, and you decide which base abilities you will use.
As Azherae mentioned, two different Fighters will play differently, and on top of that you have augments, to further make it into something more unique - BUT not into a new class.
iccer
2
Re: Fixing the Class system
I think the overall takeaway here is that players WANT unique and flavorful multi-classes and there is serious doubt whether or not the augment system can deliver on that front
Rippley
2
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
To me I think it boils down to the 8 archetypes being your classes in a usual game sense, and the secondary archetype (augments) are the method to multi class.
The primary archetype is dominant and the secondary, which apparently they will let you change, provides a “flavor” of a class by offering 4 abilities to augment the primary archetype. So you really aren’t creating a “new” class, but you are allowing players to multi class that doesn’t suck (I hope). But I get they are calling them classes to provide a sense/feel there are more player options with respect to what they play.
We really have to wait and see. I’ve seen plenty of games with false choices in those options to the point where most are ignored by players because they are suboptimal.
The primary archetype is dominant and the secondary, which apparently they will let you change, provides a “flavor” of a class by offering 4 abilities to augment the primary archetype. So you really aren’t creating a “new” class, but you are allowing players to multi class that doesn’t suck (I hope). But I get they are calling them classes to provide a sense/feel there are more player options with respect to what they play.
We really have to wait and see. I’ve seen plenty of games with false choices in those options to the point where most are ignored by players because they are suboptimal.
Re: Fixing the Class system
[Edited examples for better readability]
I understand that this is nothing we can say for sure as of now, but my point is: There is no clear indication to me that augments are just skills cosmetics. And I am much more inclined to believe that rather than balancing classes through tweaking their skills all the time, they will adjust that by adjusting the encounters.
No, we have no less then THREE lines of evidence which leads to doubt as to the quality the augment system.
First off all the examples you gave and which Intrepid have given in the past are barely above the level of cosmetic changes, basically just procs for some additional elemental damage on skills, but in every example the core usage case, tactical impact and interactin with the rest of the kit remain the same. This would have no effect on playstyle as it is the kind of stuff that gear often allows in other games, such as having a sword do fire damage etc, no one would say that makes a fighter anything but a fighter. Intrepid has shown that their engine has the capability to make radical changes to base skills, but none of the design documentation shows a willingness to use that capability for anything but cosmetic and flavor variation.
Second the timeline is tight. Given the time it's taken to not yet fully develp the base archetypes, a process which looks like it will take up most of the rest of Alpha with the Rogue and Summoner classes schedualed for late release and which will clearly be the focus for atleast another year. Were explicitly told that 'finishing the base' is the priority' and it really looks like even the conceptual design of augments has yet to begin. That leaves very little time remaining and makes it hard to imagine anything but the most shallow augment system which basically has no gameplay impact could be designed let alone tested in the available time. Unless literal years of unseen work have been done already their would not be more then about one year left in the late Alpha and Early Beta to actually do all the augment work.
Third the huge number of combinations, if the augment system truly works by letting every skill have 4 augment options per secondary archetype, that would be 32 options per skill and put the combinations well into the thousands. This scope size screams low impact changes because their just are not enough playstyle distinctions to be had in such a large number of options. All class systems with meaningful playstyle differences are restricted to atmost 2 dozen well defined kits or ability sets which give focus to it and lots of distinction from other classes.
Lodrig
2
Re: Removing Waypoints During Questing: A More Immersive Exploration?
I like the idea of giving basic directions without UI nav points. ‘I was attacked north of here, over the ridge where the trees get thinner. I think i dropped my pack near the big stone outcropping where I hid to catch my breath..’
Yes, it’s possible to get lost. But that’s where you might stumble upon a side quest, such as ‘Escort @Caww to safety.’
Yes, it’s possible to get lost. But that’s where you might stumble upon a side quest, such as ‘Escort @Caww to safety.’
CROW3
2
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
If the intention is for Nightblade to be a rogue flavored Fighter and not a unique class, then I think it is a mistake to give it a unique and flavorful name as it will set the wrong expectation for players.
I think at the very least each two archetype combo should have a unique passive that establishes the theme and ties the two archetypes together. For example:
Nightblade: Attacking enemies from Stealth grants you a burst of Combat Momentum. Attacks that deal poison damage grant 1 additional momentum.
Hunter (Fighter/Ranger): You may cast Mark of the Bear, Mark of the Raven, and Mark of the Tiger. Melee attacks have a chance to apply Stalk to the target.
The combo-archetypes just need SOMETHING to make them feel more flavorful and unique IMHO.
Then it's fine, right? That's simple stuff that is easy to get, to throw in, etc.
It isn't just 'this augment does exactly this on every ability', the Augment School is an 'idea' that is applied to different abilities in slightly different ways. It basically has to be.
The reason for not doing this sort of thing is because of risking confusing players who don't understand or seek unique builds, and that's fine as long as the simplistic defaults are effective enough. That's how this is normally done.
(I thought you were trying to say, earlier in the thread, that even the examples you just gave wouldn't be enough).
Azherae
2
What is the advantage of choosing the same archetype as class?
What do I gain by going Ranger/Ranger as opposed to going Ranger/Fighter or Ranger/Mage?
Re: What is the advantage of choosing the same archetype as class?
The short answer is we don't know yet. But IMHO that's a good thing because it means we have an opportunity to advocate for the implementation of a better system.
Personally, I think it makes sense for the double-down archetypes to provide advantageous stat distributions. The original idea for archetypes (I don't know if this is still the case) was that your stats would be modified by your archetype. For example;
Fighter: +20% STR/-30% INT/+0% AGI/+10% CON
Ranger: -20%STR/10%INT/+20% AGI/-10% CON
If you go RANGER/FIGHTER your stats now look like this;
Strider: +10%STR/-30%INT/+20%Agi/+0%CON
But if you go RANGER/RANGER your stats look like this;
Hawkeye: -20%STR/+20%INT/+30%AGi/-20%CON
So you take on bigger penalties to the stats you don't really use as a Ranger, but in return you gain a bigger bonus to the stats that you really want. If you want to play the quintessential Ranged Ranger, the Hawkeye gives you ultra-specialization at the cost of durability and utility.
However, if you want to play a hybrid Ranger that has some ability to dish out damage in melee and is a little more durable, the Strider still gives you a better stat spread for building that type of character.
And I, in turn, will disagree with this one.
I don't think that stat distributions are the way to go here, even if they're easier to understand, because they're not as controllable, and they're 'too easy to understand' in a way that would probably be either misleading or meta.
But, with the current combat style of Ashes, I can see why it might be difficult to actually use the doubled-down augments properly.
I'll continue to hope that specialization can be achieved in the same way that we've seen in the past, where empowerment against defenses is the thing you get, making the character more consistent at doing the single thing they want to do against varying targets.
Stat buffing doesn't innately do this, and in my opinion/experience, often fails terribly at it, leading to unpleasant (imo) gameplay.
Azherae
1
Re: What is the advantage of choosing the same archetype as class?
WumpusAmungus wrote: »What is the advantage of choosing the same archetype as class ?
Probably stronger Abilities of your same, original Archetype/Class.
Probably better/longer-lasting/superior Stealth as a Rogue,
probably better/stronger/further Shots as a Ranger,
probably being EVEN MORE tanky/sturdy as a Tank,
probably slice and dice even more capable as a Fighter or a Rogue, (<- DoubleRogue is "Assassin")
More blinking/teleporting as a Mage ? Faster Casting-Time ? Cooldowns reduced how often You can spam an Icy-Storm, thicc Fireballs - or Lighting-Spells ??
Strongest Heals ever as a Cleric who choose Cleric as secondary Archetype as well ??
I could imagine that it enhances and strengthens what You already have.
Aszkalon
1
Re: What is the advantage of choosing the same archetype as class?
You get the 4 augment options to apply to your skills.
I've said for a long time that I think trying to make augments for a secondary archetype that are good for both applying to that same base archeype AND onto others will not be feasable and that augment sets will need to be customized to each of the 64 classes. While this would SEEM like a lot more work it's really not. The same number of Skill/augment combinations still exist.
I've said for a long time that I think trying to make augments for a secondary archetype that are good for both applying to that same base archeype AND onto others will not be feasable and that augment sets will need to be customized to each of the 64 classes. While this would SEEM like a lot more work it's really not. The same number of Skill/augment combinations still exist.
Lodrig
1