Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
From what I understand, there are 8 archetypes and 64 classes. So the question "should all classes be able to perform all roles expected of their archetype" is about: if all primary fighters should be able to perform the same roles, or if there should be a difference between a dreadnought (fighter/tank) and a highsword (fighter/cleric) in which roles they can perform. I'm not quite sure if I understand it correctly.
What does this mean then? Could the question about the ability to perform the role of the archetype mean, that there could be a primary tank class that cannot perform the tank role very well?
Generally I'm more in favor of group synergy than having "jack of all trades"-classes, but when I pick "cleric" as my primary archetype, I would expect to be able to perform the healer role regardless of my other class decisions.
But since a class is a combination of two archetypes, if I pick "mage" as my secondary archetype can I expect to perform the magic damage-dealer role as well, or am I just blinking all around the place? So far I understood secondary archetypes to add interesting effects. Maybe a sentinel (ranger/tank) could lure and kite enemies better than any other ranger class, but I wouldn't expect them to be a full tank.
The question about "clear demarcation of different categories" confuses me. Is a "role" a category? Is it just about every class having its own identity?
I would interpret it like this: Could there be a class, that does not consist of support archetypes, that can perform the support role? Like a duelist (rogue/fighter) having meaningful group support skills.
It would certainly be interesting, but somewhat counterintuitive. I wouldn't be opposed to that.
I think with the primary and secondary class system in AOC you have a unique opportunity to have both very specialized classes and more flexible classes.
All depending on the players choice of his or her secondary class. Choose something similar and you specialize , choose something further away from your class the more flexible in CERTAIN areas not all.
The real trick would be building content that makes it attractive to have certain situations that need specialization, and some that need flexibility or Im sure everyone will choose the flexible class mixes.
peace out.
i'm confused and ignorant but i'll try
the thought of main tanking and having off heals, like procing heals off your defense moves, sounds fun. where 1 high priest makes a 4 man slow & easy but an 8 man fast & challenging?
wouldn't it nearly double the amount of classes to specialize this much? how will you kill any of this in pvp? how good are the matchmaking systems? will the brood warden ever dethrone the guardian as main tank? is any of this possible?
edit: i'm reading comments like 'highswords should be damage dealers'. i think you should be able to build the class where it can heal adequately w/ supplemental deeps, or build differently where you're primarily dealing deeps. Should you be able to switch back and forth? I would like to say no for the sake of immersion and the beauty of mastery, but there're a lot of arguments the other way, like matchmaking and queue times--but high priest being the only viable healer sounds purrrrrrrdy lame
Take this scenario for example, lets say your tank is either close to death or is already dead, in a pinch a Fighter/Tank (Dreadnought) should be able to take over said role for the time to allow your group to be able to either finish off the boss/encounter or to give your primary healers or potentially secondary healers time rez or heal the primary tank.
Another scenario, let's say your primary healing classes are the ones that have the most powerful healing abilities such as a Cleric/Cleric (High Priest) , but it could be that because Primary Healing classes have focused on potentially very strong heals their cast times are too great overall, and thus they aren't able to instantly resurrect someone due to slow casting resurrect and they must risk resurrecting the tank or healing the allies still alive. So instead, a class like the Fighter/Cleric (Highsword), because they have Cleric as a secondary gain the ability to instantly resurrect someone in their vicinity, in a pinch this would be incredible.
Steven mentioned that risk vs reward should play a factor and making big decisions like mentioned above should be one of those moments, where the utility of secondary classes can be utilized. A secondary class as Cleric, in turn wont be able to really provide those massive long casting heals, but smaller heals/heal over time throughout the encounter or they can instantly resurrections when in a pinch. This gives the classes flavor, but not diminishing the classes that are in their primary role.
So you're probably asking, what can be done to be able to balance the classes more to make them more viable on their secondary role? The best way I can think of is to allow the armor disparity to close the gap between you being able to be a secondary tank or secondary healer or secondary dps for those that are mostly support/tank/healer oriented.
If you have a Fighter/Tank (Dreadnought), that would traditionally be a more dps oriented role, if they really want to be an off tank/secondary tank, they would focus on armor that provides them more armor and more defensive bonuses to be able to fulfill this role. If you have a class that is Fighter/Cleric (Highsword), they should be able to get armor that provides them with more healing bonuses. Here is where being able to mix and match your armors comes in handy. I feel however, your damage should be always the primary goal if choosing a Fighter as a primary class in this example.
With this I do think that there should be more roles available such as:
A buff class (long time buffs and shorter combat buffs) support heals (small off heals) with some off tanking abilities.
CC Class / Role , resource support class (resource being mana, energy, etc (not hp) with some AOE debuffs that help damage dealers , healers and tanks perform better. by damaging a mob.
I think sticking to just DPS, Tank, Healer would quickly create favorites in the community and makes many class combo's useless (in my people their opinion)
Based on the core class you picked, the sub-class you would pick from can make that core class more tanky, dpsy, CC, support, etc.
Another example is if you are a High Priest. A double Cleric wombo combo. You may have god tier healing compared to most other Clerics that chose to multiclass, but maybe a dungeon has a reduced healing debuff, That's where having a Cleric that could switch to perhaps an Oracle mixing Mage and Cleric just so they could have some magical influence over buffs and debuffs. They could remove a damage buff from an enemy and that healing debuff from a party member. This makes having that high tier healing nice, but not the best option every time.
Generally in an MMO permanent high impact choices are a bad design.
- Temporary, high impact (what spec you are) is good,
- Permanent, low impact (faction choice) is also good,
- Temporary, low impact (quest progression order) is also good,
- But permanent, high impact choices (no spec swapping) is bad.
This really ends up depending on how the encounters are built around what certain classes can do. Maybe some classes combos are better for dungeons and others are better for questing. I think it should be impactful when you choose another spec. It should make a difference in the way that you play the class because you're adding new elements to that class. Perhaps the way you get a spec is through training like a profession. You learn that knowledge and level it up separately and can switch between the skills that you know like switching a weapon. If you fight with a 2-handed sword, it'll be much different than if you fight with an 2-handed axe or a sword and shield. They're different styles, but it is possible to learn and retain that skill were you to pick up a different weapon. Perhaps it should be the same with other class specs?8x8 classes should not all play all roles.
8 core classes should be able to "perform" in all roles, though not all 8 classes will be on par as tank, or healer, etc.
Ie. A ranger as a top tier tank is likely ridiculous and archetype breaking to normal tanks.
With the 8x8 class system. I imagine some of the 64 are pretty niche, though with clever gameplay they may effectively act as other roles even though they're outside that role.
Mage Mage:
- Likely DPS (Single Target & AOE) & CC
- Not Tank and definitely not healer.
- Maybe they can be some sort of kite tank with clever gameplay, aside from aggro issues.
Cleric Cleric:The 8x8 class system is good to let all 8 classes perform in all roles, though there will be some clear top tier 8x8 for certain roles, with the odd clever/skilled player who takes an irregular 8x8 and makes it work as an offspec role very well in a niche situation.
Let’s say want to be a high agility character who keeps the enemy distracted while the DPS guys take them out. Then you are a Tank. Take tank primary to slot you in that role and rogue secondary to dictate the manner in which you soak up, or in this case avoid, the damage.
You like to be a healer but also like the front line? Cleric/tank should fit that style. Cleric sets you as a healer while tank sets you up to convert a portion of incoming damage into healing for your party.
You want to be able soak up a ton of damage do to magical spells? Tank/mage.
I’m hoping I explained that well enough. More or less I think that as far as combat goes a character should fill specific role but be able to choose the manner in which they fill it.
So lets plug that in. Should a Necromancer fullfill the expected roles of being a Necromancer or just have one ability like syphon life. Well think A necromancer should full the expected roles of a necromanere like raising undead, chance to control enemy undead depending on level. Now if you were to look at Dungeouns and Dragons Necromancers have lots of cool abilities so yes definitely should fullfill as many roles as possible.
Inreases role playing value. Problem is you have to do that times 64 plust some Archetypes do have a lot of lore meaning while many people know what roles a necromancer or pally should be other classes not so clear. Like the Warrior Archetypes.
You said Archetypes but see a lot posts that deal with dps support roles tanking healing and so on those are class roles that can be affected by Archetypes. Not sure if you worded the question correcty. Thinking that is what you meant but not what you siad so......I just went by what you said.
Now if you would of said class roles well that has a totally different answer
But maybe a Fighter/tank could still tank a boss with a cleric/clerics heals, but it'll be a struggle.
If that is the case than I think that specializing in a specific side of your “skill tree” should make you better than someone who spreads their skills around.
Let’s take a tank for example. If I want to be an all around tank who can take damage from both physical and magical attacks I should be able to do that. If I decide however that I want to be able to withstand a ton of physical damage at the cost of having less magical defense, that should be and option.
Both character will make good tanks but each will excel in a different area. If there is an area where the enemies are primarily hard hitting physical brutes with little elemental capabilities, that all physical defense Tank looks like a good person to take along. Where as if the enemies are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at you, that all around tank will be much more effective.
I like the idea of being able to be pretty good at everything or great at specific things. A Tank should be able to hold taunt and soak up damage. Making it possible to specialize in certain damage or dabble in all types seems like it would create more variety in character builds.
Then fill in another game, if ESO bothers you, wasn't about ESO. as explained in points 1 and 2
elaborate: say, again you have a cleric, in its skill tree you can have an option of either |very effective self-heal| that would help in tanking or a |moderately effective party heal| or something, so that you cannot have a big selfheal and a party heal. so either you choose to tank or you choose to support.
However, since this is a PvX game, those who play support roles need to have a way to defend themselves, esp. if they are solo. I liked the idea that when clerics do damage spells that they also heal. This helps survivability. If spells/abilities have multipurpose this will help round out a character, however, we want to avoid having everyone be the same equalilly as that is boring. Another thought, metas will appear and the one that can overcome enemies the best will be the most played and then you have roles that are extremely hard to fill and groups are screaming for tanks and healers (one reason why DPS became so popular besides <the meter> where even healers would forgo healing to get high DPS readings)
One of the mechanics going for Ashes right now is the spec-ing system where you fill in with points for those abilities you want with choices in a narrow role spectrum.
If you want to give true choice without specific roles then you could have a skill spec-ing system that lets you choose any abilities as they fill out their tree. This would sort of be like life; but it would be hard to fill out a group where roles are generalized.
TLDR: people want to be able to survive solo as well as fulfill a role in a group, if you can make that happen you will have happy players.
Formerly T-Elf
I do get the solo aspect of this as well...what fun is struggling leveling when you're a dedicated healer and have no offensive spells or tricks? The balance is tricky here and I don't envy the task at hand.
I do like GW's revive ability for everyone. I think you should be able to save people, but then it's the players job to get up and survive.
Rift's soul trees and roots were awesome...until they didn't fix the imbalance and added 4 more to the mix. This lead to whole classes being useless and not played, and then on top of that they didn't listen to their player base, which I'm happy to see so far that Ashes IS doing and not ignoring completely.
But back to the question at hand and to expand it. How about we break the mold a bit and do something new... for instance...
Say you're a Necro/Necro and you are in a dungeon since you went full lover of the dead, you get the ability to reanimate one of the fallen mobs and get to control them for x seconds. You (Ashes) are already doing to the play the monster...this is a no brainer here to me. It could be one of the special abilities that you get for the necro class, and what if one of the mobs was a healer...now you get two of their abilities to heal you or your party.
The above is just an example...there can be plenty more but I dont want to write a short novella here.
Make the classes unique with some new and special abilities, some we haven't seen before that will help support and you will be golden.
Another one would be to sacrifice x amount of your pets health to distribute to the party you're in for healing.
I hope those at intrepid are hoping to not only make MMO's great again, but also advance the genre into something even better than we've had before.
exactly! I thought they already had landed on this from the begining. Why try and change it now.
A Cleric, for instance, should be able to spec highly into healing, but they should have the option to swing a little into the DPS realm. Not as fully or mightily as a pure DPS class, but still "viable" in the role of an "off-whatever."
The below point somewhat contradicts what I say above, but I love it because it is such a different approach to the "class lock" issue. It was well-done.
As has been mentioned, I fell head-over-heels in love with the FFXIV system: One character could change their combat class at any time (out of combat) but had to level each class discipline separately.
While that would still not allow a Cleric to spec into anything but healing, it would allow a much deeper connection to the character itself. I felt MUCH more fulfilled in my achievements when I didn't have to cycle through 12 characters to experience everything.
@LieutenantToast without a shadow of doubt in my mind there should be clear demarcation of different categories. Because if someone's a Cleric, people simply shouldn't be looking at that person and saying, "Hey, there's our healer because... Cleric!" What if they're playing a Tank Cleric? Or a Ranger Cleric? I know it's easier if classes can perform all the roles expected of their archetype, but the moment the second role is picked up, all bets should be off the table. I love the idea that a Rogue Cleric, for example, might be a terrible healer! That's exciting. That's adding flavour to the game world. The minute we stick with, "All Clerics can heal well because... Cleric!" then the game is dumbed down in a way it doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be). All IMHO of course!
As some people say, this will create some combos that are better than others. But what is "better" really? In my example of the Rogue Cleric being a terrible healer, people might ask why would you want to be THAT kind of Cleric? But the thing is, if a Rogue Cleric can do something Rogue's can't do, then the class might be super appealing to someone who likes Rogues, and really loves an added ability that Cleric provides (whatever that might be), so it's not as though they're thinking of it as a straight Cleric, anyway. If you see what I mean?
I think the real question should be would more than 1 role be ok. Take rift you can swap roles out side of combat, its always nice to have options if things go bad.
1. Tank
2. Fighter (maybe?)
Healer Role
2. Cleric
3. Bard (maybe?)
DPS Role
2. Fighter
3. Mage
4. Ranger
5. Rogue
6. Summoner (maybe?)
7. Bard (maybe?)
Support Role
3. Bard
4. Summoner
Without knowing the abilities and skills for each primary archetype it is hard to fathom where demarcation can occur. The secondary archetype chosen should only compliment the skills used by the primary so identifying a role for each class will come from the primary archetype while the secondary will just put a different spin on the primaries' main abilities.
Do I think there will be a chance for other archetypes to fulfill a role when a Tank or Cleric is not available? Sure but the effectiveness of this class that does not use a tank or cleric as their primary archetype is going to be limited.
Just guessing here...Classes that might be able to fill roles are:
Tank (also could be decent off-tank options)
1. Fighter/Tank (Dreadnought) - A bruiser class that will lack the mitigation and threat generation a Tank/X would be capable of but could be capable if their damage was high enough.
2. Rogue/Tank (Shadow Guardian) - Evasion Tank possibility here. Would be reliant on gear itemization.
3. Summoner/Tank (Brood Warden) - Pets that can take a beating or generate enough threat if DPS manages their threat generation. I am not sure what the summoner can summon or how many but it could be an interesting option.
Alternate Healer options?
1. Bard/Cleric (Soul Weaver) - Maybe they can charm other mobs to do the tanking for them while providing more focused support songs or ballads that boost DPS output and damage reduction enough to make it possible.
2. Summoner/Cleric (Necromancer) - Through the use of life taps or other dark magic they can be capable of providing healing.
Would it be possible to have the Tank/X and anything X/tank fulfill a tank spot with their own unique playstyle? Sure but that's a lot of work on balancing 15 potential classes to fulfill a tank's role and be just as successful as the next. Same with healer.
Here is an example:
Lets say you have two dps classes, a mage and a ranger. While they both can deal big damage (as would be expected) they should have functionality that makes them attractive to have in the party over each other. Say, for example, perhaps the mage has more crowd controls from something like ice magic. This could be beneficial in mob type situations. The mage could also though better at single target dps than a tank, be more focused on AOE dps.
In contrast, the rogue while still have aoe capability and high overall dps, may focus on single target dps and perhaps debuffs. For example an ability that shreds armor, but instead lacks on some of that crowd control one may have on a mage.
In short, there should definitely be demarcation between classes and sub-classes. But make sure that there are clear positive/negatives attributed to choosing your given role.
So for exemple if your main class is a Mage and you opt for Cleric as your specialication, I expect the resultating class to either rain down holy fire on its enemys ore to support his group with magical shields. This class should not be capable of healing directly since someone who startet his journey as a Mage didnt want to cure the sick but rather to explore the dephts of Magic.
So in the end every main class should be capable to fill in the roll of a support, dps or tank, but the whay how they fill in this of roles needs a strong contrast from thos who invest fully in their main role.
For example a Duelist should be able to tank with dodges and parries but be squishier then a classic tank-warrior, who would tank mor with taking the hits. But the duelist should be able to have at least a second spec, which is more on the damage part of specs. While the Warrior should have one tank spec, one hybrid spec and one damage spec.
So it all comes down to the decissions the player makes when specializing into one "tree". He should also be able to mix the trees, at the cost of not getting everything in one tree.
Of course some classes should not be able to do certain roles, like the rogue who can not heal or compareable stuff. But in the end every class should have their skillpoints to allocate in certain ways of the adventure, so to speak.
On the other hand I can really well imagine more of a Path of Exile - like skillpoint system, where you can choose a certain location in a complex skill tree, where you want to start with your allocations.
But every class would need their own complex tree. So every specialization is as individual as possible, while keeping the balance to the ideas of mixing the skillpoints.
When then the secondary class is introduced to the primary archtype, the skilltree gets several "exits" to the augmentations, which are possible with the allocation the player made.
Here an example i quickly drew in paint
https://ibb.co/khCjJLj
I generally like being free in creativity like in path of exile for example and i like theorycrafting myself an individual build that is unique but works somehow