Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
You can do that in Ashes as the game stands now.
You could be a high level crafter, perhaps high level is something naval, but still in single digits in terms of your actual combat level. This character could also just spend all their time playing the market - something that doesn't require a class to do effectively.
This is something I both want and expect to see some people do.
Since this is a comment on the specifics of game design and intent, and not an opinion on anything, I am going to have to go ahead and ask you for a reference for why you think this.
Because I call absolute bullshit here.
😂😂😂
This is a completely different matter.
It doesn't change the fact their marketing so far is very likely unfair looking at claims they've also made so far.
Sure, your point is valid, maybe they don't give us what they promissed but they give us something better.
Different topic tho.
Most likely it means the augmented abilities won't be distinct from the ''core'' ones, which would be a pitty.
I made a whole topic about what a problem balancing hybrids will be.
Esentially, I doubt many people will go ''half-way'' simply because it would likely mean sucking at two things at the same time instead of being good at at least one.
This being said, you will obviously want your Templar to have some healing because otherwise... well, you might as well go Fighter directly.
And you will also want your High Priest to have some offensive skills for utility (for example, Judgement's debuff).
So it is going to be a matter of ''both in different amounts'' but I doubt it will be a half-way thing.
It's a subjective improvement.
What we're really discussing here, though...is classes; not skill point allocation.
You're just trying to move the bar in order to gain a win.
It's just viable and non-viable.
Mediocre is so subjective it's meaningless.
And, yes, all kinds of improvements can be made. Those improvements will be subjective.
Any Primary Archetype is viable, so...no.
Nope. It's just two buckets.
Viable and non-viable.
Meta is irrelevant. Mediocre is also irrelevant.
These are terms that you like to use.
I know what you're saying.
It's just viable and non-viable.
I suppose you can try using other labels.
What matters are the concepts.
Your categories of viable are irrelevant.
This crushing someone concept of yours is irrelevant because Ashes is not balanced for 1v1 PvP combat.
Ashes is balanced for 8-person groups and massive sieges.
What matters in Ashes is how the player synchronizes their character with other characters in their group and how well the player can get their character to achieve objectives.
Piloting the build and the gear you have matter, we agree.
Viable matters. Improvements will be relative to the specific player, specific encounter, specific group and specific objectives.
Meta and mediocre build don't matter much - except subjectively to players who obsess over the meta.
So having more options like a rogue/tank being a tank?
Wait so, you believe it is impossible to create non-viable builds. So there are only viable builds, so just one bucket? Like, no matter how you allocate your points, you will end up with a viable build (and so the concept of a non-viable build doesn't exist). You could purposely allocate your points in such a way that it makes absolutely no sense, and has absolutely no synergy and your build would still be "viable" in your mind, right? Or would that build be "non-viable"?
How is it two buckets if all builds are viable? I would think it would just be one, right? How is the meta irrelevant, if you admit that it's also the "most effective", by definition? Why not allow folks to say "these builds are viable but not meta, and these builds are viable and meta?" Pretty confused here. Why do you get to decide what's relevant and what's not? What makes things "irrelevant" to you?
It's relevant when one build helps me win a 1v1 and keep my gathering materials and one build doesn't help me win a 1v1 and I lose my gathering materials. It's relevant to my gameplay experience, and it's also directly relevant to the amount of gathering materials I have.
Again, you don't get to define relevance for other people. Intrepid has said that they're balancing around big sieges. That doesn't mean that the rest of the modes of play are "irrelevant".
You seem to understand that there are a bunch of ways that you can improve your ability to succeed (in a nonbinary sense) at different facets of the game. You can improve your skills, your gear, your team play. You tune your whole setup for sieges, 8-man-group content, 1v1s, naval stuff, etc. Part of this is you can also change around how your build performs for this content. Some builds will do better at 1v1s than other builds. And the same builds that are better at 1v1s may be worse at sieges or PvE. They might both be "viable". I don't get how this is a hard concept to grasp.
If anything is absurd on this thread, it's this response right here. That viable and non viable are the only two results for rating a build. You are completely delusional if you think this is how gamers work. It doesn't matter how much intrepid might fight it, or try to avoid it. There WILL be number crunchers that rank DPS archtypes by who does the most, ranks augments, ranks builds, ranks secondary choices to see which is the most effective. I'm sorry, but thinking in viable/non-viable and using that as your organization system for various character builds is straight laughable.
Just don't expect them to be able to main tank in an 8-person group better than the Tank/x.
Haha
So flexibility, within rigid boundaries...
Man your version of this game is whack...
Lol
Such an interesting opinion you have there
This is someone who is 'self proclaimed' 0% killer Bartles score and a 'self proclaimed' 'social loner'. I'm not even quite sure if Dygz is even capable of understanding how flawed his perception is given his lack of interest in the things that cause someone to learn why it is flawed.
I guess 'running' from possible social negativity caused by one 'not fitting in' or 'causing the group problems' is in fact a way to reduce the stress and psychological reactions to rejection. It just is also inapplicable to anyone else not using that strategy and therefore largely ignorable when it comes to any game design conversation.
IS won't ever lose Dygz if they build in ways counter to his flawed perspective. His defense mechanic means he will just adapt and continue running. So it's fine for them to straight up ignore him and do their job solving the problems of everyone else who doesn't or can't resolve social issues with his response type. You should probably do the same. Better for your health.
People generally come to conclusions in one of two ways (with some shades of gray). They either come across some evidence and then draw conclusions from that evidence, OR, they come to a conclusion and then search for evidence to support that conclusion.
If your conclusion is based on evidence, then people can change your mind by challenging your evidence.
If you believe that the earth is flat, for instance, because when you look into the distance it looks flat, then someone might be able to change your mind by explaining how large the earth is and the vision horizon and all of that. They challenge the evidence (looks flat), provide an alternative (round earth also looks flat), provide some additional evidence, and maybe you draw a new conclusion.
If your conclusion came first, then people challenging your evidence doesn't actually do anything, it's just frustrating.
If you believe that the earth is flat and this is just one of your conclusions, and when people ask "why", then now you search for reasons. "Well, when I look into the distance it looks flat". Then, they start explaining that a round earth could look flat but you don't want to give any ground because that makes your position look weak. You want to win!
You either argue until they give up, you try to sidestep somehow, you make it personal somehow, you just keep asserting that the earth is flat, etc. If you actually admit that maybe the earth could be round, then maybe all of your flat-earth-friends won't like you as much. Maybe the earth being flat is part of your identity. Maybe you just ignore "a round earth looks flat in the distance" arguments and pivot to something else when it comes up. After all, the "reasons" you're providing aren't why you believe the earth is flat, they're just what you answer when someone asks.
Maybe someone keeps asking questions until they get really close to getting you to say something completely insane, so you just refuse to engage or shut down. You just repeat something like "I said what I said" until they go away.
The context of this discussion is:
Improving skills is subjective. Skills can be improved. Yes.
You can change around a whole bunch of stuff. yes.
1v1 builds are irrelevant because Ashes is not balanced for 1v1.
Viable is what really matters. And the game is balanced for any Primary Archetype/x to be viable in a 8-person dungeon, a raid or a siege.
Meta and mediocre are irrelevant concepts.
That's it.
Then you, self-admittedly, want to try to move goal posts with reductio ad absurdum fallacies.
I refuse to answer absurd, irrelevant questions. Yes.
That is some poor reading comprehension on your part.
0% Killer is about what I like relative to other activities. That says nothing about my killing prowess or tactical knowledge.
If you then say "ha! but no! builds can never be mediocre, only viable and not viable. If that build is too weak, because it doesn't have any synergy, then it isn't viable. If it has enough synergy despite making silly passive point choices, then it is viable".
This is a fully semantic argument. You're the one moving the goal posts here, not me. You're the one who sees the world in black and white instead of shades and gray here. You're the one who just sees the "binary". I'm saying that some of the "not viable" build are closer to "viable" than others. Some of the "viable" builds are closer to "not viable" than others. Within the huge list of "viable" builds, you're going to have a big spectrum of build performance.
To no surprise to basically anyone but you, some of those builds within "viable" (whatever that means), could conceivably be called "mediocre". Dictionary definition "of only moderate quality; not very good."
Someone could subjectively look at their own build and decide "this is viable, but it is of moderate quality". They could look at some different build they made with better synergies and think "this is viable and is of high quality and very good". These are coherent thoughts.
Sometimes, you can even do this objectively. For instance, and you haven't addressed this a single time. If you have passive points in bleeding effects and you're not causing any bleeds, your build would become objectively better if you reallocated those points elsewhere. It's objective because by all ways of measuring, the build is stronger. The points you were spending in increasing your bleeding damage were doing nothing, and now they're doing something. Any positive number, no matter how low, is objectively higher than 0.
Why does ashes not being balanced for 1v1s make 1v1s builds irrelevant? Like, people will still get into 1v1s. There's a whole bounty hunting system. 1v1s will happen, and having a build that excels at them will be useful for players interested in doing so. You don't get to decide what is relevant and what is irrelevant for other people.
Why are these irrelevant concepts?
Viable is subjective
Yeah, I mean of course. Everyone also has different goals.
Different builds will be "viable" for "defeat this content with a >10% success rate" than "defeat this content with a 99 success rate" or "defeat this content in under 15 minutes with a 95% success rate".
If, for whatever reason, we absolutely have to use two buckets (we don't), then we can just stratify the builds by changing the objective function. Only builds that would normally be considered meta would be considered "viable" under Dygz weird definitions if we change the goal to "defeat the content extremely quickly with an extremely high success rate". Surely Dygz doesn't think they get to pick our goals for us, right?.... right?
Say Alan claims "There are no people of average attractiveness."
Flabberghasted, Charles finally pipes up and replies, "uh, there are plenty of people of average attractiveness. Bob here is average. No offense Bob." Bob nods - he knows that he's solidly average and isn't self-conscious about it. It helps that he's also rich
Alan replies "No, there are just unattractive people and attractive people. The concept of average people is irrelevant."
Confused, Bob says "What do you mean? There are unattractive people and attractive people, sure. And it's definitely subjective, so I Bob and I might disagree about how attractive Dylan is. But regardless, there are for sure people who are in the middle.
Alan replies "Nope. You're either attractive enough to get a mate or you're not and that's the end of it. You're either unattractive or attractive." Alan won't budge.
It's like I don't know, I guess Alan is free to make up their own weird definitions and choose to label stuff like that, but I don't see what that accomplishes. It doesn't facilitate communication, it's confusing for basically everyone else, and it ignores a lot of nuances and readily available information.
😂🤣😂🤣😂
And all classes are viable.
You are then trying to craft a reductio ad absurdam example of an individual Primary Archetype build for a 1v1 scenario - the polar opposite of what the devs are designing for.
Which is the inherent problem in the first place.
Weird definitions is like using "mediocre build" instead of "viable class" (Ashes class).
Or talents instead of skill points.
You have to examine the game design based on the Ashes design philosophy; not on the design philosophy of other MMORPGs. Because the Ashes game design is different in significant ways.
What makes a class viable in Ashes is going to be very different than any other MMORPG that does not use Primary Archetype and Secondary Archetype to create a class and doesn't have augments.
Why are you moving the goalposts from builds to classes? What does "all classes are viable" even mean? That there is at least one build within each class that's viable? Yeah, I'd sure hope so (though, there have been games where this hasn't been the case for long stretches of time in particular content types).
Players don't play "classes" per-se. They play "builds", which includes a "class". After you pick a primary and a secondary archetype, you have picked a class. You also need to pick how to allocate your passive and active skill points, which skills to augment, what kind of armor/weapon to wear, etc. All of that is part of your overall build.
So when someone asks "What is your build?", you can reply: "I'm a heavy armor wearing, mace wielding templar that focuses on damage with a little bit of healing and a lot of passive CC resistance" or something like that. If someone asks "how good is that build?", and you're only capable of answering "viable" or "not viable", you're going to confuse a lot of folks. Other folks are perfectly capable of answering like "it's pretty good, but not as good as such-and-such", or "it's really great, in fact, I think it's the strongest build that templar has".
Does all this make sense?
What we've been talking about is the balance of the 64 classes...page 6.
In Ashes the devs are balancing the Primary Archetypes such that any Primary Archetype/x is viable in a dungeon or raid or Siege or Caravan skirmish.
The devs are not designing Ashes to need to have a meta build to defeat encounters.
Ashes is not designed for meta builds to be central or to be crucial for success.
The Ashes design for classes is focused on how players synergize the Skills and augments they've chosen with the Skills and augments of others in their group - especially in Sieges and Caravan battles rather than how an individual build fits into a 1v1 encounter, a 5-person static dungeon or even a 40-person static raid.
What I'm telling you is that Earth is not the center of the universe and the solar system does not orbit the Earth. Rather, Earth and the solar system orbit the Sun. And even the Sun is not the center of the universe.
You then try to shift back to the paradigm of the Earth being the center of the universe by arguing that if Mars has an orbit it must orbit the Earth - because that's what orbit means. You then ask questions like, "What if people want to use horoscopes? In your world view, how can constellations function correctly if the Earth is not the center of the universe? You seem to understand that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but the Sun doesn't circle the Earth?" And then you try to get me to agree that the Earth must be the center of the universe because the Earth is flat.
Just because you can imagine a flat Earth does not mean that a flat Earth exists or is truly relevant to the cosmology of the universe.
Ashes class design does not have the same paradigm as other MMORPGs - MMORPGs that do not have Primary and Secondary Archetypes, that do not have augments and that are not balanced for 8-person groups with one of each Primary Archetype and a focus on Sieges.
Ashes does not have static dungeons and static raids.
One of the design elements that we're implementing into our raids is that the raid will not be exactly the same every single time. You're going to have variables that can't necessarily be pre-planned out for.
---Steven
Meta build does not have much meaning in Ashes. Nor does mediocre build.
A build is either viable or it's not. And if it's not viable, you make adjustments, improving the build to make it better for the specific situation you're in and the specific goals and objectives you've set. Even if you have a build that worked great for the Drythorn Raid the first time, it's very likely you will have to make some skill point adjustments the second and third times you return. Because the content is not static. That does not mean your build was mediocre - it just means you may need to or want to, adjust it for different situations.
You might adjust your build because you're doing different content. You might adjust your build because you have different people in a new group with whom you would like to synergize your skills and augments.
The devs are not balancing for one character v one boss.
But, adjusting a build because of having difficulty defeating a boss does not mean the build was mediocre.
A player could decide that the build was non-viable for that encounter and reallocate skill points and augments. But, it also could be that the build was viable and all that was needed was a change in tactics, better kiting, better snaring, etc.
Again, just because someone beats that boss once does not mean they can do so again with the exact same build - because that encounter will likely change enough to warrant adjustments to the build.
Just because you can imagine a person placing points into Bleed Passive Skills but not into any Bleed Active Skills or Weapon Skills or (augments) does not mean that such a person exists. As, just because you can imagine a flat Earth does not mean such a person exists. Even so, what would truly matter in that case is the rest of that character's skill allocation, augment allocation, gear, accessories and whether the player is able to make that build viable enough to defeat the encounter - and, with regard to balance, that's really not going to be about that one character against one boss; instead, it's going to be about how the player synergizes
that character with the other people in the group to achieve the specific objectives.
You can be obsessed with meta build and mediocre build if you want to - just like you can be obsessed with a flat Earth and horoscopes if you want to.
If someone asks you what your horoscope is, you can answer Virgo, sure.
Then I replied
See how neither of us are talking about picking classes? We're talking about builds. Then you come in and write
Which is nonsense. Of course you can make a mediocre build. It doesn't matter that the design is focused on the active skills of the primary archetype. Your build includes other choices, like what weapons and armor you wear, and your augments, and where you allocate your passive skill points. You can, for instance, put passive skill points into boosting bleeding damage and then not pick any active skills or equip any weapons that cause bleeding damage and end up with a mediocre build.
Maybe the class that you're playing isn't mediocre (because it has plenty of good builds), but the build you're choosing to play can definitely be not great.
So no, it's not me moving the goal posts. I was always talking about builds, and you were originally talking about builds. You even wrote,"you can't really make a mediocre build". That's what we're talking about! Builds! Fortunately, there is a written history of our communication and I can just point to it so this sort of gaslighting is impossible.
Is there something that gave you the impression that I thought this was the case?
True! Also, a build having difficulty defeating a boss when other builds don't have difficulty could mean that build is mediocre. There's a whole spectrum of build strength. Mediocre just means middle-of-the-road. If the boss is easy, mediocre builds will beat it fine. If the boss is super hard, even the best builds will struggle.
Sure. Likewise, just because you can't imagine anyone doing this (or anything remotely similar) over the course of the game's lifespan, this does not mean that such a person does not exist. See how this works?
Additionally, your claim wasn't that folks WONT make mediocre builds (which makes some assumptions about player behavior), it was that they CAN'T (which is an argument to what is possible and what is not on a game design level).
When you weigh up the probabilities, do you see which one is more likely to be true? The probability that there will eventually be a single person ever, in the history of the game that picks some dumb synergies like bleeding passives with no bleed abilities (like a person playing their first MMO who is allocating their points without really reading), or the probability that NEVER HAPPENS EVER? It's like at this point, I have to wonder if you've ever actually played with new players in MMOs before. They're really, really bad.
Right - their passive point allocation isn't their whole build. It's just part of their build, along with everything else you mentioned. Maybe the rest of what you mentioned is what brings it up from "non-viable" to "viable".
What I'm saying is that within "viable", you can further split that up into more buckets like "viable but barely" and "viable and good" and "viable and great" and "viable and excellent".
I think last time I said this, you said that this was all "irrelevant", and then more or less refused to explain why this was "irrelevant". When folks ask "how strong is the heavy armor, mace, cc resist templar for the Drythorn raid this week", there are more answers than just "viable" and "nonviable".
There's a whole spectrum. You can give more useful information like "it's really strong in such-and-such groups" or "it's viable, but just barely" or "I think it's one of the strongest builds in the game at the moment, i can't believe intrepid haven't nerfed it yet", etc.
Someone claims something that sounds incorrect. You say "If A is true, and A implies B, and B is false, then A must be false". In mathematics, this is called proof by contradiction.
Here's an easy example - start with the claim "all rectangles are squares". Then, you say "If all rectangles are squares, then that would imply that a rectangle with two sides of length 2, and two sides of length 10, which is a rectangle, is also a square, which is isn't, because 2 isn't equal to 10. Therefore the original claim must not be true".
This sort of reasoning is the easiest to follow when you cherry-pick really ridiculous implications. The idea is that if the original claim leads to an absurd conclusion, everyone can just immediately agree that the claim must be false. Hence the latin "reduction to absurdity". Not a fallacy at all.
As it applies to this particular conversation, Dygz claims that "you can't make a mediocre build". I respond that "this implies that someone who makes a build that includes passive skill points that increase bleed effects but no way to generate bleeding damage would not have a mediocre build", which is an absurd conclusion. If that build is either too bad or too good for Dygz, surely we can just keep making it better or making it worse until it's "mediocre", and then the conversation is sort of over. Homerun, I thought!
I was so, so wrong.
You said;
And then when people (myself included) called you on your bullshit, instead of checking yourself you doubled down with; If you were talking about classes, and not builds, you would have seen your error when you quoted yourself saying outright that you were talking about builds, not classes.
This means either you were talking about builds and not classes, and then changed it when you realized how absurd that stance was and tried to play it off like you were always talking about classes, or you simply do not understand the difference between a build and a class in an MMO.
While I do admit both are possible, the first is perfectly on brand for you - it is literally how you operate on these forums - and then instead of admitting you were mistaken originally, which would allow the discussion to continue on and discuss the subject under your newly found understanding, you simply try to play it off as if you were talking about that thing that you were clearly not the whole time.
It's no wonder you play MMO's alone, tbh.
Instead, If I keep asking questions and challenging their evidence, we get what's happening here. Extreme goalpost moving. Nonsense reasoning. Thoughts will start to be contradictory or incoherent. Sidestepping and deflecting. New "reasons" why this core belief is true will keep cropping up like hydra heads.
At this point, I'm just curious to see where it goes
@Noaani you were trying to get him to acknowledge that he made a mistake? Hahaha. Good luck.
On the other thread I couldn't even get him to acknowledge that he doesn't know all the answers, because the game isn't out yet... he couldn't do it, just said that I don't know... As if he did...
@Dygz no one is arguing with you whether the Sun or the Earth is the center of this solar system. That's just what you're taking away from this conversation. What we are discussing is the speed at which certain planets orbit the Sun, and you're effectively saying all planets orbit at the same speed. Then saying that they either orbit or don't...