Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Nothing you've written changes anything I wrote.
The sub-classes, significantly affects one's role.
That doesn't mean a Mage/Tank will become as effective as a Tank/Tank.
Nor will the Mage gain Tank abilities as primary abilities.
Corrupted as in PKs? I thought the initial idea shared was to make them detected by all players. Heh.
Clerics are supposed to have a specific ability to detect corrupted which includes PKs, but isn't limited to PKs.
Example: A Tank/Mage will be a viable tank in general. However Mage/Tank may only be viable in specific combat situations / group compositions; say as an offtank that kites mobs/adds at range.
For Mage/Tank:
I hoped for a Mage to possess Tanking-Capabilities and still a viable tank - similar to a tank, but more versatility & less consistency
Where as a Tank/Tank, more consistency, but minor versatility .
In other words, as opposed to a taunt, after casting FireBall, why not increase damage reduction ?
And a Tank/Mage, why not have the Tank have more emphasis on Elemental Abilities? Such as:
A Tank/Mage can actually use Spells similar to the Mage, but instead of using a SpellBook ... the Sword will be used instead. And Each Ability / Spell used, will grant the Tank/Mage a Bigger Damage-Reduction increase & Aggro/Threat - Where as, the Mage/Tank will Never gain Aggro/Threat because the Primary is a Mage.
i have a few other ideas - but just this one for now
I truly want to see more diversity with this. But like the ideas nonetheless.
Most importantly, I'm hoping that these unique ideas would inspire some of Devs too.
(**After some thought, the Mage/Tank will gave Low-Moderate Aggro/Threat**)
Any class can use any weapon. But, you can't Shield Bash if you don't have a shield.
What you seem to be saying is that you want a Mage/Tank to be the same as a Tank/Mage. So, instead of there being 64 viable combos that are significantly different, there would only be, what ~37 viable combos?
A Tank/Mage might be using spells that are similar to a Mage, but using a sword rather than a spellbook. Expect Fireball and Lightning Bolt to be able to augment the damage done by the sword of Tank/Mage - but, it won't be thrown similar to the way a Mage throws a Fireball or a Lightning Bolt.
What ability do you think increases damage reduction? If it's an ability on the Tank hotbar, it's likely to be available as an augment - though I doubt the primary ultimates will be available as augments.
If damage reduction is some form of Stamina bonus, that is more likely to be racial.
A Tank/Mage will have more emphasis on Elemental abilities than any other Tank combo.
The Mage Elemental abilities will augment the Tank abilities.
So, the Tank will be able to add elemental effects to their Damage Reduction and Aggro/Threat abilities - if the latter are Tank abilities that can be placed on the hotbar.
For a Mage/Tank, the Tank abilities will augment the Mage abilities.
So, the Mage will be able to add Tank effects to their Mage abilities.
Tank/Mage means that the character is primarily a Tank.
Mage/Tank means that the character is primarily a Mage.
We've been told that the Cleric sub-class is self-only heals, so it seems clear that a Tank/Cleric will not be the party healer. Which may not be the versatility you were hoping for, sure...
You can't always get what you want...
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find...
You get what you need...
You may be bias on what it means to be full support. I did not mention that I want to sit in the back lines. Nor do I intend to. I just want my spell kit to be full support, heals, buffs, shields, etc. Just because my play style revolves around using support spells, doesn't mean my playstyle is passive. You can still be active while healing. The main draw for healers like myself is resource management in their playstyle. I've played dps roles and they aren't any different than healers. You tab target, use your spell rotation then auto attack between cooldown. How is that any less or more active than what a healer would do, if they choose to go full support?
The reason healers are usually safe is not because of their own mechanics, is because they are in a group and a tank is drawing agro. Even an archer is technically "sitting in the backline passively shooting from afar". I take offense that people rip on healers for being "safe" and "passive" even though they are in the same shoe as mages/archers.
Also, I'm not against hybrid builds. I think they should be in the game because they meet a certain demand in the demographics. But my concern is that folks like me who want to play full support, would not have the option to do so. Which you and many others agree that this is a play-test and not the final product. I agree as well.
My vision on how mage/tank would work is
fireball = augment with increase agro
tank/mage would be something like
taunt = augment with burning curse.
I don't expect a tank to throw a fireball. Nor do I expect a mage to out agro a tank.
Mage/Tank would have a Fireball with an augment that adds aggro
Tank/Mage would have a Taunt with an augment that adds fire damage.
Fire, Water, Wind, Earth, Light, Dark, Ice, Lightning etc ... Assuming that the Devs will implement these & other known elements - the Fire & Lightning Examples are just placeholders. And i didn't think a more ... " thorough description " was needed because its heavy-speculation.
(If anything, the Earth Element, may reasonably be used frequently )
The damage reduction term was also a placeholder. As a whole, my vision of a Mage/Tank is for Spells to to have ... " Aftermath-Effects " after the Spell is used, Channel-Duration, and Activation-Duration
( in other words, Before, Present, and/or After .... based on the purpose of the ability )
My idea of Race-Stats is just a Base-Number of Stat-Points that'll grow irregularly based on what you do & the type of Character you want to make, but still being viable - including a potential unusual-builds.
Such as:
... lets say I want to make a Fighter/Mage.
A fighter will naturally use the swords, but it can be inferred that the Secondary (Mage) will augment some abilities to deal additional elemental damage.
But what else can this Secondary-Archetype Provide ? What if i want my fighter to be able to do some Basic-Magic abilities ? But it'll be incorporated with Fighter's Weapon itself ; it'll be executed differently (video below )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KxjGn30PDA
In other words ... in one hand will be my Sword, while in the other will be my Magic-Spells - it still defines the Archetype-Blends ... it just won't necessarily be an Augment.
(lets hope Left-handed Sword / fencing-combat will be incorporated ? ... maybe ambidextrous ?
In short, whenever i think of these combinations - my imagination runs wild. But when i read this:
I truly feel as though that imagination is " monochrome-ed " & so much more can be done with it. What other thoughts do you have on this ?
But like the enthusiasm
What you seem to be asking for, there will only be ~37 combos because Mage/Tank would essentially be the same as Tank/Mage.
Fire and Lightning were just examples. I understood that.
No clue what you mean by "aftermath effects" or why they would be relevant.
The secondary abilities augment the primary abilities.
That is what adds the diversity which leads to 64 combos rather than 37.
The video you shared would seemingly result in ~37 combos - where there is no significant difference between a Fighter/Mage and a Mage/Fighter.
We have racial stat progression in addition to racial base stats.
A Fighter will typically use swords and be able to augment Fighter abilities with Mage abilities.
Dunno what you mean by "basic Mage abilities".
A Tank will be a Tank that is able to augment Tank abilities with Mage abilities.
A class can use any weapon, so really depends on whether the ability is tied to a weapon, like Shield Bash, which requires a shield.
One hand using a sword and other hand wielding magic spells is not the same thing as basic magic ability being incorporated in the Fighter's Weapon itself. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
But, neither of those seem to be necessary.
We will have to see, though.
It may very well be that a Mage/Tank will need to have a spellbook in one hand and a shield in the other hand in order to use Shield Bash as an augment.
But, I doubt that a Tank/Mage will need a spellbook in one hand in order to use Fireball as an augment.
We don't gain the skills of the sub-class as if they are extra primary skills - rather we use the secondary skills as augments for the primary skills.
What people feel and what is true may not be the same thing.
in other words, a Buff granted after an ability is Finished ... one of those (potential) "buffs" being damage reduction
Sounds better actually - lets hope so
From my understanding, some classes might not have Magic-Spells to use, but rather only Magic-based Abilities
(such as in this trailer that shows the Ranger launching a Fire-Attributed Arrow at 1:51
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehx6mQ-EiW4&t=1s
Since this MMO is set in a time where Magic plays a Huge Role in ... nearly everything. i was hoping to from some Classes having the chance to learn Basic Elemental-Magic Abilities & a Basic Healing Spell.
But it'll never outshine the Mage's Magic or Cleric Healing Capabilities
(not sure if i said this before on another Thread ? )
Yeah, expressing two different ideas - i never implied that they were they the same, Just how the Archetype-Hybrids can further elaborated.
I'd always figured that:
Primary = Role { DPS, Heals, Tank = the Trinity} & default weapon , which can be changed if desired
Secondary = Ability Influence, emphasis on overall combat-style, potential unlocked abilities and "Augments"
Hmmmm....seems that "We'll see" didn't take too long, to come to fruition. Your proceding posts seem to agree with my preceding one.
I think Dygz likes to debate, just for the sake of debating, sometimes. I'm guessing that he knew where I was coming from, but was using analogous correlation to assert that Tank/Mages could "throw" fireballs, like a primary Mage character. If my guess is correct, the problem with analogous correlation is, if the person you're communicating to see's the correlation the same way you do, or not.
For example, the way you described a Tank/Mage using a taunt with a "burning curse", would, in my mind, show an enemy spontaneously combust into flame, as the tank shouts a taunt at it. Though the end result may be the same as throwing a fireball, it's not procedurally the same. Which, to avoid confusion, I say that "throwing" is not the same as an augmented taunt causing flame damage.
Dygz plainly asserting that Tank/Mages can "throw" fireballs, may lead to someone thinking that a Tank/Mage, or Fighter/Mage, would have a similar playstyle as what @Eragale linked in his post (the Genesis character).
That, or Dygz just came to his senses after a good night's sleep. Either, or.
Actually, I was already editing even before you posted your reply - as you'll see if you page up.
You wrote as if you were disagreeing with me, but on my second read through, I realized that you weren't disagreeing with me... you just seemed to have an issue with my use of "throw". Which was in quotes for a reason.
So...it's really you who likes to debate - phrasing an agreement as if it were a disagreement.
Throwing is different than "throwing". The quotes are there for a reason.
May have been too nuanced for you. That's fine.
I remember making the case (when arguing p2w) that it's possible to get the mounts early on in game, like lvl 5 (as reference by the Q&A by the devs). And that lvl. 5 is possible within the 2 day headstart of the game (from experience of playing many many games, lvl 5 is usually reach within the 1st day of gameplay).
Dygz came at me saying I was making an assumption and I don't know if it would be possible to reach lvl.5 within the headstart OR get a mount by lvl.5.
He later told someone (in another post a few days after) who was curious about when they would be getting a mount in game that "it's possible to even get it at lvl 1 depending on how the devs implements it" (paraphrase).
I really had to facepalm myself, as he clearly showing double standard when he wants to debate me vs trying to help other people. I wonder if he realizes this himself. I didn't say anything after cause it felt like I would be starting random beefs with people for no reason, but since you brought it up, I thought I would just share one of my personal experiences.
Though dygz also is helpful as he defended my position in this post. Though I wonder if he only defended me to debate the other person, or did he genuinely cared about me? XD
Hope that helps some.
My point being that we don't know if we will be able to level during headstart without Nodes.
We especially may not be able to level Animal Husbandry in a way that would allow us to gain mounts during headstart.
Typically, we have access to everything during a headstart.
In Ashes, we don't have access to Nodes during headstart, so we don't know how that will limit our ability to level. We may not be able to reach Level 5 during headstart without Nodes.
Also, the devs said that later in the game, after enough people have invested enough in Animal Husbandry, newbies may be able to get mounts at Level 1, rather than needing to wait until level 5.
Yes, I went back, and read your edited remark. I'll have to disagree with your disagree, reason being stated clearly in my post, citing all that "analogous" stuff. Would be redundant to post it again.
As a matter of fact, I did catch your "air quotes", but, as stated previously, it's usually best to spell out exactly what you mean, lest some miss subtly phrased "nuances". See, I can use air quotes, too.
You should try debate.org
It's a site I have frequented for many years, as I too have a love for debating.
I see we agree now. The "throw" did throw me off (pun intended) as I did not see the quotes in the first read through. I did read your subsequent post and it seems there is no real disagreement to be had here on augments.
I see your point, but isn't it an assumption that the method of achieving an ingame mount is tied to the progression of a node? What if an NPC was outside the starting area, giving new players a free mount if they completed XYZ?
JK, I'm just teasing you.
Having said that, I also believe he sometimes communicates in a way that "he" understands the context of what he saying, while presuming that others understand EXACTLY where he's coming from. Which, in turn, results in a lot of "back and forth". Just a theory, on my part, though. Dygz can most assuredly speak for himself, in that regards, and may disagree with my sentiments.
I did spell out exactly what I meant:
A Tank/Mage should be able to "throw" a fireball or lightning bolt by using them as augments for Taunt. Tank/Mage should be able to augment Lasso with Ice Prison.