Totally get that, I just think there are multiple solutions to distinguishing one character from another who are playing the same "class". I still think that class identity will suffer from this framework but we shall see, this is what alpha and beta is for :P.
Eh, I think in a system where your skills are literally being augmented to be more similar to another archetypes' and the expressed purpose of the secondary archetype is to blur the lines in the holy trinity I think it's a valid concern.
Eh, I think in a system where your skills are literally being augmented to be more similar to another archetypes' and the expressed purpose of the secondary archetype is to blur the lines in the holy trinity I think it's a valid concern.
The purpose of the secondary class isn't to blur the lines of the trinity.
If you pick a mage, you are a mage.
If you take tank as your secondary, you are still a mage. You may have more survivability, but no one is going to confuse you for a tank.
Eh, I think in a system where your skills are literally being augmented to be more similar to another archetypes' and the expressed purpose of the secondary archetype is to blur the lines in the holy trinity I think it's a valid concern.
If the system is built with care, we can have all sorts of customization without people stepping on each others toes. It is just a matter of having a system that allows you to balance trade offs.
God forbid a healer be able to do a little off tanking if that want to sacrifice a little raw HPS to gain that utility.
Eh, I think in a system where your skills are literally being augmented to be more similar to another archetypes' and the expressed purpose of the secondary archetype is to blur the lines in the holy trinity I think it's a valid concern.
The purpose of the secondary class isn't to blur the lines of the trinity.
If you pick a mage, you are a mage.
If you take tank as your secondary, you are still a mage. You may have more survivability, but no one is going to confuse you for a tank.
"We have the traditional holy trinity that's present in class designs for MMOs and it's often that those either are not deviated at all or completely deviated from entirely. The augment is to kind of offer a balance between that where you still maintain the semblance of that trinity system while offering the opportunity to customize your play experience towards one of the other angles in the triangle" (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqWsNeemuQI&t=1347s) 23:54
Expressed purpose. And no, I will not discuss the difference or semantics of "expressed purpose" vs "stated purpose" or w.e else. He says the idea behind it is to skirt the lines of the holy trinity roles.
You make your mage tankier by making their skills more similar to that of a "tank".
Eh, I think in a system where your skills are literally being augmented to be more similar to another archetypes' and the expressed purpose of the secondary archetype is to blur the lines in the holy trinity I think it's a valid concern.
If the system is built with care, we can have all sorts of customization without people stepping on each others toes. It is just a matter of having a system that allows you to balance trade offs.
God forbid a healer be able to do a little off tanking if that want to sacrifice a little raw HPS to gain that utility.
Oh I absolutely agree. I think if they pull it off it will be great. I just worry that an 8x8 class grid will not have strong differentiation between the secondary archetypes and that the change from your primary archetype by choosing your secondary will indeed "step on toes". But again, what I express is concern not condemnation, I just want people to keep in mind there are other easy to implement alternatives to this grid system. Let's see how they pull it off though .
You make your mage tankier by making their skills more similar to that of a "tank".
Yes you do, but they are still a mage, not a tank.
In your video, you may note that Steven specifically says the system is designed to skirt the line between aspects of the trinity, not cross the line.
If you aren't crossing that line from mage to tank, if you are just skirting it, you are still damage, not a tank.
Never did I say you get to switch holy trinity roles, I said blur the lines. I have been consistent with my statements from the beginning, don't build a strawman please.
You make your mage tankier by making their skills more similar to that of a "tank".
Yes you do, but they are still a mage, not a tank.
In your video, you may note that Steven specifically says the system is designed to skirt the line between aspects of the trinity, not cross the line.
If you aren't crossing that line from mage to tank, if you are just skirting it, you are still damage, not a tank.
Never did I say you get to switch holy trinity roles, I said blur the lines. I have been consistent with my statements from the beginning, don't build a strawman please.
I wouldn't say skirting the lines is at all blurring them.
The line is still very definite. If your primary class is tank, you are a tank. If your primary class is something else, you are not a tank. That is as unblurred as any game I have ever played.
I wouldn't say skirting the lines is at all blurring them.
The line is still very definite. If your primary class is tank, you are a tank. If your primary class is something else, you are not a tank. That is as unblurred as any game I have ever played.
Lmao and here we go with the semantics, although I really thought you would go down the "expressed" vs "stated" purpose or something along those lines. Sorry buddy, you need to find someone else to play words with friends.
I wouldn't say skirting the lines is at all blurring them.
The line is still very definite. If your primary class is tank, you are a tank. If your primary class is something else, you are not a tank. That is as unblurred as any game I have ever played.
Lmao and here we go with the semantics, although I really thought you would go down the "expressed" vs "stated" purpose or something along those lines. Sorry buddy, you need to find someone else to play words with friends.
If you go back to the last page of this thread, it's entirely @Noaani using fallacies and misrepresenting what I said.
If you go back to the last page of this thread, it's entirely @Noaani using fallacies and misrepresenting what I said.
I'm very familiar with Noaani haha. He has a lot of good points often times, but he also literally cannot admit being wrong (like never) and often falls back on semantics or strawmen and drags the conversation very very far from the initial point to avoid being wrong. I don't try to hold it against him, I agree with a lot of his opinions and a lot of them are well thought out, I just hate how he communicates but that's quite off topic for the thread... in any case, good convo, I will bow out though. Cheers.
I wouldn't say skirting the lines is at all blurring them.
The line is still very definite. If your primary class is tank, you are a tank. If your primary class is something else, you are not a tank. That is as unblurred as any game I have ever played.
Lmao and here we go with the semantics, although I really thought you would go down the "expressed" vs "stated" purpose or something along those lines. Sorry buddy, you need to find someone else to play words with friends.
If you want to go in to a fight over who is starting an argument over semantics, all I said was that a mage that takes tank as their secondary is still a mage.
You are the one that tried and failed to disprove that, and now you are claiming that I am arguing semantics.
If you go back to the last page of this thread, it's entirely @Noaani using fallacies and misrepresenting what I said.
I'm very familiar with Noaani haha. He has a lot of good points often times, but he also literally cannot admit being wrong
I've admitting to being wrong a number of times. I have no problems in doing so, if someone can convince me that I am indeed wrong.
The issue there is that people these days seem to be shit at debating. There is too much "pics or it didn't happen" or equivalent happening, rather than people debating the merits of one idea over the other.
In a game where actual solid information is still very rare, all we should be doing is debating the merits of one system over another, as literally none of us know (and can say) anything at all about the game.
If you go back to the last page of this thread, it's entirely @Noaani using fallacies and misrepresenting what I said.
I'm very familiar with Noaani haha. He has a lot of good points often times, but he also literally cannot admit being wrong
I've admitting to being wrong a number of times. I have no problems in doing so, if someone can convince me that I am indeed wrong.
The issue there is that people these days seem to be shit at debating. There is too much "pics or it didn't happen" or equivalent happening, rather than people debating the merits of one idea over the other.
In a game where actual solid information is still very rare, all we should be doing is debating the merits of one system over another, as literally none of us know (and can say) anything at all about the game.
case and point
Thinking asking for a source for his claims is "pics or it didn't happen" also known as The burden of proof fallacy
Also funny how you say this after claiming repeatedly I wasn't asking for a source last page.
I wouldn't say skirting the lines is at all blurring them.
The line is still very definite. If your primary class is tank, you are a tank. If your primary class is something else, you are not a tank. That is as unblurred as any game I have ever played.
Lmao and here we go with the semantics, although I really thought you would go down the "expressed" vs "stated" purpose or something along those lines. Sorry buddy, you need to find someone else to play words with friends.
If you want to go in to a fight over who is starting an argument over semantics, all I said was that a mage that takes tank as their secondary is still a mage.
You are the one that tried and failed to disprove that, and now you are claiming that I am arguing semantics.
Really? I made no effort to disprove that, because I don't fucking disagree with that lmao. You often create an opposing argument in your head that nobody even stated. You mentioned the mage thing trying to disprove my statement about the purpose of the secondary archetype being blurring holy trinity lines.
The purpose of the secondary class isn't to blur the lines of the trinity.
I supported my claim with a source but somehow you change the conversation to changing archetypes or holy trinity roles. I never claimed any of that but you've created an argument on my behalf (strawman) and want to "argue" about it. It's not an argument when I don't disagree with your statement, I'm trying to tell you that I am not making the argument you say I'm making and instead of saying "oh shit my bad" you try to literally warp my words by arguing the semantics of "blurring the line" so that you can continue your narrative that I have an opinion that I literally don't. It's not about arguing, it's about your over-confidence that you know what my opinions are even after I tell you that you have got it wrong. Sigh, it's so infuriating, then you have this self-righteous monologue that people don't know how to argue when I wasn't arguing lmao.
If you go back to the last page of this thread, it's entirely @Noaani using fallacies and misrepresenting what I said.
I'm very familiar with Noaani haha. He has a lot of good points often times, but he also literally cannot admit being wrong
I've admitting to being wrong a number of times. I have no problems in doing so, if someone can convince me that I am indeed wrong.
The issue there is that people these days seem to be shit at debating. There is too much "pics or it didn't happen" or equivalent happening, rather than people debating the merits of one idea over the other.
In a game where actual solid information is still very rare, all we should be doing is debating the merits of one system over another, as literally none of us know (and can say) anything at all about the game.
case and point
Thinking asking for a source for his claims is "pics or it didn't happen" also known as The burden of proof fallacy
Also funny how you say this after claiming repeatedly I wasn't asking for a source last page.
I never said you weren't asking for a source. You were, you just kept arguing your point.
I wouldn't say skirting the lines is at all blurring them.
The line is still very definite. If your primary class is tank, you are a tank. If your primary class is something else, you are not a tank. That is as unblurred as any game I have ever played.
Lmao and here we go with the semantics, although I really thought you would go down the "expressed" vs "stated" purpose or something along those lines. Sorry buddy, you need to find someone else to play words with friends.
If you want to go in to a fight over who is starting an argument over semantics, all I said was that a mage that takes tank as their secondary is still a mage.
You are the one that tried and failed to disprove that, and now you are claiming that I am arguing semantics.
Really? I made no effort to disprove that, because I don't fucking disagree with that lmao.
Eh, I think in a system where your skills are literally being augmented to be more similar to another archetypes' and the expressed purpose of the secondary archetype is to blur the lines in the holy trinity I think it's a valid concern.
The purpose of the secondary class isn't to blur the lines of the trinity.
If you pick a mage, you are a mage.
If you take tank as your secondary, you are still a mage. You may have more survivability, but no one is going to confuse you for a tank.
"We have the traditional holy trinity that's present in class designs for MMOs and it's often that those either are not deviated at all or completely deviated from entirely. The augment is to kind of offer a balance between that where you still maintain the semblance of that trinity system while offering the opportunity to customize your play experience towards one of the other angles in the triangle" (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqWsNeemuQI&t=1347s) 23:54
Expressed purpose. And no, I will not discuss the difference or semantics of "expressed purpose" vs "stated purpose" or w.e else. He says the idea behind it is to skirt the lines of the holy trinity roles.
You make your mage tankier by making their skills more similar to that of a "tank".
That is a really odd way to agree with someone.
When I agree with a post, I usually start off by saying "I agree".
If you go back to the last page of this thread, it's entirely @Noaani using fallacies and misrepresenting what I said.
I'm very familiar with Noaani haha. He has a lot of good points often times, but he also literally cannot admit being wrong
I've admitting to being wrong a number of times. I have no problems in doing so, if someone can convince me that I am indeed wrong.
The issue there is that people these days seem to be shit at debating. There is too much "pics or it didn't happen" or equivalent happening, rather than people debating the merits of one idea over the other.
In a game where actual solid information is still very rare, all we should be doing is debating the merits of one system over another, as literally none of us know (and can say) anything at all about the game.
case and point
Thinking asking for a source for his claims is "pics or it didn't happen" also known as The burden of proof fallacy
Also funny how you say this after claiming repeatedly I wasn't asking for a source last page.
I never said you weren't asking for a source. You were, you just kept arguing your point.
We had that discussion ready, remember?
In which you also stated my source wasn't valid, yet I'm still waiting for your source.
But really I'm just not going to entertain you anymore as it seems actually impossible to have a discussion with you in any thread.
I actually thought it was a given that every ability was to be able to be augmented by every augment (in the first scenario I originally described), and that augments were flavour-based not mechanical-based in nature. I find it a little strange that you're assuming augments are static since we already have things like Cleric having the generically named "Life" and "Death" augments that don't necessarily lead to "+heal" and "+damage".
If that was the case, the Cleric augments would be called "Heal" and "Damage" don't you think?
I don't think you can make the assumptions you are. Like I said in the beginning there are too many assumptions pretty much anyone could make until it is actually shown to us.
ALSO Steven explicitly said as I quoted:
The design behind augments is to not just change the flavor so that it reflects the secondary archetype, but it also fundamentally changes the core components of a skill.
So realistically if you take this for a truth, it pretty much completely goes against what you're saying, therefore what you're proposing is unlikely.
EDIT: We would need a whiteboard to actually draw out all the connections in the small amount of text provided on the augment system. We've all seen the proof, and we apparently have different interpretations lol. But if there is some proof I haven't seen where they explicitly say every single augment is applicable to every single ability, then I'd believe whatever is being said.
And genuinely I can see' ya'lls interpretation as well, which is why I am saying you cannot assume yet!
I don't think you can make the assumptions you are. Like I said in the beginning there are too many assumptions pretty much anyone could make until it is actually shown to us. ...
You're right that it hasn't been stated outright that every ability will have an option for every augment, but I guess I'd say that it'd be very disappointing and against the basic idea of free-form ability augmentation, but in addition would inherently make some augment schools outright better and more feasable (even before any balance considerations) simply because they can be applied to more, or better skills while others have less viable skills they can be applied to.
This is all in regards to the first scenario (the unlimited viability customization one)
It's pretty in line with the second scenario though (the selective, tailored augmentations)
The design behind augments is to not just change the flavor so that it reflects the secondary archetype, but it also fundamentally changes the core components of a skill.
So realistically if you take this for a truth, it pretty much completely goes against what you're saying, therefore what you're proposing is unlikely.
EDIT: We would need a whiteboard to actually draw out all the connections in the small amount of text provided on the augment system. We've all seen the proof, and we apparently have different interpretations lol. But if there is some proof I haven't seen where they explicitly say every single augment is applicable to every single ability, then I'd believe whatever is being said.
And genuinely I can see' ya'lls interpretation as well, which is why I am saying you cannot assume yet!
Yea I'm aware of Steven saying this, however they've also said the exact opposite many times too, which is where we end up in "no definitive answer" territory.
"We're not really talking about 64 true classes, we're talking about eight classes with 64 variants... There isn't as much variance between the 64 classes as you might expect. It's not like there are you know 64 different versions of... radically different classes" - Jeffrey Bard
So it's true I'm making an assumption that the first scenario is the one they are going for, but that's an educated guess based on the development philosophies they've demonstrated so far.
IS so far has been all about personal freedom of choice and customization, and in setting up a sandbox for people to create their own stories in.
The "full customizability" scenario I described fits in line with the ideology they've shown so far.
But of course it's just a guess because they haven't told us yet and they could very well intend to or even end up realizing it's just better for the game to go the more tailored "abilities can only utilize some augments" route.
Well, the good thing about this is that anyone can just read our conversation and know how gaslighty you are.
Fairly sure most of the posters here already know what I am like. I am fairly sure I've had agreements and disagrements with every regular poster here.
Well, the good thing about this is that anyone can just read our conversation and know how gaslighty you are.
Fairly sure most of the posters here already know what I am like. I am fairly sure I've had agreements and disagrements with every regular poster here.
Did you really just say that it's ok for you to gaslight and use terrible argument tactics because you've always done it and everyone should get used to it?
Did you really just say that it's ok for you to gaslight and use terrible argument tactics because you've always done it and everyone should get used to it?
He did not say it was okay, he said it is how he is.
I always like how unapologetic he is.
Well, the good thing about this is that anyone can just read our conversation and know how gaslighty you are.
Fairly sure most of the posters here already know what I am like. I am fairly sure I've had agreements and disagrements with every regular poster here.
Did you really just say that it's ok for you to gaslight and use terrible argument tactics because you've always done it and everyone should get used to it?
This is why you get in to arguments.
You read far more in to what people are saying than what they said.
Comments
"Class Identity" There is that word again...
To me it reads like "Class Prison".
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Eh, I think in a system where your skills are literally being augmented to be more similar to another archetypes' and the expressed purpose of the secondary archetype is to blur the lines in the holy trinity I think it's a valid concern.
The purpose of the secondary class isn't to blur the lines of the trinity.
If you pick a mage, you are a mage.
If you take tank as your secondary, you are still a mage. You may have more survivability, but no one is going to confuse you for a tank.
If the system is built with care, we can have all sorts of customization without people stepping on each others toes. It is just a matter of having a system that allows you to balance trade offs.
God forbid a healer be able to do a little off tanking if that want to sacrifice a little raw HPS to gain that utility.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
"We have the traditional holy trinity that's present in class designs for MMOs and it's often that those either are not deviated at all or completely deviated from entirely. The augment is to kind of offer a balance between that where you still maintain the semblance of that trinity system while offering the opportunity to customize your play experience towards one of the other angles in the triangle" (source:
Expressed purpose. And no, I will not discuss the difference or semantics of "expressed purpose" vs "stated purpose" or w.e else. He says the idea behind it is to skirt the lines of the holy trinity roles.
You make your mage tankier by making their skills more similar to that of a "tank".
Oh I absolutely agree. I think if they pull it off it will be great. I just worry that an 8x8 class grid will not have strong differentiation between the secondary archetypes and that the change from your primary archetype by choosing your secondary will indeed "step on toes". But again, what I express is concern not condemnation, I just want people to keep in mind there are other easy to implement alternatives to this grid system. Let's see how they pull it off though
In your video, you may note that Steven specifically says the system is designed to skirt the line between aspects of the trinity, not cross the line.
If you aren't crossing that line from mage to tank, if you are just skirting it, you are still damage, not a tank.
Never did I say you get to switch holy trinity roles, I said blur the lines. I have been consistent with my statements from the beginning, don't build a strawman please.
I wouldn't say skirting the lines is at all blurring them.
The line is still very definite. If your primary class is tank, you are a tank. If your primary class is something else, you are not a tank. That is as unblurred as any game I have ever played.
Lmao and here we go with the semantics, although I really thought you would go down the "expressed" vs "stated" purpose or something along those lines. Sorry buddy, you need to find someone else to play words with friends.
If you go back to the last page of this thread, it's entirely @Noaani using fallacies and misrepresenting what I said.
I'm very familiar with Noaani haha. He has a lot of good points often times, but he also literally cannot admit being wrong (like never) and often falls back on semantics or strawmen and drags the conversation very very far from the initial point to avoid being wrong. I don't try to hold it against him, I agree with a lot of his opinions and a lot of them are well thought out, I just hate how he communicates but that's quite off topic for the thread... in any case, good convo, I will bow out though. Cheers.
If you want to go in to a fight over who is starting an argument over semantics, all I said was that a mage that takes tank as their secondary is still a mage.
You are the one that tried and failed to disprove that, and now you are claiming that I am arguing semantics.
I've admitting to being wrong a number of times. I have no problems in doing so, if someone can convince me that I am indeed wrong.
The issue there is that people these days seem to be shit at debating. There is too much "pics or it didn't happen" or equivalent happening, rather than people debating the merits of one idea over the other.
In a game where actual solid information is still very rare, all we should be doing is debating the merits of one system over another, as literally none of us know (and can say) anything at all about the game.
case and point
Thinking asking for a source for his claims is "pics or it didn't happen" also known as The burden of proof fallacy
Also funny how you say this after claiming repeatedly I wasn't asking for a source last page.
Really? I made no effort to disprove that, because I don't fucking disagree with that lmao. You often create an opposing argument in your head that nobody even stated. You mentioned the mage thing trying to disprove my statement about the purpose of the secondary archetype being blurring holy trinity lines.
I supported my claim with a source but somehow you change the conversation to changing archetypes or holy trinity roles. I never claimed any of that but you've created an argument on my behalf (strawman) and want to "argue" about it. It's not an argument when I don't disagree with your statement, I'm trying to tell you that I am not making the argument you say I'm making and instead of saying "oh shit my bad" you try to literally warp my words by arguing the semantics of "blurring the line" so that you can continue your narrative that I have an opinion that I literally don't. It's not about arguing, it's about your over-confidence that you know what my opinions are even after I tell you that you have got it wrong. Sigh, it's so infuriating, then you have this self-righteous monologue that people don't know how to argue when I wasn't arguing lmao.
Actually though, bowing out.
We had that discussion ready, remember?
Then what was this post?
That is a really odd way to agree with someone.
When I agree with a post, I usually start off by saying "I agree".
Crazy idea, I know.
In which you also stated my source wasn't valid, yet I'm still waiting for your source.
But really I'm just not going to entertain you anymore as it seems actually impossible to have a discussion with you in any thread.
I said your source didn't say what you thought it said.
I don't really know where you are getting this from? Maybe I am missunderstanding the wiki https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Augments
I don't think you can make the assumptions you are. Like I said in the beginning there are too many assumptions pretty much anyone could make until it is actually shown to us.
ALSO Steven explicitly said as I quoted:
So realistically if you take this for a truth, it pretty much completely goes against what you're saying, therefore what you're proposing is unlikely.
EDIT: We would need a whiteboard to actually draw out all the connections in the small amount of text provided on the augment system. We've all seen the proof, and we apparently have different interpretations lol. But if there is some proof I haven't seen where they explicitly say every single augment is applicable to every single ability, then I'd believe whatever is being said.
And genuinely I can see' ya'lls interpretation as well, which is why I am saying you cannot assume yet!
You're right that it hasn't been stated outright that every ability will have an option for every augment, but I guess I'd say that it'd be very disappointing and against the basic idea of free-form ability augmentation, but in addition would inherently make some augment schools outright better and more feasable (even before any balance considerations) simply because they can be applied to more, or better skills while others have less viable skills they can be applied to.
This is all in regards to the first scenario (the unlimited viability customization one)
It's pretty in line with the second scenario though (the selective, tailored augmentations)
Yea I'm aware of Steven saying this, however they've also said the exact opposite many times too, which is where we end up in "no definitive answer" territory.
Which can be found here (I must add he also says it in the actual source before Noanni comes in here saying I didn't look at the source)
So it's true I'm making an assumption that the first scenario is the one they are going for, but that's an educated guess based on the development philosophies they've demonstrated so far.
IS so far has been all about personal freedom of choice and customization, and in setting up a sandbox for people to create their own stories in.
The "full customizability" scenario I described fits in line with the ideology they've shown so far.
But of course it's just a guess because they haven't told us yet and they could very well intend to or even end up realizing it's just better for the game to go the more tailored "abilities can only utilize some augments" route.
Fairly sure most of the posters here already know what I am like. I am fairly sure I've had agreements and disagrements with every regular poster here.
Did you really just say that it's ok for you to gaslight and use terrible argument tactics because you've always done it and everyone should get used to it?
He did not say it was okay, he said it is how he is.
I always like how unapologetic he is.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
This is why you get in to arguments.
You read far more in to what people are saying than what they said.
Indeed
Aren't we all sinners?
Sounds boring, count me out of that world...
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.