Discussion; secondary class doesn't matter.

As far as I can tell, secondary classes do two things. They provide a list of adornments to spells and abilities of the primary class, and they are used to determine stats gained with each new level.

So, if our primary archetype will be where all of our base spells and abilities come from, and our secondary will provide those base spells and abilities with adornments we can select to apply, we can assume that the difference between a tank/tank and a tank/ranger will be almost entirely contained within the adornments each of these two classes have access to.

The thing is, we will gain access to more adornments as we adventure out in Verra.

In my experience playing MMO's, the best things are always the things that take the most time to get. If you apply this basic principle to these adornments, which group are likely to be better - the group of adornments you get as you level your character, or the group of adornments you actually spend time to gain access to?

Now, I admit I am making a few assumptions here - adornments found in the world will be based on primary archetype, not actual class is one assumption I am making.

What this says to me is that once players have spent time in Verra, once a large number of players have access to the ariety of adornments on offer outside of the class system, the bulk of players - those wanting to be the most effective at what they do at least - will likely all start using adornments on their spells and abilities that came from sources other than their secondary archetype.

If this is the case, if a tank/tank and a tank/ranger have the same spells and/or abilities selected, and the same adornments attached to them because they are the 'best' adornments, will there be any difference between a Guardian and a Warden?

Discuss!

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dygz

That's what external testing is for.

Noaani

I wouldn't necessarily consider it a bad thing if it was possible to take a build that had no augments from the secondary class and make it work as a feasible and enjoyable build.

The question here is more about hoping that our secondary class choice offers us something more than just a list of augments.

To me, the ideal would be that it is absolutely possible to have a Guardian and a Warden with all of the same abilities, each with the same augments, yet due to effects intrinsic to each class, they still maintain a noticeable difference from each other.

In order for that to happen though, there needs to be something more that our secondary class choice gives us other than a few stat points and a list of augments - and it may well be that this happens, we just haven't heard about it as yet.

grisu

Steven is pretty particular with his wordings when he gives out information. I doubt he would specifically say secondary class when he meant augmentations in general. I'm sure there will be augments outside of your second choice that change your ability quite a bit but yeah functionally and cosmeticlly it wouldn't matter.

Even if he ment augments in general. Your secondary class choice, as said above, will lock you out of some augments while providing some other augments you can't get any other way. So wether or not there are better augments out there, the same class with only different secondary classes will always be different from each other.

Damokles

I wonder if there are system given crafting guilds, like a gemcutters guild or blacksmith guild (they once talked about a thiefs guild after all), and if they give special crafting inspired augmentations.
Example:
Gemcutter Guild - Crystaline Edge, user inflicts more damage with the next 5 strikes. Each hit stacks a debuff and if it hits 5 the enemy is turned into a statue for 1sec.
Blacksmith Guild - Remove Impurity, user smashes the ground with a giant hammer, inflicting heavy dmg in a 5m radius and knocking down all enemies.
Tailors Guild - Threading the Needle, users next 10 attacks gain a piercing effect.

T Elf

Just remember that your secondary class is planned to be available at level 30. You will not have it for a while.
I remember in EQ2 you didn't become your full class until level 20, but they soon changed it so that you started as your full class. I'm sort of hoping that perhaps Intrepid will change their mind and we will have our secondary sooner like level 10 so people will be able to decide if they really like the full class.

Damokles

T Elf wrote: »

Just remember that your secondary class is planned to be available at level 30. You will not have it for a while.
I remember in EQ2 you didn't become your full class until level 20, but they soon changed it so that you started as your full class. I'm sort of hoping that perhaps Intrepid will change their mind and we will have our secondary sooner like level 10 so people will be able to decide if they really like the full class.

AION did something same. They made you pick your starter class: Warrior, Scout, Mage and Priest (tech ist and muse got added later) at lvl 1.
You then learn a few spells from both later classes and they let you experiment with the playstiles until lvl 10, where you leave the starting area.
You then get to choose between two classes depending on your starter class: Gladiator or Templar if you were a warrior, assassin or ranger if you were a scout etc.

T Elf

Damokles wrote: »

T Elf wrote: »

Just remember that your secondary class is planned to be available at level 30. You will not have it for a while.
I remember in EQ2 you didn't become your full class until level 20, but they soon changed it so that you started as your full class. I'm sort of hoping that perhaps Intrepid will change their mind and we will have our secondary sooner like level 10 so people will be able to decide if they really like the full class.

AION did something same. They made you pick your starter class: Warrior, Scout, Mage and Priest (tech ist and muse got added later) at lvl 1.
You then learn a few spells from both later classes and they let you experiment with the playstiles until lvl 10, where you leave the starting area.
You then get to choose between two classes depending on your starter class: Gladiator or Templar if you were a warrior, assassin or ranger if you were a scout etc.

I remember that.

Noaani

grisu wrote: »

Steven is pretty particular with his wordings when he gives out information. I doubt he would specifically say secondary class when he meant augmentations in general. I'm sure there will be augments outside of your second choice that change your ability quite a bit but yeah functionally and cosmeticlly it wouldn't matter.

Even if he ment augments in general. Your secondary class choice, as said above, will lock you out of some augments while providing some other augments you can't get any other way. So wether or not there are better augments out there, the same class with only different secondary classes will always be different from each other.

As far as I am aware, we are limited in the number of spells/abilities we have access to at any point in time, and also as far as I know we are only able to use a single augment per spell/ability.

Because of this, if two characters with the same class (and thus same spell/ability list - pre augments) opt to only use spells/abilities with augments that they have acquired outside of their secondary class, they would be functionally the same.

While each character would have a list of augments specific to their class, these are of no consequence if they are not being used. If these players go out with such a build, the only way they can make use of their secondary class' augments is if they go back to town to respec - at which point (as far as we know) they could also select a different secondary class anyway.

Basically, as far as we know right now, if two different classes pick the same spells/abilities and the same augments for those spells/abilities, they are functionally the same - even if the list they had to chose from was different. Thus the same class with a different secondary class won't always be different from each other (unless there is a system we do not have info on).

Noaani

T Elf wrote: »

Just remember that your secondary class is planned to be available at level 30. You will not have it for a while.
I remember in EQ2 you didn't become your full class until level 20, but they soon changed it so that you started as your full class. I'm sort of hoping that perhaps Intrepid will change their mind and we will have our secondary sooner like level 10 so people will be able to decide if they really like the full class.

As soon as EQ2 made this change, I went out and bought master level spells for every wizard spell at every level.

As much as I enjoyed the journey from archetype to class to subclass on my first few characters way back in 2004, it was tedious after the first three or four plays through.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ashes do something similar, but not for at least a few years after launch.

Dygz

Well, advanced weapons can have up to 5 weapon abilities, so the two characters would also have to have the same gear and use the same weapon abilities for them to be functionally the same..
Likely, they would be choosing class abilities and weapon abilities that best fit their visions of the secondary classes they chose, so unlikely they would be functionally the same.
Secondary class also affects stat growth, so that will likely be significantly different as well.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Well, advanced weapons can have up to 5 weapon abilities, so the two characters would also have to have the same gear and use the same weapon abilities for them to be functionally the same..
Likely, they would be choosing class abilities and weapon abilities that best fit their visions of the secondary classes they chose, so unlikely they would be functionally the same.
Secondary class also affects stat growth, so that will likely be significantly different as well.

That is a fair point about weapons.

Going back to the Guardian/Warden comparison from earlier in this thread though, if I am a Warden, but I don't select any augments from my Ranger subclass, why would I want a bow?

Since all of my abilities as a Warden are given to me via my Tank primary class, if I don't use any augments from my Ranger secondary class I don't see a need for a bow. One could then ask why pick Ranger as a second class - to which I would then say "hence the title of the thread".

To be fair, if this does turn out to be the case, it wouldn't be the first game to have this as an issue/feature. In Archeage, if you are a Demonologist (Sorcery/Occultism/Witchcraft) and don't put any points in Witchcraft, you are functionally no different to a Revenant (Sorcery/Occultism/Auramancy) that has no points put in Auramancy. If both classes equip the same gear and put their points in the same abilities, they are identical.

Again, I am not saying this is probable. I am saying with what we know so far it is possible. I assume there is something we don't know about that will generate an inherent difference between the subclasses - and if so that would be awesome.

George_Black

I am at a conflict.
I dont care for the classes of games like ArcheAge (too many) and I also dont care for classes like those in ESO (too few).

I cannot see all those combinations that IS is proposing for AoC to make a real impact and have any sense of identity.

I would prefer if we could have about 10-15 solid classes and do away with the combination theme.
I like the theory, I cant see the application.

It's best if the ideas behind the 64 classes get concetrated in a much smaller number to create unique playstyles with a true class mechanics.

Noaani

I'm personally of the opinion that 12 classes is enough.

That said, I am looking at the system in Ashes and I am thinking that the game will play like it has 8 classes.

Damokles

George Black wrote: »

I am at a conflict.
I dont care for the classes of games like ArcheAge (too many) and I also dont care for classes like those in ESO (too few).

I cannot see all those combinations that IS is proposing for AoC to make a real impact and have any sense of identity.

I would prefer if we could have about 10-15 solid classes and do away with the combination theme.
I like the theory, I cant see the application.

It's best if the ideas behind the 64 classes get concetrated in a much smaller number to create unique playstyles with a true class mechanics.

I still think that we only have 8 real classes (fighter, tank, ranger, rogue, mage, cleric, bard and summoner) and the rest are just flavour changes.

Dygz

noaani wrote: »

That is a fair point about weapons.

Going back to the Guardian/Warden comparison from earlier in this thread though, if I am a Warden, but I don't select any augments from my Ranger subclass, why would I want a bow?

Since all of my abilities as a Warden are given to me via my Tank primary class, if I don't use any augments from my Ranger secondary class I don't see a need for a bow. One could then ask why pick Ranger as a second class - to which I would then say "hence the title of the thread".

To be fair, if this does turn out to be the case, it wouldn't be the first game to have this as an issue/feature. In Archeage, if you are a Demonologist (Sorcery/Occultism/Witchcraft) and don't put any points in Witchcraft, you are functionally no different to a Revenant (Sorcery/Occultism/Auramancy) that has no points put in Auramancy. If both classes equip the same gear and put their points in the same abilities, they are identical.

Again, I am not saying this is probable. I am saying with what we know so far it is possible. I assume there is something we don't know about that will generate an inherent difference between the subclasses - and if so that would be awesome.

We have to see where abilities are actually placed.
Currently, in the MMORPG, abilities are all placed on the character, rather than on the weapons. I think in the live game, the basic weapon attack, like Bow's Combo will be on the bow. Fleeting Shot and Sniper's Eye might be Ranger abilities rather than weapon abilities.
We don't know enough about abilities, or Ranger augments specifically, to discuss Guardian v Warden adequately.

We do know that Paladin's get, at least, a self-heal augment, which would likely be a very compelling reason to be a Paladin, rather than a Guardian. But, for an adequate assessment, we would have to know if there are Node, Racial, Religious, or Social Org augments that would provide a Guardian with group heals or self-heals.

If I'm a Tank and can only get self-heal augments by becoming a Paladin, that is more than just a flavour change.
For a Summoner, the difference between summoning multiple things and one large thing will probably be significant... especially in terms enemy focus of crowd control.
Also, the differences in damage types will probably be significant as well.
We just don't know enough about augments to reach any reasonable conclusions at this point.

Nagash

Damokles wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

I am at a conflict.
I dont care for the classes of games like ArcheAge (too many) and I also dont care for classes like those in ESO (too few).

I cannot see all those combinations that IS is proposing for AoC to make a real impact and have any sense of identity.

I would prefer if we could have about 10-15 solid classes and do away with the combination theme.
I like the theory, I cant see the application.

It's best if the ideas behind the 64 classes get concetrated in a much smaller number to create unique playstyles with a true class mechanics.

I still think that we only have 8 real classes (fighter, tank, ranger, rogue, mage, cleric, bard and summoner) and the rest are just flavour changes.

That's how I see it as well

Atama

Nagash wrote: »

Damokles wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

I am at a conflict.
I dont care for the classes of games like ArcheAge (too many) and I also dont care for classes like those in ESO (too few).

I cannot see all those combinations that IS is proposing for AoC to make a real impact and have any sense of identity.

I would prefer if we could have about 10-15 solid classes and do away with the combination theme.
I like the theory, I cant see the application.

It's best if the ideas behind the 64 classes get concetrated in a much smaller number to create unique playstyles with a true class mechanics.

I still think that we only have 8 real classes (fighter, tank, ranger, rogue, mage, cleric, bard and summoner) and the rest are just flavour changes.

That's how I see it as well

Same and that’s not a bad thing.

8 classes is still quite a lot if IS can make them distinctive from one another. Being able to heavily customize them via augments and gear and whatever else is even better. I’m not at all concerned about variety if they deliver what they’ve promised thus far.

Noaani

I actually think it would be better for the game if Intrepid looked at their class system as being 8 classes rather than 64.

If you were only ever given a characters primary class when inspecting them, there is no scope for "class prejudice", which although silly, is enough of a real concern for it to be considered during development.

Further, if players come to the understanding that they are a "tank" class rather than a "Guardian" class, it will mean players are generally more willing to switch up their secondary class if the content requires it (though obviously there will still be some players that prefer to stick to one sub-class - which is fine).

Dygz

Hahaha!

desoquaddub

who wants 8 i didn't backed for 8 regular classes if they had said 8 classes too choose from i would've bought the cbt founders packs lol

Child Item