Best Of
Re: Forum suggestions to be ready for the influx of users
1) Can the subforums be made more accessible? I feel like 90% of the viewerbase never see anything but the "General Discussion" section and the posts with mod announcements. If the home page would list number of new posts with new messages since I last opened each subforum, I might actually consider looking at the home page, and I'm sure I'm not the only one...
2) I really think we need downvotes/dislikes. There's so much misinformation coming from people who haven't been here for more than a week and confidently asserting their assumptions into the world. Downvotes would help draw attention to flawed assumptions, instead of letting the majority opinion be decided by the first three people who happened to show up.
Certified new guy here reporting for duty.
Try to remember that many of you have been living in this world for YEARS and the stuff that you take for granted is new and exciting to those of us just coming onboard now.
Also understand that new people coming in and challenging the conventional wisdom is actually a good thing, especially at this point in the development cycle. It is very easy to get locked into a way of thinking without realizing that the parameters of the problem have changed. Sometimes a ridiculous newbie coming in and completely misunderstanding the game can reveal flaws in your own thinking, or critical oversights in the implementation of a feature or system.
Rippley
1
Re: Fixing the Class system
I mean... it's been 7 years and we haven't had any Augments showcased in the game yet...I think such a system might be Intrepid biting off more than they can realistically chew. But if they are committed to such a system then the most reasonable thing to do would be to narrow down the number of combinations and simply don't make augments for the combinations you aren't supporting on launch. If ARGENT(Tank/Bard) isn't available at launch then they just don't make any Bard augments for Tank abilities until they are ready to release that class. I would be OKAY with them doing this if the alternative is boring watered down augments that don't meaningfully change the way the class plays.
But... Augments and the Ashes Class System are primary hooks for Ashes - along with Nodes, so... failing to meet those design goals would likely be quite catastrophic.
Dygz
6
Re: will this game ever launch
No.
After this knee-jerk kowtow over key prices supposedly being to expensive when steven has previously always stood by a mantra of "build a good game and they will come."
All that it's shown is intrepid is quite happy to throw its original supporters under a bus for people who aren't even involved in this community. I have zero faith that we will get the game that was advertised.
I fully expect each and every promise made by Steven will prove to be hollow and naught but ash.
If intrepid are bowing to people who aren't even involved in this game then what is next?
How long until PVP is scrapped?
How long until we get the instanced content clogging the world so that I never have to see another person?
How long until the third party meta chasing bullshit gets added?
When is the p2w planned?
I loved what intrepid were doing and their direction. But they've completely broken my faith that they will stick to their ideals.
After this knee-jerk kowtow over key prices supposedly being to expensive when steven has previously always stood by a mantra of "build a good game and they will come."
All that it's shown is intrepid is quite happy to throw its original supporters under a bus for people who aren't even involved in this community. I have zero faith that we will get the game that was advertised.
I fully expect each and every promise made by Steven will prove to be hollow and naught but ash.
If intrepid are bowing to people who aren't even involved in this game then what is next?
How long until PVP is scrapped?
How long until we get the instanced content clogging the world so that I never have to see another person?
How long until the third party meta chasing bullshit gets added?
When is the p2w planned?
I loved what intrepid were doing and their direction. But they've completely broken my faith that they will stick to their ideals.
Hinotori
2
Re: What is the definition of "Flavor" in reference to the secondary augment system?
You have no way to measure majority of the people being disappointed.If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?
The devs are better able to asses that than we are - but...
We haven't seen what Ashes Classes are like yet, so...
Test it and find out...
Was there a reckoning for action/tab? I'm pretty sure Ashes still has a hybrid action/tab like they always claimed they would.
Dygz
1
Re: What is the definition of "Flavor" in reference to the secondary augment system?
Ashes is not intending to make their Classes as distinct as Shaman, Paladin and Mage in WoW.
If you actually read what the Ashes design is, there should be no surprises.
If you assume it's going to be a traditional Class system - you will likely be disappointed.
If the majority of the people you want to entice into playing your game are "disappointed" with the class system don't you think it might make sense to revisit your design philosophy surrounding classes?
Majority disappointed who? Most don't know anything about the game lol?
I'm not saying people ARE disappointed I'm just offering a counter argument. The community seems pretty split at the moment with a not insignificant number of people expressing that they would like more uniqueness and class fantasy from their sub-type selection. If enough people want it to work differently than what is currently being proposed I think it would be a mistake not to onboard that feedback.
At the very least I would like some clarity regarding what the design principles are behind the Augments and sub-type systems. If there are elements of the system that they are absolutely not willing to compromise on then I definitely want to know what those sticking points are.
Your idea of split and mine are completely different. I don't view a few loud people having bad takes while having no clue how things are going to be in game as being "split"
Most people ware waiting to see how things are, or have a fair understanding of what they expect. With a few people having literally filled in the blanks and making arguments around their onw head-cannon and then saying there is a issue.
I high doubt every skill is being changed per class, its pretty reasonable to think there will be some element of skills being changed based on player choice since they can't have all skills. If i were to make my own example with warrior / summoner one of their skills would be adjusted to work slightly differently and have a different effect. Ie swords falling fromth e sky and also applying a slow.
Or tank / bard having their taunt also reduce dmg unless they are attacking the tank maybe in a aura effect (akin to how the bard skill worked)
Of course the one people mention with fighter being a blink skill instead of a charge, or leaving fire on the ground during charge.
All of which are impactful to playstyles while letting people make their own class fantasy and having some change / buffs to the abilities.
But anyway lets not exaggerate people not being on board with what they are designing when its a handful of people lmao. They plan to show things in phase 3 so id expect some point between phase 2 and phase 3 you will start to see or hear more about it. Which then you can give feed back on that.
Your own overhype again is going to be your worse enemy, consider scaling back your expectation to what is being shown and not make things up on what you think it is; that is beyond the scope of what they had mentioned as examples years ago.
Mag7spy
1
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.
Rippley
2
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
I'm pretty sure that most of the time you will see me clearly state that I am talking about the Ashes game design.There is no Augment system in Ashes of Creation. There is no Ashes of Creation.
I'm writing during breaks from work or from dance class or playing a game, so I might sometimes leave out design as a shortcut... but... I think I still reference the design most of the time.
Share your thoughts. They are welcome.I respect the vision that the developers have for the game. I think that they have shown us slow, but steady progress. As long as they continue to ask for and respond to feedback from players I plan on sharing my thoughts and feelings about the systems they propose and implement.
Expect most people here to point you to what is in the design, rather than support changing the design - especially for features and mechanics that we have not yet had a chance to test.
Expect the veterans here to point newbies who have not been following the game closely to review the Ashes wiki.
Expect Vaknar also to point people unfamiliar with Ashes concepts and Ashes game design to review the Ashes wiki.
Just because something seems some way to you does not make it true.You seem to have some sort of misguided belief that since you were here FIRST, you have status over other people who only recently became involved in the process. You are misinformed. Have the humility to recognize that you don't know everything, you aren't an expert on anything, and everyone else who is here has just as much of a right to express their ideas as you do.
I am misinformed about what?
Where did I imply that I know everything?
I dunno why you bring up expert, but, sure, my opinions and perspectives are partially informed by being a game dev for 10 years.
Nowhere did I state that people have no right to express their ideas. I did suggest that if you want to play a game with different game mechanics than are in the game design - you should probably go play that game instead of asking the devs to change their game design before they've even had a chance to implement their vision, test it and gain hands-on feedback from the playerbase.
You should have enough humility to accept that maybe game devs have a better concept of how their game can appeal to players than you do - since most of the devs on the Intrepid dev team are experts.
Dygz
2
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.