Side note
A purely economic class would be an interesting choice. I've seen it in some games before. Heavy into Charisma, bonuses for selling and buying stuff. If you're not a fighter you're a crafter it might not be a bad idea.
It could be but in 99.9% of cases it would be just an alt.
Side note
A purely economic class would be an interesting choice. I've seen it in some games before. Heavy into Charisma, bonuses for selling and buying stuff. If you're not a fighter you're a crafter it might not be a bad idea.
It could be but in 99.9% of cases it would be just an ult.
I'm going to guess you mean Alt?
That's valid but for some people that's the only aspect of the game they're interested in, some people only like the crafting gathering money oriented side of a game
That's valid but for some people that's the only aspect of the game they're interested in, some people only like the crafting gathering money oriented side of a game
Well, why do they gather money? The only logical reason is either illegal (gold selling) or to make your main's gameplay performance better.
That's valid but for some people that's the only aspect of the game they're interested in, some people only like the crafting gathering money oriented side of a game
Well, why do they gather money? The only logical reason is either illegal (gold selling) or to make your main's gameplay performance better.
Nah
I have a friend in WoW who just likes hitting the gold cap and then buying stuff to play f*** f*** games with the market house... I think it's weird, but the money is his game.
Nah
I have a friend in WoW who just likes hitting the gold cap and then buying stuff to play f*** f*** games with the market house... I think it's weird, but the money is his game.
Yeah but he is like what, 0.000001% of players?
Is it worth using a ''heavy name'' class for that?
I totally agree giving the Templar some nice passives for economy and maybe even sieging (again, in his theme) but I don't see much worth in an economy oriented class.
Unless it provides some general aoe buff or something for teammates to get more loot and stuff.
I think that maybe there’s a misunderstanding that I can help clear up. It seems like the OP is, in a lot of ways, making a semantic argument. Ironhope argues that Intrepid claims that there will be 64 classes, when in reality there will be 8.
We then spend a lot of time debating the semantics of what a “Templar” is, and whether or not it will be possible to achieve a build in ashes that would fit the definition of “Templar” as traditionally defined, and whether or not that would be done by using the “class” labeled “templar” by Intrepid.
We get into whether or not such a build would be effective in traditional meta situations.
For the first point, that Intrepid is saying that they have 64 classes when really they have 8 classes and a bajillion “builds” I think this is fair, but pretty uninteresting. Though, granted, I tend to be more interested in game design than marketing.
The counter argument that it’ll be possible to achieve a “Templar” doesn’t actually address this problem. The complaint wasn’t a gameplay complaint but a marketing complaint. The fix isn’t providing the player the ability to build a Templar though a combination of weapons, armor, and skill choices, but instead to change the marketing message. I think that ship has sailed.
Debating whether or not a Templar (which is a hybrid) would be effective in a meta) feels hopelessly speculative. Does it even matter? Doesn’t fix the marketing problem. Feels like getting lost in the weeds.
I think that maybe there’s a misunderstanding that I can help clear up. It seems like the OP is, in a lot of ways, making a semantic argument. Ironhope argues that Intrepid claims that there will be 64 classes, when in reality there will be 8.
We then spend a lot of time debating the semantics of what a “Templar” is, and whether or not it will be possible to achieve a build in ashes that would fit the definition of “Templar” as traditionally defined, and whether or not that would be done by using the “class” labeled “templar” by Intrepid.
We get into whether or not such a build would be effective in traditional meta situations.
For the first point, that Intrepid is saying that they have 64 classes when really they have 8 classes and a bajillion “builds” I think this is fair, but pretty uninteresting. Though, granted, I tend to be more interested in game design than marketing.
The counter argument that it’ll be possible to achieve a “Templar” doesn’t actually address this problem. The complaint wasn’t a gameplay complaint but a marketing complaint. The fix isn’t providing the player the ability to build a Templar though a combination of weapons, armor, and skill choices, but instead to change the marketing message. I think that ship has sailed.
Debating whether or not a Templar (which is a hybrid) would be effective in a meta) feels hopelessly speculative. Does it even matter? Doesn’t fix the marketing problem. Feels like getting lost in the weeds.
The part that could matter is simply this.
If Intrepid did change it, and make any Templar, based on nearly any concept of Templar from another game (just for reference) that would fit within Ashes, what would be the meaningful difference, if any, between that and a "Cleric/Fighter build"?
BDO has Ninja and Kunoichi as separate 'classes', and a few points of difference between them, and maybe three differences in abilities.
If they had made just one 'Ninja' class and folded the ability choices into one, and simply not gender locked it (not an option for them, but conceptually), it would be the same.
Archetypes are just that. A big fold-in of nearly everything associated, for you to pick and choose from, that's the entire definition of the word.
All that is happening is that Intrepid is not curating how you build your 'Class'.
We see this in other games such as ESO where people give smaller 'cute nicknames' to different builds of the same class, Defplar and Magplar anyone?
This is only a Marketing problem if you assume that a level 24 Cleric who plans to be a High Priest has a build very similar to a level 24 Cleric who plans to be a Templar. The expectation that 'class' means something that is given to you rather than something you build is fine, but it's not like the word Archetype is incorrect here.
If Ashes said 'right, as soon as you choose to be a Templar you have to give up this subset of your healing abilities and we'll give you some new damage abilities, and that will be your class', would this still be a 'marketing problem'?
What if they released the game with 64 "These are the skills and augments you should take for this class."?
Just look up what Augments are and that should be enough to keep you happy until the game comes out. xD
U.S. East
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
Semantics: we could say it's 8 classes/64 sub-classes... from a D&D perspective. Sure.
But, also, the OP is coming from the perspective of starting with the class name and then creating the class.
Intrepid primarily created the class (Archetype combo) and then gave it a label.
Who knows how close Shaman combat will fit with what we might typically think of a Shaman.
Most important is that the Active skills and augments fit with what we would expect from a Cleric/Summoner combo...and we can expect there will be some Shaman-esque visual flavor/aesthetics.
Nah
I have a friend in WoW who just likes hitting the gold cap and then buying stuff to play f*** f*** games with the market house... I think it's weird, but the money is his game.
Yeah but he is like what, 0.000001% of players?
Is it worth using a ''heavy name'' class for that?
I totally agree giving the Templar some nice passives for economy and maybe even sieging (again, in his theme) but I don't see much worth in an economy oriented class.
Unless it provides some general aoe buff or something for teammates to get more loot and stuff.
Oh I have no idea, I'm just saying not everyone pays MMOs or RPGs to fight, some people just like the world building and crafting stuff a class that focuses on that was an interesting idea... That's all.
Side note
A purely economic class would be an interesting choice. I've seen it in some games before. Heavy into Charisma, bonuses for selling and buying stuff. If you're not a fighter you're a crafter it might not be a bad idea.
Each character has three spheres in Ashes where class can be selected (as far as we know).
These spheres are combat, crafting and naval.
Based on this, since your class as is being discussed is specific to combat, it makes no sense to have an economic class here.
Side note
A purely economic class would be an interesting choice. I've seen it in some games before. Heavy into Charisma, bonuses for selling and buying stuff. If you're not a fighter you're a crafter it might not be a bad idea.
Each character has three spheres in Ashes where class can be selected (as far as we know).
These spheres are combat, crafting and naval.
Based on this, since your class as is being discussed is specific to combat, it makes no sense to have an economic class here.
All fair points. I'm not saying it should be a thing. Just just thinking out loud. It reminded me of a hero I used to run back in warlords battlecry. You could make your character a merchant. He was complete shite at combat compared to other heros, but could build and buy more than anyone else.
But yeah, I can see how ashes would keep that separated.
I think that maybe there’s a misunderstanding that I can help clear up.
Okay so I admit I regret the way I formulated the original post. I admit it is somewhat confused and I particularly regret using the word ''unique'' refering to classes, when I just wanted to strengthen ''distinct''.
It seems like the OP is, in a lot of ways, making a semantic argument. Ironhope argues that Intrepid claims that there will be 64 classes, when in reality there will be 8.
I mean, yes and no.
If they said 8 classes each with 8 specs, this would be a completely different discussion,
Indeed they used the word ''class'' for each of the ''specs'', which is a heavy word to use in the mmo-rpg world.
I can't believe they (gamers themselves) wouldn't realize this. A lot of what they said regarding class design also reinforces this impression (that ''subclasses'' won't be distinct enough at all).
The fix isn’t providing the player the ability to build a Templar though a combination of weapons, armor, and skill choices, but instead to change the marketing message. I think that ship has sailed.
As I said, it's never too late to re-name the 64 classes as ''8 classes with 8 specs each''.
And if they don't intend to make the Templar into a solid dps melee cleric (gameplay which would fit the name) they should rebrand it as a Hospitaler.
But, also, the OP is coming from the perspective of starting with the class name and then creating the class.
Intrepid primarily created the class (Archetype combo) and then gave it a label.
Wait, what?
The classes (gameplay) created?
No.
Even the ''sample'' classes we got to see (Mage, Cleric and Tank) will be significantly different when the game launches.
Blizzard made significant changes to classes between pre-launch beta and launch version.
So yeah, at this point the names > gameplay simply because the names exist and the gameplay doesn't (not even for the 3 sample classes we've seen so far).
I think that maybe there’s a misunderstanding that I can help clear up. It seems like the OP is, in a lot of ways, making a semantic argument. Ironhope argues that Intrepid claims that there will be 64 classes, when in reality there will be 8.
We then spend a lot of time debating the semantics of what a “Templar” is, and whether or not it will be possible to achieve a build in ashes that would fit the definition of “Templar” as traditionally defined, and whether or not that would be done by using the “class” labeled “templar” by Intrepid.
We get into whether or not such a build would be effective in traditional meta situations.
For the first point, that Intrepid is saying that they have 64 classes when really they have 8 classes and a bajillion “builds” I think this is fair, but pretty uninteresting. Though, granted, I tend to be more interested in game design than marketing.
The counter argument that it’ll be possible to achieve a “Templar” doesn’t actually address this problem. The complaint wasn’t a gameplay complaint but a marketing complaint. The fix isn’t providing the player the ability to build a Templar though a combination of weapons, armor, and skill choices, but instead to change the marketing message. I think that ship has sailed.
Debating whether or not a Templar (which is a hybrid) would be effective in a meta) feels hopelessly speculative. Does it even matter? Doesn’t fix the marketing problem. Feels like getting lost in the weeds.
The part that could matter is simply this.
If Intrepid did change it, and make any Templar, based on nearly any concept of Templar from another game (just for reference) that would fit within Ashes, what would be the meaningful difference, if any, between that and a "Cleric/Fighter build"?
BDO has Ninja and Kunoichi as separate 'classes', and a few points of difference between them, and maybe three differences in abilities.
If they had made just one 'Ninja' class and folded the ability choices into one, and simply not gender locked it (not an option for them, but conceptually), it would be the same.
Archetypes are just that. A big fold-in of nearly everything associated, for you to pick and choose from, that's the entire definition of the word.
All that is happening is that Intrepid is not curating how you build your 'Class'.
We see this in other games such as ESO where people give smaller 'cute nicknames' to different builds of the same class, Defplar and Magplar anyone?
This is only a Marketing problem if you assume that a level 24 Cleric who plans to be a High Priest has a build very similar to a level 24 Cleric who plans to be a Templar. The expectation that 'class' means something that is given to you rather than something you build is fine, but it's not like the word Archetype is incorrect here.
If Ashes said 'right, as soon as you choose to be a Templar you have to give up this subset of your healing abilities and we'll give you some new damage abilities, and that will be your class', would this still be a 'marketing problem'?
What if they released the game with 64 "These are the skills and augments you should take for this class."?
I confess, Rae, that I don't actually know which part of what I wrote you're responding to, and so that leaves me a little bit at a loss for how to go forward here. I'll try answering your (potentially rhetorical) questions at face value!
If Intrepid did change it, and make any Templar, based on nearly any concept of Templar from another game (just for reference) that would fit within Ashes, what would be the meaningful difference, if any, between that and a "Cleric/Fighter build"?
There's this thing where humans use words as a way to infer the answer to the real question we're trying to ask. If someone says "how many classes does world of warcraft have?", someone else can answer 12: warrior, paladin, hunter, rogue, priest, shaman, mage, warlock, monk, druid, demon hunter, and death knight.
They might ask a similar question about ESO or guild wars 2 or path of exile. Maybe they really do care about the number of classes for whatever reason. Chances are though, that they're really trying to infer the answer to something else, like how much build variety there is. World of Warcraft has 3 specs per class, so not only are you a "priest", but you can be a "discipline priest" which plays absolutely nothing like a "shadow priest". I'd hazard that the gameplay distance between WoW's shadow priest and disc priest is going to be further than ashes' cleric/cleric and cleric/rogue.
World of Warcraft has ~36 different packages of abilities (the class specs). They, for whatever reason, just call those a "specialization" instead of a "class". FFXIV has 17. BDO has 23 (though there's some gender funkiness). Path of Exile has 7.
All of those games (except FFXIV) support more build customization than just picking what your core kit is (and ashes will too). Then, someone comes along and asks "how many classes does Ashes of Creation have?", and the AoC fan gleefully answers, "64. There's a Predator, Shadowblade, Song Warden, Keeper, Enchanter..."
Again, it's semantics. It feels like abuse of a word. It's using "class" in a way that previous MMOs haven't used the word "class", as far as I can tell. In Destiny 2, there are 3 classes (titan, hunter, warlock), each of which has 4 subclasses (solar, arc, void, stasis). Within those subclasses, there are multiple build paths (way of the trapper, way of the assassin, etc). They could have said that there are 12 classes, but they didn't.
If Ashes said 'right, as soon as you choose to be a Templar you have to give up this subset of your healing abilities and we'll give you some new damage abilities, and that will be your class', would this still be a 'marketing problem'?
Yeah, because I think it intentionally inflates the answer to "how many classes does ashes have?" and purposefully misuses the word "class". That's what WoW does, but on a much larger scale when you go from being a holy paladin to a retribution paladin, but you're still a paladin, and they still count it as one 'class'.
What if they released the game with 64 "These are the skills and augments you should take for this class."?
Then they would have released the game with 64 suggested builds not 64 classes. Again, though, this all hinges on disagreements on what a class is and how that word as been defined historically and what meaning it conveys. Once you become informed on what it means in ashes-of-creation-land, I don't think it matters at all. A class is just a primary/secondary archetype combination with a snazzy name. It's marketing fluff. Archeage has something like 220 classes (though they didn't appear to name them), so it's not like there isn't precedent for this sort of thing.
If they said 8 classes each with 8 specs, this would be a completely different discussion,
Indeed they used the word ''class'' for each of the ''specs'', which is a heavy word to use in the mmo-rpg world.
I can't believe they (gamers themselves) wouldn't realize this. A lot of what they said regarding class design also reinforces this impression (that ''subclasses'' won't be distinct enough at all).
I mean, it was both because we have no certainties yet.
I'm a little confused here. How is this anything but a marketing complaint? The game will almost certainly have the character-building flexibility to let you realize whatever sort of character you want to most degrees. You can pick your spells, pick which ones you rank up, pick your augments, pick your armor, and pick your weapon. Have you ever played Path of Exile? Try to imagine a game like that, where it's more about you realizing a character build through your build choices than the devs hand-crafting class identity like in retail WoW.
I mean, it isn't because we already have it in many mmo-rpgs including in World of Warcraft (the Retribution ''Templar's Verdict'' Paladin).
We only have 3 classes. The classes we have aren't even finished. The abilities aren't even fully designed. Subclasses don't exist yet. It is currently impossible to accurately speculate on whether or not the particular combination of cleric/fighter will be high tier/meta after release (years down the line). Like yeah, cleric/fighter could be trash. It could be super good. Depends on how it's tuned. Not worth speculating about currently. Don't have enough info.
The game will almost certainly have the character-building flexibility to let you realize whatever sort of character you want to most degrees.
I have doubts about that, which I've expressed in other topics (I think they will fail to make viable hybrids in the same way blizzard did in 2004-2007, based on the claims the developers made so far, for example).
I think that maybe there’s a misunderstanding that I can help clear up. It seems like the OP is, in a lot of ways, making a semantic argument. Ironhope argues that Intrepid claims that there will be 64 classes, when in reality there will be 8.
We then spend a lot of time debating the semantics of what a “Templar” is, and whether or not it will be possible to achieve a build in ashes that would fit the definition of “Templar” as traditionally defined, and whether or not that would be done by using the “class” labeled “templar” by Intrepid.
We get into whether or not such a build would be effective in traditional meta situations.
For the first point, that Intrepid is saying that they have 64 classes when really they have 8 classes and a bajillion “builds” I think this is fair, but pretty uninteresting. Though, granted, I tend to be more interested in game design than marketing.
The counter argument that it’ll be possible to achieve a “Templar” doesn’t actually address this problem. The complaint wasn’t a gameplay complaint but a marketing complaint. The fix isn’t providing the player the ability to build a Templar though a combination of weapons, armor, and skill choices, but instead to change the marketing message. I think that ship has sailed.
Debating whether or not a Templar (which is a hybrid) would be effective in a meta) feels hopelessly speculative. Does it even matter? Doesn’t fix the marketing problem. Feels like getting lost in the weeds.
The part that could matter is simply this.
If Intrepid did change it, and make any Templar, based on nearly any concept of Templar from another game (just for reference) that would fit within Ashes, what would be the meaningful difference, if any, between that and a "Cleric/Fighter build"?
BDO has Ninja and Kunoichi as separate 'classes', and a few points of difference between them, and maybe three differences in abilities.
If they had made just one 'Ninja' class and folded the ability choices into one, and simply not gender locked it (not an option for them, but conceptually), it would be the same.
Archetypes are just that. A big fold-in of nearly everything associated, for you to pick and choose from, that's the entire definition of the word.
All that is happening is that Intrepid is not curating how you build your 'Class'.
We see this in other games such as ESO where people give smaller 'cute nicknames' to different builds of the same class, Defplar and Magplar anyone?
This is only a Marketing problem if you assume that a level 24 Cleric who plans to be a High Priest has a build very similar to a level 24 Cleric who plans to be a Templar. The expectation that 'class' means something that is given to you rather than something you build is fine, but it's not like the word Archetype is incorrect here.
If Ashes said 'right, as soon as you choose to be a Templar you have to give up this subset of your healing abilities and we'll give you some new damage abilities, and that will be your class', would this still be a 'marketing problem'?
What if they released the game with 64 "These are the skills and augments you should take for this class."?
I confess, Rae, that I don't actually know which part of what I wrote you're responding to, and so that leaves me a little bit at a loss for how to go forward here. I'll try answering your (potentially rhetorical) questions at face value!
If Intrepid did change it, and make any Templar, based on nearly any concept of Templar from another game (just for reference) that would fit within Ashes, what would be the meaningful difference, if any, between that and a "Cleric/Fighter build"?
There's this thing where humans use words as a way to infer the answer to the real question we're trying to ask. If someone says "how many classes does world of warcraft have?", someone else can answer 12: warrior, paladin, hunter, rogue, priest, shaman, mage, warlock, monk, druid, demon hunter, and death knight.
They might ask a similar question about ESO or guild wars 2 or path of exile. Maybe they really do care about the number of classes for whatever reason. Chances are though, that they're really trying to infer the answer to something else, like how much build variety there is. World of Warcraft has 3 specs per class, so not only are you a "priest", but you can be a "discipline priest" which plays absolutely nothing like a "shadow priest". I'd hazard that the gameplay distance between WoW's shadow priest and disc priest is going to be further than ashes' cleric/cleric and cleric/rogue.
World of Warcraft has ~36 different packages of abilities (the class specs). They, for whatever reason, just call those a "specialization" instead of a "class". FFXIV has 17. BDO has 23 (though there's some gender funkiness). Path of Exile has 7.
All of those games (except FFXIV) support more build customization than just picking what your core kit is (and ashes will too). Then, someone comes along and asks "how many classes does Ashes of Creation have?", and the AoC fan gleefully answers, "64. There's a Predator, Shadowblade, Song Warden, Keeper, Enchanter..."
Again, it's semantics. It feels like abuse of a word. It's using "class" in a way that previous MMOs haven't used the word "class", as far as I can tell. In Destiny 2, there are 3 classes (titan, hunter, warlock), each of which has 4 subclasses (solar, arc, void, stasis). Within those subclasses, there are multiple build paths (way of the trapper, way of the assassin, etc). They could have said that there are 12 classes, but they didn't.
If Ashes said 'right, as soon as you choose to be a Templar you have to give up this subset of your healing abilities and we'll give you some new damage abilities, and that will be your class', would this still be a 'marketing problem'?
Yeah, because I think it intentionally inflates the answer to "how many classes does ashes have?" and purposefully misuses the word "class". That's what WoW does, but on a much larger scale when you go from being a holy paladin to a retribution paladin, but you're still a paladin, and they still count it as one 'class'.
What if they released the game with 64 "These are the skills and augments you should take for this class."?
Then they would have released the game with 64 suggested builds not 64 classes. Again, though, this all hinges on disagreements on what a class is and how that word as been defined historically and what meaning it conveys. Once you become informed on what it means in ashes-of-creation-land, I don't think it matters at all. A class is just a primary/secondary archetype combination with a snazzy name. It's marketing fluff. Archeage has something like 220 classes (though they didn't appear to name them), so it's not like there isn't precedent for this sort of thing.
Thanks, actually, (I feel you and I communicate well, so just go with your instincts on whatever my weirdness evokes) answering the 'rhetorical questions' was the point because I was trying to figure out where you stand on a specific thing.
The core point was, as @Ironhope pointed out, they really were reacting to something beyond just the name thing. Your reduction of the concept would be valid in most cases, but it didn't seem to be for their intent. Basically, their post was 'a reaction to something' not necessarily 'an attempt to get an answer from which they could infer specific other things'.
I think Ashes was trying to get at something deeper, which I can at least 'argue for'.
"After a while, things that are very similar and for which the gameplay is the same or has the potential to be mostly the same, are Archetypes, not classes."
If we assume that they can do the Augment thing at least as well as I expect, then 'Level 24 Cleric' and 'Level 30 Apostle' don't play that different if you chose the abilities for the level 24 Cleric to be 'preparation for the Apostle'. And because that falls under the umbrella of 'things they assigned to the Cleric' in order to give you the options for both that 'Pre-Apostle' build and the 'Pre-High Priest' build, they 'have to call it something'.
One could still call it a class, but it's sufficiently differentiated that 'trying to get people to accept a new term for it' might not be a bad idea. Ashes' design structure creates a scenario unlike most other games of this type that I'm aware of. AFAIK in most better-known games that let you do this 'main and sub' combination, you can apply the sub starting really early and therefore your 'class' and the resultant gameplay are set.
So you never need a 'separate name' for 'what you are up until the point where you can apply the rest of your gameplay'. Your 'build' might be different, but it can usually be so different that 'class' applies only in the sense that overlap is possible.
I was asking if you thought that 'explicitly separating the overlap' would be enough to make it okay to call them 'classes', and the answer I infer is 'no' (if I have to reduce it down). The preferred term would probably be 'build' but this also has some connotations I wouldn't necessarily want to use if I were in their position either (I don't even like using it for my own and it fits better there because Cardinal works like what I mentioned).
Neither would I want to use 'role', nor 'path', nor 'specialization'.
I can see how it would have been really difficult for a design whose exposure to the world normally came from words, and videos, and quotes, to come up with and consistently use a new term across all 'encounters', so I see choosing 'Archetype' as a good self-priming decision. I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to imply that Ashes is 'classless' because that will make people think of Albion.
But I'll 'defend' the concept that 'I have an Apostle sharing only 50% of its chosen skills with a High Priest and furthermore changing the effects of some of the shared ones significantly and this result needs a name other than build'.
Even considering that there is a spectrum of skill choices between the 'usual Apostle' and the 'usual High Priest' that creates a gradient, that gradient could be meaningfully 'removed' by Augments. Ironhope has given us their precise perspective actually:
Then it's their fault for not doing research if they end up disappointed.
The developers are selling 64 classes.
This implicitly means there will have to be distinct enough.
If the devs fail to make this happen, it's on them, not the fans.
I feel that Intrepid is justified in giving a specific separate identifier name to a 'Mage/Summoner'.
I feel it's okay to use a name that fits what prior MMOs would have called a character that plays like a 'standard' Mage/Summoner.
I feel that since that name would have been called 'class' in prior MMOs, players, particularly casual players, are going to call it that anyway, and Intrepid explicitly avoiding doing so is bad.
I don't feel like we can assume that anyone's expectations are being deceived yet. So, one final short analogy.
"If someone tells you that they intend to open a restaurant, and gives you a menu consisting of a lot of common variations of pasta, but warns you that 'we're not actually pasta chefs so we are probably just going to combine whatever base pasta and sauce you tell us but we're still going to advertise arrabiata', I don't think you should call this deceptive until you know that their arrabiata sucks, because it's so relatively hard to do it wrong, and arrabiata is just a term to describe a combination of some things."
Because I also threw it into a gameplay discussion, by claiming sub-classes should have some notable degree of distinction.
I'm having a really hard time following your answers. I asked "what's the no part", and you answered: "Because I also threw it into a gameplay discussion". Can you rephrase this into a direct answer like "the no part is..."
I have doubts about that, which I've expressed in other topics (I think they will fail to make viable hybrids in the same way blizzard did in 2004-2007, based on the claims the developers made so far, for example).
Whether or not your build will be meta or endgame viable or balanced properly is entirely separate from whether or not it's possible to make it. Do we agree there? Super smash bros melee has bowser and donkey kong as playable characters, but people don't actually play those characters in tournaments, generally (because they're hot garbage). Doesn't mean they aren't characters, though. It's useful to separate concerns about whether or not a character can be made, and whether or not a build will be good/viable/meta.
But it's a really important point in the development of the game where we need to point out what we want and don't want.
So this is something that Rae has talked a little bit about before, and I think you've argued with. I don't actually thnk there's a clear vision for balance at the moment.
In a game like this, there are billions of possible builds and interactions. 1v1s are supposedly not going to be balanced at all, and the devs are okay with classes having really lop-sided matchups. Presumably if 1v1s are really lopsided, 2v2s won't be that much better. If you and your partner both run into the classes that wreck you individually, you're probably in for a bad time, right?
We know what "balance" looks like in a 1v1 game. Say that you have 3 races like in starcraft 2: terran, zerg, protoss. Your game is balanced if TvP, TvZ, and ZvP are all even matchups (since the rest of the matchups are all mirror matchups). You've created a full matchup chart and made sure that all of the matchups are even.
But, starcraft2 also supports 2v2. What are all the possible 2v2 matchups?
TT v TT
TT v TP
TT v TZ
TT v PT
TT v PP
TT v PZ
TT v ZT
TT v ZP
TT v ZZ
TP v TP
TP v TZ
TP v PT
TP v PP
TP v PZ
TP v ZT
TP v ZP
TP v ZZ
TZ v TZ
TZ v PT
TZ v PP
TZ v PZ
TZ v ZT
TZ v ZP
TZ v ZZ
PT v PT
PT v PP
PT v PZ
PT v ZT
PT v ZP
PT v ZZ
PP v PP
PP v PZ
PP v ZT
PP v ZP
PP v ZZ
PZ v PZ
PZ v ZT
PZ v ZP
PZ v ZZ
ZT v ZT
ZT v ZP
ZT v ZZ
ZP v ZP
ZP v ZZ
ZZ v ZZ
So what does "balance" mean here? Ideally, every single one of those matchups is 50:50. As a player, you have to pick a teammate. So maybe you play terran, and your friend plays protoss. Now your team is a TP. You have 6 matchups to worry about: TT, TP, TZ, PP, PZ, and ZZ. If the game is good for your perspective all of those matchups will be roughly even. If you picked a shittier team, you might have mostly bad matchups. If you picked a really good team, maybe you'll have mostly good matchups.
What happens if we look at 3v3? Well, the balance chart explodes. The number of possible matchups starts getting exponentially high. It becomes infeasible to balances games like this. Instead, the best you can do is sort of just every week hit the build that's "performing best" (whatever that means) or dominating the meta or whatever with a nerf hammer, and buff some underperforming build. Unfortunately, because a "build" is composed of a whole bunch of moving parts when you do this, you inevitably create unintended consequences. You accidentally buff some A-tier build into S+ when you meant to buff a mid-tier because now the A-tier build can use the mid-tier's buff. You accidentally nerf a mid-tier into oblivion because the only thing keeping it viable was that it was leveraging one of the aspects from the S-tier build that just got nerfed. etc.
The AoC devs have said that they want to "balance around big siege battles". What could this possibly mean? They must be using the word "balance" differently than I do. Super interested to watch this all unfold.
What happens if we look at 3v3? Well, the balance chart explodes. The number of possible matchups starts getting exponentially high. It becomes infeasible to balances games like this. Instead, the best you can do is sort of just every week hit the build that's "performing best" (whatever that means) or dominating the meta or whatever with a nerf hammer, and buff some underperforming build. Unfortunately, because a "build" is composed of a whole bunch of moving parts when you do this, you inevitably create unintended consequences. You accidentally buff some A-tier build into S+ when you meant to buff a mid-tier because now the A-tier build can use the mid-tier's buff. You accidentally nerf a mid-tier into oblivion because the only thing keeping it viable was that it was leveraging one of the aspects from the S-tier build that just got nerfed. etc.
The AoC devs have said that they want to "balance around big siege battles". What could this possibly mean? They must be using the word "balance" differently than I do. Super interested to watch this all unfold.
Oof, this, so much.
I like to think, in all arrogance, that I know what they mean by 'balance', but I don't like the use of the term, it feels like their use of the term 'class'. But when you're going into little-charted territory, you still need terms for stuff, unfortunately, and you need terms that laypeople understand (which often end up being misleading to anyone in the intermediate-jungle).
From everything I read, their idea of 'balance' is actually 'you can always find a place for your build where it will be one of the most effective options' and I can see how that would be achievable. It's good enough, since the sort of person that wants to be 'meta' will change, and the person who wants 'personal identity' will 'search for their spot', but I do not envy the Community team's task when MetaBuild A dominates the first real taste of 'Endgame Content' that unlocks.
That's gonna be a rough week. Knowing Ashes, a rough month. If MetaBuild A is also somehow good in Node Siege defense? Rough quarter.
That's what I always find so hard to understand about Ashes, it has two strongly opposed 'marketing goals'. On the one hand it says 'there is no endgame, choice will matter' and on the other 'you can play how you want and it will be fun'. To me this just implies the game will have an extremely fractured community with tiny amounts of mingling that people will then prop up as shining examples of how 'everyone can enjoy the game together if they just let go of their preconceptions and play with friends'.
On the other hand, having 250v250 siege battles means that, at least at some point in the game, there's a chance that Suboptimal-For-Siege characters will actually get to experience it. I wouldn't expect that at 100v100.
Thanks, actually, (I feel you and I communicate well, so just go with your instincts on whatever my weirdness evokes) answering the 'rhetorical questions' was the point because I was trying to figure out where you stand on a specific thing.
The feeling is mutual! Were you able to figure out what you were looking for?
The core point was, as @Ironhope pointed out, they really were reacting to something beyond just the name thing. Your reduction of the concept would be valid in most cases, but it didn't seem to be for their intent. Basically, their post was 'a reaction to something' not necessarily 'an attempt to get an answer from which they could infer specific other things'.
I think Ashes was trying to get at something deeper, which I can at least 'argue for'.
"After a while, things that are very similar and for which the gameplay is the same or has the potential to be mostly the same, are Archetypes, not classes."
Following so far - and insofar as I know, the primary archetype matters way more. As in, I expect that the behavior that this will drive in-game is that folks will be either looking for specific roles to fill groups (tanks, healers, dps), or specific archetypes, but hardly ever specific classes unless the class balance is extremely bad. Also, that a character can relatively easily switch between different classes within their primary archetype, but can't switch their primary archetype at all. These things lead me to believe that picking your secondary archetype is sort of like another build choice in the same way that picking what sort of armor you'll wear, or what weapon you'll use, or what skill points you'll invest in is. Though the lines here are pretty blurry to me.
One could still call it a class, but it's sufficiently differentiated that 'trying to get people to accept a new term for it' might not be a bad idea. Ashes' design structure creates a scenario unlike most other games of this type that I'm aware of. AFAIK in most better-known games that let you do this 'main and sub' combination, you can apply the sub starting really early and therefore your 'class' and the resultant gameplay are set.
I think that they had said "you pick a starting class, and then at level 25, you pick a sub-class to gain augment options for your skills", it would have been less snazzy but way less confusing. You'd have a cleric with fighter augments so you'd have more mobility and damage. Or you could have a cleric with cleric augments and more healing, etc. I don't think we needed new words, but we have them! Ultimately, archetype is fine, and I think conveys what they're trying to get across. "Secondary archetype" is a bit of a mouthful, IMO. 64 classes is a lot, and I wouldn't be surprised if the primary skills you pick or the weapons you choose end up being more important than your secondary archetype. ie, it's more important that you're a "bow ranger" than you're a "strider". Games like PoE, Diablo 3, and Destiny 2 make communicating about builds even more difficult because you also have to include the names of the items. Like in Destiny 2, I have to mention which exotic weapon and exotic armor I'm using (since you can only use 1 of each). "I'm a sleeper-simulant celestial-nighthawk bottom-tree gunslinger hunter" which is super annoying to say, but is very different than if any of those words change.
I was asking if you thought that 'explicitly separating the overlap' would be enough to make it okay to call them 'classes', and the answer I infer is 'no' (if I have to reduce it down). The preferred term would probably be 'build' but this also has some connotations I wouldn't necessarily want to use if I were in their position either (I don't even like using it for my own and it fits better there because Cardinal works like what I mentioned). Neither would I want to use 'role', nor 'path', nor 'specialization'.
So for me, I don't mind so much. I think that words are pretty malleable (archeage has 220 'classes'). If Intrepid wants to call them classes (and they did), I'm game. I don't think they should backtrack. It's useful to have names so the community can write 'scion' instead of 'ranger/mage'. It's snazzy marketing. I think it's potentially confusing, but I don't really have skin the game there. I was just trying to un-derail the thread if that makes sense, since I thought I saw a bunch of posts that didn't seem to be directly addressing the main central points previous ones.
I hope they'll do a bit like GW1 by having the main archetype getting some stuff unique to them that can create great synergy with the second archetype.
Like in GW1 the 2 main healer class were Monk/Ritualist. But if your main archetype was the Necromancer, you could upgrade its unique traits (Each death around u restore xHp and XMana) And it would make the N/M or N/RT more Potent the Monk/X or RT/X on the long fight cause of the mana provided on dead around.
I just hope that whatever come out of the 64 archetype possible there will no be Meta and people will be able to play the style they really want and how they want to. And that people will pick them for They playstyle instead of cause its the meta archetype.
I just hope there will be nice synergy and combo possible
Thanks, actually, (I feel you and I communicate well, so just go with your instincts on whatever my weirdness evokes) answering the 'rhetorical questions' was the point because I was trying to figure out where you stand on a specific thing.
The feeling is mutual! Were you able to figure out what you were looking for?
Yes, I think so. You can clarify if I have. See below.
I was asking if you thought that 'explicitly separating the overlap' would be enough to make it okay to call them 'classes', and the answer I infer is 'no' (if I have to reduce it down). The preferred term would probably be 'build' but this also has some connotations I wouldn't necessarily want to use if I were in their position either (I don't even like using it for my own and it fits better there because Cardinal works like what I mentioned). Neither would I want to use 'role', nor 'path', nor 'specialization'.
So for me, I don't mind so much. I think that words are pretty malleable (archeage has 220 'classes'). If Intrepid wants to call them classes (and they did), I'm game. I don't think they should backtrack. It's useful to have names so the community can write 'scion' instead of 'ranger/mage'. It's snazzy marketing. I think it's potentially confusing, but I don't really have skin the game there. I was just trying to un-derail the thread if that makes sense, since I thought I saw a bunch of posts that didn't seem to be directly addressing the main central points previous ones.
It seems that if a given person were really upset that they used the word 'classes', that you would be sympathetic and possibly even go so far as to 'side with' such a person if someone provided the counter-argument in question: 'What if they just separated them all out?'
I feel like there are definitely people out there that would view it as a good thing if Templar and Priest were separate Archetypes, and Templar got "Judgement", "Castigation", "Divine Censure" and maybe just one Heal, with Priest getting "Hallowed Ground", "Devotion", "Radiant Burst" and ZERO DPS abilities. I have data on such people.
Mostly in my discussion with Ironhope, I was trying to figure out whether or not they were in that dataset. "Those people that would want 22 classes, but would achieve this number by slicing up the Archetypes into things they considered more focused."
So in your case I was checking if you 'considered this approach to be a more valid path to justifiably using the word 'classes' or if you would require an additional aspect or intention on their part'. And the reason for my inference of 'no' is that your concern seems to be more with 'potential for confusion, and design issues', than with 'at what point of distinction does something become a class?'.
Thanks, actually, (I feel you and I communicate well, so just go with your instincts on whatever my weirdness evokes) answering the 'rhetorical questions' was the point because I was trying to figure out where you stand on a specific thing.
The feeling is mutual! Were you able to figure out what you were looking for?
Yes, I think so. You can clarify if I have. See below.
I was asking if you thought that 'explicitly separating the overlap' would be enough to make it okay to call them 'classes', and the answer I infer is 'no' (if I have to reduce it down). The preferred term would probably be 'build' but this also has some connotations I wouldn't necessarily want to use if I were in their position either (I don't even like using it for my own and it fits better there because Cardinal works like what I mentioned). Neither would I want to use 'role', nor 'path', nor 'specialization'.
So for me, I don't mind so much. I think that words are pretty malleable (archeage has 220 'classes'). If Intrepid wants to call them classes (and they did), I'm game. I don't think they should backtrack. It's useful to have names so the community can write 'scion' instead of 'ranger/mage'. It's snazzy marketing. I think it's potentially confusing, but I don't really have skin the game there. I was just trying to un-derail the thread if that makes sense, since I thought I saw a bunch of posts that didn't seem to be directly addressing the main central points previous ones.
It seems that if a given person were really upset that they used the word 'classes', that you would be sympathetic and possibly even go so far as to 'side with' such a person if someone provided the counter-argument in question: 'What if they just separated them all out?'
I feel like there are definitely people out there that would view it as a good thing if Templar and Priest were separate Archetypes, and Templar got "Judgement", "Castigation", "Divine Censure" and maybe just one Heal, with Priest getting "Hallowed Ground", "Devotion", "Radiant Burst" and ZERO DPS abilities. I have data on such people.
Mostly in my discussion with Ironhope, I was trying to figure out whether or not they were in that dataset. "Those people that would want 22 classes, but would achieve this number by slicing up the Archetypes into things they considered more focused."
So in your case I was checking if you 'considered this approach to be a more valid path to justifiably using the word 'classes' or if you would require an additional aspect or intention on their part'. And the reason for my inference of 'no' is that your concern seems to be more with 'potential for confusion, and design issues', than with 'at what point of distinction does something become a class?'.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, this is the lightbulb moment. I didn't get that that's what you were driving toward at all; makes way more sense now. Honestly, I'm good either way! If they wanted to partition up archetypes to make them feel more distinct so that giving them separate labels makes more sense, I think that's super reasonable.
Honestly, I think that games like WoW would be justified in calling their shadow priest a different "class" than their discipline priest, they just don't. But again, I think it all just comes down to what we think a "class" is and what sort of meaning it conveys. Folks coming from WoW will be like "wait that's a spec, and each class has 8 specs instead of 3", but folks coming from archeage will be like "why do classes have names" and folks coming from albion will be like "wtf is a class". I think it's all fine and it'll work out!
The language exists to convey meaning - to point to examples and draw boundaries around stuff in thingspace. As long as we're all communicating, and I think we are, then we're good .
Even the ''sample'' classes we got to see (Mage, Cleric and Tank) will be significantly different when the game launches.
Those are not classes. Those are archetypes.
I very clearly stipulate class (Archetype combo).
We did not play classes in the Alpha.
The devs have started with the class - which is Primary Archetype + Secondary Archetype.
They then devised labels for those combos.
They did not start with the labels and then design the classes.
And what is most important is the classes - not the labels.
This being said there are a serious of objective, legitimate expectations people will have from a class named Shaman.
Which is fine - but...
It's mostly going to be about the Cleric/Summoner class... with some aesthetics that evoke a Shaman.
Same with the Summoner/Cleric class...with some aesthetics that evoke a Necromancer.
Players will have to adjust their expectations from other games.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The AoC devs have said that they want to "balance around big siege battles". What could this possibly mean? They must be using the word "balance" differently than I do. Super interested to watch this all unfold.
The balance the devs are focused on is for the 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype.
Augments provide lots of variety for how to play each Primary Archetype. Secondary Archetypes also create themes - like the thematic difference between a Shaman and Necromancer.
But, the balance is still focused on the Primary Archetypes; not the 64 classes.
It's more about ensuring the 8-person group is viable.
But, even then, it's really how that works in a Siege more than it is how that works in an dungeon.
What happens if we look at 3v3? Well, the balance chart explodes. The number of possible matchups starts getting exponentially high. It becomes infeasible to balances games like this. Instead, the best you can do is sort of just every week hit the build that's "performing best" (whatever that means) or dominating the meta or whatever with a nerf hammer, and buff some underperforming build. Unfortunately, because a "build" is composed of a whole bunch of moving parts when you do this, you inevitably create unintended consequences. You accidentally buff some A-tier build into S+ when you meant to buff a mid-tier because now the A-tier build can use the mid-tier's buff. You accidentally nerf a mid-tier into oblivion because the only thing keeping it viable was that it was leveraging one of the aspects from the S-tier build that just got nerfed. etc.
The AoC devs have said that they want to "balance around big siege battles". What could this possibly mean? They must be using the word "balance" differently than I do. Super interested to watch this all unfold.
Oof, this, so much.
I like to think, in all arrogance, that I know what they mean by 'balance', but I don't like the use of the term, it feels like their use of the term 'class'. But when you're going into little-charted territory, you still need terms for stuff, unfortunately, and you need terms that laypeople understand (which often end up being misleading to anyone in the intermediate-jungle).
From everything I read, their idea of 'balance' is actually 'you can always find a place for your build where it will be one of the most effective options' and I can see how that would be achievable. It's good enough, since the sort of person that wants to be 'meta' will change, and the person who wants 'personal identity' will 'search for their spot', but I do not envy the Community team's task when MetaBuild A dominates the first real taste of 'Endgame Content' that unlocks.
That's gonna be a rough week. Knowing Ashes, a rough month. If MetaBuild A is also somehow good in Node Siege defense? Rough quarter.
That's what I always find so hard to understand about Ashes, it has two strongly opposed 'marketing goals'. On the one hand it says 'there is no endgame, choice will matter' and on the other 'you can play how you want and it will be fun'. To me this just implies the game will have an extremely fractured community with tiny amounts of mingling that people will then prop up as shining examples of how 'everyone can enjoy the game together if they just let go of their preconceptions and play with friends'.
On the other hand, having 250v250 siege battles means that, at least at some point in the game, there's a chance that Suboptimal-For-Siege characters will actually get to experience it. I wouldn't expect that at 100v100.
Getting a little philosophical for a second, when people talk about government design and "freedom" there's this often-ignored nuance. There are "positive" freedoms and "negative" freedoms. For example, if I'm "free" (legally), to steal, then at the same time I'm not free from theft. Can't have it both ways. You can't preserve your right-to-steal and also your right-of-ownership governmentally, you have to pick one to enforce.
Applied to a game like ashes, folks simultaneously want the "freedom to choose my own build", the "freedom to have my own identity" and "the freedom to not get crushed by meta builds". They don't often explicitly write the last one, but it's there. Those freedoms don't jive.
If this was a 1v1 game with, like, 5 different build options then sure, they could balance the matchup chart. It isn't. You're free to build your character into something really mediocre. Then, Intrepid isn't going to give you any sort of metrics to see just how mediocre your build is - no DPS addons, no way to test, and everything has RNG. Meanwhile, there's going to be some incredibly sweaty group with sharing secret meta strats that are going to be crushingly better than whatever mediocre nonsense the average group is running. Happens in every single game.
These guys will come in, lock down the world bosses, play 10+ hours a day, populate excel sheets, spread information, rotate their kills to spread items, and more or less lock the content out for everyone else. I'm going to be part of that group, as I would imagine anyone who is going to take the game seriously will be. There will be some variation for the players here, and there are always innovators, but way less than what goes on outside of this. If the in-group innovators ever come up with something better than what the in-group currently has, it gets ruthlessly copied until it's the new normal.
As an example, the players trying to race to world first for mythic WoW raiding are always at the mercy of balance patches. If it turns out that a particular raiding encounter favors shadow priests, and a player doesn't play a shadow priest, then they're not playing that encounter. If it turns out that an encounter is 2% easier if you're the night fae covenant on your fire mage instead of necrolord covenant on your firemage, then your necrolord fire mage isn't coming. How do these high-end raiders cope with this? They pay for multiple accounts so they can maintain 15+ raid-ready characters. Whichever character happens to be meta this week they can just play at a moment's notice. It happens that a new patch dropped and now night fae is in? Guess the night-fae fire mage is getting some play - glad that I made sure to keep up with all of the content on him and my other 15 characters just in case.
They hate it. It feels like a giant waste of time, but its what it takes to be better than other people who are willing to waste more time than you, in a game where the "competition" is balance-patch dependent, and performance is heavily tied to character power. It would be lovely if you could just easily switch from rogue to mage. You can't. It would be lovely if you could easily switch from night fae to necrolord. You can't (they're changing this). To cope, they instead just have to maintain every combination that could be meta.
And finally, re "a suboptimal build finding a place in a 250v250": like yeah - they're a warm body. No one person can mechanically make that much of a difference. A 250 man team of optimized meta builds will crush a 250 man team of free-form identity people. There will always be a "place" for that, but idk that seems like a super low bar
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
You can't really make a mediocre build - in that the design is focused on the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype. Which is why any Tank/x is viable in a dungeon or raid.
And then group build is really going to depend more on how each group synergizes the specific builds they have. Are the x/Clerics and x/Rogues adequately synchronizing with each other.
Are the the Mages synching their Snares with the Ranger Snares?
It's not just about a META for an individual build. In Ashes the focus will be on how each individual learns to synch with similar builds in their specific group or raid or Siege.
If you are in a society were stealing is legal - that society is most probably also free from theft.
Because ownership will not really be a thing... and there won't be a concept for stealing or theft.
You can't really make a mediocre build - in that the design is focused on the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype. Which is why any Tank/x is viable in a dungeon or raid.
And then group build is really going to depend more on how each group synergizes the specific builds they have. Are the x/Clerics and x/Rogues adequately synchronizing with each other.
Are the the Mages synching their Snares with the Ranger Snares?
It's not just about a META for an individual build. In Ashes the focus will be on how each individual learns to synch with similar builds in their specific group or raid or Siege.
As has been said to you many times so far...
That's a very interesting opinion you have.
Of course, in this case, it doesn't stand up to anything. You're making an assumption somewhere.
I know this because whenever someone asks you 'what about those people who choose things that aren't optimal' (e.g. Rogues who focus entirely on stealth and not damage) you respond 'why would someone do that?'.
I don't think you understand it, but for your clarity, people like you are the problem. Meta-build makers often don't want to force others to use meta-builds. Some of us want our own meta builds nerfed because crushing people who want something else is unpleasant for everyone.
But along comes someone like you and without realizing it, goes 'Why would you play something other than what makes sense to me/the content?' and enforce the meta. If that 'someone' is in support of something other than the actual meta, they get salty about the current meta. If they are in support of the current meta, they just play it off as 'well that's obviously how it is meant to be'...
And crush people who just want some tweaks to make their weird little niche build viable.
Don't be that person, Dygz. Don't create the meta.
You can't really make a mediocre build - in that the design is focused on the Active Skills of the Primary Archetype. Which is why any Tank/x is viable in a dungeon or raid.
You could put a bunch of points in passive skills that increase bleeding effects, and then don't put any points in active skills that cause bleeding damage or equip any weapons that cause bleeding effects. That certainly sounds mediocre (if not straight-up bad) to me. Would you agree? Holding the position that it's impossible to create a mediocre build sounds like a really, really bad position.
Comments
It could be but in 99.9% of cases it would be just an alt.
I'm going to guess you mean Alt?
That's valid but for some people that's the only aspect of the game they're interested in, some people only like the crafting gathering money oriented side of a game
Yeah it was a typo.
Well, why do they gather money? The only logical reason is either illegal (gold selling) or to make your main's gameplay performance better.
Nah
I have a friend in WoW who just likes hitting the gold cap and then buying stuff to play f*** f*** games with the market house... I think it's weird, but the money is his game.
Yeah but he is like what, 0.000001% of players?
Is it worth using a ''heavy name'' class for that?
I totally agree giving the Templar some nice passives for economy and maybe even sieging (again, in his theme) but I don't see much worth in an economy oriented class.
Unless it provides some general aoe buff or something for teammates to get more loot and stuff.
We then spend a lot of time debating the semantics of what a “Templar” is, and whether or not it will be possible to achieve a build in ashes that would fit the definition of “Templar” as traditionally defined, and whether or not that would be done by using the “class” labeled “templar” by Intrepid.
We get into whether or not such a build would be effective in traditional meta situations.
For the first point, that Intrepid is saying that they have 64 classes when really they have 8 classes and a bajillion “builds” I think this is fair, but pretty uninteresting. Though, granted, I tend to be more interested in game design than marketing.
The counter argument that it’ll be possible to achieve a “Templar” doesn’t actually address this problem. The complaint wasn’t a gameplay complaint but a marketing complaint. The fix isn’t providing the player the ability to build a Templar though a combination of weapons, armor, and skill choices, but instead to change the marketing message. I think that ship has sailed.
Debating whether or not a Templar (which is a hybrid) would be effective in a meta) feels hopelessly speculative. Does it even matter? Doesn’t fix the marketing problem. Feels like getting lost in the weeds.
The part that could matter is simply this.
If Intrepid did change it, and make any Templar, based on nearly any concept of Templar from another game (just for reference) that would fit within Ashes, what would be the meaningful difference, if any, between that and a "Cleric/Fighter build"?
BDO has Ninja and Kunoichi as separate 'classes', and a few points of difference between them, and maybe three differences in abilities.
If they had made just one 'Ninja' class and folded the ability choices into one, and simply not gender locked it (not an option for them, but conceptually), it would be the same.
Archetypes are just that. A big fold-in of nearly everything associated, for you to pick and choose from, that's the entire definition of the word.
All that is happening is that Intrepid is not curating how you build your 'Class'.
We see this in other games such as ESO where people give smaller 'cute nicknames' to different builds of the same class, Defplar and Magplar anyone?
This is only a Marketing problem if you assume that a level 24 Cleric who plans to be a High Priest has a build very similar to a level 24 Cleric who plans to be a Templar. The expectation that 'class' means something that is given to you rather than something you build is fine, but it's not like the word Archetype is incorrect here.
If Ashes said 'right, as soon as you choose to be a Templar you have to give up this subset of your healing abilities and we'll give you some new damage abilities, and that will be your class', would this still be a 'marketing problem'?
What if they released the game with 64 "These are the skills and augments you should take for this class."?
U.S. East
But, also, the OP is coming from the perspective of starting with the class name and then creating the class.
Intrepid primarily created the class (Archetype combo) and then gave it a label.
Who knows how close Shaman combat will fit with what we might typically think of a Shaman.
Most important is that the Active skills and augments fit with what we would expect from a Cleric/Summoner combo...and we can expect there will be some Shaman-esque visual flavor/aesthetics.
Oh I have no idea, I'm just saying not everyone pays MMOs or RPGs to fight, some people just like the world building and crafting stuff a class that focuses on that was an interesting idea... That's all.
Each character has three spheres in Ashes where class can be selected (as far as we know).
These spheres are combat, crafting and naval.
Based on this, since your class as is being discussed is specific to combat, it makes no sense to have an economic class here.
All fair points. I'm not saying it should be a thing. Just just thinking out loud. It reminded me of a hero I used to run back in warlords battlecry. You could make your character a merchant. He was complete shite at combat compared to other heros, but could build and buy more than anyone else.
But yeah, I can see how ashes would keep that separated.
Okay so I admit I regret the way I formulated the original post. I admit it is somewhat confused and I particularly regret using the word ''unique'' refering to classes, when I just wanted to strengthen ''distinct''.
I mean, yes and no.
If they said 8 classes each with 8 specs, this would be a completely different discussion,
Indeed they used the word ''class'' for each of the ''specs'', which is a heavy word to use in the mmo-rpg world.
I can't believe they (gamers themselves) wouldn't realize this. A lot of what they said regarding class design also reinforces this impression (that ''subclasses'' won't be distinct enough at all).
I mean, it was both because we have no certainties yet.
As I said, it's never too late to re-name the 64 classes as ''8 classes with 8 specs each''.
And if they don't intend to make the Templar into a solid dps melee cleric (gameplay which would fit the name) they should rebrand it as a Hospitaler.
I mean, it isn't because we already have it in many mmo-rpgs including in World of Warcraft (the Retribution ''Templar's Verdict'' Paladin).
Wait, what?
The classes (gameplay) created?
No.
Even the ''sample'' classes we got to see (Mage, Cleric and Tank) will be significantly different when the game launches.
Blizzard made significant changes to classes between pre-launch beta and launch version.
So yeah, at this point the names > gameplay simply because the names exist and the gameplay doesn't (not even for the 3 sample classes we've seen so far).
This being said there are a serious of objective, legitimate expectations people will have from a class named Shaman.
I confess, Rae, that I don't actually know which part of what I wrote you're responding to, and so that leaves me a little bit at a loss for how to go forward here. I'll try answering your (potentially rhetorical) questions at face value!
Marketing, mostly. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4FcxgdvdQP45D6Skg/disguised-queries
There's this thing where humans use words as a way to infer the answer to the real question we're trying to ask. If someone says "how many classes does world of warcraft have?", someone else can answer 12: warrior, paladin, hunter, rogue, priest, shaman, mage, warlock, monk, druid, demon hunter, and death knight.
They might ask a similar question about ESO or guild wars 2 or path of exile. Maybe they really do care about the number of classes for whatever reason. Chances are though, that they're really trying to infer the answer to something else, like how much build variety there is. World of Warcraft has 3 specs per class, so not only are you a "priest", but you can be a "discipline priest" which plays absolutely nothing like a "shadow priest". I'd hazard that the gameplay distance between WoW's shadow priest and disc priest is going to be further than ashes' cleric/cleric and cleric/rogue.
World of Warcraft has ~36 different packages of abilities (the class specs). They, for whatever reason, just call those a "specialization" instead of a "class". FFXIV has 17. BDO has 23 (though there's some gender funkiness). Path of Exile has 7.
All of those games (except FFXIV) support more build customization than just picking what your core kit is (and ashes will too). Then, someone comes along and asks "how many classes does Ashes of Creation have?", and the AoC fan gleefully answers, "64. There's a Predator, Shadowblade, Song Warden, Keeper, Enchanter..."
Again, it's semantics. It feels like abuse of a word. It's using "class" in a way that previous MMOs haven't used the word "class", as far as I can tell. In Destiny 2, there are 3 classes (titan, hunter, warlock), each of which has 4 subclasses (solar, arc, void, stasis). Within those subclasses, there are multiple build paths (way of the trapper, way of the assassin, etc). They could have said that there are 12 classes, but they didn't.
Yeah, because I think it intentionally inflates the answer to "how many classes does ashes have?" and purposefully misuses the word "class". That's what WoW does, but on a much larger scale when you go from being a holy paladin to a retribution paladin, but you're still a paladin, and they still count it as one 'class'.
Then they would have released the game with 64 suggested builds not 64 classes. Again, though, this all hinges on disagreements on what a class is and how that word as been defined historically and what meaning it conveys. Once you become informed on what it means in ashes-of-creation-land, I don't think it matters at all. A class is just a primary/secondary archetype combination with a snazzy name. It's marketing fluff. Archeage has something like 220 classes (though they didn't appear to name them), so it's not like there isn't precedent for this sort of thing.
I'm a little confused here. How is this anything but a marketing complaint? The game will almost certainly have the character-building flexibility to let you realize whatever sort of character you want to most degrees. You can pick your spells, pick which ones you rank up, pick your augments, pick your armor, and pick your weapon. Have you ever played Path of Exile? Try to imagine a game like that, where it's more about you realizing a character build through your build choices than the devs hand-crafting class identity like in retail WoW.
We only have 3 classes. The classes we have aren't even finished. The abilities aren't even fully designed. Subclasses don't exist yet. It is currently impossible to accurately speculate on whether or not the particular combination of cleric/fighter will be high tier/meta after release (years down the line). Like yeah, cleric/fighter could be trash. It could be super good. Depends on how it's tuned. Not worth speculating about currently. Don't have enough info.
Because I also threw it into a gameplay discussion, by claiming sub-classes should have some notable degree of distinction.
I have doubts about that, which I've expressed in other topics (I think they will fail to make viable hybrids in the same way blizzard did in 2004-2007, based on the claims the developers made so far, for example).
Yeah I agree we're speculating.
But it's a really important point in the development of the game where we need to point out what we want and don't want.
Thanks, actually, (I feel you and I communicate well, so just go with your instincts on whatever my weirdness evokes) answering the 'rhetorical questions' was the point because I was trying to figure out where you stand on a specific thing.
The core point was, as @Ironhope pointed out, they really were reacting to something beyond just the name thing. Your reduction of the concept would be valid in most cases, but it didn't seem to be for their intent. Basically, their post was 'a reaction to something' not necessarily 'an attempt to get an answer from which they could infer specific other things'.
I think Ashes was trying to get at something deeper, which I can at least 'argue for'.
"After a while, things that are very similar and for which the gameplay is the same or has the potential to be mostly the same, are Archetypes, not classes."
If we assume that they can do the Augment thing at least as well as I expect, then 'Level 24 Cleric' and 'Level 30 Apostle' don't play that different if you chose the abilities for the level 24 Cleric to be 'preparation for the Apostle'. And because that falls under the umbrella of 'things they assigned to the Cleric' in order to give you the options for both that 'Pre-Apostle' build and the 'Pre-High Priest' build, they 'have to call it something'.
One could still call it a class, but it's sufficiently differentiated that 'trying to get people to accept a new term for it' might not be a bad idea. Ashes' design structure creates a scenario unlike most other games of this type that I'm aware of. AFAIK in most better-known games that let you do this 'main and sub' combination, you can apply the sub starting really early and therefore your 'class' and the resultant gameplay are set.
So you never need a 'separate name' for 'what you are up until the point where you can apply the rest of your gameplay'. Your 'build' might be different, but it can usually be so different that 'class' applies only in the sense that overlap is possible.
I was asking if you thought that 'explicitly separating the overlap' would be enough to make it okay to call them 'classes', and the answer I infer is 'no' (if I have to reduce it down). The preferred term would probably be 'build' but this also has some connotations I wouldn't necessarily want to use if I were in their position either (I don't even like using it for my own and it fits better there because Cardinal works like what I mentioned).
Neither would I want to use 'role', nor 'path', nor 'specialization'.
I can see how it would have been really difficult for a design whose exposure to the world normally came from words, and videos, and quotes, to come up with and consistently use a new term across all 'encounters', so I see choosing 'Archetype' as a good self-priming decision. I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to imply that Ashes is 'classless' because that will make people think of Albion.
But I'll 'defend' the concept that 'I have an Apostle sharing only 50% of its chosen skills with a High Priest and furthermore changing the effects of some of the shared ones significantly and this result needs a name other than build'.
Even considering that there is a spectrum of skill choices between the 'usual Apostle' and the 'usual High Priest' that creates a gradient, that gradient could be meaningfully 'removed' by Augments. Ironhope has given us their precise perspective actually:
I feel that Intrepid is justified in giving a specific separate identifier name to a 'Mage/Summoner'.
I feel it's okay to use a name that fits what prior MMOs would have called a character that plays like a 'standard' Mage/Summoner.
I feel that since that name would have been called 'class' in prior MMOs, players, particularly casual players, are going to call it that anyway, and Intrepid explicitly avoiding doing so is bad.
I don't feel like we can assume that anyone's expectations are being deceived yet. So, one final short analogy.
"If someone tells you that they intend to open a restaurant, and gives you a menu consisting of a lot of common variations of pasta, but warns you that 'we're not actually pasta chefs so we are probably just going to combine whatever base pasta and sauce you tell us but we're still going to advertise arrabiata', I don't think you should call this deceptive until you know that their arrabiata sucks, because it's so relatively hard to do it wrong, and arrabiata is just a term to describe a combination of some things."
Whether or not your build will be meta or endgame viable or balanced properly is entirely separate from whether or not it's possible to make it. Do we agree there? Super smash bros melee has bowser and donkey kong as playable characters, but people don't actually play those characters in tournaments, generally (because they're hot garbage). Doesn't mean they aren't characters, though. It's useful to separate concerns about whether or not a character can be made, and whether or not a build will be good/viable/meta.
So this is something that Rae has talked a little bit about before, and I think you've argued with. I don't actually thnk there's a clear vision for balance at the moment.
In a game like this, there are billions of possible builds and interactions. 1v1s are supposedly not going to be balanced at all, and the devs are okay with classes having really lop-sided matchups. Presumably if 1v1s are really lopsided, 2v2s won't be that much better. If you and your partner both run into the classes that wreck you individually, you're probably in for a bad time, right?
We know what "balance" looks like in a 1v1 game. Say that you have 3 races like in starcraft 2: terran, zerg, protoss. Your game is balanced if TvP, TvZ, and ZvP are all even matchups (since the rest of the matchups are all mirror matchups). You've created a full matchup chart and made sure that all of the matchups are even.
But, starcraft2 also supports 2v2. What are all the possible 2v2 matchups?
So what does "balance" mean here? Ideally, every single one of those matchups is 50:50. As a player, you have to pick a teammate. So maybe you play terran, and your friend plays protoss. Now your team is a TP. You have 6 matchups to worry about: TT, TP, TZ, PP, PZ, and ZZ. If the game is good for your perspective all of those matchups will be roughly even. If you picked a shittier team, you might have mostly bad matchups. If you picked a really good team, maybe you'll have mostly good matchups.
What happens if we look at 3v3? Well, the balance chart explodes. The number of possible matchups starts getting exponentially high. It becomes infeasible to balances games like this. Instead, the best you can do is sort of just every week hit the build that's "performing best" (whatever that means) or dominating the meta or whatever with a nerf hammer, and buff some underperforming build. Unfortunately, because a "build" is composed of a whole bunch of moving parts when you do this, you inevitably create unintended consequences. You accidentally buff some A-tier build into S+ when you meant to buff a mid-tier because now the A-tier build can use the mid-tier's buff. You accidentally nerf a mid-tier into oblivion because the only thing keeping it viable was that it was leveraging one of the aspects from the S-tier build that just got nerfed. etc.
The AoC devs have said that they want to "balance around big siege battles". What could this possibly mean? They must be using the word "balance" differently than I do. Super interested to watch this all unfold.
Oof, this, so much.
I like to think, in all arrogance, that I know what they mean by 'balance', but I don't like the use of the term, it feels like their use of the term 'class'. But when you're going into little-charted territory, you still need terms for stuff, unfortunately, and you need terms that laypeople understand (which often end up being misleading to anyone in the intermediate-jungle).
From everything I read, their idea of 'balance' is actually 'you can always find a place for your build where it will be one of the most effective options' and I can see how that would be achievable. It's good enough, since the sort of person that wants to be 'meta' will change, and the person who wants 'personal identity' will 'search for their spot', but I do not envy the Community team's task when MetaBuild A dominates the first real taste of 'Endgame Content' that unlocks.
That's gonna be a rough week. Knowing Ashes, a rough month. If MetaBuild A is also somehow good in Node Siege defense? Rough quarter.
That's what I always find so hard to understand about Ashes, it has two strongly opposed 'marketing goals'. On the one hand it says 'there is no endgame, choice will matter' and on the other 'you can play how you want and it will be fun'. To me this just implies the game will have an extremely fractured community with tiny amounts of mingling that people will then prop up as shining examples of how 'everyone can enjoy the game together if they just let go of their preconceptions and play with friends'.
On the other hand, having 250v250 siege battles means that, at least at some point in the game, there's a chance that Suboptimal-For-Siege characters will actually get to experience it. I wouldn't expect that at 100v100.
Following so far - and insofar as I know, the primary archetype matters way more. As in, I expect that the behavior that this will drive in-game is that folks will be either looking for specific roles to fill groups (tanks, healers, dps), or specific archetypes, but hardly ever specific classes unless the class balance is extremely bad. Also, that a character can relatively easily switch between different classes within their primary archetype, but can't switch their primary archetype at all. These things lead me to believe that picking your secondary archetype is sort of like another build choice in the same way that picking what sort of armor you'll wear, or what weapon you'll use, or what skill points you'll invest in is. Though the lines here are pretty blurry to me.
I think that they had said "you pick a starting class, and then at level 25, you pick a sub-class to gain augment options for your skills", it would have been less snazzy but way less confusing. You'd have a cleric with fighter augments so you'd have more mobility and damage. Or you could have a cleric with cleric augments and more healing, etc. I don't think we needed new words, but we have them! Ultimately, archetype is fine, and I think conveys what they're trying to get across. "Secondary archetype" is a bit of a mouthful, IMO. 64 classes is a lot, and I wouldn't be surprised if the primary skills you pick or the weapons you choose end up being more important than your secondary archetype. ie, it's more important that you're a "bow ranger" than you're a "strider". Games like PoE, Diablo 3, and Destiny 2 make communicating about builds even more difficult because you also have to include the names of the items. Like in Destiny 2, I have to mention which exotic weapon and exotic armor I'm using (since you can only use 1 of each). "I'm a sleeper-simulant celestial-nighthawk bottom-tree gunslinger hunter" which is super annoying to say, but is very different than if any of those words change.
So for me, I don't mind so much. I think that words are pretty malleable (archeage has 220 'classes'). If Intrepid wants to call them classes (and they did), I'm game. I don't think they should backtrack. It's useful to have names so the community can write 'scion' instead of 'ranger/mage'. It's snazzy marketing. I think it's potentially confusing, but I don't really have skin the game there. I was just trying to un-derail the thread if that makes sense, since I thought I saw a bunch of posts that didn't seem to be directly addressing the main central points previous ones.
Like in GW1 the 2 main healer class were Monk/Ritualist. But if your main archetype was the Necromancer, you could upgrade its unique traits (Each death around u restore xHp and XMana) And it would make the N/M or N/RT more Potent the Monk/X or RT/X on the long fight cause of the mana provided on dead around.
I just hope that whatever come out of the 64 archetype possible there will no be Meta and people will be able to play the style they really want and how they want to. And that people will pick them for They playstyle instead of cause its the meta archetype.
I just hope there will be nice synergy and combo possible
Yes, I think so. You can clarify if I have. See below.
It seems that if a given person were really upset that they used the word 'classes', that you would be sympathetic and possibly even go so far as to 'side with' such a person if someone provided the counter-argument in question: 'What if they just separated them all out?'
I feel like there are definitely people out there that would view it as a good thing if Templar and Priest were separate Archetypes, and Templar got "Judgement", "Castigation", "Divine Censure" and maybe just one Heal, with Priest getting "Hallowed Ground", "Devotion", "Radiant Burst" and ZERO DPS abilities. I have data on such people.
Mostly in my discussion with Ironhope, I was trying to figure out whether or not they were in that dataset. "Those people that would want 22 classes, but would achieve this number by slicing up the Archetypes into things they considered more focused."
So in your case I was checking if you 'considered this approach to be a more valid path to justifiably using the word 'classes' or if you would require an additional aspect or intention on their part'. And the reason for my inference of 'no' is that your concern seems to be more with 'potential for confusion, and design issues', than with 'at what point of distinction does something become a class?'.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, this is the lightbulb moment. I didn't get that that's what you were driving toward at all; makes way more sense now. Honestly, I'm good either way! If they wanted to partition up archetypes to make them feel more distinct so that giving them separate labels makes more sense, I think that's super reasonable.
Honestly, I think that games like WoW would be justified in calling their shadow priest a different "class" than their discipline priest, they just don't. But again, I think it all just comes down to what we think a "class" is and what sort of meaning it conveys. Folks coming from WoW will be like "wait that's a spec, and each class has 8 specs instead of 3", but folks coming from archeage will be like "why do classes have names" and folks coming from albion will be like "wtf is a class". I think it's all fine and it'll work out!
The language exists to convey meaning - to point to examples and draw boundaries around stuff in thingspace. As long as we're all communicating, and I think we are, then we're good
I very clearly stipulate class (Archetype combo).
We did not play classes in the Alpha.
The devs have started with the class - which is Primary Archetype + Secondary Archetype.
They then devised labels for those combos.
They did not start with the labels and then design the classes.
And what is most important is the classes - not the labels.
Which is fine - but...
It's mostly going to be about the Cleric/Summoner class... with some aesthetics that evoke a Shaman.
Same with the Summoner/Cleric class...with some aesthetics that evoke a Necromancer.
Players will have to adjust their expectations from other games.
Augments provide lots of variety for how to play each Primary Archetype. Secondary Archetypes also create themes - like the thematic difference between a Shaman and Necromancer.
But, the balance is still focused on the Primary Archetypes; not the 64 classes.
It's more about ensuring the 8-person group is viable.
But, even then, it's really how that works in a Siege more than it is how that works in an dungeon.
Getting a little philosophical for a second, when people talk about government design and "freedom" there's this often-ignored nuance. There are "positive" freedoms and "negative" freedoms. For example, if I'm "free" (legally), to steal, then at the same time I'm not free from theft. Can't have it both ways. You can't preserve your right-to-steal and also your right-of-ownership governmentally, you have to pick one to enforce.
Applied to a game like ashes, folks simultaneously want the "freedom to choose my own build", the "freedom to have my own identity" and "the freedom to not get crushed by meta builds". They don't often explicitly write the last one, but it's there. Those freedoms don't jive.
If this was a 1v1 game with, like, 5 different build options then sure, they could balance the matchup chart. It isn't. You're free to build your character into something really mediocre. Then, Intrepid isn't going to give you any sort of metrics to see just how mediocre your build is - no DPS addons, no way to test, and everything has RNG. Meanwhile, there's going to be some incredibly sweaty group with sharing secret meta strats that are going to be crushingly better than whatever mediocre nonsense the average group is running. Happens in every single game.
These guys will come in, lock down the world bosses, play 10+ hours a day, populate excel sheets, spread information, rotate their kills to spread items, and more or less lock the content out for everyone else. I'm going to be part of that group, as I would imagine anyone who is going to take the game seriously will be. There will be some variation for the players here, and there are always innovators, but way less than what goes on outside of this. If the in-group innovators ever come up with something better than what the in-group currently has, it gets ruthlessly copied until it's the new normal.
As an example, the players trying to race to world first for mythic WoW raiding are always at the mercy of balance patches. If it turns out that a particular raiding encounter favors shadow priests, and a player doesn't play a shadow priest, then they're not playing that encounter. If it turns out that an encounter is 2% easier if you're the night fae covenant on your fire mage instead of necrolord covenant on your firemage, then your necrolord fire mage isn't coming. How do these high-end raiders cope with this? They pay for multiple accounts so they can maintain 15+ raid-ready characters. Whichever character happens to be meta this week they can just play at a moment's notice. It happens that a new patch dropped and now night fae is in? Guess the night-fae fire mage is getting some play - glad that I made sure to keep up with all of the content on him and my other 15 characters just in case.
They hate it. It feels like a giant waste of time, but its what it takes to be better than other people who are willing to waste more time than you, in a game where the "competition" is balance-patch dependent, and performance is heavily tied to character power. It would be lovely if you could just easily switch from rogue to mage. You can't. It would be lovely if you could easily switch from night fae to necrolord. You can't (they're changing this). To cope, they instead just have to maintain every combination that could be meta.
And finally, re "a suboptimal build finding a place in a 250v250": like yeah - they're a warm body. No one person can mechanically make that much of a difference. A 250 man team of optimized meta builds will crush a 250 man team of free-form identity people. There will always be a "place" for that, but idk that seems like a super low bar
And then group build is really going to depend more on how each group synergizes the specific builds they have. Are the x/Clerics and x/Rogues adequately synchronizing with each other.
Are the the Mages synching their Snares with the Ranger Snares?
It's not just about a META for an individual build. In Ashes the focus will be on how each individual learns to synch with similar builds in their specific group or raid or Siege.
If you are in a society were stealing is legal - that society is most probably also free from theft.
Because ownership will not really be a thing... and there won't be a concept for stealing or theft.
As has been said to you many times so far...
That's a very interesting opinion you have.
Of course, in this case, it doesn't stand up to anything. You're making an assumption somewhere.
I know this because whenever someone asks you 'what about those people who choose things that aren't optimal' (e.g. Rogues who focus entirely on stealth and not damage) you respond 'why would someone do that?'.
I don't think you understand it, but for your clarity, people like you are the problem. Meta-build makers often don't want to force others to use meta-builds. Some of us want our own meta builds nerfed because crushing people who want something else is unpleasant for everyone.
But along comes someone like you and without realizing it, goes 'Why would you play something other than what makes sense to me/the content?' and enforce the meta. If that 'someone' is in support of something other than the actual meta, they get salty about the current meta. If they are in support of the current meta, they just play it off as 'well that's obviously how it is meant to be'...
And crush people who just want some tweaks to make their weird little niche build viable.
Don't be that person, Dygz. Don't create the meta.